-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
hp 970 or epson 1200 ????
- Thread starter Rob31183
- Start date
thanks for your comments dave. Anyone have the hp 970 ?
Allan Eddy
Active member
I have the HP 970cse, Epson 870 and Canon 8200. Best quality is the Epson but you are locked in to the most expensive ink cartridges around. The HP is almost as good in quality on a good, glossy paper (I prefer the Konica) considering its a 4 color vs the 6 color Epson and Canon. The HP also is very economical with the big ink cartridges, v-e-r-y quitet, and can print two sided. Its my favorite all around printer. The Canon is an all-around disappointment.
Regards,
Al Eddy
Regards,
Al Eddy
Thanks Eddy, I just bid on a epson 1200 for 125. If i don't get it (which now i hope i don't) im going to get the hp 970. It sounds real good and its nice to hear from someone who has it and is happy.
thanks
thanks
T
Terry Thorn
Guest
It's good to hear someone echo the same thing I've been trying to say above the din here about the 870 versus the HP 9xx or 1xxx series' photo output. There's just not enough of a difference between them to get all worked up over as some people are prone to do. I do have a couple of questions, I've been told that the Epson is more economical than the HP's but you're saying just the opposite. What do you base that on? Also, why is the Canon 8200 an "all-around disappointment"?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Derek Clarke
Senior Member
Allan Eddy
Active member
Terry,
The 870 cartridges (not available in all stores) are very small and expensive compared to the largest and relatively inexpensive HP C6578A (also available at price costco). I print a lot more images on the HP because of its affordability but when super quality is the issue, the Epson is better. In my experience the Canon is probably fastest and because of the individual cartridges (also not available in all stores) may be most economical...but the printing artifacts are more apparent than the HP or 870 and I have struggled to get a reliable profile. I may take another run at it now that I have added a Canon D30 to my camera bag. I also have access to a Fuji PG4000 printer but it's the Graphic arts version so I have to feed it CMYK.
Hope this answers your question,
Regards,
Al Eddy
The 870 cartridges (not available in all stores) are very small and expensive compared to the largest and relatively inexpensive HP C6578A (also available at price costco). I print a lot more images on the HP because of its affordability but when super quality is the issue, the Epson is better. In my experience the Canon is probably fastest and because of the individual cartridges (also not available in all stores) may be most economical...but the printing artifacts are more apparent than the HP or 870 and I have struggled to get a reliable profile. I may take another run at it now that I have added a Canon D30 to my camera bag. I also have access to a Fuji PG4000 printer but it's the Graphic arts version so I have to feed it CMYK.
Hope this answers your question,
Regards,
Al Eddy
T
Terry Thorn
Guest
Yep, your experiences echo my own. I had the Canon 8200 for about three weeks and saw what you're talking about... especially in the 60%-80% shadow areas. One reason I kept the 932 is because, as you've alluded to, the ink cartridges last longer and are MUCH easier to find. I usually get mine at Sam's club for $50 for the 78A. We're supposed to be getting a CostCo here in Houston soon. I also struggled to get good consistent color quality with the 8200 and nearly drove myself crazy doing so. I finally turned to my wife and said, "I'm NOT having any fun." So I took it back and decided to wait and see what the new units looked like. I'd considered the Epson 870 back when I originally decided to replace my old HP 722 but I encountered a lot of people while shopping around with horror stories about theirs and decided to stick with something that I knew was reliable even though it wouldn't match the Epson's photo quality output. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was darn close though.
C
C. D. Lee
Guest
Derek, I use the 1200 with canvas and other archival papers/inks and would suggest print quality exceeds any HP in the consumer market and is highly flexible with respect to selection of media and ink products. I have compared the 1200 (same papers/inks and images) with later Epson models (870/1270/2000P) and see no print quality difference that can't be corrected in Photoshop. The main factor in comparing new vintage printers really is in the quality of the image you're printing. In terms of printer cost, refurbished 1200 actually cost as much as refurbished 1270 printers, mainly for the reasons stated above. Two generations dosen't make that much difference.
koo22
Veteran Member
I also have had the 1200 since it came out and have been pleased with it. Can you answer a question for me? Can you use the new Epson premium papers (semigloss and glossy) with success on the 1200? I'm hesitating because the driver settings they recommend for the paper are not available on the 1200. I have just "photo quality paper" and "photo quality glossy film". TIA. K.
C
C. D. Lee
Guest
koo22, others may be able to answer as I don't use those new papers which I guess are designed for the 870/1270 series. The only Epson paper I use is their Photo Paper for proofing prior to printing on canvas.
M
Michael Messina
Guest
Rob,
It really depends on how particular you are about your printouts.
I can easily see a difference between 4 and 6 color prints, others can't.
I have a 1200 and really like the quality of the prints I am able to get.
I bought the 1200 as the 1270 was coming out. I went with the 1200 since it didn't have the chip in the cartridges. I can use whatever type of ink I prefer.
Ink for it is available in all cost ranges.
If cost is seriously an issue you can find very low cost generic cartridges. I have found generic black carts for it for 3/$10 at computer shows here in LA. Color can be as cheap as $6 each. I've tried some of these for cheap prints for friends, and they looked surprisingly good on the Konica QP/Office Depot photo paper. I still do need to play with the gamma a bit. They can be this cheap since you are not buying new print heads with every cartridge like you are with high-temperature inkjets.
If quality is an issue, you can find archival quality inks from many places. I can't list them now, as they are bookmarked at home. These inks will supposedly last for decades. Haven't tried any yet, as I haven't taken too many really good digital pictures yet.
mike
M
Michael Messina
Guest
Hey Dave (if you're still around)
Are you talking about on photo paper?
I have had problems with blacks on the epson photo paper samples that came with my 1200.
The black ink doesn't seem to integrate into the paper as completely as the color inks do. It gets this polarizing kind of affect that makes it look bluish or greenish depending on its angle to the light. I don't know if this is the same problem you are having or not.
This has not been a problem on the Konica QP/Office Depot photo paper. The blacks look fantastic on this paper. I still need to find the right gamma settings as some pictures look a little overexposed. I'll have to try a b&w print on this paper when I get a chance.
mike
Still here Mike
I've given up trying to print B/W with the 1200, I'm now considering a new printer such as the 1160 and try the Lyson quad black system. As for paper I use Epson HW matte and Ilford Gloss, I'm not to fond of the Epson gloss, to me it seems to have a "crinkly" top whereas the Ilford gloss to me is like a "real" photo.
Getting back to B/W I'm about to get my original HP Photosmart printer back that I loaned to a mate a while back. If my memory serves I can remember that producing really excellent monochrome prints. Trouble with that machine is the price and availability of ink cartridges.
Regarding gamma, do you use Photoshop? if so I have fallen on a little thing that is giving me great screen to prints results. Maybe you do this already but I have found that just prior to printing, if I convert my picture to CMYK then immediately revert back to RGB and then print, the colours of the print are spot on. Sadly it only works on colour prints. I'm using Adobe 1998 colour space and print using the Epson 1200 in the print dialogue box.
Dave
I've given up trying to print B/W with the 1200, I'm now considering a new printer such as the 1160 and try the Lyson quad black system. As for paper I use Epson HW matte and Ilford Gloss, I'm not to fond of the Epson gloss, to me it seems to have a "crinkly" top whereas the Ilford gloss to me is like a "real" photo.
Getting back to B/W I'm about to get my original HP Photosmart printer back that I loaned to a mate a while back. If my memory serves I can remember that producing really excellent monochrome prints. Trouble with that machine is the price and availability of ink cartridges.
Regarding gamma, do you use Photoshop? if so I have fallen on a little thing that is giving me great screen to prints results. Maybe you do this already but I have found that just prior to printing, if I convert my picture to CMYK then immediately revert back to RGB and then print, the colours of the print are spot on. Sadly it only works on colour prints
. I'm using Adobe 1998 colour space and print using the Epson 1200 in the print dialogue box.Dave
M
Michael Messina
Guest
Dave,
I'll have to try your photoshop trick, thanks.
The quad black system is probably a better system for B&W anyways.
I think I just saw an ad for someplace that had refurb'd 1160's for $199.
I'm not sure if that is good price or not.
I can try to find it if you are interested.
Later,
mike
I'll have to try your photoshop trick, thanks.
The quad black system is probably a better system for B&W anyways.
I think I just saw an ad for someplace that had refurb'd 1160's for $199.
I'm not sure if that is good price or not.
I can try to find it if you are interested.
Later,
mike
Still here Mike
I've given up trying to print B/W with the 1200, I'm now
considering a new printer such as the 1160 and try the Lyson quad
black system. As for paper I use Epson HW matte and Ilford Gloss,
I'm not to fond of the Epson gloss, to me it seems to have a
"crinkly" top whereas the Ilford gloss to me is like a "real" photo.
Getting back to B/W I'm about to get my original HP Photosmart
printer back that I loaned to a mate a while back. If my memory
serves I can remember that producing really excellent monochrome
prints. Trouble with that machine is the price and availability of
ink cartridges.
Regarding gamma, do you use Photoshop? if so I have fallen on a
little thing that is giving me great screen to prints results.
Maybe you do this already but I have found that just prior to
printing, if I convert my picture to CMYK then immediately revert
back to RGB and then print, the colours of the print are spot on.
Sadly it only works on colour prints
colour space and print using the Epson 1200 in the print dialogue
box.
Dave
Thanks for the offer Mike but if I spent any more money at the moment my other half would disown me)
As for my "little trick" I found it by checking the gammut in the view menu prior to printing. It was amazing just how many colours in the RGB file would not be converted to CMYK by the printer. I was able to bring them back into gammut by adjusting the Hue & Saturation but the colours lost their snap, by converting to CMYK then back to RGB the colours more or less stayed the same.
Dave
)As for my "little trick" I found it by checking the gammut in the view menu prior to printing. It was amazing just how many colours in the RGB file would not be converted to CMYK by the printer. I was able to bring them back into gammut by adjusting the Hue & Saturation but the colours lost their snap, by converting to CMYK then back to RGB the colours more or less stayed the same.
Dave
The quad black system is probably a better system for B&W anyways.
I think I just saw an ad for someplace that had refurb'd 1160's for
$199.
I'm not sure if that is good price or not.
I can try to find it if you are interested.
Later,
mike
Still here Mike
I've given up trying to print B/W with the 1200, I'm now
considering a new printer such as the 1160 and try the Lyson quad
black system. As for paper I use Epson HW matte and Ilford Gloss,
I'm not to fond of the Epson gloss, to me it seems to have a
"crinkly" top whereas the Ilford gloss to me is like a "real" photo.
Getting back to B/W I'm about to get my original HP Photosmart
printer back that I loaned to a mate a while back. If my memory
serves I can remember that producing really excellent monochrome
prints. Trouble with that machine is the price and availability of
ink cartridges.
Regarding gamma, do you use Photoshop? if so I have fallen on a
little thing that is giving me great screen to prints results.
Maybe you do this already but I have found that just prior to
printing, if I convert my picture to CMYK then immediately revert
back to RGB and then print, the colours of the print are spot on.
Sadly it only works on colour prints
colour space and print using the Epson 1200 in the print dialogue
box.
Dave
S Clark
Senior Member
I am partial to HP printers. Reliability, good text as well as graphics and you can refill the cartridges. In fact I am still using an older HP1120. The dot size isnt the only thing to take in account. if all one does is go up to the print with a loupe and examine it, then you would be missing the overall picture. I great photo, enhanced to perfection, printed on a less fine resolution printer could be much more eyecatching and satisfying that a poor photo printed on the best printer. Dots arent the be all and end all unless you want them to be.
Now if you really want fine dots get glicee prints. Here is a page to compare different printers altho I couldnt get ahold of any epson prints. They were only place wouldnt send me any sample prints.
http://www.zing.com/album/pictures.html?id=4293598549
You will need to click on each photo in its separate window to view the original size.
What do you mean by you see artifacts in shadow areas on the 8200 prints? I've found this printer to produce great shadow detail (using Photo Paper Pro). On one print, I did see tiny red dots on a shaded area of a fern, but on closer examination of the origional digital photo, the red dots were there too. Perhaps if you could explain it a little better, you could show me what I'm not seeing.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum