Printer question - Epson 2200 vs. HP 8450

W

wtl

Guest
have been happy in general with my current HP 8450 (or 8950? the current model i know) but once in a while I got this itch for a slightly bigger prints. HP 8450 prints up to 8x10 as anyone who will potentially participate in this conversaion already knew.

life has complicated a bit in the past few days that a buddy of mine "dumpped" on me this epson 2200, still wrapped in the box. he was moving overseas and felt generous. of course if i am going to use this printer, i have to buy a USB cable as it is not included in the epson package. downloading the software is not a problem i believe.

Being able to print bigger size is a big plus for me but then i don't do that often enough to feel natural to switch. most of all, how the print quality compares. and the archival ability is also a concern.

Any thougths will be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We had a HP 8450 at work. All I can say is that after two weeks of the HP, we got rid of it. Ink consumption was high. Seemed like every day we were changing cartridges.

The Epson is just fantastic. Image uality and the consumption of ink never seems to be a problem when printing large - 13 x 19.
 
With Epson you have to live with prints on matte papers.
Glossy or semi glossy papers are no option because of bronzing.
Matte prints look fantastic framed behind glass ... but be prepared for mixed reactions if you hand them unframed ...... people usualy ask me why i do not print on photopaper :(
 
that's good news, Keith.

do you have any problem with head clogging on epson at all?
 
J. Borger,

so Epson won't work with gloss paper at all? i didn't know that. darn...
 
It does work with semi-glossy (glossy is not recommended by Epson but it works) ...... but i find the bronzing unacceptable! Others might think different!

Han
 
J. Borger,

Does "bronzing" effect look like pixelized dots? Sorry for the ignorance of the term.
 
No ... hard to describe ..... there is a "bronze - collorcast" foremost in shadow-areas ... especially annoying in B&W prints. You will notice it if you look from the slightest angle at a picture.
I gave up on semi-glossy paper with the Epson 2200 .. because this issue really bothers me ....... i find it unacceptable.
The later Epson models are better with semmi glossy .. because they use gloss optimizer.
There are "solutions" for bronzing on the Epson 2200.... like spraying prints ... but to make a long story short .. the Epson is not very good with other papers than matte (to put it mildley).
 
wtl said:
J. Borger,

so Epson won't work with gloss paper at all? i didn't know that. darn...
Click to expand...

The Epson does work with glossy paper. You have the choice of two different black inks. One is optimized for matte papers and one is optimized for glossy. There is no bronzing at all. I believe borger is mistaking this printer for the Epson 2000P, which is a totally different printer and uses a much different ink set, which has the problem of bronzing. I've never had problems printing on glossy paper. Personally I use the matte ink set with Epson Archival Fine Art paper. I like the richer, deeper blacks.
 
Last edited:
Thank you both. I will give it a try. In the meantime, if any other advices, please come forward. I am all ear...
 
Like i said for some people bronzing is a non-issue .. because you will notice only if looking at the prints from an angle. But this is exactly what happens if you hand the prints to somebody.
Some (semi) glossy papers are better, other worse with respect to bronzing.
Do a search on the printer forum at dpreview for "bronzing" .....

I use matte and fine art paper (Hahnemule Photorag) only and am quite happy with te Epson 2200............... clogging is a non-issue as Keith points out.
 
Oh my... I have a 2100, european version of 2200 that I use MIS UT (B&W) inks in.

It started by me leaving it unused for a couple of months, I was out traveling quite a lot and when I was home I did not really have time for it. Eventuelly I tried it and it was severly clogged. Cleaning cycles did not help.

I found some advice that soaking Isopropanol into a thick piece of cloth and tried it. It seemed to help and after that and two cleans, all channels were working. However, my happiness was short, some 15 A4 papers later (in just a couple of days) and it is clogged again.

I tried the Isopropanol again, and probably some 5 cleaning cycles, but my printer has now clogged up 3 channels out of 7 and I am getting quite desperate. One of the channels was low on ink, so I changed it, but no go, even after a couple of more cleaning cycles.

I have probably switched 7 cartridges during the last week.

Stupidly I thought I had it running and ordered 12 new cartridges for it yesterday, only to see the final clogging occur today. What a waste....

Now I am seriously reconsidering my approach to all this. I will take a serious thought about whether inkjets are anything to use at all. They are not cheap (mine was $1000 some years ago), I have probably spent $300-$500 so far on inks and $100-$200 on paper. I cannot really claim that I have gotten that many good prints out of it.

Do not get me wrong, it has produced nice results from time to time, but given the money and efforts sunk into it, I feel kind of tricked.

At some point one has to consider if there is any more point in sinking more money and efforts into it, or if I just should take it to the junkyard and get rid of all the troubles.

Problem is, what to do instead? For color I think the local Fuji lab has done a good job with my picture files. They can do B&W too that way, but it just does not appeal to me on these color-glossy papers, I like the results I got out of my darkroom better, especially the few I tried on fiber paper.

I guess I have to consider setting up a darkroom again, but there are both good and bad points with it.

+ Papers are at least as cheap, if not cheaper compared to inkjet.
+ Chemicals are probably way cheaper than ink.
+ I can leave it for months without any clogging, though I might need new chemicals.
- Requires space, and put aside time to print (planning).
- Cannot retouch and work with Photoshop. This is a major issue for me.

I guess that I have to give the printer another (final?) chance since I bought all that ink for it. Then I will make another attempt at printing B&W on the local color lab. I will have to take setting up a darkroom under serious consideration.
And finally, I would like to know if there is a good B&W printing solution out there that is not too expensive. The 2100/2200 has so far not been it for me.

When I see the price for the ink, it just pulls me towards the darkroom approach. On the other hand, I much prefer working with the computer...

Sigh..

Please give some advice on a good B&W printer that can sit unattended for periods of time, produce very good results and works up to A3+.

/Håkan



wtl said:
that's good news, Keith.

do you have any problem with head clogging on epson at all?
Click to expand...
 
Hakan,
Have you tried the MIS cleaning fluid on your print head? I used that with my 1280 recently and, in conjunction with the spongeless carts, I am now up and running again full speed. The spongeless carts aren't available for the 2200, apparently, but the key thing is that you need a fresh cart after you push the cleaning fluid through.

Also, I have switched entirely to using a local lab for my color stuff. I still use my 1280 with u2 dedicated B&W for that, though.

allan
 
I have the Epson 1280, it's spectacular and i only use it primarily with glossy paper and occasionally neavy matte. Never a problem and picture output is exceptional on any paper. Mostly use a Premium Photo Glossy and doubt you could tell it from a good photo print.
 
An update to this. I have now cleaned some of the channels on my 2100 using Vim (I believe it is the swedish version of Windex) inside empty ink cartridges (where the chip still said it had ink in them).

I also switched 5 more inkjet cartridges and ran 4 cleanings and several test prints.

Finally, it works again! I have printed several photos and they turned out good.

I keep track of ink usage now, and my current indication is that ink cost is at least 3 times more expensive than paper cost. I use Epson matte and MIS inks. The percentage of ink going on the paper must be a lot lower than what ends up inside the printer due to the cleaning cycles. :(

When I got it running, I quickly tried DaVinci fibergloss inkjet paper (bought a trial pack), but was not totally impressed. Deeper blacks and wider gamut(?), but tonailty was less impressive than what I get with Epson matte.

I need to experiment more, but I have a nagging feeling that I should put up a darkroom the upcoming winter and try printing traditionally on some fiber paper as well. I have tried it briefly before and some results are very impressive.

Kind of frustrating this printing B&W... and somewhat costly too.

/Håkan
 
Another update (in case any is interested).

I managed to get B&W output from my 2100 to the point that I no longer feel that I need to switch to a traditional darkroom! (That does not mean that I still might try a wet darkroom again at some point).

The DaVinci paper prints quite fine now after correcting some settings. The black is deep and nice, the white is bright and the paper has a nice semi-glossy look and a very rich feeling. There is a hint of pixelations in some areas which should show better tonality, but less than before and it disappears at normal viewing distance. I will experiment a bit with ditherings and different prints to see if I can get it even closer to where I want it.

Tomorrow I will try my attempts on some people around and see how they think the prints compare.

I have a nagging feeling that I am in for ordering a big pile of this DaVinci paper, and (ouch) it costs a bit more than Epson matte...

/Håkan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom