Re: [APML] Epson printers --- good or bad?

["Bert Katzung" <katzung1@attbi.com>]

Hi Warren:

Reality check: inkjet printer makers make their money on the inks and
papers, not the machines, so you can assume that the cost of supplies for a
bunch of lovely 8x10s will be surprising. But it's not going to be greatly
different from one manufacturer to another. Even going to separate ink
cartridges for each color will not make a huge difference if you do much
terrestrial image printing.

Before you abandon Epson, better check a little further or at least wait for
additional input. I suspect you can find a number of independent reviews of
the major printer brands with a simple Google search. I have used an HP 855c
and several Epson Photo printers since getting into astro-imaging. The
Epsons have all been *far* superior to the HP printer for photo work. I see
some fading of one inkjet print made in 1997 with the original Epson Photo
printer and its inks. Several other prints made at the same time have not
faded dramatically. I have prints made with the Photo EX at least 3 years
old that show no detectable fading after being on the wall all of that time.
The prints exposed to light have been under glass but have no anti-UV spray.
Dozens of unsprayed prints stored away from the light have zero detectable
fading.

I am currently using a new Epson Photo1280 and am very happy with the
quality and costs involved. Compared to the cost of having 8x10 or larger
prints done commercially there is no comparison if I want a custom print job
(especially the 11x14s and larger, which I like). Of course I can't say yet
how long the 1280's prints will last without fading but Epson claims (with
some independent or semi-independent backup) that the newer dye prints will
last longer than previous inks. From my experience with their previous inks,
that's very good.  The pigment inks used in the P2000 and 2200 are rated to
last even longer --- in the 50 to 75+ year range. I have heard nothing but
good things about the quality of the Canon S9000, but it will cost more to
set it up with its separate ink cartridges than the 1280 with only two
cartridges. (Yes, I know that if I only print galaxies and nebulas, I will
save because I only have to replace the black and magenta cartridges, but I
*don't * only print galaxies and nebulas.) If you go for the cheaper Canon
900, you will be limited to 8.5x11 prints. I think your real choice is
between the Canon 9000 and the Epson 1280 or 2200 and I think you will be
very happy with any one of them --- as long as you realize that the supplies
will cost you.

Hope this helps....
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@attbi.com
www.astronomy-images.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren A. Keller" <warhen@mindspring.com>
To: <cschur@cybertrails.com>; <tonyhallas@foothill.net>; <jmirtle@shaw.ca>;
"ball" <jeffball@zoominternet.net>
Cc: "apml" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: [APML] Epson!


> Egads and yikes, thanks for these posts. I was under the impression from
> previous APML info that the Epson 1280 was the new printer for me, which
I'd
> need to purchase in the next few weeks- ugh!
>
> Does anyone have any more advice or info on the Canon 9000? I agree with
> Jeff, that if I ever got to the point of selling multiple prints, that I'd
> go outside, but for now I'd like to be able to produce good quality,
lasting
> prints for personal use at home.
>
> Any further advice would be appreciated personally or onlist. I've never
> seen fading from my HP 722C.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Warren A. Keller
> Billions and Billions- Astrophotos
> www.billionsandbillions.com
>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>