I have an HP 7900 printer at home. It has three cartridges, tri-color, photo, and greyscale for a total of 9 inks. The prints look great. HP says that with it's paper, the archivability is 100+ years. Even with this info, most photographers I know say that Epson is the way to go for fine art prints What's wrong with the HP that I don't understand?
I think HP got into the photographic printer market a bit late and now has to play catchup.
Another problem is the lack of a large amount of papers to chose from. Also, they have a problem with keeping drivers up to date--i.e. when Windows XP first came out they were late in supplying drivers, or didn't at all. This left some pretty unhappy customers who didn't wish to go out and buy a new printer when upgrading Windows or buying a new computer.
Add to this that Epson all along listened to photographers and paid attention to what they wanted.
Dave, that I did not know.
One of the reasons that I am pleased with equipment is that new firmware is always being made availkable for updates on my Oly cameras and Epson printers.
Why doesn't the magazines mention important things like this in their reviews?
The Hp printers give nice results, but I went to epson because of the single eight ink cartrages. The tri color and photo HP inks were exspensive compared to the single ones of the Epson. I do not know the cost differenc, but I like changing one as opposed to a set of three. Monte Johnson.