Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson

[Quoton <quoton@dial.kfu.com>]

Software City wrote:
> 
> Being in the repair biz, I can only say we see lots more HP inkjets, then
> all the other brands combined (granted there are more HP's in circulation,
> but the numbers still seem disproportionate). HP does great lasers, but I'd
> never recommend an HP inkjet to a Customer. There's a lot of cheap plastic
> in them, at least on the lower end. Plus, there aren't any Continuous Inking
> Systems available for HP. One distinction between HP & Epson & others is the
> fact that the print head is built into the cartridge.I'd guess the theory is
> that you get a fresh head with each new cartridge, but I have to wonder
> about the head quality & ongoing cost. (I believe there's a class action
> suit going on over this issue.) If you do some surfing of folks who are
> seriously into the digital darkroom, you never see a mention of HP: mostly
> Epson.
>     Regards,
>     Ken Jaskot
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patton paul" <ppatton@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
> 
> > I was wondering if anybody could comment on the relative quality of
> > Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson photo quality printers.

I have heard that HP inkjet heads actually last longer if you refill them and 
continue
to print... I have two HP printers so far I have no complaint. I got a Canon 
before. It
was simply not comparable in print quality.

Quoton