It's strange. I don't know what to make of it.
When the first Artisan 700 hit the market here, there was a lot of info
about the stunning photo print quality and the longevity of the prints.
What's weird about the "not photo quality printers" comment is that the
Artisan 700 had a lengthy product promotional video online, I can't
remember, probably about 7 different videos each featuring one facet of
the Artisan 700. "Better than lab quality prints" was one of them. And,
to be fair, the prints were beautiful to my amateur eye. The 810 prints
were awful. I kept thinking that I must have the wrong type paper, I
must have something set wrong, etc, and then the rollers died, and I
think it never was set properly so the ink was placed properly on the
paper. I even bought Epson papers to see if that was the issue. Not so.
The one place in town that carried Ilford paper has stopped, and so now
I have to buy it online. Consequently, I don't have any right now, and I
kept wondering if that was my problem, but then the printer died and now
I am just glad I didn't have any to waste in that printer. The cds
printed acceptably, but not beautifully like the R200 or even the
Artisan 700.
This Artisan 50 is not the "perfect" choice I would have loved to be
able to find and make.
I believe I will continue my search regardless of how this printer
performs. Frankly, I'm not expecting much out of it, based on the past 7
months I've had with Epson's printers.
I watched for problems in all comment sections online talking about
paper jams or paper feed issues.
I didn't see any for this one, and the comments were favorable about the
photo quality. The paper tray is completely different for this model
than the other Artisans, and I am wondering if that plays a role in this
paper feed trouble.
Again, if it's "important" I have it printed at a lab. But there are
times and purposes for "decent" quality home printing.
The cd print was the main purpose, photo print secondary, all other
features not important at all.
I really wish I knew more about Canon's print quality to compare them
well. I just don't know anyone who has one, uses one (other than list
members here), and recommends one. No one in town sells them, so I can't
even go into a store and ask to see a print with my own two eyes. To be
honest, after this latest fiasco with the Artisan 810, I really, really
wanted to try Canon. That had been my intent, and then I couldn't find
what I needed...and it just became this increasingly research heavy and
purchase blindly project that I wasn't feeling great about.
And the bottom line is that I know very well what Epson is capable of.
Perhaps I was just very lucky and very spoiled with my first Epson being
the R200. Beginner's luck? I keep wanting them to wow me again. But
lately they've only been wowing me with their speed to fail.
I don't know. It's annoying as all get out, and I have no one to bounce
this stuff off of...that's a lot of "effs"...so I appreciate you all
letting me vent and providing your opinions.
As I said, I will continue to search.
I'll let the list know how the Artisan 50 works or doesn't work, as the
case may be.
Candace &
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I have assumed that the "Artisan" line are not photo quality printers.
> They are not described as such.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|