Wow: I've spent the week on the internet, days in the store - and can't seem to make up my mind:

Here's my synopsis:

Alps: Mixed reviews - almost digital in nature (HATE/LOVE)! It seems that everyone mentions banding, but to some it seems acceptible. I can't say I'm thrilled with any banding - so it seems like a problem to me. Outside the banding the printer seems fabulous (slow, but eons faster than printing Cibachrome). Archival qualities are superb (but I just don't think banded photos are worth archiving...)

Photosmart: Consistently good reviews - but oddly enough I'm scared of the recent price drop with no announcement for a replacement. Ink cartridges are already hard to find - and expensive. I've also heard that black and white is poor.

Epson: Fabulous quality - handles larger printing, but fades quickly. Reports are that ink runs out too fast - or the "hardcoded timer" shuts down the printer when it wants you to change the ink cartridge whether it's empty or not.

I called HP - and they can't seem to get things straight. I asked about the new(er) HP2000Cse. One guy said the Photosmart was better for pictures - the other said the 2000 was better - Yikes.

I'd like to take parts of all three printers, mash 'em together and make a new model called the "Halpsen MD Photosmart 700". Or...

Just close my eyes and dive in.

Reax anyone?

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@tek.com), March 04, 1999

Answers

I have an Alps 5000. Before I had an Epson 1520. In making a decision I relied on a report that I read from Pc Photo mag. I cant say more about the Photos I get from the Alps in there VP Photo dry printing. Then I got the back order Dye Sub kit and It blew My mind. With the INk jet they were good but you could see the dots. With the Alps they look like Picture and nobody can see the difference. On IDT news group one of the guys wanted to see the printer work with His Kodak 260. Well the prints were even better than my flat bed. I cant wait to get my film scanner to see how great they look. Hope it helps you. I Loveeeeee the Printer.

-- Philip Lombardi (phili1@idt.net), March 04, 1999.

I don't know about the Alps, but I have an HP PhotoSmart and it gives absolutely beautiful prints. Can't tell the difference from silver halide prints. I also was a little suspicous of the $199.00 price (after rebate) but its just a bargain. I can't tell you anything about ink usage since I am still on the originals and have only printed about 50 8x10s. How can you go wrong for $199.00?

-- Bob Benson (benson@gbasin.com), March 05, 1999.

Dan, I have an Epson EX printer (six color; $499.00) and I love its beautifully photo-realistic output. The EX does large format images (11.75" x 44") and comes with a PostScript option. The Epson EX has a smaller version, the Epson 700 (8.2" max width) that has the same print engine for $229.00.

I use the printer in my graphic design business for proof output. I havent noticed my images fading, after 6 months the proofs still match the printed images, but I dont have them hanging out in the sunlight either, they are stored in a folder. The number of prints per cartridge seems to be 45-50 8x10s on glossy paper  but I havent done a scientific test. My image sizes vary widely and I use around 100 sheets to a cartridgebut many of the images are 5x7 or sometimes less. I spend far more on high quality paper (essential for the best output) than I do on cartridges. I would let what appealed to your eye be the most important factor in selecting the printer.

Epsons print drivers (I use Macintosh) are outstanding as is the manual that comes with it. Their support department is excellent. These are things that dont show up in reviews or in the store, but are almost as important as image quality.

Other than the fading question, with which I have no experience, I can unreservedly recommend this printer.

-- Jim Scott (wgd@napanet.net), March 06, 1999.

I have been using the Epson Photo EX and photo stylus. The only way you can tell whether you are looking at photgraphic prints or prints made from these printers is to look at the back of the paper to check the manufacturer. As far as inks are concerned, check out the info at www.missupply.com. I haven't ordered any of their archival inks but will be shortly. If is works as advertised, this will solve any fading problems you may encounter.

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), March 06, 1999.

The HP PhotoSmart prints BEAUTIFUL in black and white! I couldn't believe it! No worries there.........

-- Jody Kind (kind@telisphere.com), March 07, 1999.

I have been using the Epson Stylus Photo for a year now and am still in love with the photographic prints I get from it. I have not seen any inkjet output that matches it for smoothness. You cannot see the dots with the naked eye, which I cannot say for any other so-called "photo quality" inkjet printer that I have seen. I am interested in the Alps because of its archival inks and dye-sub capabilities. But I have not had any problems yet with the Epson prints fading, even some I keep pinned under fluorescent lights at my desk at work.

-- Rick Stare (thestares@aol.com), March 16, 1999.

We had an HP PhotoSmart. It had the ability to print great prints. But, it was tough to set it up. Ink cartridges did not hold their original quality very long and before you get decent prints, you have to color balance the inks. This is not always a trivial process, with slight differences of opinions making lots of differences in quality. We now have a Lexmark 5700 and have been very satisfied. It rivals the HP in smoothness and the color is more natural with no work at all. For snapshot size prints, we use the Olympus P300 dye-sub printer. No one can tell these things are digital. We saw an Alps demo and liked the color and lack of dots, but we did notice banding on the demos. There were faint horizontal lines the same width of the ribbons. Still, the VPhoto sample we saw surpassed 8x10 film prints we had taken ourselves.

-- Brad Grant (grants@mindspring.com), March 24, 1999.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents regarding Epson. I've got a Stylus 600(I know, ancient) and have had a color print hanging in my office for over a year now with NO observable loss in quality. My eyesight is still pretty good as I spent years in darkrooms assessing prints. Also agree that their support is great!

-- Dave Sandell (dablob@att.net), March 24, 1999.

I first got a Cannon 7004 Photo Realism printer. I got it because it will take 3 and 6 color(photo) catrridges and work as a regular color printer or a photo printer. Besides, it only cost me $100. It works great but not as good on glossy paper. You get banding. Works fine on non-glossy paper. The colors aren't real rich.

I then got an HP Photosmart ($200). It puts out a far superior rich color photo but isn't cheap to run. You have to use the HP glossy photo paper for best results. Does anyone know of a cheaper paper that works as well?

I often use the Cannon for trial runs (cheaper paper and ink) before doing a final print on the HP.

The Alps sounds interesting.

-- Robert Johnson (rjjohnson@silverlink.net), March 26, 1999.

One important factor to bear in mind regarding the dye sub mode is that storage of the dye subs is problematic. If you store in plastic, the prints WILL blur and smudge. This does not seem to be a problem with the micro-dry inks however.

-- Derek (renoderek@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

I own an Epson Photo 1200 and an Alps MD-1300. Here is what I observed in a side by side comparison using the highest quality setting on each, Alps photo paper in the Alps (they say if you use anything else you can screw up the printer. Is this so?) and Canon High Gloss Photo Film in the Epson-both 8.5x11" The images were of 2 Velvia slides of outdoor scenes taken in bright sunlight and scanned with a Nikon LS 2000. The prints from both were stunning, however, in a side by side comparison the Alps edged out the Epson. The Alps was able to reproduce very fine detail in the foliage which the Epson missed, and I thought the colors by the Alps were just a bit more true to life. Again, if I did not have the Alps print with which to do a direct comparison I would have been been more than happy with the Epson. Having said that, the Epson is by far the more versatile of the two. And although a photo printer is not supposed to do well with text, a text docment printed on the Epson was as good as any I have seen from a laser. The Epson is also much much faster than the Alps and able to print on plain paper without changing to a special ink. You must change ribbons on the Alps to be able to do this without damaging the ribbons and/or the printer.

-- Gary Moss (biomo@ibm.net), August 08, 1999.