26-03-2012, 12:16 PM
I had an HP Photosmart which was excellent but gave up the ghost towards the end of last year, by which time the cartridges were getting dearer and dearer. It produced excellent transparencies for PCB masks with totally opaque tracks and no pinholes at all, but when printers pack in, it's just not an economical possibilty to get them repaired when all the print clean and other efforts fail.
I replaced it with an Epson SX535WD, which had a lot of good reviews, and which prints ok on paper, but is very disappointing when printing PCB artwork onto ink-jet acetates, even though the artwork itself when viewed on screen down to single pixcels has no defects. It matters no what quality setting I try it on - I've tried them all from high quality text to glossy photos. Epson also claim that the printer produces 'lab quality' prints, but it seems not to live up to this claim - I've printed off pictures at home using Epson paper but when I put them on a memory stick and take them to the local photoshop the prints are far superior, and judging by the ink consumption from the tiny cartridges in this printer, the prints are probably cheaper from the shop anway.
Given that the printer is almost new and still under warranty, I've only used genuine Epson cartridges. When I bought the printer I never thought to check if it produces good quality acetates - I just assumed that it would, but perhaps some printers don't support this facilty. My disappointment was made worse when within a few weeks of my buying it, it was on offer at half the price.
Price wise, printer ink is dearer than the dearest champagne or the finest wines - 5ml ink for £15.00 = £3,000 a Litre! Cheers - down the hatch
As has been said, Kodak come out cheapest in independant tests.
I replaced it with an Epson SX535WD, which had a lot of good reviews, and which prints ok on paper, but is very disappointing when printing PCB artwork onto ink-jet acetates, even though the artwork itself when viewed on screen down to single pixcels has no defects. It matters no what quality setting I try it on - I've tried them all from high quality text to glossy photos. Epson also claim that the printer produces 'lab quality' prints, but it seems not to live up to this claim - I've printed off pictures at home using Epson paper but when I put them on a memory stick and take them to the local photoshop the prints are far superior, and judging by the ink consumption from the tiny cartridges in this printer, the prints are probably cheaper from the shop anway.
Given that the printer is almost new and still under warranty, I've only used genuine Epson cartridges. When I bought the printer I never thought to check if it produces good quality acetates - I just assumed that it would, but perhaps some printers don't support this facilty. My disappointment was made worse when within a few weeks of my buying it, it was on offer at half the price.
Price wise, printer ink is dearer than the dearest champagne or the finest wines - 5ml ink for £15.00 = £3,000 a Litre! Cheers - down the hatch
As has been said, Kodak come out cheapest in independant tests.
Regards, David.
BVWS Member.
G-QRP Club Member 1339.
'I'm in my own little world, but I'm happy, and they know me here'
BVWS Member.
G-QRP Club Member 1339.
'I'm in my own little world, but I'm happy, and they know me here'
