Too much to spend for one function?
Written: Jun 03 '03
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Paper Handling: |
 |
|
|
Pros: When you use it to print on Matte papers, the prints are stunning
Cons: This printer is strictly for printing on Matte papers...other then that it's completely useless...
The Bottom Line: I can't recommend this printer due to it's high cost and limited functionality.
|
|
|
| ionian01's Full Review: Epson Stylus Photo 2200 Inkjet Printer |
Actually based on the glowing reviews I've seen here and on other sites, I figured that the Epson 2200 was the last word on photo printers. Was I in for a shock...
A little about me:
I am a semi-pro photographer. After I scan the negatives, and color-correct and fix, I use a photo lab to process my prints. I figured by getting a 2200 I'd be saving myself some cash and some time running back and forth to a photo lab.
Setup was easy and quick. No problems putting it together or installing it so I don't need to waste time on that. Now for the serious problems...this printer is pretty much just capable of printing matte photos. Other then that, it's an expensive paperweight.
I love Epson premium glossy paper, so my first couple of prints I used that. The only problem was there was no gloss at all. Nothing. The prints came out almost completely matte (and I was using the photo black ink cartridge). On top of that, the black ink seems to sit weirdly on the glossy paper. Some of the colors have gloss and the black is completely flat. Viewing at an angle gives the picture a very cheap appearance.
A quick search on Google using the search string "Epson 2200"+"Premium Glossy Paper"+"Problems" led me to some message boards. It seems that I wasn't the only one who was disappointed with it's performance on Glossy paper. A little investigation led me to learn that these special "UltraChrome" pigment inks have bigger droplets then the typical microscopic inkjet ink droplets. Because of that, the drops can't penetrate the porous surface of the glossy paper to lay under the gloss. In other words, printing on glossy paper with this printer causes the ink to "Lay" on top of the gloss instead which is what gave it both that flat black color and that cheap, "Layered ink" look. A further test with my fingernail proved that after I scraped some of the black off the surface of the gloss paper and watched it flake off. Hmmm...$750 and I'll never be able to print a glossy picture again? Kind of defeats the purpose of buying Epson Premium Glossy Paper on a roll and using the roll holder.
So next I tried using the printer with just plain ol' inkjet paper. Oohh...big mistake. First of all, when you use plain paper and not one of Epson's specialty papers, You are limited to printing in only 360 and 720 DPI. That's it...no 1440 or 2880 or anything. My cheap Lexmark can print in 1440 on regular paper... It doesn't matter, the print quality on regular paper, whether it's 360 or 720 is completely appalling. This printer is not capable in any such way of printing acceptable pictures on regular paper. Either resolution resulted in pictures that had severely muted colors and an intense amount of grain. It was almost like looking at the picture in a sandstorm. The resolution was more like 100 dpi instead so I don't know why they even offered a choice of resolutions. If you try to "Fool" the printer by selecting an Epson specialty paper from the print menu so you can print in 1440 on regular paper, you will be in for an even bigger shock. The print is contrasty to the extreme with absolutely no graduations and no depth to the picture at all. So if you want to run off some quick copies to proof your editing or color correction, don't expect anything decent here. The extremely poor print quality on regular paper is probably a limitation of these groundbreaking "UltraChrome" inks or something.
For me, out of the box, the color matching was poor to say the least. I'm sure if I had everything profiled and I had a couple of hundred to drop on profiling software I would have better color matching, but unfortunately I don't. My cheap Lexmark Z55 had extremely good color matching compared to the 2200. I printed a picture I took of a girl with a dark brown tan wearing a blue sarong. What I got was a girl with orange skin wearing a purple sarong. Playing with the various driver settings and color profiles in Photoshop 7 resulted in either more muted or more vivid versions of the orange girl but the colors never came close. The 2200 does come with color profiles for Epson's specialty papers (Premium Gloss, Enhanced Matte, etc.) but using any of these included profiles resulted in my prints having a very, very strong magenta cast. Another quick search on Google revealed that I was not the only person suffering from this problem. It seems that a number of people, when they use the included Epson profiles also get a magenta-toned print.
The upside is, when I printed a picture on the Enhanced Matte paper, the print was stunning. The light grey ink really does make a difference and the prints I printed had a "Three Dimensional" quality where I felt like I could reach into the picture. Very impressive. Unfortunately that's pretty much it.
While I'm color correcting and editing pictures, I print out a proof almost after every correction so I can compare it to the others more easily. It's not uncommon for me to print out 20 pictures in a row of the same picture with different editing and corrections applied to each picture. The fact that this printer has trouble accurately reproducing photographs on regular inkjet paper gives me a very expensive problem. I'd hate to have to keep banging out proofs one after another on expensive Epson Enhanced Matte paper but that's the only way to get a realistic photo.
My girlfriend (being completely naive when it comes to photography) loves shiny, glossy prints. How can I tell her that my Super-expensive, photo-lab intimidating printer can't do them?
And believe it or not, I do use my computer for other things then photography. I surf the internet and print out labels for my cds...I really don't want to have to print out directions from Mapblast.com on Epson Enhanced Matte paper.
If you have the funds to have a dedicated Matte printer, then this thing will do that better then anything else, but if you want photo-quality AND practicality, then this isn't the printer for you. It's better off to sacrifice the 80 year life-span of the UltraChrome inks for the fun and usability of an inkjet like the Epson 925 or something with 6 inks. I'll just keep going to photolab for now where they charge me $4 for a 8x12. That's not too bad. It's not a horrible printer, just very, very specialized. The problem is that Epson never makes any of the above problems available to the consumer so you don't know what you're getting until you got it. Now I am going to have to battle with CompUSA who wants to charge me a 15% restocking fee to return the printer. On $759, that's like $112 or something. $112 to put the printer back in the box...isn't that ridiculous? If you are interested in a 2200, you really should try to get your hands on one at a store or photo shop and print out a picture on matte paper, photo paper and plain paper and then decide if this is the printer for you BEFORE you leave the store and have to pay a restocking fee!
Recommended:
No
Amount Paid (US$): 759.38
Operating System: Windows
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
ionian01
|
|
Reviews written: 1
Trusted by: 1 member
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.