p.1 #1 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
I am trying to make some buying decisions about printers and I am trying to get a sense of the relative quality of prints from the Epson ET-8550 printer.
How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers, like the Epson P900 or the Canon 1000/1100 or the Canon 300/310?
I am interested in comparisons for both color and black-and-white prints.
p.1 #2 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
I would love to hear comments as well. I don't anticipate that the 8550 will excel at fine art papers but it might be excellent at more glossy images. My Canon 1000 died this week and I have an 8550 on order. Hopefully it will be fantastic.
p.1 #3 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
You likely have seen this:&t=38s.
When I was shopping for a printer a few months ago, I was unable to find any retail outlet that carried photo printers that also carried the Epson 8550.
p.1 #4 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
jmmaher wrote:
I would love to hear comments as well. I don't anticipate that the 8550 will excel at fine art papers but it might be excellent at more glossy images. My Canon 1000 died this week and I have an 8550 on order. Hopefully it will be fantastic.
You might be interested to hear what Kevin Raber at Luminous Landscape has said about the papers that work well on the 8550:
"I printed on Epson Ultra Premium Luster, Premium Paper Photo Glossy, Velvet Fine Art, and Exhibition Canvas Satin papers. They all looked great. I must note, though, that the Velvet Fine Art paper showed the prints as rather flat. Of course, this is the nature of the paper, but frankly not to my liking. Glossy and Ultra Premium Luster worked best for me. These papers provide good contrast and vivid colors."
p.1 #5 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
jmmaher wrote:
I would love to hear comments as well. I don't anticipate that the 8550 will excel at fine art papers but it might be excellent at more glossy images. My Canon 1000 died this week and I have an 8550 on order. Hopefully it will be fantastic.
The fact that you didn’t purchase the 1100 tells me that you weren’t happy with either the cost, or the ink maintenance of the 1100. Otherwise, you would have purchased the 1100. So, it is a given that the prints, with the same care will not be up to 1100 level, nor will they have the longevity of a pigment print, but you knew this when you ordered the 1100. Longevity issues are greatly muted by not mounting an unprotected print in the sunlight. The difference in quality is mitigated by not comparing. A print standing alone will certainly be satisfying on the Epson.
p.1 #6 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
pjmsj21 wrote:
You likely have seen this:&t=38s.
When I was shopping for a printer a few months ago, I was unable to find any retail outlet that carried photo printers that also carried the Epson 8550.
I had not yet seen this, and the video was very helpful. Thank you.
p.1 #9 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
pjmsj21 wrote:
You’ll probably want to buy an 8550 after watching this. If one focuses on ink costs and generally good/very good IQ then the 8550 makes sense.
I am thinking of using the 8550 as a printer for trying out various edits of an image before making a final print on my Canon 310. I would also use it for the images where I don't need the last 5% of quality or the best permanence.
According to Red River Paper's ink-cost-per-print studies, which seem very well done, there is suprisingly little difference between the cost-per-print of the Canon 310 vs. the 1100. And looking at Red River's methodology, I don't think they included situations where the 1100 does its expensive cleaning cycles--so the cost differential between the 310 and the 1100 would then be even less.
But the cost of the Canon ink in cartridges discourages me from trying to print many alternative versions of an image, which is the way I like to work.
The Epson 8550 with its much lower ink costs is meant to give me that freedom to try many alternative versions. In his initial review of the 8550, Kevin Raber at Luminous Landscape said that is exactly how he was using his 8550 (which he very much liked) --as a printer to try many versions of an image before making a final print on his best-quality-printers.
p.1 #10 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
chiron wrote:
I am thinking of using the 8550 as a printer for trying out various edits of an image before making a final print on my Canon 310. I would also use it for the images where I don't need the last 5% of quality or the best permanence.
According to Red River Paper's ink-cost-per-print studies, which seem very well done, there is suprisingly little difference between the cost-per-print of the Canon 310 vs. the 1100. And looking at Red River's methodology, I don't think they included situations where the 1100 does its expensive cleaning cycles--so the cost differential between the 310 and the 1100 would then be even less.
But the cost of the Canon ink in cartridges discourages me from trying to print many alternative versions of an image, which is the way I like to work.
The Epson 8550 with its much lower ink costs is meant to give me that freedom to try many alternative versions. In his initial review of the 8550, Kevin Raber at Luminous Landscape said that is exactly how he was using his 8550 (which he very much liked) --as a printer to try many versions of an image before making a final print on his best-quality-printers....Show more →
I discovered several years ago that setting a black point in an image made a huge difference in how the prints turn out, and is something to try if you don't normally do this. Without a set black point the images have a foggy look that I find unflattering. Setting a black point works for both home printing and lab printing. You might not need to print as many test images.
p.1 #11 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
Hi Chiron
I have the P900 yet the 8550 was not out at that point I purchased my P900.
Here is a video that I thing gives a good side by side comparison of the two and worth watching to the very end for final recommendations https://tinyurl.com/y4acc9b7
Cost of ink for 8550 is about 1/5 that of the P900 and that is a huge difference.
P900 has somewhat higher gamut yet that applies only to images with pretty high saturation
P900 has somewhat darker darks yet not as dark as their marketing suggests
The P900 can print 17 inch wide vs 13 for the 8550
The number or provided ICC profiles by Epson for the 8550 is quite a bit smaller than for the P900. The ICC profiles that are particularly missing for the 8550 is for the matte type papers. I personally think that is a market positioning as there is no reason one could not profile any paper on the 8550. So Epson is making it a bigger pain in the rear to use a wide range of papers on the 8550.
The P900 at an extra cost you can purchase a roll paper accessory.
So my bottom line is that is you want great prints at low costs up to 13 inche width the 8550 is a great choice. If you need greater than 13 inch or slighly higher gamut and somewhat deeper blacks and are willing to pay more for the printer and a heck of a lot more for the ink the that would lean to the P900.
Note that I doubt you would see any difference in the resolution quality. Both can print at 300ppi perfectly and if you know what settings to use on the P900, you can go slightly above 300 ppi (ignore the dpi numbers their marketing provides) yet I believe it would be the rare image that you could tell the difference between the two printers from a resolution basis.
Hope this helps
John Wheeler
ADDED EDIT: From a longevity standpoint, if handled/stored right you can get ~80 years longevity with the 8550 inks and up to 200 with the p900. Keep in mind, if you every thought a print faded decades down the line, you could always reprint it
p.1 #12 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
John Wheeler wrote:
Hi Chiron
I have the P900 yet the 8550 was not out at that point I purchased my P900.
Here is a video that I thing gives a good side by side comparison of the two and worth watching to the very end for final recommendations https://tinyurl.com/y4acc9b7
Cost of ink for 8550 is about 1/5 that of the P900 and that is a huge difference.
P900 has somewhat higher gamut yet that applies only to images with pretty high saturation
P900 has somewhat darker darks yet not as dark as their marketing suggests
The P900 can print 17 inch wide vs 13 for the 8550
The number or provided ICC profiles by Epson for the 8550 is quite a bit smaller than for the P900. The ICC profiles that are particularly missing for the 8550 is for the matte type papers. I personally think that is a market positioning as there is no reason one could not profile any paper on the 8550. So Epson is making it a bigger pain in the rear to use a wide range of papers on the 8550.
The P900 at an extra cost you can purchase a roll paper accessory.
So my bottom line is that is you want great prints at low costs up to 13 inche width the 8550 is a great choice. If you need greater than 13 inch or slighly higher gamut and somewhat deeper blacks and are willing to pay more for the printer and a heck of a lot more for the ink the that would lean to the P900.
Note that I doubt you would see any difference in the resolution quality. Both can print at 300ppi perfectly and if you know what settings to use on the P900, you can go slightly above 300 ppi (ignore the dpi numbers their marketing provides) yet I believe it would be the rare image that you could tell the difference between the two printers from a resolution basis.
Hope this helps
John Wheeler
ADDED EDIT: From a longevity standpoint, if handled/stored right you can get ~80 years longevity with the 8550 inks and up to 200 with the p900. Keep in mind, if you every thought a print faded decades down the line, you could always reprint it ...Show more →
Thank you, John! That is great information, exactly what I wanted to know. I'm going to watrch the video, but your post covered a lot!
p.1 #14 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
My anecdote -- I *wanted* 17-inch prints or wider, but just couldn't bear the purchase cost. And my scanner was left behind by OS updates. The cheaper gamble for me was the ET8550, replacing the Epson r2880.
I had shot two d750 images at least 10 years ago; printed them on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper using the r2880; framed and hung the prints out of direct sunlight. No special glass.
I hadn't liked the original crops so I found the original files, did minimal edits, then printed the files on the 8550. The 8550 prints were visibly (to my eye) better. I was pleased.
Epson specs --
r2880 resolution: 5760 x 1440 "optimized dpi"
ET-8550 resolution "Up to 5,760 x 1,440 dpi Resolution"
printer settings: 12x18, 240 dpi
Original prints were ash-canned before I saw this thread, so no way to show the side-by-side.
p.1 #15 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
GoodEgg wrote:
My anecdote -- I *wanted* 17-inch prints or wider, but just couldn't bear the purchase cost. And my scanner was left behind by OS updates. The cheaper gamble for me was the ET8550, replacing the Epson r2880.
I had shot two d750 images at least 10 years ago; printed them on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper using the r2880; framed and hung the prints out of direct sunlight. No special glass.
I hadn't liked the original crops so I found the original files, did minimal edits, then printed the files on the 8550. The 8550 prints were visibly (to my eye) better. I was pleased.
Epson specs --
r2880 resolution: 5760 x 1440 "optimized dpi"
ET-8550 resolution "Up to 5,760 x 1,440 dpi Resolution"
printer settings: 12x18, 240 dpi
Original prints were ash-canned before I saw this thread, so no way to show the side-by-side....Show more →
That's good to hear! By all reasonable expectations, the 2880 should have been better. The 8550 does punch above its weight.
p.1 #16 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
bwcolor wrote:
Has anyone seen a review that evaluates the 8550 when printing color portraits? I would think that realistic skin tones would be a must for many.
Good point. The only reviews I have seen emphasize multiple vidid bright colors or complex B&W and neither of those are often found in portraits.
p.1 #20 · How do prints from the Epson 8550 compare to higher-end pigment printers?
jwpstl wrote:
It’s $150 off everywhere. If I knew I could get good b/w prints on matte paper I’d buy one.
My sense is that matte papers may not be its strength. One reviewer notes that Epson does not provide profiles for any of its own matte papers for the 8550. On the other hand, Keith Cooper has three papers he particulary recommends for the 8550 and one of them was a matte. He discusses B&W prints. Here is his video:
