Epson Stylus Photo 2200 Inkjet Printer
See it at Amazon.com for $749.99Average Customer Rating
(3.5 out of 5)
Amazon Customer Reviews
Most Helpful First | Newest First
(5 out of 5)Prints as good as Ofoto
I researched photo printers for weeks and read all the reviews. I wanted a dedicated photo printer for the best prints so I did not care about text or speed. I had decided on the Epson 960 based on the PC World review that rated it just below the 2200 and above the Canons. I went to Compusa and they did not have a 960 and were sold out of the 2200 for weeks. While I was looking at the other printers a shipment of 2200's rolled in, so I bought one. I compared identical prints from the 2200 to an Ofoto print on photographic based paper and I can say they are equivalent. The 2200 had a little less contrast but better shadow detail. With magnification the the grain was about the same on both prints. I used Premium Glossy paper. You do get some obscuring sheen when you look at the 2200 prints at an angle due the pigment based ink, but it is not a problem in my opinion. I then compared these to prints from my Epson Photo 780. With the naked eye there is not much detectable difference, but with magnification you can see the ink pattern on the 780 prints. The skin tones were not as realistic. I expect with various photos the differences would become more readily apparent. I think the 2200 is a great printer but a bit expensive. The 960 may be a good choice for less $$. I wish I could have compared them side by side.
Addendum: Upon more research I've learned a big advantage of this printer over the 960 is the Ultrachrome pigment ink, which is water resistant and good for 80 years. All of the dye based inks apparently will start to fade in just a few years (or some in just a few months). There are also compatible generic papers (try Redriverpaper.com). This printer uses the same inks and has similar quality to Epson professional printers ... Getting the best prints with the 2200 may require a little tweaking of the settings and adjustments in Photoshop or the like, where you can set the contrast and color saturation to suit your eye. Plan to use some paper and ink experimenting. Professional photographers and artists like this printer a lot. It is outstanding for black and white and for artistic papers such as matte and card stock, and of course it prints pics up to 13 inches wide and 40+ long. If you want the best and have the know-how (or want to learn), this is the printer to get.
(5 out of 5)Do you need a semi pro photo printer?
I've had my Epson 2200 for about six weeks. With free shipping Amazon's price was best on the net. Looked at Canon's and Epson's lower end models. I thought the Epson outperformed the Canon tonally. Have done about 45 8x10 glossies with medium grade Epson paper. Not disappointed in the output. Two pics were banded and short colored. Did a basic head cleaning and that corrected the problem. The light toned inks are used at slightly more than twice the rate of the dark tones. Am just now looking for a replacement for light magenta cartridge. I figure amortized cost per pic is about 1.25 per print with ink paper and printer costs combined. If you demand quality output for your pics with a fairly low volumne output, this is a hard printer to beat right now. If you're not too concerned about darker toning and flatter colors you can probably get by with something half as pricey. I'm delighted with mine.
(2 out of 5)VERY Convincing, but NOT the REAL thing.
I bought this printer only to test the "archival" quality paper and inks. I must admit, I was quite impressed with the Luster photo paper surface; it resembled the true photographic luster surface that I am used to, but with a tighter texture. I was also quite impressed with the level of color control sliders and methods of color matching in the printer's software. (A side note, anyone who is truly concerned with accurate color will want to invest in a colorimeter and software to properly balance their monitor from a company such as Monaco; do not waste your time fighting with color matching.)
For starters, I first noticed that exterior of this printer was rather flimsy and some parts are quite breakable. The printer tray in the front simply folds down, however when folding up, it only "clicks" on the left side. On one of my pritners, the tray falls at the slightest bump. Additionally, the extendable paper tray is a bit cheap and can be a little cumbersome to extend. Also, the cover is easily scratched; even wiping it with a paper towel can cause abrasions in the opaque black cover. With use, over time it will loose it's cosmetic appearance quite quickly. I have always thought Epson printers were of lower contruction standards when compared to HP.
As a very experienced user (with proper monitor balancing tools and tons of "profile" experience) I was not able to get color results that I was happy with, mainly in regards to magenta levels. I was forced to tweak the magenta settings down by -2 for every print, regardless of which profile I used. Furthermore, when compared to traditional photographic images, I have had difficulty with a push/pull between magenta and green. While on one hand a portion of any given image appeared too magenta, another portion of the same image was obviously too green, particularly anyone with blonde hair. Obviouslly, there is no way to do an overall color correction for this. Every print I have printed has this issue, and I have used two different printers. Overall, the prints just did not look right to me. When comparing the Epson 2200 prints to a PROFESSIONALLY operated Fuji Frontier system, after the Epson prints are completely dry they seemed to have a "fog" to them, almost like looking through a pane of thin non-glare glass.
The most notable disappointment with these prints is any areas that either are white or black, or fade to white or black. The slightest angle in the light reveals a myriad of reflection patterns, which I find completely unacceptable. These reflections are highly noticeable when the prints are viewed on a wall from any angle. They can be quite ugly and destroy the image, especially images with high contrast.
More recently, I took an image that I was mostly happy with and professionally framed it. We used conservation quality mats and conservation glass, which blocks 98% of the UV rays. Within two weeks, I noticed something curious and have yet to take the frame apart to investigate further. When viewing through the glass at an angle, the parts of the image that are the darkest seem to be transferring to the glass. The image is 1/8 inch away from touching the glass. While this has created an interesting pattern on the glass, obviously this is not desired and leads me to question the "archival" claims made by Epson. Since we are in a dry climate, it is not humidity; and since we are in a rural area, it is not an effect of ozone or pollution, both of which environmental conditions are mentioned in the paper packaging regarding proper print storage and display. The only thing I can figure is that static electricity is somehow pulling a very thin layer of the darker inks off the print towards the glass. We'll see. ......
I simply cannot recommend this printer to anyone who is greatly concerned with accurate color. I have tried two different printers, and getting accurate color has been a big hassle. Don't get me wrong, the average consumer will be happy I'm sure, but anyone who desires accuracy will not be pleased, especially if they are a professional. I impolore any professional user to be just as critical of this printer, as any print they would receive from a lab; there is quite a big difference. Again, for an ink-jet "photo" printer, the Epson 2200 is a huge leap forward and at first glance it is quite impressive; but after closer inspection, to say the printer is of true "photographic quality" simply is not true.
I'll stick to creating my own work, while leaving the printing to the professionals down the street. At least I know for a fact that my prints will still be around for the rest of my life, and beyond; and who needs the push/pull between green and magenta! In the long run, getting accurate color is cheaper when going to the lab, rather than wasting two or more attempts on the printer.
(5 out of 5)Saving money in the long run with 7 colors
The Epson 2200 may seem like a lot of money to put down for a 13x19 inch printer when compared to the Epson 1280 or other printers of similar size, but totaling the amount of money spent using the printer tips the scales in favor of the more expensive 2200. With seven color inks you replace each cartridge individually as opposed to a multi-ink cartridge as in the 1280 that costs three times the price and needs to be replaced even if all the inks aren't empty.
I've owned this printer for five months and have had great results. The ColorSync profile works great and have resulted in accurate colors most of the time without tweaking in Photoshop. I recommend Epson Premium Luster paper or the Enhanced Matt paper for this printer. Luster produced prints indistinguishable from photo lab prints when viewed straight on, but does show 'ghosting' in shadows when viewed at sharp angles. The main factor of this printer, and other Epson 7 color ink printers is the color life. The enhanced matt paper is rated up to 80 years when the paper is not exposed to direct airflow, and the luster is 20-25 years under the same conditions, which is the same as photo lab prints.
If you have a 4+ mpx digital camera and you want to make prints at 13x19 inches, which is essentially the same size you would print a 35mm negative on 16x20 photo paper, this printer is for you. And, 13x19 inch prints look good on a wall and matt nicely with standard 20x24 inch frames.
(5 out of 5)An Unbelieveable Companion to Nikon's D100!
I have had the opportunity to play around with this printer for a few days and must say that the output is the most amazing that I have ever seen from a consumer oriented inkjet printer. Now, there are some points that are problematic, but I believe that overall, this printer deserves the 5 stars.
I purchased the printer as a companion for my Nikon D100 digital SLR camera. The two features that were critical in my decision to go with this over other cameras on the market are the ability to print up to 2880x1440dpi and the max paper size of 13x19inches.
When the printer first arrived, I was a bit skeptical and dissappointed to find that the OSX support is quite basic. Now, it is important to note that all features are supported in Classic mode, but as many can understand, this is a bit of a hassle. That said, I have found in my experience so far that there isn't anything that I would like to do that I can't with OSX. Boarderless printing might be a concern to others, so I will point out that you cannot print Boarderless in OSX. That said, as a semi-professional photographer, I don't care for boarderless prints at all. You often loose some of the image because the size of the actual image seldom matches the size of the paper and cropping almost always happens. The paper-roll is another option that is not available through OSX, but quite frankly, I have very little use for it.
Despite these slight bad points, I was able to everything that I would ever want to do right out of the box. It took me a few test strips to get the first truly impressive print and from that moment on I've been getting fantastic picture one after another. I've tested a number of types of paper in a number of settings and have found the following: Colorsync (the setting in OSX that is supposed to match the image on the screen in terms of accuracy) was not really desireable. Colors were weak, blacks were not on target, overall lackluster. I found that photorealistic created fantastic output at 2880-1440dpi. Also, it is VERY important to note that the quality of prints jumps DRAMATICALLY between regular matte photopaper and actual glossy or semi-glossy photopaper.
A word to film photographers: terminology in digital, injet printing paper is slightly different from regular photographic media. What we know as "matte" paper is a lot more like regular printer paper. I would recommend Semi-glossy, or Pearl if you want heafty paper, but not "shiny." I have tested the Epson brand of semi-glossy and it is very nice. The only problem is that it is on the whole more expensive that third party paper. I've done some research and testing and found that Ilford inkjet printing paper is fantastic with used on the 2200. Ilford recommends that you set your printer to Premium Glossy, but I tried both Premium Glossy and Semi-glossy and got equal results as far as I could see with the naked eye.
I have also experimented with 13x19 prints and they are fantastic and gigantic. Printing times using a 600mhz iBook, 650mb ram, and firewire at max resolution are about 5 minutes for 8x10 and about 15 minutes for 13x19. Given the quality and the fact that the output looks as good as anything I've ever gotten from a professional developer, it is fine worth the wait. For the record, I am printing Tiffs recorded at the highest resolution that the D100 will handle. Each print is about 17.4MB in size. It may be that with prints of smaller file-size the printing times are reduced, but for archival purposes, I max out the file-sizes of my digital photography and I find it to be equal to that of film (at least as far as I've compared to my old film-based prints)
One last minor problem is the ink. The cartriges (seven total) are small and after printing about 15 prints, all at max resolution, I find that some of the colors (the light colors in particular) are about 1/4 of the way used. This leads me to two thoughts: 1. do not print max resolution until you are doing your final prints. 2. They could have made the cartriges bigger in order to make it a bit more cost effective.
That said, this is perhaps the best printer for digital photography that I have ever seen and I am more than willing to give it 5 stars despite some minor problems here and there.
N.