Printer (Page 2): The 8550 seems to be fine, so long as you DO NOT PRINT BORDERLESS. Some users report that the printer just cannot handle the over-spray of ink that it produces when...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DoyleY wrote:

Ok Hoggers, I'm not a pro but I have sold a few pr... (show quote)

The 8550 seems to be fine, so long as you DO NOT PRINT BORDERLESS. Some users report that the printer just cannot handle the over-spray of ink that it produces when printing off the edges of the paper. It is advertised as capable of borderless printing, but the ink-absorbing pads very quickly become saturated with ink, and transfer that ink to subsequent prints when the transport rollers get ink on them.

When I worked in a lab, we made borderless prints on our inkjet printers by using paper larger than the image area, and trimming each print down to size. We had no interest in ruining a perfectly good printer with over-sprayed ink. Making a 12x18-inch print on 13x19-inch paper is a prudent practice. Making an 8x10-inch print on 8.5x11-inch paper is also prudent. Yes, you may have to trim the excess. Many people just use a larger frame and a beveled mat.

If you print only occasionally, your inks WILL dry out and clog the heads. Epson inkjet printers work best when you use them frequently. I try to print something every week on my EcoTank office printer. The ink is so much less expensive than with cartridges, I just print for fun.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

IMHO, either purchase a printer made for photo prints (such as the Epson P700 or P900) or get your prints made from an outside source. There is no tank type printer made for consumers that will produce good photo prints. The ink use, and cost, of the P900 is much less than the P700. Non-OEM inks are total garbage and a waste of money. Again, if that's what you intend to due, get your prints made by a lab as there plenty of good ones. YMMV. Best of lick.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ron 717 wrote:

I am in full agreement with you. I also print with... (show quote)

The Canon Pro 100 was a gem of a printer for enthusiasts. It has been replaced by the Canon Pro 200, which seems to be a worthy replacement.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

burkphoto wrote:

The 8550 seems to be fine, so long as you DO NOT P... (show quote)

Trimming would seem to be the wise a prudent thing to do. Thanks for your input.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

burkphoto wrote:

The Canon Pro 100 was a gem of a printer for enthusiasts. It has been replaced by the Canon Pro 200, which seems to be a worthy replacement.

Thanks.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I bought the 8550 in June and so far I'm on my 5th, yes 5th, machine due to ink smears on print. Someone suggested a small white border and that cuts down on over spray. I like birderless better but I can't deal with stray ink. The over spray caused puddles if ink when I did 11 x 14 borderless. Print quality was great. I needed a printer and copy, scan so I bout this one. You might consider a different printer if you have the copy, scan covered.
I also bought it when price jumped from 699 to 799 and was backorder. A month after I bought it price went back down to 699 and Epson said too bad. I would gave taken a pack of paper as a goodwill jester but no go.
I'm out of time so I'll come back later.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

cjc2 wrote:

IMHO, either purchase a printer made for photo prints (such as the Epson P700 or P900) or get your prints made from an outside source. There is no tank type printer made for consumers that will produce good photo prints. The ink use, and cost, of the P900 is much less than the P700. Non-OEM inks are total garbage and a waste of money. Again, if that's what you intend to due, get your prints made by a lab as there plenty of good ones. YMMV. Best of lick.

I see what you are saying about the cost of ink for the P-700 vs the P-900. With ink for the P-900 almost just half as much as ink for the P-700. I wonder what the deal with that is?
That is something to consider. Do you have experience with the P-900?

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I bought the 8550 in June and so far I'm on my 5th... (show quote)

Thank you, this is similar to some of the complaints I have heard from other 8550 owners. Why have borderless printing if you really can't use it? This is helpful as I really only considered the 8550 because of the tank feature.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

yssirk123 wrote:

If you can stretch your budget a bit I would look into the Canon Pro-1000. It has phenomenal print quality and uses pigment ink. The larger ink cartridges also lower the cost per print. Highly recommend.

Hmm, 80ml cartridges is a plus. Thank you. It is looking attractive at the moment. I do like Canon products and have little or no experience with Epson that I recall.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I bought the 8550 in June and so far I'm on my 5th... (show quote)

Epson tried to tell me you have to use Epson paper at twice the cost and I said nothing in your literature does it say that.
There new solution to overspray is to clean the plastic on pads after making a print. This model has some issues for sure but the eco tank and larger size prints are a plus. The overspray was on the plastic pieces on pad as seen in photos, just puddles of ink that must be blotted up with a q tip.
I think the print quality was excellent

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

burkphoto wrote:

The Canon Pro 100 was a gem of a printer for enthusiasts. It has been replaced by the Canon Pro 200, which seems to be a worthy replacement.

And while the inks are expensive, my experience is that the heads never clog, even if unused for many months; and for me, that is a huge deal since I only print occasionally.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Epson tried to tell me you have to use Epson paper at twice the cost and I said nothing in your literature does it say that.
There new solution to overspray is to clean the plastic on pads after making a print. This model has some issues for sure but the eco tank and larger size prints are a plus. The overspray was on the plastic pieces on pad as seen in photos, just puddles of ink that must be blotted up with a q tip.
I think the print quality was excellent

Thanks, I might could live with a small border on the print if it will eliminate the problem with overspray. Say making a 12.5"x18.5" print.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I can't see spending money on larger paper just to trim it off

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I can't see spending money on larger paper just to trim it off

I understand the annoyance, but I don't let it bother me. Sometimes you have to step in a few piles to find the pony...

I like the idea of a little blank paper around the edges. It helps protect the print from fingerprints and gives you something with which to mount the back of the print to a windowed mat.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

I would encourage you to reconsider Canon Pro 200 or the Pro 800(?) even though you do not want to deal with cartridges.
I have been using Precision Color inks to refill OEM cartridges for about two years. The inks come in two sizes and reduce the cost per cartridge by at least 50% compared to purchasing OEM cartridges. Precision has warned in the past that their Red is not quite as good as OEM red, but I have not seen a noticeable issue.