Customer Reviews

Epson Stylus Photo 2000P Inkjet Printer

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

After receiving this printer and making numerous prints, I have decided to dismantle my traditional darkroom! For years I held back from going completely digital because photo quality printers were not up to the standards I had come to expect from my Cibachrome prints. All that has changed with the Epson Stylus 2000P. Image quality is superb, indistinguishable with the naked eye from silver halide-based prints. While I have not personally tested longevity, if the reported 200-year lifetime is anywhere near correct these prints are better than Cibachromes. And going digital has other advantages. I have already made outstanding prints from transparencies I would never have thought about printing in the past because of the complicated masks I would have had to create. A good photo software program (I use Corel PhotoPaint) makes it easy to do difficult contrast and color corrections. The 2000P was easy to set up. An excellent quick-start sheet had me making my first print less than 20 minutes after taking the printer out of the box. The Windows installation program was straightforward. The only thing I didn't like is that it made the 2000P my default printer without asking me. This was easy to fix. I was also surprised to discover it came with three boxes of papers: 50 sheets of premium luster, 50 sheets of archival matte, and 20 sheets of 13x19 watercolor paper. Plus a sample pack of various media. Nice job Epson. Don't plan to use this as your everyday printer. It is optimized for printing photos and should be used for such. A 13 meg photo took about 10 minutes to print using the parallel interface (I will convert to USB as soon as I get a cable), which might seem slow but is still faster than chemical-based prints. As a 25-year Hewlett-Packard employee (now with Agilent Technologies as a result of the company split) it was very difficult for me to decide to buy Epson. But in the area of photo quality archival output there is just no alternative. All in all, I am extremely satisfied.

I bought this printer based on reviews at ZDnet and News.com. They both claimed that this printer is the best thing since sliced bread, and I have to agree. I am a professional graphic designer. I use this printer to assist in making proofs for 11x17 posters and phone card designs. I have never seen photo quality this good on an inkjet. Photos on the 2000P look better than the output on my ALPS thermal wax printer, better than the hippopotamus-sized Tektronix at Kinkos, and better than the proofs I typically get when I send my QuarkXPress and Photoshop files to the print shop. One of the best features of this printer is its ability to print bleeds. I can print 11x17 right to the edge of the paper. The drawbacks... This printer is not for the amateur user. To get high quality output you really need to know what you are doing. You need to use the right kind of paper with the right print job. You need to understand the differences between the different print modes. You need to high quality source material (like 600dpi 32bit TIFF images). You need to read the manual. If you are taking pictures with a digital camera and you are expecting to plug in and get photo quality output right away, you are only going to be disappointed. Also, the printer is expensive to maintain (expect about $1.50/page when you factor in paper and inks), and very slow. I've found that it usually exceeds 5 minutes per page when printing photos. Of course, this printer is not designed for speed or ease of use, its designed to be an alternative to using a print shop for photo-quality proofs. Use it only as it was intended to be used, and you will cherish this printer.

The quality of this printer is very good. However, the ink pigments behave strangely in different light...ie sun vs. indoor, so be prepared. Using a high end program like Photoshop is also a little complicated - it is important to keep all color adjustments off and make sure that all the outputs to media match exactly the PS and Mac ColorSync specs. But once you have probably wasted 20 to 40 sheets of paper, and you've got it right, it's really amazing. I have also had the best results with the semigloss paper, but it is difficult to come by in letter size.

After owning an Epson 800C for the past 3 years it was bound to only get better...and better... The 2000P is FANTASTIC! As a graphic designer and photographer this printer is a dream. The color is quite accurate and when viewed with a loupe it's grain is close to what you would expect an actual photograph to look like. For proofing purposes or wall art I don't think you can beat the quality, the price or the convenience. Used correctly this is definitely something to cherish and is a great addition to any professional's desktop.

I bought this printer to make prints of my original watercolor paintings at home. The quality is incredible. When the prints are printed on Epson's watercolor paper, I can barely tell the difference between the original painting and the Epson print! The printer is expensive, but is paying for itself very quickly. You need to read the manual and use the right paper for each job, and you'll be very happy with the results.

Everyone who complains about this printer invariably doesn't know how to use it. Herein lies the problem. This printer yeilds better results for professionals than it does for people like the "color shifts" guy (who obviously doesn't know that a revision in Epson's semi-gloss papers had taken care of the problem long before he wrote his "review").

So, be careful to learn your craft, and this printer will give you absolutely outstanding results!

I've had mine for about two weeks. Before this, I was using a very expensive (20,000 dollars! with a 30,000 dollar print manager!) Canon laser printer that I've had access to. I can't believe it, but the prints from this Epson are better! Much better.

I don't know what else to say. I suppose that if I were interested in printing speed, I would have to stay with the other thing. But I want perfect prints - and I have them with the Epson. Perfect!

If you want large output (the 2000P prints 13x19 inch beauties, and up to 13x44), then go no further.

I own this printer. It does beautiful archival prints. I know of some photographers who have gotten the Epson 2000P to use instead of Iris prints. They feel the Epson 2000P has better print quality and longevity than a ... ... Iris print. The only issue I have with the Epson 2000P is that there is some bronzing when printing on glossy photo papers. My favorite paper with this printer is the Epson archival matte. The prints are beautiful on this paper. If you are interested in archival printing and can handle only doing smaller prints (8.5 X 11), Epson has a new printer called an Epson Stylus C80.

I have always bought Epson printers, they have always been reliable, with sharp colourful outputs, cartridges and papers have always been at affordable prices. I am in the graphics industry and i've had my Epson Stylus photo 2000P for about a year and i still love it.

People have always asked me where I get my printing done:) I always say "I printed it at home" with a big smile on my face because I know I'm saving money

This printer can do composites as well as postscript printing using a ripper. This printer is great for anyone doing professional desktop publishing of any kind. I also recommend purchasing Epson StylusRIP software for doing any postscript work or vector graphics (printers cannot print PS or vectors without a RIP and not all printers can understand RIP, but this one does so well!). The printer works on USB and the ripper works on parallel so switching between them is so easy. I also noticed this printer doesn't run out of ink as fast as others and with the extra colour it gives very realistic outputs.

The only precaution is that you MUST use Epson paper with it. Epson has a different paper technology and using other papers with this printer tends to make the inks run.

I work with photography, and I do a lot of work on Photoshop and Fine Art printing.
The results I got on Glossy and Premium Semigloss photo paper where really good,sharpness seems better than 1270.
When it cames to color, things take a different shape, especially on Archival Mate Papers and Lumijet Fine Art Papers, the results doesn't impress that much, and the 1270 shows a large superiority.
The software seems quite complete, but actually doesn't help much. You are probably better using it all on Automatic settings. I say this after spending weeks, lots of papers and ink, testing the configurations that lacks a good manual.
I must say that for the kind of work I do, I was disappointed with the results.
I Didn't get the feedback and professional results It was expected.