Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Tile Wearable Technology Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Luxury Beauty Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer starwars starwars starwars  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl ReadyRide Bikes from Diamondback Learn more

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 30, 2007 3:44:10 PM PDT
G.B.D. says:
I bought this almost as soon as it came out from Kodak.

I'd been waiting for this brand new (June 2007) color printer for many moons. I had followed articles about how Kodak was going all out to develop it, was so careful with any bugs, etc. Supposedly it uses PIGMENT instead of regular INK as do most color printers. I rarely used the old Epson color inkjet printer enough before the ink would dry out or muck up one of the colors.

So pigment, which is supposed to make a photo which lasts 100 years (they say) sounded really good. Their other (supposed) claim to fame is that the printer heads are separate from the ink cartridges, making replacement cartridges much cheaper than the inkjets. There are only 2 cartridges: one black, and one large one with all the colors. My default printer is a super HP laserjet which does only black and white. HP laserjets are like the Energizer bunny...they keep going and going. ;)

Poor Kodak. This product is unbelievably horrible! You get what you pay for. At $200 or so, as long as the pigment doesn't dry out like the ink, I guess I can use it...that is, whenever it decides that it's going to do anything.

You can print ONE photo, then it goes to sleep. Touch any button or try to adjust anything, and that's all you get: one photo.

You can make ONE scan, and again it goes to sleep. Try to calibrate first (scan the included calibration card), and that's all she other scanning. And as far as quality (when it's working), my 12 year old steady-eddy HP scanner does a comparable job. And here I was, thinking I could chuck the HP in favor of a single do it all machine...dumb thought...replace an HP (anything) with a Kodak?...ick!

It's supposed to move photos to and from a camera cartridge...I'll believe it when I see it, 'cause it sure didn't do it for me!

One day, it decided to spit out a few blank pages of both plain 8x11 paper AND photo paper at the same time...they're not supposed to both work at the same time!?

Once, when trying to make multiples of one subject, I got: one too dark, one too light, one with too much yellow, one with not enough yellow! Despite recalibrations and reboots, I still get very erratic behavior. Never ever try to change modalities, as in, go from scanner to printer, or from plain paper to photo paper. The latter is when I got the barrage of plain and photo paper spitting itself onto the floor!

Kodak support? I dunno. Before I bought it they were great...said the only problem was with the printer head. After I bought it, they sent me to the manual which supposedly is on the disc. Naturally no mention of spitting papers. Or variable colors, or sleepytime.

FORGET IT! If you have an inkjet which you use and which works, forget this horror show of a printer. Did I say printer?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2008 1:07:08 AM PST
I couldn't agree more. I just posted a scathing review which hasn't appeared yet, and may not, since I called the 5300 a piece of junk. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, maybe I'm hopelessly romantic, maybe I just expect too much, but when I buy a brand new toy from the store, I expect it to AT LEAST work properly while it's new. Not only is the printer a serious disappointment, trying to reach tech support was a nightmare. They offered to send me a new print head, but I can't get this thing back to the store fast enough! If it works this poorly right out of the box, what can I expect a few months down the road? No thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2008 3:50:30 PM PST
king cole says:
either you have to much time on your hands or you work for the rival companies of Kodak !!! this is a great 3 in 1

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2008 2:32:16 PM PST
G.B.D. says:
Half of the reviewers love it; Half hate it. That speaks to its inconsistency!! There must be something major wrong with the design of this thing, OR with Kodak QUALITY CONTROL.

I'm not the only one who has had huge problems with it. AND I still cannot get it to work consistently. It always seems to need new cartridges. I barely printed maybe half a dozen photos and had to replace BOTH cartridges. After copying about 3 dozen black & white pages, it's asking to replace ALL cartridges again.

I can print one decent photo and then the thing goes goofy: color goes way off. I calibrate, clean the heads, and it doesn't help. The only thing which seems to help is replacing both cartridges. A waste of time and money, not much better than the old ink jets in this regard. Sorry, but this is garbage.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2008 4:54:16 AM PDT
B. Bock says:
I don't have this one, but the ESP 3. Amazon isn't carrying it. But it so angered me that I had to post. The Mac Drivers for scanning are HORRIBLE. RUN AWAY. It doesn't even de-skew. I even though it claims to be able to scan more than one pic at a time, I can't get it to do so. AWFUL!

Posted on Oct 24, 2009 8:18:37 AM PDT
H S Patton says:
GBD if the thing isn't working why not return it and be done with it? Three guesses: 1. You are a flamer, 2. you don't own it, 3. You don't have the hardware properly installed and didn't follow the instructions. My hypo is that it's the first reason 1 fits as I have discovered with most of the low ball gripes on this site. Others are pure gripers and ignoramuses who don't know how to use what they bought. I own an ESP which has more than paid for itself with ink savings and the quality is better than both of my HP's on th ephotos. I don't print text with it because I use an H P laserJet that is networked. But I do black and white and color copies on it. I also appreciate that my photos that I scan with th ekodak and reprint don't show the white "dust" spots that th eHP 1300 does. It is actually light noise but it looks like dust. The 1300 doesn't have that effect even with the satin finish photos. BTW I bought th eESP rather than replace the 2 cartridge sets in my HP's since it cost onlu 28 bucks more than a set of cartridges for the 1300, whos epictures fade out within a year to ghosts.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2009 1:39:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2009 8:41:12 PM PDT
G.B.D. says:
You sound like you work for Kodak! :)
You're pretty insulting too. So if Kodak is watching, they should take note. Oh wait, I know, you're taking a cue from the WH: if someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking, just bash them.

I bought one of the first models. Kodak **admitted that they had problems with the printer heads.

My machine sat for almost a year. I was ready to chuck it, when I made one last attempt to get it to run. After a lot of fussing with a rep on the phone, after cleaning heads, printing samples, and around and around again, I was sent new heads...and had to send the original heads back (post-paid, which was a good thing), along with the photos which were the result of the tests.

It works, but again, the ink just does not last. The cartridges *DRY OUT just like the old ordinary ink jets. The ink on this thing is not supposed to do that. Very recently my HP Laserjet died, so I am using the Kodak, but only for printing online stuff. I'm reluctant to ask it to do more!

Frankly, for a company known initially for photography, this thing does NOT print a quality PHOTO, even with the newer heads. And as far as copying, it is about the same quality as my 15 year old HP scanner...I compared them.

I might have compatability issues with MSFT always changing things, since I have an "older" comp. Soooo, with a dead HP, I have to pretty much stick with the so-so performance of the Kodak until I replace my current comp. When I do, I will buy anything except Kodak. Sadly, HP reviews here are not great for newer products of theirs.

PS: In the 36mm days I always used Kodak film, both for private & business.
And shame on you for being so presumptive & judgmental.

Posted on Oct 24, 2009 6:18:45 PM PDT
H. Stephen Patton, I did return the printer. So there. I replaced it with a Brother all-in-one (I don't recall the model number now), which was also a waste of money. I used it maybe a dozen times, and it quit working right after the warranty ran out. I let my husband run over it with his truck. Good riddance. I still haven't replaced that one, but I know that when I do, there is only one brand I will ever buy again. I won't name it because you might accuse me of bias. But I will say it won't be Kodak, Brother, or Lexmark.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 6, 2009 8:57:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 6, 2009 9:03:04 AM PST
BookGeek says:
H.Stephen Patton, your 3 guesses are wrong. I didn't return mine because it initailly worked great. Only after the store's return period was long over did the device start to malfunction. First,the photo quality deteriorated. I kept using it for text and light grapics. Next the colors went off completely and had "bands". Sometimes running the clean cycle would get it back to acceptable quality but then the next week it would be back to missing certain colors.
Finally, the black stopped working too and no amount of cleaning cycles helped. I filled out the online support request and I'm waiting on a new printhead now. Kodak would not be so quick to supply a new printhead if they didn't know there are problems. On another forum they said the printheads are "redesigned".

BTW, I also download and installed the latest software and firmware from Kodak's site. No improvement.

If the new printhead doesn't work this printer is going in the trash.

P.S. Besides the printhead problem, it also will only feed the top half of the stack of paper in the input tray. Once it gets to about the halfway point, I get an "out of paper" error. But compared to the horrible print quality this is a very minor issue.

Posted on Jul 2, 2010 9:56:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2010 10:01:26 PM PDT
I'm not an expert, but I can say that this printer was not at all what I expected. The scanner has horrible quality. I'm a college art student and my last scanner worked much better, from a HP printer that was 4 years older. I really need the image to be crisp, and although I know some scanners are better than others, I had no idea that some of the newer ones could come out dull-blurry. As for the prints. Most of it doesn't come out as nicely as I expected. How is it that when I use red as the color font, it prints out muddy orange? Problems like that is noticeable to anyone, but unbearable to a color sensitive person like myself and my peers. I would not recommend this printer. Yes - the ink is cheaper, but you're not missing out on this printer. It's for people who don't care about quality.

If I'm wrong, PLEASE tell me what I can do to improve the quality of my scans and the precision of the colors printed. Don't just say "you're wrong" - show me how. I wasted money on this thing and I would LOVE to be proven wrong and become someone who can proudly stand by this product.

EDIT: I don't know if this is true of other printers, BUT, if my ink is nearly finished, it doesn't use it to the last drop like my previous printer. ALSO it won't allow me to print anything unless I replace the NEARLY empty cartridge. So say I have a research paper that I have to print, and I run out of color ink - but my black ink is practically full. I have to go to the store, buy color ink, just so that the printer will let me print ANYTHING regardless of whether I even need color ink or not.


I nearly failed my assignment because of that stunt. That never happened in my old printer. And trust me, I tried just about anything to get it printed. I would NOT recommend this printer to anyone who expects quality prints and/or scans.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 10:09:42 AM PDT
kimberly9000 says:
Speaking for myself, I didn't return it because my dad (age 76) lost his receipt. He did have his Best Buy charge statement which clearly showed when the device was purchased, but Best Buy only accepts returns within 90 days and Kodak will only accept the original receipt (the charge statement didn't suffice). I am certainly not a "flamer" (have praised other products), we do own the device (unfortunately), and software was installed repeatedly with the assistance of Kodak's tech support (in real time). Any way you slice it, this product is doo doo.

Posted on Jun 27, 2011 12:34:18 AM PDT
I bought this because the ink is cheap. It's been a work horse runs 4 to 5 hours most days have had it for about 6 months. Never think about it because I don't have to it does what it's told. Can't ask for more than that
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  9
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Jun 30, 2007
Latest post:  Jun 27, 2011

Search Customer Discussions