Epson Stylus Photo R800

Produces execellent photo's but too expensive to run. Just going to buy a new printer which is more cost effective.

An appalling printer: incredibly expensive to run, and I spent most of my time wasting vast amounts of ink trying to clean the print head as all the prints always had lines, marks, or casts. It never worked properly, and packed up after a comparatively short, completely useless and ruinously costly life. I can think of nothing in its favour except that it always looked as though it really meant business.....right up until the moment that you turned it on. It's hard to believe that a firm like Epson could get away with expensive dross like this.

I have only used this printer with genuine Epson ink and the results sre fantastic. It can take a couple of cleans if it has not been used for a while. I can't comment of text quality as I have only used it as a photo printer. If you want superb A4 prints this is the one to go for.

Not work it. If this is laserjet printing, I will use Costco to print. If there is a better system out there, show it to me. Printing is fun, but not this way!

An expensive printer which has not jusitfied its price. Colour printing is variable; sometimes good, often very poor, no matter how you try to manipulate the options list. Colour saturation is common, as well as the opposite effect of washed out colour. I cannot rely upon this machine, nor - in my experience - the Epson 'help' line. What use is a printer that cannot (without very complicated manipulation) print envelopes? My old HP Photosmart still works better and more reliably. Finally, the ink costs are outrageous. My next printer will certainly not be an Epson.

All in all, this Epson Stylus R800 is a complete waste of money and time trying to get this thing to work at all, i would not even think about buying this again if it were priced as low as 100 Euro.

When it works this printer generally turns out clean photos on glossy photo paper and crisp matt text with matt images on paper. But it'll reject most other media such as WH Smith matt 180 gsm card (which is certainly not heavy card) or pre-cut greeting cards. Although I've had this thing for about three years now its just about packed it in completely and my usage is far from onerous. It'll slip two pages for every page it prints and that's after countless "Media not loaded properly" error messages and resets. Three years of unsatisfactory performance isn't value for money when you look at the purchase price and running costs. The previous comments on ink wastage are right on the button. The unit cost of each successful print must be horrendous.

I would not buy the Epson Stylus R800 again, unless I was prepared for the huge running costs it involves.

The Epson R800 and its A3 printing cousin the R1800 are designed to provide professional quality photographic printing. To achieve this there are eight different ink cartridges (magenta, cyan, yellow, matte black, photo black, red , blue and a gloss optimiser). The optimiser is to improve the appearance of the colours when printed on to glossy paper by preventing a 'bronzing' effect when viewed at an angle. Most importantly, the inks used in this printer are rated to be fade resistant for over 100 years (this is done by an accelerated testing regime, i.e. putting the prints under a hell of a lot of UV lighting).

My photographic friends all use Epsons and I was an HP user until buying this printer. The quality of the first batch of prints was, indeed, impressive and I looked forward to reliable top quality printing. However, a few months down the line I am unable to prevent horizontal banding appearing on the prints and have wasted quite a bit of ink running the head cleaning and nozzle unblocking programs, all to no avail. To give a rough idea, I ran these three times and estimate about 25% of each ink cartridge was used in total. As each cartridge costs around £12, and there are eight of them, that's £24 worth of ink wasted!

Even in normal use I was horrified by the rate at which the cyan ink kept going down and fully expected to find a pool of the stuff under the printer somewhere. I am now on my third cartridge after a few months of intermittent use.

Set against this, as a semi professional photographer, one has to hope that the fade resistance proves worthwhile. Well it should, provided you use Epson premium glossy paper, which adds to the expense. However, a landscape print left on to top of my in laws' TV has developed faded patches after just two months of exposure to feeble winter sun. Things are not looking good.

I can say, in defence of this printer, that it guides paper and card through accurately and the paper feed and out tray close up nicely to seal out the dust when the printer is not in use. Also, the computer screen display (there's no status panel on the printer itself), showing what the printer is doing and how much ink it has left (scary) is well set out. However, this is not a ringing endorsement for a printer which costs nearly £200.

I will sell this ink gobbling monster to another photographer and go back to HP where the ink cartridges seem to last much longer and which have diposable/replaceable ink delivery systems. I never had a persistent clogging or dirty head problem with my old HP printer.

The Epson Stylus R800 is a great printer considering the price. It gives excellent results in both colour (using Epsons own ink and paper).

I have printed photographs from scanned negatives that have come our better that the lab prints using this printer with Adobe Photoshop Elements (that came free with the printer).

My only issue would be around colour matching (as with any printer). If you want perfect results you need to get some custom ICC colour spaces made, and this can be quite expensive, as the Epson ones are very generic, especially for Gloss Paper which I find prints very dark.