Mine's on order.. not...

Wow! Now all HP needs is to make a printer that actually prints!

im gonna print me out some hiiiiigh quality porn!

And the cost of the ink is ?!?

Heck, I can get a printer for $79 and then have to pay $54 for a black ink cart. I can only guess how much the farking carts are for this puppy.

90 cents per image -- no thanks. Still cheaper to have them processed.

high quality porn.... lol. ain't that what printers are made for

HP is rocksaurs

So they say, anyways, in this shameless plug.

Never replace this. Maybe disposable cameras processed at Wal*Mart, but not real photography.

"A study of 420 consumers"... hehe

On sale at Best Buy for $9,000.

Yeah, 90 cents is too much, right dat, Odlid...not to mention the last printer I bought from HP NEVER worked properly and finally stopped working altogether after a couple months. And what's up with that camera feature that "alerts friends and family when you take new pictures and stores them temporarily on a website" crap about? I can LOTS of moronic AOL type users out there accidentally messaging their friends and family with not-so-safe-for-work photos unwittingly...hehe.

I'll believe it when I see it. The "average" consumer is a moron who thinks a bubble jet does a great job on a pic that's 72dpi.

Wabbitoid, if I could only afford one of those...*sigh*

07-29-02 02:20:54 PM Odlid
90 cents per image -- no thanks. Still cheaper to have them processed.

90 cents per image you select. Toss out all the crappy photos on a roll of film--the ones you didn't know if they'd come out, etc etc etc--and your photo processing rates go way up per each good photo.

If HP suxs so bad, what is the best for the cash? Whiners, cry me a river!

420 consumers? Hell why didn't they just say Chronic smokers? Potheads? Stoners? I am sure I can convince them that my left nut makes better pics than a lab.

They make good printers, but you'll need to get a second mortgage to pay for the ink. Plus the damn photo paper is expensive too.

Oh and:
HP also rolled out three digital cameras that can be configured to alert friends and family automatically by e-mail about new photos and store the pictures temporarily on an HP Web site.

Most. Useless. Feature. Ever.

I had an HP digital camera - it fell apart right after the warranty expired.

My HP at home is the shiz-nit. Thing's a damn work horse. I've done the photopaper through it at 300dpi, and it comes out real purrty.

I have an hp photosmart printer. I have complained to hp repeatedly that within a day of putting a new ink cartridge in, the printer starts threatening me with warnings of low ink. My normal use shows the cartridge will last for months past that. This makes the printer unreliable for me. Is it really low on ink or not?

The printer is under warranty, but HP refuses to fix the problem. Why? Most likely because they know it's not a problem with the printer but a marketing ploy to help buy Carly her next house.

fark hp, I am longing to buy a dell printer.

Consumer digital photography has been around what? 10 years maybe?? And its already starting to catch up with old, film photography. Say what you want you old farkers but I think the future is clear, in ten years no one is gonna give 2 shiats about your antique film cameras, it will be all digital.

HP also rolled out three digital cameras that can be configured to alert friends and family automatically by e-mail about new photos and store the pictures temporarily on an HP Web site.

I bought a digital camera so my man and I could take nude pictures without the shame of the kid at CVS getting copies.

I can imagine the day my mom signs onto her AOL account...

"You've got mail!"

They need to devote their attention to cheaper ink and paper now. Even though I'd like to buy a photo printer and print my own, it's still cheaper to take my digital images to Costco for prints @ .25 each 4x6

Speaking of Pics, : NO BOBBIES TODAY ?
What's going on?

HP 550 was last good printer HP put out.

I've been spoiled by Tektronix.

[Cool] HP unveils photo printer that surpasses regular photographs

Should read:

[Cool] HP unveils photo printer that surpasses regular photographs, Dell surrenders.

Speaking of putting out!!
need some (o)(o) !!

HP put out a reliable printer? That'll be the day.

cool. guess i can throw this away, then:

that ain't got nothin' on my 50 dpi dot matrix color printer. I can't tell the difference between reality and my printouts.... at least when the peyote hits the cerebrospinal fluid.

How does this prove they are technically superior?

"Respondents preferred the HP print quality to traditional silver halide prints made by a local photo lab, SpencerLab said.

I rest my case.

HP put out a reliable printer? That'll be the day.

All printers suck! I can't wait until we can use electronic ink/digital paper. No moving parts!

Does it print money better than the Treasury Department?

Fester - Allow me.

1 Epson Sylus Color 600 printer. Old, but with 1440x720 resolution. Price when new $150. Price now - real cheap.

Epson inks - $25 for black, $30 for color. Yeah. Right.


Using great quality inks made in China ordered from these guys: $5 for black, $7 for color.

Using third party paper from Officemax or Staples, pretty cheap - depending on what you're trying to do. For standard 5x7's or 8x10's - cheap.


So basically $13 total to refill my printer, ~$10 for a buttload of photo paper = better deal than normal prints.

Are they professional quality? No. But then, how many folks use a $1000+ camera for taking snaps of the parent's anniversary or last Christmas?

I imagine the consumer testing probably was somewhat similar to the Quizno's sub commercials. Digital is getting better, but since a 35mm negative can have somewhere around 28 megapixels, it's going to be a while before digital can beat film. I'm sure the camera they used was an old 110 or something like that.

I've seen the future, and it is digital.

I just got a Minolta Dimage 7i (over 5 megapixels) last Thursday, and shot some models on the beach this weekend. The resolution is amazing, and I can print photo quality on my Canon S820.

I'll still have a soft spot for film, especially b&w, but I'm now fully digitally converted.

looooooooooooove HP printers ... They are indeed the shiz-nit.

Ayandia: Care to share any pics?

I would buy a 10 year old HP laser printer off Ebay any day of the week before buying this new flimsy crap.

Just got an old LaserJet 4 for 60 bucks, toner's gonna be another 50 or so, and it will last for YEARS.

There's no margin on the hardware, they nail you on the consumables. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.

Yeah but is it 3d?

Just for the record: Bah. (This actually is right up my alley) Just a few notes:

They will last 50years in open air? Every claim of archivalness in regards to photos by the major players is always ammended later. I doubt this will be any different.

Digital will take over the mass consumer market. -That is not to say it is a superior product.

If someone buys a photo printer just so they can save money is kidding themselves. My company (which isn't the cheapest) produces 79¢ cdn 4x6 prints from digital files on photo paper. (traditional RA4 process) You can still edit them before having them printed.

Like my crappy eyes can tell the farkin difference.

I would never buy a brand new photo printer from anyone. You get raped now on the cost of ink refills. Any new printer from any of the big guys have smart chips that make refilling hard, putting you at the mercy of the vendor. In one story I read, it was actually cheaper to buy a whole new lexmark printer to get two new cartidges than it was to buy two refill cartridges for the same model.

I'd say wait a year or so until the refill makers have had time to figure out how to consistently get around the smart chips, and until then buy a non-chipped printer. Then, even if you buy original refills, the availability of off-price refills and refill kits brings the price of the originals down.

For example, I currently use an Epson Stylus Color 640 for printing photos. It prints at 1440 dpi on photo paper and the pictures are very, very good quality. A two pack of refill cartridges from Costco is $40, so that's only $20 a cartridge versus $40-$50 for the newer HP, Epson, and Lexmark inkjet cartridges. Costco also sells a 100-pack of Epson photo paper for only $20. So, I print baby pictures for the family 4 up on a page at 4x5, which works out to be quite inexpensive.

I hope Dell sticks it to the printer makers the way they stuck it to the PC makers back in the 90's. It's criminal how HP, Lexmark, and Epson are playing dirty tricks to continue charging huge markups to consumers. Dell is just the company to do this, since this is exactly the game they played with Compaq, etc... back then. It's funny too that HP's comments back at Dell about them not being able to make it in the printer business sound just like the doomsaying PC makers back then too.

Go Dell!

Twid: Don't look for Dell to do it, if you read the reports they are just partnering with somebody (i.e. one of the major players) and their printers will just take the same cartridges and be around the same price.

I've had a LaserJet 5MP for a couple of years (5+?) and it should last for a while longer. The old HP LaserJets (3 and 4's) are still out there going strong.

Fvck Britain.

Yet another HP bait-and-switch printer. Yes, the printer is cool........ yes, it's cheap........ but you'll get screwed over in the long term when it comes to buying ink.

Just buy a laser printer and be done with it.

L'appareil-photo ne sont pas bon comme le fromage stinky. Je me rends!!!!

SpencerLabs is an independent lab hired by HP. How independent are they now? Especially with the comment by Mr. Spencer:

"SpencerLab President David Spencer said in a telephone interview that some ink jet printers from competitors he would not name also produced pictures preferred to the traditional prints, although an HP printer had done best in the test."

Nice credibility. He knows what side of his bread is buttered. The side that's in contact with his new kitchen floor, that's which side.