Hi group,

My Stylus Photo 870 was having problems with fluff & blocked heads. I took
it apart and mopped up the (considerable quantities of) excess ink and
cleaned out the detritus. This solved the fluff problem, but blocked more
of the nozzles. On the suggestion of somebody from this NG, I tried to get
isopropyl alcohol to clean the heads, but couldn't get hold of any, so
bought some proprietary head cleaning fluid from PC World.

As the heads in the 870 are not easily accessible, I put some of the
cleaning fluid on a strip of absorbent paper and wiped the head from
underneath using the paper. I also (at the suggestion of this group)
squirted some into the ink reservoir nozzles (the plastic nozzle where the
reservoir slots onto) to clear it through.

Things have gone from bad to worse and now about 2/3 of the black nozzles
are blocked (the cartridge is almost new) and about 20% of the colour
nozzles are blocked.

I could try new cartridges, but should I cut my losses, ditch the printer
and get a new one? It seems to have all the characteristics of being donald
ducked.

And if so, would the group recommend the Epson 1290, or should I spend the
(considerable amount) extra and go for a 2100 (2200)?

TIA
David.

Do you need the wide format? The prints from the 2100 will last longer but
the look of the prints will be better on the 1290.


"David French" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bskdfi$ds690$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi group,
>
> My Stylus Photo 870 was having problems with fluff & blocked heads. I
took
> it apart and mopped up the (considerable quantities of) excess ink and
> cleaned out the detritus. This solved the fluff problem, but blocked more
> of the nozzles. On the suggestion of somebody from this NG, I tried to
get
> isopropyl alcohol to clean the heads, but couldn't get hold of any, so
> bought some proprietary head cleaning fluid from PC World.
>
> As the heads in the 870 are not easily accessible, I put some of the
> cleaning fluid on a strip of absorbent paper and wiped the head from
> underneath using the paper. I also (at the suggestion of this group)
> squirted some into the ink reservoir nozzles (the plastic nozzle where the
> reservoir slots onto) to clear it through.
>
> Things have gone from bad to worse and now about 2/3 of the black nozzles
> are blocked (the cartridge is almost new) and about 20% of the colour
> nozzles are blocked.
>
> I could try new cartridges, but should I cut my losses, ditch the printer
> and get a new one? It seems to have all the characteristics of being
donald
> ducked.
>
> And if so, would the group recommend the Epson 1290, or should I spend the
> (considerable amount) extra and go for a 2100 (2200)?
>
> TIA
> David.
>
>

Have a look at the Canon i960. They say quality is excellent and ink
costs minimal.

Dave

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:54:12 -0000, "David French"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi group,
>
>My Stylus Photo 870 was having problems with fluff & blocked heads. I took
>it apart and mopped up the (considerable quantities of) excess ink and
>cleaned out the detritus. This solved the fluff problem, but blocked more
>of the nozzles. On the suggestion of somebody from this NG, I tried to get
>isopropyl alcohol to clean the heads, but couldn't get hold of any, so
>bought some proprietary head cleaning fluid from PC World.
>
>As the heads in the 870 are not easily accessible, I put some of the
>cleaning fluid on a strip of absorbent paper and wiped the head from
>underneath using the paper. I also (at the suggestion of this group)
>squirted some into the ink reservoir nozzles (the plastic nozzle where the
>reservoir slots onto) to clear it through.
>
>Things have gone from bad to worse and now about 2/3 of the black nozzles
>are blocked (the cartridge is almost new) and about 20% of the colour
>nozzles are blocked.
>
>I could try new cartridges, but should I cut my losses, ditch the printer
>and get a new one? It seems to have all the characteristics of being donald
>ducked.
>
>And if so, would the group recommend the Epson 1290, or should I spend the
>(considerable amount) extra and go for a 2100 (2200)?
>
>TIA
>David.
>

"Safetymom123" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:KqkHb.8983$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do you need the wide format? The prints from the 2100 will last longer but
> the look of the prints will be better on the 1290.

Really? I was under the impression that the 2100 would produce the better
prints. I'm not that bothered about longevity. If the quality is better on
the 1290 then I'd rather save the money as it's about 2/3 the price.

I would like to go A3 if I'm going to upgrade. CD printing would be a
bonus.

David

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Have a look at the Canon i960. They say quality is excellent and ink
> costs minimal.

The i965 appears to be A4 and I'm really looking for A3. The S9000 is
cheaper than the Epson 2100 but I've read that the print quality is not as
good. Quality's what I'm after above other considerations. But having said
that, if output is comparable, the idea of not having to shell out a good
proportion of my disposable income on ink is quite appealing.

Anybody have any comments as to how the print quality from the Epson 1290
compares to the dearer Canon S9000?

Tx
David.

"David French" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bsksi3$dek76$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Anybody have any comments as to how the print quality from the Epson 1290
> compares to the dearer Canon S9000?

Looking into the Canon side a bit more, I see there is a highly respected
i9100 as well. Where does this fit in with the S9000? It's a little bit
dearer, but not that much.

The general view, snooping around a few bulletin boards, seems to be that
the i9100 is better quality than S9000, Epson 1290 and Epson 2100 for glossy
photo prints. Anybody have any comments on this?

Also it seems the Canons (particularly the S9000) are a bit thirsty on the
ol' ink?

Why don't Canon make their naming conventions a bit less cryptic? Their
camera naming is just as bad!

David.

David,
You need to understand that the inks on the Epson 2200 are pigmented and
the inks on the Epson 1280(1290) and the Canon are Dye inks. The color
gamut of the dyes is greater than the ultrachromes (pigmented) on the
2200(2100). The dye inks have generally much more brilliant color. I
have seen the output of the Canon 9000 and the Epson 1280 (1290) and
there is less difference than between the 2200 and either of those two.

Also, the pigmented inks on the 2200(2100) have a problem with glossy
papers called 'Bronzing'. In short the ink sets on top of the paper
coating and the gloss doesn't show thru. This can be objectionable. If
you want very nice glossy surfaces in your prints - don't go pigmented
inks.

One more thing. There are almost NO third party inks for the 2200(2100)
and refilling the carts is not an option at this time.

Also check into the HP 9650 with the new (dye based) UV ink set (the #58
cart) with HP Premium + glossy paper rated at 70 years by Henry Willheim
- $399.00 USD

"James Dunn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Y3pHb.557$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David,
> You need to understand that the inks on the Epson 2200 are pigmented and
> the inks on the Epson 1280(1290) and the Canon are Dye inks. The color
> gamut of the dyes is greater than the ultrachromes (pigmented) on the
> 2200(2100). The dye inks have generally much more brilliant color. I
> have seen the output of the Canon 9000 and the Epson 1280 (1290) and
> there is less difference than between the 2200 and either of those two.
>
> Also, the pigmented inks on the 2200(2100) have a problem with glossy
> papers called 'Bronzing'. In short the ink sets on top of the paper
> coating and the gloss doesn't show thru. This can be objectionable. If
> you want very nice glossy surfaces in your prints - don't go pigmented
> inks.
>
> One more thing. There are almost NO third party inks for the 2200(2100)
> and refilling the carts is not an option at this time.
>
> Also check into the HP 9650 with the new (dye based) UV ink set (the #58
> cart) with HP Premium + glossy paper rated at 70 years by Henry Willheim
> - $399.00 USD

Thanks James, it's starting to become clear now. You may have just saved me
quite a bit of money.

As the High Street stores and manufacturers seem unable to provide anything
in the form of sample prints, I'm shooting a bit blind. Who is going to
nail their colours to the mast and tell me which one they think I should
buy?

Just to reiterate:
- mainly glossy photo printing, up to A3 size
- quality is first priority
- with quality being equal, I'd be happier with lower ink costs & a CD
printing facility

TIA
David.

"David French" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bsm75f$drtno$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Thanks James, it's starting to become clear now. You may have just saved
me
> quite a bit of money.

Before you decide I would try and get test prints done of your favorite
image on all the printers mentioned. I settled on the Epson 2100 because I
want my prints to last and the "defects" claimed for pigment inks didn't
look that bad to my untrained eye.

There is quite an interesting review of the 2100 here....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson2200.shtml

and other interesting reviews here

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/

"CWatters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uKDHb.101022$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Before you decide I would try and get test prints done of your favorite
> image on all the printers mentioned.

I'd love to, but the manufacturers don't exactly fall over themselves to
make test prints available, and the high street shops don't even know which
end to put the paper in - perish the thought of actually connecting one to a
computer and making test prints. It's like buying a car and being told you
can't test drive it.

Come back specialist local shops, all is forgiven.

D