«

I have heard that the new Epson durabrite printers can print a quality
colour photograph on plain paper and that it would be hard to tell the
difference between this and a print on photographic paper. Does anyone have
any experience with this new durabright ink? Is there a great deal of
difference in quality between prints with DuraBrite on plain paper and
photographic paper? Would a printer such as the Epson Stylus C63 be as good
as the Epson StylusPhoto range? Details of the C63 can be seen here:

http://www.epson.co.nz/products/prin...p?printerid=39

Thanks for your help.

Bob

"Rob B" <> wrote in message
news1Vtb.7588$...
> I have heard that the new Epson durabrite printers can print a quality
> colour photograph on plain paper and that it would be hard to tell the
> difference between this and a print on photographic paper. Does anyone
have
> any experience with this new durabright ink? Is there a great deal of
> difference in quality between prints with DuraBrite on plain paper and
> photographic paper? Would a printer such as the Epson Stylus C63 be as
good
> as the Epson StylusPhoto range? Details of the C63 can be seen here:
>
> http://www.epson.co.nz/products/prin...p?printerid=39
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Bob
>
>

I print up to 8x10 on my Epson 870. Although it doesn't have the new
Durabrite inks, on the right paper (usually Premium Luster) and with the
right image it looks just as good as a traditional print.

Mark

I purchased an Epson C80 a year ago. When printing on plain paper it
was the best I had seen. The images were sharp with no bleeding around
the edges. There was no trace of ink on the backside of the sheet
either, and the sheet did not ripple either like most other inkjets
would do. And of course the Durabrite inks did not run even when
submerged under water. This would have been a great printer for
creating brochures or CD/Video labels.

As good as the quality was, photos on plain paper lack the gloss and
feel of photos on photographic paper.

The problems with these inks on photo paper is that they block the
gloss of the paper from showing through. In areas with a lot of ink
(darker areas) the photo appears flat, while in areas with little ink
the photo appears glossy. This wasn't a good look at all. It was
unacceptable to me so I got rid of the printer.

Some users have suggested only printing on low gloss paper would mask
the problem, but I prefer glossy photos.

Rick

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:55:05 +1300, "Rob B" <> wrote:

>I have heard that the new Epson durabrite printers can print a quality
>colour photograph on plain paper and that it would be hard to tell the
>difference between this and a print on photographic paper. Does anyone have
>any experience with this new durabright ink? Is there a great deal of
>difference in quality between prints with DuraBrite on plain paper and
>photographic paper? Would a printer such as the Epson Stylus C63 be as good
>as the Epson StylusPhoto range? Details of the C63 can be seen here:
>
>http://www.epson.co.nz/products/prin...p?printerid=39
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Bob
>

"Fat Boy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I purchased an Epson C80 a year ago. When printing on plain paper it
> was the best I had seen. The images were sharp with no bleeding around
> the edges. There was no trace of ink on the backside of the sheet
> either, and the sheet did not ripple either like most other inkjets
> would do. And of course the Durabrite inks did not run even when
> submerged under water. This would have been a great printer for
> creating brochures or CD/Video labels.
>
> As good as the quality was, photos on plain paper lack the gloss and
> feel of photos on photographic paper.
>
> The problems with these inks on photo paper is that they block the
> gloss of the paper from showing through. In areas with a lot of ink
> (darker areas) the photo appears flat, while in areas with little ink
> the photo appears glossy. This wasn't a good look at all. It was
> unacceptable to me so I got rid of the printer.
>
> Some users have suggested only printing on low gloss paper would mask
> the problem, but I prefer glossy photos.
>
> Rick

Thanks very much Rick for this explanation. I guess that photos and
documents printed on plain paper on the C63 using the durabrite
inks would be better than the results you could get on plain paper
from the more expensive photographic printers? If so, this would
appear to be the main advantage of the C63 durabrite system.

Bob

"Rob B" <> wrote in message
news:abyub.8166$...

>>Snip<<

> Thanks very much Rick for this explanation. I guess that photos and
> documents printed on plain paper on the C63 using the durabrite
> inks would be better than the results you could get on plain paper
> from the more expensive photographic printers? If so, this would
> appear to be the main advantage of the C63 durabrite system.
>
> Bob
>


The C63 is a (c84 USmodel) does great on matte paper also. The main
advantage to the durabrite inks is the ability to withstand water