Herb, I threw my 820 in the trash recently. When it worked, it produced great photos - but the heads would clog easily and I used lots of ink to try to clear them. One real downside to Epson is that the heads are not user replaceable. One bad clog and it's back to Epson to get it fixed. When you only pay $100 in the first place, it isn't even worth it to get fixed. The 820 followed an Epson 785 thrown in the trash for the same problem. Both inexpensive to purchase, both poor quality materials. I still have an old Epson 870 that is running just fine. Now my main printer is a new HP 7350. It is adequate for the occasional print. I have found that my local lab that has 2 Agfa D-Labs (similar to Fuji Frontier - seems to be better control - maybe operator). They can print my stuff as cheap and far better at color correction than I am.
Bruce Saturday, October 19, 2002, 6:26:14 AM, you wrote: HC> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>I have occasion to see the portfolios of some very high end HC> photographers at my place of work. These are the guys who get 10K a day HC> just to shoot. Almost all of them print their portfolio photos on Epson HC> inkjet printers. HC> Paul Stenquist< HC> and what's more is the a plain Epson 820 printer for $150 list and HC> sometimes available for $100 after rebate, is capable of doing that kind of HC> quality too. unfortunately, with dye inks, they are not archival in HC> lightfastness. HC> Herb....
