We have an Epson Stylus Photo ink jet printer and are very happy with it, even
though we haven't got the best out of it yet.  Using the very glossy paper,
the ink rounds up into an orange peel texture which looks bad close up, but is
excellent at any distance.  Set up for this printer took 15 minutes, compared
to two days for the equivalent Canon (which I took back).  It prints good text
and line figures as well as micrographs.  I searched the web for reviews, and
the HP version scored slightly higher, but was purely for photos.  Their
general purpose inkjets are good for both and have proved reliable in our
hands.

For top quality printing, we still use a Codonics even though it is slow and
difficult.  If I was buying again, I would either get the stripped down Kodak
dye sub printer, or the big Fuji.  Has anyone tried the tiny Kodac printer for
micrographs?  Five inch demo prints look as good as the big dye subs, and
claim to only cost 50 cents each (the whole printer $500).

I have no financial interest in the above named products.

David Carter
Genomic Solutions

.:.  oQQQQQ@


In a message dated 6/5/98 8:35:50, [log in to unmask] wrote:

<<As there is again the discussion about printers,
I'd like to ask if anybody tried the new Epson ink jet printers,
which have the resolution of the Stylus 600/800 (1440dpi) but
use 6 colors like the Stylus Photo.
They are said to print with smaller dots,
should be even better then the Stylus 600/800?>>