WOW! And I thought the Epson Stylys Photo 2200 was a killer printer!

The Epson Stylus Photo R2400 beats the snot out of it! Especially for non-matte prints, but wow... pigment-based printing has come a long way.

(my coworkers will be stunned to see the plain paper quality; I'm saving the higher grade stuff for gallery prints/sales.)

I also just found this comparison site:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-10.htm

Not that I'm an "Epson Whore" or anything, mind you... :D

Cheaper than just uploading the images to Walmart.com photo processing? What about for archiving family photos... do the colors and papers last? Will they withstand holding, touching, mailing, photo albums... etc. Or will all that use cause the inks to smudge and flake away from the paper?

I know of many lower end photo printers, most of which are Epson w/pigment inks that cost 29 cents per print.

I typically print 8x10", but more often 11x14, 11x17, 13x19", or 13x44" pano photos and with the ability to make collage posters, it's far more suitable for my needs than shithouse's prices (I thought wallyworld was a no-no around here anyway, so it's amusing you mention them specifically...)

Yes. The papers do last. I've had 2.2 year old printouts (from the 2200) whose paper has yet to discolor or tarnish. And those I never bothered to put behind glass. Funny, that...

I've made bumper stickers that sit out in direct sunlight all the doo-dah-day and STILL hadn't begun to fade after 14 months. (the paper turned to shit, but the packaging said "2-3 week use only".)

Pigment based inks are known for far greater stability and longevity than dye-based printers. (my 5 year old collage I made has faded quite a bit, and that was printed from a HP wide-format dye-based printer AND kept behind glass, albeit not glass that has a UV-coat on it. I'm amazed it hasn't discolored, but it has faded.) Epson claims 100+ year lifespan if kept behind glass. Given what my printouts have more than merely tolerated conditions far outside their conditions, I'm prepared to believe them given that this is a pigement-based printer and not a dye-based one. (Canon claims 25 years for their i9900, but it's still dye-based and I prefer quality and longevity over cheap instant cash that'd leave the customer angry in the end anyway. Sorry, but I'm not the likes of a typical corporate mindset.)

And, yes, you do have to be careful handling paper. Of course, it's inadvisable to start touching ANY inkjet-based output... of course, if people are prone to mishandling things, that's their stupidity and not mine.

Pigment based inks are also infinitely less prone toward smudgng/water than ANY dye based printer. No smudging, no flaking, no nuttin'. Again, we'll turn to that bumper sticker (which was housed OUTSIDE of the car and not taped inside the window) and it withstood lots of rain AND snow.

Why not look it up? There are tons of sources out there and I've never noted you to be dim or lacking in being inquisitive. :-) I've got 6 links of my own I could send your way too... (well, anyone who buys a $850 wide-format printer to merely print 4x6" prints is a twat. It's made for larger sizes and the Epson pigment-based printer that's made FOR 4x6 puny prints is about 80% cheaper and whose prints are about 25 cents each.) Of course, before you start adding up component costs, consider gas costs, time to drive to and from walmart, wear and tear on the car, and in the end that factor can more or less be cancelled out.

But plenty of sources have prasied the printer for being a VIABLE alternative to photo lab processing or chemical-based processing and at $40 per 13x19" image, you bet I'm buying my own equipment instead.

... I overlooked that detail.

Yep, I go to walmart... I guess I'll just have to be disowned.

Thanks for the extra info.

-- Allen