Summary This product is terrible with my printer. I set the print quality settings according to the recommendations for the paper for my Epson Photo R800 printer on the Kodak website. The prints used far too much ink and as a result looked more like a watercolour than a photo! Experimenting with the print settings, the best results were obtained by setting the paper type to plain paper and reducing the print quality as much as possible. A clear improvement over the recommended settings but still using too much ink for the paper, besides not being able to take advantage of the print quality available from the printer. I will be throwing out the remainder of this package of paper and reverting to genuine Epson paper, with which I have obtained superb results in the past. Perhaps there are settings for other printers that allow acceptable use of this paper, but not on an Epson Photo R800.
Strengths Cheap
Weaknesses Print settings do not allow acceptable prints on this paper with an Epson Photo R800 printer.
Summary I had purchased this paper thinking that all photo paper was very similar. Boy, Was I wrong! I condemned my Epson Photo Stylus Color printer to storage because I only used this photo paper with it. The prints were washed out and streaky. I was sure my Epson was the problem. Who in the world would ever have thought that it would be the paper? I didn't realize this until I tested the paper in my HP K80 and new Canon MP530. I tested different paper types and only realized how dispicably awful this paper was until I put it in the MP530 (unbelievable printer!). It rendered the otherwise amazing prints from this printer to utterly unusable crap. Faded, blurred, washed-out, metalic are some of the adjectives that come to mind when viewing pictures on this paper. Seriously... if they give this paper to you, throw it away. You a better off printing your pictures on recycled paper! BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP EVER!!!!
Strengths Nice looking packaging.
Weaknesses Don't open the package, it goes downhill from there!
Similar Products Used HP Glossy Photo Paper
Giorgia Matt Photo Paper
Staples Matt Photo Paper
Summary I purchased four packs of Kodak Picture Paper, based on the reputation of Kodak products. An expensive mistake - this is quite the worst paper I have ever come across. On my HP printer, the prints are blurred, washed-out, and appear to be viewed through a veil of fog. These faults have proved impossible to correct by any changes in the printing parameters. Replacing the Kodak paper with Hewlett Packard Premium paper instaneously results in perfect photo-quality prints - proving that it is the Kodak paper which is the problem.
I gave some of the paper to friends to try on their Epson printer - surprisingly the results were even worse than with my HP printer, and similarily, quite unusable. None of us are able to use this paper for any purpose at all; no-one wants it, and I can't even give it away.
Consequently, the four 75 sheet packets I purchased are useless, and therefore all 300 sheets have been consigned to the dustbin.
Best place for them.
Strengths None
Weaknesses Useless for any type of photographic printing
Similar Products Used Hewlett Packard Premium paper (excellent)
Fuji Premium paper (almost as good as HP)
Various others
Summary I bought this paper initially because it seemed like a good value. However, compared with other photo papers that I've used (HP and Epson), Kodak Picture Paper is the worst. Their higher quality Ultima and Premium papers may be better but there is something about Kodak Picture Paper that causes darker dots from my inkjet printer to really stand out. Color gradations (especially fleshtones) look too dark and "pixelated" due to the prominent dark ink dots.
This is definitely an issue with the paper. I didn't have the same problem with other photo papers.
Strengths Lower cost than most photo papers
Weaknesses Dark inkjet dots show up way too prominently, especially in fleshtones
Similar Products Used Epson photo paper, HP Premium photo paper
(2 views/week)
1 of 5
1 of 5
4 of 5
3 of 5
2 of 5
