I have to agree with Luke's comments. Not only do HP's prints look awful anyway (that printer's a 3-color printer with no black ink), but they only get that level of longevity on their most expensive paper that nobody likes. The Epson results are on all of their more common papers.
On the one hand, the argument in Epson's favor has always been who cares how long the print takes to make, or if it's a 5x7 (some HP portables do 5x7 in addition to 4x6) if it's faded in ten years. In this case, though, it's who cares if the photo lasts a few years longer (out of 100) if it looked like crap to begin with?
Besides, the odds of your photo having come in contact with moisture in that 100 year timespan is pretty good, and the Epson prints will have survived that while the HPs won't.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I have to agree with Luke's comments. Not only do HP's prints look awful anyway (that printer's a 3-color printer with no black ink), but they only get that level of longevity on their most expensive paper that nobody likes. The Epson results are on all of their more common papers.
On the one hand, the argument in Epson's favor has always been who cares how long the print takes to make, or if it's a 5x7 (some HP portables do 5x7 in addition to 4x6) if it's faded in ten years. In this case, though, it's who cares if the photo lasts a few years longer (out of 100) if it looked like crap to begin with?
Besides, the odds of your photo having come in contact with moisture in that 100 year timespan is pretty good, and the Epson prints will have survived that while the HPs won't.