Although printers are normally discussed in another area, it seems to me that photo printers are almost as important to quality digital photography as the camera. I am curious about what printer you use for your professional, or quality amateur work. I have been using an Epson 960 for a couple of years and have been very happy with it. My complaints with it have to do with the fact that there are parts of it that do not seem well designed and built, the fact that the printer takes an unique ink cartridge that must be ordered online or from a large retailer, and that because of the ink one can not use certain papers such as most HP stocks. I have always like the quality of the prints -- and I like that it prints on CD/DVDs. But today I received a new Epson R1800. So far, I do not see a dramatic jump in quality (though I'm very satisfied), but I've tested an HP paper stock that I like for brochures and the printer produced a great print without any bubbling or smearing of the ink. So far so good. (I like using Ilford paper for medium quality photo work and Epson Luster for higher quality prints.) Reviews stated that the printer was "built like a tank" -- but if the U.S. army builds tanks like this our military is in serious trouble. I'm not saying that it seems cheap -- but compared to a ten year old Epson printer I have, this one seems filmsy. The biggest upgrade seems to be the way the printer feeds the CD/DVD holder -- it is a 100% improvement over the way CDs are feed into the 960.