I have recently been printing with Epson’s ET-8550, an interesting hybrid photo/ office printer with very low running costs. The other piece of LuLa review news is that there is a permanent GFX 100S in the review fleet, and it is in the overhead compartment right now as I set off for the High Sierra of California on the Pacific Crest Trail. The highest resolution (one piece) digital camera in the world in Ansel Adams’ old stomping grounds promises some interesting images and a further review under difficult conditions – I expect the GFX to survive beautifully and bring back superb images , or I wouldn’t have chosen it for a long trip. This piece was written on planes and trains as I head for the Sierra, and doesn’t contain image samples – my impressions of the printer (including image quality) are here, but scanned prints will be in a companion piece when I return

The Epson ET-8550 is the first of Epson’s EcoTank series to be marketed to photographers. Along with its stablemate the ET-8500 ( the only difference is that the 8500 is an 8.5×11” printer, while the 8550 goes to 13×19”), it is a capable entry-level photo printer that might also serve more advanced photographers as a secondary printer. $599 for an entry-level 8.5×11” photo printer is relatively expensive, while the $699 13” version is a better deal. The One Big Feature of these Epsons is the fact that they are EcoTank printers with extraordinarily low running costs. A comparable non-EcoTank 8.5×11” photo printer would probably sell for around $300, while a comparable non-EcoTank 13” model might be around $500. On the other hand, a set of six 70ml ink bottles for the EcoTank printers is around $90, essentially the same price as a set of 7-9 ml cartridges for most entry-level photo printers. The ink cost is literally 10% of that for most comparable printers, and actually cheaper per ml than the bulk cartridges for large format printers. Interestingly, the EcoTank premium on the printer itself is less on the larger model, where the EcoTank feature is also more important -13” printers with tiny cartridges can run through the fastest cartridge to deplete in as few as 20 prints. I can think of few cases where the smaller model makes sense, since the larger ET-8550 is so similarly priced.

Like many entry-level photo printers, these Epsons also scan and copy. The scanner is surprisingly capable – it’s certainly not a high-end photo scanner like Epson’s expensive V series (which scan prints plus every imaginable film format, at very high resolution)., but it is more than the convenience scanner I expected. While it is certainly useful for scanning receipts and the like, it also does a competent job on photos. I used it to scan the sample images in the last installment of A Slew of Similar Sony Sensors, and was surprised at how reasonable a job it did. It has a bit of a “neither fish nor fowl” problem – most all-in one office printers anywhere near this price range would have a document feeder, and most photo-oriented scanners, including some photo-oriented all-in ones, have film scanning capability. Scanners with both in one machine are rare, if not nonexistent, but most all-in ones above the $150 level feature one or the other. The ET series offer neither one. Film scanning would be a more unusual, photo-oriented feature that wouldn’t be especially difficult to implement – or would a document feeder be more welcome? Offering neither on a $600-$700 machine seems unnecessarily stingy.

The ET series are capable plain-paper office printers. I didn’t time the output when I printed text documents, but it was certainly fast – practically, it’s more than fast enough for almost any single user or even for a couple of users to share, and it’s nowhere near sturdy enough to serve a larger workgroup as an office printer, no matter how tempting the ink cost might be. Print quality is also very good – most modern office inkjets do a nice job, and the ET-8550 is certainly right in that range. It’s clearly better than a four year old Epson WorkForce all-in one I had around for comparison. It’s not quite at the level of some of the HP OfficeJets as a text printer. Of course, the gold standard for text printing is a decent laser printer, and no “normal” inkjet is as good as a good laser. I haven’t used the higher-end HPs that claim to be true laser quality, but my suspicion is that they’re quite a bit better than most inkjets – the OfficeJets right below them are notable for their text quality.

Where the ET-8550 shines as an office printer is in combining text and photos. Even on plain paper, it shows its photo printer chops. The combination of an additional gray ink with an unusually sophisticated dithering system with variable drop size allows the ET-8550 to insert much higher-quality photos in a document than a typical office inkjet. It’s not a perfect inverse relationship, but the very best text printers tend to be lousy photo printers, and most good photo printers give up some text quality. Laser printers effectively can’t print photos, and the most text-oriented HP inkjets are notably not good at it. Conversely, I’ve tried printing documents on Canon photo printers, and even the smaller, sheet-fed Pro-10 is not a good text printer. It’s slow, and the quality is nothing to write home about. The ET-8550 is a very good (but not excellent) text printer that is also a very good (but not excellent) photo printer, a better than decent scanner, and an economical machine to use due to the EcoTank feature.

Epson makes an important claim about the ET-8550 as a photo printer. It’s a six-color printer, although that’s a little disingenuous, because they are counting “black” and “ photo black” as two separate colors, when they are never (rarely?) used together. Epson’s non-photo black on this machine is not a matte black in the sense of the ink found on higher-end photo printers. It is a text-optimized pigment black (the ET-8550 is otherwise a dye-ink printer). The real photo ink complement of the ET-8550, by my count, is five – CMYK plus a single gray ink. Epson claims that their printhead technology lets them get away without additional light-color inks.Since they can print five distinct droplet sizes, with the smallest being 1.5 picoliters, they can use the smallest droplet to substitute for light cyan, light magenta and perhaps an additional gray. If it’s true, it’s another important cost savings – light inks run out faster, since they’re ink mixed with distilled water. Unfortunately printer manufacturers universally charge the same amount per ml for water that they do for actual ink – light inks aren’t cheaper because they contain less ink.If they can really achieve the print quality of an eight-ink printer with six inks, and the two eliminated inks are light colors, that’s a significant cost savings. A typical eight-ink printer would have had this type of inkset with a different matte black, plus light cyan and light magenta.
Did they succeed? Tricky to say, because I haven’t used an actual eight-ink printer in years. Most real photo printers these days use 10 to 12 inks, adding not just light colors, but also “kicker” colors – red, green or blue inks (sometimes called “orange” or “violet” ) and sometimes a gloss optimizer. I can’t think of an Epson printer with three light inks (cyan, magenta and gray), but no kickers more recent than the Stylus Pro 3800, released in 2006, although it was on the market for years.

The equally long-lived Stylus Pro 3880; released in 2010, didn’t use any kicker colors, but it was a nine-ink printer with an extra gray. Dpreview’s database, which seems to contain most desktop printers, but NOT the big roll-fed units, shows a Canon 8 ink model released in 2012, but nothing more recent than that. I can think of with serious photo aspirations since then has used kickers. I’m sure there are graphic arts printers more recent than the early 2010s that use a standard eight-ink setup. Many graphic arts machines are only four or six colors, sometimes with two head channels per color to increase speed.
I can say with very good confidence that Epson has succeeded in improving image quality beyond any four-color printer. The ET-8550 clearly has color depth and dynamic range that are respectable for a real photo printer, not an office printer that can occasionally print photos. It doesn’t quite have the image quality of a modern dedicated photo printer with a couple of kicker inks, let alone the big 12 color monsters with multiple kickers and three or even four grays. Is it about like an eight color printer? From my memories of eight color printers, that’s not a bad comparison. While it’s been a while since I’ve used one, I would say a Stylus Pro 3800 or 3880 isn’t far off at all. What would happen if Epson developed an eight-channel version of this head? It might actually be nine channels, with eight in use on a photo (they wouldn’t want to lose that text-oriented black). Give the ET-8550 a red or orange, a green or blue, and one more gray, and it could produce photos close to the level of a top photo printer.
The other tradeoff is that the ET-8550 is a dye based printer. That has two implications – one is print longevity, and the other is paper compatibility. While extreme print longevity has become an obsession, I’m not really all that worried about it with this kind of printer. If you’re printing for posterity, you probably shouldn’t be using a printer like this. When you have your craft to a level that prints need to last hundreds of years, that’s the time for a top-end pigment based printer. If you’re selling art that will live on for generations, you should be using the finest of materials (and there’s no question that that is pigment inks and OBA-free fiber based papers, whether matte art papers, canvas, barytas or platines). On the other hand, you don’t have to learn on those materials. Many photographers through the years learned the craft of the darkroom on resin-coated papers that are far less archival than an ET-8550 print on Epson’s recommended papers. Those who got really serious moved on to fiber papers and archival washing techniques, but they didn’t necessarily start there. The ET-8550 is also at least as archival as the best widely available color darkroom processes ever were. There were a few expensive oddities with very long lifespans, but most of what people were doing is far worse than a really good dye inkjet print.
The problem with that statement is memories. What about all the prints made on this type of printer (and much worse – the ET-8550 has a 30-50 year rating, while some printers and papers are measured in months) where the image isn’t what matters – it’s the memories. Color photography has always had a permanence problem, which black and white silver (and especially platinum) processes do not. Apart from a few odd processes, our color photos from before about 2000 are fading before our eyes. Minilab prints generally have a lifetime of a decade or so at most. Many dye inkjets are similar, although the best are somewhat longer (and the ET-8550 is well into the better end).
How long will digital files last? Theoretically, if they’re continually backed up to media that remain readable, the answer could be forever – but millions of images have been lost to media that can no longer be read, or to sites that have closed down, even if the data are technically fine. Even NASA has lost records from the early days of space flight. The tapes are actually not damaged, but there is no tape drive still operational that can read them.
Pigment inkjet is actually the exception, not the rule, for color photography. It is a widely accessible, somewhat affordable process that ranges between mostly and fully archival. If prints are only worth making using archival processes, that rules out not only dye inkjet, but also almost all of the other color processes that brought us generations of beauty before pigment inkjet arrived. If we decided that only pigment prints are worth making, we’d be consigning the joy of printing to only the photographers who can afford a $1000+ machine with expensive inks, or those who can pay $2000 or more for a printer whose inks are more reasonably priced. The beauty of the ET-8550 is that it’s a relatively affordable printer, with very affordable ink, that gives newer or less financially stable photographers a chance to learn. It’s one of the very few (if not the only) sub $1000 photo printers on the market that doesn’t use tiny, massively expensive cartridges.
The more serious concern than “it’s not fully archival” is the limited paper compatibility. Epson promotes the ET-8550 as working with a wider range of papers than less expensive dye-based photo printers, but it doesn’t really. It IS compatible with Epson’s Velvet Fine Art paper, which gives one matte watercolor paper option, but almost all of the other photo paper options are relatively low end resin-coated papers. The fact that it comes with a profile for Epson Velvet suggests that other lighter-weight matte art papers might be compatible with a bit of profile hacking. The driver is designed to use the provided profiles for a range of Epson papers, and I didn’t have a profile for anything else to experiment with whether it might recognize an external profile.
It will probably be a difficult printer to find profiles for, too. No major paper manufacturer other than Epson is supplying any profiles yet… What might eventually arrive? I’d put at least some Red River papers in the “probably” category – they already have profiles for a few other EcoTank models and many other dye-based Epsons. Will they include the more interesting papers? Both Hahnemuhle and Moab are at least possibilities – they offer profiles for a few Epson dye inkjets, and this is one of the more photo- oriented models to come out in some time. Canson Infinity seems unlikely, since every Epson printer they support so far is a pigment model. It should be possible to make custom profiles, but that seems like a lot of effort for this type of printer. Profiling hardware is expensive, and it is somewhat difficult and time-consuming to use. Easier to use profiling hardware exists, but is several times the price of this printer.
In addition to the profile issue, there is no fully compatible paper in the fiber-based gloss category, including barytas, platines and similar papers. Since those are among my favorite papers, their compatibility was an early question I had for Epson’s team. My first question for Epson was whether the printer would work with either Epson Legacy Baryta or Platine. They said that both are too thick, and that none of the Legacy papers would be supported. I then asked about Exhibition Fiber, in their Signature Worthy collection, which they claim to support on the ET-8550. What I heard back is that Exhibition Fiber should work, especially through the single-sheet feed (maybe through other paper paths), but that it will require a custom profile. With the exception of high-end photographers for whom the ET-8550 is a second printer that splits its time between office prints and small sheet-fed photo jobs (which is actually one appealing use case), most ET-8550 owners are unlikely to have profiling hardware. Hopefully, Epson will see the interest and add a profile to an updated driver release. The other good news about Exhibition Fiber being a possibility is that similar papers should be as well. Some of the more affordable barytas and the like from Red River might be a good match, and Red River IS known to profile dye-based Epsons with a lot of their papers.

It’s probably best to think of the ET-8550 as a resin-coated paper printer with a few additional compatibilities. For a relatively entry-level photo printer, that may not be a deal-breaker. There are a few nice resin-coated papers out there, and one of my favorites is Epson’s Ultra Premium Luster. It’s a nice luster surface, looking much like a really good semi-gloss RC darkroom paper. No, it isn’t anywhere near as nice as a good Platine, but it’s also less than half the price per sheet. With the ET-8550’s focus on being a good photo printer with a very reasonable running cost, rather than an ultimate quality printer, Ultra Premium Luster is a good match.

Setup can be a bit tricky, especially if you’ve never dealt with a large photo printer. While it is a smaller printer, its remote ink system adds complication to the point that it’s more comparable to a 24” printer to set up than it is to most 13” desktop printers. Unlike a 24” printer, it’s not especially big or heavy, and most people will be able to get it in place without assistance. Like the big printers, it has a great deal of packing tape securing various pieces (I’ve set up ten or more big printers over the years, and I STILL missed some tape). It has an ink-charging routine that involves loading ink from bottles into the internal tanks. Epson has done a good job minimizing the potential for spillage, but you’re transferring liquid ink – the possibility for a mess (perhaps an expensive one) exists.

The most complex part of the setup is an annoying six-part alignment routine. The printer spits out several sheets with very slightly different patterns, and you have to choose the best by eye. It is much finer than most alignments on office-type printers, so the patterns are more difficult to choose among by eye. I didn’t have one handy, but a loupe or magnifying glass might help. Most large format printers actually have internal image sensors just for alignment and color management, so they do much of this automatically. The printer prints the target, then sucks it back in to read. While that is probably too expensive to add to a $600-$700 machine, there is a simple solution. This is an all-in one printer that includes a scanner! There’s a much better image sensor than the large-format printers use sitting right on top of the printer. It wouldn’t be fully automatic in the same way, but having users put the alignment target on the scanner is far simpler than making them choose among nearly identical patterns.

Once it’s set up, it’s mostly a simple printer to use. It defaults to a wi-fi connection, which is easy to set up – the big, high resolution screen really helps, after years of trying to set up wi-fi on printers with tiny screens. Both USB and Ethernet are also provided, along with a USB device port for a memory key and an SD card slot. I didn’t try connecting a card reader for a non-SD format to the device port, but it might well provide direct printing from CFExpress or XQD. Since it supports both Apple and Google versions of direct printing from phones, it seems to have just about every interface possibility known to photographers.

It has multiple paper paths, including a front cassette (which is letter-sized even on the larger 8550), a rear vertical tray and a rear horizontal single-sheet feed. The vertical tray doesn’t take up nearly as much space behind the printer as some of them do, because it is more nearly vertical. It feeds Ultra Premium Luster just fine, but I wonder how much thicker a paper would make the turn. The rear single sheet feed would require a lot of space behind the printer- I haven’t used it, because I don’t have any compatible paper thick enough to need it at present. It doesn’t seem terribly practical unless the printer is on a desk in the middle of a room, but it’s also not needed very often, since this isn’t the right printer for super thick papers. I got caught on my first print because the cassette loads paper print side down, but the vertical feed loads it print side forward. I tried to print on the BACK of some Premium Glossy, which doesn’t accept ink, and wound up making a mess of the rollers (easy to clean). It IS marked, but Epson could make the markings clearer. When you really think about the paper path, it would have to work that way, but it isn’t immediately intuitive.

For the most part, it’s a nicely designed, and apparently sturdy printer. It has a remarkably small footprint for a 13x 19” photo printer, not much larger than many letter-sized photo printers.It’s quiet in operation, and it seems to have little tendency to jam or clog, although both of those will require longer-term testing to really uncover – it’s certainly not in the group of printers that are always jamming or clogging. The one feature that seem a little too cute to be as sturdy as it should be is the automatic output tray. To keep the printer compact, the front cassette (remember that it’s letter-sized, even on a 13×19” printer) lives entirely under the printer. The output tray automatically extends from the front of the printer when needed, but it does not automatically retract. I was manually pushing the tray back in (which is actually mentioned in the manual as an acceptable practice) when I needed to add paper to the cassette under the tray. There is enough resistance that manually retracting the tray doesn’t feel like a good idea in the long term – it feels like you’re pushing back on plastic gears, and might eventually strip them. The correct answer is that there is a button on the touch screen that retracts the tray, although it’s not terribly well marked.

Ink consumption is certainly reasonable. About 35 photo prints, about 1/4 of which are 12×18”, along with 25 pages or so of office printing (including numerous pages with photographs), have dropped the ink levels by about 1/8 tank from where they were when the printer finished charging the lines. The software-based ink monitoring isn’t as fully automated as on printers with cartridges. You have to reset the level to full when you add ink (it does automatically stop filling ink when it reaches the full line, so there is no danger of overfilling the tanks). On the other hand, it is one of the few printers with a primarily visual, hardware based ink monitoring system.

The tanks are translucent and located in the front of the printer, so the easiest way to see how much ink is left is simply to look in the tank. Epson thoughtfully provides markings at 1/4 tank intervals on the front of the tanks, making visual estimation easier. The tanks are tall enough that 1/10 tank markings would have fit, and might have been useful.

Who’s it best for? Photographers who print seriously on a larger printer may well want to consider an ET-8550 as an office printer. It does a great job of everything expected of an office inkjet, including unusually good plain paper photos. It can also produce cards, promo pieces and other little things that are a pain to print on a roll-fed printer, and both the quality and archival properties are much more than sufficient for that job. It’s no more expensive than producing those things on the roll-fed printer, because the ink cost is actually lower (most desktop photo printers have ink costs 3-5 times that of their roll-fed cousins, and up to 10 times those of the ET-8550)The one caveat is to be aware of the BACK of the paper you plan to use, if you intend to write on the back side.

Many of the Epson resin-coated papers are watermarked on the back, and some are nearly impossible to write on. If you’re producing a postcard to advertise your business, that may not be a problem, but it doesn’t make for an ideal greeting card. There are certainly resin-coated papers with non-watermarked, writeable backs, and some of the non-Epson ones may be close enough to Epson papers to use their profiles, especially for less critical applications. I would also expect profiles for some of the Red River options in relatively short order. The other option is to use a compatible matte photo paper – most of those should have acceptable backs and some are even double-sided.

Another group of users who might appreciate the ET-8550 are photographers who are interested in printing, but not yet ready for a top-end dedicated photo printer, especially if they also want the office printing and scanning features. For a premium of a couple hundred dollars over a comparable EcoTank printer without the photo capabilities, you get a printer that encourages you to explore photo printing. Since ink and its preferred papers are both reasonably priced, there is little financial penalty to remaking a print until you like it.

That leads to the third likely user group, and perhaps the ideal one. High school and college photo classes, adult education centers and the like need a reasonably priced printer with low running costs. The quality is fine for that use, and most schools have used resin coated paper going back to darkroom days. I learned to print on fiber-based paper, but I think my high school was unusual in that regard. The feature set of the ET-8550 is just about ideal for schools, where cartridge costs make most small printers impractical and the cost of the machines means that big roll printers are scarce – many students may have to share a single printer. A school can afford five or six ET-8550s for every Pro-2000 or P7570 they could install. The only concern I would have would be durability-especially that output tray. The big roll-fed printers are beasts. If you print enough to keep from clogging them, they’ll run for years. Since the ET-8550 is brand new, data on longevity are not yet available, but it’s built like a good quality consumer inkjet, not a giant graphic arts printer.

In conclusion, Highly Recommended for photographers who need both a mid- level photo printer that does well on sheets of reasonably priced paper AND an office printer. It’s a bit pricey for either alone, but if you can use both halves of its split personality, it’s a good value (even more so if a pretty good scanner and a convenience copier have value). Recommend for photographers who do significant volumes of smaller prints, if the paper selection is OK. Unfortunately, it’s not very transportable, as a direct consequence of the EcoTank design. You need to lock the print head and carry it level once it’s full of ink, and Epson provides a plastic bag in case of accident. It would be a nearly perfect event printer if it could be moved -and it’s still just the right printer to churn out baseball cards and such if “back in the studio” is acceptable. Highly Recommended for photographers who have a hybrid of these two uses – as a smaller adjunct to a big photo printer, and as an office printer/scanner. Highly Recommended in educational setting, assuming the durability pans out. Not recommended for super high end printing – it has aspirations to be a fine art printer, but the archival qualities, paper selection and print quality aren’t quite there.

A version of the ET-8550 with a few more inks and broader paper compatibility could really shake up the upper midrange of the photo printer market, where mid-priced printers with tiny cartridges compete with the likes of the Epson P5000, a 115 lb behemoth – nice sized cartridges, but three times the size and more than twice the price of the ET-8550. What if Epson could make an advanced model of this printer for $899? Dye inks, but compatible with most art and photo papers… 13*19”, no roll feeder, but EcoTank with very low running costs. Color gamut like a 12-ink printer, but based on eight or nine inks and the tiny droplets?

Dan Wells

June 2021

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.