Refill inks from Atlascopy

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm evaluating Atlascopy do-it-yourself refill inks for the Canon BC-3
tanks in my Canon i550 printer, using an older version of this color
scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html. At the right end of each
of the color rows, the squares in each row are vivid and with distinct
colors. As the squares get progressively darker, each of the rows of
colors shifts color toward a muddy green.

I've played with the printer profiles, adding more magenta and yellow,
but still can't get acceptable results.

I've used Canon high gloss paper and Kodak Picture Paper. The same color
shifts occur on both brands.

Any suggestions other than returning to Canon inks or buying tanks
already refilled by some other company (like those sold at Best Buy)?

Anyone else have bad experiences with Atlascopy products?

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:29:55 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
wrote:

>I'm evaluating Atlascopy do-it-yourself refill inks for the Canon BC-3
>tanks in my Canon i550 printer, using an older version of this color
>scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html. At the right end of each
>of the color rows, the squares in each row are vivid and with distinct
>colors. As the squares get progressively darker, each of the rows of
>colors shifts color toward a muddy green.
>
>I've played with the printer profiles, adding more magenta and yellow,
>but still can't get acceptable results.
>
>I've used Canon high gloss paper and Kodak Picture Paper. The same color
>shifts occur on both brands.
>
>Any suggestions other than returning to Canon inks or buying tanks
>already refilled by some other company (like those sold at Best Buy)?
>
>Anyone else have bad experiences with Atlascopy products?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ray


Ive been down that road once myself and only once as I did not trust
any ink but formulabs

www.alotofthings.com

Ask Joe if your particular cartridge is formulabs to make sure. If
not, you might consider bulk refill ink from him.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

beezer wrote:

> On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:29:55 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm evaluating Atlascopy do-it-yourself refill inks for the Canon BC-3
>>tanks in my Canon i550 printer, using an older version of this color
>>scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html. At the right end of each
>>of the color rows, the squares in each row are vivid and with distinct
>>colors. As the squares get progressively darker, each of the rows of
>>colors shifts color toward a muddy green.
>>
>>I've played with the printer profiles, adding more magenta and yellow,
>>but still can't get acceptable results.
>>
>>I've used Canon high gloss paper and Kodak Picture Paper. The same color
>>shifts occur on both brands.
>>
>>Any suggestions other than returning to Canon inks or buying tanks
>>already refilled by some other company (like those sold at Best Buy)?
>>
>>Anyone else have bad experiences with Atlascopy products?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Ray
>
>
>
> Ive been down that road once myself and only once as I did not trust
> any ink but formulabs
>
> www.alotofthings.com
>
> Ask Joe if your particular cartridge is formulabs to make sure. If
> not, you might consider bulk refill ink from him.

Thank you for that wonderful link. I especially like the Palette Test
Pages. I printed them using three papers, 8.5 x 11":

1. Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
2. Kodak Premium Picture Paper High Gloss
3. Kodak Picture Paper Soft Gloss

I was surprised that none of the squares on any of the papers showed the
ragged edges I mentioned in my other post, "Kodak Soft Gloss Picture
Paper for inkjet printers." One major difference is that the Palette
Test Pages have each square surrounded on all four sides by white
margins, while my original test palette from Display Mate had squares
surrounded by black on two sides and colors on the other two.

There were virtually no color shifts between/among the three papers.

On the soft gloss paper, the width of the strokes in the text is
definitely wider, making the text look less sharp than on either of the
glossy papers. Text sharpness on both glossy papers was virtually identical.

Finally, between the two glossy papers, the color squares on the Canon
paper were definitely more uniform than on the Kodak paper, as though
the Canon squares were printed at a higher dots/inch resolution.

Bottom line: Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy is definitely the better
paper. Nice thing about the Kodak Soft Gloss, besides its lower price,
is that you can print on both sides.

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:03:37 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
wrote:

>
>Thank you for that wonderful link. I especially like the Palette Test
>Pages. I printed them using three papers, 8.5 x 11":
>
>1. Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
>2. Kodak Premium Picture Paper High Gloss
>3. Kodak Picture Paper Soft Gloss
>
>I was surprised that none of the squares on any of the papers showed the
>ragged edges I mentioned in my other post, "Kodak Soft Gloss Picture
>Paper for inkjet printers." One major difference is that the Palette
>Test Pages have each square surrounded on all four sides by white
>margins, while my original test palette from Display Mate had squares
>surrounded by black on two sides and colors on the other two.
>
>There were virtually no color shifts between/among the three papers.
>
>On the soft gloss paper, the width of the strokes in the text is
>definitely wider, making the text look less sharp than on either of the
>glossy papers. Text sharpness on both glossy papers was virtually identical.
>
>Finally, between the two glossy papers, the color squares on the Canon
>paper were definitely more uniform than on the Kodak paper, as though
>the Canon squares were printed at a higher dots/inch resolution.
>
>Bottom line: Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy is definitely the better
>paper. Nice thing about the Kodak Soft Gloss, besides its lower price,
>is that you can print on both sides.
>
>Ray


I was going to toss my Kodak ultima glossy until I read a message
about using Kodaks recommended settings. After that, I was simply
amazed at the color. It was absolutely outstanding. I love or I
should say, Loved redriver papers and I always will but the Kodak
Ultima and the proper settings are simply amazing.

So my point is, Did you check the kodak site for the settings to use
for your paper and printer? I too experienced fuzzy edges with the
kodak papers until I used the proper settings for my printer..

By the way, For my I960, one of the settings was "picture" mode,
After couple attempts it was just too much ink.. Changing it to "none"
worked like a charm.

I think I will stick with the Kodak Ultima and also Ive been
experimenting with Krylon Preserve sprays. When applied properly, It
gives a beautiful finish and very nice studio touch. Very much like
you would get with satin paper but much better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

beezer wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:03:37 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I was going to toss my Kodak ultima glossy until I read a message
> about using Kodaks recommended settings. After that, I was simply
> amazed at the color. It was absolutely outstanding. I love or I
> should say, Loved redriver papers and I always will but the Kodak
> Ultima and the proper settings are simply amazing.
>
> So my point is, Did you check the kodak site for the settings to use
> for your paper and printer? I too experienced fuzzy edges with the
> kodak papers until I used the proper settings for my printer..

Thanks for the terrific tip. I made the recommended settings and now the
text on the Kodak Soft Gloss paper comes much sharper, virtually as good
as with the Canon Glossy paper.

But the pastel colors come lighter, and the color squares are more
grainy and have more noticeable banding, than before I made the settings
changes.

In a week or so, after returning from vacation, I'll investigate the
effect of each of the nine changes Kodak recommended.

Again, thanks.

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 03:01:07 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
wrote:

>beezer wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:03:37 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was going to toss my Kodak ultima glossy until I read a message
>> about using Kodaks recommended settings. After that, I was simply
>> amazed at the color. It was absolutely outstanding. I love or I
>> should say, Loved redriver papers and I always will but the Kodak
>> Ultima and the proper settings are simply amazing.
>>
>> So my point is, Did you check the kodak site for the settings to use
>> for your paper and printer? I too experienced fuzzy edges with the
>> kodak papers until I used the proper settings for my printer..
>
>Thanks for the terrific tip. I made the recommended settings and now the
>text on the Kodak Soft Gloss paper comes much sharper, virtually as good
>as with the Canon Glossy paper.
>
>But the pastel colors come lighter, and the color squares are more
>grainy and have more noticeable banding, than before I made the settings
>changes.
>
>In a week or so, after returning from vacation, I'll investigate the
>effect of each of the nine changes Kodak recommended.
>
>Again, thanks.
>
>Ray


Ok, the banding is definately too much ink.. I found that to be the
case by not selecting the proper paper in the printer drivers... If
thats not the case then lower the ink intensity if you can.

Once you get the intensity correct, you get great results. My 960 did
not require any intensity adjustment, just the one "brilliance"
adjustment from picture to "none" mode...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

beezer wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 03:01:07 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>beezer wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:03:37 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I was going to toss my Kodak ultima glossy until I read a message
>>>about using Kodaks recommended settings. After that, I was simply
>>>amazed at the color. It was absolutely outstanding. I love or I
>>>should say, Loved redriver papers and I always will but the Kodak
>>>Ultima and the proper settings are simply amazing.
>>>
>>>So my point is, Did you check the kodak site for the settings to use
>>>for your paper and printer? I too experienced fuzzy edges with the
>>>kodak papers until I used the proper settings for my printer..
>>
>>Thanks for the terrific tip. I made the recommended settings and now the
>>text on the Kodak Soft Gloss paper comes much sharper, virtually as good
>>as with the Canon Glossy paper.
>>
>>But the pastel colors come lighter, and the color squares are more
>>grainy and have more noticeable banding, than before I made the settings
>>changes.
>>
>>In a week or so, after returning from vacation, I'll investigate the
>>effect of each of the nine changes Kodak recommended.
>>
>>Again, thanks.
>>
>>Ray
>
>
>
> Ok, the banding is definately too much ink.. I found that to be the
> case by not selecting the proper paper in the printer drivers... If
> thats not the case then lower the ink intensity if you can.
>
> Once you get the intensity correct, you get great results. My 960 did
> not require any intensity adjustment, just the one "brilliance"
> adjustment from picture to "none" mode...
>
I'll try this in a week. Strange all the trouble we have to go to just
to replace Canon paper with Kodak (or probably other brands as well).

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 13:18:06 GMT, Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net>
wrote:

>I'll try this in a week. Strange all the trouble we have to go to just
>to replace Canon paper with Kodak (or probably other brands as well).
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ray

well, thats what makes canon so versitle. Alot of other printers do
not have such detailed driver settings that could make them compatible
with all kinds of papers.

I have lots of redriver paper as well. with my 850 I pretty much left
things at default. But with the 960, its just a bit washed out in
the flesh tones so I have to fudge the magenta up 2 notches and its
perfect.

Redriver provides color profiles for various papers and printer combos
but my paper and printer profile they give was just toooo much
magenta. I guess they know what I discovered on my own about washed
out fleshtones but they went overboard in their profile..