Kodak 4" * 6" Premium Picture Paper size

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

I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new Canon
i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local Officeworks
store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint
utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides - the
trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I measured
the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray of
the ink and where does this go?

Cheers

Geoff
22 answers Last reply
More about kodak premium picture paper size
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:12:10 +1000, "Geoff"
    <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

    >I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new Canon
    >i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local Officeworks
    >store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint
    >utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides - the
    >trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I measured
    >the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
    >inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray of
    >the ink and where does this go?
    >
    >Cheers
    >
    >Geoff


    Ive never seen the precut kodak paper myself. If they advertise it as
    4x6 and no extra border for handling, that may explain the big
    discount.

    A half inch seems to be alot for adjusting the overspray. You can
    usually find that setting in the printer drivers where you manually
    select borderless printing. Your picture would have to be 4x6.5 as
    well.

    I would suggest grabbing a cheap guillotine paper cutter and trim the
    extra half inch if you could. I know that defeats the purpose of
    buying borderless stock but on the other hand, your printer will work
    the way it supposed to and you dont have to worry about cropping
    oddball sized photos as well.

    I make 3.5 x 5 borless all the time. I use a paper cutter and get 4
    prints per sheet. I use the 4x6 feeder which the holders close in on
    quite nicely. I also have to set the margins of the printing software
    to 0 x 0 to ensure it prints at the edge... works perfectly and you
    dont need to run any special software.

    Hope this gives some ideas to consider.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Geoff,

    I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept a
    true 4x6 size paper and so we are also universally compatible with all
    printers. The paper is slightly larger in the package to allow all printers
    the opportunity to create standard 4x6 prints. Without the extra "tab" this
    would not be possible for all printers.

    In order to provide a solution that works in all printers, which includes
    borderless printers, we designed our 4x6 in. paper with a tab. This insures
    that our papers meet the need for snapshot prints as well as the need to
    provide a broad solution for all printers.

    Hope this helps,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "Geoff" <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:40d93b5b$0$18666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new
    Canon
    > i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local
    Officeworks
    > store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon
    Easy-PhotoPrint
    > utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides -
    the
    > trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I measured
    > the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
    > inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray of
    > the ink and where does this go?
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Geoff
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Geoff" <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:40d93b5b$0$18666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new Canon
    > i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local Officeworks
    > store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint
    > utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides - the
    > trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I measured
    > the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
    > inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray of
    > the ink and where does this go?
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Geoff
    >
    >

    Many printers can't print to the final trailing edge -- they need the extra bit
    to
    hold on to the paper while the last is being printed.

    Idiots though, at least they could micro-perf that extra half-inch the way HP
    does
    [and given the 'claim' of 4x6 on the box, one might reasonably expect that it
    was].
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:16:17 -0400, "Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >Hi Geoff,
    >
    >I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    >Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    >print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept a
    >true 4x6 size paper and so we are also universally compatible with all
    >printers. The paper is slightly larger in the package to allow all printers
    >the opportunity to create standard 4x6 prints. Without the extra "tab" this
    >would not be possible for all printers.
    >
    >In order to provide a solution that works in all printers, which includes
    >borderless printers, we designed our 4x6 in. paper with a tab. This insures
    >that our papers meet the need for snapshot prints as well as the need to
    >provide a broad solution for all printers.
    >
    >Hope this helps,
    >
    >Ron Baird
    >Eastman Kodak Company


    My thinking was along the tab theory, thanks for clarifying this.
    Also, is the tab perforated for easy removal? Just curious as I never
    bought the borderless pack
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Beezer,

    I believe the perfed edge of the paper is a non Kodak patent. Kodak
    included perforations in the past then stopped that option. I suspect it
    was due to that reason? Just a guess on my part.

    Talk to you soon.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Hi Geoff,
    > >
    > >I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    > >Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    > >print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept a
    > >true 4x6 size paper and so we are also universally compatible with all
    > >printers. The paper is slightly larger in the package to allow all
    printers
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Someone ought to patent the edges of paper. Anyone who didn't want to
    pay licensing fees would be free to invent edgeless paper and patent
    that.
    I just love the US Patent Office.

    "Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote:

    >Hi Beezer,
    >
    >I believe the perfed edge of the paper is a non Kodak patent. Kodak
    >included perforations in the past then stopped that option. I suspect it
    >was due to that reason? Just a guess on my part.
    >
    >Talk to you soon.
    >
    >Ron Baird
    >Eastman Kodak Company
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Hi Geoff,
    >> >
    >> >I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    >> >Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    >> >print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept a
    >> >true 4x6 size paper and so we are also universally compatible with all
    >> >printers. The paper is slightly larger in the package to allow all
    >printers
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:56:31 -0400, Rob
    <tele*deletethis*manr@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Someone ought to patent the edges of paper. Anyone who didn't want to
    >pay licensing fees would be free to invent edgeless paper and patent
    >that.
    >I just love the US Patent Office.
    >
    Has anyone got the patent on square pixels? ;-)

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:08:47 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:56:31 -0400, Rob
    ><tele*deletethis*manr@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Someone ought to patent the edges of paper. Anyone who didn't want to
    >>pay licensing fees would be free to invent edgeless paper and patent
    >>that.
    >>I just love the US Patent Office.
    >>
    >Has anyone got the patent on square pixels? ;-)
    >
    > --
    >
    >Hecate
    >Hecate@newsguy.com
    >veni, vidi, reliqui


    No, just perforated pixels. They crop to the print size automatically.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Yes Beezer I might keep an eye out for a cheap guillotine or paper cutter.
    Ron Baird explained the reason for the extra 1/2 inch but maybe it should be
    mentioned on the paper packaging or on the Kodak website. I searched
    everywhere but couldn't find a clue about that extra bit of paper.

    Cheers

    Geoff

    > Ive never seen the precut kodak paper myself. If they advertise it as
    > 4x6 and no extra border for handling, that may explain the big
    > discount.
    >
    > A half inch seems to be alot for adjusting the overspray. You can
    > usually find that setting in the printer drivers where you manually
    > select borderless printing. Your picture would have to be 4x6.5 as
    > well.
    >
    > I would suggest grabbing a cheap guillotine paper cutter and trim the
    > extra half inch if you could. I know that defeats the purpose of
    > buying borderless stock but on the other hand, your printer will work
    > the way it supposed to and you dont have to worry about cropping
    > oddball sized photos as well.
    >
    > I make 3.5 x 5 borless all the time. I use a paper cutter and get 4
    > prints per sheet. I use the 4x6 feeder which the holders close in on
    > quite nicely. I also have to set the margins of the printing software
    > to 0 x 0 to ensure it prints at the edge... works perfectly and you
    > dont need to run any special software.
    >
    > Hope this gives some ideas to consider.
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks for the reply Ron ..... that certainly answers my question. Is the
    4x6 the only size with the extra "tab"? What about the 5x7 ... I've bought
    some of that too but haven't tried it yet. I must say that I am delighted
    with the quality of the prints I am getting with the Kodak PPP and Ultima
    papers. Haven't tried any Canon paper yet but cant imagine it could be any
    better.

    Regards

    Geoff

    > Hi Geoff,
    >
    > I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    > Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    > print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept a
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:54:42 GMT, "B. Peg"
    <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

    >
    >You'll be pleasantly surprised.
    >
    >Having to cut all the Kodak paper, plus it won't load correctly in the Canon
    >printer loader (flap won't close without mangling it), makes it worthless
    >for me. Don't care for the semi-gloss effect the Kodak paper has either and
    >it has an odd bluish cast as well. Ink seems to sit on top of it too (even
    >turned ink level amount down).
    >
    >B~


    Have you used the Kodak recommended settings for your paper? I had the
    same feelings not long ago until I tried the settings. It still
    needed slight adjusting such as unchecking the "vivid" option and
    setting type to "NONE"

    I had a bunch of ultima paper laying around from a previous printer
    that used it well. I set it aside as my Canon didn't like it until
    using the proper settings I find the contrast and clarity to be
    excellent.

    Of course, your ink and color profile may require a bit of tweeking
    such as mine did.

    OH and to top it off, try a light spray of clear coat.. I used the
    krylon and I have several cans of it but Ive read reports of basic
    spray clear coats being used with the same results and much cheaper.

    Handling the prints and not having paper stick to glass are just the
    basic benefits of using it on any paper.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Geoff,

    Nope, the 5x7 is exactly that. The only paper that has a difference is the
    4x6.5 for the noted reasons.

    Talk to you soon Geoff,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company

    "Geoff" <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:40da8cee$0$18670$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Thanks for the reply Ron ..... that certainly answers my question. Is the
    > 4x6 the only size with the extra "tab"? What about the 5x7 ... I've
    bought
    > some of that too but haven't tried it yet. I must say that I am delighted
    > with the quality of the prints I am getting with the Kodak PPP and Ultima
    > papers. Haven't tried any Canon paper yet but cant imagine it could be
    any
    > better.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Geoff
    >
    > > Hi Geoff,
    > >
    > > I can appreciate your question, Geoff, and thought I would share on it.
    > > Actually, the 4x6 on the package reflects the common size of a snapshot
    > > print. We put 4x6.5 in the package because not all printers will accept
    a
    > >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Peg,

    Sorry about the color issue, Peg, that should not happen. Are you using the
    specified settings for the Kodak paper? If not, you may want to try
    EasyShare and the One Touch feature. It will auto set your driver to
    optimize for the Kodak paper type you using. If not using Kodak paper, it
    will use the general settings provided by Canon.

    http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch

    Anyway, talk to you soon.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
    news:maACc.23475$OB3.7687@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > "Haven't tried any Canon paper yet but can't imagine it could be any
    > better."
    >
    > You'll be pleasantly surprised.
    >
    > Having to cut all the Kodak paper, plus it won't load correctly in the
    Canon
    > printer loader (flap won't close without mangling it), makes it worthless
    > for me. Don't care for the semi-gloss effect the Kodak paper has either
    and
    > it has an odd bluish cast as well. Ink seems to sit on top of it too
    (even
    > turned ink level amount down).
    >
    > B~
    >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Yep the micro perforation would solve the problem and eliminate the need for
    cutting ...... but as Ron Baird pointed out Kodak used to do it but stopped
    prolly for patent reasons. Oh well, as one of our Aussie PM's once said
    "life wasn't meant to be easy" :))

    Cheers

    Geoff
    > >
    >
    > Many printers can't print to the final trailing edge -- they need the
    extra bit
    > to
    > hold on to the paper while the last is being printed.
    >
    > Idiots though, at least they could micro-perf that extra half-inch the way
    HP
    > does
    > [and given the 'claim' of 4x6 on the box, one might reasonably expect that
    it
    > was].
    >
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:47:24 GMT, "B. Peg"
    <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

    >I've been meaning to do my comparison between several papers to see what
    >they look like side-by-side. Now is good a time as any to print the same
    >portrait on all brands and see what comes out.
    >
    >Papers were:
    >Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
    >Fuji Premium Plus
    >Epson Dura Brite Glossy
    >Kodak Premium Picture Paper
    >Tetenal Spectra Jet High Glossy Paper Special
    >
    >The Canon has the highest gloss and ink does not appear to be a layer above
    >it that has that halo effect. The paper is very flat which enhances the
    >gloss.
    >
    >Tetenal is a close second although I notice more of a pebble effect to the
    >paper's surface which degrades the gloss a bit. Still, not bad. I had to
    >cut the paper to 4 x 6 inches though as all I have is letter size.
    >
    >The Epson has much less gloss, maybe the least gloss out of the five. Color
    >is similar to the two above. Not impressed at all with surface. It
    >supposedly is optimized for Epson's DuraBrite inks so this may have some
    >gloss influence.
    >
    >The Fuji, also a 4 x 6.5 inch size like the Kodak but has a tear off. It
    >has a nice gloss and cooler (bluish cast) and actually it doesn't appear too
    >bad. It does have that effect of the ink being painted on the surface and
    >somewhat raised as does the Kodak.
    >
    >The Kodak paper demonstrated horizontal banding, approximately 1/4" apart,
    >which I have never seen before from the i960 printer. Very noticeable in a
    >brunette's hair but not elsewhere on the print(??). Not good. Also has
    >that effect of the ink sitting above the surface. Color appeared to be
    >between the Fuji and first three (slightly bluish). Setting were as
    >mentioned: vivid off, etc. Not satisfactory at all for the banding problem.
    >
    >Still, I would favor the Canon paper as the ink appears to be inside the
    >paper and not resting on top. Prints appear more like a silver-halide
    >photographic print. The Tetenal is nice as a second choice. Epson if I
    >needed a bit less gloss.
    >
    >Still, I like the Fuji color on the particular portrait I was working with
    >(gave me a cooler image). Unfortunately, if you do not load the Fuji paper
    >correctly, the damn tear strip may be at the wrong end.
    >
    >Vote: Canon best. Kodak least due to ink not residing in paper (halo) and
    >banding in dark area.
    >
    >I have used the sprays when prints go under glass. Not the Krylon, but
    >something from HP Marketing in a short spray can. They sell a matte and a
    >semi-gloss version as I recall. Got it from FreeStyle in Hollywood.
    >
    >B~
    >


    I wouldnt grade this test as being fair due to the fact that you
    probably are not using optimal settings for your ink, profile and the
    paper you are using. I know this due to the fact that you mention
    "banding" in the kodak paper. With optimal and recommended adjustments
    and profile, banding is not evident at all.

    So, before you throw away papers you may not like for whatever reason,
    search the manufacturers site for the best adjustment and set your
    profile to srgb.

    Everyone, no matter who they are, what equipment they have, spent much
    time in tweeking their photos, profiles, printer drivers to give the
    best results for them. 9 times out of 10 you can set two identical
    machines out of the box, side by side with the same paper, ink and
    settings etc, and get noticable differences...

    By all means, I salute your efforts but this demonstration is far from
    scientific....

    I like many papers such as redriver and several other brands
    including Kodak, which takes alot of tweeking for my trained eye. I
    demand the most absolute highest quality from my prints and I do spend
    alot of time to achieve it.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    My results have also been superb without any tweaking ............. what
    type of stores sell the Krylon spray Beezer? I'm in Melbourne, Australia.

    Cheers

    Geoff


    >
    > OH and to top it off, try a light spray of clear coat.. I used the
    > krylon and I have several cans of it but Ive read reports of basic
    > spray clear coats being used with the same results and much cheaper.
    >
    > Handling the prints and not having paper stick to glass are just the
    > basic benefits of using it on any paper.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:05:38 +1000, "Geoff"
    <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

    >My results have also been superb without any tweaking ............. what
    >type of stores sell the Krylon spray Beezer? I'm in Melbourne, Australia.
    >
    >Cheers
    >
    >Geoff
    >
    >
    >

    I purchased the spray online. Perhaps you could find an online vendor
    in your area if you wanted to try the originak Krylon "Preserve It". I
    think any clearcoat protectant at your local department, hobby or
    craft store would work just as well from what I read. Also, it would
    be much cheaper

    The enhancement is very nice I think. It gives the look of satin
    finish and the benefit of handling and not sticking to glass is well
    worth it.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:11:03 GMT, "B. Peg"
    <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

    >I tried Ron's suggestions to no avail with the Kodak paper. As an aside,
    >the suggestions from the Kodak site do not work with the Canon software
    >package (i.e. +10 Yellow, and some others). Kodak should use some of the
    >various software packages that comes with the assorted printers as their
    >directions are dated material. Shouldn't need to be this way, however.
    >
    >I will note, the Kodak software tripped my firewall so I don't know why it
    >is trying to call home. Won't be using that software (EasyShare) so I
    >removed it. You can't use their EasyPrint drivers without opting in for
    >their spam either. They won't install. Also, you need to sign up for some
    >of Kodak's spam just to download it. Ugh! They should package the software
    >and drivers with the paper if they want the customer to be happy with it and
    >not have to go online to make it work.
    >
    >Also, the Canon "Vivid" was turned off (suggested) and I tried the three
    >paper (gloss) settings to no avail either. The paper requires too much
    >input from the printer to make it a worthwhile paper for the consumer. The
    >gloss effects, even without printing and ink, aren't up to that of the Canon
    >paper.
    >
    >Note, I am not judging color balance - just the paper's surface and gloss.
    >Color can be altered in Photoshop. I could alter the Fuji paper's color
    >balance to my liking, but the halo effect was annoying.
    >
    >Add to the need to trim the Kodak "borderless" (ahem!) prints to 4 x 6
    >inches.....ugh! The Kodak paper is going back in the drawer - or trash.
    >Very disappointed and I will leave it at the bottom of the pile for now.
    >There are far better papers out there without having to be so labor
    >intensive. I haven't tried the Kodak Ultima brand, just the Premium so far.
    >
    >Haven't seen any of the RedRiver paper around here. Have seen some
    >Mitsubishi stuff coming on-board though.
    >
    >B~


    I dont disagree. I myself would not run 3rd party software and I dont.
    I have no trouble setting things up manually. I do have ultima paper
    which is quite excellent and many others stated the same.

    What is nice about Canon drivers is the ability to have control over
    everything which in the long run make it compatible with many many
    papers.

    But yes, It should not be a job to print photos, it should be
    convenient and farily simple to get descent efforless results. With
    that comment, going with Canon papers would never disappoint and by
    far would be the most convenient paper to use.

    I was about to trash my Kodak ultima paper until running across the
    settings that got me in range. I do like the results better than the
    Canon pro papers and by choice I would have to pick Kodak.

    I do like the rigid backing of the Kodak where most papers have plain
    matte backing and tend to lose shape with moisture and age, the Kodak
    Ultima seems to remain in original shape.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks Beezer ... just did a search and got lots of hits for Krylon
    ........... I'll try and get hold of some.
    >
    > I purchased the spray online. Perhaps you could find an online vendor
    > in your area if you wanted to try the originak Krylon "Preserve It". I
    > think any clearcoat protectant at your local department, hobby or
    > craft store would work just as well from what I read. Also, it would
    > be much cheaper
    >
    > The enhancement is very nice I think. It gives the look of satin
    > finish and the benefit of handling and not sticking to glass is well
    > worth it.
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks for posting your results Peg ... I guess you'd expect the Canon paper
    to give the best results off a Canon printer .......... I'll get hold of
    some and give it a try.

    > I've been meaning to do my comparison between several papers to see what
    > they look like side-by-side. Now is good a time as any to print the same
    > portrait on all brands and see what comes out.
    >
    > Papers were:
    > Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
    > Fuji Premium Plus
    > Epson Dura Brite Glossy
    > Kodak Premium Picture Paper
    > Tetenal Spectra Jet High Glossy Paper Special
    >
    > The Canon has the highest gloss and ink does not appear to be a layer
    above
    > it that has that halo effect. The paper is very flat which enhances the
    > gloss.
    >
    > Tetenal is a close second although I notice more of a pebble effect to the
    > paper's surface which degrades the gloss a bit. Still, not bad. I had to
    > cut the paper to 4 x 6 inches though as all I have is letter size.
    >
    > The Epson has much less gloss, maybe the least gloss out of the five.
    Color
    > is similar to the two above. Not impressed at all with surface. It
    > supposedly is optimized for Epson's DuraBrite inks so this may have some
    > gloss influence.
    >
    > The Fuji, also a 4 x 6.5 inch size like the Kodak but has a tear off. It
    > has a nice gloss and cooler (bluish cast) and actually it doesn't appear
    too
    > bad. It does have that effect of the ink being painted on the surface and
    > somewhat raised as does the Kodak.
    >
    > The Kodak paper demonstrated horizontal banding, approximately 1/4" apart,
    > which I have never seen before from the i960 printer. Very noticeable in
    a
    > brunette's hair but not elsewhere on the print(??). Not good. Also has
    > that effect of the ink sitting above the surface. Color appeared to be
    > between the Fuji and first three (slightly bluish). Setting were as
    > mentioned: vivid off, etc. Not satisfactory at all for the banding
    problem.
    >
    > Still, I would favor the Canon paper as the ink appears to be inside the
    > paper and not resting on top. Prints appear more like a silver-halide
    > photographic print. The Tetenal is nice as a second choice. Epson if I
    > needed a bit less gloss.
    >
    > Still, I like the Fuji color on the particular portrait I was working with
    > (gave me a cooler image). Unfortunately, if you do not load the Fuji paper
    > correctly, the damn tear strip may be at the wrong end.
    >
    > Vote: Canon best. Kodak least due to ink not residing in paper (halo)
    and
    > banding in dark area.
    >
    > I have used the sprays when prints go under glass. Not the Krylon, but
    > something from HP Marketing in a short spray can. They sell a matte and a
    > semi-gloss version as I recall. Got it from FreeStyle in Hollywood.
    >
    > B~
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Peg,

    More than likely the experience you had was with the Kodak Updater. This is
    an auto update feature that works in the back ground. Not sure what version
    you tried, but consider downloading from the Kodak website for EasyShare,
    and you should not have any trouble.

    The mentioned Kodak Software Updater automatically checks for updates to
    EasyShare software. A message notifies you when an upgrade is available. To
    check for a new version of EasyShare software, you can also visit our Web
    site at www.kodak.com/go/easysharesw.
    To automatically check for updates, you need access to the Internet. If you
    require a user name and password to access the Internet, you will be
    prompted for this information at the time the update check is made. So, if
    you are running a firewall, you need to allow this to happen. This feature
    is similar to the Microsoft Update, Symantec virus and software (likely the
    same as the firewall you are using), etc.

    To activate or deactivate the Kodak Software Updater, do the following. On
    systems running

    a.. Windows 98, 98SE, 2000, or Me, choose Start -> Programs -> Kodak ->
    KODAK Software Updater -> KODAK Software Updater Setup.
    b.. Windows XP, choose Start -> All Programs -> Kodak -> KODAK Software
    Updater -> KODAK Software Updater Setup.
    NOTE: Windows XP users, Administrator privileges are required to install
    software and to activate or deactivate the KODAK Software Updater.

    Talk to you soon, Peg,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
    news:bi2Dc.28666$OB3.2937@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > I tried Ron's suggestions to no avail with the Kodak paper. As an aside,
    > the suggestions from the Kodak site do not work with the Canon software
    > package (i.e. +10 Yellow, and some others). Kodak should use some of the
    > various software packages that comes with the assorted printers as their
    > directions are dated material. Shouldn't need to be this way, however.
    >
    > I will note, the Kodak software tripped my firewall so I don't know why it
    > is trying to call home. Won't be using that software (EasyShare) so I
    > removed it. You can't use their EasyPrint drivers without opting in for
    > their spam either. They won't install. Also, you need to sign up for
    some
    > of Kodak's spam just to download it. Ugh! They should package the
    software
    > and drivers with the paper if they want the customer to be happy with it
    and
    > not have to go online to make it work.
    >
    > Also, the Canon "Vivid" was turned off (suggested) and I tried the three
    > paper (gloss) settings to no avail either. The paper requires too much
    > input from the printer to make it a worthwhile paper for the consumer.
    The
    > gloss effects, even without printing and ink, aren't up to that of the
    Canon
    > paper.
    >
    > Note, I am not judging color balance - just the paper's surface and gloss.
    > Color can be altered in Photoshop. I could alter the Fuji paper's color
    > balance to my liking, but the halo effect was annoying.
    >
    > Add to the need to trim the Kodak "borderless" (ahem!) prints to 4 x 6
    > inches.....ugh! The Kodak paper is going back in the drawer - or trash.
    > Very disappointed and I will leave it at the bottom of the pile for now.
    > There are far better papers out there without having to be so labor
    > intensive. I haven't tried the Kodak Ultima brand, just the Premium so
    far.
    >
    > Haven't seen any of the RedRiver paper around here. Have seen some
    > Mitsubishi stuff coming on-board though.
    >
    > B~
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Clay" <clayxoutxschn@fast.net> wrote in message
    news:PMhCc.26$L8.6@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
    >
    > "Geoff" <ozgeoff@NOSPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:40d93b5b$0$18666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > > I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new
    Canon
    > > i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local
    Officeworks
    > > store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon
    Easy-PhotoPrint
    > > utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides -
    the
    > > trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I
    measured
    > > the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
    > > inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray
    of
    > > the ink and where does this go?
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > >
    > > Geoff
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Many printers can't print to the final trailing edge -- they need the
    extra bit
    > to
    > hold on to the paper while the last is being printed.
    >
    > Idiots though, at least they could micro-perf that extra half-inch the way
    HP
    > does
    > [and given the 'claim' of 4x6 on the box, one might reasonably expect that
    it
    > was].
    Your absolutely right. Although since the aspect ratio is "wrong" for
    most(all?) photos taken with digital cameras to print 4 x 6 maybe Kodak
    thought is wouldn't matter that much. You'd have to trim your photos
    anyway. I wonder why someone doesn't make 4.5 x 6 card stock? Or do they?


    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Kodak Peripherals