Canon i860 printer owners - do you notice any banding?

[Guest]

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

Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?

I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
when looking at the printed bands horizontally.

I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
heads several times without effect.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:23:12 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>
>I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
>when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
>Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
>when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>
>I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
>these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
>skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
>on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
>heads several times without effect.
>
>-Taliesyn


Do you have some old prints laying around from when the printer was
newer? It would be interesting to know if the problem existed back
then.

My I850 shows no signs of banding at all unless I happen to mismatch
the paper to say, ..... printing on Pro paper while using matte
paper setting.

 

[Guest]

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

beezer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:23:12 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>>
>>I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
>>when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
>>Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
>>when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>>
>>I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
>>these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
>>skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
>>on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
>>heads several times without effect.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
>
> Do you have some old prints laying around from when the printer was
> newer? It would be interesting to know if the problem existed back
> then.
>

Yes, a certain amount of banding has always existed since the very
beginning. This is something I noticed a couple of months after I
bought it, when I started developing digital photos.

> My I850 shows no signs of banding at all unless I happen to mismatch
> the paper to say, ..... printing on Pro paper while using matte
> paper setting.
>
>

No, I get it on high gloss paper (all brands) using the Photo Paper Pro
setting. Mind you, it's visible on some papers more than others. But
it's even there on the suggested Canon Photo Paper Pro paper.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:35:49 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>beezer wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:23:12 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>>>
>>>I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
>>>when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
>>>Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
>>>when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>>>
>>>I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
>>>these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
>>>skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
>>>on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
>>>heads several times without effect.
>>>
>>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have some old prints laying around from when the printer was
>> newer? It would be interesting to know if the problem existed back
>> then.
>>
>
>Yes, a certain amount of banding has always existed since the very
>beginning. This is something I noticed a couple of months after I
>bought it, when I started developing digital photos.
>
>> My I850 shows no signs of banding at all unless I happen to mismatch
>> the paper to say, ..... printing on Pro paper while using matte
>> paper setting.
>>
>>
>
>No, I get it on high gloss paper (all brands) using the Photo Paper Pro
>setting. Mind you, it's visible on some papers more than others. But
>it's even there on the suggested Canon Photo Paper Pro paper.
>
>-Taliesyn


Interesting. Any change of perhaps a bad batch of ink? Highly unlikely
as you had the printer for a while so I am sure you went through
several orders.

Even the banding that existed from the beginning, did that happen to
be with Canon inks do you remember?

I'm wondering if by chance you could send me a photo that produces
banding with your printer and I will be more than happy to print and
rescan the results to compare. It would be interesting to see.

jayh38@yahoo.com

 

[Guest]

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

beezer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:35:49 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>beezer wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:23:12 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>>>>
>>>>I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
>>>>when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
>>>>Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
>>>>when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>>>>
>>>>I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
>>>>these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
>>>>skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
>>>>on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
>>>>heads several times without effect.
>>>>
>>>>-Taliesyn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you have some old prints laying around from when the printer was
>>>newer? It would be interesting to know if the problem existed back
>>>then.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, a certain amount of banding has always existed since the very
>>beginning. This is something I noticed a couple of months after I
>>bought it, when I started developing digital photos.
>>
>>
>>>My I850 shows no signs of banding at all unless I happen to mismatch
>>>the paper to say, ..... printing on Pro paper while using matte
>>>paper setting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, I get it on high gloss paper (all brands) using the Photo Paper Pro
>>setting. Mind you, it's visible on some papers more than others. But
>>it's even there on the suggested Canon Photo Paper Pro paper.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
>
> Interesting. Any change of perhaps a bad batch of ink? Highly unlikely
> as you had the printer for a while so I am sure you went through
> several orders.
>
> Even the banding that existed from the beginning, did that happen to
> be with Canon inks do you remember?
>

Yes, definitely. Canon inks in the beginning.

> I'm wondering if by chance you could send me a photo that produces
> banding with your printer and I will be more than happy to print and
> rescan the results to compare. It would be interesting to see.
>

Thanks, you gave me an idea. A simpler solution just might be to
go next door to my sister's house. She has an i850 too. I'll bring
over a photo for tests to see if it's just my particular printer.
Not much can be done at this point anyway, it's out of warranty.
I'd rather sink new money into a new printer instead. That's why
I'd like to know if anyone's noticed any banding on the i860 and
its 5 cartridge system.

I was checking on the Net. A test site complained about a test
model noticeably banding. But then someone followed up with a
post that he'd never seen any. So go figure...

But thanks for your kind offer.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:34:31 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>beezer wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:35:49 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>beezer wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:23:12 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>>>>>
>>>>>I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
>>>>>when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
>>>>>Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
>>>>>when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
>>>>>these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
>>>>>skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
>>>>>on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
>>>>>heads several times without effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Taliesyn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you have some old prints laying around from when the printer was
>>>>newer? It would be interesting to know if the problem existed back
>>>>then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, a certain amount of banding has always existed since the very
>>>beginning. This is something I noticed a couple of months after I
>>>bought it, when I started developing digital photos.
>>>
>>>
>>>>My I850 shows no signs of banding at all unless I happen to mismatch
>>>>the paper to say, ..... printing on Pro paper while using matte
>>>>paper setting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, I get it on high gloss paper (all brands) using the Photo Paper Pro
>>>setting. Mind you, it's visible on some papers more than others. But
>>>it's even there on the suggested Canon Photo Paper Pro paper.
>>>
>>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting. Any change of perhaps a bad batch of ink? Highly unlikely
>> as you had the printer for a while so I am sure you went through
>> several orders.
>>
>> Even the banding that existed from the beginning, did that happen to
>> be with Canon inks do you remember?
>>
>
>Yes, definitely. Canon inks in the beginning.
>
>> I'm wondering if by chance you could send me a photo that produces
>> banding with your printer and I will be more than happy to print and
>> rescan the results to compare. It would be interesting to see.
>>
>
>Thanks, you gave me an idea. A simpler solution just might be to
>go next door to my sister's house. She has an i850 too. I'll bring
>over a photo for tests to see if it's just my particular printer.
>Not much can be done at this point anyway, it's out of warranty.
>I'd rather sink new money into a new printer instead. That's why
>I'd like to know if anyone's noticed any banding on the i860 and
>its 5 cartridge system.
>
>I was checking on the Net. A test site complained about a test
>model noticeably banding. But then someone followed up with a
>post that he'd never seen any. So go figure...
>
>But thanks for your kind offer.
>
>-Taliesyn



OK let me know how the test goes. Ive made numerous high quality
scans of my printouts in the past and as to compare definition and
color much easily and never noticed banding of any kind.

good luck

 

[Guest]

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

Gee, Taliesyn, I thought Canons could do no wrong and only Epson
printers caused banding?

Chances are you are experiencing some nozzle clogging. The advantage to
the Canon models is most have removable heads that can be cleaned using
ammoniated window cleaner, just like the Epsons but much easier with the
Canons with head outside of the printer.

I've looked at a number of newer Canon prints and some have banding that
develops over time. I suspect it just is a matter of cleaning and
nothing more.

Art

Taliesyn wrote:

> Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>
> I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850, particularly
> when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the right).
> Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand out
> when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>
> I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away from
> these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often containing
> skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They appear
> on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the print
> heads several times without effect.
>
> -Taliesyn
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Gee, Taliesyn, I thought Canons could do no wrong and only Epson
> printers caused banding?
>

Art, that's your statement, not mine; I don't recall ever complaining
about Epsons banding. My gripe was against their superior CLOGGING
ability, especially the 740. In other words, clogging was so severe
a whole colour could disappear!

> Chances are you are experiencing some nozzle clogging. The advantage to
> the Canon models is most have removable heads that can be cleaned using
> ammoniated window cleaner, just like the Epsons but much easier with the
> Canons with head outside of the printer.
>

I did a nozzle check and an alignment. Nozzle check came out fine,
matching the original from last year.

I even did a menu deep cleaning, something I've never done.

> I've looked at a number of newer Canon prints and some have banding that
> develops over time. I suspect it just is a matter of cleaning and
> nothing more.
>

Well, at your suggestion, I thought a full, outside the printer cleaning
might be worth it. And it was actually fun. The heads hadn't been
cleaned in a year. I removed and taped the cartridges. Wiped the print
head assembly, soaked it in a dish with window cleaner. Then forced,
with a cut-off syringe, clean fluid through the intakes several times,
and let it sit for an hour in the dish, changing the liquid twice.

Then I dried it, re-installed it and the cartridges, and ran a cleaning
cycle. After aligning the print heads I did a nozzle check. The results
were normal (perfect) as before.

I then printed a glossy photo in the highest resolution, as always,
and noticed no change from a photo I printed just before the cleaning.
Slight vertical lines in places... more like visible printing passes.
They are more visible when photo is turned 90 degrees, so that they're
horizontal when looking at them. They are more prominent in blue skies,
skin tones and pavement.

I should add that these printing bands only seem to stand out in photo
printing and not when doing graphics (same highest resolution).

I then went next door to my sister's house and tried the same print
on her Canon i850. The results were identical as with my printer.

I've come to the conclusion (after the major head cleaning and comparing
with another Canon i850) that everything is normal and that I'm simply
too fussy - better than most people at seeing printing passes, lines or
bands, whatever they are.... Which would explain why some people like to
call me a perfectionist.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:22:44 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>Well, at your suggestion, I thought a full, outside the printer cleaning
>might be worth it. And it was actually fun. The heads hadn't been
>cleaned in a year. I removed and taped the cartridges. Wiped the print
>head assembly, soaked it in a dish with window cleaner. Then forced,
>with a cut-off syringe, clean fluid through the intakes several times,
>and let it sit for an hour in the dish, changing the liquid twice.
>
>Then I dried it, re-installed it and the cartridges, and ran a cleaning
>cycle. After aligning the print heads I did a nozzle check. The results
>were normal (perfect) as before.
>
>I then printed a glossy photo in the highest resolution, as always,
>and noticed no change from a photo I printed just before the cleaning.
>Slight vertical lines in places... more like visible printing passes.
>They are more visible when photo is turned 90 degrees, so that they're
>horizontal when looking at them. They are more prominent in blue skies,
>skin tones and pavement.
>
>I should add that these printing bands only seem to stand out in photo
>printing and not when doing graphics (same highest resolution).
>
>I then went next door to my sister's house and tried the same print
>on her Canon i850. The results were identical as with my printer.
>
>I've come to the conclusion (after the major head cleaning and comparing
>with another Canon i850) that everything is normal and that I'm simply
>too fussy - better than most people at seeing printing passes, lines or
>bands, whatever they are.... Which would explain why some people like to
>call me a perfectionist.
>
>-Taliesyn


I am curious as to one other item....
Now you are refilling your cartridges with the "screw" method.
I am wondering if you have tape over the top vent that forms the "L"
shape..

When you first peel the tape off a new cartridge, you know how the top
back vent is about half covered. I am wondering if you have that
either completely covered or "Half" covered or at all... ALSO, is
there any other possibility of the screw holes taking in a minute bit
of air that would not be noticable of dripping ink but yet continual
equalizing the chambers while printing?

The tank seems to be pressure tuned in a sense as it is working. Since
you refilled both yours and your sisters, I am wondering if perhaps
they both may have pressure issues..

I printed another picture on my 850 that shows absolutely no signs of
banding. lots of flesh tones and light blue sky backgrounds, etc..
many many colors and no signs of banding at all. Printed on high gloss
paper and under 10x magnification.

I know you mentioned that this also happened when the printer was new
and with original canon cartridges but may there be a possibility of
a mix up.?

Just trying to bring other ideas into view.

 

[Guest]

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

Is there any chance that you may have either changed paper types or paper
type settings? An incorrect setting can cause banding. As an example, I have
some very inexpensive Georgia Pacific Professional Photo Paper from Sam's
Club. Not a bad paper at all considering the price. However, banding is a
little noticeable if the paper type setting is for Photo Paper Pro, but
banding is eliminated if the Plain Paper setting is used.

--
Ron Cohen



---
AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/23/2004

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Cohen wrote:
> Is there any chance that you may have either changed paper types or paper
> type settings? An incorrect setting can cause banding. As an example, I have
> some very inexpensive Georgia Pacific Professional Photo Paper from Sam's
> Club. Not a bad paper at all considering the price. However, banding is a
> little noticeable if the paper type setting is for Photo Paper Pro, but
> banding is eliminated if the Plain Paper setting is used.

Yes, I have noticed a slight variation in the amount of banding
depending on the paper. But some banding, or perhaps more correctly
called "visible print head passes" was present with Canon Photo Paper
Pro (paper pro setting) too.

Thanks to all who offered suggestions, but I solved the problem by
buying another printer. I was just too demanding for the i850. My
plans were to upgrade only in winter or spring (I like the two
year cycle). But my patience with the i850 was wearing thin. Mind you,
it's basically an excellent printer, I'm just too fussy for it.

So what did I buy? The i860. The difference is much bigger than I
expected. A side by side test on the i860 was more colorful, brighter,
and much more life-like. There was also no strange green tinge. I'm
basically stunned.

And the banding, or perhaps more correctly called visible printing
passes from the print head, is minimal to the point where I honestly
won't complain (I promise!). In the places where they were really
visible on the i850, they are hardly noticeable to my "trained" eyes.

I noticed the i860 has an automated print head alignment feature.
Neat. If you look into the slot where it expel the sheets, you can
see that strange red light scanning the printed lines, just like on
a previous Lexmark Z55 of mine.

I also noticed that the i860 uses 4 BCI-6 cartridges and one BCI-3e
for black text. Are the BCI-6 cartridges a different formula ink
from the color BCI-3e? They seem to be identically sized and look the
same. If this ink is a different formula then I'll have to order
new bulk ink and a second set of generic cartridges for it that
I'll later refill with bulk.

I'm guessing the printer back opens because this is where the CD
printing attachment goes, that we in North America don't get.

Yes, very satisfied with the i860, which is quite a bit larger than
the i850. It's more than just a minor upgrade.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:25:04 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>
>I also noticed that the i860 uses 4 BCI-6 cartridges and one BCI-3e
>for black text. Are the BCI-6 cartridges a different formula ink
>from the color BCI-3e? They seem to be identically sized and look the
>same. If this ink is a different formula then I'll have to order
>new bulk ink and a second set of generic cartridges for it that
>I'll later refill with bulk.


Yes they are slightly different.. Joe at alotofthings.com said you
could use BCI-6 ink in a BCI-3e but the opposite is not true.
There would be a color shift


I recall telling you the difference in quality from the I960 and the
I850. I couldnt believe the difference.

 

[Guest]

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Gee, Taliesyn, I thought Canons could do no wrong and only Epson
>> printers caused banding?
>>
>
> Art, that's your statement, not mine; I don't recall ever complaining
> about Epsons banding. My gripe was against their superior CLOGGING
> ability, especially the 740. In other words, clogging was so severe
> a whole colour could disappear!
>

Well, since most Epson banding is the result of partial clogging or ink
build up under the heads, there is a connection ;-)

>
> I've come to the conclusion (after the major head cleaning and comparing
> with another Canon i850) that everything is normal and that I'm simply
> too fussy - better than most people at seeing printing passes, lines or
> bands, whatever they are.... Which would explain why some people like to
> call me a perfectionist.
>
> -Taliesyn
>

As some other people mentioned, do you have any older prints to compare
and see if the earlier prints might have less or no visible banding
relative to the newer prints? This might indicate something in the
printer is wearing causing slight changes in alignment. It could be
anything from the heads, to carriage wear causing play, to paper advance
changes. However, if the current prints match the earlier ones in terms
of banding, chances are it is just the nature of the printer design and
you've become more critical over time.

Art

 

[Guest]

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

In article beezer says...
> Yes they are slightly different.. Joe at alotofthings.com said you
> could use BCI-6 ink in a BCI-3e but the opposite is not true.
> There would be a color shift
>
There are other people who have posted doubts that Canon use different
ink in BCI-3e/BCI-6 CMY let alone 3rd party refillers.

The explanation that BCI-6 was for 6 cart printers falls over now that
the 850 morphed into the 560 and happened to change carts as well.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:42:07 +1200, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
wrote:

>In article beezer says...
>> Yes they are slightly different.. Joe at alotofthings.com said you
>> could use BCI-6 ink in a BCI-3e but the opposite is not true.
>> There would be a color shift
>>
>There are other people who have posted doubts that Canon use different
>ink in BCI-3e/BCI-6 CMY let alone 3rd party refillers.
>
>The explanation that BCI-6 was for 6 cart printers falls over now that
>the 850 morphed into the 560 and happened to change carts as well.


Im sure not one to experiment with inks, I been there and done that
with a hue shift from "Compatible" cartridges.

Anyway, my information is from a very reputable source who in fact
does sell different ink for the bci3 and 6.....

I guess formulabs is wasting their time or whomever is mixing these
slight shade differences then...

I dont worry about it nor do I actually care as I know I get the
proper ink for my printer with alotofthings.com

 

[Guest]

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

beezer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:42:07 +1200, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article beezer says...
>>
>>>Yes they are slightly different.. Joe at alotofthings.com said you
>>>could use BCI-6 ink in a BCI-3e but the opposite is not true.
>>>There would be a color shift
>>>
>>
>>There are other people who have posted doubts that Canon use different
>>ink in BCI-3e/BCI-6 CMY let alone 3rd party refillers.
>>
>>The explanation that BCI-6 was for 6 cart printers falls over now that
>>the 850 morphed into the 560 and happened to change carts as well.
>
>
>
> Im sure not one to experiment with inks, I been there and done that
> with a hue shift from "Compatible" cartridges.
>
> Anyway, my information is from a very reputable source who in fact
> does sell different ink for the bci3 and 6.....
>
> I guess formulabs is wasting their time or whomever is mixing these
> slight shade differences then...
>
> I dont worry about it nor do I actually care as I know I get the
> proper ink for my printer with alotofthings.com

I just ordered some ink (more on that at the bottom) from Atlantic
Inkjet and the part number for bulk ink for the BCI-6 differs from
the BCI-3e bulk ink number.

The ink in Canon's i860 BCI-6 cartridges seems to differ quite strongly
from the BCI-3e's in the i850. I'm getting a lot more subtle shades now
when I do graphics. Before, on the i850, if I was to go one or two shade
(on my desktop publishing program) lighter, there would be no noticeable
difference. Sometimes it took 5 shades or more. Matter of fact, I had a
lot of trouble getting the printed result to look anything like the
screen. But on my new Canon i860, one or two shades up or down and I get
get positive, noticeable results. The colors on the whole are brighter,
happier, and not muddy. Now I get a dark red instead of a brownish red.
pure yellow is definitely more yellow. Green is bright green instead of
blah green. It's definitely the ink, as I see it. Naturally, my photos
look a lot more realistic too - people in the sun *look* like they're
in the sun, and not in the shade. Yup, it's the ink... quite different.

I've ordered from Atlantic Inkjet 5 x 8 oz bottles of bulk ink and
4 compatible BCI-6 cartridges as my second set. When they're empty
I'll fill them with bulk ink. I should be good for the next two years.
And as much as it annoys Arthur Entlich, two years to me - the critical
person that I am - is the life of a printer. ;-)

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:24:56 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>I just ordered some ink (more on that at the bottom) from Atlantic
>Inkjet and the part number for bulk ink for the BCI-6 differs from
>the BCI-3e bulk ink number.
>
>The ink in Canon's i860 BCI-6 cartridges seems to differ quite strongly
>from the BCI-3e's in the i850. I'm getting a lot more subtle shades now
>when I do graphics. Before, on the i850, if I was to go one or two shade
>(on my desktop publishing program) lighter, there would be no noticeable
>difference. Sometimes it took 5 shades or more. Matter of fact, I had a
>lot of trouble getting the printed result to look anything like the
>screen. But on my new Canon i860, one or two shades up or down and I get
>get positive, noticeable results. The colors on the whole are brighter,
>happier, and not muddy. Now I get a dark red instead of a brownish red.
>pure yellow is definitely more yellow. Green is bright green instead of
>blah green. It's definitely the ink, as I see it. Naturally, my photos
>look a lot more realistic too - people in the sun *look* like they're
>in the sun, and not in the shade. Yup, it's the ink... quite different.
>
>I've ordered from Atlantic Inkjet 5 x 8 oz bottles of bulk ink and
>4 compatible BCI-6 cartridges as my second set. When they're empty
>I'll fill them with bulk ink. I should be good for the next two years.
>And as much as it annoys Arthur Entlich, two years to me - the critical
>person that I am - is the life of a printer. ;-)
>
>-Taliesyn


Great to hear your success.... I get fantastic results from my 960
and I found settings that work the best even with kodak papers that
arent listed on the kodak site...

I found for best general matching is first calibrating the monitor.
Once you are sure about the gama, (this seems to be a very accurate
applet, provided you may not have photoshop
http://www.tsi.enst.fr/~brettel/TESTS/Gamma/Gamma.html )
set your color options to manual and enable ICM.


If you use any printing software that has color management output to
the print device, that would be best disabled in order to let the
printer handle the color.

I think after that you will print exactly what you see with the
default profiles that install with the printer drivers.

Also, if your ICM isnt working well for you and you still need to
darken the photo, instead of icm, set to photo/dark..

Give those a try, you might be surprised.

Also, If you have any kodak papers laying around, a great setting for
Ultima upp3a or the like,

Plus glossy
manual
enable ICM
plus 7 or so of yellow

those give fantasic results on ultima glossy


and finally , if you make your own profiles from an It8, then you use
your own instead of canons of course...

 

[Guest]

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

In article Taliesyn says...
> The ink in Canon's i860 BCI-6 cartridges seems to differ quite strongly
> from the BCI-3e's in the i850. I'm getting a lot more subtle shades now
> when I do graphics. Before, on the i850, if I was to go one or two shade
> (on my desktop publishing program) lighter, there would be no noticeable
> difference. Sometimes it took 5 shades or more. Matter of fact, I had a
> lot of trouble getting the printed result to look anything like the
> screen. But on my new Canon i860, one or two shades up or down and I get
> get positive, noticeable results. The colors on the whole are brighter,
> happier, and not muddy. Now I get a dark red instead of a brownish red.
> pure yellow is definitely more yellow. Green is bright green instead of
> blah green. It's definitely the ink, as I see it. Naturally, my photos
> look a lot more realistic too - people in the sun *look* like they're
> in the sun, and not in the shade. Yup, it's the ink... quite different.
>
>
You're comparing a 3 colour printer with a 4 colour printer. Others have
used the same ink in i850s and i560s with identical results. Were you
using Canon ink in both or was your 850 on some other brand?

 

[Guest]

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

colinco wrote:
> In article Taliesyn says...
>
>>The ink in Canon's i860 BCI-6 cartridges seems to differ quite strongly
>>from the BCI-3e's in the i850. I'm getting a lot more subtle shades now
>>when I do graphics. Before, on the i850, if I was to go one or two shade
>>(on my desktop publishing program) lighter, there would be no noticeable
>>difference. Sometimes it took 5 shades or more. Matter of fact, I had a
>>lot of trouble getting the printed result to look anything like the
>>screen. But on my new Canon i860, one or two shades up or down and I get
>>get positive, noticeable results. The colors on the whole are brighter,
>>happier, and not muddy. Now I get a dark red instead of a brownish red.
>>pure yellow is definitely more yellow. Green is bright green instead of
>>blah green. It's definitely the ink, as I see it. Naturally, my photos
>>look a lot more realistic too - people in the sun *look* like they're
>>in the sun, and not in the shade. Yup, it's the ink... quite different.
>>
>>
>
> You're comparing a 3 colour printer with a 4 colour printer.

That 4th color is a black!... And I printed pure yellow (for example)
and it was considerably richer on the i860 (same print settings). I'm
seeing shades of colours I've never been able to reproduce on the i850 -
using either Canon or Atlantic Inkjet inks!

If it isn't the ink then there's a major difference somewhere else
between the i850 and the i860.

>Others have used the same ink in i850s and i560s with identical results.

Did I mention I was picky? ;-). I notice the smallest deviations. I
don't know who these others are that you speak of or how picky they are.

> Were you using Canon ink in both or was your 850 on some other brand?

I made some simple side by side tests last year with the i850: Canon
ink versus compatible bulk inks from Atlantic Inkjet. As far as my eyes
could tell they were identical - photos side by sides were exact.

My first digital photo on the i860 blew me away too. Using Kodak's
(4x6) Premium Picture Paper (which isn't their best) results on the
i850 were always considerably less that stunning. I thought they were
quite lousy and had blamed the paper (thought it was cheap). But with
the i860 the results were downright stunning - as good or better than
most of the results with my best High Gloss papers. (I compared the
same photo I had just printed a day earlier on the i850 with one printed
on the i860).

By the way, a photo printed on my old i850 was identical to one printed
next door on my sister's i850. So we know my i850 was functioning
normally. But apparently, not quite the match for the i860.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

In article Taliesyn says...
> Did I mention I was picky? ;-). I notice the smallest deviations. I
> don't know who these others are that you speak of or how picky they are.
>
>
My reason for searching on 3e/6 differences or similarity was in case I
needed ink at short notice for an i865. The local stores usually have
more 3e than 6. The dpreview printer forum has some people claiming that
there is no difference. Nobody has disputed those statements.

I don't know whether the differences you see can be attributed to a
newer driver for the i860 rather than the ink.

 

[Guest]

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

> Taliesynwrote:
Anyone notice banding (noticeable lines) with the i860 printers?
>
> I ask because some banding is noticeable on my older i850,
particularly
> when I rotate some printed photos 90 degrees (one turn to the
right).
> Mind you they're visible in the normal position too but really stand
out
> when looking at the printed bands horizontally.
>
> I'm thinking of moving up to an i860 if I can be sure to get away
from
> these irritating bands which appear on certain photos, often
containing
> skin - not pornographic ;-) - or pavement, to name a couple. They
appear
> on all papers, even Canon Photo Paper Pro. I've re-aligned the
print
> heads several times without effect.
>
> -Taliesyn

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Roger]

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

Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4103FA74.8080809@netscape.net>...
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
> > Gee, Taliesyn, I thought Canons could do no wrong and only Epson
> > printers caused banding?
> >
>
> Art, that's your statement, not mine; I don't recall ever complaining
> about Epsons banding. My gripe was against their superior CLOGGING
> ability, especially the 740. In other words, clogging was so severe
> a whole colour could disappear!
>
> > Chances are you are experiencing some nozzle clogging. The advantage to
> > the Canon models is most have removable heads that can be cleaned using
> > ammoniated window cleaner, just like the Epsons but much easier with the
> > Canons with head outside of the printer.
> >
>
> I did a nozzle check and an alignment. Nozzle check came out fine,
> matching the original from last year.
>
> I even did a menu deep cleaning, something I've never done.
>
> > I've looked at a number of newer Canon prints and some have banding that
> > develops over time. I suspect it just is a matter of cleaning and
> > nothing more.
> >
>
> Well, at your suggestion, I thought a full, outside the printer cleaning
> might be worth it. And it was actually fun. The heads hadn't been
> cleaned in a year. I removed and taped the cartridges. Wiped the print
> head assembly, soaked it in a dish with window cleaner. Then forced,
> with a cut-off syringe, clean fluid through the intakes several times,
> and let it sit for an hour in the dish, changing the liquid twice.
>
> Then I dried it, re-installed it and the cartridges, and ran a cleaning
> cycle. After aligning the print heads I did a nozzle check. The results
> were normal (perfect) as before.
>
> I then printed a glossy photo in the highest resolution, as always,
> and noticed no change from a photo I printed just before the cleaning.
> Slight vertical lines in places... more like visible printing passes.
> They are more visible when photo is turned 90 degrees, so that they're
> horizontal when looking at them. They are more prominent in blue skies,
> skin tones and pavement.
>
> I should add that these printing bands only seem to stand out in photo
> printing and not when doing graphics (same highest resolution).
>
> I then went next door to my sister's house and tried the same print
> on her Canon i850. The results were identical as with my printer.
>
> I've come to the conclusion (after the major head cleaning and comparing
> with another Canon i850) that everything is normal and that I'm simply
> too fussy - better than most people at seeing printing passes, lines or
> bands, whatever they are.... Which would explain why some people like to
> call me a perfectionist.
>
> -Taliesyn

No you're not [too fussy] - I have the identical problem, even after a
new print head, under warranty, numerous cleanings, out of the printer
cleaning, everything possible. I have wasted too much ink, time and
paper, and I will be contacting Canon very soon to demand a full
replacement printer. Perhaps if we all do the same, they will take
notice?

Roger

 

[Guest]

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

Banding is an expected result if the wrong setting is used for a particular
paper. As an example, I have some inexpensive Georgia Pacific Professional
Photo Paper which gives banding if the paper type is set to PPP or Glossy. A
setting of plain paper results in a very good print.
--
Ron Cohen

"B. Peg" <bent_peg@att.nett> wrote in message
news:wKcVc.480824$Gx4.412570@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> My banding problem occurred when I used a non-Canon paper on a Canon i960.
> Never occurred with their glossy paper. Very odd.
>
> B~
>
>


---
AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004