Don't bother with Ilford paper & Canon i9950

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

BenOne© wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a Canon i9950 printer and I thought I would try the Ilford
> Classic Pearl paper seeing as Ilford bother to make profiles for
> their paper and your printer and it's a fair bit cheaper than the
> Canon Photo Paper Pro yet still has good print longevity claims.
>
> Pity the ink pools (coalesces) regardless of the paper type setting
> in the printer driver, effectively reducing the print resolution to
> nothing near the 4800x2400 dpi that this printer is capable of.
>
> I spoke to Ilford and they claim they can't test every printer so it's
> unfortunate that the best results aren't atainable with this printer
> & paper combination.
>
> Pesonally I don't think they should mention a printer on the box if
> they haven't tested it and confirmed that there will be no problems.
> In Australia there is actually a law that covers this in our Trade
> Practices Act. Wording to the effect of not of merchantable quality,
> and doesn't perform as advertised. Basically this paper doesn't work
> with this printer so don't say it does.
> Looks like I'll have to stick with the rather expensive Canon Photo
> Paper Pro which is a real shame because I've been happy with the
> Ilford paper in the past in an Epson Photo 700.


Shame JetTec don't sell to Australia - I use their papers exclusively, and
have never had a problem (except with the A4/A5 Cards + Envelopes Matt
210g/m² which don't appear to take the pigmented ink too well (I have both
an i9950 and an R800). Stupid thing is, I'm using JT tanks! JT doesn't
appear to have an answer). But everything else is fine. As it's the only
brand I use, I can't recommend anything else, I'm afraid.
--
My great-grandfather was born and raised in Elgin - did he eventually
lose his marbles?

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

BenOne© wrote:
> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>
>> BenOne© wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've got a Canon i9950 printer and I thought I would try the Ilford
>>> Classic Pearl paper seeing as Ilford bother to make profiles for
>>> their paper and your printer and it's a fair bit cheaper than the
>>> Canon Photo Paper Pro yet still has good print longevity claims.
>>>
>>> Pity the ink pools (coalesces) regardless of the paper type setting
>>> in the printer driver, effectively reducing the print resolution to
>>> nothing near the 4800x2400 dpi that this printer is capable of.
>>>
>>> I spoke to Ilford and they claim they can't test every printer so
>>> it's unfortunate that the best results aren't atainable with this
>>> printer & paper combination.
>>>
>>> Pesonally I don't think they should mention a printer on the box if
>>> they haven't tested it and confirmed that there will be no problems.
>>> In Australia there is actually a law that covers this in our Trade
>>> Practices Act. Wording to the effect of not of merchantable quality,
>>> and doesn't perform as advertised. Basically this paper doesn't work
>>> with this printer so don't say it does.
>>> Looks like I'll have to stick with the rather expensive Canon Photo
>>> Paper Pro which is a real shame because I've been happy with the
>>> Ilford paper in the past in an Epson Photo 700.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shame JetTec don't sell to Australia - I use their papers
>> exclusively, and have never had a problem (except with the A4/A5
>> Cards + Envelopes Matt 210g/m² which don't appear to take the
>> pigmented ink too well (I have both an i9950 and an R800). Stupid
>> thing is, I'm using JT tanks! JT doesn't appear to have an answer).
>> But everything else is fine. As it's the only brand I use, I can't
>> recommend anything else, I'm afraid.
>
> Thanks for the info Miss P.T. I think the problem with the Ilford
> Classic paper and Canon i9950 is that the paper can't absorb the ink
> fast enough as the i9950 is a very fast printer.


Fast?! I did a speed test once. The Canon printed a full, borderless A4
photo in 6 minutes. The Epson took just over three.
--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

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

BenOne© wrote:
> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>
>> Fast?! I did a speed test once. The Canon printed a full, borderless
>> A4 photo in 6 minutes. The Epson took just over three.
>
> Takes under 2 minutes on my i9950. Are you using the right high speed
> connection?


A printer cannot take the data fast enough from the computer to make
FireWire - or USB2 - necessary. But, just to humour you, I did a little
experiment. I printed the same photo (of a local church), with the printer
connected to my father's system (USB1.1), and then to mine (using USB2 and
FireWire). All three took similar lengths of time (in fact, the print from
my father's system was the fastest of the lot). All other parameters were
identical(XP Pro, Publisher 2003, identical print settings).

The system specs are as follows: -

Dad's system
-----------------
P3 1.4GHz
512MB RAM
120GB HD (80GB free)
Windows XP Pro
Office 2003 Pro
USB1.1

Mine
-----
FX-55
2x75GB Raptor (15K)
1x300GB WD Caviar (SATA)
2GB RAM
Windows XP Pro
Office 2003 Pro

The Epson is significantly faster (that's why I hardly ever use the Canon
anymore, other than when I need to do an A3 print).

--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

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

Michael J Davis wrote:
> Miss Perspicacia Tick <misstick@lancre.dw> observed
>> BenOne© wrote:
>>> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fast?! I did a speed test once. The Canon printed a full,
>>>> borderless A4 photo in 6 minutes. The Epson took just over three.
>>>
>>> Takes under 2 minutes on my i9950. Are you using the right high
>>> speed connection?
>>
>> A printer cannot take the data fast enough from the computer to make
>> FireWire - or USB2 - necessary. But, just to humour you, I did a
>> little experiment. I printed the same photo (of a local church),
>> with the printer connected to my father's system (USB1.1), and then
>> to mine (using USB2 and FireWire). All three took similar lengths of
>> time (in fact, the print from my father's system was the fastest of
>> the lot). All other parameters were identical(XP Pro, Publisher
>> 2003, identical print settings).
> [snip]
>>
>> The Epson is significantly faster (that's why I hardly ever use the
>> Canon anymore, other than when I need to do an A3 print).
>
> Sorry? Exactly how long does it take to do an A3 photo on the Epson?
>
> If you are comparing an A3 printer with an A4 printer, (I don't know
> what the numbers mean) then that's hardly like for like, is it?
> Carriage travel and other factors must affect it. surely?
>
> Mike


Of course not! An A3 printer is quite capable of printing on A4 paper
y'know! What a nonsensical remark! You think a printer is locked to printing
on one size of paper?!
--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

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

Michael J Davis wrote:
> Miss Perspicacia Tick <misstick@lancre.dw> observed
>> Michael J Davis wrote:
>>> Miss Perspicacia Tick <misstick@lancre.dw> observed
>>>> BenOne© wrote:
>>>>> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fast?! I did a speed test once. The Canon printed a full,
>>>>>> borderless A4 photo in 6 minutes. The Epson took just over three.
>>>>>
>>>>> Takes under 2 minutes on my i9950. Are you using the right high
>>>>> speed connection?
>>>>
>>>> A printer cannot take the data fast enough from the computer to
>>>> make FireWire - or USB2 - necessary. But, just to humour you, I
>>>> did a little experiment. I printed the same photo (of a local
>>>> church), with the printer connected to my father's system
>>>> (USB1.1), and then to mine (using USB2 and FireWire). All three
>>>> took similar lengths of time (in fact, the print from my father's
>>>> system was the fastest of the lot). All other parameters were
>>>> identical(XP Pro, Publisher 2003, identical print settings).
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The Epson is significantly faster (that's why I hardly ever use the
>>>> Canon anymore, other than when I need to do an A3 print).
>>>
>>> Sorry? Exactly how long does it take to do an A3 photo on the Epson?
>>>
>>> If you are comparing an A3 printer with an A4 printer, (I don't know
>>> what the numbers mean) then that's hardly like for like, is it?
>>> Carriage travel and other factors must affect it. surely?
>>
>> Of course not! An A3 printer is quite capable of printing on A4 paper
>> y'know! What a nonsensical remark! You think a printer is locked to
>> printing on one size of paper?!
>
> Try reading what I said again.
>
> I was suggesting that an A3 printer might be slower than a dedicated
> A4 printer printing A4 size. OTOH, it takes an infinitely long time to
> print an A3 print on an A4 printer. Then average them! ;-)
>
> Mike


I have read it several times, thank you, and it makes less and less sense
each time I read it.
--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

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

zoomer wrote:
>
> just wanted to reply, because I just bought a canon i9900 and while I
> do use some canon paper ( I prefer semi-gloss ) I also use Ilford
> classic and smooth pearl and have not had any problems, prints are
> great, I am not familar with the i9950. My daughter has a ip8500 and
> she also uses ilford smooth and classic pearl papers because we both
> prefer semi-gloss to gloss. No one recommended Ilford paper to me,
> but I did see an article in the newspaper a while back stating that
> prints are only as good as the photo paper used and Ilford was highly
> recommended, and I have used it ever since and been very pleased with
> the results. I also use canon paper sometimes but Sam's Club sells
> the 100 pack of smooth pearl paper at a very resonable price and they
> have the 4 by 6 as well as 81/2 by 11. Just thought I would reply, I
> have never replied before and only recently became a member of this
> site
>
> vicky in arizona

The i9950 is the European/Asian/Australasian version of the i9900,
identical with the American version but with the addition of a CD label
printer, missing on the US verson due I believe to patent/copyright
problems there.

Ilford papers work outstandingly well on these printers, though
longevity has yet to be proved compared to genuine Canon papers.

Colin