Canon i960 vs. IP4000?

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

I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?

Thanks,
Trevor
32 answers Last reply
More about canon i960 ip4000
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Trevor Holyoak wrote:

    >I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    >this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    >price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    >the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    >range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    >originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    >a better job?

    For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.

    The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
    iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
    2 picoliters.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    If you don't mind rebates, looks like tigerdirect.com still has the i960
    for $89.99 after $70 in rebates.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:NMGdnTLila1Ckz7cRVn-oA@golden.net...
    > Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    >
    >>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    >>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    >>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    >>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    >>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    >>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    >>a better job?
    >
    > For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
    >
    > The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
    > iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
    > 2 picoliters.

    The iP4000 is a 5 tank system. And yes I realize two of these tanks are
    black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
    of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article Trevor Holyoak says...
    > I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    > this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    > price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    > the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    > range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    > originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    > a better job?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Trevor
    >
    Unless you do a lot of text or want Pixma paper handling, the i960 would
    be better. The previous model to the iP4000 was the i860.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
    >>
    >> The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
    >> iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
    >> 2 picoliters.
    >
    >The iP4000 is a 5 tank system.

    I never said otherwise.
    And it's still only a four colour printer.

    > And yes I realize two of these tanks are
    >black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
    >of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.

    Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
    and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
    or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
    that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
    B&W prints.

    No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
    customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
    system. It's just another example of marketing hype.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:1fednenrl4JVWz7cRVn-jw@golden.net...
    > PC Medic wrote:
    >
    >>> For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
    >>>
    >>> The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
    >>> iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
    >>> 2 picoliters.
    >>
    >>The iP4000 is a 5 tank system.
    >
    > I never said otherwise.
    > And it's still only a four colour printer.

    Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
    someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
    5 Tank/5 Color printer. So you are still incorrect. A quote if this helps
    you to swallow the facts a little easier "the Canon PIXMAT iP4000 Photo
    Printer is ideal. Its ContrastPLUS 5-color ink system with four dye-based
    inks plus a pigment-based black ink...." Now whether you choose to accept
    or not, it is considered 5 color even though 2 are varying shades of black.
    I even made it a point to mention I was aware of the 2 black tanks as I
    suspected you would shoot back a 'no it's not' response.

    >
    >> And yes I realize two of these tanks are
    >>black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved
    >>output
    >>of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.
    >
    > Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
    > and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
    > or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
    > that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
    > B&W prints.
    >

    Actually, you can. Do much astronomical or nightscape phototography?
    Evidentally not. If you did you would notice that the photo-black tends to
    blend better in images with large areas of darkness or low contrast compared
    to the pigmented black used for the crisp text printouts.

    > No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
    > customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
    > system. It's just another example of marketing hype.

    And this is just another example of how little you seem to know about how
    printers work.
    While it may not be a major factor in every photo (something I noted in my
    original response) a photo black tank can certainly improve image quality on
    certain types of images.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> I never said otherwise.
    >> And it's still only a four colour printer.
    >
    >Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
    >someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
    >5 Tank/5 Color printer.

    Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
    colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
    what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:mc6dnVpVMbFQ_DncRVn-1A@golden.net...
    > PC Medic wrote:
    >
    >>> I never said otherwise.
    >>> And it's still only a four colour printer.
    >>
    >>Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
    >>someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is
    >>a
    >>5 Tank/5 Color printer.
    >
    > Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
    > colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
    > what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.

    It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
    This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
    printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
    believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
    >> colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
    >> what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.
    >
    >It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
    >This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
    >printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
    >believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.

    Really...?

    Got a link to those facts?
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    >
    > I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    > this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    > price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    > the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    > range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    > originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    > a better job?

    Trevor,

    I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:

    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

    We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    provided us with an excellent durability experiment!

    See for yourself:
    http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading

    Tohmas

    >
    > Thanks,
    > Trevor
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article PC Medic says...
    > It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
    > This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
    > printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
    > believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.
    >
    >
    AFAIK the pigment text black isn't used on photo papers. Do you know
    that the photoblack IS used in plain paper graphics or are graphics
    blacks composite CMY except on photo papers?
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    ThomasH wrote:

    > Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    >
    >>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    >>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    >>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    >>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    >>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    >>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    >>a better job?
    >
    >
    > Trevor,
    >
    > I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    >
    > We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    >
    > See for yourself:
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading

    Was the picture covered with glass?

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    BenOne© wrote:
    >
    > ThomasH wrote:
    >
    > > Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    > >
    > >>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    > >>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    > >>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    > >>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    > >>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    > >>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    > >>a better job?
    > >
    > >
    > > Trevor,
    > >
    > > I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > > was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > > drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > > and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > > does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    > >
    > > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    > >
    > > We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > > image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > > provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    > >
    > > See for yourself:
    > > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    > Was the picture covered with glass?

    No, the image was exposed to air and light. This is a magnetic
    "frame", commonly used to pin the image to something like a
    fridge. Neither were all other images, of which some printed
    on the Matte paper at the same time still look almost unchanged!

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

    ThomasH wrote:


    > No, the image was exposed to air and light. This is a magnetic
    > "frame", commonly used to pin the image to something like a
    > fridge. Neither were all other images, of which some printed
    > on the Matte paper at the same time still look almost unchanged!
    >
    > Thomas

    I wouldn'y expect much more than 6 months before an image started to fade if it
    wasn't behind glass.

    What did you use to print the ones that didn't fade?

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
    news:hna5oc.oc6.ln@192.168.11.2...
    > ThomasH wrote:
    >
    >> Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    >>
    >>>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    >>>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    >>>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    >>>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    >>>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    >>>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    >>>a better job?
    >>
    >>
    >> Trevor, I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    >> was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe drastic
    >> fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    >> and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    >> does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >>
    >> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    >>
    >> We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    >> image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this provided us
    >> with an excellent durability experiment!
    >>
    >> See for yourself:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    > Was the picture covered with glass?
    >

    This would definitely make a difference, though I have never had much issue
    with fading for any of my pics (framed or not).
    The ones that I guess I could say experienced 'some' fade (though VERY
    slight) are of my grand-daughter and are on plain paper stuck to the front
    of my fridge with a magnet. I assume the direct sunlight in the latter half
    of the day and the ozone levels from the fridge compressor may have
    something to do with this.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
    clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
    ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer or
    the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon printers
    dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
    since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820, i950
    and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not Canon
    due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading. FWIW most printed
    items, regardless of how they were printed - inkjet, offset, chemical photo
    process - will fade when exposed to adverse conditions. I have offset
    printed posters in my store windows and shelf labels which exhibit serious
    fading because of direct exposure to sunlight, but I also have some inkjet
    prints kept on the dashboard of my car to see how badly they will fade.
    They've been there for over a month without any detectable fading. Same goes
    for prints taped to a wall in my office (over a year) where the lights stay
    on 24/7 - no fading.
    --
    Ron Cohen

    "ThomasH" <henrymot@some.net> wrote in message
    news:41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net...
    > I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    >
    > We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    >
    > See for yourself:
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    > Tohmas


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:
    >
    > "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
    > news:hna5oc.oc6.ln@192.168.11.2...
    > > ThomasH wrote:
    [...]
    > >> Trevor, I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > >> was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe drastic
    > >> fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > >> and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > >> does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    > >>
    > >> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    > >>
    > >> We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > >> image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this provided us
    > >> with an excellent durability experiment!
    > >>
    > >> See for yourself:
    > >> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    > >
    > > Was the picture covered with glass?
    > >
    >
    > This would definitely make a difference, though I have never had much issue
    > with fading for any of my pics (framed or not).
    > The ones that I guess I could say experienced 'some' fade (though VERY
    > slight) are of my grand-daughter and are on plain paper stuck to the front
    > of my fridge with a magnet. I assume the direct sunlight in the latter half
    > of the day and the ozone levels from the fridge compressor may have
    > something to do with this.

    I agree: Because light was here never the issue, this must have
    been some other influence. Here is California we have low humidity
    and in our Air Conditioning we do use finest filters money can buy.
    Thus we can rule out light, moisture and dust. What remains as
    usual suspects are other factors, such as ozone or some cooking
    steam. But in gods name, why than images printed on the matte paper
    and hanging on the very same spot still look almost identical???

    This particular Canon paper ("glossy photo paper plus") has
    something peculiar in it: It smells intensely. First time we
    printed approx. 20 images for 10 parties each, we noticed that
    our home was smelling strangely, I suspected vinegar spilled in
    the kitchen. Later we realized that this was this Canon paper!
    Maybe this chemical is the culprit? Maybe it reacts with some
    of the cooking ingrediens??

    During our visit at the Keeble & Shuchat we saw that Canon people
    had an ink printer with the same paper on display (they were
    printing demo images.) I verified that this paper has its
    familiar "vinegar like" smell. This was thus not just our batch!

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

    I have been using an i960 for a year and those printed I ahve mounted in
    frames and glass have done well. Those on the refrigerator faded as quickly
    as the the store printed ones.

    I think that the conditions are the issue not the ink or printer.

    One person's opinion

    "ThomasH" <henrymot@some.net> wrote in message
    news:41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net...
    : Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    : >
    : > I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    : > this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    : > price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    : > the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    : > range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    : > originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    : > a better job?
    :
    : Trevor,
    :
    : I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    : was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    : drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    : and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    : does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    :
    : http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    :
    : We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    : image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    : provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    :
    : See for yourself:
    : http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    :
    : Tohmas
    :
    : >
    : > Thanks,
    : > Trevor
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Cyan failure, and especially the light cyan, is a problem Epson's also
    had with their dye inks.

    I have noted Canon inks don't do well when exposed to UV or fluorescent
    lighting without protection. However, you may wish to test other
    papers. The dye/paper relationship can be significant. I have found
    some papers that make dye inks much less fugitive than others.

    You might want to try either some of Kodak's newer "Colorlast' papers or
    Epson's Heavy weight matte, and see if either are more stable with the
    Canon inks. There are some new papers being created in Europe that use
    new technologies that should provide better dye ink permanence. They
    are in testing now, and should be widely available in the next 6-12
    months, I believe.

    Art

    ThomasH wrote:

    > BenOne© wrote:
    >
    >>ThomasH wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    >>>>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    >>>>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    >>>>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    >>>>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    >>>>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    >>>>a better job?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Trevor,
    >>>
    >>>I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    >>>was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    >>>drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    >>>and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    >>>does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    >>>
    >>>We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    >>>image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    >>>provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    >>>
    >>>See for yourself:
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >>
    >>Was the picture covered with glass?
    >
    >
    > No, the image was exposed to air and light. This is a magnetic
    > "frame", commonly used to pin the image to something like a
    > fridge. Neither were all other images, of which some printed
    > on the Matte paper at the same time still look almost unchanged!
    >
    > Thomas
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Although I agree that fading is dependent upon many factors (paper type,
    ink type, exposure to UV, exposure to certain gases (Ozone, etc), there
    still are a few basic "truisms".

    Overall, pigmented inks or pigments have better fade resistance than
    dyes. There are physical reasons for this. Dyes are molecular in size,
    and they get activated by photons, UV, and oxidizers which can literally
    lift the molecules off the paper. The lower the dye load of the ink
    (such as light cyan, light magenta, etc, the less protection the lower
    molecules get from the ones above, because they are more dilute and
    spread out. In general, swellable polymer technology in papers holds
    dyes in place better than micropore paper surfaces.

    So, for best fade resistance:

    1) use a pigmented ink, if possible. Pigmented inks are made up of
    literally "chunks" of solid color suspended in a media. The size alone
    protects the color better, as does the opacity. Pigmented inks will
    tend to cog inkjet heads more easily.

    Color laser printers (and color photocopiers) also use pigments mixed
    with clear plastics which they become imbedded in during the fusing
    process. Most color laser prints are very fade resistance, much more so
    than the ink used in offset printing.

    2) When using dye inks, using full dye load colors (CMYK, for instance)
    will usually hold up better than the light dye load colors (cm).

    3) Using a swellable polymer paper will hold dyes in place better than
    general fibre or micropore surfaces. Swellable polymer papers usually
    get sticky when wet, take longer to dry, and tend to be damaged by water
    more easily than micropore papers, which come out of the printer "dry".

    4) Matte papers usually hold dyes better than glossy when comparing
    similar paper types (see #3)

    5) Protection from UV, direct sunlight and gasses will usually protect
    any ink better

    6) Allow inkjet prints, especially those with sealed of plastic or resin
    coated paper substrates to air out for several days or longer before
    framing to avoid continuing release of the glycols which take a while to
    evaporate. These will leave a ghost-image which can become deposited on
    the inside surface of the glass should you frame the print too soon.
    Some people suggest placing the prints between clean newsprint to help
    to pick up the glycols. Change the newsprint paper every day. You can
    probably reuse the newsprint paper once it has fully evaporated off the
    glycols.

    Art


    Ron Cohen wrote:

    > Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
    > clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
    > ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer or
    > the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon printers
    > dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
    > since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820, i950
    > and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not Canon
    > due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading. FWIW most printed
    > items, regardless of how they were printed - inkjet, offset, chemical photo
    > process - will fade when exposed to adverse conditions. I have offset
    > printed posters in my store windows and shelf labels which exhibit serious
    > fading because of direct exposure to sunlight, but I also have some inkjet
    > prints kept on the dashboard of my car to see how badly they will fade.
    > They've been there for over a month without any detectable fading. Same goes
    > for prints taped to a wall in my office (over a year) where the lights stay
    > on 24/7 - no fading.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <y7Lpd.38013$Al3.24621@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
    "Ron Cohen" <drc023@N^O+S~P^A^M.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    > Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
    > clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
    > ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer or
    > the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon printers
    > dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
    > since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820, i950
    > and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not Canon
    > due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading.

    What do you find provides the best life from Canon printers and inks?

    Do they have the same color balance as Canon or do you have to tweak
    them? If the latter, in what ways?

    --
    Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
    bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
    rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I use Sensient-Formulabs ink from www.alotofthings.com and a variety of
    papers. Office Depot Premium High Gloss and Red River Ultra Pro are the ones
    I use most, but I also like Georgia Pacific Image Plus Professional which
    has been discontinued. These are microporous papers that are highly water
    resistant and work very well with my Canon printers. Although these type of
    papers are reported to be prone to fading, I haven't experienced this as a
    problem. In the swellable polymer line I have Kodak Ultima and some cheapie
    papers from Sam's Club. These are reported to be much more resistant to
    fading, but they are easily damaged by moisture and finger prints. Since the
    prints I make are usually handled quite a bit, durability is more important
    to me than longevity. However as I've stated, even the prints on the
    microporous papers haven't exhibited any detectable fading and I've got some
    of them in areas where fading should be a problem - auto dashboard,
    refrigerator and 24/7 lighting conditions. As to color balance for the
    papers I can't compare the output I get against Canon papers since I don't
    use them. In the ink area I have done some direct testing with both color
    pallet sheets and photo output. I recently got a new iP4000 and I printed
    these test sheets using the Canon tanks that came with the printer. I then
    replaced the CMYK tanks with old BCI-6 tanks from my i950. These tanks have
    been refilled many times. I printed a lot of junk to insure the Canon ink
    was consumed and that I'd be using Formulabs ink. The color match was
    identical (to the naked eye) and the only way I could determine which ink
    had been used was by a notation I'd made on the sheets to record which ink
    was used.

    I have no doubts that fading is a serious problem, but I haven't been
    affected by it. Maybe it's the area where I live and the air quality. For
    whatever reasons, I seem to be getting better results than most other users.
    --
    Ron Cohen

    "Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:bob-D638C3.10465227112004@news.verizon.net...
    > In article <y7Lpd.38013$Al3.24621@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
    > "Ron Cohen" <drc023@N^O+S~P^A^M.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
    >> clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
    >> ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer
    >> or
    >> the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon
    >> printers
    >> dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
    >> since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820,
    >> i950
    >> and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not
    >> Canon
    >> due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading.
    >
    > What do you find provides the best life from Canon printers and inks?
    >
    > Do they have the same color balance as Canon or do you have to tweak
    > them? If the latter, in what ways?
    >
    > --
    > Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
    > bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
    > rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
    >


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Interesting report. Its the 1st report about 3rd party inks
    and refilling with these printers. So far I sticked with the
    expensive genuine inks.

    Steves Digicams passes a few recommendations for 3rd party
    papers, I have not tested them yet:

    http://www.freephotopaper.com/ProPaper-sdc.htm

    I believed in "longevity and correctness of the genuine
    products. How wrong I was...

    Thomas

    Ron Cohen wrote:
    >
    > I use Sensient-Formulabs ink from www.alotofthings.com and a variety of
    > papers. Office Depot Premium High Gloss and Red River Ultra Pro are the ones
    > I use most, but I also like Georgia Pacific Image Plus Professional which
    > has been discontinued. These are microporous papers that are highly water
    > resistant and work very well with my Canon printers. Although these type of
    > papers are reported to be prone to fading, I haven't experienced this as a
    > problem. In the swellable polymer line I have Kodak Ultima and some cheapie
    > papers from Sam's Club. These are reported to be much more resistant to
    > fading, but they are easily damaged by moisture and finger prints. Since the
    > prints I make are usually handled quite a bit, durability is more important
    > to me than longevity. However as I've stated, even the prints on the
    > microporous papers haven't exhibited any detectable fading and I've got some
    > of them in areas where fading should be a problem - auto dashboard,
    > refrigerator and 24/7 lighting conditions. As to color balance for the
    > papers I can't compare the output I get against Canon papers since I don't
    > use them. In the ink area I have done some direct testing with both color
    > pallet sheets and photo output. I recently got a new iP4000 and I printed
    > these test sheets using the Canon tanks that came with the printer. I then
    > replaced the CMYK tanks with old BCI-6 tanks from my i950. These tanks have
    > been refilled many times. I printed a lot of junk to insure the Canon ink
    > was consumed and that I'd be using Formulabs ink. The color match was
    > identical (to the naked eye) and the only way I could determine which ink
    > had been used was by a notation I'd made on the sheets to record which ink
    > was used.
    >
    > I have no doubts that fading is a serious problem, but I haven't been
    > affected by it. Maybe it's the area where I live and the air quality. For
    > whatever reasons, I seem to be getting better results than most other users.
    > --
    > Ron Cohen
    >
    > "Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:bob-D638C3.10465227112004@news.verizon.net...
    > > In article <y7Lpd.38013$Al3.24621@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
    > > "Ron Cohen" <drc023@N^O+S~P^A^M.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
    > >> clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
    > >> ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer
    > >> or
    > >> the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon
    > >> printers
    > >> dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
    > >> since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820,
    > >> i950
    > >> and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not
    > >> Canon
    > >> due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading.
    > >
    > > What do you find provides the best life from Canon printers and inks?
    > >
    > > Do they have the same color balance as Canon or do you have to tweak
    > > them? If the latter, in what ways?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
    > > bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
    > > rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
    > >
    >
    > ---
    > AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
    news:atZpd.194232$df2.140512@edtnps89...
    > Cyan failure, and especially the light cyan, is a problem Epson's also had
    > with their dye inks.
    >
    > I have noted Canon inks don't do well when exposed to UV or fluorescent
    > lighting without protection. However, you may wish to test other papers.
    > The dye/paper relationship can be significant. I have found some papers
    > that make dye inks much less fugitive than others.
    >
    > You might want to try either some of Kodak's newer "Colorlast' papers or
    > Epson's Heavy weight matte, and see if either are more stable with the
    > Canon inks. There are some new papers being created in Europe that use
    > new technologies that should provide better dye ink permanence. They are
    > in testing now, and should be widely available in the next 6-12 months, I
    > believe.
    >

    I am using Canon inks and papers for all my photos and have several prints
    (some more than 2 years old)
    hanging by tack to the wall. The lighting at work is all fluorescent and I
    have seen no noticeable fading on any of these. One of my co-workers uses
    whatever brand (paper) happens to be on sale and his mileage varies.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    You are certainly correct that fugitive inks will last longer if they
    are shielded with glass from UV or certain pollutants. But, some ink
    and paper combinations will last even when unprotected with glass.

    Framing and glass, and even better UV filter glass, which is designed
    with a slightly yellow tint, will make a difference in fading time, but
    good inks and papers can make even a greater difference.

    Art

    Traveling wrote:

    > I have been using an i960 for a year and those printed I ahve mounted in
    > frames and glass have done well. Those on the refrigerator faded as quickly
    > as the the store printed ones.
    >
    > I think that the conditions are the issue not the ink or printer.
    >
    > One person's opinion
    >
    > "ThomasH" <henrymot@some.net> wrote in message
    > news:41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net...
    > : Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    > : >
    > : > I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    > : > this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    > : > price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    > : > the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    > : > range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    > : > originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    > : > a better job?
    > :
    > : Trevor,
    > :
    > : I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > : was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > : drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > : and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > : does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    > :
    > : http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    > :
    > : We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > : image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > : provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    > :
    > : See for yourself:
    > : http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    > :
    > : Tohmas
    > :
    > : >
    > : > Thanks,
    > : > Trevor
    >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henrymot@some.net>
    writes
    >
    >I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    >was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    >drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    >and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    >does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    >
    >We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    >image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    >provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    >
    >See for yourself:
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    Sadly a well documented feature that was first encountered by Epson -
    Canon, coming along later, should have known all about this because it
    cost Epson dearly in product refunds, replacements and general lost
    goodwill amongst many of their loyal customers.

    The Epson saga is pretty well covered in the following sites:
    http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/
    http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/chrono.htm
    however, after a long period of denial Epson finally admitted that this
    is oxidation of the cyan dyestuff in the ink. Their original admission
    indicated that they could reliably replicate the oxidation by exposing
    the paper to ozone in the laboratory and this led to the widespread but
    completely wrong belief that the problem only occurred in high ozone
    environments. Unfortunately, under certain environmental conditions
    (temperature and airflow) the oxidation can occur in pure air to a
    degree that is easily perceptible by eye in only a few days. The
    problem is more significant with high gloss paper because this uses a
    microporous surface, the capillary action of which achieved the high
    saturation of colour but also acts like a catalyst to the oxidising
    chemicals in the atmosphere it is exposed to. Normal fibre and kaolin
    coated papers, whilst still susceptible in extreme conditions, are
    several orders of magnitude less sensitive to the problem.

    Despite numerous attempts to resolve the problem, with anti-oxidants in
    the paper, swellable polymer top layers etc. Epson gave up and simply
    moved on to pigment inks instead of dyes for their long life products.
    The use of high gloss paper with dye based ink is a complete waste of
    time and money since the only way to maintain the colour is to protect
    the paper surface from the air with glass, plastic or film - making the
    high gloss finish obsolete.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <uYbqd.34433$bP2.22544@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
    "Ron Cohen" <drc023@N^O+S~P^A^M.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    > I use Sensient-Formulabs ink from www.alotofthings.com and a variety of
    > papers. Office Depot Premium High Gloss and Red River Ultra Pro are the ones
    > I use most, but I also like Georgia Pacific Image Plus Professional which
    > has been discontinued. These are microporous papers that are highly water
    > resistant and work very well with my Canon printers. Although these type of
    > papers are reported to be prone to fading, I haven't experienced this as a
    > problem. In the swellable polymer line I have Kodak Ultima and some cheapie
    > papers from Sam's Club. These are reported to be much more resistant to
    > fading, but they are easily damaged by moisture and finger prints. Since the
    > prints I make are usually handled quite a bit, durability is more important
    > to me than longevity. However as I've stated, even the prints on the
    > microporous papers haven't exhibited any detectable fading and I've got some
    > of them in areas where fading should be a problem - auto dashboard,
    > refrigerator and 24/7 lighting conditions. As to color balance for the
    > papers I can't compare the output I get against Canon papers since I don't
    > use them. In the ink area I have done some direct testing with both color
    > pallet sheets and photo output. I recently got a new iP4000 and I printed
    > these test sheets using the Canon tanks that came with the printer. I then
    > replaced the CMYK tanks with old BCI-6 tanks from my i950. These tanks have
    > been refilled many times. I printed a lot of junk to insure the Canon ink
    > was consumed and that I'd be using Formulabs ink. The color match was
    > identical (to the naked eye) and the only way I could determine which ink
    > had been used was by a notation I'd made on the sheets to record which ink
    > was used.

    Sorry to quote so much of your post, but I couldn't figure out a good
    way to edit it down for the purpose of the following.

    Thanks for the feedback. I will have to explore some of these papers.

    I have one comment from my own experience. Canon papers and inks do a
    pretty fair job on B&W prints in my i9100 using the built-in Canon
    profile. However, Canon Inks with Office Depot paper produced a
    greenish cast. This is very subtle, to the point that I could not
    notice it on color prints, but it is there.

    My impression was you were using Canon ink. Using Formulab ink is
    likely to add its own flavor of color-cast. Since all the ink-jet
    printers I have seen produce B&W by combining colors, I would be
    interested in knowing if anybody has an ink/paper combination that
    combines neutral color (which is pretty obvious with B&W) and long life.

    --
    Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
    bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
    rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:bob-9CB439.12411528112004@news.verizon.net...

    > My impression was you were using Canon ink. Using Formulab ink is
    > likely to add its own flavor of color-cast. Since all the ink-jet
    > printers I have seen produce B&W by combining colors, I would be
    > interested in knowing if anybody has an ink/paper combination that
    > combines neutral color (which is pretty obvious with B&W) and long life.

    Many of HP's recent Photosmart printers use a grayscale cartridge (either #59
    or #100) for neutral grayscale printing. See the Photosmart 7960 or 8450 for
    example. Actually, all the printers shown at
    http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02a/18972-236251-64340.html except
    the Photosmart 7400 series support the gray cartridges.

    Henry Wilhelm rates the lightfastness of these at 115 years; see:
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for specifics
    of the Photosmart 375 printer or http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for a number
    of articles on fade resistance.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >
    > In article <41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henrymot@some.net>
    > writes
    > >
    > >I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > >was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > >drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > >and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > >does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    > >
    > > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
    > >
    > >We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > >image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > >provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    > >
    > >See for yourself:
    > > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    > >
    > Sadly a well documented feature that was first encountered by Epson -
    > Canon, coming along later, should have known all about this because it
    > cost Epson dearly in product refunds, replacements and general lost
    > goodwill amongst many of their loyal customers.
    >
    > The Epson saga is pretty well covered in the following sites:
    > http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/
    > http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/chrono.htm
    > however, after a long period of denial Epson finally admitted that this
    > is oxidation of the cyan dyestuff in the ink. Their original admission
    > indicated that they could reliably replicate the oxidation by exposing
    > the paper to ozone in the laboratory and this led to the widespread but
    > completely wrong belief that the problem only occurred in high ozone

    Indeed, thanks for the links. I knew about the story, but I
    forgot all about these links. Since we are determent to return
    the printer (its a try, probably ill fated, but I will try it
    anyway,) the comparable example of Epson's admission and consumer
    satisfaction measures might help us in achieving our goal to
    replace the S9000 by Epson 2200, or even by the Stylus Pro 4000.
    The latest option needs domestic negotiation :-) If I will walk
    in home with this 80lbs/40kg monster, I will be in trouble.


    > environments. Unfortunately, under certain environmental conditions
    > (temperature and airflow) the oxidation can occur in pure air to a
    > degree that is easily perceptible by eye in only a few days. The
    > problem is more significant with high gloss paper because this uses a
    > microporous surface, the capillary action of which achieved the high
    > saturation of colour but also acts like a catalyst to the oxidising
    > chemicals in the atmosphere it is exposed to. Normal fibre and kaolin
    > coated papers, whilst still susceptible in extreme conditions, are
    > several orders of magnitude less sensitive to the problem.
    >
    > Despite numerous attempts to resolve the problem, with anti-oxidants in
    > the paper, swellable polymer top layers etc. Epson gave up and simply
    > moved on to pigment inks instead of dyes for their long life products.
    > The use of high gloss paper with dye based ink is a complete waste of
    > time and money since the only way to maintain the colour is to protect
    > the paper surface from the air with glass, plastic or film - making the
    > high gloss finish obsolete.

    Good move by Epson, this gives them clearly the competitive edge
    and surprisingly, the 12ml tanks for 2200 are no more expensive
    than the 13ml BCI-6 for Canon's large printers!

    I completely agree about the argument with the glass! Why than
    pay so much more for glossy papers, if the image shall be covered
    by glass anyway?

    People at Keeble and Shuhat told us that the Epson 2200 has some
    bronzing problems on the high gloss paper. They said that the
    luster paper is most valued by the pros who buy at their store.

    Thomas

    > --
    > Kennedy
    > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <41AA2E5C.ECA6C095@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henrymot@some.net>
    writes

    >Since we are determent to return
    >the printer (its a try, probably ill fated, but I will try it
    >anyway,) the comparable example of Epson's admission and consumer
    >satisfaction measures might help us in achieving our goal to
    >replace the S9000 by Epson 2200, or even by the Stylus Pro 4000.

    Good luck - it took many people to make initial steps toward individual
    court action to persuade Epson to even admit there was a problem and for
    many the solution was less than satisfactory. A lot of professionals
    had their own reputations tarnished because Epson refused to underwrite
    claims made against them for prints which had faded within the warranty
    period.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:00:22 GMT, ThomasH <henrymot@some.net> wrote:


    >People at Keeble and Shuhat told us that the Epson 2200 has some
    >bronzing problems on the high gloss paper. They said that the
    >luster paper is most valued by the pros who buy at their store.
    >
    Yes, that bronzing does occur. But not with semi-gloss or matt papers.
    It also doesn't occur with gloss papers using Permajet pigment inks.
    (That's the brand I use all the time - a CIS system which works well).

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    ThomasH <henrymot@some.net> wrote in message news:<41A5478D.4C27DFF8@comcast.net>...
    > Trevor Holyoak wrote:
    > >
    > > I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
    > > this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
    > > price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
    > > the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
    > > range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
    > > originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
    > > a better job?
    >
    > Trevor,
    >
    > I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
    > was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
    > drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
    > and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
    > does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:
    >
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

    Wilhelm numbers for Canon BCI-6 inks are shown here:

    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp


    Also note that there is indeed a reason for the particular companies
    on wilhelm's site. Those companies paid for those reports to
    have been done (which is a good thing, but still something to
    concider).

    >
    > We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
    > image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
    > provided us with an excellent durability experiment!
    >
    > See for yourself:
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading


    That page does not use the "expensive glossy paper" of Canon,
    it uses the cheap Canon glossy paper. :-) Note that in the
    Wilhelm chart above, Canon's actual 'expensive glossy paper'
    (Photo Pro) is rated six times longer than a cheaper paper, and
    that the Photo Pro paper in that report is the older version
    (had a silent upgrade almost a year ago now -- that improved
    longevity to a claimed 100 year rating for "album use").

    In any case, certain gases (as well as UV light) can attack
    prints that are exposed, so anecdotal stories may be more about
    the particular environments than about the product being talked
    about.

    I wonder what effect natural gas has on prints. Our kitchen
    has a gas stove, and certainly a little will leak into the air
    when a stovetop is started. Or junk coming out of candles? My
    wife likes to have a candle burning continuously on a
    kitchen counter (not to speak of the gassified oil and grease
    coming off of food being fried or baked in the kitchen).

    Mike
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Peripherals