Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson R300 or Canon IP4000

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:17:02 PM

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

Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed.

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:35:50 PM

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

Capt Nud wrote:

> Merry Christmas!
>
> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>
> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
> need the speed to get these books printed.
>
> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
> matte paper?
>
> Thanks for your help....
> don

There've been some recent threads on this. Try loading more messages
into your News Client, or use Google News to search.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:56:27 PM

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

The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.

Capt Nud wrote:

> Merry Christmas!
>
> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>
> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
> need the speed to get these books printed.
>
> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
> matte paper?
>
> Thanks for your help....
> don
Related resources
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 12:03:58 AM

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

I would look at the Epson C86. It will be faster and does a great job on
photos. It also has the benefits of the ink being waterproof and more
archival.



"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vDZyd.2495$wZ2.1519@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>
> Capt Nud wrote:
>
>> Merry Christmas!
>>
>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few
>> copies
>> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers
>> are
>> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium
>> paper. I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>> is not an
>> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra
>> tank. I
>> need the speed to get these books printed. Has any body used both of
>> these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>> matte paper?
>>
>> Thanks for your help....
>> don
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 3:34:54 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.



And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..


>Capt Nud wrote:
>
>> Merry Christmas!
>>
>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
>> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
>> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>
>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
>> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
>> need the speed to get these books printed.
>>
>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>> matte paper?
>>
>> Thanks for your help....
>> don
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 3:34:55 PM

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

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The R300 does not use long last inks either.  And that is per the Epson
factory rep.  The only long last inks are the durabrite inks and they
are not for printing photos.  And that is per Epson.<br>
<br>
William Bell wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midjr9ps0p4gemaf2i4o84udubpct0i17jveh@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:measekite@yahoo.com"><measekite@yahoo.com></a> wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->


And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..


</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Capt Nud wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed.

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 3:34:55 PM

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

William Bell wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>
>
>
> And does not use Long last inks

That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100
years...
And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss,
so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher
cost.

>and the Print head Rots,

Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head failures...
At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get with ip4000, while
quality is more or less the same.
It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and god
know what else), but after that it prints very fast.


>
>
>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>
>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>
>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>
>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books printed.
>>>
>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help....
>>> don
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:29:49 AM

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

HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:28:48 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> <title></title>
></head>
><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>The R300 does not use long last inks either.  And that is per the Epson
>factory rep.  The only long last inks are the durabrite inks and they
>are not for printing photos.  And that is per Epson.<br>
><br>
>William Bell wrote:<br>
><blockquote cite="midjr9ps0p4gemaf2i4o84udubpct0i17jveh@4ax.com"
> type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:measekite@yahoo.com"><measekite@yahoo.com></a> wrote:
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
>
>
>And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..
>
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Capt Nud wrote:
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Merry Christmas!
>
>I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
>of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
>full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>
>I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
>issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
>need the speed to get these books printed.
>
>Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>matte paper?
>
>Thanks for your help....
>don
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
> </pre>
></blockquote>
></body>
></html>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:29:50 AM

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

William Bell wrote:

> HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..


Nice. And, all caps!


Trimming replies is the norm of seasoned usenetters, unless they're
trolls, newbies, or too important.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:34:15 AM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>William Bell wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>
>>
>>
>> And does not use Long last inks
>
>That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100
>years...

And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100 years..

>And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss,
>so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher
>cost.



Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type used..

You do need to read up on these printers as your facts are total wrong.


>>and the Print head Rots,
>
>Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head failures...
>At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get with ip4000, while
>quality is more or less the same.
>It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and god
>know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>
>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books printed.
>>>>
>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>> don
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:34:16 AM

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

William Bell wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> William Bell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>
>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>> last 100 years...
>
> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
> years..


Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper paper
and proper storage.
Epson however claims 100 years...

>
>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart
>> and higher cost.
>
>
>
> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type used..
>

So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have
gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same
as canon's...


>
>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>
>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and
>> god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books
>>>>> printed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>> don
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:34:17 AM

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

R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.




"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
> William Bell wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>
>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>> last 100 years...
>>
>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>> years..
>
>
> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper
> paper and proper storage.
> Epson however claims 100 years...
>
>>
>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart
>>> and higher cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type used..
>>
>
> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have
> gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same
> as canon's...
>
>
>>
>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>
>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and
>>> god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books
>>>>>> printed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>> don
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:34:18 AM

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

Safetymom123 wrote:
> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.

Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!

>
>
>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>> William Bell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>
>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>> last 100 years...
>>>
>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>> years..
>>
>>
>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>> proper paper and proper storage.
>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>
>>>
>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>> used..
>>
>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>> is the same as canon's...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>> don
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:34:19 AM

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

Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will
outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon
isn't.

For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com


"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
> last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
> prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
> claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>
>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>
>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>> years..
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>> used..
>>>
>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>> don
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:06:41 PM

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

Safetymom123 wrote:
> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
> 2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>

From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black one).
That part is true.
I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be
longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't
much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also a lot of
people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.

BTW...if i (that's when i need my next printer) come to any other brand of
printer (this doesn't include Lexmark) which carts are cheap and quality is
great - durability is not a high issue for me, as i can always print a
second photo after 10 or 20 years, and i also don't keep them in sunlight),
i'll gladly but it. Waterproof is again not imporant, since i don't plan to
wash my photos... :-)))

Why do i hate Epson? looong story...
but, to keep it short, my friend once had Epson - some medium range one -
and after less than one year all output started to look faded, without any
contrast, quality bad... He took it to a service where they said it's all
ok...supposely (as they say) what did i expect from that printer, and if i
wanted better, i should pay at least double etc...
Now, maybe it's not Epson, just service personell in my country...doesn't
really matter...but it shows how (maybe) totally innocent company (any
product) can become the one to blaim for all...because of some idiots in the
service...

But it does have cheap carts, though...(Epson, i mean). i wonder, if the
price is similar to ip4000...?

Finally, (to William mainly)...it's good to defend your printer (i do the
same for mine). At the end, if you don't do that, you'd be stupid for buying
it...right? If you are certain that your product is the best, then you're
certain that you bought just "the right thing" for you...otherwise, you'd
always complain, like "damn, i should of buy that one..."


>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink,
>> which really didn't prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to
>> really last that long as they claim. For this we'll have to wait a
>> few decades... It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like
>> always...damn!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite
>>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have
>>>>>> such gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means
>>>>>> additional cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book
>>>>>>>>> is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing
>>>>>>>>> it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster
>>>>>>>>> at printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 4:57:44 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:02:35 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
>Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
>and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
>last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
>prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
>claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
>It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>


F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..


>>
>>
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>
>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>
>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>> years..
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>> used..
>>>
>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>> don
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 4:57:45 PM

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

William Bell wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:02:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink,
>> which really didn't prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to
>> really last that long as they claim. For this we'll have to wait a
>> few decades...
>> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like
>> always...damn!
>>
>
>
> F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..


Nope...not Canon lover, just Epson hater... :-)

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite
>>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have
>>>>>> such gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means
>>>>>> additional cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book
>>>>>>>>> is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing
>>>>>>>>> it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster
>>>>>>>>> at printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:01:04 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:05:18 GMT, "Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will
>outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon
>isn't.
>
>For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com
>



The Canon is a bubble jet printer and is not able to use the range of inks
types that a Epson can use due to its method of firing the ink to the paper.


>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
>> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
>> last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
>> prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
>> claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
>> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don
>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:05:01 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
> last longer...

Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not mean
anything about their lightfastness. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev... for examples of
dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years depending on ink and paper
differences.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:50:15 AM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...
>
> Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not
> mean anything about their lightfastness. See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev... for
> examples of dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years
> depending on ink and paper differences.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Well...
how do you know that this will actually happen in real world?
Secondly, they only test one canon series on god know which paper (i think
we both agree that paper is as important as ink). Canon do have silver
halide-based paper, you know.
Also all manufacturers state that all prints should be kept in album or if
in frame, behind a glass to prevent UV light damage and not in direct
sunlight. If someone respects those recomendations, i bet that times will
change a lot. Not all people print a photo and then put it on direct
sunlight for whole day long.
BTW...i still hate Epson...until proven otherwise... :-))
December 28, 2004 7:15:38 AM

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

This is NOT true at all. In fact I know from my own experience, with my
Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT
smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.

Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some
sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk
board. (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos). I'm not
sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.

"Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200
> will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the
> Canon isn't.
>
>
December 28, 2004 7:20:21 AM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>> 2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>
>
> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black
> one). That part is true.
> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be
> longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't
> much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also a lot of
> people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.

Actually its NOT true. The Canon ink IS water resistant. Try it on a test
photo. Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with wiping the photo
with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and white). I'm referring to
the BCI-6 ink.

Unlike my brothers Epson photo which wiped the picture clean off the paper.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:56:42 PM

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

Tim wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>>> 2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
>>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>>
>>
>> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black
>> one). That part is true.
>> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which
>> should be longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've
>> heard that it ain't much better than others...just commercial stuff
>> mainly... also a lot of people refill, and after that this
>> longevity thing is excactly the same.
>
> Actually its NOT true. The Canon ink IS water resistant. Try it on
> a test photo. Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with
> wiping the photo with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and
> white). I'm referring to the BCI-6 ink.


AHA!
even better... :-)))
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 5:52:33 PM

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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:50:15 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>Bob Headrick wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>>
>>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>>> suppose to last longer...
>>
>> Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not
>> mean anything about their lightfastness. See
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev... for
>> examples of dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years
>> depending on ink and paper differences.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>Well...
>how do you know that this will actually happen in real world?
>Secondly, they only test one canon series on god know which paper (i think
>we both agree that paper is as important as ink). Canon do have silver
>halide-based paper, you know.
>Also all manufacturers state that all prints should be kept in album or if
>in frame, behind a glass to prevent UV light damage and not in direct
>sunlight. If someone respects those recomendations, i bet that times will
>change a lot. Not all people print a photo and then put it on direct
>sunlight for whole day long.
>BTW...i still hate Epson...until proven otherwise... :-))
>



May be you need a Brain transplant as you just can't see to reason or are you
just Dumb or may be a Teenager..?
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 9:39:16 PM

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

I have a Canon IP4000 and I think it is great. However, if you wipe it
with a wet cloth or your finger it will smudge. Also a few drops of
sweat dribbled on the photo and left a water spot.

The answer to protect the photo is to spray it with Krylon. However,
even the glossy Krylon (it comes glossy or matte) dulls down the finish
but you have a choice. You can at least mount them and hang them on a
wall and eliminate reflective glass over your print.

Tim wrote:

>This is NOT true at all. In fact I know from my own experience, with my
>Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT
>smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.
>
>Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some
>sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk
>board. (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos). I'm not
>sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.
>
>"Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200
>>will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the
>>Canon isn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:09:45 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:20:21 GMT, "Tim" <none@none.com> wrote:

>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>>> 2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
>>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>>
>>
>> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black
>> one). That part is true.
>> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be
>> longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't
>> much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also a lot of
>> people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.
>
>Actually its NOT true. The Canon ink IS water resistant. Try it on a test
>photo. Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with wiping the photo
>with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and white). I'm referring to
>the BCI-6 ink.
>
>Unlike my brothers Epson photo which wiped the picture clean off the paper.
>



The Canons use Water Based Inks, as they have to for the Bubble to work..
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:12:18 AM

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

For dye based inks such as used in BCI-6 tanks, water resistance depends
upon the type of paper being used. Prints made on microporous paper ( a.ka.
instant dry) can be submerged in water immediately after printing without
damage. Red River Ultra Pro and Office Depot Premium High Gloss are examples
of microporous papers. Prints made on paper with a swellable polymer
coating, such as Kodak Ultima, can be damaged with the slightest moisture.
Excessive moisture such as running water or soaking will completely wash
away the surface coating and the ink. There are other arguments about mp vs.
sp paper such as gas fading and print longevity which tend to favor
swellable polymer but when it comes to moisture resistance, microporous wins
hands down.
--
Ron Cohen

"Tim" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:K55Ad.1024$kc6.475495@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> This is NOT true at all. In fact I know from my own experience, with my
> Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT
> smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.
>
> Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some
> sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk
> board. (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos). I'm not
> sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.
>
> "Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200
>> will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that
>> the Canon isn't.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 12:18:22 PM

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

Ron Cohen wrote:
> For dye based inks such as used in BCI-6 tanks, water resistance
> depends upon the type of paper being used. Prints made on microporous
> paper ( a.ka. instant dry) can be submerged in water immediately
> after printing without damage. Red River Ultra Pro and Office Depot
> Premium High Gloss are examples of microporous papers. Prints made on
> paper with a swellable polymer coating, such as Kodak Ultima, can be
> damaged with the slightest moisture. Excessive moisture such as
> running water or soaking will completely wash away the surface
> coating and the ink. There are other arguments about mp vs. sp paper
> such as gas fading and print longevity which tend to favor swellable
> polymer but when it comes to moisture resistance, microporous wins
> hands down.
i wonder in which group canon's pp101 (best available) falls...
i do have some photos, but i don't want to damage them by testing...
!