Epsom R800 Beats them all.

[Guest]

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

Read for your self


http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/index.html


Mind you the Canon to me looked better and has the lowest running costs, but I
only skimmed over the review.



But these printers are not cheap to run some $7xx-9xx over 3 years..

 

[Guest]

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

Yes, buying buying bags of salt every week gets to be a drag....

 

[Guest]

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

Darm it, you're right!

Gary Eickmeier

 

[BobS]

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

Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom Salts" in
all but a single category and has the better scores on all others and they
say Epson wins.....

Something wrong with this picture, I demand a recount - all the blue states
over there and all the red states over here... and.... ;-)

Happy New Year,

Bob S.

(new owner of the Canon i9900)


"William Bell" <wbell@tinkle.com> wrote in message
news:kbc5t0h71e27aoff3lq6lgfa94k6q7kq76@4ax.com...
>
>
> Read for your self
>
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/index.html
>
>
> Mind you the Canon to me looked better and has the lowest running costs,
but I
> only skimmed over the review.
>
>
>
> But these printers are not cheap to run some $7xx-9xx over 3 years..

 

[Pete]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:34:49 +1300, William Bell
<wbell@tinkle.com> wrote:

Epsom salts?

 

[Si]

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

"BobS" <spam@eliminator.com> wrote in message
news:AWEAd.79585$Uf.15651@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom Salts"
> in
> all but a single category and has the better scores on all others and they
> say Epson wins.....
>


Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking only for
quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all areas - including
black and white - it is the printer with the best fidelity of
reproduction...."

The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and here the
Epson wins.

Si.

 

[john]

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

"pete" <pete@maildox.com> wrote in message
news:muc6t05g62mhfmmio9v402ug1fm234mr5f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:34:49 +1300, William Bell
> <wbell@tinkle.com> wrote:
>
> Epsom salts?
LOL
Epson clogs

Reality all 3 are good

 

[Guest]

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

Si wrote:
> "BobS" <spam@eliminator.com> wrote in message
> news:AWEAd.79585$Uf.15651@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom
>> Salts" in
>> all but a single category and has the better scores on all others
>> and they say Epson wins.....
>>
>
>
> Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking
> only for quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all
> areas - including black and white - it is the printer with the best
> fidelity of reproduction...."
>
> The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and
> here the Epson wins.
>
> Si.

If you look carefully, only in one photo Epson indeed looks better, but if
you'd only set blue to a bit less, it yould be ok.
While if you look at photos with bright colors, ip8500 has way brighter
output than Epson.
Laying all in one blue photo----i don't think so. All other talks in favor
of Canon.

 

[Matthias]

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

William Bell <wbell@tinkle.com> writes:

> Read for your self
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/index.html
>
> Mind you the Canon to me looked better and has the lowest running
> costs, but I only skimmed over the review.

Canon has only the lowest running costs if you never look at your
prints after they are printed: People here in usenet and tests from
magazines report serious fading for Canon's BCI-6 inks (search google
groups for "canon ink fading"). Probably that's why Canon sells BCI-7
inks with increased fading resistance in Japan.

In contrast, Epson and HP prints seem to have much larger durability
(check www.wilhelm-research.com for results from an independent
testing lab). This means you don't have to re-print your framed
pictures every couple of months. Thus you save money. The review
above doesn't reflect this factor.

 

[Guest]

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

Matthias wrote:
> William Bell <wbell@tinkle.com>
> writes:
>
>> Read for your self
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/index.html
>>
>> Mind you the Canon to me looked better and has the lowest running
>> costs, but I only skimmed over the review.
>
> Canon has only the lowest running costs if you never look at your
> prints after they are printed: People here in usenet and tests from
> magazines report serious fading for Canon's BCI-6 inks (search google
> groups for "canon ink fading"). Probably that's why Canon sells BCI-7
> inks with increased fading resistance in Japan.
>
> In contrast, Epson and HP prints seem to have much larger durability
> (check www.wilhelm-research.com for results from an independent
> testing lab). This means you don't have to re-print your framed
> pictures every couple of months. Thus you save money. The review
> above doesn't reflect this factor.

All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible paper,
durability can increase big time.
Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with original BCI6
inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long, though...
I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.

 

[Pete]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:50:16 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible paper,
>durability can increase big time.
>Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with original BCI6
>inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long, though...
>I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.
>

Must be handy for anyone who plans to be around in 100 years time to show
his/her pics.
If they [the pics] have faded he/she can then sue Canon.

 

[Guest]

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

Testing compatibility with original pictures is a great thing. I would
suggest tests with more iterations to show if printers print realistic
pictures or somewhat hacked, "better" looking ones. The tester should have
the best possible scanner, make first print, scan first print, make second
print from the scan of the first print, then for many iterations print
number should be made from scan of print [i-1]. The last print should be
compared to the original. I expect interesting results!

 

[Richard]

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Si wrote:
>> "BobS" <spam@eliminator.com> wrote in message
>> news:AWEAd.79585$Uf.15651@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>> Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom
>>> Salts" in
>>> all but a single category and has the better scores on all others
>>> and they say Epson wins.....
>>>
>>
>>
>> Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking
>> only for quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all
>> areas - including black and white - it is the printer with the best
>> fidelity of reproduction...."
>>
>> The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and
>> here the Epson wins.
>>
>> Si.
>
>If you look carefully, only in one photo Epson indeed looks better, but if
>you'd only set blue to a bit less, it yould be ok.
>While if you look at photos with bright colors, ip8500 has way brighter
>output than Epson.
>Laying all in one blue photo----i don't think so. All other talks in favor
>of Canon.
>

Perhaps you missed something when reading the explanations?

Category - Printing High-Quality Photos, Bright Colors
Conclusion:
"While the Stylus Photo R800 didn't do as well with green, it offered
the highest fidelity of all the printers for the image as a whole."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Blue Shades
Conclusion:
"Only the Stylus Photo R800 was able to correctly reproduce the very
light blue of the water."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Red-Orange
Conclusion:
"The Pixma IP8500 was strong on color saturation, whereas once again
the Stylus Photo R800 was closest to the original."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Black-and-White
Conclusion:
"But here again, the Stylus Photo R800 did best. In addition to the
usual black ink, it has a dedicated black photo cartridge for
improving contrast. The result is that it's very hard to tell the
difference between the print from the Stylus and the model."
Winner: Epson

Category - Text Quality (The quality of text output may be relatively
unimportant for printers like these)
Conclusion:

"The Pixma IP8500 provided a good compromise and seems to produce the
best results in terms of text quality.
Winner: Canon

Category - Cost Of Printing
Conclusion:

Winner: Canon

Print Speed
Winner: Canon

Not mentioned but important to me and those who wish for their
grandchildren and great grandchildren to see family photos as we see
those of our great grandparents must consider longevity. By the time
our great grandchildren are here, the CD and DVD players of today will
not exist to show family or our generations digital images. Long
lasting photos will only require an album of these photos to enjoy.

Longevity: Epson and HP with Epson having a wider selection of
papers.

Winner: Epson

Overall winner: Epson

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

pete wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:50:16 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>> All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible
>> paper, durability can increase big time.
>> Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with
>> original BCI6 inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long,
>> though...
>> I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.
>>
>
> Must be handy for anyone who plans to be around in 100 years time to
> show his/her pics.
> If they [the pics] have faded he/she can then sue Canon.

In 100 years we (ops...sorry - they) probably won't be showing pics on a
paper, maybe even won't know what paper is...

 

[Guest]

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

Richard wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Si wrote:
>>> "BobS" <spam@eliminator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:AWEAd.79585$Uf.15651@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>>> Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom
>>>> Salts" in
>>>> all but a single category and has the better scores on all others
>>>> and they say Epson wins.....
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking
>>> only for quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all
>>> areas - including black and white - it is the printer with the best
>>> fidelity of reproduction...."
>>>
>>> The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and
>>> here the Epson wins.
>>>
>>> Si.
>>
>> If you look carefully, only in one photo Epson indeed looks better,
>> but if you'd only set blue to a bit less, it yould be ok.
>> While if you look at photos with bright colors, ip8500 has way
>> brighter output than Epson.
>> Laying all in one blue photo----i don't think so. All other talks in
>> favor of Canon.
>>
>
> Perhaps you missed something when reading the explanations?
>
> Category - Printing High-Quality Photos, Bright Colors
> Conclusion:
> "While the Stylus Photo R800 didn't do as well with green, it offered
> the highest fidelity of all the printers for the image as a whole."
> Winner: Epson
>
> Category - Photo Quality: Blue Shades
> Conclusion:
> "Only the Stylus Photo R800 was able to correctly reproduce the very
> light blue of the water."
> Winner: Epson
>
> Category - Photo Quality: Red-Orange
> Conclusion:
> "The Pixma IP8500 was strong on color saturation, whereas once again
> the Stylus Photo R800 was closest to the original."
> Winner: Epson
>
> Category - Photo Quality: Black-and-White
> Conclusion:
> "But here again, the Stylus Photo R800 did best. In addition to the
> usual black ink, it has a dedicated black photo cartridge for
> improving contrast. The result is that it's very hard to tell the
> difference between the print from the Stylus and the model."
> Winner: Epson
>
> Category - Text Quality (The quality of text output may be relatively
> unimportant for printers like these)
> Conclusion:
>
> "The Pixma IP8500 provided a good compromise and seems to produce the
> best results in terms of text quality.
> Winner: Canon
>
> Category - Cost Of Printing
> Conclusion:
>
> Winner: Canon
>
> Print Speed
> Winner: Canon
>
> Not mentioned but important to me and those who wish for their
> grandchildren and great grandchildren to see family photos as we see
> those of our great grandparents must consider longevity. By the time
> our great grandchildren are here, the CD and DVD players of today will
> not exist to show family or our generations digital images. Long
> lasting photos will only require an album of these photos to enjoy.
>
> Longevity: Epson and HP with Epson having a wider selection of
> papers.
>
> Winner: Epson
>
> Overall winner: Epson
>
> Richard

If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took them
to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall quality
is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also different inks
react differently on same paper. i think most true would be to print with
Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's etc...

 

[Richard]

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

(SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>
>If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took them
>to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall quality
>is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also different inks
>react differently on same paper. i think most true would be to print with
>Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's etc...
>

That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
that happened to survive the years.
I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
paper is used? See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .

While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly is
far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally aware and
most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are excellent,
print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to operate and the
fastest currently available. I still choose the better print quality
of the Epson printer combined with their longevity. Printing with a
Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink will get you nowhere near this
kind of archival capability. Apparently this only matters to some of
us and to be perfectly honest, if I did not care about longevity then
it would be a more difficult choice.

In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

Richard wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
> (SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>>
>> If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will
>> took them to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>> But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall
>> quality is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also
>> different inks react differently on same paper. i think most true
>> would be to print with Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's
>> etc...
>>
>
> That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
> selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
> am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
> that happened to survive the years.
> I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
> which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
> you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
> you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
> Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
> between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
> paper is used? See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
>
> While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly is
> far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally aware and
> most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are excellent,
> print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to operate and the
> fastest currently available. I still choose the better print quality
> of the Epson printer combined with their longevity. Printing with a
> Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink will get you nowhere near this
> kind of archival capability. Apparently this only matters to some of
> us and to be perfectly honest, if I did not care about longevity then
> it would be a more difficult choice.
>
> In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!
>
> Richard

It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
(in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
high gloss - am i right?

Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
ink.
Don't get me wrong...i'm not Canon lover...i'm just an Epson hater... ))
and as i said, when - if - my current Canon dies too soon, i'll seriously
consider to get some other company and these thoughts WILL include
Epson...maybe by that time they will solve clogging problems...

OH, Thanks and HNY2005 to you.too!

 

[Matthias]

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:
> It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
> years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
> years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
> why i say it's impossible to predict so long period.

Really, do check the page from Wilhelm Research. While they can't
predict 100% what will happen in 100 years, they try really hard to
get realistic estimates. They document their testing procedure quite
precisely (there are free papers on their web site), and they publish
on scientific conferences. Print aging is mostly a chemical process
influenced by gas, light, and moisture. You can try to scientifically
understand how it works and what influences it. It's complex, but no
black magic.

From the big names in consumer printing Canon, HP, and Epson, only the
latter two let their print durability be estimated from Wilhelm
Research. Canon does it in-house, using their own testing procedure.
They must have noticed at least some problem, otherwise they wouldn't
sell their new BCI-7 "ChromaLife 100" ink in Japan. Maybe this new
ink changes the whole story...

Happy '05...

 

[Guest]

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

Matthias wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:
>> It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
>> years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years,
>> 1000 years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few
>> years. That's why i say it's impossible to predict so long period.
>
> Really, do check the page from Wilhelm Research. While they can't
> predict 100% what will happen in 100 years, they try really hard to
> get realistic estimates. They document their testing procedure quite
> precisely (there are free papers on their web site), and they publish
> on scientific conferences. Print aging is mostly a chemical process
> influenced by gas, light, and moisture. You can try to scientifically
> understand how it works and what influences it. It's complex, but no
> black magic.
>
> From the big names in consumer printing Canon, HP, and Epson, only the
> latter two let their print durability be estimated from Wilhelm
> Research. Canon does it in-house, using their own testing procedure.
> They must have noticed at least some problem, otherwise they wouldn't
> sell their new BCI-7 "ChromaLife 100" ink in Japan. Maybe this new
> ink changes the whole story...
>
> Happy '05...

Why only in Japan...? are we in Europe not good enough...? Or they can just
fool Japanese....

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:07:13 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>> (SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>>>
>>> If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will
>>> took them to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>>> But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall
>>> quality is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also
>>> different inks react differently on same paper. i think most true
>>> would be to print with Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's
>>> etc...
>>>
>>
>> That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
>> selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
>> am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
>> that happened to survive the years.
>> I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
>> which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
>> you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
>> you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
>> Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
>> between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
>> paper is used? See
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
>>
>> While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly is
>> far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally aware and
>> most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are excellent,
>> print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to operate and the
>> fastest currently available. I still choose the better print quality
>> of the Epson printer combined with their longevity. Printing with a
>> Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink will get you nowhere near this
>> kind of archival capability. Apparently this only matters to some of
>> us and to be perfectly honest, if I did not care about longevity then
>> it would be a more difficult choice.
>>
>> In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!
>>
>> Richard
>
>It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
>papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
>paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
>and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
>were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
>BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
>against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
>(in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
>high gloss - am i right?



No Wrong, it depends on the Type of ink used, pigments ink do need it, dye
inks do not..


>Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
>resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
>less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
>not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
>It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
>years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
>years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
>why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
>compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
>do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
>Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
>result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
>ink.
>Don't get me wrong...i'm not Canon lover...i'm just an Epson hater... ))
>and as i said, when - if - my current Canon dies too soon, i'll seriously
>consider to get some other company and these thoughts WILL include
>Epson...maybe by that time they will solve clogging problems...
>
>OH, Thanks and HNY2005 to you.too!
>

 

[Guest]

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

William Bell wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:07:13 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>
>>> (SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>>>>
>>>> If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will
>>>> took them to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>>>> But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall
>>>> quality is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also
>>>> different inks react differently on same paper. i think most true
>>>> would be to print with Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on
>>>> Canon's etc...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
>>> selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few
>>> and I am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were
>>> just some that happened to survive the years.
>>> I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not
>>> know which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case
>>> you say you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is
>>> fine but you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using
>>> Epson ink and Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo
>>> album anywhere between 110 years to greater than 400 years
>>> depending upon which Epson paper is used? See
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
>>>
>>> While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly
>>> is far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally
>>> aware and most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are
>>> excellent, print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to
>>> operate and the fastest currently available. I still choose the
>>> better print quality of the Epson printer combined with their
>>> longevity. Printing with a Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink
>>> will get you nowhere near this kind of archival capability.
>>> Apparently this only matters to some of us and to be perfectly
>>> honest, if I did not care about longevity then it would be a more
>>> difficult choice.
>>>
>>> In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other
>> printers, papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's
>> best Photo Pro paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one
>> test earlier elsewhere and there was only one canon tester on god
>> knows which paper, while there were number of Epsons. It's hard to
>> tell the difference.
>> BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800
>> priced against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more
>> comparable with R300 (in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer,
>> so photos are not of such high gloss - am i right?
>
>
>
> No Wrong, it depends on the Type of ink used, pigments ink do need
> it, dye inks do not..
>
>
So, R300 uses dye ink? Great...in that case,it's photos doesn't last 100
years--only ones from R800...

 

[MikeK]

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

Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:q799t0pmb9f44odam5nsspqdoeqojeb1ia@4ax.com:

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
> (SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>>
>>If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took
>>them to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>>But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall
>>quality is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also
>>different inks react differently on same paper. i think most true
>>would be to print with Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's
>>etc...
>>
>
> That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
> selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
> am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
> that happened to survive the years.
> I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
> which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
> you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
> you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
> Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
> between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
> paper is used? See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
>

Unless you use a good quality photo album (archival paper, archival
corners to hold prints, etc), you're more likely to kill your prints
with the album than with the printing method.

 

[MikeK]

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
news:NM7Bd.7614$F6.1321753@news.siol.net:

>
> Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so
> time resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still
> more or less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink
> ,so they are not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).

The hint above is "more or less." You don't know, do you? Because you
have no dark-stored print to compare with, or no freshly-printed print
to compare with. The archival keeping qualities of color photos is
determined not by fading but by UNEVEN fading. When the colors shift
enough that a noticeable tint has been accomplished, the fading test is
over.

Everything that contains color is sensitive to fading. Your old color
prints use dyes that replaced the silver in the paper when the
processing was done. Hence, your color prints are very similar to dye
inkjet prints in that respect. (also fabrics that use dyes, which will
also fade even in storage) OTOH, pigment inkjets are more similar to
color silkscreen or plate lithography, which use pigment inks to print
on fine art (rag) papers.

But any of these will fade if displayed under less than optimal
lighting. Wilhelm's fade tests are based on what he perceives as typical
office or home lighting, while Kodak's tests use a more museum-standard
lighting. If you hang your images under glass in a low lighting
situation similar to museums (avoid ultraviolet light like sunlight,
moderate temps and humidity), you can expect your prints to last a nice
long time. Lifetimes? No, but then if you hang your grandmother's quilt
in the same situation you can expect it to fade as well.

Read the stuff at Wilhelm's site, especially the footnotes and criteria.
It will make sense, even if you disagree with his results, his
suggestions are worth following.

 

[Richard]

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

MikeK <mike@foo.net> wrote:

>Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:q799t0pmb9f44odam5nsspqdoeqojeb1ia@4ax.com:
>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>> (SNIP previous statements for brevity)
>>>
>>>If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took
>>>them to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
>>>But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall
>>>quality is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also
>>>different inks react differently on same paper. i think most true
>>>would be to print with Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's
>>>etc...
>>>
>>
>> That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
>> selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
>> am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
>> that happened to survive the years.
>> I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
>> which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
>> you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
>> you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
>> Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
>> between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
>> paper is used? See
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
>>
>
>Unless you use a good quality photo album (archival paper, archival
>corners to hold prints, etc), you're more likely to kill your prints
>with the album than with the printing method.

I thought that was a given, but I guess everything must be spelled out
for clarity. Thanks for the excellent point!

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

MikeK wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
> news:NM7Bd.7614$F6.1321753@news.siol.net:
>
>>
>> Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so
>> time resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are
>> still more or less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't
>> contain ink ,so they are not so sensitive to fading...(or are
>> they?).
>
> The hint above is "more or less." You don't know, do you? Because you
> have no dark-stored print to compare with, or no freshly-printed print
> to compare with. The archival keeping qualities of color photos is
> determined not by fading but by UNEVEN fading. When the colors shift
> enough that a noticeable tint has been accomplished, the fading test
> is over.
>
> Everything that contains color is sensitive to fading. Your old color
> prints use dyes that replaced the silver in the paper when the
> processing was done. Hence, your color prints are very similar to dye
> inkjet prints in that respect. (also fabrics that use dyes, which will
> also fade even in storage) OTOH, pigment inkjets are more similar to
> color silkscreen or plate lithography, which use pigment inks to print
> on fine art (rag) papers.
>
> But any of these will fade if displayed under less than optimal
> lighting. Wilhelm's fade tests are based on what he perceives as
> typical office or home lighting, while Kodak's tests use a more
> museum-standard lighting. If you hang your images under glass in a
> low lighting situation similar to museums (avoid ultraviolet light
> like sunlight, moderate temps and humidity), you can expect your
> prints to last a nice long time. Lifetimes? No, but then if you hang
> your grandmother's quilt in the same situation you can expect it to
> fade as well.
>
> Read the stuff at Wilhelm's site, especially the footnotes and
> criteria. It will make sense, even if you disagree with his results,
> his suggestions are worth following.

IF i start to read reccomendations...oh well... they say album, but not any
album...possibly NOT with plastic covers etc....

in short, so many NOT's, that i rather print photo again after 5 years or
so...but, i guess similat was (or still is) reccomended for lab photos,
too...
Nothing last forever, i guess...