Epsom R800 Beats them all.

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..
30 answers Last reply
More about epsom r800 beats
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Yes, buying buying bags of salt every week gets to be a drag....
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Darm it, you're right!

    Gary Eickmeier
  3. 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..
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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
  13. 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...
  14. 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...
  15. 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
  16. 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!
  17. 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...
  18. 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....
  19. 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!
    >
  20. 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...
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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...
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    SleeperMan wrote:


    > 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?

    The R300 uses dye colorant inks, while the R800 uses pigment colorant
    inks which are much more stable against fading.


    >
    > 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?).

    Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do fade.
    Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the years.
    Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading in
    sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
    Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
    indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
    (like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
    have an even longer fade resistance.

    > 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.

    All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's just
    not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some basis for
    comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However, the problem I
    have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5 years, I looked at
    Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in stores which had
    fluorescent lighting and before the printers even were in the "replaced
    by" modality (which in the printer industry is usually about 6 months to
    a year) the prints were considerably faded, and that was without even
    doing an A:B comparison, it was that obvious.

    I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
    least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
    they will.

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

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >

    > Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
    > fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
    > years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading
    > in
    > sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
    > Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
    > indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
    > (like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
    > have an even longer fade resistance.

    i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo paper
    to light and developing...


    >
    > All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's
    > just not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some
    > basis for comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However,
    > the problem I have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5
    > years, I looked at Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in
    > stores which had fluorescent lighting and before the printers even
    > were in the "replaced by" modality (which in the printer industry is
    > usually about 6 months to a year) the prints were considerably faded,
    > and that was without even doing an A:B comparison, it was that
    > obvious.
    > I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
    > least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
    > they will.
    >
    > Art

    Supposely they did in Japan - BCI7---
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
    news:wlWBd.7710$F6.1337994@news.siol.net:

    > Arthur Entlich wrote:
    >> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>
    >
    >> Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
    >> fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
    >> years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for
    >> fading in
    >> sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve
    >> them. Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand
    >> normal indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark
    >> keeping (like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment
    >> colorants may have an even longer fade resistance.
    >
    > i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo
    > paper to light and developing...
    >

    Yes, although many labs use lasers or LEDs to expose the image, because
    instead of projecting light through a negative, they scan the neg and
    then "write" the image to the paper. This is why these labs can take
    your disk and make prints as well. The processing is still the same, and
    the result is the same (in many ways better).
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    MikeK wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
    > news:wlWBd.7710$F6.1337994@news.siol.net:
    >
    >> Arthur Entlich wrote:
    >>> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>>
    >>
    >>> Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
    >>> fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
    >>> years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for
    >>> fading in
    >>> sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve
    >>> them. Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand
    >>> normal indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark
    >>> keeping (like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment
    >>> colorants may have an even longer fade resistance.
    >>
    >> i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo
    >> paper to light and developing...
    >>
    >
    > Yes, although many labs use lasers or LEDs to expose the image,
    > because instead of projecting light through a negative, they scan the
    > neg and then "write" the image to the paper. This is why these labs
    > can take your disk and make prints as well. The processing is still
    > the same, and the result is the same (in many ways better).

    Aha...so, we're again at the beginning...to choose WHAT to choose...
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Regardless of if the light source is white light, LEDs, laser or
    whatever, to my knowledge the vast majority of photos are still produced
    using a wet chemical process where paper where the silver in the paper
    is replaced with organic dyes via dye couplers.

    Art

    SleeperMan wrote:

    > Arthur Entlich wrote:
    >
    >>SleeperMan wrote:
    >>
    >
    >
    >>Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
    >> fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
    >>years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading
    >>in
    >>sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
    >>Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
    >>indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
    >>(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
    >>have an even longer fade resistance.
    >
    >
    > i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo paper
    > to light and developing...
    >

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

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    > Regardless of if the light source is white light, LEDs, laser or
    > whatever, to my knowledge the vast majority of photos are still
    > produced using a wet chemical process where paper where the silver in
    > the paper is replaced with organic dyes via dye couplers.
    >
    > Art


    Aha...so only thign that has changed is type of light...OK

    >
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >> Arthur Entlich wrote:
    >>
    >>> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
    >>> fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
    >>> years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for
    >>> fading in
    >>> sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve
    >>> them. Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand
    >>> normal indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark
    >>> keeping (like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment
    >>> colorants may have an even longer fade resistance.
    >>
    >>
    >> i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing
    >> photo paper to light and developing...
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Peripherals