I960 color problem

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

I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer? Mine
didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times and
it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to be,
not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt anything/
Thanks in advance
40 answers Last reply
More about i960 color problem
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Jake wrote:
    > I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
    > cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer? Mine
    > didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
    > anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times and
    > it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
    > page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to be,
    > not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
    > hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt anything/
    > Thanks in advance

    I had a similar problem, it came about because I did not change the ink
    cartridge soon enough, and the corresponding part of the printhead dried
    out -- at any rate that's my diagnosis. I don't know why magenta is so
    fussy, though.

    Taking a hint from an Epson owner who used Windex, I squirted a little
    bit of Windex into the magenta cartridge, did a deep clean, and ran the
    test print - showed marked improvement. SO did it again, and did it for
    all six cartridges while I was at it. Much, much better.

    But lately I've noticed faint streaking on the prints, and that means
    another round of Windex cleaning. It may be that some dried/drying ink
    from the docking station sponge is clogging the print nozzles, so I
    would like to know how to clean or replace that sponge.

    HTH&GL
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks for all the advice guys, I followed the link and I am going to try
    that compressed air thing. Thanks again for all the help.
    "Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
    news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
    > I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
    > cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
    Mine
    > didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
    > anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
    and
    > it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
    > page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
    be,
    > not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
    > hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
    anything/
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Was the printer ever working properly?
    Did you change your printing protocols?
    If the colors are excessively pink this may be a software issue (color
    management being applied twice) particularly if the pink coloration shows up
    in the print preview window.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    First thing to do is insert another Magenta cartridge and see if the problem
    might be the cartridge. Read Neil Slade's informative site on clearing
    clogged jets. The link is
    http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html . Very good information on
    dealing with banding, jets not printing properly, etc. Since it is not
    printing the nozzle check correctly it would not be color profiles. It is
    normal to not use paper when doing the head cleaning, but you do not want to
    do several deep cleanings. Generally, as Neil Slade writes, the way to
    prevent these problems is to print full color photos often. He suggests one
    a day at least. Nozzles clog when you don't use the printer. The test
    print for the nozzle check is very light. You don't want to see any breaks
    or unprinted bands in any of the color rectangles. Another test is to do a
    six color "purge print" page with setting at plain paper. I think Neil has
    one of these on his site that you can download. If not, you can get it on
    the MIS ink web site. You can see the actual colors of the inks and see if
    the printing is continuous or has bands of unprinted areas.

    "Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
    news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
    >I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
    > cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
    > Mine
    > didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
    > anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
    > and
    > it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
    > page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
    > be,
    > not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
    > hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
    > anything/
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Are you guys using OEM Canon Brand INK? If not what brand and source
    are the ink you are using?

    Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

    > Jake wrote:
    >
    >> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
    >> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the
    >> printer? Mine
    >> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
    >> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of
    >> times and
    >> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of
    >> the
    >> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed
    >> to be,
    >> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in
    >> some
    >> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
    >> anything/
    >> Thanks in advance
    >
    >
    > I had a similar problem, it came about because I did not change the
    > ink cartridge soon enough, and the corresponding part of the printhead
    > dried out -- at any rate that's my diagnosis. I don't know why
    > magenta is so fussy, though.
    >
    > Taking a hint from an Epson owner who used Windex, I squirted a little
    > bit of Windex into the magenta cartridge, did a deep clean, and ran
    > the test print - showed marked improvement. SO did it again, and did
    > it for all six cartridges while I was at it. Much, much better.
    >
    > But lately I've noticed faint streaking on the prints, and that means
    > another round of Windex cleaning. It may be that some dried/drying ink
    > from the docking station sponge is clogging the print nozzles, so I
    > would like to know how to clean or replace that sponge.
    >
    > HTH&GL
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:48 -0600, "Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote:

    >Thanks for all the advice guys, I followed the link and I am going to try
    >that compressed air thing. Thanks again for all the help.
    >"Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
    >news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
    >> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
    >> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
    >Mine
    >> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
    >> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
    >and
    >> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
    >> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
    >be,
    >> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
    >> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
    >anything/
    >> Thanks in advance
    >>
    >>
    >
    I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
    in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
    --
    John H

    "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    John H wrote:
    [...]
    >>
    > I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
    > in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.

    This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
    between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.

    Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
    pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
    both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
    neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
    an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
    problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
    presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
    course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
    affects the pH.

    Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
    and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
    fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
    react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
    different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
    formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
    when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
    so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper

    Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
    you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
    see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
    prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
    a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
    ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. :-)

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

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:48 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca>
    wrote:

    >John H wrote:
    >[...]
    >>>
    >> I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
    >> in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
    >
    >This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
    >between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.
    >
    >Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
    >pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
    >both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
    >neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
    >an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
    >problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
    >presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
    >course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
    >affects the pH.
    >
    >Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
    >and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
    >fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
    >react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
    >different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
    >formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
    >when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
    >so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper
    >
    >Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
    >you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
    >see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
    >prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
    >a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
    >ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. :-)
    >
    >HTH

    Good advice. Thanks!
    --
    John H

    "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
    Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
    thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
    to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
    the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
    kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
    months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    practical observation.

    "John H" <notavailable@here.com> wrote in message
    news:pt0141lj9odhjoagtfjqprgmcta6j75r3m@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:48 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>John H wrote:
    >>[...]
    >>>>
    >>> I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the
    >>> paper type
    >>> in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
    >>
    >>This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
    >>between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.
    >>
    >>Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
    >>pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
    >>both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
    >>neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
    >>an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
    >>problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
    >>presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
    >>course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
    >>affects the pH.
    >>
    >>Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
    >>and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
    >>fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
    >>react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
    >>different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
    >>formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
    >>when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
    >>so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper
    >>
    >>Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
    >>you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
    >>see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
    >>prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
    >>a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
    >>ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. :-)
    >>
    >>HTH
    >
    > Good advice. Thanks!
    > --
    > John H
    >
    > "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:
    > My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
    > Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    > produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    > canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
    > thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    > and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
    > to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
    > the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense.

    You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
    the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
    my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
    print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.

    > I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have
    > printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
    > excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
    > quality, but just a practical observation.

    And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
    either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
    generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)

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

    When I first bought the printer I tried side by side comparisons of epson
    photo glossy, premium glossy, Canon pro, and Kirkland glossy. OEM and MIS
    inks. I felt that the pro setting produced overly saturated prints. I
    will try it again. Thanks for the info. Who knows what evil lurks in the
    depths of the drawers in which the photos are stored? Having lived in the
    same house for 40 plus years, I'm afraid to look at what we have
    accumulated. It would take an archeologic dig. Agent orange or toxic waste
    is definitely a possibility.

    "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:3ac9b0F6900naU1@individual.net...
    > Burt wrote:
    >> My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
    >> that Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo
    >> paper produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar
    >> to the canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland
    >> paper is thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy
    >> photo paper, and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I
    >> set the printer to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers
    >> and sometimes reduce the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to
    >> intense.
    >
    > You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
    > the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
    > my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
    > print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.
    >
    >> I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I
    >> have
    > > printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
    > > excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
    > > quality, but just a practical observation.
    >
    > And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
    > either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
    > generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)
    > -Taliesyn
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    excuse the double post - I just ran a few test prints on Kirkland paper with
    MIS inks to compare settings for glossy photo paper, photopaper pro, and a
    custom setting all the way over to the "fine" setting. With an 8x jeweler's
    loupe the sharpness appeared to be, if not the same, extremely close. There
    was a difference in saturation that was subtle but apparent. any one of the
    prints, by itself, looked great. Side-by-side, it is a matter of taste. I
    would have to hold the photo up in the room in which the picture was taken
    to verify which is the truest . Then, again, the truest rendition of hue
    and intensity may not be the most attractive print!

    "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:3ac9b0F6900naU1@individual.net...
    > Burt wrote:
    >> My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
    >> that Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo
    >> paper produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar
    >> to the canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland
    >> paper is thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy
    >> photo paper, and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I
    >> set the printer to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers
    >> and sometimes reduce the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to
    >> intense.
    >
    > You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
    > the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
    > my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
    > print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.
    >
    >> I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I
    >> have
    > > printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
    > > excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
    > > quality, but just a practical observation.
    >
    > And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
    > either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
    > generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)
    >
    > -Taliesyn
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
    >Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    >produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    >canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
    >thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    >and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
    >to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
    >the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    >speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
    >kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
    >months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    >practical observation.
    >

    My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
    carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
    compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
    Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
    --
    John H

    "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    John H wrote:

    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
    >>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    >>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    >>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
    >>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    >>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
    >>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
    >>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    >>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
    >>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
    >>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    >>practical observation.
    >>
    >
    >
    > My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
    > carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
    > compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
    > Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.

    I hope that's not a sign of things to come elsewhere as this Epson
    Glossy Photo Paper is very valuable to me for use as greeting cards, CD
    liners, booklet covers, etc. I go through about two 120 sheet packs a
    year. Although it can print very good photos, I don't like the look
    and feel of the paper for that use. I prefer the Kirkland. The worst
    for me is the Kodak Premium Picture Paper. You mentioned you haven't
    had "good luck" with it. It's not luck. It's just not very good
    paper. I don't like at all the drab printed results it gives. My Dollar
    Store paper prints infinitely better than this Kodak. Its only positive
    is that it comes precut to 4x6 . . . . good for my test prints.

    -Taliesyn
    ____________________________________________________________________
    3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
    next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi John,

    If you have any of the Kodak paper remaining, try adjusting your printer
    drive to the settings suggested on the Kodak site. We have tested most
    printers and drivers so when using the settings and Kodak paper the results
    are very good. Go to the following site.

    http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet

    Talk to you soon,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "John H" <notavailable@here.com> wrote in message
    news:cim241tdfqp2peuf8f477edl674dcvfj4o@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    > >My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
    that
    > >Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    > >produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    > >canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
    is
    > >thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    > >and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
    printer
    > >to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
    reduce
    > >the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    > >speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
    and
    > >kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
    six
    > >months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    > >practical observation.
    > >
    >
    > My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now
    they
    > carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the
    Kodak,
    > compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
    > Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
    > --
    > John H
    >
    > "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Greetings Taliesyn,

    Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
    your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you should
    be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
    and I will review for you.

    Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
    that
    > >>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    > >>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    > >>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
    is
    > >>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo
    paper,
    > >>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
    printer
    > >>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
    reduce
    > >>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    > >>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
    and
    > >>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
    six
    > >>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    > >>practical observation.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ron Baird wrote:

    > Greetings Taliesyn,
    >
    > Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
    > your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you should
    > be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    > adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
    > and I will review for you.
    >
    > Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >
    > Ron Baird
    > Eastman Kodak Company
    >

    Greetings Ron,

    Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.

    From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    "Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.

    The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.

    I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
    results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I
    don't use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to
    suggest that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment
    as they produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!

    I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
    the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
    result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
    Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
    insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
    inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
    sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
    (the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
    are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
    is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
    Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
    Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
    preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy. And
    I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.

    As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro setting):

    Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
    slightly more washed out.

    Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.

    Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.

    I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
    with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
    horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
    I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
    I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
    and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
    Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic
    tests don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium Picture
    Paper. I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I found that to
    be OK.

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

    John H wrote:

    >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
    >>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    >>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    >>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
    >>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
    >>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
    >>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
    >>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    >>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
    >>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
    >>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    >>practical observation.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
    >carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
    >compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
    >Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
    >
    >

    It is made in Switzerland. Ilford has a plant in Switzerland. Maybe
    they make it?
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ron Baird wrote:

    >Greetings Taliesyn,
    >
    >Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
    >your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks.
    >
    Based on this question, can I assume that Kodak feels 3rd party inks are
    inferior to OEM inks?

    > If so, you should
    >be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    >adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
    >and I will review for you.
    >
    >Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >
    >Ron Baird
    >Eastman Kodak Company
    >
    >
    >
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >that
    >
    >
    >>>>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
    >>>>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
    >>>>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >is
    >
    >
    >>>>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >paper,
    >
    >
    >>>>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >printer
    >
    >
    >>>>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >reduce
    >
    >
    >>>>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
    >>>>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >and
    >
    >
    >>>>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >six
    >
    >
    >>>>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
    >>>>practical observation.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    > Ron Baird wrote:
    >
    >> Greetings Taliesyn,
    >>
    >> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    >> for
    >> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks.
    >
    > Based on this question, can I assume that Kodak feels 3rd party inks are
    > inferior to OEM inks?

    Not inferior, just different.

    Differences in ink chemistry will have an effect on how the inks perform
    on any given paper stock. Paper and ink are both chemically rather
    complex substances and mixtures of substances. There is _always_ some
    chemical reaction between ink and paper.

    In addition, inks and papers differ in their physical properties of
    absorbency, reflectivity, adhesiveness, and so on.

    Both the physics and the chemistry affect the way a given ink + paper
    combination works.

    The printer manufacturers give a head strat by programming the printers
    to change droplet size and colour combinations for different types of
    paper. But you may still have to do some manual tweaking when you change
    ink and/or paper. Depends how fussy you are, I suppose. :-)
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > Ron Baird wrote:
    >
    >> Greetings Taliesyn,
    >>
    >> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak
    >> site for
    >> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
    >> should
    >> be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    >> adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    >> sample
    >> and I will review for you.
    >>
    >> Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >>
    >> Ron Baird
    >> Eastman Kodak Company
    >>
    >
    > Greetings Ron,
    >
    > Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    > perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
    >
    > From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    > "Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    > Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
    >
    > The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    > quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    > that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
    >
    > I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
    > results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I
    > don't use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to
    > suggest that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment
    > as they produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!
    >
    > I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
    > the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
    > result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
    > Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
    > insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
    > inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
    > sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
    > (the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
    > are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
    > is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
    > Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
    > Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
    > preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy

    And who do you think makes Kirkland?

    > . And
    > I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.
    >
    > As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro
    > setting):
    >
    > Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
    > slightly more washed out.
    >
    > Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.
    >
    > Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.
    >
    > I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
    > with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
    > horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
    > I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
    > I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
    > and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
    > Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic
    > tests don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium
    > Picture Paper. I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I
    > found that to be OK.
    >
    > -Taliesyn
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    > Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.
    >


    I have an order with 88inkjets.com for several Formulabs-based
    cartridges.

    You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
    Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
    and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
    deliver" list too?

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

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:53:22 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
    wrote:

    >You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
    >Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
    >and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
    >deliver" list too?

    Hold on there folks.... I get my carts from alotofthings because they
    (are suppose to) have Formulabs Ink in their refills (Arrow Carts).
    Are you telling me that they don't?

    Now let me add that my last order from them did come with half the
    carts Arrow brand which they say are filled with Formulabs ink and the
    other half were Premium Imaging Products brand carts which they said,
    when I called about this, were suppose to also contain Formulabs ink.
    FYI, for my i960, the Arrow brand carts were the 6Y, 6C & 6M while the
    Premium brand carts were the remaining 6B, 6PC & 6PM.

    DW

    Remove "spam" from address to email.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    They are an immature unprofessional organization without their own web
    store but promoting am eBay site that is uninformative and
    unprofessional as they com and refuse to answer any questions that they
    infer as a criticism.

    alofofthings=alotofcrap=alotofimmaturity=Formulabs need to promote
    competition unless they do not care about the small quantity purchaser.

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >> Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a
    >> source.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I have an order with 88inkjets.com for several Formulabs-based
    > cartridges.
    >
    > You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
    > Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
    > and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
    > deliver" list too?
    >
    > -Taliesyn
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    DWhitley wrote:

    >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:53:22 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
    >>Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
    >>and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
    >>deliver" list too?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Hold on there folks.... I get my carts from alotofthings because they
    >(are suppose to) have Formulabs Ink in their refills (Arrow Carts).
    >Are you telling me that they don't?
    >
    >Now let me add that my last order from them did come with half the
    >carts Arrow brand which they say are filled with Formulabs ink and the
    >other half were Premium Imaging Products brand carts which they said,
    >when I called about this, were
    >

    >suppose to also contain
    >

    SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN - Doesn't alotofCRAP know. Why would the immature
    idiots send you something you did not order?

    >Formulabs ink.
    >FYI, for my i960, the Arrow brand carts were the 6Y, 6C & 6M while the
    >Premium brand carts were the remaining 6B, 6PC & 6PM.
    >
    >DW
    >
    >Remove "spam" from address to email.
    >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Measekite - why such mean spirited, vitriolic name calling for a small
    company you have never had the experience of doing business with? First
    hand experience by their actual customers, positive or negative, is what the
    newsgroup needs, not ranting by someone who has taken a dislike to their
    admittedly mediocre presentation. Although I have not yet used their
    product, I did purchase filled arrow cartrudges on ebay and they were at my
    home just a few days later. What motivates you to try to hurt a small
    business that actually sells a decent product? I would guess that the
    extremely low price they charge is, in part, due to their ability to keep
    the overhead low. Really good websites require either the skill to prepare
    them or the expenditure of considerable money. ebay is an extremely
    economical way for a small vendor to enter the marketplace. Leave the poor
    guy alone, already, and just buy someone elses ink!


    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:Jtj0e.730$zl.122@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.
    >
    > Taliesyn wrote:
    >
    >> Ron Baird wrote:
    >>
    >>> Greetings Taliesyn,
    >>>
    >>> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    >>> for
    >>> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
    >>> should
    >>> be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    >>> adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    >>> sample
    >>> and I will review for you.
    >>>
    >>> Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >>>
    >>> Ron Baird
    >>> Eastman Kodak Company
    >>>
    >>
    >> Greetings Ron,
    >>
    >> Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    >> perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
    >>
    >> From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    >> "Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    >> Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
    >>
    >> The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    >> quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    >> that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
    >>
    >> I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
    >> results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I don't
    >> use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to suggest
    >> that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment as they
    >> produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!
    >>
    >> I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
    >> the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
    >> result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
    >> Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
    >> insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
    >> inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
    >> sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
    >> (the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
    >> are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
    >> is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
    >> Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
    >> Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
    >> preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy
    >
    > And who do you think makes Kirkland?
    >
    >> . And
    >> I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.
    >>
    >> As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro
    >> setting):
    >>
    >> Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
    >> slightly more washed out.
    >>
    >> Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.
    >>
    >> Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.
    >>
    >> I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
    >> with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
    >> horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
    >> I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
    >> I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
    >> and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
    >> Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic tests
    >> don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    >> I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I found that to be OK.
    >>
    >> -Taliesyn
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I totally disagree. After emailing them and asking questions I got a
    stupid response that pissed me off. Anyway, thanks to Taliesyn, I found
    a source that sells Formulabs carts, has a businesss like website,
    reasonable prices, and information.

    Here is a link to the site.

    http://www.88inkjets.com/

    Tell me what you think. At this point I do not think they sell
    Formulabs Bulk ink for the Canons.

    Burt wrote:

    >Measekite - why such mean spirited, vitriolic name calling for a small
    >company you have never had the experience of doing business with? First
    >hand experience by their actual customers, positive or negative, is what the
    >newsgroup needs, not ranting by someone who has taken a dislike to their
    >admittedly mediocre presentation. Although I have not yet used their
    >product, I did purchase filled arrow cartrudges on ebay and they were at my
    >home just a few days later. What motivates you to try to hurt a small
    >business that actually sells a decent product? I would guess that the
    >extremely low price they charge is, in part, due to their ability to keep
    >the overhead low. Really good websites require either the skill to prepare
    >them or the expenditure of considerable money. ebay is an extremely
    >economical way for a small vendor to enter the marketplace. Leave the poor
    >guy alone, already, and just buy someone elses ink!
    >
    >
    >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:Jtj0e.730$zl.122@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.
    >>
    >>Taliesyn wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Ron Baird wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Greetings Taliesyn,
    >>>>
    >>>>Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    >>>>for
    >>>>your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
    >>>>should
    >>>>be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    >>>>adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    >>>>sample
    >>>>and I will review for you.
    >>>>
    >>>>Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >>>>
    >>>>Ron Baird
    >>>>Eastman Kodak Company
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Greetings Ron,
    >>>
    >>>Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    >>>perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
    >>>
    >>>From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    >>>"Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    >>>Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
    >>>
    >>>The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    >>>quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    >>>that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
    >>>
    >>>I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
    >>>results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I don't
    >>>use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to suggest
    >>>that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment as they
    >>>produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!
    >>>
    >>>I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
    >>>the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
    >>>result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
    >>>Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
    >>>insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
    >>>inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
    >>>sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
    >>>(the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
    >>>are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
    >>>is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
    >>>Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
    >>>Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
    >>>preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And who do you think makes Kirkland?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>. And
    >>>I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.
    >>>
    >>>As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro
    >>>setting):
    >>>
    >>>Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
    >>>slightly more washed out.
    >>>
    >>>Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.
    >>>
    >>>Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.
    >>>
    >>>I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
    >>>with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
    >>>horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
    >>>I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
    >>>I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
    >>>and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
    >>>Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic tests
    >>>don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    >>>I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I found that to be OK.
    >>>
    >>>-Taliesyn
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:
    > Measekite - why such mean spirited, vitriolic name calling for a small
    > company you have never had the experience of doing business with? First
    > hand experience by their actual customers, positive or negative, is what the
    > newsgroup needs, not ranting by someone who has taken a dislike to their
    > admittedly mediocre presentation. Although I have not yet used their
    > product, I did purchase filled arrow cartrudges on ebay and they were at my
    > home just a few days later. What motivates you to try to hurt a small
    > business that actually sells a decent product? I would guess that the
    > extremely low price they charge is, in part, due to their ability to keep
    > the overhead low. Really good websites require either the skill to prepare
    > them or the expenditure of considerable money. ebay is an extremely
    > economical way for a small vendor to enter the marketplace. Leave the poor
    > guy alone, already, and just buy someone elses ink!
    >
    >

    I kinda wondered about that too. Seems awfully
    mean spirited. I ordered a refill kit for an HP
    from them some months ago. Didn't go to their
    ebay site and didn't find anything particularly
    bad about Alotofthings.com, not totally intuitive,
    but not bad. Anyway, they shipped promptly. I've
    used the black and can't tell any difference from
    the original ink. I tried to fill an old color
    cartridge that sat in the refrig for a few months.
    , but didn't have high hopes that it would
    printed right. It refused to print period,
    regardless of what I did, so the jets may simply
    be plugged tight after a long time or the
    resistors are burned out. Anyway, I thought
    filling would be good experience and didn't use
    much of the color. Soon as my current color
    cartridge gets low (I am watching carefully and
    will stop printing if I see any missing color),
    I'll try filling it and expect it will work just fine.

    BTW, I only put 10 ml in my black cartridge (half
    the capacity). As soon as I put another 15 ml in
    it, I will have recovered my total cost for the
    refill kit, and I will still have lots of black
    refills.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    > I totally disagree. After emailing them and asking questions I got a
    > stupid response that pissed me off. Anyway, thanks to Taliesyn, I found
    > a source that sells Formulabs carts, has a businesss like website,
    > reasonable prices, and information.
    >

    Measkekite, I wanted desperately to order from Alotofthings. And I
    couldn't have cared less if a grade 3 student had made their website!
    If he sells Formulabs ink, that's all I need to know. I just wanted some
    ink. But they refuse to serve Canadians claiming they can't give us the
    same quality (fast) service they do Americans. This upset me and I
    called them "Alotofnothings" for abandoning Canadians. All he had to do
    was put a notice that Canadians should expect to have to wait up to 2-3
    weeks for delivery, for Canada Customs clearance with possibly added
    fees. I'll sign a waiver. I'll wait. I just want ink!

    But your resorting to calling them "alotofcrap" is totally uncalled for.
    Alotofthings at eBay has a 99.9% positive feedback from a total of 7,083
    buyers (as we speak). Now why would anyone possibly believe you, a
    certified non-buyer?

    Joe (have I got the right person?) IS WILLING to sell you a thousand
    cartridges and "gallons" of Formulabs ink if you just let him. Instead
    you've chosen name calling without actually willing to do any business
    with him. But then you don't shop online any way.

    Message to Alotofthings: Are these the U.S. people (Measekite) you're
    dying to serve at the expense of us Canadians? Well, I think you should
    seriously reconsider your marketing strategies.

    -Taliesyn
    ____________________________________________________________________
    3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
    next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Greetings Measekite,

    Not necessarily, just that the suggested settings for Kodak products used
    with the drivers and with Kodak EasyShare or the One Touch options are based
    on manufacturers inks. Since refillable inks are generally not documented
    etc. they may vary for color, and many other factors? Might be just fine as
    well, but you can count on conisistency of product with the manufacturers
    products.

    Talk to you soon.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    >
    >
    > Ron Baird wrote:
    >
    > >Greetings Taliesyn,
    > >
    > >Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    for
    > >your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks.
    > >
    > Based on this question, can I assume that Kodak feels 3rd party inks are
    > inferior to OEM inks?
    >
    > > If so, you should
    > >be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    > >adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    sample
    > >and I will review for you.
    > >
    > >Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    > >
    > >Ron Baird
    > >Eastman Kodak Company
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Greetings Taliesyn,

    Thanks for the review. I appreciate your sharing the testing and use
    results but, as you know, for someone to offer a particular setting for
    general use by thousands of people, the suggested settings must have
    consistency. Kodak bases its recommendations on OEM inks from the
    manufacturer with a particular printer and driver. I am quite sure that if
    you used those settings and that ink type, your results would be much
    better. They are quite good in our labs and in review or personal
    applications.

    I understand controlling costs, I do too, but many believe that Kodak offers
    great quality. The testing that is done on all the printers and related
    drivers offered is extensive and time consuming. We do it, however, so you
    can always expect good quality using the related inks and printers
    associated with the suggested settings.

    Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    > Ron Baird wrote:
    >
    > > Greetings Taliesyn,
    > >
    > > Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    for
    > > your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
    should
    > > be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    > > adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    sample
    > > and I will review for you.
    > >
    > > Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    > >
    > > Ron Baird
    > > Eastman Kodak Company
    > >
    >
    > Greetings Ron,
    >
    > Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    > perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
    >
    > From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    > "Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    > Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
    >
    > The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    > quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    > that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
    >
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ron Baird wrote:

    > Greetings Taliesyn,
    >
    > Thanks for the review. I appreciate your sharing the testing and use
    > results but, as you know, for someone to offer a particular setting for
    > general use by thousands of people, the suggested settings must have
    > consistency. Kodak bases its recommendations on OEM inks from the
    > manufacturer with a particular printer and driver. I am quite sure that if
    > you used those settings and that ink type, your results would be much
    > better. They are quite good in our labs and in review or personal
    > applications.
    >
    > I understand controlling costs, I do too, but many believe that Kodak offers
    > great quality. The testing that is done on all the printers and related
    > drivers offered is extensive and time consuming. We do it, however, so you
    > can always expect good quality using the related inks and printers
    > associated with the suggested settings.
    >
    > Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >
    > Ron Baird
    > Eastman Kodak Company
    >

    Okay, Ron, you forced my hand, er inks ...

    I whipped out my non-OEM cartridges and replaced them with the
    recommended OEM inks. I do have them, they're only 3 months old, kept
    in a cool place for occasions just like this. I did a deep printhead
    clean and ran a nozzle check to see if all was well. It was.

    Again I used the Kodak recommended settings for the iP5000, exactly
    as posted on the Kodak web site.

    The results were a tad better than with the inks I was using (we're
    being absolutely honest here, I have nothing to lose). The vertical
    head pass lines were less noticeable but still there, the print was too
    light (washed out) showing distracting speckles/dots.

    So you can bet I ran off a print on my dollar store Likon paper for
    comparison with my yesterday non-OEM ink Likon print. If I hadn't
    shifted the suggested -10 M, + 5 yellow setting back to normal, the two
    prints would have been identical. Both are absolutely beautiful. The
    print on Kodak Premium Picture Paper is simply not acceptable, even
    with Canon OEM inks. Even the paper curls and sags in all directions
    after it prints and dries. I don't like that, Ron. Likon dollar store
    paper keeps it shape after printing. How difficult can it be for Kodak
    to get better backing?

    A test print on Kodak Ultima (my settings) was excellent with Canon inks
    but showed some vertical lines and graniness with non-OEM inks.

    Conclusion: Kodak Premium didn't give acceptable results with even
    OEM ink on my printer.

    Kodak Ultima was good, though wouldn't work properly with two different
    non-OEM inks. Buyer beware.

    They may state on the package that this "paper works with all inkjet
    printers". But the case is certainly not true with all inks.

    -Taliesyn

    >
    >>Ron Baird wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Greetings Taliesyn,
    >>>
    >>>Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
    >
    > for
    >
    >>>your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
    >
    > should
    >
    >>>be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
    >>>adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
    >
    > sample
    >
    >>>and I will review for you.
    >>>
    >>>Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
    >>>
    >>>Ron Baird
    >>>Eastman Kodak Company
    >>>
    >>
    >>Greetings Ron,
    >>
    >>Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
    >>perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
    >>
    >> From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
    >>"Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
    >>Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
    >>
    >>The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
    >>quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
    >>that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:45:27 -0500, "Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote:

    >Greetings

    annoying top posts
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    John H wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
    > carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland.

    I can confirm that Costco here in Canada too has stopped carrying Epson
    Glossy Photo Paper. They only had 3 boxes left in my store. Since I like
    this paper for my greeting cards and CD liners, I'm stocking up. I have
    two unopened boxes and some in a third. 250+ sheets should last a while.
    I'm not about to pay $1 a sheet (almost) that they charge at stationary
    stores compared to Costco's $32 CDN (with taxes) for 120 sheets.

    For digital photos I like Costco's Kirkland Glossy.

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

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software & supplied ICC colour profile
    along with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for
    the I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it
    on your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free
    to download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    "www.ims-ink.com". You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

    Good printing!
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software and supplied ICC colour profile along
    with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for
    the I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it
    on your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free
    to download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    www.ims-ink.com. You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

    Good printing!
  37. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software and supplied ICC colour profile along
    with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for
    the I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it
    on your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free
    to download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    www.ims-ink.com. You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

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

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software and supplied ICC colour profile along
    with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for
    the I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it
    on your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free
    to download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    "www.ims-ink.com". You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

    Good printing!
  39. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software and supplied ICC colour profile along
    with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for
    the I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it
    on your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free
    to download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    "www.ims-ink.com". You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

    Good printing!
  40. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Dear all,

    I have a i960 Canon printer since four years and wanted to through it
    away when I got it:
    - The Eaysy-PhotoPrint software and supplied ICC colour profile along
    with Canon PPP photo paper combination is just good for trash:
    Colours are saturated and too much red.

    - Do not use the printer settings proposed on Kodak's web site, they
    are no good.

    - The best prints = to a lab finishing print is the following:
    i) I always used Kodak Premium Picture Paper.
    ii) Register to the Kodak Professional web site
    iii) Download the KProIJPaper_CaI960_V1 latest colour profile for the
    I960 or your printer model. Follow the instructions to install it on
    your computer.
    iv) Install the ICC profile into:
    WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color
    v) Set the printer driver settings as indicated in the PDF file.
    vi) Use the Kodak EasyShare printing software you will find free to
    download on the Kodak site.

    Note that I'm using Interactive Media Sales (IMS) ink refills.
    "www.ims-ink.com". You can find it at COSTCO

    Note that I never used other paper than Kodak's but with the Kodak PPP
    paper you will get astonishing laboratory result.

    Good printing!
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Peripherals