Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

colour printer choices

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 2, 2005 5:48:13 PM

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

Just moved into digital photography and am looking at printers for producing
prints from a Nikon D70 - A4 max. but maily 1/2 that size. Where are the
best reviews on printers, dealing not just with quality but refill costs,
cost per print etc. Are there any exceptionally good (by the standards of
users, not company marketing departments) out there?

RoS

More about : colour printer choices

Anonymous
April 2, 2005 9:36:47 PM

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

Quality color printing is not just a matter of what printer to buy. The
printer manufacturers market printers as if color printing is simply a push
button process. It isn't and that is why legions of casual photographers
with perfectly capable color printers at home end up having mediocre prints
made at mass market finisher like Walmart or on the web. Digital images
require a certain amount of processing in order to get decent results.

Any medium level photo printer today from Canon, HP or Epson is capable of
good to excellent results if you learn how to use it properly. That requires
a significant learning curve both for optimizing the image in some kind of
photo program (it does not have to be as complex as Photoshop) and
understanding the printer driver.

In my experience Canon and HP photo printers can be pretty good when people
do not want to learn color management but the process still has a trial and
error learning curve. Without some kind of color management the amount of
error can be discouraging. Canon's color management protocols for more
advanced printing are actually pretty bad (their printers deserve better)
and I am not very confident about HP in that regard either.

My overall preference is for mid and upper level Epson printers. The cost of
ink is slightly higher than Canon and there is occasional problem with head
clogging (the worst complaints come from people who use non-Epson ink
cartridges). However if you intend to grow into more advanced color managed
printing Epson in my experience is the easiest and most reliable way to get
there: if I had only owned a Canon printer I would never have believed
reliable color management is possible.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 4:21:43 AM

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

Look at the Canon IP4000 (the best value) or the IP8500 wider color gamut.

RoS wrote:

>Just moved into digital photography and am looking at printers for producing
>prints from a Nikon D70 - A4 max. but maily 1/2 that size. Where are the
>best reviews on printers, dealing not just with quality but refill costs,
>cost per print etc. Are there any exceptionally good (by the standards of
>users, not company marketing departments) out there?
>
>RoS
>
>
>
>
Related resources
April 3, 2005 4:57:13 AM

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

I have come across the 'brand loyalty' factor in full measure - nothing
distorts informed comment more!
'Serious hobbyist' sums it up best as a personal description! I've a very
large number -15,000 - of colour slides, a large number of which I
processed myself. Some of those, especially the 20 year+ ones are
beginning to be attacked by fungi or are deteriorating. I have a similar
number prints. 9 x 6 has been my favoured size. I never did my own
printing but used pro or semi-pro labs for this, rather than the D&P outlets
in shopping centres. Again some prints, particularly those displayed in
frames, are fading, although many that are 20 - 25 years old are 'as new'.
Both prints and slides are looked through fairly regularly. They don't
gather dust!
I already have Photoshop and intend investing in a slide scanner to rescue
my slides and print negs.
Now that I've entered the digital world I can be more selective in making
final selections but I'll be producing prints from slides, print negs as
well as digital camera images.
Therefore I'm looking for a printer that will give me as good a quality as
my processing labs have in the past. It certainly won't be running non-stop
from 9 - 5 Mon to Fri, but will need to produce several hundred prints per
year, which I would expect to last as long as my prints are lasting.
I haven't been able to find any decent comprehensive and objective reviews.
I see no point, for example, in manufacturer's figures of print costs being
published nor anything else unless the reader vis able to make a true like
for like comparison over a comprehensive range of printers.
As it happens I'm currently reading Rob Sheppard's excellent Guide to
Digital printing, Epson orientated though it is!
As a generality, are there any wild variations in running costs? Dye v
pigment? It seems that every new product must have yet another cartridge
installed. Has this becoming a marketing ploy and got out of hand or does
it really matter? If you believe what you read, every print not produced on
the latest model looks terrible, a patently absurd claim!
RoS
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:01:43 AM

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

"RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xox3e.21469$C7.18601@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Just moved into digital photography and am looking at printers for
> producing
> prints from a Nikon D70 - A4 max. but maily 1/2 that size. Where are the
> best reviews on printers, dealing not just with quality but refill costs,
> cost per print etc. Are there any exceptionally good (by the standards of
> users, not company marketing departments) out there?
>
> RoS
>

It partly depends on what you intend to do with your prints - sell them,
display them, show them to friends then toss them out a year later, put them
in an album and never look at them....

Are you looking for archival quality, is this a profession or a hobby, how
much will you be printing etc - these issues will all effect the answer to
your question.

The IP4000 is the most popular inexpensive option at the moment - it
produces great looking prints and is pretty cheap to run, and seems very
reliable. If you are selling prints or want to display them you should
consider a pigment based printer though as the inks are more stable (though
there is a lot of brand loyalty driven debate around here about it!) - to
get one that will create good glossy as well as matt prints you are looking
at something a bit more expensive - like the Epson R800.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:02:27 AM

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

Usually pigmented prints are said to archive better, cost a great deal
more, and initially the results are less striking. That said I opted
for a Canon IP4000, a dye based twin feed full duplex printer. If I did
not want to use it as a business printer I probably would have gotten a
i9900. This is an 8 color photo printer that can print as large as
13x19 and is said to product the best of the best of around $400 street
price.

RoS wrote:

>I have come across the 'brand loyalty' factor in full measure - nothing
>distorts informed comment more!
>'Serious hobbyist' sums it up best as a personal description! I've a very
>large number -15,000 - of colour slides, a large number of which I
>processed myself. Some of those, especially the 20 year+ ones are
>beginning to be attacked by fungi or are deteriorating. I have a similar
>number prints. 9 x 6 has been my favoured size. I never did my own
>printing but used pro or semi-pro labs for this, rather than the D&P outlets
>in shopping centres. Again some prints, particularly those displayed in
>frames, are fading, although many that are 20 - 25 years old are 'as new'.
>Both prints and slides are looked through fairly regularly. They don't
>gather dust!
>I already have Photoshop and intend investing in a slide scanner to rescue
>my slides and print negs.
>Now that I've entered the digital world I can be more selective in making
>final selections but I'll be producing prints from slides, print negs as
>well as digital camera images.
>Therefore I'm looking for a printer that will give me as good a quality as
>my processing labs have in the past. It certainly won't be running non-stop
>from 9 - 5 Mon to Fri, but will need to produce several hundred prints per
>year, which I would expect to last as long as my prints are lasting.
>I haven't been able to find any decent comprehensive and objective reviews.
>I see no point, for example, in manufacturer's figures of print costs being
>published nor anything else unless the reader vis able to make a true like
>for like comparison over a comprehensive range of printers.
>As it happens I'm currently reading Rob Sheppard's excellent Guide to
>Digital printing, Epson orientated though it is!
>As a generality, are there any wild variations in running costs? Dye v
>pigment? It seems that every new product must have yet another cartridge
>installed. Has this becoming a marketing ploy and got out of hand or does
>it really matter? If you believe what you read, every print not produced on
>the latest model looks terrible, a patently absurd claim!
>RoS
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:09:01 AM

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

I love it.

They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we
don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests
were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in months,
that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.

And regarding gamut until you have seen a R800 or R1800 Ultrachrome
pigment ink print, I'm afraid you can't make the judgment.

I believe if you call Epson and request it, they will send you a sample
print. After you get it, you can decide if they "are said to" and you
can also try to make it fade, and see how it holds up compared to your
Canon dye ink prints.

Art

measekite wrote:

> Usually pigmented prints are said to archive better, cost a great deal
> more, and initially the results are less striking. That said I opted
> for a Canon IP4000, a dye based twin feed full duplex printer. If I did
> not want to use it as a business printer I probably would have gotten a
> i9900. This is an 8 color photo printer that can print as large as
> 13x19 and is said to product the best of the best of around $400 street
> price.
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:43:32 AM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I love it.
>
> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we
> don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests
> were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.

Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
filled room.

>
> And regarding gamut until you have seen a R800 or R1800 Ultrachrome
> pigment ink print, I'm afraid you can't make the judgment.
>
> I believe if you call Epson and request it, they will send you a
> sample print. After you get it, you can decide if they "are said to"
> and you can also try to make it fade, and see how it holds up compared
> to your Canon dye ink prints.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> Usually pigmented prints are said to archive better, cost a great
>> deal more, and initially the results are less striking. That said I
>> opted for a Canon IP4000, a dye based twin feed full duplex printer.
>> If I did not want to use it as a business printer I probably would
>> have gotten a i9900. This is an 8 color photo printer that can print
>> as large as 13x19 and is said to product the best of the best of
>> around $400 street price.
>>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:54:31 PM

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

"RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:tjG3e.21793$C7.6949@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I have come across the 'brand loyalty' factor in full measure - nothing
> distorts informed comment more!
> 'Serious hobbyist' sums it up best as a personal description! I've a very
> large number -15,000 - of colour slides, a large number of which I
> processed myself. Some of those, especially the 20 year+ ones are
> beginning to be attacked by fungi or are deteriorating. I have a similar
> number prints. 9 x 6 has been my favoured size. I never did my own
> printing but used pro or semi-pro labs for this, rather than the D&P
> outlets
> in shopping centres. Again some prints, particularly those displayed in
> frames, are fading, although many that are 20 - 25 years old are 'as new'.
> Both prints and slides are looked through fairly regularly. They don't
> gather dust!
> I already have Photoshop and intend investing in a slide scanner to rescue
> my slides and print negs.
> Now that I've entered the digital world I can be more selective in making
> final selections but I'll be producing prints from slides, print negs as
> well as digital camera images.
> Therefore I'm looking for a printer that will give me as good a quality as
> my processing labs have in the past. It certainly won't be running
> non-stop
> from 9 - 5 Mon to Fri, but will need to produce several hundred prints per
> year, which I would expect to last as long as my prints are lasting.
> I haven't been able to find any decent comprehensive and objective
> reviews.
> I see no point, for example, in manufacturer's figures of print costs
> being
> published nor anything else unless the reader vis able to make a true like
> for like comparison over a comprehensive range of printers.
> As it happens I'm currently reading Rob Sheppard's excellent Guide to
> Digital printing, Epson orientated though it is!
> As a generality, are there any wild variations in running costs? Dye v
> pigment? It seems that every new product must have yet another cartridge
> installed. Has this becoming a marketing ploy and got out of hand or does
> it really matter? If you believe what you read, every print not produced
> on
> the latest model looks terrible, a patently absurd claim!
> RoS
>

Well I cannot claim to give you an unbiased view (is there such a thing?),
and can only point you in the vague direction of some review sites I've
looked at.

I am not a professional photographer, however I am a professional archivist.
For this reason image stability and longevity are possibly far more
significant to me than many others.

I own the IP4000, and it's a great printer, and one of the cheaper to run as
well. To go up a notch (extra colour carts etc) you are looking at the
IP8500 which is also reviewed very well, and offers even higher print
quality. In terms of image quality you are getting lab quality from these
printers though.

After reading around I have personally decided the next printer I will buy
is the Epson R1800 though - largely because of it's pigment inks. (as well
as the benefit of A3 printing, though there is the similarly specked R800 A4
model) Dye based inks are more susceptible to fading, and that is an
important factor for me. Running costs are less significant to me, so to be
honest I have not looked into these much.

The criticism of pigment printers in the past has been that on glossy stock
the ink leaves a dull finish on the printed sections of the paper. However
the R800 (A4) and just released R1800 (A3) are the first to really
effectively deal with this problem through the special Gloss Optimizer that
is applied to glossy prints and leaves a consistently glossy finish, while
this is turned off automatically when printing to matt papers..

It sounds from your description that print stability would be important to
you. Then again you may be the type of user that will take good care of your
digital files (migrating them to new media regularly etc) so can reprint
(this being a point used by some posters to argue that print stability is
not as important as some say). But would you want to do this from all your
15,000 negs? I think not. Digital reprinting is no different - a time
consuming process, that also relies on the originals having been kept well
all those decades. So the longer the prints will last the better for you.

A good review site (that has positive reviews of both the Canon IP8500 and
Epson R800/1800) is www.photo-i.co.uk.

Here is an excerpt from Vincent Oliver's review of the Epson R800 (Which
should also remove any concerns you might have about inkjet prints living up
to lab quality) :

"One of the main concerns for every ink jet user, is the longevity of their
printed material, some dye based prints are fading within months or weeks. I
can personally vouch for that, prints that were made less than six months
ago have faded noticeably, yet I also have other prints which have been on
display for two or three years which still look fresh. Fading is caused by
both light and gas. Gas fade is probably the biggest culprit for short term
fading, light fade is inevitable with almost all colours, even some of the
great masterpieces have faded - I also include my living room curtains .
Epson with their pigment based UltraChrome inks are promising a 75+ year
life on their prints, this now makes selling an inkjet print a viable
alternative to wet chemistry photographic prints.
Colours on the R800 are nothing short of superb. I have never had a better
quality from the photo-i test print, skin tones are more lifelike than
anything I have seen before and I have seen allot of printers over the
years. The Gloss Optimizer gives a good gloss finish to glossy media, a
feature every 2100 owner will be enviable off. I am assured by Epson that
the Gloss Optimizer has the same long life characteristics as the inks.
Although I have expressed a slight disappointment with the R800's ability to
produce neutral monochrome prints, it is still very good, but not as neutral
as the HP 7960 or SP2100 with Light black. I personally don't mind a slight
warm tone in b/w prints, I have spent a fortune over the years on Selenium
toner.

Photo Quality printers have crossed the point where photographers can now
safely dispense with their darkroom. After using this printer for a week or
two, I decided to get shot of all my darkroom equipment and I have no
regrets. The R800 printer has re-defined photo printing, I think we should
all try to find a new word to describe an inkjet print, this printer stands
head and shoulders above the title of inkjet printer."
April 3, 2005 5:47:15 PM

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

That's a brilliant site!
RoS
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:37:19 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E8N3e.243$qD2.86@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I love it.
>>
>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we don't
>> know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests were
>> accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual environmental
>> conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in months, that's not
>> "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>
> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun filled
> room.
>

Oh - well in that case! Have you let those who have conducted detailed
controlled testing know?!! They may never have thought of such a clearly
superior testing methodology *LOL*
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:37:20 PM

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

Caitlin wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:E8N3e.243$qD2.86@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I love it.
>>>
>>>They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we don't
>>>know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests were
>>>accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual environmental
>>>conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in months, that's not
>>>"they are said to fade" they simply do.
>>>
>>>
>>Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun filled
>>room.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Oh - well in that case! Have you let those who have conducted detailed
>controlled testing know?!! They may never have thought of such a clearly
>superior testing methodology *LOL*
>
>

You can do all of the fancy and probably meaning full tests you want. I
am sure mine may fade at some time but I do not know when. I had a
professional framed photo fade (wet process) after 20 years also. All I
said is that I have a bunch of 5 month old photos just lying around in
a moderately sunny room that have not faded. That is the most important
test. When I have any significant fading I will let you know.

I just can't see what these people are doing who claim to have
significant fading after 2 months using Canon OEM ink and Paper. And
all Canon paper is not created equal. I understand that Photo Paper Pro
is much better than Photo Paper Plus. I do have some Plus in a 5x7 size
since they do not make photo paper pro in that size. But I can cut my
own Pro or may use Kirkland cut to that size.

>
>
>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 5:26:13 AM

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

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:57:13 GMT, "RoS" <kermitbaby@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>I have come across the 'brand loyalty' factor in full measure - nothing
>distorts informed comment more!
>'Serious hobbyist' sums it up best as a personal description! I've a very
>large number -15,000 - of colour slides, a large number of which I
>processed myself. Some of those, especially the 20 year+ ones are
>beginning to be attacked by fungi or are deteriorating. I have a similar
>number prints. 9 x 6 has been my favoured size. I never did my own
>printing but used pro or semi-pro labs for this, rather than the D&P outlets
>in shopping centres. Again some prints, particularly those displayed in
>frames, are fading, although many that are 20 - 25 years old are 'as new'.
>Both prints and slides are looked through fairly regularly. They don't
>gather dust!
>I already have Photoshop and intend investing in a slide scanner to rescue
>my slides and print negs.
>Now that I've entered the digital world I can be more selective in making
>final selections but I'll be producing prints from slides, print negs as
>well as digital camera images.
>Therefore I'm looking for a printer that will give me as good a quality as
>my processing labs have in the past. It certainly won't be running non-stop
>from 9 - 5 Mon to Fri, but will need to produce several hundred prints per
>year, which I would expect to last as long as my prints are lasting.
>I haven't been able to find any decent comprehensive and objective reviews.
>I see no point, for example, in manufacturer's figures of print costs being
>published nor anything else unless the reader vis able to make a true like
>for like comparison over a comprehensive range of printers.
>As it happens I'm currently reading Rob Sheppard's excellent Guide to
>Digital printing, Epson orientated though it is!
>As a generality, are there any wild variations in running costs? Dye v
>pigment? It seems that every new product must have yet another cartridge
>installed. Has this becoming a marketing ploy and got out of hand or does
>it really matter? If you believe what you read, every print not produced on
>the latest model looks terrible, a patently absurd claim!
>RoS
>
If you're wanting to retain the prints, then Epson printers with
pigment inks are your best bet. Depending on size, any of the R800,
R1800, 2100, 4500, 7600 or 9000.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:52:37 PM

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

Let's get to the bottom of this then.

You are using the only Canon printer I would consider buying myself
(although I would buy a wider version, if it is made).

You may recall that I had very positive things to say about Canon going
"backwards" to a 1 picolitre 4 color printer. (Yes, I know it has a
black pigment ink cartridge, as well).

In general, high dye load inks are considerably more fade resistant to
UV, gas or surface agitation factors. As I explained back then, ink
colorant molecules literally get swept off the paper surface by both UV
which excites the molecules, or by air currents, etc. Low dye load
inks, like the light M and C, have many times less concentration of dye
molecules to begin with, so they tend to come off the surface much more
easily. Further, in a higher dye load ink, the more surface molecules
tend to better protect lower levels from UV and other hostile forces.

So, that probably explains why your prints are more fade resistant than
what I and others have seen. My contact has been with Canon dye
printers with light dye load inks.

Heck, the formulation of ink may be completely different between the 4
and 6 or whatever color printers.


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I love it.
>>
>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we
>> don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests
>> were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
>> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
>> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>
>
> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
> filled room.
>
>>
>> And regarding gamut until you have seen a R800 or R1800 Ultrachrome
>> pigment ink print, I'm afraid you can't make the judgment.
>>
>> I believe if you call Epson and request it, they will send you a
>> sample print. After you get it, you can decide if they "are said to"
>> and you can also try to make it fade, and see how it holds up compared
>> to your Canon dye ink prints.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> Usually pigmented prints are said to archive better, cost a great
>>> deal more, and initially the results are less striking. That said I
>>> opted for a Canon IP4000, a dye based twin feed full duplex printer.
>>> If I did not want to use it as a business printer I probably would
>>> have gotten a i9900. This is an 8 color photo printer that can print
>>> as large as 13x19 and is said to product the best of the best of
>>> around $400 street price.
>>>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 2:04:02 PM

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

Your printer is 4/5 color, the fading problem is most readily visible
with the 6/7 color printers with low dye load inks (C and M). The same
problem happened when Epson introduced their printers with low dye load
C and M ink.


Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Caitlin wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:E8N3e.243$qD2.86@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I love it.
>>>>
>>>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we
>>>> don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests
>>>> were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
>>>> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
>>>> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
>>> filled room.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh - well in that case! Have you let those who have conducted detailed
>> controlled testing know?!! They may never have thought of such a
>> clearly superior testing methodology *LOL*
>>
>
> You can do all of the fancy and probably meaning full tests you want. I
> am sure mine may fade at some time but I do not know when. I had a
> professional framed photo fade (wet process) after 20 years also. All I
> said is that I have a bunch of 5 month old photos just lying around in
> a moderately sunny room that have not faded. That is the most important
> test. When I have any significant fading I will let you know.
>
> I just can't see what these people are doing who claim to have
> significant fading after 2 months using Canon OEM ink and Paper. And
> all Canon paper is not created equal. I understand that Photo Paper Pro
> is much better than Photo Paper Plus. I do have some Plus in a 5x7 size
> since they do not make photo paper pro in that size. But I can cut my
> own Pro or may use Kirkland cut to that size.
>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 10:36:51 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Let's get to the bottom of this then.
>
> You are using the only Canon printer I would consider buying myself
> (although I would buy a wider version, if it is made).
>
> You may recall that I had very positive things to say about Canon
> going "backwards" to a 1 picolitre 4 color printer. (Yes, I know it
> has a black pigment ink cartridge, as well).
>
> In general, high dye load inks are considerably more fade resistant to
> UV, gas or surface agitation factors. As I explained back then, ink
> colorant molecules literally get swept off the paper surface by both
> UV which excites the molecules, or by air currents, etc. Low dye load
> inks, like the light M and C, have many times less concentration of
> dye molecules to begin with, so they tend to come off the surface much
> more easily. Further, in a higher dye load ink, the more surface
> molecules tend to better protect lower levels from UV and other
> hostile forces.
>
> So, that probably explains why your prints are more fade resistant
> than what I and others have seen. My contact has been with Canon dye
> printers with light dye load inks.
>
> Heck, the formulation of ink may be completely different between the 4
> and 6 or whatever color printers.


The current Canon line of printers for the most part are the PIXMA
series and one i series.

The PIXMA Series

IP3000 4 tank - CYM dye based and a black pigment based for text.
Mixes dye black for photos

IP4000 5 tank. the 5th tank contains a dye black for enhanced contrast
and better photos.

IP5000 1 picoliter higher resolution than the previous two. produces
significantly better business documents and marginally inferior photos.

IP6000D a 6 color printer with the lcd and the stuff geared for the
reall novices who want to print without a computer and use up ink.

IP8500 the narrow carriage flagship line. Faster than the others and
produces better photos where the photograph has more subtle tones and
shades. An 8 color printer. The narrow carriage PIXMA version of the
i9900.

i9900 The best of the best. A wide carriage printer that is the
fastest of the bunch and produces the best photos.


All of these Canon printers use the same BCI6-Y or C or M inks. The
4000 and 5000 also use a pigmented BCI-3e Black. The 6000 uses 2
additional BCI6 colors but not pigmented black. The i9900 uses 8 BCI6
colors and no pigmented black.

This should give you a basic understanding of the current Canon Line.
The IP4000 is the best value for producing photos and business documents
with an emphasis on photos. The IP5000 is best for producing business
documents and photos with the emphasis on business documents. There is
some concern of the smaller droplet size leading to ink clogs but I have
not heard of that happening.

The 6000 is poorer for business documents and OK on photos but like I
said if geared to the novice caught up with the idea of editing and
printing without a computer. I never recommend this to anyone.

The i9900 is a pure photo printer but can be used occassionally for
business documents and the IP8500 is the narrow carriage PIXMA featured
narrow carriage version. I emailed Canon expressing my desire for a
PIXMA version of the i9900 (IP9900) and to have CD printing on all models.

>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I love it.
>>>
>>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes, we
>>> don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the tests
>>> were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
>>> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
>>> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
>> filled room.
>>
>>>
>>> And regarding gamut until you have seen a R800 or R1800 Ultrachrome
>>> pigment ink print, I'm afraid you can't make the judgment.
>>>
>>> I believe if you call Epson and request it, they will send you a
>>> sample print. After you get it, you can decide if they "are said
>>> to" and you can also try to make it fade, and see how it holds up
>>> compared to your Canon dye ink prints.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> Usually pigmented prints are said to archive better, cost a great
>>>> deal more, and initially the results are less striking. That said
>>>> I opted for a Canon IP4000, a dye based twin feed full duplex
>>>> printer. If I did not want to use it as a business printer I
>>>> probably would have gotten a i9900. This is an 8 color photo
>>>> printer that can print as large as 13x19 and is said to product the
>>>> best of the best of around $400 street price.
>>>>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 10:45:50 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Your printer is 4/5 color, the fading problem is most readily visible
> with the 6/7 color printers with low dye load inks (C and M). The
> same problem happened when Epson introduced their printers with low
> dye load C and M ink.


I can only vouch for the IP4000/5000 and relate my fading or lack of
fading experience. I also realize that 6 months is a short time and I
do not have a clue what will happen in a few years if I leave them out.

However, the i9900 is the wide carriage flagship of the Canon line and
it uses low dye load inks (C and M) plus 2 others and I have not hear
many who own that printer complain.

Hopefully, as Canon makes improvements in their formulation, the problem
will become more moot.

>
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Caitlin wrote:
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:E8N3e.243$qD2.86@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I love it.
>>>>>
>>>>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes,
>>>>> we don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the
>>>>> tests were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
>>>>> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
>>>>> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
>>>> filled room.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh - well in that case! Have you let those who have conducted
>>> detailed controlled testing know?!! They may never have thought of
>>> such a clearly superior testing methodology *LOL*
>>
>>
>> You can do all of the fancy and probably meaning full tests you
>> want. I am sure mine may fade at some time but I do not know when.
>> I had a professional framed photo fade (wet process) after 20 years
>> also. All I said is that I have a bunch of 5 month old photos just
>> lying around in a moderately sunny room that have not faded. That is
>> the most important test. When I have any significant fading I will
>> let you know.
>>
>> I just can't see what these people are doing who claim to have
>> significant fading after 2 months using Canon OEM ink and Paper. And
>> all Canon paper is not created equal. I understand that Photo Paper
>> Pro is much better than Photo Paper Plus. I do have some Plus in a
>> 5x7 size since they do not make photo paper pro in that size. But I
>> can cut my own Pro or may use Kirkland cut to that size.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:04:45 PM

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

I will have to determine which printers the samples I saw which were
badly faded came from. They were probably the higher end printers. One
image that was badly faded was an image of the Sagrada Familia (Church)
by Antonio Guadi in Barcelona (an amazing building, I love his
architecture!)

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Sagrada_Familia...

I cannot recall which Canon printer it was from, but it looked awful
(and I have seen the print prior to fading, and it looked pretty good).
I seem to recall the printer used light dye load inks.

Wilhelm has stated that in general, low dye load inks reduce permanence
by 2 to 3 times.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Let's get to the bottom of this then.
>>
>> You are using the only Canon printer I would consider buying myself
>> (although I would buy a wider version, if it is made).
>>
>> You may recall that I had very positive things to say about Canon
>> going "backwards" to a 1 picolitre 4 color printer. (Yes, I know it
>> has a black pigment ink cartridge, as well).
>>
>> In general, high dye load inks are considerably more fade resistant to
>> UV, gas or surface agitation factors. As I explained back then, ink
>> colorant molecules literally get swept off the paper surface by both
>> UV which excites the molecules, or by air currents, etc. Low dye load
>> inks, like the light M and C, have many times less concentration of
>> dye molecules to begin with, so they tend to come off the surface much
>> more easily. Further, in a higher dye load ink, the more surface
>> molecules tend to better protect lower levels from UV and other
>> hostile forces.
>>
>> So, that probably explains why your prints are more fade resistant
>> than what I and others have seen. My contact has been with Canon dye
>> printers with light dye load inks.
>>
>> Heck, the formulation of ink may be completely different between the 4
>> and 6 or whatever color printers.
>
>
>
> The current Canon line of printers for the most part are the PIXMA
> series and one i series.
>
> The PIXMA Series
>
> IP3000 4 tank - CYM dye based and a black pigment based for text.
> Mixes dye black for photos
>
> IP4000 5 tank. the 5th tank contains a dye black for enhanced contrast
> and better photos.
>
> IP5000 1 picoliter higher resolution than the previous two. produces
> significantly better business documents and marginally inferior photos.
>
> IP6000D a 6 color printer with the lcd and the stuff geared for the
> reall novices who want to print without a computer and use up ink.
>
> IP8500 the narrow carriage flagship line. Faster than the others and
> produces better photos where the photograph has more subtle tones and
> shades. An 8 color printer. The narrow carriage PIXMA version of the
> i9900.
>
> i9900 The best of the best. A wide carriage printer that is the
> fastest of the bunch and produces the best photos.
>
>
> All of these Canon printers use the same BCI6-Y or C or M inks. The
> 4000 and 5000 also use a pigmented BCI-3e Black. The 6000 uses 2
> additional BCI6 colors but not pigmented black. The i9900 uses 8 BCI6
> colors and no pigmented black.
>
> This should give you a basic understanding of the current Canon Line.
> The IP4000 is the best value for producing photos and business documents
> with an emphasis on photos. The IP5000 is best for producing business
> documents and photos with the emphasis on business documents. There is
> some concern of the smaller droplet size leading to ink clogs but I have
> not heard of that happening.
>
> The 6000 is poorer for business documents and OK on photos but like I
> said if geared to the novice caught up with the idea of editing and
> printing without a computer. I never recommend this to anyone.
>
> The i9900 is a pure photo printer but can be used occassionally for
> business documents and the IP8500 is the narrow carriage PIXMA featured
> narrow carriage version. I emailed Canon expressing my desire for a
> PIXMA version of the i9900 (IP9900) and to have CD printing on all models.
>
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:08:35 PM

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

It would be nice if they did improve the inks, and or the papers, which
often are the other half of the equation.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Your printer is 4/5 color, the fading problem is most readily visible
>> with the 6/7 color printers with low dye load inks (C and M). The
>> same problem happened when Epson introduced their printers with low
>> dye load C and M ink.
>
>
>
> I can only vouch for the IP4000/5000 and relate my fading or lack of
> fading experience. I also realize that 6 months is a short time and I
> do not have a clue what will happen in a few years if I leave them out.
>
> However, the i9900 is the wide carriage flagship of the Canon line and
> it uses low dye load inks (C and M) plus 2 others and I have not hear
> many who own that printer complain.
>
> Hopefully, as Canon makes improvements in their formulation, the problem
> will become more moot.
>
>>
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Caitlin wrote:
>>>
>>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:E8N3e.243$qD2.86@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I love it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They "are said to archive better"? SAID TO? Yeah, right. Yes,
>>>>>> we don't know if they will last 100 or more years yet because the
>>>>>> tests were accelerated testing techniques that don't prove actual
>>>>>> environmental conditions. But man, we KNOW Canon prints fade in
>>>>>> months, that's not "they are said to fade" they simply do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine have not faded in 6 months of lying around on a desk in a sun
>>>>> filled room.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh - well in that case! Have you let those who have conducted
>>>> detailed controlled testing know?!! They may never have thought of
>>>> such a clearly superior testing methodology *LOL*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can do all of the fancy and probably meaning full tests you
>>> want. I am sure mine may fade at some time but I do not know when.
>>> I had a professional framed photo fade (wet process) after 20 years
>>> also. All I said is that I have a bunch of 5 month old photos just
>>> lying around in a moderately sunny room that have not faded. That is
>>> the most important test. When I have any significant fading I will
>>> let you know.
>>>
>>> I just can't see what these people are doing who claim to have
>>> significant fading after 2 months using Canon OEM ink and Paper. And
>>> all Canon paper is not created equal. I understand that Photo Paper
>>> Pro is much better than Photo Paper Plus. I do have some Plus in a
>>> 5x7 size since they do not make photo paper pro in that size. But I
>>> can cut my own Pro or may use Kirkland cut to that size.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
!