Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 2, 2005 11:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.

Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
store brands like Office Max photo paper?

I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
variety than, say, HP.

I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.

Help, Anyone?
April 3, 2005 8:02:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a canon i960 (six color photo printer) and have had beautiful results
with Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper, 125 sheets @ $19. Epson glossy
photo paper does well with canon inks as well, and the Epson matte double
sided paper is quite good for greeting cards or anything else you want to
print double sided. The back side of the costco paper will not take ink at
all. The epson glossy photo paper has a very faint logo printed in a repeat
pattern on the back, non-glossy side. You can print both sides of this
paper and the logo printed on the back is so faint that most people don't
notice it. I have not liked Kodak paper for my Epson printer or the canon
i960, and there is no need for me to even consider it as the papers I have
mentioned above satisfy my printing needs.

"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
> Help, Anyone?
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 3, 2005 10:41:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have tried Canon Photo Paper Pro, Surething, and Office Depot paper
printing the same professional photograph supplied by Adobe. Office
Depot was ok. Surething was good but the Canon Photo Paper Pro was just
superb. The Canon paper was like glass and the Surething should some
texture.

I also have but have not tried Costco Kirkland Glossy photo paper. I
have not spent any effort on determining who makes it but it is made in
Switzerland and Ilford has a plant there as well. It may be Ilford
Gallerie Paper. I hear it is good.

I also heard that people are having trouble with Kodak paper when using
Canon printers.

tomviolin wrote:

>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>variety than, say, HP.
>
>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
>Help, Anyone?
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 3, 2005 10:43:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>I have a canon i960 (six color photo printer) and have had beautiful results
>with Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper, 125 sheets @ $19. Epson glossy
>photo paper does well with canon inks as well
>

While Canon Tech support claims that Canon Photo Paper Pro is superior
they too told me in writing that Epson Paper produces good results with
Canon Printers using OEM ink.

>, and the Epson matte double
>sided paper is quite good for greeting cards or anything else you want to
>print double sided. The back side of the costco paper will not take ink at
>all. The epson glossy photo paper has a very faint logo printed in a repeat
>pattern on the back, non-glossy side. You can print both sides of this
>paper and the logo printed on the back is so faint that most people don't
>notice it. I have not liked Kodak paper for my Epson printer or the canon
>i960, and there is no need for me to even consider it as the papers I have
>mentioned above satisfy my printing needs.
>
>"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>
>>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>
>>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>variety than, say, HP.
>>
>>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>
>>Help, Anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 12:56:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tomviolin wrote:

>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
>

Do not use Kodak. Ilford it is said is good. People with Canon
printers have also used Costco/Kirkland made in Switzerland glossy.
That may be made by Ilford also located in Switzerland for some of its
production.

>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>variety than, say, HP.
>
>

While expensive, Canon Photo Paper Pro is the best I have seen so far.

>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
>Help, Anyone?
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 1:02:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been using the Ilford Gallerie purchased at my local Sam's Club
and it is excellent. I have a Canon i960 and a Pixma 3000 - but only
use the i960 for photos. I made some side by side comparisons and to my
eyes, the Ilford Gallerie is better than the Canon papers. I read about
it on one of these forums - but don't remember which one.

"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.

Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
store brands like Office Max photo paper?

I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
variety than, say, HP.

I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.

Help, Anyone?
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 9:44:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ssnazzy9 wrote:

>I have been using the Ilford Gallerie purchased at my local Sam's Club
>and it is excellent. I have a Canon i960 and a Pixma 3000 - but only
>use the i960 for photos. I made some side by side comparisons and to my
>eyes, the Ilford Gallerie is better than the Canon papers.
>
What Canon papers are you referring to. Canon Photo Paper Pro is their
top of the line. They also make a cheaper Photo Paper Plus.

>I read about
>it on one of these forums - but don't remember which one.
>
>"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>variety than, say, HP.
>
>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
>Help, Anyone?
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 1:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.

I've used Canon, Kodak, Fuji, and Folex paper with the Canon i850 and now
the IP5000.

Forget about Kodak - I tried one pack and have never used it since.

Canon paper gives great prints but as you said is expensive.
Fuji gave me prints close to Canon and was cheaper. I now print a lot of 6x4
as I now mount them in albums and have settled on Folex. I find their paper
gives excellent results and is a good balance between cost/quality. Once the
print is dry I spray them with Lysons 'Print Guard' which makes them water
resistant and give it some UV protection ( I held one test print under
running water, and it just beads and runs off. Dried it with a towel and
you'd never know it had been near water.)
I don't buy direct from them as I can get it cheaper from a re-seller (here
in the uk).

I'm not sure where you are but here is a link for Folex main site that tells
you all about the paper and what formets they do.

http://www.folex.com/

Hope this helps,

Patrick
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 2:41:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've had good results using OfficeMax papers (both glossy and matte) on
a Pixma iP4000. Haven't tried Ilford.

ssnazzy9 wrote:
> I have been using the Ilford Gallerie purchased at my local Sam's Club
> and it is excellent. I have a Canon i960 and a Pixma 3000 - but only
> use the i960 for photos. I made some side by side comparisons and to my
> eyes, the Ilford Gallerie is better than the Canon papers. I read about
> it on one of these forums - but don't remember which one.
>
> "tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
> Help, Anyone?
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 4:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick wrote:

>>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>
>>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>variety than, say, HP.
>>
>>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>
>>
>
>I've used Canon, Kodak, Fuji, and Folex paper with the Canon i850 and now
>the IP5000.
>
>Forget about Kodak - I tried one pack and have never used it since.
>
>Canon paper gives great prints but as you said is expensive.
>Fuji gave me prints close to Canon and was cheaper. I now print a lot of 6x4
>as I now mount them in albums and have settled on Folex. I find their paper
>gives excellent results and is a good balance between cost/quality. Once the
>print is dry I spray them with Lysons 'Print Guard' which makes them water
>resistant and give it some UV protection ( I held one test print under
>running water, and it just beads and runs off. Dried it with a towel and
>you'd never know it had been near water.)
>
>
Does Print Guard dull the gloss?

>I don't buy direct from them as I can get it cheaper from a re-seller (here
>in the uk).
>
>I'm not sure where you are but here is a link for Folex main site that tells
>you all about the paper and what formets they do.
>
>http://www.folex.com/
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 6:28:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dry I spray them with Lysons 'Print Guard' which makes them water
> >resistant and give it some UV protection ( I held one test print under
> >running water, and it just beads and runs off. Dried it with a towel and
> >you'd never know it had been near water.)
> >
> >
> Does Print Guard dull the gloss?
>
Not in the slightest
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 9:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use the Hammermill Jetprint on my Pixma i8500. I think it is a little bit
better to the same as Canon Pro, and about half the price. I only use the
Canon inks (8 cartridges). The Jetprint is usually only available in 8.5x11,
which is perfect for me. Staples usually carries Jetprint.

Shoot well!



"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
> Help, Anyone?
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 2:08:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick (Saga 35) wrote:

>I use the Hammermill Jetprint on my Pixma i8500. I think it is a little bit
>better to the same as Canon Pro, and about half the price. I only use the
>Canon inks (8 cartridges). The Jetprint is usually only available in 8.5x11,
>which is perfect for me. Staples usually carries Jetprint.
>
>

First JetPrint 24# is not photo paper but inkjetpaper. I use it all of
the time but now I can't. I went to Office Depot and Staples and it was
not there. I then contacted International Paper, the parent company of
Hamermill. Unfortunately, they decided it was not selling enough and
discontinued. I went around with them telling them that it was by far
the best paper, the smoothest paper, and the brightest white. They
still discontinued it.

Maybe you might have bought the last of it. I wish I knew where to get
some of the left overs.

>Shoot well!
>
>
>
>"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>
>>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>
>>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>variety than, say, HP.
>>
>>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>
>>Help, Anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 5:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tomviolin wrote:
> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
> Help, Anyone?
>

HP and Kodak paper do not work well with the fast Canon printers because the ink
doesn't get absorbed fast enough and pools as a result.

Ben
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 5:30:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:30:16 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
wrote:

>HP and Kodak paper do not work well with the fast Canon printers because the ink
>doesn't get absorbed fast enough and pools as a result.

How about Epson papers? I'm probably going to buy a Canon printer
when my old slow Epson finishes its current cartridges, and I'll have
some Epson Heavyweight Matte and a little Epson Glossy Photo left.
April 6, 2005 9:20:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

They work just fine in my Canon i960. Beautiful prints. You can also buy
Epson double sided matte for reasonably good two sided printing. Glossy
paper prints just have more color intensity and "snap"

"Jim Shaffer" <jmshaffer@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:11o651l8ii4i4tbr4p9g77pjuii0dsimoa@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:30:16 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
> wrote:
>
>>HP and Kodak paper do not work well with the fast Canon printers because
>>the ink
>>doesn't get absorbed fast enough and pools as a result.
>
> How about Epson papers? I'm probably going to buy a Canon printer
> when my old slow Epson finishes its current cartridges, and I'll have
> some Epson Heavyweight Matte and a little Epson Glossy Photo left.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 9:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon Tech Support, in writing, said the while they feel Canon Photo
Paper Pro performs best they would also recommend Epson Glossy Photo
paper as well. They also said that HP and Kodak paper did not produce
good results.

Jim Shaffer wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:30:16 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>HP and Kodak paper do not work well with the fast Canon printers because the ink
>>doesn't get absorbed fast enough and pools as a result.
>>
>>
>
>How about Epson papers? I'm probably going to buy a Canon printer
>when my old slow Epson finishes its current cartridges, and I'll have
>some Epson Heavyweight Matte and a little Epson Glossy Photo left.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 7:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Tom,

Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is incorporated
into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference from
their website. Please visit

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

These two options will give you some insight into what is offered. If you
go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on Printer
Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer, use the
suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
results.

The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and installing the
latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the EasyShare
software. Of course, all of this is free.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>
> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>
> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
> variety than, say, HP.
>
> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>
> Help, Anyone?
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 2:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ronald Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:D 31d22$3c7$1@news.kodak.com...
> Greetings Tom,
>
> Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is incorporated
> into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference from
> their website. Please visit
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet
> http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>
> These two options will give you some insight into what is offered. If you
> go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on Printer
> Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer, use the
> suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
> results.
>
> The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and installing the
> latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the EasyShare
> software. Of course, all of this is free.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your input into this thread. I don't know if it's official or
unofficial your input on behalf of Kodak, but it's welcome. It's a shame
other manufacturer don't contribute.

I would like to ask one question though. I have used many brands of paper,
not all covered in my previous post as some were cheap and cheerful and
other were specific to here in the uk.
All brands I've tried required some fine tuning of the printer settings to
achieve correct results. I've just gone through about 20/30 sheets of Folex
stock printing out a GretagMacbeth colour chart with embedded sRGB colour
space (Yes my monitor is calibrated to 2.2 also. There
was nothing really wrong with the results on default settings, but they
didn't quite match what I saw on my monitor and as I manipulate my images
its important to know what I'm seeing on the screen will be printed. So I
know that all paper requires some tweaking.
However Kodak paper I've used in the past required much more than just
tweaking. On default setting the whole image would have a pink cast,
brightness and contrast way off.
Why does it appear as if Kodak paper requires more adjustment to printer
settings than other brands?

Please don't take this question the wrong way - I'm no expert - just and
enthusiastic amateur.

Kind Regards,
Patrick
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 5:04:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.

Ronald Baird wrote:

>Greetings Tom,
>
>Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is incorporated
>into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference from
>their website. Please visit
>
>http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet
>http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>
>These two options will give you some insight into what is offered. If you
>go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on Printer
>Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer, use the
>suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
>results.
>
>The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and installing the
>latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the EasyShare
>software. Of course, all of this is free.
>
>Talk to you soon,
>
>Ron Baird
>Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>"tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>
>>Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>>store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>
>>I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>variety than, say, HP.
>>
>>I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>
>>Help, Anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 5:04:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
> not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.
>
> Ronald Baird wrote:
>
>> Greetings Tom,
>>
>> Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is
>> incorporated
>> into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference from
>> their website. Please visit
>>
>> http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet
>> http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>>
>> These two options will give you some insight into what is offered. If
>> you
>> go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on
>> Printer
>> Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer, use
>> the
>> suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
>> results.
>>
>> The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and installing the
>> latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the EasyShare
>> software. Of course, all of this is free.
>>
>> Talk to you soon,
>>
>> Ron Baird
>> Eastman Kodak Company
>>
>>
>>
>> "tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak papers or
>>> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>>
>>> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>> variety than, say, HP.
>>>
>>> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>>
>>> Help, Anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
he was responding to a question. Bug off!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 9:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
>> not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.
>>
>> Ronald Baird wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings Tom,
>>>
>>> Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is
>>> incorporated
>>> into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference
>>> from
>>> their website. Please visit
>>>
>>> http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet
>>> http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>>>
>>> These two options will give you some insight into what is offered.
>>> If you
>>> go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on
>>> Printer
>>> Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer,
>>> use the
>>> suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
>>> results.
>>>
>>> The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and
>>> installing the
>>> latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the
>>> EasyShare
>>> software. Of course, all of this is free.
>>>
>>> Talk to you soon,
>>>
>>> Ron Baird
>>> Eastman Kodak Company
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>>> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak
>>>> papers or
>>>> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>>>
>>>> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>>> variety than, say, HP.
>>>>
>>>> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>>> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>>>
>>>> Help, Anyone?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 9:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
>>> not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.
>>>
>>> Ronald Baird wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greetings Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is
>>>> incorporated
>>>> into the Kodak EasyShare Software as well as a stand alone reference
>>>> from
>>>> their website. Please visit
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet
>>>> http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>>>>
>>>> These two options will give you some insight into what is offered.
>>>> If you
>>>> go to the Inkjet site, look to the left of the screen and click on
>>>> Printer
>>>> Settings. If you have a current driver installed for your printer,
>>>> use the
>>>> suggested settings and you will find that Kodak paper will yield good
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> The One Touch site gives you the option of downloading and
>>>> installing the
>>>> latest driver adjustments for your printer if you are using the
>>>> EasyShare
>>>> software. Of course, all of this is free.
>>>>
>>>> Talk to you soon,
>>>>
>>>> Ron Baird
>>>> Eastman Kodak Company
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "tomviolin" <rock_spambust_violin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1112500120.632377.271920@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I just purchased a Canon PIXMA iP8500.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any experience using inkjet photo papers other than
>>>>> Canon brand in this or a similar printer? For example, Kodak
>>>>> papers or
>>>>> store brands like Office Max photo paper?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have found the Canon-brand papers to be more expensive with less
>>>>> variety than, say, HP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do have some HP glossy Brochure and Flyer paper lying around, but I
>>>>> just can't get acceptable results with it on the Canon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Help, Anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>
>
>
> Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
> does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>
>>
>>
You mean you can't mention a product in answer to a question? Since when?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 1:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>
>
> Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
> does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>
Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick
April 7, 2005 9:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.

"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> > he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>
>>
>> Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>> does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>
> Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
> there products, mostly without prompting.
> Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
> this thread.
> Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
> setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
> over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
> legitimate for this group.
> If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
> good
> thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>
> I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
> settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 9:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
> and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
> feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
> but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
> and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
> tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>

The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform
a paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>>
>>>
>>>Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>>>does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>>
>>
>>Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
>>there products, mostly without prompting.
>>Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
>>this thread.
>>Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
>>setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
>>over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
>>legitimate for this group.
>>If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
>>good
>>thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>>
>>I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
>>settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>>
>>--
>>Patrick
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 12:15:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
> and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
> feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
> but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
> and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
> tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>
> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>>
>>>
>>>Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>>>does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>>
>>
>>Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
>>there products, mostly without prompting.
>>Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
>>this thread.
>>Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
>>setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
>>over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
>>legitimate for this group.
>>If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
>>good
>>thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>>
>>I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
>>settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>>
>>--
>>Patrick
>>
>>
>
>
>
I use Kodak paper with my HP printers, and it works well. Kodak
supplies specific software, and firmware for these printers, so this is
no surprise. Can't speak for Epson, but would probably go with Epson
papers, and experiment a bit, as you have done.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 8, 2005 12:39:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to be
compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done profiles for
all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me a print, made on
kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that only does 4x6) and
your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface of the paper. Wierd!
I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every complaint on this NG with
the assurance that the paper is compatable with all the printers with the
suggestion that one downloads and prints out of the kodak software and uses
settings specific to their printer. I followed their instructions and still
couldn't get a decent result (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In
addition, I waant to use Photoshop to adjust images and print from as well.
Their software is easy but not full featured like PS.

My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought a
Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom, 4
MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp images
and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with very little
computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know how to use his
camera while abroad and send images back to friends by email. He hadn't
brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so I couldn't attach it
to my computer to see if the camera would be recognized as an additional
disk drive. The USB port/cable end that Kodak uses was different from the
standard AB cable used for printers and for my Olympus cameras. I don't
know if the Kodak cable is proprietary or just a different standard cable.
I emailed Kodak tech support and asked if the camera would be recognized as
a drive when attached to the computer via USB cable and the reply said that
he could hook the camera up to a computer, download their software to the
computer, and use their software to send an image by email. I replied that
no one is going to want software installed on their computer by a stranger
who wants to send an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should
buy a usb card reader to use when away from home. We found later that he
could simply attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak
tech support didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:115b39ptkmmhl85@corp.supernews.com...
> Burt wrote:
>> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
>> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they
>> recommended and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the
>> dark areas. I feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the
>> reasons you stated, but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my
>> canon i960. Epson, Canon, and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no
>> reason to waste my time tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>>
>
> The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
> for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
> for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
> compatible with other printers.
>
> But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
> on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
> doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
> a paper so incompatible.
>
> How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform a
> paper designed for a much wider range of printers.
>
> In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
> Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
> doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
> somewhat washed out.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
>> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>>>he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>>>>does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
>>>there products, mostly without prompting.
>>>Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
>>>this thread.
>>>Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
>>>setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending
>>>it
>>>over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
>>>legitimate for this group.
>>>If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
>>>good
>>>thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>>>
>>>I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
>>>settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 12:39:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
> printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
> acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
> cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to be
> compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done profiles for
> all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me a print, made on
> kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that only does 4x6) and
> your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface of the paper. Wierd!
> I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every complaint on this NG with
> the assurance that the paper is compatable with all the printers with the
> suggestion that one downloads and prints out of the kodak software and uses
> settings specific to their printer. I followed their instructions and still
> couldn't get a decent result (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In
> addition, I waant to use Photoshop to adjust images and print from as well.
> Their software is easy but not full featured like PS.
>
> My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought a
> Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom, 4
> MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
> station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
> marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
> learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp images
> and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with very little
> computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know how to use his
> camera while abroad and send images back to friends by email. He hadn't
> brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so I couldn't attach it
> to my computer to see if the camera would be recognized as an additional
> disk drive. The USB port/cable end that Kodak uses was different from the
> standard AB cable used for printers and for my Olympus cameras. I don't
> know if the Kodak cable is proprietary or just a different standard cable.
> I emailed Kodak tech support and asked if the camera would be recognized as
> a drive when attached to the computer via USB cable and the reply said that
> he could hook the camera up to a computer, download their software to the
> computer, and use their software to send an image by email. I replied that
> no one is going to want software installed on their computer by a stranger
> who wants to send an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should
> buy a usb card reader to use when away from home. We found later that he
> could simply attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak
> tech support didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!
>

They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't
need a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
For Win9x versions, you do.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 2:07:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
the other paper are. However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
--
Ron Cohen

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:115b39ptkmmhl85@corp.supernews.com...
> Burt wrote:
>> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
>> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they
>> recommended and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the
>> dark areas. I feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the
>> reasons you stated, but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my
>> canon i960. Epson, Canon, and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no
>> reason to waste my time tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>>
>
> The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
> for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
> for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
> compatible with other printers.
>
> But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
> on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
> doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
> a paper so incompatible.
>
> How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform a
> paper designed for a much wider range of printers.
>
> In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
> Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
> doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
> somewhat washed out.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
>> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>>>he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>>>>does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
>>>there products, mostly without prompting.
>>>Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
>>>this thread.
>>>Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
>>>setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending
>>>it
>>>over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
>>>legitimate for this group.
>>>If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
>>>good
>>>thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>>>
>>>I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
>>>settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 2:07:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
> Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.

Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
cents (Canadian) per 4x6.

> Not just because
> of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
> the other paper are. However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
> Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
> while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
> As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
> packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
> setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
> paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
> pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.

Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 2:27:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Ake5e.11034$FN4.3639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
> and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas.

I think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
> feel that Ron Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you
stated,
> but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson,
Canon,
> and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
> tinkering with the Kodak papers.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 2:27:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick wrote:

> "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Ake5e.11034$FN4.3639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
>>the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
>>and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas.
>
>
> I think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
> to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
> saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
> waste of ink.

I couldn't get Kodak Premium 4x6 to work on ANY setting on my iP5000, my
favorite being Canon Photo Paper Pro. So I went to the Kodak website, as
suggested by the Kodak Rep. Their suggested printer settings produced
a more inferior print than I came up with, if that's possible. Naturally
Kodak tried to blame my non-OEM ink. And naturally I took up the
challenge and proved them wrong. While OEM was a tad better, it was
still totally unacceptable. On a better paper (Dollar Store :-), the
difference in inks would not even be noticeable. And it wasn't when I
ran a test. I wasted enough ink and paper to satisfy myself that this
paper simply was not suitable for use, at least by me. Perhaps a total
newbie in digital printing might think it's just great. But is this the
market Kodak is catering to?

I am referring to Kodak Premium. Kodak Ultima is a better paper, but
performed poorly with non-OEM ink, and still no match for, you guessed
it, my Dollar Store paper (Likon brand), made in China. It works equally
well with ANY ink.

-Taliesyn


> Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
> why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
> to recall the process assumes windows.
>
> I know two things and suspect a third;
>
> 1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
> 2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
> 3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
> printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
> I
>
>>feel that Ron Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you
>
> stated,
>
>>but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson,
>
> Canon,
>
>>and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
>>tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>
>
> Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
> I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
> paper don't mix!
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
April 8, 2005 2:44:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I believe that Baird works for Kodak. I did buy some Ultima paper a few
years ago when it was on a two for one sale at Office Max. I didn't even
try to tinker beyond the Kodak suggested settings as I had paper that worked
well without wasting the time or ink. I gave the Kodak paper away and moved
on! Why waste the time when there are papers that work really well and are
cheaper besides.
"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 348js$kit$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Ake5e.11034$FN4.3639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
>> the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they
>> recommended
>> and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas.
>
> I think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to
> have
> to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
> saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even
> try -
> waste of ink.
> Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
> why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I
> seem
> to recall the process assumes windows.
>
> I know two things and suspect a third;
>
> 1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
> 2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
> 3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website
> for
> printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
> I
>> feel that Ron Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you
> stated,
>> but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson,
> Canon,
>> and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
>> tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>
> Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer
> set-up
> I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and
> their
> paper don't mix!
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 4:54:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hb35e.20478$zl.14736@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> > measekite wrote:
> >
> >> I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
> >> not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.
> >>
> >> Ronald Baird wrote:
> >>
> >>> Greetings Tom,
> >>>
> >>> Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is
> >>> incorporated
snip
> >>>
> >>> Ron Baird
> >>> Eastman Kodak Company
> >>>
I think this is legitimate and informative ... he clearly identified
himself, so we can evaluate his opinion, based on the source.

Everything here is just an opinion, you know (except messages from God
and his annointed messengers, whom we hear a lot from, IMHOP!)
April 8, 2005 8:27:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I included that info in the question to the Kodak tech rep - I asked about
WinXP (which I have) and also about previous Windows OS that he might find
on someone elses computer. I believe that Win2K has plug and play with a
card reader or camera as well, but you would have to access it as another
drive and not through the media window as exists in XP.

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3_k5e.822$YS1.376@fe02.lga...
> Burt wrote:
>> There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
>> printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
>> acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
>> cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to
>> be compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done
>> profiles for all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me
>> a print, made on kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that
>> only does 4x6) and your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface
>> of the paper. Wierd! I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every
>> complaint on this NG with the assurance that the paper is compatable with
>> all the printers with the suggestion that one downloads and prints out of
>> the kodak software and uses settings specific to their printer. I
>> followed their instructions and still couldn't get a decent result
>> (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In addition, I waant to use
>> Photoshop to adjust images and print from as well. Their software is easy
>> but not full featured like PS.
>>
>> My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought
>> a Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom,
>> 4 MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
>> station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
>> marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
>> learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp
>> images and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with
>> very little computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know
>> how to use his camera while abroad and send images back to friends by
>> email. He hadn't brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so
>> I couldn't attach it to my computer to see if the camera would be
>> recognized as an additional disk drive. The USB port/cable end that
>> Kodak uses was different from the standard AB cable used for printers and
>> for my Olympus cameras. I don't know if the Kodak cable is proprietary
>> or just a different standard cable. I emailed Kodak tech support and
>> asked if the camera would be recognized as a drive when attached to the
>> computer via USB cable and the reply said that he could hook the camera
>> up to a computer, download their software to the computer, and use their
>> software to send an image by email. I replied that no one is going to
>> want software installed on their computer by a stranger who wants to send
>> an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should buy a usb card
>> reader to use when away from home. We found later that he could simply
>> attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak tech support
>> didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!
>>
>
> They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't need
> a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
> For Win9x versions, you do.
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 8, 2005 8:29:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

They will send you a sample ------ for a price!

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:115bg301j531d2b@corp.supernews.com...
> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
>> Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>
> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
> not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
> cents (Canadian) per 4x6.
>
>> Not just because of the problems you mention, but because it isn't
>> moisture resistant whereas the other paper are. However, I have gotten
>> some really nice prints using Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the
>> recommended settings. It's been a while since I last used it and don't
>> remember the settings used at the time. As I get time I'm going to
>> experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five packages left) and
>> document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper setting with my
>> iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain paper
>> definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses pigmented
>> black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
>
> Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
> Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
> worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
> that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
> But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
> such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
> are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
> Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
> trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
> those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 9:19:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> Burt wrote:
>
>> I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I
>> installed the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings
>> they recommended and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing
>> in the dark areas. I feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG
>> for the reasons you stated, but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my
>> Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon, and Kirkland papers work so
>> well that I see no reason to waste my time tinkering with the Kodak
>> papers.
>>
>
> The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
> for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
> for it.


Canon Tech Support told me in writing that while they recommend Canon
Photo Paper Pro as the best for the IP series printers, they also
recommend Epson Standard Glossy and said it works fine without problems.

> I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was compatible
> with other printers.
>
> But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
> on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
> doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
> a paper so incompatible.
>
> How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson)
> outperform a paper designed for a much wider range of printers.
>
> In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
> Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
> doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
> somewhat washed out.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
>> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D 32q1u$5gp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>>> he was responding to a question. Bug off!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
>>>> does not make any difference what the reasons is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to
>>> sell
>>> there products, mostly without prompting.
>>> Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it
>>> earlier in
>>> this thread.
>>> Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's
>>> printer
>>> setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't
>>> recommending it
>>> over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his
>>> post was
>>> legitimate for this group.
>>> If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be
>>> a good
>>> thing. As it gives us all more choice.
>>>
>>> I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
>>> settings - at least it is with canon printers?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 9:35:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick wrote:

>"Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:Ake5e.11034$FN4.3639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
>>the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
>>and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas.
>>
>>
>
>I think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
>to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
>saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
>waste of ink.
>Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
>why?
>


Because Kodak puts food on his table.

>I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
>to recall the process assumes windows.
>
>I know two things and suspect a third;
>
>1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
>2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
>3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
>printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
> I
>
>
>>feel that Ron Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you
>>
>>
>stated,
>
>
>>but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson,
>>
>>
>Canon,
>
>
>>and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
>>tinkering with the Kodak papers.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
>I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
>paper don't mix!
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 9:39:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

>I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica),
>

Since you are pretty sure that Konica makes the Office Depot paper do
you have any idea who makes the Costco/Kirkland paper and to what
specification. Some say it is Ilford Gallerie Photo Glossy and others
have mentioned Konica.

>Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
>Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
>of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
>the other paper are.
>

What do you mean by being moisture resistant?

>However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
>Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
>while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
>As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
>packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
>paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
>pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
>
>

Do you know what the High Resolution Paper Setting on the IP4000 uses?
And what exactly does Canon mean by High Resolution Paper as opposed to
a high quality plain paper?
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 9:44:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>> Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>
>
> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
> some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
> Professional
> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
> cents (Canadian) per 4x6.


How do the results compare with Canon Photo Paper Pro?

>
>> Not just because of the problems you mention, but because it isn't
>> moisture resistant whereas the other paper are. However, I have
>> gotten some really nice prints using Kodak Ultima, but not with any
>> of the recommended settings. It's been a while since I last used it
>> and don't remember the settings used at the time. As I get time I'm
>> going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five packages
>> left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>> setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my
>> i950. Plain paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that
>> setting uses pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable
>> bronzing.
>
>
> Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
> Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
> worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
> that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
> But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
> such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
> are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
> Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
> trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
> those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 9:45:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>> Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>
>
> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
> some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
> Professional
> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
> cents (Canadian) per 4x6.


What is the paper setting to use when printing on Costco/Kirkland paper?

>
>> Not just because of the problems you mention, but because it isn't
>> moisture resistant whereas the other paper are. However, I have
>> gotten some really nice prints using Kodak Ultima, but not with any
>> of the recommended settings. It's been a while since I last used it
>> and don't remember the settings used at the time. As I get time I'm
>> going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five packages
>> left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>> setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my
>> i950. Plain paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that
>> setting uses pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable
>> bronzing.
>
>
> Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
> Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
> worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
> that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
> But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
> such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
> are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
> Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
> trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
> those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 12:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Ron Cohen wrote:
>>
>>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>>> Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
>> some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
>> Professional
>> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
>> cents (Canadian) per 4x6.
>
>
>
> How do the results compare with Canon Photo Paper Pro?
>

Why are you asking me a question you can answer yourself? You bought the
Kirkland paper months ago. Print something. I know OEM ink is expensive,
but you made that choice. Now you can't afford to even run a test. Why
do you keep praising a printer you've never used? On the other hand I
emptied half a cartridge and lots of paper last week doing tests. Are
you mainly here to debate theoretical points, repeat quotes others have
stated, or actually trade useful printing experiences with inks and
paper? I've seen nothing so far outside of being a general "pain in the
neck" to everyone.

-Taliesyn (even he has his limits on patience!)
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 12:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

>In article <hb35e.20478$zl.14736@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>measekite@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know you are trying to be helpful but this NG and the printer NG is
>>>>not a venue for you company's advertising aka SPAM.
>>>>
>>>>Ronald Baird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Greetings Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>>Kodak has created something called One Touch. This feature is
>>>>>incorporated
>>>>>
>>>>>
>snip
>
>
>>>>>Ron Baird
>>>>>Eastman Kodak Company
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>I think this is legitimate and informative ... he clearly identified
>himself, so we can evaluate his opinion, based on the source.
>
>Everything here is just an opinion, you know (except messages from God
>and his annointed messengers, whom we hear a lot from, IMHOP!)
>
>

I am trying very hard to figure out if God created me or if I created
God. If the concept is helpful in my life; it may not really make any
difference.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 1:10:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> So far no one's mentioned
> Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
> trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
> those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

I mentioned Fuji in my first post in this thread. It was and still is my
preferred paper. However I now use Folex as I have spent some time and
trouble matching the printout to my monitor (default settings give excellent
results as well).
Even on default printer settings Fuji was not far behind Canon-pro paper at
a cheaper cost. Folex is up there as well and is cheaper than again.

--
Patrick
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 1:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick wrote:

>>So far no one's mentioned
>>Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
>>trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
>>those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>>
>>
>
>I mentioned Fuji in my first post in this thread. It was and still is my
>preferred paper. However I now use Folex as I have spent some time and
>trouble matching the printout to my monitor (default settings give excellent
>results as well).
>Even on default printer settings Fuji was not far behind Canon-pro paper at
>a cheaper cost. Folex is up there as well and is cheaper than again.
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>

I just finnished an partially controlled emprical observation (aka test
by some people) using a Canon Printer with OEM ink with different
papers. I will take another look in the morning and let you guys and
gals know the results in the morning as well as the costs involved.

The title of the conclusive results will be Canon Won and Canon Lost!

>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 2:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:45:10 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Ron Cohen wrote:
>>
>>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>>> Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>>
>>
>> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
>> some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
>> Professional
>> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
>> cents (Canadian) per 4x6.
>
>
>What is the paper setting to use when printing on Costco/Kirkland paper?

Phot Paper Plus Glossy, like it says on the instruction sheet.
>
>>
>>> Not just because of the problems you mention, but because it isn't
>>> moisture resistant whereas the other paper are. However, I have
>>> gotten some really nice prints using Kodak Ultima, but not with any
>>> of the recommended settings. It's been a while since I last used it
>>> and don't remember the settings used at the time. As I get time I'm
>>> going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five packages
>>> left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>>> setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my
>>> i950. Plain paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that
>>> setting uses pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable
>>> bronzing.
>>
>>
>> Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
>> Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
>> worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
>> that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
>> But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
>> such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
>> are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
>> Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
>> trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
>> those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 3:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:39:47 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>>I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica),
>>
>
>Since you are pretty sure that Konica makes the Office Depot paper do
>you have any idea who makes the Costco/Kirkland paper and to what
>specification. Some say it is Ilford Gallerie Photo Glossy and others
>have mentioned Konica.

It's made in Switzerland, which points to Ilford. It also gets
excellent results using the Ilford-supplied profiles.

>
>>Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
>>Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
>>of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
>>the other paper are.
>>
>
>What do you mean by being moisture resistant?
>
>>However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
>>Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
>>while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
>>As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
>>packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>>setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
>>paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
>>pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
>>
>>
>
>Do you know what the High Resolution Paper Setting on the IP4000 uses?
>And what exactly does Canon mean by High Resolution Paper as opposed to
>a high quality plain paper?
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 6:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>>>> Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
>>> some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
>>> Professional
>>> Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about
>>> 7 cents (Canadian) per 4x6.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How do the results compare with Canon Photo Paper Pro?
>>
>
> Why are you asking me a question you can answer yourself? You bought the
> Kirkland paper months ago. Print something. I know OEM ink is expensive,
> but you made that choice. Now you can't afford to even run a test. Why
> do you keep praising a printer you've never used? On the other hand I
> emptied half a cartridge and lots of paper last week doing tests. Are
> you mainly here to debate theoretical points, repeat quotes others
> have stated, or actually trade useful printing experiences with inks
> and paper? I've seen nothing so far outside of being a general "pain
> in the neck" to everyone.
>
> -Taliesyn (even he has his limits on patience!)


I will be making a post shortly having done the above. I am touting the
Canon Printer, all of this time, because I have used it in full
accordance with the manufacturer's primary recommendations. The reason
I ask others, including you, for your opinions is for you subjective
choices. Emperical observations are all subjective. Hey some guys like
fat ugly girls with pimples and get turned on! So what is your beer? ;-)
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 8, 2005 7:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oliver Costich wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:45:10 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or
>>>>Ilford Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good,
>>>some not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland
>>>Professional
>>>Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
>>>cents (Canadian) per 4x6.
>>>
>>>
>>What is the paper setting to use when printing on Costco/Kirkland paper?
>>
>>

Finally printed some. My instruction sheet in the batch I just
purchased also suggested Canon Photo Paper Pro. Results were excellent.

>
>Phot Paper Plus Glossy, like it says on the instruction sheet.
>
>
>>>>Not just because of the problems you mention, but because it isn't
>>>>moisture resistant whereas the other paper are. However, I have
>>>>gotten some really nice prints using Kodak Ultima, but not with any
>>>>of the recommended settings. It's been a while since I last used it
>>>>and don't remember the settings used at the time. As I get time I'm
>>>>going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five packages
>>>>left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
>>>>setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my
>>>>i950. Plain paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that
>>>>setting uses pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable
>>>>bronzing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
>>>Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
>>>worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
>>>that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
>>>But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
>>>such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
>>>are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
>>>Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
>>>trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
>>>those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .
>>>
>>>-Taliesyn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
!