Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the
most part it makes sense.
"SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>photos
>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>> Thanks -S
>
>
There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
experience...from about 4 days ago.
I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
about to learn a thing or two).
First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
system.
As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.
So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
a green and a red tank to the colour mix.
I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
with the 8500.
Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.
As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.
Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.
Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
already begun to fade.
HTH...didn't mean to write a novel.
WW
I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the
most part it makes sense.
"SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>photos
>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>> Thanks -S
>
>
There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
experience...from about 4 days ago.
I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
about to learn a thing or two).
First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
system.
As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.
So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
a green and a red tank to the colour mix.
I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
with the 8500.
Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.
As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.
Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.
Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
already begun to fade.
HTH...didn't mean to write a novel.
WW
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram