Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon iP4000 or iP5000? For graphic output

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:03:03 PM

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

So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great speed,
inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).

Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
transparency?

Any downside to these printers?

Thanks for your input,
Sarah
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:04:49 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:
> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?
>
> Thanks for your input,
> Sarah

Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
blown away by the quality of print.

Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
(in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.

My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
(sorry, I can't credit the author).

I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
(cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:10:52 PM

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

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?

Both printers are suitable. The IP5000 is better with regards to
photos/graphics but at the cost of speed. The IP4000 is faster and its
output is still very good.
The above is just my experience.

--
Patrick
Related resources
May 10, 2005 6:32:56 PM

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

A good reveiw for the ip5000 is at Photo-i with picture comparisons
pitted against higher class printers, and sure you'll agree the 5000
stands up well.

Its very ink conservative, see through tanks and each replaceable and
NOT CHIPPED another good review is at Steve's Digicams.

One thing to note is the 1pL print head, which produces ink dots that
are much closer together than a 2pL.

PC Mag states that the 5000 is one step lower in picture quality than
the 4000, I feel that this is an error on their part - the clue is
the time they say it takes to print a picture on the highest setting,
the time they say it takes appears to be its second best setting
(don't let this put you off), they also say its better at pastels and
graphics, this is understandable because of the better vertical
resolution.

I feel that this is aimed at the office environment where text,
graphics, pie charts etc are required, one thing to remember
withPixma's is when doing 'glossy photoes' to use the top tray and
not the bottom one, because you dont want the nice glossy surface
damaged by the paper doing a 'U turn', anything else is OK.

Hope its of help.

Davy
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:15:06 PM

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

For business text and graphics the reviews will point you to the
IP5000. I have an IP4000 and use it mostly for photos but the 1pl
droplet size of the IP5000 makes for much better business text and
graphics with nearly as good photo quality but the a somewhat slower speed.

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great speed,
>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>transparency?
>
>Any downside to these printers?
>
>Thanks for your input,
>Sarah
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:25:22 PM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>> speed,
>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>> transparency?
>>
>> Any downside to these printers?
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Sarah
>
>
> Definitely the iP5000.

I agree with this.

> I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
> today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
> more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
> better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
> ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
> covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
> blown away by the quality of print.
>
> Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears


It does not appear slower it is. But the higher resolution does take
longer.

> to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
> 4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
> and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
> (in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>
> My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
> used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco.

Costco/Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper is nearly as good as Canon Photo
Paper Pro and 1/7 of the cost. Rumor has it that it may be made by
Ilford as they have a factory in Switzerland.

> You
> can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
> paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
> out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
> can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
> the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
> spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
> feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
> background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
> of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
> people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
> (sorry, I can't credit the author).
>
> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.


If your print load is very high like his it may make sense; otherwise
stick with Canon. Refilling is a pain. You can save enough by using
prefilled carts if you go that route. Beware of what you buy and where
you buy it. These vendors are not regulated and can put anything in the
carts. Most will not tell you what is in the box and do not specify
that on the website.

> If
> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today
> I have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to

Isn't that when you were eight years old? ;-)

> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.


But beware that this NG has a resident AfterMarket Club with about a
half dozen or so regular members.

>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:25:23 PM

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.
>
>
> Refilling is a pain.

You mean tedious, messy and may not work, right?

Only if you do it, Measekite.

I just changed my black BCI-3e and then refilled the empty one with
fresh bulk, right in front of my computer screen, no gloves, no towels,
and absolutely no drops of ink on my fingers (because I'm good!). The
time it took to find the replacement cartridge, find the bulk ink and
syringe, switch cartridges, unseal the empty, fill the empty, reseal the
empty, wash the syringe, put everything away, took all of 8 minutes. And
I wasn't rushing. It's a fun job, I enjoy it. And the best part, it cost
me all of $1.00 dollar, based on the initial $17 outlay for the bulk
ink. Compare that to a new black BCI-3e bought at Wal-Mart (Canada) -
about $25 CAD with taxes. Paying $1 is a lot LESS PAINFUL than paying
$25, no matter which school of math you went to. If this is the
"refilling pain" you speak of, give me more pain, please!!!

-Taliesyn




You can save enough by using
> prefilled carts if you go that route. Beware of what you buy and where
> you buy it. These vendors are not regulated and can put anything in the
> carts. Most will not tell you what is in the box and do not specify
> that on the website.
>
>> If
>> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
>> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
>> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today
>> I have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
>
>
> Isn't that when you were eight years old? ;-)
>
>> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
>> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
>> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>
>
>
> But beware that this NG has a resident AfterMarket Club with about a
> half dozen or so regular members.
>
>>
>> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:29:00 PM

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

Davy wrote:

>A good reveiw for the ip5000 is at Photo-i with picture comparisons
>pitted against higher class printers, and sure you'll agree the 5000
>stands up well.
>
>
>

Also www.pcmag.com reviewed the IP4000 vs IP5000 against each other.

>Its very ink conservative, see through tanks and each replaceable and
>NOT CHIPPED another good review is at Steve's Digicams.
>
>One thing to note is the 1pL print head, which produces ink dots that
>are much closer together than a 2pL.
>
>PC Mag states that the 5000 is one step lower in picture quality than
>the 4000, I feel that this is an error on their part - the clue is
>the time they say it takes to print a picture on the highest setting,
>the time they say it takes appears to be its second best setting
>(don't let this put you off), they also say its better at pastels and
>graphics, this is understandable because of the better vertical
>resolution.
>
>

If that is the case you should write a letter to the editor. Maybe they
will retest (they have done that in the past) or publish your letter as
they do on many occasions.

>I feel that this is aimed at the office environment where text,
>graphics, pie charts etc are required, one thing to remember
>withPixma's is when doing 'glossy photoes' to use the top tray and
>not the bottom one, because you dont want the nice glossy surface
>damaged by the paper doing a 'U turn', anything else is OK.
>
>

I use the bottom tray for business paper and the top for photos and feed
only 1 sheet at a time.

>Hope its of help.
>
>Davy
>
>
>
May 10, 2005 9:28:54 PM

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

Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this NG.
We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
experiences on this NG. One participant choses to criticize our posts,
deride the vendors that have proven reliable in our dealings with them, and
group us together as if we were some bad-ink cabal. He has not used any
third party ink carts and has continually called refilling a pain and too
messy although he has never tried it. My experience is that any potential
mess is easily managed and contained and it is simple and quick to do with
the canon bci6 carts. Your best recommendation is from a friend who has
personally used a reliable vendor (not one that someone heard was reliable)
and has personally used a product that did not harm her printer and provided
color matches to her satisfaction. I feel that this post is an honest and
reasonable approach to explaining this issue and you can use your own
judgement in evaluating any responses.

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
> speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?
>
> Thanks for your input,
> Sarah
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:28:55 PM

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

Burt wrote:

> Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this NG.
> We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
> inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
> experiences on this NG.

Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in Fargo,
North Dakota. Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all
seem to use a different brand of ink! Oh well, so much for Measekite's
wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt. But I do
notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling. It must
be 5 months straight now. So we know he's keenly interested. Perhaps,
Burt, we'll invite him to next year's convention in St. John's,
Newfoundland. Pack your empties ... and don't forget the orange caps.
Isn't this exciting!!!

-Taliesyn
May 10, 2005 10:08:11 PM

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

Taliesyn - How about recruiting him as keynote speaker at the banquet? Our
auxialliary group, the Paintball Survivalist Combat team would love to take
aim.

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1181tfm7cvf4ubf@corp.supernews.com...
> Burt wrote:
>
>> Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this
>> NG. We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third
>> party
>> inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
>> experiences on this NG.
>
> Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
> We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in Fargo,
> North Dakota. Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all seem
> to use a different brand of ink! Oh well, so much for Measekite's
> wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
> no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
> Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt. But I do
> notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling. It must be
> 5 months straight now. So we know he's keenly interested. Perhaps,
> Burt, we'll invite him to next year's convention in St. John's,
> Newfoundland. Pack your empties ... and don't forget the orange caps.
> Isn't this exciting!!!
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:28:03 PM

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

I'm confused about the pcmag.com review of these printers. It says that the
iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
would the iP4000 photos be better?

Thanks,
Sarah


On 5/10/05 7:04 AM, in article 1181fs5rk0407e9@corp.supernews.com,
"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:

> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great speed,
>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>> transparency?
>>
>> Any downside to these printers?
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Sarah
>
> Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
> today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
> more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
> better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
> ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
> covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
> blown away by the quality of print.
>
> Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
> to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
> 4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
> and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
> (in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>
> My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
> used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
> can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
> paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
> out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
> can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
> the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
> spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
> feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
> background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
> of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
> people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
> (sorry, I can't credit the author).
>
> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
> have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:06:36 AM

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

Burt wrote:

>Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this NG.
>
>

Yes there is. While not a formal joining of members it is a group of
individuals that join each other in a common belief system much like
evangelism. Their posts retain a common theme and they leave little
room for differences of opinion much like a cult.

>We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
>inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
>experiences on this NG. One participant choses to criticize our posts,
>deride the vendors that have proven reliable in our dealings with them, and
>group us together as if we were some bad-ink cabal. He has not used any
>third party ink carts and has continually called refilling a pain and too
>messy although he has never tried it.
>

I prefer to go to the grocery store to get a steak rather than raising,
feeding, slaughtering and cutting my own beef. If I wanted to go to all
that trouble I could also save money.

The truth is if your print load is high you can justify seeking out the
truth about aftermarket inks. You will find that most of the vendors
are mom and pops hiding behind websites that do not provide a full
disclosure of details. An unlike the gasoline industry this one is not
regulated. Caveat Emptor.

>My experience is that any potential
>mess is easily managed and contained
>

Why spend the time to manage and contain. If you go to the aftermarket
route and you find a good professional vender that displays in writing
on their site what they are selling, you might be better off opting for
prefilled carts. You do not need to squeeze every cent and endure and
have to contain the mess.

>and it is simple and quick to do with
>the canon bci6 carts. Your best recommendation is from a friend who has
>personally used a reliable vendor (not one that someone heard was reliable)
>and has personally used a product that did not harm her printer and provided
>color matches to her satisfaction.
>
The difference between HP and Canon is in the printhead. As long as the
HP does not leak you get a new printhead with each cartridge. With the
Canon you risk clogging your printhead.

Many of these tinkerers who claim no clogging get that result because of
the high use of the printer. For average users you may run into difficult.

Many in the AfterMarket club attempt to stifle my view points because
the do not like what I say. And some, while they do not or reluctantly
disclose it are resellers themselves who want to promote the industry
ie. Got Milk while a few blatantly spam the NG advertising their wares.

>I feel that this post is an honest and
>reasonable approach to explaining this issue and
>
and so do I so

>you can use your own
>judgement in evaluating any responses.
>
>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>
>
>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>speed,
>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>transparency?
>>
>>Any downside to these printers?
>>
>>Thanks for your input,
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:25:53 AM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>>> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Refilling is a pain.
>
>
> You mean tedious, messy and may not work, right?
>
> Only if you do it, Measekite.
>
> I just changed my black BCI-3e and then refilled the empty one with
> fresh bulk, right in front of my computer screen, no gloves, no towels,
> and absolutely no drops of ink on my fingers (because I'm good!). The
> time it took to find the replacement cartridge, find the bulk ink and
> syringe, switch cartridges, unseal the empty, fill the empty, reseal the
> empty, wash the syringe, put everything away, took all of 8 minutes.


Well your the cats tukiss.

> And
> I wasn't rushing. It's a fun job,


If that is what you call fun; Do you do Windows.

> I enjoy it. And the best part, it cost
> me all of $1.00 dollar, based on the initial $17 outlay for the bulk
> ink. Compare that to a new black BCI-3e bought at Wal-Mart (Canada) -
> about $25 CAD with taxes. Paying $1 is a lot LESS PAINFUL than paying
> $25, no matter which school of math you went to. If this is the
> "refilling pain" you speak of, give me more pain, please!!!


In the US the ration is far less.

>
> -Taliesyn
>
>
>
>
> You can save enough by using
>
>> prefilled carts if you go that route. Beware of what you buy and
>> where you buy it. These vendors are not regulated and can put
>> anything in the carts. Most will not tell you what is in the box and
>> do not specify that on the website.
>>
>>> If
>>> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>>> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>>> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega
>>> dollars
>>> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>>> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>>> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my
>>> greeting
>>> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly,
>>> today I have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough
>>> bulk ink to
>>

In your case and at your age, and where you live you indeed made the
right decision for your self. But most people do not have you print
requirements.

>>
>>
>> Isn't that when you were eight years old? ;-)
>>
>>> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask
>>> and
>>> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
>>> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But beware that this NG has a resident AfterMarket Club with about a
>> half dozen or so regular members.
>>
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:46:54 AM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Burt wrote:
>
>> Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on
>> this NG. We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have
>> used third party
>> inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
>> experiences on this NG.
>
>
> Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
> We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in
> Fargo, North Dakota.


Be honest, it was Salt Lake, Utah

> Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all seem to use a
> different brand of ink!

I did not say you were the Label X club but the AfterMarket Club.

> Oh well, so much for Measekite's
> wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
> no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.


Be honest, I dd not use Canon Carts in my HP printer. I use HP in my HP
and Canon in my Canon. If my print load was very high I would consider
researching in even greater detail and then research a full disclosure
vendor.

> Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt.

But remember that most of the members of the AfterMarket are hobbyists
and tinkerers. Now tell me would you buy a radio in store or build a
radio kit from parts.

Now I am be concervative in this areabut I still have built a number of
desktop computers from scratch, built a server, installed a network and
programmed a multi tiered based computer database program.

> But I do
> notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling.


To fully disclose the info that is dissemenated by the AfterMarket Club.

> It must be 5 months straight now. So we know he's keenly interested.
> Perhaps,
> Burt, we'll invite him to next year's convention in St. John's,
> Newfoundland.


Only after the US annexes Canada; but only the good part.

> Pack your empties ... and don't forget the orange caps.
> Isn't this exciting!!!
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:47:02 AM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>I'm confused about the pcmag.com review of these printers. It says that the
>iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
>graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
>drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
>would the iP4000 photos be better?
>
>

According to PCMAG the smaller droplet size is effective when producing
text and graphics ala business documents. The difference there is
substantial. As far as most of the photos the difference is marginal
with the IP4000 coming out on top but it was faster.

>Thanks,
>Sarah
>
>
>On 5/10/05 7:04 AM, in article 1181fs5rk0407e9@corp.supernews.com,
>"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great speed,
>>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>
>>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>>transparency?
>>>
>>>Any downside to these printers?
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input,
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
>>today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
>>more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
>>better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
>>ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
>>covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
>>blown away by the quality of print.
>>
>>Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
>>to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
>>4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
>>and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
>>(in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>>
>>My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
>>used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
>>can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
>>paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
>>out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
>>can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
>>the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
>>spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
>>feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
>>background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
>>of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
>>people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
>>(sorry, I can't credit the author).
>>
>>I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>>There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
>>there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>>original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>>so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
>>and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>>without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>>inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
>>cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
>>have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
>>probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
>>there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
>>(cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 10:39:38 AM

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

I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
already stated.

With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?

If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.

Thanks,
Sarah

On 5/10/05 10:47 PM, in article
q%gge.15358$J12.1570@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> I'm confused about the pcmag.com review of these printers. It says that the
>> iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
>> graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
>> drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
>> would the iP4000 photos be better?
>>
>>
>
> According to PCMAG the smaller droplet size is effective when producing
> text and graphics ala business documents. The difference there is
> substantial. As far as most of the photos the difference is marginal
> with the IP4000 coming out on top but it was faster.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> On 5/10/05 7:04 AM, in article 1181fs5rk0407e9@corp.supernews.com,
>> "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>>> speed,
>>>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>>
>>>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>>> transparency?
>>>>
>>>> Any downside to these printers?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input,
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
>>> today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
>>> more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
>>> better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
>>> ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
>>> covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
>>> blown away by the quality of print.
>>>
>>> Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
>>> to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
>>> 4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
>>> and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
>>> (in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>>>
>>> My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
>>> used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
>>> can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
>>> paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
>>> out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
>>> can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
>>> the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
>>> spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
>>> feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
>>> background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
>>> of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
>>> people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
>>> (sorry, I can't credit the author).
>>>
>>> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>>> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
>>> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>>> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>>> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
>>> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>>> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>>> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
>>> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
>>> have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
>>> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
>>> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
>>> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:02:47 PM

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

> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?

Sarah,

Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
match has ensued (not taking any sides).

To get back to your questions.

I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice. I only use my printer for
photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
is like everything else there are good and bad.

As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
resolution (which I always do).

The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
consideration.

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:19:42 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
>Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>already stated.
>
>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
>

I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not used
when printing photos. While it does not make sense I am sure the
explanation would be interesting. Another thing that you could do is
contact Canon Tech Support with a copy of the PC Mag test report in hand
and discuss it with them. If you do please publish your findings here.

>Thanks,
>Sarah
>
>On 5/10/05 10:47 PM, in article
>q%gge.15358$J12.1570@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm confused about the pcmag.com review of these printers. It says that the
>>>iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
>>>graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
>>>drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
>>>would the iP4000 photos be better?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>According to PCMAG the smaller droplet size is effective when producing
>>text and graphics ala business documents. The difference there is
>>substantial. As far as most of the photos the difference is marginal
>>with the IP4000 coming out on top but it was faster.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5/10/05 7:04 AM, in article 1181fs5rk0407e9@corp.supernews.com,
>>>"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>>>>speed,
>>>>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>>>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>>>
>>>>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>>>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>>>>transparency?
>>>>>
>>>>>Any downside to these printers?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for your input,
>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
>>>>today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
>>>>more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
>>>>better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
>>>>ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
>>>>covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
>>>>blown away by the quality of print.
>>>>
>>>>Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
>>>>to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
>>>>4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
>>>>and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
>>>>(in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>>>>
>>>>My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
>>>>used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
>>>>can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
>>>>paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
>>>>out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
>>>>can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
>>>>the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
>>>>spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
>>>>feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
>>>>background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
>>>>of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
>>>>people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
>>>>(sorry, I can't credit the author).
>>>>
>>>>I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>>>>There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
>>>>there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>>>>original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>>>>so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
>>>>and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>>>>without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>>>>inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
>>>>cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
>>>>have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
>>>>probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
>>>>there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
>>>>(cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
>>>>
>>>>-Taliesyn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:19:43 PM

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2woge.1192$3%4.331@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But
>>why does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to
>>the speed. Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just
>>repeats what I've already stated.
>>
>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
>>photos be substantially *better* not worse than those from the
>>iP4000?
>>
>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>
>>
>
> I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
> write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not
> used when printing photos.



Incorrect. It use 1 pl droplets for photos.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:27:30 PM

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

Patrick wrote:

>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>
>>
>speed,
>
>
>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>transparency?
>>
>>Any downside to these printers?
>>
>>
>
>Sarah,
>
>Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
>match has ensued (not taking any sides).
>
>To get back to your questions.
>
>I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
>take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
>I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice.
>

AND A WISE CHOICE ALSO

>I only use my printer for
>photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
>both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
>ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
>is like everything else there are good and bad.
>
>

And because most of the ink junkies will not tell you what they are
selling you could wind up buying the same problem inks from various
vendors under their different webstore labels. There are some good ones
but if your print load is average or less then OEM is the best choice.

>As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
>qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
>resolution (which I always do).
>
>The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
>better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
>It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
>there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
>opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
>its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
>In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
>Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
>used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
>solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
>consideration.
>
>

The one thing that I have never seen addresses is as follows. The wide
format editiors choice in most of the reviews is the Canon i9900. Its
narrow carriage running mate the IP8500 (same 8 color print engine) that
came out after the IP5000 is a 2 picoliter system. If the trend is
going to 1pl and it is better why would Canon bring out their flagship
printer and not use 1pl? That is the question.

>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
May 11, 2005 9:26:57 PM

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

Sarah

Simply get on to Canon and order some print samples from their
automated service.

You'll have to put two orders in, one for the 4000 and one for the
5000. If you read the PC Mag review take note of the time they say it
takes to print a photo, this to me and one or two other suggest they
have not got it on the highest setting. Now then, does it not seem
odd that it produces better pastels, better graphics and better text
through the added vertical resolution, the photo quality has just
gotta be improved, the details in the picture has got to be improved
likewise.

Now if the picture is one step below the 5000 lets have some sensible
suggestions instead of quotes without explanations as we see so many
times throughout this forum.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:22:55 AM

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

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com...
>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the
> speed.
> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
> already stated.
>
> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos
> be
> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
>

I have read some speculation that this may be because PCMag may not have
tested the IP5000 at maximum photo quality setting, but only standard
setting. It's also possible it could have been a driver problem I suppose
(Hopefully fixed). I have the IP4000 and am very happy with it (though I
intend to get a pigment printer for the ink stability factor eventually) so
I can't make any comment about the actual difference - but I agree it
doesn't make sense that the IP5000 would be lower quality in photos.

Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in general,
it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:22:56 AM

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

> > With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
photos
> > be
> > substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
> >
> > If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.

> Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
> the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in
general,
> it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)

I don't know where the OP is from and I don't know whether this service is
provided globally but Canon's europe site will allow you to upload your own
image which they will then print on the printers you are considering. Here
is the europe url so you can see what I'm talking about;

http://www.yourprint.canon-europe.com/index.html

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:22:57 AM

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

Sure would like to have this service in the USA. Would be great to be
an independent service and all brands of printers and many different
papers were included.

Patrick wrote:

>>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
>>>
>>>
>photos
>
>
>>>be
>>>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>>
>>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
>>the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in
>>
>>
>general,
>
>
>>it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)
>>
>>
>
>I don't know where the OP is from and I don't know whether this service is
>provided globally but Canon's europe site will allow you to upload your own
>image which they will then print on the printers you are considering. Here
>is the europe url so you can see what I'm talking about;
>
>http://www.yourprint.canon-europe.com/index.html
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:38:39 AM

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

Brian Potter wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:2woge.1192$3%4.331@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But
>>>why does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to
>>>the speed. Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just
>>>repeats what I've already stated.
>>>
>>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
>>>photos be substantially *better* not worse than those from the
>>>iP4000?
>>>
>>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
>>write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not
>>used when printing photos.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Incorrect. It use 1 pl droplets for photos.
>
>
If you are correct than why do you think that PC MAG rated the !P4000
above the IP5000 for fotos?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:38:40 AM

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> posted something or other.

Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?

•meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."

Are you that ugly?

- Max
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:40:53 AM

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

Mister Max wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> posted something or other.
>
>Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?
>
>•meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
>Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
>looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."
>
>Are you that ugly?
>
>- Max
>
>

No, is your sister?
May 12, 2005 10:08:31 AM

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

In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
> I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
> already stated.
>
> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
>

The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.

I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
second ip4000.

The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
head wasnt as good as Canon expected.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:31:01 PM

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

Maybe he's tremendously handsome and it's an ironic name, or maybe he's
a she and she's stunningly attractive. Nice thing a but the internet,
you never really know who you are comunicating with.

Art

Mister Max wrote:

> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> posted something or other.
>
> Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?
>
> •meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
> Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
> looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."
>
> Are you that ugly?
>
> - Max
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:34:58 PM

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

Larry wrote:

>In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
>
>
>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>>does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
>>Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>>already stated.
>>
>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
>>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>
>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
>
>I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
>second ip4000.
>
>The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
>head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
>
>

THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:34:59 PM

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

Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such? Or
do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
follow your advice on this printer.

Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?

Thanks,
Sarah


On 5/12/05 6:34 AM, in article
6YIge.1603$3%4.1280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Larry wrote:
>
>> In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
>>
>>
>>> I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>>> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
>>> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>>> already stated.
>>>
>>> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
>>> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>>
>>> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
>>
>> I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
>> second ip4000.
>>
>> The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
>> head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
>>
>>
>
> THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
> MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
> THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
>
> BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
> BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.
>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:03:43 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

> Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
> better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
> they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such? Or
> do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
> and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
> follow your advice on this printer.
>

I'm not an expert, but can I chime in?... To me, "graphics" means
anything that is not a photo, something in the .jpg format.

If your digital art is in the form of a .jpg image then it should be
considered "photo". If your project consists of both .jpg and graphics
(a red box, clipart, etc) then you should probably select "Auto" in the
Color Adjustment box in Properties. If it's just one or the other,
select "manual" and then choose either "Photo" or "Graphic". Or you can
always just leave it at "Auto" and let the printer handle things. You do
have to experiment to see which method prints most closely to what you
expected.

> Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?

Same as for photos: Quality setting to 1 in Custom-Set window in Print
Quality, and paper type set to Photo Paper Pro. Of course, the paper
setting may depend on what paper you're using. I mostly use paper that
works great with the Photo Paper Pro setting.

> Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
> matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
> to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?

Yes, I do, I set it what I'm printing. I find that it makes a
difference. There is also a useful "Brightness" setting in the same
area. Sometimes I find my graphic output is too light, so I set it
from Normal to Dark. I did use this Dark setting to darken my whole
Christmas project. It more closely matched what I was seeing on screen,
and what I really wanted. There are a lot of minor adjustment you can
make that change the output. You can even adjust for more intensity.
Again, test prints (and lots of ink) come in handy.

-Taliesyn
May 12, 2005 9:55:36 PM

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

On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:14:37 -0500, Mister Max <ItsOnButenNet@See.Sig> wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> posted something or other.
>
>Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?
>
>meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
>Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
>looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."
>
>Are you that ugly?
>

He is a troll
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:52:50 PM

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

pete wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:14:37 -0500, Mister Max <ItsOnButenNet@See.Sig> wrote:
>
>
>
>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> posted something or other.
>>
>>Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?
>>
>>meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
>>Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
>>looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."
>>
>>Are you that ugly?
>>
>>
>>
>
>He is a troll
>
>

Cut your little pecker of if you can find it and Eat It.

Peter Piper Pick a Peck of Pickeled Peckers.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 1:26:26 AM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
>better for that purpose than the IP4000?
>

Output that has text, diagrams, graphs, powerpoint material combined.
Basically, anything that is not a pure photo. It prints that stuff at a
higher resolution. You must choose plain paper to get that quality.

>I print a lot of graphics but
>they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such?
>
Yes

>Or
>do you mean something else?
>
And Yes. Non Photos

>I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
>and graphic art --
>
Yes

>I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>follow your advice on this printer.
>
>

Absolutely

>Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
>Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
>matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
>to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
>
>

I choose High and Plain Paper. I also am using a high quality ultra
bright 106+ hammermill paper. I have tried other quality papers but my
preference is hammermill. They are owned by International Paper. Go to
their website and send them an email asking for a sample package of
their papers for both laserjet and inkjet. Both will work but I prefer
their inkjet paper.

>Thanks,
>Sarah
>
>
>On 5/12/05 6:34 AM, in article
>6YIge.1603$3%4.1280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>>>>does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
>>>>Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>>>>already stated.
>>>>
>>>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
>>>>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>>>
>>>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
>>>
>>>I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
>>>second ip4000.
>>>
>>>The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
>>>head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
>>MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
>>THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
>>
>>BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
>>BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 1:26:27 AM

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

Aha! So that's the secret: Plain Paper and High. Hmm.... I'll have to try
that.

What about when you're combining actual photos and text? Still Plain Paper
and High? If you're printing on one of the photo papers, though, I imagine
you change the Plain Paper setting to the appropriate photo paper used,
correct?

Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock, watercolor paper, fine art
papers in general. I guess it's test and see.

If anyone's tried this on an IP5000 and would be willing to share his or her
results, I'd be most grateful.

Sarah


On 5/12/05 2:26 PM, in article
6SPge.1759$Y81.620@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
>> better for that purpose than the IP4000?
>>
>
> Output that has text, diagrams, graphs, powerpoint material combined.
> Basically, anything that is not a pure photo. It prints that stuff at a
> higher resolution. You must choose plain paper to get that quality.
>
>> I print a lot of graphics but
>> they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such?
>>
> Yes
>
>> Or
>> do you mean something else?
>>
> And Yes. Non Photos
>
>> I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
>> and graphic art --
>>
> Yes
>
>> I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>> follow your advice on this printer.
>>
>>
>
> Absolutely
>
>> Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
>> Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
>> matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
>> to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
>>
>>
>
> I choose High and Plain Paper. I also am using a high quality ultra
> bright 106+ hammermill paper. I have tried other quality papers but my
> preference is hammermill. They are owned by International Paper. Go to
> their website and send them an email asking for a sample package of
> their papers for both laserjet and inkjet. Both will work but I prefer
> their inkjet paper.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/05 6:34 AM, in article
>> 6YIge.1603$3%4.1280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>>>>> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the
>>>>> speed.
>>>>> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>>>>> already stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos
>>>>> be
>>>>> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
>>>>
>>>> I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
>>>> second ip4000.
>>>>
>>>> The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1
>>>> picolitre
>>>> head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
>>> MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
>>> THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
>>>
>>> BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
>>> BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 1:33:33 AM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the
>> IP5000 is
>> better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
>> they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and
>> such? Or
>> do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital
>> paintings
>> and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>> follow your advice on this printer.
>>
>
> I'm not an expert, but can I chime in?... To me, "graphics" means
> anything that is not a photo, something in the .jpg format.
>
> If your digital art is in the form of a .jpg image then it should be
> considered "photo".


FALSE STATEMENT - I have scanned contracts with graphic art and logos
using my Epson 4180 flatbed scanner and save them as .jpg images. I
then imported those images into MS Word and wrote additional text. I
then printed them out using the Plain Paper setting at High. Lo and
Behold there was the birth of a business document with graphics that was
not a photo but it included numerous .jpg images.

> If your project consists of both .jpg and graphics
> (a red box, clipart, etc) then you should probably select "Auto" in the
> Color Adjustment box in Properties. If it's just one or the other,
> select "manual" and then choose either "Photo" or "Graphic". Or you can
> always just leave it at "Auto" and let the printer handle things. You do
> have to experiment to see which method prints most closely to what you
> expected.
>
>> Also what are your settings for the best output of these business
>> graphics?
>
>
> Same as for photos: Quality setting to 1 in Custom-Set window in Print
> Quality, and paper type set to Photo Paper Pro. Of course, the paper
> setting may depend on what paper you're using. I mostly use paper that
> works great with the Photo Paper Pro setting.
>
>> Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
>> matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as
>> opposed
>> to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
>
>
> Yes, I do, I set it what I'm printing. I find that it makes a
> difference. There is also a useful "Brightness" setting in the same
> area. Sometimes I find my graphic output is too light, so I set it
> from Normal to Dark. I did use this Dark setting to darken my whole
> Christmas project. It more closely matched what I was seeing on screen,
> and what I really wanted. There are a lot of minor adjustment you can
> make that change the output. You can even adjust for more intensity.
> Again, test prints (and lots of ink) come in handy.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:03:32 AM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>Aha! So that's the secret: Plain Paper and High. Hmm.... I'll have to try
>that.
>
>What about when you're combining actual photos and text? Still Plain Paper
>and High?
>
No. If you are using glossy paper like Canon Photo Paper Pro or
Costco/Kirkland Photo Paper choose the Photo Paper Pro setting with
High. Costco is 1/7 the price of Canon paper and 98% as good. Canon
Photo Paper Pro came with your machine. Buy a Fiskars rotary paper
cutter (cut with shiney side up) and you can cut your own 4x6 and 5x7.
The price is $18.95 for 125 sheets.

>If you're printing on one of the photo papers, though, I imagine
>you change the Plain Paper setting to the appropriate photo paper used,
>correct?
>
>

Yes

>Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock, watercolor paper, fine art
>papers in general. I guess it's test and see.
>
>
You can call Canon Tech Suppt. They are very good.

>If anyone's tried this on an IP5000 and would be willing to share his or her
>results, I'd be most grateful.
>
>Sarah
>
>
>On 5/12/05 2:26 PM, in article
>6SPge.1759$Y81.620@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
>>>better for that purpose than the IP4000?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Output that has text, diagrams, graphs, powerpoint material combined.
>>Basically, anything that is not a pure photo. It prints that stuff at a
>>higher resolution. You must choose plain paper to get that quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I print a lot of graphics but
>>>they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes
>>
>>
>>
>>>Or
>>>do you mean something else?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And Yes. Non Photos
>>
>>
>>
>>>I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
>>>and graphic art --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes
>>
>>
>>
>>>I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>>>follow your advice on this printer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Absolutely
>>
>>
>>
>>>Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
>>>Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
>>>matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
>>>to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I choose High and Plain Paper. I also am using a high quality ultra
>>bright 106+ hammermill paper. I have tried other quality papers but my
>>preference is hammermill. They are owned by International Paper. Go to
>>their website and send them an email asking for a sample package of
>>their papers for both laserjet and inkjet. Both will work but I prefer
>>their inkjet paper.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5/12/05 6:34 AM, in article
>>>6YIge.1603$3%4.1280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <BEA6F9C8.E577%sfeliz@nada.com>, sfeliz@nada.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>>>>>>does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the
>>>>>>speed.
>>>>>>Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>>>>>>already stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
>>>>>second ip4000.
>>>>>
>>>>>The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1
>>>>>picolitre
>>>>>head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
>>>>MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
>>>>THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
>>>>
>>>>BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
>>>>BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:03:33 AM

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>
>> Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>> non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock,

Card stock is generally not coated so its surface would be the same as
plain paper, thus "Plain Paper", High Quality setting.

-Taliesyn
May 13, 2005 7:01:58 AM

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

Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last year I
did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will send
you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory result.
There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you should
look for. Good luck!

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
> speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?
>
> Thanks for your input,
> Sarah
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:14:12 AM

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

Thanks a lot! I will follow up on these sources.

Sarah

On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
GMUge.1872$Y81.1528@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
<sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
> While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
> selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last year I
> did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
> inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
> and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
> googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
> vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
> specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
> either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will send
> you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
> sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
> printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
> papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
> supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory result.
> There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you should
> look for. Good luck!
>
> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
> news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>> speed,
>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>> transparency?
>>
>> Any downside to these printers?
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Sarah
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:23:27 AM

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

I just checked on some of these sites: the selection of papers is
astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But they
all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
printer?

Sarah

On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
GMUge.1872$Y81.1528@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
<sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
> While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
> selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last year I
> did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
> inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
> and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
> googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
> vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
> specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
> either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will send
> you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
> sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
> printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
> papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
> supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory result.
> There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you should
> look for. Good luck!
>
> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
> news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>> speed,
>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>> transparency?
>>
>> Any downside to these printers?
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Sarah
>>
>
>
May 13, 2005 11:07:40 AM

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

Although I use a Canon I960 and there is another person who is convinced
that the Canon IP4000 is the answer to most people's printing problems, most
graphic artists and many professional photographers use the high end Epsons.
That is why you see what you are describing. Short of finding someone on a
NG that has used them with canon printer, the only way you can find out if
these papers work with your canon printer is by trying a few of them. You
might email the paper vendors or, better yet, call them and ask. Usually a
phone call gets a better response, in my experience.

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA998F8.E7C2%sfeliz@nada.com...
>I just checked on some of these sites: the selection of papers is
> astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But
> they
> all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
> these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
> printer?
>
> Sarah
>
> On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
> GMUge.1872$Y81.1528@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
>> While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
>> selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last
>> year I
>> did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
>> inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
>> and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
>> googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
>> vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
>> specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
>> either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will
>> send
>> you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
>> sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
>> printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
>> papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
>> supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory
>> result.
>> There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you
>> should
>> look for. Good luck!
>>
>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>> speed,
>>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>
>>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>> transparency?
>>>
>>> Any downside to these printers?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input,
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>
>>
>
May 13, 2005 11:18:54 AM

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

sorry for the extra post but I should tell you one more thing - I use Epson
papers in my canon printer and they work just fine. Epson double sided
Matte paper and glossy photo paper with either OEM ink or MIS bulk inks
produce excellent results, depending on what you want to do with the prints.
I don't know if this info would imply that some of the fine arts papers
geared to epson printing would work as well. If they are prepared for the
Epson Dye based printers then I would expect decent results with the Canon
printers. It is certainly worth a try. Consider the cost of experimenting
an investment in your graphic arts professional future!

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA998F8.E7C2%sfeliz@nada.com...
>I just checked on some of these sites: the selection of papers is
> astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But
> they
> all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
> these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
> printer?
>
> Sarah
>
> On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
> GMUge.1872$Y81.1528@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
>> While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
>> selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last
>> year I
>> did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
>> inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
>> and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
>> googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
>> vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
>> specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
>> either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will
>> send
>> you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
>> sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
>> printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
>> papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
>> supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory
>> result.
>> There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you
>> should
>> look for. Good luck!
>>
>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>> speed,
>>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>
>>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>> transparency?
>>>
>>> Any downside to these printers?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input,
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:16:49 PM

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

The Mac driver leaves out a number of steps. There is no Standard, High,
Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
way up to Fine.

I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
ridiculous?

Sarah

On 5/12/05 7:23 PM, in article 11883tdt8qegl3a@corp.supernews.com,
"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>>> non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock,
>
> Card stock is generally not coated so its surface would be the same as
> plain paper, thus "Plain Paper", High Quality setting.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:44:38 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:
> The Mac driver leaves out a number of steps. There is no Standard, High,
> Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
> Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
> called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
> Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
> frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
> way up to Fine.
>
> I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
> ridiculous?
>

Don't panic :-) you're not being cheated. It's the same for the Windows
driver, I can only go to High. It's probably to do with that fact that
plain paper cannot handle very high resolutions, the ink will be too
absorbed, looking runny. But you can still achieve the Fine (1) setting
by simply telling the driver you're using Photo Paper Pro instead of
Plain. That's what I do when needed. Try it to see how it works. You can
reduce (or increase) the ink output by adjusting the Intensity slider in
Properties. And also, individual colors can be increased or decreased as
needed, like if your image is too pink, reduce the magenta.

Yes, in Mac the Detailed Setting is equivalent to Custom in Windows.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:53:28 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

> Thanks a lot! I will follow up on these sources.
>

Seeing you're the "Artsy" type (I don't mean anything bad by that, so am
I to a degree), you must check out Red River Paper. They seem to be the
ultimate source for paper in this newsgroup. They've got more paper of
all types (yes, art) than you can imagine. I've only used them once a
few years ago for coated greeting card paper - and it was excellent, I
still have some.

http://www.redriverpaper.com/

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:32:11 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>I just checked on some of these sites: the selection of papers is
>astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But they
>all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
>these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
>printer?
>
>Sarah
>
>

That is hard to say. Canon Tech Support said that Epson Photo Paper
does work well in a Canon Printer. I do have some Epson double sided
matte but have not used it yet. I think they were referring to Epson
Glossy. But it may be worth it to buy a small amount and try. It will
not damange your printer and there is no risk like there may be with
aftermarket inks.

>On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
>GMUge.1872$Y81.1528@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
><sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah - You've had some replies the suggest various glossy papers, etc.
>>While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
>>selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last year I
>>did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
>>inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
>>and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
>>googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
>>vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
>>specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
>>either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will send
>>you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
>>sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
>>printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
>>papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
>>supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory result.
>>There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you should
>>look for. Good luck!
>>
>>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>>news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfeliz@nada.com...
>>
>>
>>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>>speed,
>>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>>
>>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>>transparency?
>>>
>>>Any downside to these printers?
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input,
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:40:33 PM

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>The Mac driver leaves out a number of steps. There is no Standard, High,
>Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
>Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
>called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
>Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
>frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
>way up to Fine.
>
>I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
>ridiculous?
>
>Sarah
>
>

I think you figured it out. Go with your gut feeling. You ask good
questions and I think you can determine the best course of action to get
the answers you want.

>On 5/12/05 7:23 PM, in article 11883tdt8qegl3a@corp.supernews.com,
>"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>>>>non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock,
>>>>
>>>>
>>Card stock is generally not coated so its surface would be the same as
>>plain paper, thus "Plain Paper", High Quality setting.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>
>
>
!