Out of all the well known brands, which is best at printin..

[Brian]

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

I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
amonst the rest?
Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
in printing colour photographs...is this true?

Some General Questions:
Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
paper?

I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?

I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
paper brands with other inkjet printers?

Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.

Regards Brian

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Brian

> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
> paper?

If you calibrate your monitor -- I use Spyder 2, there are other
similar tools -- the answer is a qualified yes.

The qualification: in my experience, you'll still need to do
some initial printer adjustments, although each release of
printers gets closer and closer to not having to do this.

> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?

What in the world is a "graphic photo" ?

> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
> paper brands with other inkjet printers?

My own experience is to stick with Epson papers on Epson printers
for maximum quality AND print longevity. Other folks will have
to comment on other printers.

-- stan

 

[Guest]

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

Oh, yes: your first question:

> Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
> a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
> in printing colour photographs...is this true?

Not in my opinion. Both Canon and Epson do a lovely job. And HP also has
some excellent new photo printers, and they're addressing the longevity
issues. All three produce gorgeous prints; deciding between them is a
fairly subjective issue.

Given that -- the excellent colors and freedom from dottiness of the
best Canon/Epson/HP printers -- my personal preference is still Epson.
Reason: longevity of prints. Their pigment printers have that one nailed.
(With their dye printers, using ColorLife paper is the best longevity
option.)

-- stan

 

[Guest]

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bn0e81dttlladbj0hmhkrv3mvjiaiav2o7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
> which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
> their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
> amonst the rest?
> Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
> a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
> in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>
> Some General Questions:
> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
> paper?
>
> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>
> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
> paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>
> Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
> the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
> still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>
> Regards Brian
>

I don't think you can really point to one manufacturer as the leading brand
for photo printing. It depends a lot of your requirements, your budget, and
your expectations. As far as I can tell from reading around, Canon and Epson
are considered the two top brands - but with Epson dominating the
professional level market, and Canon the consumer market. I have an
inexpensive Canon IP4000, and consider the prints equal to lab prints, so
meeting that requirement isn't really that hard these days. I hope to
replace it with an Epson pigment based printer in the future though as print
longevity is important to me. With all the brands some papers work, and some
don't work so well - you need to test them out, and once you've picked your
model ask here again.

Once you've decided on your own requirements and price range you can
probably get some more specific advice here.

 

[Guest]

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bn0e81dttlladbj0hmhkrv3mvjiaiav2o7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
> which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
> their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
> amonst the rest?

Well they all bring out new models every few months so it might depend when
you ask the question.

In my view there is little to choose between the top of the range models
from different makers although I guess you could argue that Canon and Epson
seem to have a slight lead over rivals at the moment. However there are
significant differences at the lower/budget end of the range. In the end
it's best to find an image you like and try and get it printed on each of
the printers you have short listed before you purchase.

> Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
> a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
> in printing colour photographs...is this true?

Resolution isn't everything although it helps. Most top end printers are
capapable of more than 4000dpi. An 8 MPixel camera like the Canon EOS 350D
make an image 3456 x 2304 pixels which printed at 6 x 4" works out at under
600 dpi - so at face value most printers have way more resolution than they
really need to print detail. However in practice it's far from being that
simple as the extra resolution helps improve the colour range (for example).
Different makes of printer and their driver programs do the conversion from
pixel to ink drop differently and the trade off's they make produce slightly
different results. Try before you buy or at least read the reviews.

> Some General Questions:
> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
> paper?

It's possible to get good colour matches between screen and print only if
you adjust everything carefully. Otherwise in my view no. Pictures
frequently to look better on screen even though the resolution is lower.
It's one reason why "higher resolution" isn't the whole answer. .

> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?

Yes....it can take quite a long time to print a large image at max
resolution. One day it might be interesting to calculate how many drops per
second they achieve. Anyone done that?

> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
> paper brands with other inkjet printers?

Sometimes but not always. I've used TDK (and supermarket own brand) photo
paper in both a low budget HP and high end Epson printer with good results.
With some other papers I tried the ink came off on the exit rollers on the
Epson - probably because the pigment ink in the Epson took too long to dry
on those papers.

If you need to print on plastic (eg OHP foils) I would probably recommend a
printer that used dye based ink (or test before you buy). If you need to
print ultra long life photos (eg to sell) go for a pigment ink printer.

> Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
> the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
> still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.

That's down to the paper quality as much as the printer. Several
manufacturers make double sided photo paper I believe (never used it myself
though).

Colin

 

[Guest]

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

Brian wrote:

>I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>amonst the rest?
>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>
>

Yes. And the Canon IP4000 is the best value. In a narrow carriage the
IP8500 is the best and in a wide format the I9900 is the best. For a
pigmented printer (less vibrance and snap but greater fade resistance)
the R800/1800 probably take home the prize.

>Some General Questions:
>Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>paper?
>
>

Depending on the profile.

>I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>
>

The Canon PIXMA printers are much faster than the competition.

>I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>
>

Yes. I use Canon Photo Paper Pro and Costco/Kirkland. The are about
equal with the Costco at 1/7 of the cost. Canon says that Epson paper
also works well. Kodak does not.

>Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
>the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
>still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>
>

I purchased but have not tried Epson double sided matte. I do not have
a need to print double sided but it was about the same price as the
single sided heavy weight and is actually heavier.

>Regards Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:31:32 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:


>Resolution isn't everything although it helps. Most top end printers are
>capapable of more than 4000dpi. An 8 MPixel camera like the Canon EOS 350D
>make an image 3456 x 2304 pixels which printed at 6 x 4" works out at under
>600 dpi - so at face value most printers have way more resolution than they
>really need to print detail.

You are confusing the two completely independent and different concepts of
the image ppi (pixels per inch, though many times alluded to as dpi)) and
printer dpi. A image pixel can be any color where as a printer dot can only
be one. I would suggest you start with the basics of these two differing
concepts as presented at http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

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

Stanley Krute wrote:

>Oh, yes: your first question:
>
>
>
>>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>>in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>>
>>
>
>Not in my opinion. Both Canon and Epson do a lovely job. And HP also has
>some excellent new photo printers, and they're addressing the longevity
>issues. All three produce gorgeous prints; deciding between them is a
>fairly subjective issue.
>
>

The HP 8450 seems to be a nice printer and I read does produce good
results. For me I do not need in printer editing. I think it is a
gimmick to use more ink and print more marginal printers. The other two
negatives are tri-color carts and speed. One great positive is this
printer does best on clogs as a new printhead is part of the cart.

>Given that -- the excellent colors and freedom from dottiness of the
>best Canon/Epson/HP printers -- my personal preference is still Epson.
>Reason: longevity of prints. Their pigment printers have that one nailed.
>(With their dye printers, using ColorLife paper is the best longevity
>option.)
>
>-- stan
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Caitlin wrote:

>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:bn0e81dttlladbj0hmhkrv3mvjiaiav2o7@4ax.com...
>
>
>>I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>>which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>>their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>>amonst the rest?
>>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>>in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>>
>>Some General Questions:
>>Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>>the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>>paper?
>>
>>I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>>photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>>
>>I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>>paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>>
>>Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
>>the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
>>still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>>
>>Regards Brian
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't think you can really point to one manufacturer as the leading brand
>for photo printing. It depends a lot of your requirements, your budget, and
>your expectations. As far as I can tell from reading around, Canon and Epson
>are considered the two top brands - but with Epson dominating the
>professional level market, and Canon the consumer market.
>

I have not seen any Canon printers geared for the professional market.
Epson seems to have most of the high end pro models.

>I have an
>inexpensive Canon IP4000, and consider the prints equal to lab prints,
>

To me they look better. Also the ability to Photoshop edit them to the
way you want them will also enhance the final result. However, you
could also do that with lab prints by giving them a CD of edited material.

>so
>meeting that requirement isn't really that hard these days. I hope to
>replace it with an Epson pigment based printer in the future though as print
>longevity is important to me.
>

Maybe by that time Canon will have new formulations. HP is working on
that now.

>With all the brands some papers work, and some
>don't work so well - you need to test them out, and once you've picked your
>model ask here again.
>
>Once you've decided on your own requirements and price range you can
>probably get some more specific advice here.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ilie815forqjkrsuoh3eieoi0ifctk4kk9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:31:32 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "CWatters"
> <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
>
>
> >Resolution isn't everything although it helps. Most top end printers are
> >capapable of more than 4000dpi. An 8 MPixel camera like the Canon EOS
350D
> >make an image 3456 x 2304 pixels which printed at 6 x 4" works out at
under
> >600 dpi - so at face value most printers have way more resolution than
they
> >really need to print detail.
>
> You are confusing the two completely independent and different concepts of
> the image ppi (pixels per inch, though many times alluded to as dpi)) and
> printer dpi. A image pixel can be any color where as a printer dot can
only
> be one. I would suggest you start with the basics of these two differing
> concepts as presented at http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html

That's why I said "at face value". I do know the difference.

Perhaps you have more time to explain why a 4880 dpi printer may not produce
much better results than a 4400 dpi model

 

[Brian]

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

"Stanley Krute" <stan@stankrute.com> wrote:

>Hi Brian
>
>> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>> paper?
>
>If you calibrate your monitor -- I use Spyder 2, there are other
>similar tools -- the answer is a qualified yes.
>
>The qualification: in my experience, you'll still need to do
>some initial printer adjustments, although each release of
>printers gets closer and closer to not having to do this.
>
>> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>
>What in the world is a "graphic photo" ?

OK change that to 'Photo' then


>
>> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>> paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>
>My own experience is to stick with Epson papers on Epson printers
>for maximum quality AND print longevity. Other folks will have
>to comment on other printers.
>
>-- stan
>
Thanks for your help stan

 

[Brian]

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

"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:bn0e81dttlladbj0hmhkrv3mvjiaiav2o7@4ax.com...
>> I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>> which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>> their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>> amonst the rest?
>> Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>> a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>> in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>>
>> Some General Questions:
>> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>> paper?
>>
>> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>>
>> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>> paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>>
>> Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
>> the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
>> still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>>
>> Regards Brian
>>
>
>I don't think you can really point to one manufacturer as the leading brand
>for photo printing. It depends a lot of your requirements, your budget, and
>your expectations. As far as I can tell from reading around, Canon and Epson
>are considered the two top brands - but with Epson dominating the
>professional level market, and Canon the consumer market. I have an
>inexpensive Canon IP4000, and consider the prints equal to lab prints, so
>meeting that requirement isn't really that hard these days. I hope to
>replace it with an Epson pigment based printer in the future though as print
>longevity is important to me. With all the brands some papers work, and some
>don't work so well - you need to test them out, and once you've picked your
>model ask here again.
>
>Once you've decided on your own requirements and price range you can
>probably get some more specific advice here.
>
Thanks Caitlin and others for your advice.

My main requirements is to print photos from my digital camera which
takes high quality photos. I'd like to print several photos on one
sheet of photo paper and cut into approximate 6 inch by 4 inch photos.
I like the idea of having more colours than just the single tri colour
cartridges, so that when one colour is empty I don't have to throw
away expensive ink like you do with tri cartridges.
It's it means that the price of cartridges are cheaper than I'd buy a
more expensive printer.

I'd prefer the ink to dry fast and the maximum print time per A4 paper
be more than one minute for high quality printing.

Regards Brian

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:24:51 GMT, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:


>
>That's why I said "at face value". I do know the difference.
>
>Perhaps you have more time to explain why a 4880 dpi printer may not produce
>much better results than a 4400 dpi model
>
<g> That'll depend on the native resolution won't it? ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>amonst the rest?
>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>in printing colour photographs...is this true?

It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.

>Some General Questions:
>Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>paper?

Only if you use colour management.

>I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?

All printers speed is dependent upon the dpi you select for output.

>I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>paper brands with other inkjet printers?

Yes. But unless you want to do it by trial and error, then you need a
colour management system of some sort.

>Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
>the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
>still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>
Most photo paper is one-sided. If you want to print twq0-sided then
you need paper that does that job. Note that we're talking about paper
for photography, not standard paper which is what I suspect you used.
I know of no photo paper with any make of printer where it soaks
through.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

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

Hecate wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>>which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>>their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>>amonst the rest?
>>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>>in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>>
>>
>
>It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>
>
pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.

>
>
>>Some General Questions:
>>Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
>>the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
>>paper?
>>
>>
>
>Only if you use colour management.
>
>
>
>>I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
>>photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>>
>>
>
>All printers speed is dependent upon the dpi you select for output.
>
>
>
>>I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
>>paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. But unless you want to do it by trial and error, then you need a
>colour management system of some sort.
>
>
>
>>Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
>>the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
>>still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>>
>>
>>
>Most photo paper is one-sided. If you want to print twq0-sided then
>you need paper that does that job. Note that we're talking about paper
>for photography, not standard paper which is what I suspect you used.
>I know of no photo paper with any make of printer where it soaks
>through.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Epson, HP and Canon all have certain models that produce reasonably high
quality photo images these days. They each use different technologies
and ink sets to accomplish this.

All the printer companies have improved upon their color management and
profiles, but none can guarantee your monitor image will match the
output from the printer without a printer color management system.

I strongly recommend against using different manufacturer's paper with
other manufacturer's ink when you cross technologies. For instance, HP
uses a thermal technology and the ink permanence requires swollen
polymer coating to remain fade-resistance.

Both HP (using their inks and papers) and Epson (using their pigment
inks) have good accelerated aging responses, meaning they will likely
last a log time without noticeable fading. Epson dye ink printer used
without swellable polymer paper, or Canon dye ink printers (basically
currently all of them) do not have their fade characteristics under
control yet.

Most HP printers have a cartridge which contains the head, and refilling
is limited to a few times per cartridge before the head will fail.

Canon printers have a semi-permanent head. The printers is faster than
most others, but are still limited to dye inks, and the head may no last
more than 18-24 months of moderate use. The heads cost about 35-75% of
the printer cost when replacement is required.

Epson's still uses permanent heads. They may require more cleaning
maintenance to get the highest print requirements. These heads allow
for a variety of 3rd party inks to be used successfully.

Epson makes a vast number of papers, and there is a great deal of 3rd
party paper response. I am quite sure you can find papers that don't
soak through.

If permanence is not an issue, Canon printers have the easiest to refill
cartridges, and probably cost the least to run, overall. They are fast
and give a good overall image quality. The head durability is still an
issue.


HP is probably the easiest to maintain, but tends to be more costly to
keep up.


Art

Brian wrote:

> I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
> which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
> their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
> amonst the rest?
> Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
> a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
> in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>
> Some General Questions:
> Are inkjet printers so good now days that what you see displayed on
> the screen (eg a coloured photo) is very close to watch you get on
> paper?
>
> I'm told that the inkjet printers are faster in printing a graphic
> photo, do they still slow down then printing at the highest quality?
>
> I've found that HP photo paper works on a Epson printer. Can you mix
> paper brands with other inkjet printers?
>
> Epson was soaking the paper with ink making it impossible to print on
> the other side of the paper when printing a graphic photo. Is this
> still a problem with the Epson and other brands of printers.
>
> Regards Brian
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I let this go the first time, but now that you repeated it twice, I was
wondering what you are basing this statement on?

Have you seen output from a R800 or R1800 yet?

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>>
>> It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>> then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>
>>
> pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I let this go the first time, but now that you repeated it twice, I
> was wondering what you are basing this statement on?
>
> Have you seen output from a R800 or R1800 yet?
>
> Art
>
The R800. I have been told that the R1800 is the wide carriage version.

>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>>> then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>>
>>>
>> pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>>
>>>

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:24:51 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:

>Perhaps you have more time to explain why a 4880 dpi printer may not produce
>much better results than a 4400 dpi model

Not to be flippant, but because it only prints
(4880/4400 - 1) x 100% = 11% more dpi. Why should that produce much better
results?

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t7She.17512$J12.10430@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

*snip*
>>>
>>
>>It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>>then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>
> pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>

Based on what do you say this? I haven't read that anywhere about the
R800/R1800 - unless you call 'snap' oversaturated prints.

 

[Guest]

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

Caitlin wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t7She.17512$J12.10430@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Hecate wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>*snip*
>
>
>>>It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>>>then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Based on what do you say this? I haven't read that anywhere about the
>R800/R1800 - unless you call 'snap' oversaturated prints.
>
>

It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.

>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:50:33 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm thinking of brands such as HP, Canon, and Epson and wondering
>>>which is better at printing colour photos. I know all printers have
>>>their strengths and weaknesses, does one brand of printer stand out
>>>amonst the rest?
>>>Some years back Epson was the best printer for printing photos and had
>>>a very high resolution, but I think I read that Canon is now leading
>>>in printing colour photographs...is this true?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>>then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>
>>
>pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>
Thanks, but I don't play card games with it...

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:03:09 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:



>>
>
>It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
>vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.
>
You mean like it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat?

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

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

Hecate wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:03:09 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
>>vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.
>>
>>
>>
>You mean like it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat?
>
>

Not the US part.

> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NC2ie.700$Uv2.53@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Caitlin wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:t7She.17512$J12.10430@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:18:00 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>*snip*
>>
>>>>It depends. If you want quick, but limited longevity with dye inks
>>>>then yes. If you want slower, but images that last, then Epson.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>pigmented inks like the R800/R1800 but it has less snap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Based on what do you say this? I haven't read that anywhere about the
>>R800/R1800 - unless you call 'snap' oversaturated prints.
>
> It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
> vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.
>

Does common knowledge = urban myth?? Are you aware that the R800 uses
different pigment inks including a gloss optimiser that eliminates the
dulling of pigment ink printing on gloss paper?