Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 16, 2005 12:18:00 AM

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

More about : brands printin

Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:02 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:02 AM

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
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:02 AM

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.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 12:18:03 AM

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
May 16, 2005 3:59:56 AM

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
May 16, 2005 4:13:40 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 5:06:02 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 5:09:33 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 5:09:34 AM

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...
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 4:59:37 PM

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
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 5:18:25 PM

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.
>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 7:38:08 PM

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.
>>
>>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 9:56:21 PM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 11:35:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 16, 2005 11:35:47 PM

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.

>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 2:47:09 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 2:48:21 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 2:48:22 AM

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...
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 11:41:05 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 11:41:06 AM

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

Caitlin wrote:

>"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?
>
>

More like reducing the more dull lighter areas. Read the posts about
the clogging after 6 weeks.

>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 11:41:07 AM

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:50:18 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Caitlin wrote:

>>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?
>>
>>
>
>More like reducing the more dull lighter areas. Read the posts about
>the clogging after 6 weeks.

Sorry, but I've had mine for longer than that, going weeks between prints
and have had no problems with clogging of any sort.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 12:32:14 PM

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

Your common knowledge is a bit too common.

Epson's Ultrachrome inks aren't called that for nothing. The technology
they developed to lay the ink onto the paper and the pigment sources
they have selected (recently upgraded again with the new R 800 and R1800
printers and yet again with the newer still K3 ink sets) make the dye
versus pigment equation rather moot at this point if color gamut is the
issue.

The newest Ultrachrome pigment sets have brought the color gamut equal,
if not expanded from that of most dye inks.

Here's an independent review of the very first Ultrachrome ink sets:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/9600...

As I said, the newer sets have both expanded their accuracy and gamut.

Simply put, the information you have provided is (shall I say, once
again) inaccurate.

I certainly do imagine there are dyes that go beyond the brightness
achievable with the Ultrachrome ink sets. However, they likely have a
smaller gamut, and also likely are incapable of producing anything
approaching a realistic color pallet.

You see, the problem is there is a point where you can not expand the
gamut with either dyes or pigments placed upon paper as droplets
(photographs can have a larger gamut because of the way the dyes are
generated and interact within the emulsion layers). If you go brighter,
then you lose the ability to produce subtle shades, if you go to muted,
you cannot produce the bright colors. It is true about 3-4 years ago or
so, that the way pigments reflected off of the paper surface, the gamut
was restricted in the brighter purer color areas, this was simply a
matter of the particle size, translucency of the pigment and how the ink
was placed on the paper surface. Epson developed a method of suspending
the pigment particle in a sphere of polymer, so that when they hit the
paper the pigment literally exposes more of the 3 dimensional surface of
the pigment "grain", allowing for more reflectivity of the color when
white light hits it.

This unique technology is one reason why other pigment colorant inks
often cannot produce the full gamut Epson pigment inks can. Some 3rd
party ink companies are coming up with their own answers and their inks
are improving.

However, to make the categorical statement that pigment inks don't have
the "vibrancy" (aka "snap") of dye inks hasn't been accurate for
numerous years now.

If you have not done an A:B comparison of R800 to other dye output, you
should do so.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 12:42:45 PM

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

You have seen output from the R800 and you feel it has a less "vibrant"
gamut than other dye ink printers.

I would agree that it may be difficult to determine the gamut based upon
one image if you don't have a fair amount of color experience.

So maybe it would be best to hear from some owners of R800 or R1800
printers (or even 2100/2200/4000 or 7600/9600/10600 printers) as to how
they rank the color gamut compared to dye inks.

I don't own one myself and can only base my opinion on sample images,
but I do have a bit of color experience to recognize a wide gamut image,
even if the subject is mainly muted.

I would suggest the gamut from the R800 Ultrachrome ink set would be
difficult distinguish from a good dye set.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 2:20:23 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Your common knowledge is a bit too common.
>
> Epson's Ultrachrome inks aren't called that for nothing. The
> technology they developed to lay the ink onto the paper and the
> pigment sources they have selected (recently upgraded again with the
> new R 800 and R1800 printers and yet again with the newer still K3 ink
> sets) make the dye versus pigment equation rather moot at this point
> if color gamut is the issue.
>
> The newest Ultrachrome pigment sets have brought the color gamut
> equal, if not expanded from that of most dye inks.
>
> Here's an independent review of the very first Ultrachrome ink sets:
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/9600...
>
> As I said, the newer sets have both expanded their accuracy and gamut.
>
> Simply put, the information you have provided is (shall I say, once
> again) inaccurate.
>
> I certainly do imagine there are dyes that go beyond the brightness
> achievable with the Ultrachrome ink sets. However, they likely have a
> smaller gamut, and also likely are incapable of producing anything
> approaching a realistic color pallet.
>
> You see, the problem is there is a point where you can not expand the
> gamut with either dyes or pigments placed upon paper as droplets
> (photographs can have a larger gamut because of the way the dyes are
> generated and interact within the emulsion layers). If you go
> brighter, then you lose the ability to produce subtle shades, if you
> go to muted, you cannot produce the bright colors. It is true about
> 3-4 years ago or so, that the way pigments reflected off of the paper
> surface, the gamut was restricted in the brighter purer color areas,
> this was simply a matter of the particle size, translucency of the
> pigment and how the ink was placed on the paper surface. Epson
> developed a method of suspending the pigment particle in a sphere of
> polymer, so that when they hit the paper the pigment literally exposes
> more of the 3 dimensional surface of the pigment "grain", allowing for
> more reflectivity of the color when white light hits it.
>
> This unique technology is one reason why other pigment colorant inks
> often cannot produce the full gamut Epson pigment inks can. Some 3rd
> party ink companies are coming up with their own answers and their
> inks are improving.
>
> However, to make the categorical statement that pigment inks don't
> have the "vibrancy" (aka "snap") of dye inks hasn't been accurate for
> numerous years now.
>

All of the recent articles in all of the major computer magazines say
the same thing. Of course these do not encompass the latest released
Epson ink because they were not available for testing. But the R800 was
tested.

> If you have not done an A:B comparison of R800 to other dye output,
> you should do so.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 17, 2005 2:24:37 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> You have seen output from the R800 and you feel it has a less
> "vibrant" gamut than other dye ink printers.


I saw a sample done by Epson and I say that as a whole is appeared less
vibrant. I made not mention of color gamut nor did I say anything about
the reproduction of subtle shades. My preference of all of the printers
is the i9900. I hope they make a Pixma version of that and even would
like to see 16x20.

>
>
> I would agree that it may be difficult to determine the gamut based
> upon one image if you don't have a fair amount of color experience.
>
> So maybe it would be best to hear from some owners of R800 or R1800
> printers (or even 2100/2200/4000 or 7600/9600/10600 printers) as to
> how they rank the color gamut compared to dye inks.


One of the R800 owners on this NG compained recently of clogging when
left unattended for about 6 weeks. She also complained at one time
about the ink costs. These are two typical Epson issues I hear over and
over on this NG.

>
> I don't own one myself and can only base my opinion on sample images,
> but I do have a bit of color experience to recognize a wide gamut
> image, even if the subject is mainly muted.
>
> I would suggest the gamut from the R800 Ultrachrome ink set would be
> difficult distinguish from a good dye set.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
May 18, 2005 2:06:01 AM

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

"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> 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?
>
>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
>
Thanks Colin and others for your reply.
It's usually not possible to try the printers as the cartilages become
used that's supplied with them and ink may appear on the rollers etc
making the printer appear to be second hand. Some manufactures supply
example printouts from their printers.
It's always good to get comments from people who use certain brands of
printers.

Regards Brian
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 18, 2005 2:06:02 AM

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cagj815qj8h4dpv4c0j5bofaael53k8as3@4ax.com...
> It's usually not possible to try the printers as the cartilages become
> used that's supplied with them and ink may appear on the rollers etc
> making the printer appear to be second hand. Some manufactures supply
> example printouts from their printers.
> It's always good to get comments from people who use certain brands of
> printers.

Many printers have sample prints in the box.

If not there are a few companies that will sell you test prints for example:

http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/
May 18, 2005 4:12:42 AM

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

Thanks Arthur for your reply. See below for my comments.

Regards Brian


Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:

>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.

Did this fade problem occur later with inkjet printers?
Why I ask is that the photos that I printed with an old 560C HP
printer has not faded. It was printed on plan paper.

>
>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.

I wonder if they are manufactured to fail after a few refills so HP
can sell more cartridges

>
>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.

It reminds me of replacing the drum on a laser printer.
Maybe Canon can get more money from users when the user has to buy a
new printer head.

>
>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.

Far as I know each time you clean the head you loose ink

>
>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.

How long before the prints fade on a Canon printer?
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 18, 2005 4:12:43 AM

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

Brian wrote:

>Thanks Arthur for your reply. See below for my comments.
>
>Regards Brian
>
>
>Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Did this fade problem occur later with inkjet printers?
>Why I ask is that the photos that I printed with an old 560C HP
>printer has not faded. It was printed on plan paper.
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if they are manufactured to fail after a few refills so HP
>can sell more cartridges
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>It reminds me of replacing the drum on a laser printer.
>Maybe Canon can get more money from users when the user has to buy a
>new printer head.
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Far as I know each time you clean the head you loose ink
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>How long before the prints fade on a Canon printer?
>
>

MINE ARE 8 months old or more and show no evidence of fading. I am sure
that will happen over time but I do not know how long. I also do not
know how long before people see evidence of Epson dye inks or even Epson
pigmented inks

>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 18, 2005 2:32:33 PM

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

I saw the complaint and responded to it. I am somewhat surprised that
clogging with these slow drying inks is still a problem, but I don't
question the report.

No one will argue the price of the ink is higher.

I suggest to people looking for cheaper inks without concern for
permanence to consider Canon printers, but to understand the limitations
including head life.


Art


measekite wrote:


>
>
> One of the R800 owners on this NG compained recently of clogging when
> left unattended for about 6 weeks. She also complained at one time
> about the ink costs. These are two typical Epson issues I hear over and
> over on this NG.
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 18, 2005 2:59:57 PM

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

I've replied within your posting:

Brian wrote:

> Thanks Arthur for your reply. See below for my comments.
>
> Regards Brian
>
>
> Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Did this fade problem occur later with inkjet printers?
> Why I ask is that the photos that I printed with an old 560C HP
> printer has not faded. It was printed on plan paper.
>

To some extent, yes. Dye inks, in general, are less than permanent, and
if exposed to UV or bright sunlight your older color HP prints will also
fade. What has added to the problem are two things. Microporus paper
tends to be poorer at holding the colors in place, but it gives an
instant dry result and a nice surface. When they introduced the low dye
load printers with light cyan and magenta things really begin to suffer.
These inks have a lot less dye colorant in them, sit it doesn't take
much to have it start to leave.

>
>>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.
>
>
> I wonder if they are manufactured to fail after a few refills so HP
> can sell more cartridges
>
>

The manufacturing process and technology used is not designed for
multiple refillings. The head on these cartridges is made of very thin
films or mylars and copper and the head design uses heat to propel the
ink forward. Over time and use, the nozzles get distorted or eaten away
or just stop working all together, after a number of refills. A more
durable head could be designed (more like Canon uses) but the market
likes the disposable head with HP. HP does make a separate ink
cartridge head printer business. The heads last 5-10 ink cartridges
before requiring replacement (on average).

>>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.
>
>
> It reminds me of replacing the drum on a laser printer.
> Maybe Canon can get more money from users when the user has to buy a
> new printer head.
>

The Canon head design has similarities to the HP, in that they both use
thermal heads. The constant heating of the resistors eventually causes
burn out.

>
>>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.
>
>
> Far as I know each time you clean the head you loose ink
>

That is true of all inkjet printers, They all use the ink to clear the
nozzles.

>
>>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.
>
>
> How long before the prints fade on a Canon printer?
>
>>

It depends upon which printer ink set and how the prints are stored and
what paper is used. I have seen the prints from Canon printers with OEM
ink, which used the light cyan and magenta colors, fade under
fluorescent lights without any glass surface protecting them in 3-6 months.


Art
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 19, 2005 12:22:58 PM

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:98iie.1384849$8l.127184@pd7tw1no...

> So maybe it would be best to hear from some owners of R800 or R1800
> printers (or even 2100/2200/4000 or 7600/9600/10600 printers) as to how
> they rank the color gamut compared to dye inks.

Ok...

I've got an Epson 2100 and a new HP 6840 just unpacked yesterday. The HP
uses dye based colours and Pigment Black.

I've printed a two test images side by side on the same sheet of TDK Photo
Glossy Paper using both printers one after the other. I used TDK paper
because I've got some and I like the results the 2100 produces. The print
quality was set to the best automatic mode for Photo Glossy Paper. No fancy
colour profiles or anything like that. I used the carts supplied with the
printers. I figure this is what most people would see "out of the box".

I used the large version of this small image..
http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/tss_printer_test.jpg
from
http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/

My monitor isn't calibrated and I didn't use the makers paper so I know
these results aren't very scientific but...

The HP _did_ produce slightly more vibrant colours but overall I actually
prefer the output from the 2100.

Some of the "pure" colours in the colour square (Red, Yellow and Greens)
appeared slightly denser and cleaner on the HP as if slightly more ink had
been deposited. The "pure" red in particular appeared more vibrant. The
yellows were also slightly warmer.

On the other hand the green and blue were slightly too vivid on the HP. The
trees were too green and the output from the 2100 looked more natural and
more like the original. The clouds on the image of the earth have a pink
tint on the original. They were reproduced OK on the 2100 but were too blue
on the HP. As were the girls trousers.

The HP printed about twice as fast as the 2100 but it also scratched a faint
line accross both prints which I'm not exactly happy about. Will need to
investigate what caused that.

Colin
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 19, 2005 12:37:03 PM

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

I forgot to add that the HP6840 isn't really sold as a "photo printer". I
got it because I needed a general purpose printer with heads built into the
carts that I can abuse with third party ink.

I can't say I like the output "tray" on the HP6840. It's very flimsy and not
even a tray really. I think I might even try making something better from
cardboard!
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 19, 2005 12:45:09 PM

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ranj819oq9cpgggh91fq07n9f5keeddaft@4ax.com...
> >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.
>
> I wonder if they are manufactured to fail after a few refills so HP
> can sell more cartridges

They aren't designed to be refilled at all!

However I've been refilling HP carts for 6 years. I found they fail two
different ways. They either start to produce very scratchy/spidery text
output or they just seem to stop printing. I don't seem to get blocked jets
using the "JQ ink" available here in Belgium.
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 20, 2005 3:41:53 AM

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

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:22:58 GMT, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:


>My monitor isn't calibrated and I didn't use the makers paper so I know
>these results aren't very scientific but...
>
>The HP _did_ produce slightly more vibrant colours but overall I actually
>prefer the output from the 2100.
>
Which is amazing as the 2100 isn't really suited to glossy prints
anyway. :) 

Personally, I'd always prefer matte/semi-matte anyway. Interesting
test though :) 

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 20, 2005 6:47:01 AM

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

howdy measekite:

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

Wrong, as regards the current and next generation of
Epson printers. Some of the snappiest prints you'll ever
have the privilege of viewing.

It's best to post from actual first-hand knowledge.

-- stan
May 20, 2005 1:11:48 PM

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

Stanley Krute wrote:
> howdy measekite:
>
>
>>It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
>>vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.
>
>
> Wrong, as regards the current and next generation of
> Epson printers. Some of the snappiest prints you'll ever
> have the privilege of viewing.
>
> It's best to post from actual first-hand knowledge.
>
> -- stan
>
>
Forget it Stan. This troll thinks he's an expert on every printer ever
made even though he's only owned two in his sort life time.
Believe only those who actually use the mentioned printers. I for one
can attest to the fact that your statement is absolutely true based on
my real world user experience printing from both Epson and Canon printers.
Frank
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 20, 2005 7:36:49 PM

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

Stanley Krute wrote:

>howdy measekite:
>
>
>
>>It is common knowledge that all printers that use pigmented ink has less
>>vibrancy (aka snap) than all dye based printers.
>>
>>
>
>Wrong, as regards the current and next generation of
>Epson printers. Some of the snappiest prints you'll ever
>have the privilege of viewing.
>
>It's best to post from actual first-hand knowledge.
>
>

Ever hear of the horses mouth? EPSON TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT THEIR DYE
BASED PRINTERS HAVE MORE VIBRANCY AND SNAP THAN ANY OF THEIR PIGMENTED
PRINTERS INCLUDING THE NEW ULTRACHROME. THEY DID SAY THE DIFFERENCES
ARE LESS THAN EARLIER.

SO YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE MANUFACTURER IS WRONG. :-D :-D :-D

>-- stan
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 20, 2005 7:36:50 PM

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

Dr. Prof. Yr. Honor Mr. Measekite

> you are stupid.
>
> stupid people are stupid.
>
> You think Epson is stupid.
>
> you are stupid.

Thanks for the clarification.

My aged mind floats back to time spent
working with kindergarteners. And of
course to Forrest Gump, and his fine
epithet Re: stupidity, one of the ne plus
ultimas of that set. U kin lucky-google it up.
(search string: gump is stupid)

Cheers ...

-- stan
May 20, 2005 10:03:24 PM

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

Stanley Krute wrote:

> Dr. Prof. Yr. Honor Mr. Measekite
>
>
>>you are stupid.
>>
>>stupid people are stupid.
>>
>>You think Epson is stupid.
>>
>>you are stupid.
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> My aged mind floats back to time spent
> working with kindergarteners. And of
> course to Forrest Gump, and his fine
> epithet Re: stupidity, one of the ne plus
> ultimas of that set. U kin lucky-google it up.
> (search string: gump is stupid)
>
> Cheers ...
>
> -- stan
>
>
hehehe...FG may have been slow but he appears blindingly fast compared
our local brain dead troll.
Frank
May 21, 2005 5:07:04 AM

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

"Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o Nvje.252$tp.143@fed1read05...
> Stanley Krute wrote:
>
>> Dr. Prof. Yr. Honor Mr. Measekite
>>
>>
>>>you are stupid.
>>>
>>>stupid people are stupid.
>>>
>>>You think Epson is stupid.
>>>
>>>you are stupid.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> My aged mind floats back to time spent
>> working with kindergarteners. And of
>> course to Forrest Gump, and his fine
>> epithet Re: stupidity, one of the ne plus
>> ultimas of that set. U kin lucky-google it up.
>> (search string: gump is stupid)
>>
>> Cheers ...
>>
>> -- stan
>>
>>
> hehehe...FG may have been slow but he appears blindingly fast compared our
> local brain dead troll.
> Frank

Yes, Frank, It is known that stupid is as stupid does.
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 21, 2005 6:43:13 AM

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

Burt wrote:

>"Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o Nvje.252$tp.143@fed1read05...
>
>
>>Stanley Krute wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dr. Prof. Yr. Honor Mr. Measekite
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>stupid people are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>You think Epson is stupid.
>>>>
>>>>you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>>My aged mind floats back to time spent
>>>working with kindergarteners. And of
>>>course to Forrest Gump, and his fine
>>>epithet Re: stupidity, one of the ne plus
>>>ultimas of that set. U kin lucky-google it up.
>>>(search string: gump is stupid)
>>>
>>>Cheers ...
>>>
>>>-- stan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>hehehe...FG may have been slow but he appears blindingly fast compared our
>>local brain dead troll.
>>Frank
>>
>>
>
>Yes, Frank, It is known that stupid is as stupid does.
>
>

Are you that dumb Reverend Burtie Fertie

>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
May 21, 2005 4:21:03 PM

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

Forgot to add that my test on the 6840 used the standard 3 colour cart not
the optional 6 colour cart.
May 21, 2005 6:19:47 PM

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

"Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>"Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o Nvje.252$tp.143@fed1read05...
>> Stanley Krute wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Prof. Yr. Honor Mr. Measekite
>>>
>>>
>>>>you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>stupid people are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>You think Epson is stupid.
>>>>
>>>>you are stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> My aged mind floats back to time spent
>>> working with kindergarteners. And of
>>> course to Forrest Gump, and his fine
>>> epithet Re: stupidity, one of the ne plus
>>> ultimas of that set. U kin lucky-google it up.
>>> (search string: gump is stupid)
>>>
>>> Cheers ...
>>>
>>> -- stan
>>>
>>>
>> hehehe...FG may have been slow but he appears blindingly fast compared our
>> local brain dead troll.
>> Frank
>
>Yes, Frank, It is known that stupid is as stupid does.
>
C'on guys lets stick to printers and not personal name calling.
This is a public newsgroup and personal feelings is of no use to
others.

Regards Brian
!