IP4000 vs. IP5000 -- final thoughts

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

Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have actually
had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
love to hear your thoughts.

On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.

But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
rebate plus a $20 gift card.

On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
34 answers Last reply
More about ip4000 ip5000 final thoughts
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Now we're getting somewhere.
    I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
    towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
    'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
    any serious printing.

    I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    would be expected from the 1pl head.

    David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
    ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
    did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
    time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
    confirm this?

    I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
    suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
    longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
    photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.


    If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.

    It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
    on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
    models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.

    It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
    models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
    1pl heads.

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

    On 5/24/05 4:34 PM, in article 4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com, "Davy"
    <davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

    > Now we're getting somewhere.
    > I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
    > towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
    > 'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
    > any serious printing.
    >
    > I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    > to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    > matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    > other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    > saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    > would be expected from the 1pl head.

    I agree with you. The 5000 shows a *tiny* bit of better detail. Like you,
    I'm surprised that no one else has remarked on this. As for the PC Mag
    review, what can I say? They're not infallible, and the difference really is
    marginal. When you're testing a bunch of printers, this kind of nuanced
    difference can sometime go astray. I always take reviews with a grain of
    salt (have to see with my own eyes). Also, I wasn't testing for speed, just
    photo and graphic quality. To repeat what I've just written in a reply to
    measkite: to my eyes, after much testing and comparing, photo output on the
    5000 appears to be marginally better; graphic output vastly superior. I've
    had both printers on my desk side by side. Neither printer is perfect. Both
    print much darker than they should; the 4000 has a magenta cast, the 5000
    has a yellow cast. The driver allows you to adjust color output, thank
    goodenss, and once that's done, you can have yourself some gorgeous photos.
    In short, the 4000 is nice but (marginally) not as nice as the 5000. It's
    going back.

    My hunch is that the 5000 is the better product but that Canon ditched it
    because it proved to costly to pursue. This is a personal conjecture based
    on nothing concrete, but it's what I suspect. I find it strange that they
    gave so little play to the 1pl head issue, to begin with. But if they'd
    already decided they weren't going to run with it, then it would make sense
    not to draw attention to it. My point is that just because they ditched it
    does not mean it's not the superior product (vide Sony Betamax). Whatever
    the reason (someone also mentioned the possibility that the Ipl head causes
    more clogging), Canon ditched this technology and we're left to wonder.


    >
    > David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
    > ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
    > did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
    > time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
    > confirm this?
    >
    > I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    > "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    > record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    > difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
    > suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
    > longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
    > photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
    >
    >
    > If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
    >
    > It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
    > on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
    > models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
    >
    > It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
    > models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
    > 1pl heads.
    >
    > Davy
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Davy wrote:
    > Now we're getting somewhere.
    > I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
    > towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
    > 'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
    > any serious printing.
    >
    > I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    > to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    > matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    > other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    > saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    > would be expected from the 1pl head.
    >
    > David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
    > ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
    > did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
    > time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
    > confirm this?
    >
    > I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    > "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    > record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    > difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
    > suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
    > longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
    > photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
    >
    >

    If PC Mag says they printed a photo in 2:06 then that's no where near
    the printer's maximum resolution.

    At the highest resolution setting (9600 dpi) on the iP5000 - photo paper
    pro and Custom Quality set to 1, Fine - it should take between 3:45 and
    4:00 for a 4x6 print on the iP5000. I just printed one, with a border,
    and it took 3:45.

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

    "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
    > Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    > photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    > contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    > printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    > the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    > tends
    > to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    > toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    > fortunately,
    > the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    > output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    > tell
    > which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
    > actually
    > had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    > way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    > I'd
    > love to hear your thoughts.
    >
    > On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
    > beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
    > IP5000.
    >
    > But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    > IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    > rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >
    > On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    > printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    > black
    > or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    > you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    > clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >


    I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
    bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
    to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change :D
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Davy" <davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com...
    [..]

    > I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    > to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    > matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    > other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    > saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    > would be expected from the 1pl head.


    Is the same ink isn't it? That should make photos viewed *from a distance*
    about the same.

    Its when you get up close that the real differences would show - and with
    modern printers that 'close' is distances less than a few inches.. not
    something you do everyday, even if your eyesight is up to it.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:1116973771.90279.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
    >
    > "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    > news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
    >> of
    >> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >> tends
    >> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >> tends
    >> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >> fortunately,
    >> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >> tell
    >> which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
    >> actually
    >> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >> I'd
    >> love to hear your thoughts.
    >>
    >> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
    >> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
    >> IP5000.
    >>
    >> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then
    >> the
    >> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>
    >> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >> black
    >> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
    > bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
    > to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change
    > :D
    >
    >
    >

    Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?

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

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >which photo came from which printer.
    >

    And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    "marginally" was too close to call.

    >I imagine that few people have actually
    >had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
    >love to hear your thoughts.
    >
    >On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >
    And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.

    >It lays the ink down
    >beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >
    >But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >
    >

    Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    I think he/she meant the IP3000.


    What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.

    >On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
    >or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    > Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >
    >> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >> which photo came from which printer.
    >>
    >
    > And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    > marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    > and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    > "marginally" was too close to call.

    You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    in quality.

    If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    asking myself: do I see it or don't I? But picture after picture I kept
    asking myself the same question.

    Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    printers you do (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.

    On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?

    To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.


    >
    >> I imagine that few people have actually
    >> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
    >> love to hear your thoughts.
    >>
    >> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>
    > And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    > convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    > like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    > independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    > diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >
    >> It lays the ink down
    >> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>
    >> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    > rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    > I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >
    >
    > What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >
    >> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
    >> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Andy wrote:

    >"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >
    >
    >>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>tends
    >>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>fortunately,
    >>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>tell
    >>which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
    >>actually
    >>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>I'd
    >>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>
    >>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
    >>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
    >>IP5000.
    >>
    >>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>
    >>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>black
    >>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
    >bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
    >to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change :D
    >
    >

    You already have cute girls. :-P

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

    >
    > Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
    >
    > --
    > Derek


    I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
    next
    wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
    also no store pickup available,
    so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
    them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the sake
    of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website, even
    their own.
    So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
    there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but seem
    to have a way round it.
    He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
    for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
    then for £89.99.

    The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the store
    to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
    the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on top
    of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost a
    sale today.

    So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner :). Just set it all up but not printed
    anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Great results with OEM ink and Costco/Kirkland Glossy Paper. ????May be
    Ilford Gallerie Smooth Glossy.

    Andy wrote:

    >>Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
    >>
    >>--
    >>Derek
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
    >next
    >wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
    >also no store pickup available,
    >so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
    >them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the sake
    >of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website, even
    >their own.
    >So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
    >there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but seem
    >to have a way round it.
    >He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
    >for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
    >then for £89.99.
    >
    >The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the store
    >to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
    >the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on top
    >of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost a
    >sale today.
    >
    >So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner :). Just set it all up but not printed
    >anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Davy wrote:

    >Now we're getting somewhere.
    >I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
    >towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
    >'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
    >any serious printing.
    >
    >

    I have been telling ya all this for months.

    >I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    >to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    >matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    >other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    >saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    >would be expected from the 1pl head.
    >
    >

    Yes and that depends on the particular photo. It is not the case for
    all of them.

    >David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
    >ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
    >did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
    >time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
    >confirm this?
    >
    >I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    >"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    >record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    >difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
    >suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
    >longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
    >photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
    >
    >
    >If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
    >
    >It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
    >on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
    >models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
    >
    >It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
    >models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
    >1pl heads.
    >
    >Davy
    >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    > Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >
    >>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>tends
    >>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>fortunately,
    >>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>tell
    >>which photo came from which printer.
    >
    > And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    > marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    > and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    > "marginally" was too close to call.
    >
    >>I imagine that few people have actually
    >>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>I'd
    >>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>
    >>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    > And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    > convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club like
    > to disagree with me.

    Really? from what I've seen of your postings your seem to think that anyone
    who uses 3rd party inks is a moron, that anyone who doesn't have a Canon
    printer is an idiot and that your IP4000 is better in every respect than ALL
    other printers on the market. Oh, and anyone who doesn't agree with your
    point of view gets subjected to a torrent of childish abuse and name calling


    [..]

    > What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>black
    >>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.


    So - you agree that the HP8450 is a better photo printer than the Canon(s)?
    Hmmm... make your mind up will you.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:1116977082.95025.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
    >
    >>
    >> Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Derek
    >
    >
    > I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
    > next
    > wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
    > also no store pickup available,
    > so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
    > them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the
    > sake
    > of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website,
    > even
    > their own.
    > So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
    > there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but
    > seem
    > to have a way round it.
    > He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
    > for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
    > then for £89.99.
    >
    > The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the
    > store
    > to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
    > the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on
    > top
    > of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost
    > a sale today.
    >
    > So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner :). Just set it all up but not printed
    > anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
    >
    >
    >
    >

    No. It's due Thursday. I wasn't in a big rush, my S630 still prints.

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

    "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    > OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    > <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
    >>> of
    >>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>> is
    >>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>> tends
    >>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>> tends
    >>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>> fortunately,
    >>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>> tell
    >>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>
    >>
    >> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >
    > You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    > what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    > sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    > in
    > the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    > albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    > in quality.

    Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
    much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
    printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
    and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
    areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
    appearance of inkjet printers.

    I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
    the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
    the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
    Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
    printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
    any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
    fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
    probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
    some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    about this issue.

    As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
    OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
    than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
    looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
    info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >
    (snip)
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ivor Floppy wrote:

    >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>tends
    >>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>fortunately,
    >>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>tell
    >>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>>I'd
    >>>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>
    >>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club like
    >>to disagree with me.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Really? from what I've seen of your postings your seem to think that anyone
    >who uses 3rd party inks is a moron, that anyone who doesn't have a Canon
    >printer is an idiot and that your IP4000 is better in every respect than ALL
    >other printers on the market. Oh, and anyone who doesn't agree with your
    >point of view gets subjected to a torrent of childish abuse and name calling
    >
    >
    >[..]
    >
    >
    >
    >>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>
    >>
    >>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>>black
    >>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >So - you agree that the HP8450 is a better photo printer than the Canon(s)?
    >Hmmm... make your mind up will you.
    >
    >

    I have. You are an idiot!

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

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >
    >On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    ><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >sure).
    >

    What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
    PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
    That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
    more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.

    >I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    >the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >in quality.
    >

    I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.

    >
    >
    >If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    >better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    >smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    >sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    >into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    >marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    >asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
    >

    Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.

    >But picture after picture I kept
    >asking myself the same question.
    >
    >Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    >difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    >slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    >printers you do
    >

    I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
    results.

    >(as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    >adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    >go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    >each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    >rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    >become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    >darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    >printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    >minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
    >
    >On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
    >
    >
    >To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    >equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
    >>>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>
    >>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    >>like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    >>independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    >>diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>It lays the ink down
    >>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>>
    >>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    >>rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    >>I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >>
    >>
    >>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
    >>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >
    >On 5/24/05 4:34 PM, in article 4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com, "Davy"
    ><davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Now we're getting somewhere.
    >>I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
    >>towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
    >>'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
    >>any serious printing.
    >>
    >>I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
    >>to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
    >>matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
    >>other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
    >>saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
    >>would be expected from the 1pl head.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I agree with you. The 5000 shows a *tiny* bit of better detail. Like you,
    >I'm surprised that no one else has remarked on this. As for the PC Mag
    >review, what can I say? They're not infallible, and the difference really is
    >marginal. When you're testing a bunch of printers, this kind of nuanced
    >difference can sometime go astray. I always take reviews with a grain of
    >salt (have to see with my own eyes). Also, I wasn't testing for speed, just
    >photo and graphic quality. To repeat what I've just written in a reply to
    >measkite: to my eyes, after much testing and comparing, photo output on the
    >5000 appears to be marginally better; graphic output vastly superior. I've
    >had both printers on my desk side by side. Neither printer is perfect. Both
    >print much darker than they should; the 4000 has a magenta cast, the 5000
    >has a yellow cast. The driver allows you to adjust color output, thank
    >goodenss, and once that's done, you can have yourself some gorgeous photos.
    >In short, the 4000 is nice but (marginally) not as nice as the 5000. It's
    >going back.
    >
    >My hunch is that the 5000 is the better product but that Canon ditched it
    >because it proved to costly to pursue.
    >

    I find it hard to believe that it costs Canon more than $50.00 to
    produce that printer over the IP4000. There must be another reason.

    >This is a personal conjecture based
    >on nothing concrete, but it's what I suspect. I find it strange that they
    >gave so little play to the 1pl head issue, to begin with.
    >

    To further conjecture maybe they are coming out with a new formulation
    of ink that just does not work as well using a 1pl droplet size.

    >But if they'd
    >already decided they weren't going to run with it, then it would make sense
    >not to draw attention to it. My point is that just because they ditched it
    >does not mean it's not the superior product (vide Sony Betamax). Whatever
    >the reason (someone also mentioned the possibility that the Ipl head causes
    >more clogging), Canon ditched this technology and we're left to wonder.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
    >>ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
    >>did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
    >>time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
    >>confirm this?
    >>
    >>I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    >>"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    >>record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    >>difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
    >>suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
    >>longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
    >>photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
    >>
    >>
    >>If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
    >>
    >>It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
    >>on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
    >>models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
    >>
    >>It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
    >>models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
    >>1pl heads.
    >>
    >>Davy
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Taliesynwrote:

    > I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
    > "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
    > record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
    > difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our
    photo
    > suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1
    minute
    > longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by
    10-inch
    > photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
    >
    >
    >
    If PC Mag says they printed a photo in 2:06 then that's no where near
    the printer's maximum resolution.

    At the highest resolution setting (9600 dpi) on the iP5000 - photo
    paper
    pro and Custom Quality set to 1, Fine - it should take between 3:45
    and
    4:00 for a 4x6 print on the iP5000. I just printed one, with a
    border,
    and it took 3:45.


    Davy say's
    Thanks Taliesyn this proves the point that PC Mag got it wrong but
    they ignored the fact and did not check when I took it up with the
    very David Stone.

    And this is mis-leadiing if this is the case by PC Mag and also this
    is the very reason that the "one step lower in photo quality than
    the ip4000" has 'STUCK' which goes to show you can't take the reviews
    as gospel.

    It seems rather strange that neither Steve's Digicams nor photo-i are
    willing to do a side by side - is this to do with Canon I wonder?

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

    On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >
    > "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    > news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
    >>>> of
    >>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>>> is
    >>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>> tends
    >>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>> tends
    >>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>> fortunately,
    >>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>> tell
    >>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>
    >> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    >> in
    >> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >> in quality.
    >
    > Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    > absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    > Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    > bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
    > much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
    > printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
    > and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    > look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
    > areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
    > appearance of inkjet printers.

    Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have "dots" --4000,
    5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
    tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's amazing.
    Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >
    > I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    > experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
    > the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
    > the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    > color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    > some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
    > Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    > their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
    > printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    > Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
    > any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
    > fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
    > probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    > preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
    > some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    > about this issue.

    Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce the
    black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
    have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    desirable sometimes but not always).
    >
    > As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
    > OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
    > than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
    > looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    > for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    > problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
    > info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    > following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>
    > (snip)
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
    m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    > Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >> sure).
    >>
    >
    > What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
    > PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
    > That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
    > more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.

    Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
    anything else.
    >
    >> I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    >> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >> in quality.
    >>
    >
    > I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.

    Since you haven't seen the same photo printed side by side and you haven't
    conducted tests on both printers, you can't really judge. You certainly
    can't make the call. Another reason why your pushing the 4000 as the best
    printer of all time is unjustified.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >> If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    >> better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    >> smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    >> sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    >> into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    >> marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    >> asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
    >>
    >
    > Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
    >
    >> But picture after picture I kept
    >> asking myself the same question.
    >>
    >> Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    >> difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    >> slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    >> printers you do
    >>
    >
    > I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
    > results.
    >
    >> (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    >> adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    >> go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    >> each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    >> rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    >> become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    >> darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    >> printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    >> minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
    >>
    >> On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
    >>
    >>
    >> To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    >> equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>>> I'd
    >>>> love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    >>> like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    >>> independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    >>> diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> It lays the ink down
    >>>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>>>
    >>>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    >>> rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    >>> I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>>> black
    >>>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
    m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    > Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >> sure).
    >>
    >
    > What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
    > PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
    > That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
    > more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.
    >
    >> I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    >> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >> in quality.
    >>
    >
    > I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    >> better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    >> smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    >> sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    >> into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    >> marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    >> asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
    >>
    >
    > Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
    >
    >> But picture after picture I kept
    >> asking myself the same question.
    >>
    >> Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    >> difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    >> slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    >> printers you do
    >>
    >
    > I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
    > results.

    Because you haven't done comparison printing, you may not realize that the
    Canons print too dark and oversaturated. But they do. And yes, they do so
    with OEM inks (what else would I be using on a printer I'm testing and
    planning to return if not the inks that come in the box with the printer?).
    It's not a matter of "fiddling with the controls" as if this were an option
    one can take or leave. Without the possibility of making these adjustments,
    these Canon printers (any printer, actually) would be worthless. Only rarely
    do they produce photos that do not require toning down the black, reducing
    the yellows and magentas. This is something that various photo professional
    reviews point out. Once these adjustments are made, you have the potential
    for a great photo. But not before.


    >
    >> (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    >> adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    >> go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    >> each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    >> rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    >> become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    >> darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    >> printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    >> minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
    >>
    >> On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
    >>
    >>
    >> To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    >> equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>>> I'd
    >>>> love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    >>> like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    >>> independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    >>> diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> It lays the ink down
    >>>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>>>
    >>>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    >>> rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    >>> I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>>> black
    >>>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    ><sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
    >>>>>of
    >>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>>>>is
    >>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>>>tends
    >>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>tends
    >>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>fortunately,
    >>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>>>tell
    >>>>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >>>sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    >>>in
    >>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >>>in quality.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
    >>much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
    >>printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
    >>and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    >>look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
    >>areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
    >>appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have "dots" --4000,
    >5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    >visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
    >tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's amazing.
    >Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >
    >

    And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. To be serious, the
    discontinued i960 is a very good printer that is able to produce very
    subtle tones if the photograph originally had them. However, there are
    downsides. It costs more to run because of additional cartridges. It
    does much worse on business documents and graphics as per both PC Mag
    and Canon Factory Rep. It does not print full duplex and does not have
    twin paper feeds. It is also slower. The light dye load inks that it
    uses (Lt Magenta and Lt Cyan) have a greater tendency to fade. It does
    not have a pigmented black for text.

    Its replacement, the Canon IP6000D, is also a 6 color printer. When
    tested by PC Mag it proved slower, not as good on photos and much worse
    on business documents than the IP4000.

    >>I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
    >>the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
    >>the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    >>color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    >>some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
    >>Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    >>their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
    >>printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
    >>any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
    >>fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
    >>probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    >>preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
    >>some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>about this issue.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >with?
    >
    Burt came up with that based on his tastes on skin tones of his grand kids.

    >I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce the
    >black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
    >have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >desirable sometimes but not always).
    >
    >

    I believe photoshop allows you to reduce intensity of a selected portion
    of a photo if need be.

    >>As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
    >>OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
    >>than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts.
    >>

    He has not seen your differences in color shifts between the IP4000 and
    the IP5000 so how would he know.

    >>To my eye they
    >>looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    >>for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    >>problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
    >>info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>
    >>
    >>(snip)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
    >m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    ><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >>>>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >>>sure).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
    >>PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
    >>That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
    >>more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
    >anything else.
    >
    >

    Everyone has an opinion. I recommend Canon over others and I recommend
    the IP4000 over the IP5000 for all purposes except where the printload
    is weighted more toward the business side. It is also $40.00 cheaper.
    The probability of a 1pl printhead clogging more over a 2pl head is
    still unknown. There are not enough of them in the field for a long
    enough period of time. It also concerns me why Canon did not promote a
    1pl printhead in the newer more expensive IP8500.

    >>>I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    >>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >>>in quality.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Since you haven't seen the same photo printed side by side and you haven't
    >conducted tests on both printers, you can't really judge. You certainly
    >can't make the call. Another reason why your pushing the 4000 as the best
    >printer of all time is unjustified.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    >>>better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    >>>smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    >>>sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    >>>into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    >>>marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    >>>asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>But picture after picture I kept
    >>>asking myself the same question.
    >>>
    >>>Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    >>>difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    >>>slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    >>>printers you do
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
    >>results.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>(as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    >>>adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    >>>go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    >>>each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    >>>rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    >>>become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    >>>darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    >>>printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    >>>minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
    >>>
    >>>On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    >>>equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>>>>I'd
    >>>>>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>>>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    >>>>like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    >>>>independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    >>>>diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>It lays the ink down
    >>>>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>>>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>>>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    >>>>rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    >>>>I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>>>>black
    >>>>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
    >m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    ><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
    >>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
    >>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
    >>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
    >>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
    >>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
    >>>>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
    >>>sure).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
    >>PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
    >>That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
    >>more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
    >>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
    >>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
    >>>in quality.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
    >>>better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
    >>>smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
    >>>sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
    >>>into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
    >>>marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
    >>>asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>But picture after picture I kept
    >>>asking myself the same question.
    >>>
    >>>Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
    >>>difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
    >>>slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
    >>>printers you do
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
    >>results.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Because you haven't done comparison printing, you may not realize that the
    >Canons print too dark and oversaturated.
    >

    I have taken a couple of different photos and played with the intensity
    in photoshop and printed them both. In those cases I prefered the more
    saturated photo. I also took a test photo provided by Adobe and printed
    it on the Canon and HP printers. On the Canon I used the effects menu
    on one printing to increase vibrancy. I actually preferred that. I
    intend to also print this on my friends Epson R300 on the same paper and
    compare.

    >But they do. And yes, they do so
    >with OEM inks (what else would I be using on a printer I'm testing and
    >planning to return if not the inks that come in the box with the printer?).
    >It's not a matter of "fiddling with the controls" as if this were an option
    >one can take or leave. Without the possibility of making these adjustments,
    >these Canon printers (any printer, actually) would be worthless. Only rarely
    >do they produce photos that do not require toning down the black, reducing
    >the yellows and magentas. This is something that various photo professional
    >reviews point out.
    >

    What are the links to these professional reviews? I am interested in
    reading them.

    >Once these adjustments are made, you have the potential
    >for a great photo. But not before.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>(as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
    >>>adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
    >>>go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
    >>>each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
    >>>rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
    >>>become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
    >>>darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
    >>>printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
    >>>minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
    >>>
    >>>On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
    >>>equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I imagine that few people have actually
    >>>>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
    >>>>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
    >>>>>I'd
    >>>>>love to hear your thoughts.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
    >>>>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
    >>>>like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
    >>>>independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
    >>>>diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>It lays the ink down
    >>>>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
    >>>>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
    >>>>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
    >>>>rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
    >>>>I think he/she meant the IP3000.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
    >>>>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
    >>>>>black
    >>>>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
    >>>>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
    >>>>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    > On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    > U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    > <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>> bunch
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>>>> is
    >>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>>> tends
    >>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>> tends
    >>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>> fortunately,
    >>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>>> tell
    >>>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>
    >>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>> I'm
    >>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    >>> in
    >>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>> adjustments,
    >>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>> same
    >>> in quality.
    >>
    >> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >> is
    >> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >> good
    >> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >> mentioned
    >> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    >> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >> many
    >> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >> dot
    >> appearance of inkjet printers.
    >
    > Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    > "dots" --4000,
    > 5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    > visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
    > tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    > amazing.
    > Maybe I should reconsider my choice???

    The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
    most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
    on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
    areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
    but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
    than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
    1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
    was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
    opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
    his opinion.
    >>
    >> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially
    >> in
    >> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >> of
    >> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    >> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    >> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >> Costco
    >> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    >> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >> also
    >> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good
    >> as
    >> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >> for
    >> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >> You
    >> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    >> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >> find
    >> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >> about this issue.
    >
    > Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    > reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    > with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    > the
    > black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    > intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
    > have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    > intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    > desirable sometimes but not always).

    I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
    and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments look
    best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels and
    overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed too
    much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
    increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that this
    reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity. Best
    to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
    get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.

    I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the two
    paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
    much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be used
    from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50
    to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in batches
    as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text
    printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented
    black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
    not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.

    Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the difference
    between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
    you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive, and
    the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be imperceptable.
    Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    interesting information.
    http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I said,
    it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in most
    cases.

    When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested in
    reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    >>
    >> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink
    >> and
    >> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >> difference
    >> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
    >> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    >> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    >> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >> this
    >> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >>
    >
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 5/25/05 12:10 PM, in article
    k44le.1555$rY6.180@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >
    > "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    > news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >> On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >> U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>> bunch
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>>>> tends
    >>>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>> tends
    >>>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>> fortunately,
    >>>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>>>> tell
    >>>>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>
    >>>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>>> I'm
    >>>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    >>>> in
    >>>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>> adjustments,
    >>>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>>> same
    >>>> in quality.
    >>>
    >>> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >>> is
    >>> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >>> good
    >>> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>> mentioned
    >>> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    >>> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >>> many
    >>> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >>> dot
    >>> appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>
    >> Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >> "dots" --4000,
    >> 5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    >> visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
    >> tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >> amazing.
    >> Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >
    > The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    > other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    > still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
    > most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
    > on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
    > areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
    > but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
    > than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
    > 1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    > side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    > printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
    > was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
    > opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
    > his opinion.

    Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good on
    grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was surprised
    at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they all
    do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.


    >>>
    >>> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially
    >>> in
    >>> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >>> of
    >>> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    >>> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    >>> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>> Costco
    >>> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    >>> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>> also
    >>> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good
    >>> as
    >>> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >>> for
    >>> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >>> You
    >>> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    >>> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >>> find
    >>> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>> about this issue.
    >>
    >> Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >> reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >> with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    >> the
    >> black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >> intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
    >> have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >> intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >> desirable sometimes but not always).
    >
    > I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
    > and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    > calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments look
    > best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels and
    > overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed too
    > much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
    > increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that this
    > reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    > I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity. Best
    > to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
    > get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.
    >
    > I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    > with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the two
    > paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
    > much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be used
    > from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    > printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    > side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    > collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50
    > to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    > whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in batches
    > as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text
    > printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented
    > black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    > printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    > copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
    > not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.
    >
    > Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the difference
    > between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    > shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
    > you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive, and
    > the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be imperceptable.
    > Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    > interesting information.
    > http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I said,
    > it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in most
    > cases.
    >
    > When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested in
    > reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    > have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    > conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink
    >>> and
    >>> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>> difference
    >>> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
    >>> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    >>> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    >>> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >>> this
    >>> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>>
    >>> (snip)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    news:BEBA203D.3A86%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/25/05 12:10 PM, in article
    > k44le.1555$rY6.180@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    > <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>> On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >>> U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >>> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>>> bunch
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my
    >>>>>>> take:
    >>>>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better
    >>>>>>> photo
    >>>>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's
    >>>>>>> different
    >>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate.
    >>>>>>> IP4000
    >>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>>> fortunately,
    >>>>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting
    >>>>>>> color
    >>>>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> tell
    >>>>>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their
    >>>>>> part
    >>>>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That"
    >>>>> being
    >>>>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>>>> I'm
    >>>>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000
    >>>>> better
    >>>>> in
    >>>>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>>> adjustments,
    >>>>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>>>> same
    >>>>> in quality.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>>> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>>> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>>> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >>>> is
    >>>> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >>>> good
    >>>> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>>> mentioned
    >>>> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I
    >>>> did
    >>>> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >>>> many
    >>>> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >>>> dot
    >>>> appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>>
    >>> Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >>> "dots" --4000,
    >>> 5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but
    >>> not
    >>> visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like
    >>> continuous
    >>> tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >>> amazing.
    >>> Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >>
    >> The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    >> other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    >> still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color.
    >> The
    >> most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be
    >> mixed
    >> on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors
    >> and
    >> areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma
    >> printer,
    >> but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not
    >> better,
    >> than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer
    >> (8
    >> 1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    >> side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    >> printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his
    >> opinion
    >> was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One
    >> man's
    >> opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons
    >> for
    >> his opinion.
    >
    > Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good
    > on
    > grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was
    > surprised
    > at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they
    > all
    > do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.

    I don't recall which printer model he compared the I960 to. Go on to his
    site and read all the sections. Interesting information. If he no longer
    has the comparison photos on the site you can email him and he may either
    direct you to a link or email them to you as an attachment. I can only
    compare my printer to the one I used previously for photo printing, the
    Epson Stylus 900. This came out before their Stylus Photo series and was a
    dye based printer. When comparing prints with a loupe I was amazed to see
    the "grain" in the Epson print. looked like a field of boulders compared to
    the much newer Canon image. Of course, this was much older technology and
    it is not fair to compare them. A couple of questions - It is my
    understanding that most professional photographers and graphic designers use
    the high end Epsons. What factors led you to purchase the Canon? Also,
    what resolutions images are you printing? What MP rating on the camera, and
    how much of the image are you printing (amount of cropping)? If from a
    scan, what is the quality of the original and at what resolution did you do
    the scan? Obviously, less "information" in the image you are printing will
    give more "grain." I put the term grain in quotes as there was a LONG
    series of posts in which people were criticized for using the term grain for
    the dotty-ness of digital prints as grain originally referred to the
    appearance of silver halide particles in film emulsion. Let's not start
    that one again!!!
    >
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>>> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation,
    >>>> especially
    >>>> in
    >>>> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >>>> of
    >>>> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset
    >>>> my
    >>>> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings
    >>>> in
    >>>> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>>> Costco
    >>>> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went
    >>>> in
    >>>> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>>> also
    >>>> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>>> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as
    >>>> good
    >>>> as
    >>>> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >>>> for
    >>>> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >>>> You
    >>>> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments
    >>>> or,
    >>>> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >>>> find
    >>>> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>>> about this issue.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >>> reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >>> with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    >>> the
    >>> black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >>> intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors
    >>> you
    >>> have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >>> intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >>> desirable sometimes but not always).
    >>
    >> I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair
    >> skin
    >> and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    >> calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments
    >> look
    >> best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels
    >> and
    >> overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed
    >> too
    >> much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
    >> increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that
    >> this
    >> reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    >> I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity.
    >> Best
    >> to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
    >> get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.
    >>
    >> I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    >> with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the
    >> two
    >> paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
    >> much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be
    >> used
    >> from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    >> printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    >> side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    >> collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and
    >> 50
    >> to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    >> whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in
    >> batches
    >> as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My
    >> text
    >> printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the
    >> pigmented
    >> black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    >> printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    >> copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
    >> not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.
    >>
    >> Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the
    >> difference
    >> between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    >> shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
    >> you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive,
    >> and
    >> the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be
    >> imperceptable.
    >> Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    >> interesting information.
    >> http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I
    >> said,
    >> it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in
    >> most
    >> cases.
    >>
    >> When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested
    >> in
    >> reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    >> have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    >> conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    >>>>
    >>>> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM
    >>>> ink
    >>>> and
    >>>> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>>> difference
    >>>> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye
    >>>> they
    >>>> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and
    >>>> look
    >>>> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with
    >>>> no
    >>>> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >>>> this
    >>>> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>>> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>>>
    >>>> (snip)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 5/25/05 1:15 PM, in article
    U15le.1577$rY6.499@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >
    > "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    > news:BEBA203D.3A86%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 5/25/05 12:10 PM, in article
    >> k44le.1555$rY6.180@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>> On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >>>> U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >>>> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>>>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>>>> bunch
    >>>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my
    >>>>>>>> take:
    >>>>>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better
    >>>>>>>> photo
    >>>>>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's
    >>>>>>>> different
    >>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate.
    >>>>>>>> IP4000
    >>>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>>>> fortunately,
    >>>>>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting
    >>>>>>>> color
    >>>>>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard
    >>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>> tell
    >>>>>>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their
    >>>>>>> part
    >>>>>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That"
    >>>>>> being
    >>>>>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>>>>> I'm
    >>>>>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000
    >>>>>> better
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>>>> adjustments,
    >>>>>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>>>>> same
    >>>>>> in quality.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>>>> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>>>> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>>>> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >>>>> is
    >>>>> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >>>>> good
    >>>>> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>>>> mentioned
    >>>>> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I
    >>>>> did
    >>>>> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >>>>> many
    >>>>> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >>>>> dot
    >>>>> appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >>>> "dots" --4000,
    >>>> 5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but
    >>>> not
    >>>> visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like
    >>>> continuous
    >>>> tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >>>> amazing.
    >>>> Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >>>
    >>> The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    >>> other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    >>> still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color.
    >>> The
    >>> most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be
    >>> mixed
    >>> on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors
    >>> and
    >>> areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma
    >>> printer,
    >>> but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not
    >>> better,
    >>> than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer
    >>> (8
    >>> 1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    >>> side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    >>> printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his
    >>> opinion
    >>> was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One
    >>> man's
    >>> opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons
    >>> for
    >>> his opinion.
    >>
    >> Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good
    >> on
    >> grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was
    >> surprised
    >> at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they
    >> all
    >> do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.
    >
    > I don't recall which printer model he compared the I960 to. Go on to his
    > site and read all the sections. Interesting information. If he no longer
    > has the comparison photos on the site you can email him and he may either
    > direct you to a link or email them to you as an attachment. I can only
    > compare my printer to the one I used previously for photo printing, the
    > Epson Stylus 900. This came out before their Stylus Photo series and was a
    > dye based printer. When comparing prints with a loupe I was amazed to see
    > the "grain" in the Epson print. looked like a field of boulders compared to
    > the much newer Canon image. Of course, this was much older technology and
    > it is not fair to compare them. A couple of questions - It is my
    > understanding that most professional photographers and graphic designers use
    > the high end Epsons. What factors led you to purchase the Canon? Also,
    > what resolutions images are you printing? What MP rating on the camera, and
    > how much of the image are you printing (amount of cropping)? If from a
    > scan, what is the quality of the original and at what resolution did you do
    > the scan? Obviously, less "information" in the image you are printing will
    > give more "grain." I put the term grain in quotes as there was a LONG
    > series of posts in which people were criticized for using the term grain for
    > the dotty-ness of digital prints as grain originally referred to the
    > appearance of silver halide particles in film emulsion. Let's not start
    > that one again!!!

    Okay, I take that back about the grain. Right you are. I was referring to
    the "dottiness" of the printout. I just remembered that my boss has a 2200
    in his office -- I'm going to bring my loupe to work tomorrow and check on
    the dot factor of his printouts on a table lamp. Will let you know what I
    find.

    Regarding the Epsons, indeed most photographers and graphic designers choose
    the high-end Epson inkjets because of quality issues across the board (and
    this despite Epson's notorious clogging problem, so that should tell you
    something.) I myself am holding out for the newly released Epson 2400 ($849)
    but will only get it in the fall or early winter. I need a "good enough"
    printer in the meantime, something I can (and will continue) to use for
    proofing, testing, quick stuff, text files, etc. I chose the Canon because I
    didn't want to deal with clogging issues (but now I'm wondering whether I
    should have gotten the Epson R800 and stayed within the same printing
    environment of the more expensive item I will purchase later).

    I've used an HP895C until now -- which I loved -- but it's on its last gasp
    (I've had it for 6 years, it was a workhorse, never a problem, printed
    photos and graphics like gangbusters -- at the time it cost $399). So I'm
    not wed to Epson but the newer crop of midlevel HPs has not impressed me. On
    the high end, however, HP has come out with its DesignJet series (I hope I
    have the name right), and I've been hearing good things about it for
    professional use.

    As to resolution, I print anywhere from 240 to 300 dpi, never lower. My
    digital camera is way outdated (2 MP) (so some of the dot factor may be
    coming from there????) but I never print larger than 5 x7.


    >>
    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>>>> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation,
    >>>>> especially
    >>>>> in
    >>>>> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset
    >>>>> my
    >>>>> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings
    >>>>> in
    >>>>> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>>>> Costco
    >>>>> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went
    >>>>> in
    >>>>> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>>>> also
    >>>>> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>>>> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as
    >>>>> good
    >>>>> as
    >>>>> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >>>>> for
    >>>>> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >>>>> You
    >>>>> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments
    >>>>> or,
    >>>>> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >>>>> find
    >>>>> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>>>> about this issue.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >>>> reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >>>> with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    >>>> the
    >>>> black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >>>> intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors
    >>>> you
    >>>> have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >>>> intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >>>> desirable sometimes but not always).
    >>>
    >>> I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair
    >>> skin
    >>> and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    >>> calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments
    >>> look
    >>> best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels
    >>> and
    >>> overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed
    >>> too
    >>> much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
    >>> increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that
    >>> this
    >>> reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    >>> I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity.
    >>> Best
    >>> to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
    >>> get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.
    >>>
    >>> I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    >>> with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the
    >>> two
    >>> paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
    >>> much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be
    >>> used
    >>> from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    >>> printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    >>> side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    >>> collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and
    >>> 50
    >>> to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    >>> whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in
    >>> batches
    >>> as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My
    >>> text
    >>> printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the
    >>> pigmented
    >>> black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    >>> printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    >>> copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
    >>> not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.
    >>>
    >>> Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the
    >>> difference
    >>> between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    >>> shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
    >>> you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive,
    >>> and
    >>> the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be
    >>> imperceptable.
    >>> Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    >>> interesting information.
    >>> http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I
    >>> said,
    >>> it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in
    >>> most
    >>> cases.
    >>>
    >>> When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested
    >>> in
    >>> reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    >>> have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    >>> conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM
    >>>>> ink
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>>>> difference
    >>>>> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye
    >>>>> they
    >>>>> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and
    >>>>> look
    >>>>> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with
    >>>>> no
    >>>>> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >>>>> this
    >>>>> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>>>> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> (snip)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >
    >
    >>On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >>U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >><sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>>bunch
    >>>>>>of
    >>>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
    >>>>>>is
    >>>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>>>>tends
    >>>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>>tends
    >>>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>>fortunately,
    >>>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
    >>>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
    >>>>>>tell
    >>>>>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
    >>>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
    >>>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>>>I'm
    >>>>sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
    >>>>in
    >>>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>>adjustments,
    >>>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>>>same
    >>>>in quality.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>>absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>>Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>>bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >>>is
    >>>much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >>>good
    >>>printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>>mentioned
    >>>and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    >>>look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >>>many
    >>>areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >>>dot
    >>>appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >>"dots" --4000,
    >>5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    >>visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
    >>tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >>amazing.
    >>Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >>
    >>
    >
    >The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    >other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    >still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
    >most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
    >on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
    >areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
    >but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
    >than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
    >1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    >side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    >printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
    >was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
    >opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
    >his opinion.
    >
    >
    >>>I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>>experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially
    >>>in
    >>>the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >>>of
    >>>the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
    >>>color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    >>>some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>>Costco
    >>>Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
    >>>their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>>also
    >>>printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>>Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good
    >>>as
    >>>any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >>>for
    >>>fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >>>You
    >>>probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    >>>preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >>>find
    >>>some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>>about this issue.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >>reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >>with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    >>the
    >>black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >>intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
    >>have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >>intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >>desirable sometimes but not always).
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
    >and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    >calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments look
    >best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels and
    >overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed too
    >much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
    >increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that this
    >reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    >I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity. Best
    >to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
    >get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.
    >
    >I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    >with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the two
    >paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
    >much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be used
    >from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    >printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    >side.
    >

    It does indeed print slower for a one page document. It does delay
    flipping for the ink to dry but that time is controlled by the driver
    setting. If you print a 50 page document you have to print all of the
    odd pages and then flip and print all of the even pages or you can
    initiate print and go do something else and come back to a completed
    accurate print job. I have done that many times.

    I do not know what the limit of thickness is for the cassette tray. I
    think it is in the Canon manual. The nice thing abuut dual paper feed
    is I keep business document paper in the cassette and then load photo
    paper in the top autosheet feeder. This way the printer is always
    available on the network. The i960 does not have this versatility.

    > It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    >collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50
    >to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    >whole pile and run the second side.
    >

    You also have this option on your versatile IP5000.

    >Of course, it has to be done in batches
    >as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text
    >printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented
    >black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    >printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    >copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
    >not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.
    >
    >Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the difference
    >between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    >shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
    >you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive
    >

    I can understand that is your opinion but one never knows what another
    finds attractive.

    >, and
    >the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be imperceptable.
    >Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    >interesting information.
    >http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I said,
    >it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in most
    >cases.
    >
    >When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested in
    >reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    >have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    >conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    > >>
    >
    >
    >>>As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink
    >>>and
    >>>OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>>difference
    >>>than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
    >>>looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
    >>>for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    >>>problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >>>this
    >>>info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>>following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>(snip)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:8h5le.1584$rY6.827@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>
    >>>On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >>>U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >>><sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>>>bunch
    >>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
    >>>>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
    >>>>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's
    >>>>>>>different
    >>>>>>>is
    >>>>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
    >>>>>>>tends
    >>>>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
    >>>>>>>tends
    >>>>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>>>fortunately,
    >>>>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting
    >>>>>>>color
    >>>>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard
    >>>>>>>to
    >>>>>>>tell
    >>>>>>>which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
    >>>>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their
    >>>>>>part
    >>>>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That"
    >>>>>being
    >>>>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally,
    >>>>>I'm
    >>>>>sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000
    >>>>>better
    >>>>>in
    >>>>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>>>adjustments,
    >>>>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the
    >>>>>same
    >>>>>in quality.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>>>absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
    >>>>Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
    >>>>bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000
    >>>>is
    >>>>much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a
    >>>>good
    >>>>printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>>>mentioned
    >>>>and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
    >>>>look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and
    >>>>many
    >>>>areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone"
    >>>>dot
    >>>>appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>>>
    >>>Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >>>"dots" --4000,
    >>>5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
    >>>visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like
    >>>continuous
    >>>tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >>>amazing.
    >>>Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >>>
    >>
    >>The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
    >>other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
    >>still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
    >>most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
    >>on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors
    >>and areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma
    >>printer, but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if
    >>not better, than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best
    >>photo printer (8 1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line
    >>came out. He had side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site
    >>from several printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came
    >>out, his opinion was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had
    >>tested. One man's opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his
    >>tests or reasons for his opinion.
    >>
    >>>>I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>>>experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially
    >>>>in
    >>>>the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all
    >>>>of
    >>>>the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset
    >>>>my
    >>>>color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
    >>>>some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>>>Costco
    >>>>Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went
    >>>>in
    >>>>their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>>>also
    >>>>printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
    >>>>Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good
    >>>>as
    >>>>any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking
    >>>>for
    >>>>fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper.
    >>>>You
    >>>>probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
    >>>>preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can
    >>>>find
    >>>>some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
    >>>>about this issue.
    >>>>
    >>>Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >>>reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
    >>>with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
    >>>the
    >>>black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
    >>>intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors
    >>>you
    >>>have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >>>intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >>>desirable sometimes but not always).
    >>>
    >>
    >>I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
    >>and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    >>calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments
    >>look best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with
    >>levels and overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print
    >>still showed too much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the
    >>intensity in two unit increments until it looked right to me. You are
    >>right, however, that this reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a
    >>bit of a balancing act. I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with
    >>reduced intensity. Best to play with it and get the best print to your
    >>liking. After a while you get the feel for what might work best on any
    >>particular print.
    >>
    >>I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
    >>with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the
    >>two paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other
    >>media much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only
    >>be used from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that
    >>duplex printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the
    >>second side.
    >
    > It does indeed print slower for a one page document. It does delay
    > flipping for the ink to dry but that time is controlled by the driver
    > setting. If you print a 50 page document you have to print all of the odd
    > pages and then flip and print all of the even pages or you can initiate
    > print and go do something else and come back to a completed accurate print
    > job.

    Measekite - You just said, in your own words, what I stated in my original
    post - that the duplex feature is best used for double side printing in a
    multi-page collated document you wish to print on both sides. Obviously
    that would be even pages on one side and odd on the other. I also stated
    that I have no need for that feature, so the additional versatility is of no
    value to me.

    > I have done that many times.
    >
    > I do not know what the limit of thickness is for the cassette tray.

    If the Cassette try feed requires the paper to make a "U" turn, you would be
    well advised to NOT use it for heavier stock, photo paper, or envelopes. I
    don't care what the limit is in the manual.

    > I think it is in the Canon manual. The nice thing abuut dual paper feed
    > is I keep business document paper in the cassette and then load photo
    > paper in the top autosheet feeder.

    Here, again, I stated that I use an HP Laser printer for business documents.
    Much cheaper in the long run for black text documents than your use of OEM
    inks (unless you also require some color text or pictures intermixed with
    text) in the IP4000. You had mentioned that your programming printouts
    include some color text. Unless someone is using the printer for
    considerable text printing, the extra black pigmented cart is of no benefit.

    This way the printer is always
    > available on the network. The i960 does not have this versatility.

    The areas of versatility you mention are only valuable to someone who needs
    them. If I had them they would go unused as I use my inkjet printer solely
    for photo printing and graphics.

    >> It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page collated
    >> document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50 to 150
    >> copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the whole
    >> pile and run the second side.
    >
    > You also have this option on your versatile IP5000.

    Again, the added features are only of value if one wants them, needs them,
    or would find a use for them. I don't know what Ms. Feliz will be doing
    with her printer, but her questions were primarily directed to photo and
    fine arts graphic printing. None of the versatile features you mention are
    of value to her for those printing tasks.

    >
    >>Of course, it has to be done in batches as the feed area will not
    >>accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text printing is done on an
    >>HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented black used on the
    >>IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general printing with it. With
    >>dye based black ink on standard non-coated copy/printer paper her text
    >>printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm not sure how much better the
    >>pigmented black ink would be.
    >>
    >>Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the
    >>difference between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and
    >>yellow shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were
    >>to show you the prints individually you would regard them as equally
    >>attractive
    >>
    >
    > I can understand that is your opinion but one never knows what another
    > finds attractive.

    OK, then I should revise my statement to say that she would regard them as
    equally attractive or, perhaps, equally unattractive! Like that better,
    Measekite? Picky, Picky. What I am saying is that you would have
    difficulty telling which was printed with MIS and which with OEM inks on a
    side by side comparison. You know what I meant, but you always want to get
    the last word in.
    >
    >>, and the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be
    >>imperceptable. Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site
    >>for some interesting information.
    >>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I said,
    >>it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in
    >>most cases.
    >>
    >>When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested in
    >>reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
    >>have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    >>conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.
    >> >>
    >>
    >>>>As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink
    >>>>and
    >>>>OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>>>difference
    >>>>than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye
    >>>>they
    >>>>looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and
    >>>>look
    >>>>for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
    >>>>problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on
    >>>>this
    >>>>info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>>>following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>>
    >>>>(snip)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    news:BEBA380E.3A9D%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/25/05 1:15 PM, in article
    > U15le.1577$rY6.499@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    > <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BEBA203D.3A86%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 5/25/05 12:10 PM, in article
    >>> k44le.1555$rY6.180@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >>> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:BEB98220.EF03%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>> On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
    >>>>> U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
    >>>>> <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
    >>>>>>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
    >>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a
    >>>>>>>>> bunch
    >>>>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my
    >>>>>>>>> take:
    >>>>>>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better
    >>>>>>>>> photo
    >>>>>>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's
    >>>>>>>>> different
    >>>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate.
    >>>>>>>>> IP4000
    >>>>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark
    >>>>>>>>> but
    >>>>>>>>> tends
    >>>>>>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
    >>>>>>>>> fortunately,
    >>>>>>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting
    >>>>>>>>> color
    >>>>>>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's
    >>>>>>>>> hard
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> tell
    >>>>>>>>> which photo came from which printer.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000
    >>>>>>>> was
    >>>>>>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their
    >>>>>>>> part
    >>>>>>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
    >>>>>>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That"
    >>>>>>> being
    >>>>>>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said
    >>>>>>> (unintentionally,
    >>>>>>> I'm
    >>>>>>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000
    >>>>>>> better
    >>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require
    >>>>>>> adjustments,
    >>>>>>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> same
    >>>>>>> in quality.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
    >>>>>> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as
    >>>>>> Measekite.
    >>>>>> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support
    >>>>>> his
    >>>>>> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and
    >>>>>> IP5000
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> good
    >>>>>> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't
    >>>>>> mentioned
    >>>>>> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I
    >>>>>> did
    >>>>>> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> many
    >>>>>> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical
    >>>>>> "half-tone"
    >>>>>> dot
    >>>>>> appearance of inkjet printers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
    >>>>> "dots" --4000,
    >>>>> 5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but
    >>>>> not
    >>>>> visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like
    >>>>> continuous
    >>>>> tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
    >>>>> amazing.
    >>>>> Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
    >>>>
    >>>> The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky
    >>>> and
    >>>> other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots
    >>>> are
    >>>> still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color.
    >>>> The
    >>>> most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be
    >>>> mixed
    >>>> on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink
    >>>> colors
    >>>> and
    >>>> areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma
    >>>> printer,
    >>>> but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not
    >>>> better,
    >>>> than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer
    >>>> (8
    >>>> 1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
    >>>> side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
    >>>> printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his
    >>>> opinion
    >>>> was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One
    >>>> man's
    >>>> opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or
    >>>> reasons
    >>>> for
    >>>> his opinion.
    >>>
    >>> Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially
    >>> good
    >>> on
    >>> grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was
    >>> surprised
    >>> at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they
    >>> all
    >>> do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.
    >>
    >> I don't recall which printer model he compared the I960 to. Go on to his
    >> site and read all the sections. Interesting information. If he no
    >> longer
    >> has the comparison photos on the site you can email him and he may either
    >> direct you to a link or email them to you as an attachment. I can only
    >> compare my printer to the one I used previously for photo printing, the
    >> Epson Stylus 900. This came out before their Stylus Photo series and was
    >> a
    >> dye based printer. When comparing prints with a loupe I was amazed to
    >> see
    >> the "grain" in the Epson print. looked like a field of boulders compared
    >> to
    >> the much newer Canon image. Of course, this was much older technology
    >> and
    >> it is not fair to compare them. A couple of questions - It is my
    >> understanding that most professional photographers and graphic designers
    >> use
    >> the high end Epsons. What factors led you to purchase the Canon? Also,
    >> what resolutions images are you printing? What MP rating on the camera,
    >> and
    >> how much of the image are you printing (amount of cropping)? If from a
    >> scan, what is the quality of the original and at what resolution did you
    >> do
    >> the scan? Obviously, less "information" in the image you are printing
    >> will
    >> give more "grain." I put the term grain in quotes as there was a LONG
    >> series of posts in which people were criticized for using the term grain
    >> for
    >> the dotty-ness of digital prints as grain originally referred to the
    >> appearance of silver halide particles in film emulsion. Let's not start
    >> that one again!!!
    >
    > Okay, I take that back about the grain. Right you are. I was referring to
    > the "dottiness" of the printout. I just remembered that my boss has a 2200
    > in his office -- I'm going to bring my loupe to work tomorrow and check on
    > the dot factor of his printouts on a table lamp. Will let you know what I
    > find.
    >
    > Regarding the Epsons, indeed most photographers and graphic designers
    > choose
    > the high-end Epson inkjets because of quality issues across the board (and
    > this despite Epson's notorious clogging problem, so that should tell you
    > something.) I myself am holding out for the newly released Epson 2400
    > ($849)
    > but will only get it in the fall or early winter. I need a "good enough"
    > printer in the meantime, something I can (and will continue) to use for
    > proofing, testing, quick stuff, text files, etc. I chose the Canon because
    > I
    > didn't want to deal with clogging issues (but now I'm wondering whether I
    > should have gotten the Epson R800 and stayed within the same printing
    > environment of the more expensive item I will purchase later).
    >
    > I've used an HP895C until now -- which I loved -- but it's on its last
    > gasp
    > (I've had it for 6 years, it was a workhorse, never a problem, printed
    > photos and graphics like gangbusters -- at the time it cost $399). So I'm
    > not wed to Epson but the newer crop of midlevel HPs has not impressed me.
    > On
    > the high end, however, HP has come out with its DesignJet series (I hope I
    > have the name right), and I've been hearing good things about it for
    > professional use.
    >
    > As to resolution, I print anywhere from 240 to 300 dpi, never lower. My
    > digital camera is way outdated (2 MP) (so some of the dot factor may be
    > coming from there????) but I never print larger than 5 x7.

    5x7, uncropped, should be reasonably good. On my old epson printer the
    photo printing choice for me was 720 and 1440. Try at least 600 dpi on
    scans and see if there is a difference. You are probably suffering from the
    2MP image having less info to send to the printer. Also, if you are making
    changes in photoshop and sequentially saving those changes to jpg files you
    are losing data as well.

    The only problem with you plan would be if you basically abandoned the Canon
    and used in so infrequently that you would end up with some clogs from
    disuse! Also, Canon is coming out with pigmented ink printers soon from
    what I've read. Not sure I'd try the first one they put on the market,
    however, as Epson has had a chance to improve their pigment based printers
    over the years. Do as Arthur Entlich for his printhead cleaning information
    to have as a resource if you plan to get an epson. He updates it as the ink
    formulations change so you might want to follow up with requesting an update
    in the future if you buy a newer model.
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
    >>>>>> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation,
    >>>>>> especially
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading
    >>>>>> all
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I
    >>>>>> reset
    >>>>>> my
    >>>>>> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with
    >>>>>> Costco
    >>>>>> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I
    >>>>>> went
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I
    >>>>>> also
    >>>>>> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson
    >>>>>> Premium
    >>>>>> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as
    >>>>>> good
    >>>>>> as
    >>>>>> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were
    >>>>>> looking
    >>>>>> for
    >>>>>> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo
    >>>>>> paper.
    >>>>>> You
    >>>>>> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments
    >>>>>> or,
    >>>>>> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you
    >>>>>> can
    >>>>>> find
    >>>>>> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already
    >>>>>> learned
    >>>>>> about this issue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
    >>>>> reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come
    >>>>> up
    >>>>> with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to
    >>>>> reduce
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between
    >>>>> reducing
    >>>>> intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors
    >>>>> you
    >>>>> have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
    >>>>> intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
    >>>>> desirable sometimes but not always).
    >>>>
    >>>> I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair
    >>>> skin
    >>>> and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
    >>>> calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments
    >>>> look
    >>>> best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels
    >>>> and
    >>>> overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed
    >>>> too
    >>>> much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two
    >>>> unit
    >>>> increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that
    >>>> this
    >>>> reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
    >>>> I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity.
    >>>> Best
    >>>> to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while
    >>>> you
    >>>> get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.
    >>>>
    >>>> I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my
    >>>> posts
    >>>> with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the
    >>>> two
    >>>> paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other
    >>>> media
    >>>> much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be
    >>>> used
    >>>> from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
    >>>> printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
    >>>> side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
    >>>> collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and
    >>>> 50
    >>>> to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
    >>>> whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in
    >>>> batches
    >>>> as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My
    >>>> text
    >>>> printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the
    >>>> pigmented
    >>>> black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
    >>>> printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
    >>>> copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black.
    >>>> I'm
    >>>> not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.
    >>>>
    >>>> Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the
    >>>> difference
    >>>> between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
    >>>> shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to
    >>>> show
    >>>> you the prints individually you would regard them as equally
    >>>> attractive,
    >>>> and
    >>>> the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be
    >>>> imperceptable.
    >>>> Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
    >>>> interesting information.
    >>>> http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I
    >>>> said,
    >>>> it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in
    >>>> most
    >>>> cases.
    >>>>
    >>>> When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested
    >>>> in
    >>>> reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you,
    >>>> I
    >>>> have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
    >>>> conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the
    >>>> newsgroup.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM
    >>>>>> ink
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less
    >>>>>> difference
    >>>>>> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye
    >>>>>> they
    >>>>>> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and
    >>>>>> look
    >>>>>> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with
    >>>>>> no
    >>>>>> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing
    >>>>>> on
    >>>>>> this
    >>>>>> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
    >>>>>> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> (snip)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:eI6dnWvmneu6IQ7fRVnyig@eclipse.net.uk...
    > "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:1116977082.95025.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Derek
    >>
    >>
    >> I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
    >> next
    >> wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there
    >> was
    >> also no store pickup available,
    >> so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and
    >> get
    >> them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the
    >> sake
    >> of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website,
    >> even
    >> their own.
    >> So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
    >> there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but
    >> seem
    >> to have a way round it.
    >> He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
    >> for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there
    >> and
    >> then for £89.99.
    >>
    >> The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the
    >> store
    >> to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
    >> the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on
    >> top
    >> of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost
    >> a sale today.
    >>
    >> So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner :). Just set it all up but not printed
    >> anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > No. It's due Thursday. I wasn't in a big rush, my S630 still prints.
    >


    Came today as scheduled. Everything seems fine, though haven't tested the CD
    printing or duplex unit yet.

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

    Have you ever looked at a color photographic print with a loupe? It
    also has grain. In fact, it has double grain. The "grain" within the
    structure of the paper itself (actually dye clouds, but most people call
    them grains) and a second granular artifact from the film grain (or
    color dye clouds). Does that really matter? Our eyes cannot see most
    inkjet grain with current machines because the dots are just too small.
    You used a loupe to do it... is that how you plan on viewing your
    images? With a Loupe? If you look at a diamond closely enough you will
    find it's made up of carbon atoms.

    My point is just that you are better off evaluating your images at
    reasonable viewing distance, since that's how you are going to look at
    them. If your friends want to look at them with a loupe, fine. They
    will tell you that all your photos are is a bunch of abstracted colored
    dots! ;=)

    Art


    Sarah Feliz wrote:

    >

    >
    > Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good on
    > grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was surprised
    > at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they all
    > do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Peripherals