Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another anti Canon rant

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
June 22, 2005 3:31:31 AM

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

Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo Paper
Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
disappointing waste of paper and ink.
The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.

More about : anti canon rant

Anonymous
June 22, 2005 3:31:32 AM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.

Or perhaps your RAW images with Adobe RGB ColorSpace.
Perhaps maybe you should try using the Adobe RGB profile for images created
in such a manor.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 3:31:32 AM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>

I hate epson....I guess we all have our cross to bear :) 
Related resources
June 22, 2005 3:31:32 AM

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

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another
Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

Frank
June 22, 2005 3:31:32 AM

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

Odd!
I can achieve virtually the same results on an Epson R300 and a Canon S750.
However, both printers are optimized for conversion from sRGB, not Adobe
RGB. First, "standard reference" photos from several internet sites were
used to fine tune each printer using Epson premium glossy paper and Kodak
PP1-A and UPP-4A papers. A Q60 target and file were also used. On the
Epson, The Kodak papers needed gamma set to 1.5 Vivid Bright +5 and yellow
+5 as a start. Magenta may also need a bit of a boost, according to Kodak's
documentation.
Driver gamut conversion may be a problem for you. Raw format conversion also
introduces another variable.

At one point, I ended up discovering that windows, an application, and the
printer drivers were all applying a correction that assumed each was the
only color correction applied. What a mess!


"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:04:49 AM

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

birdman wrote:

>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
>Monaco system for the Canon printer using *Canon ink* and *Canon Photo Paper *
>Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
>then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>(?inadequate gamut), *the software (probably the biggest factor)* or both. I
>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>
>

Try the i9900

>
>
>
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:37:21 AM

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

Ricardo Morte wrote:

>"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
>>a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
>>Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
>>but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
>>printing.
>>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
>>space).
>>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>>(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
>>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I hate epson....I guess we all have our cross to bear :) 
>
>

I do not hate Epson. I just think that Canon is an all around better
printer for most people.

>
>
>
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:24:09 AM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:50:01 -0400, in comp.periphs.printers "PC Medic"
<not@home.com> wrote:


>Or perhaps your RAW images with Adobe RGB ColorSpace.
>Perhaps maybe you should try using the Adobe RGB profile for images created
>in such a manor.

RAW images have no color space. You assign the color space when you do the
raw conversion. The in camera selection of color space only effects jpgs.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:28:54 AM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:31:31 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "birdman"
<apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
>Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo Paper
>Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
>then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.

While you mention profiling the printer with the Monaco system, you make no
mention of calibrating your monitor. What software are you using to print
and where in the workflow are you using color management for the output,
printer driver or printing software?

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:29:53 AM

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

Frank wrote:

> birdman wrote:
>
> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
> another Canon.
>
> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
Good. I hope it gets clogged. You deserve it.
June 22, 2005 12:32:43 PM

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
> Good. I hope it gets clogged. You deserve it.

What a childish response. You're mentally deranged and very psychotic.
Get help and get lost.
idiot.
Frank
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:11:56 PM

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

LOL ... Which printer? Maybe it's bad? Have you called Canon? For
sure you're not double profiling?
June 23, 2005 12:49:45 AM

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

Frank wrote:

> birdman wrote:
>
> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another
> Canon.
>
> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>
I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected, the
B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than most.
IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:49:46 AM

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

frederick wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
> it been released when I was in the market.


Why? I thought the presence of a gloss optomizer would be an advantage
of the R1800.

> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
> Review is far from finished.
> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
June 23, 2005 12:49:46 AM

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

frederick wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
> it been released when I was in the market.
> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected, the
> B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
> Review is far from finished.
> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than most.
> IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.

Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very lacking. The epson
2400 look very promising.
Frank
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:49:47 AM

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

Frank wrote:

> frederick wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> birdman wrote:
>>>
>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>> another Canon.
>>>
>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>
>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>> Review is far from finished.
>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>
>
> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
> 2400 does not look very promising.
> Frank


I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
June 23, 2005 12:49:48 AM

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>> another Canon.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>
>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>> Review is far from finished.
>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
>> 2400 does not look very promising.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

Oh...so you've got one right?
Frank
June 23, 2005 12:55:08 AM

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

> Or display it, or use matte papers.

Or actually want to keep it around a while longer than typical dye.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:55:48 AM

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

In article <u1hue.163$go.37@fed1read05>, fb@nospam.com says...
> measekite wrote:
> > I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>
> Oh...so you've got one right?
> Frank
>
Even a parrot is right sometimes.
June 23, 2005 1:32:42 PM

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>> another Canon.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>
>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>> Review is far from finished.
>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
>> 2400 does not look very promising.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

????
If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other matte
media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you want gloss
colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On the contentious
dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have answered the question
themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide format pro printers.
Best value must take a user's needs into account.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:32:43 PM

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

frederick wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>>> another Canon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>>
>>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>>> Review is far from finished.
>>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
>>> epson 2400 does not look very promising.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>
>
> ????
> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
> format pro printers.
> Best value must take a user's needs into account.


The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
you intend to sell your print.
June 23, 2005 6:59:23 PM

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

OR --- even a broken clock is right twice a day.
"Irwin Peckinloomer" <semimoto@spamforYahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d240adb47e378c39896b5@news.aracnet.com...
> In article <u1hue.163$go.37@fed1read05>, fb@nospam.com says...
>> measekite wrote:
>> > I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>>
>> Oh...so you've got one right?
>> Frank
>>
> Even a parrot is right sometimes.
June 23, 2005 7:10:31 PM

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> frederick wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>>>> another Canon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>>>> Review is far from finished.
>>>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
>>>> epson 2400 does not look very promising.
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>>
>>
>>
>> ????
>> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>> format pro printers.
>> Best value must take a user's needs into account.
>
>
>
> The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
> you intend to sell your print.


Or display it, or use matte papers.
June 24, 2005 7:47:40 AM

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

> Heh - and a Canon rep told me that their iP9950 on PR 101 paper had 100
> year archival properties...

Are you talking about the army of Canon reps that are hitting the blogs
and message boards? Found one that's really pushing the Chromalife100
or some such this is reported to be stock on the pixus ip9910.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 8:06:45 AM

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

frederick wrote:

> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other matte
> media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you want gloss
> colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On the contentious
> dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have answered the question
> themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide format pro printers.
> Best value must take a user's needs into account.

Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 9:09:55 PM

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

measekite wrote:

> The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink
> printer is if you intend to sell your print.

Or print envelopes that have a chance of being readable after
getting wet.

John
June 24, 2005 10:13:53 PM

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

>> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>>> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>>> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>>> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>>> format pro printers.
>>> Best value must take a user's needs into account.

>> Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
>> the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.



> You are totally incorrect. The ip8500 and the i9900 do NOT use
> pigmented inks. Pigmented black used on plain paper are included with
> the IP4000/5000 Pixma Canon printers.

He was not talking about the ip8500 nor the ip9900 which "some" would
call "wide". He was refering to the "wide" as in things bigger than a
A3+(Super B). I know lots of people call the ip9900 wide, so I don't
blame you for being confused. I prefer the use of "wide" as refering
to things larger than standard paper, and even the ip9900 is just a tad
wider than legal is long, vs things that are plotter sized.

http://www.wide-format-printers.org/Canon_BJ-W9000widef...

Needless to say he was refering to the imagePROGRAF(tm) ink find on W
series printers, the really Wide ones.
June 24, 2005 11:04:09 PM

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

> I called Canon. I asked them what is the current model for a WIDE
> FORMAT PRINTER. They said the i9900.

I know, I don't blame you for being confused... where if you call epson
asking about wide printers, they tell you the current line is the
stylus pro 4800/7800/9800. They don't consider 13 inch to be wide
format at all. Either their consumer division is smart enough that we
yanks call a A3+ printer wide, or they don't know any better.

But the W in the wide format printers near as I'm aware stands for
Wide, rather than the ip9900 which still a desktop printer rather than
true wides which are well, either desks or need their own desk.

My rule of thumb is if it takes standard paper sizes length wise or
width wise, it's standard format... letter or legal. If it's bigger
than paper, it's wide format. One may also refer the wider desktop
printers as a3, a3+, super B, 13" wide to 15" wide (I can't remember
the inch equilivent to A3+ off the top of my head). Just like you'd
call a desktop printer a letter sized one, it resoves all confusing on
this *wide* issue thanks to Canon... the leaders in confusion. You can
take it, or leave it and call it what Canon calls it even though they
are dead wrong.
June 24, 2005 11:11:16 PM

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

> If one really is conerned about this just place a patch of scotch tape
> over the address. Big Deal.

You wouldn't say that if you had to deal with any form of bulk mailing.
Every extra step adds time and every extra little piece adds money.
Besides, anything more than light rain would get the paper wet, and
cause the ink under the tape to bleed. This is no fun. It's the main
reason I got a laser in the first place... I live in washington and
every other day my inkjet printed addresses would bleed. I e-mail more
than I did then, so it's not a big issue, and the HP wasn't "so" bad.

You should say just use windowed envelopes and no big deal, but those
cost ever so much more.
June 24, 2005 11:28:56 PM

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

> He's referring to "PROFESSIONAL" wide format printers. Not A3+.

The confusion is very natural. I see people from all walks of life use
the wrong term not just bottom tier minium wage flunkies.

My ruling on this issue that the it's Canon's fault and not measekite's
for putting on all their sales literature wide format ip printer. This
causes people esp their high paided sales reps to look like idiots.
June 25, 2005 12:36:01 AM

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

> Zake - Don't you think it would be most attractive to receive mail (
> personal, business, or otherwise) with a bit of scotch tape over the
> address? Should put one over the return address as well, I suppose.
> Wouldn't you consider the sender a real class act? Or as someone who gives
> questionable advice on this NG is fond of saying, the business is not
> professional.

If you *really* want to know what I think... I'd think it was winter in
Washington and they didn't want the ink to run, and they were out of
those clear postage labels.

I don't think a professional business would even consider using an
inkjet with a paper feed that can only fit 20 or so envelopes. But as
far as a small time operations go, esp cottage industries, and my only
choice was inkjet, i'd go with transparent shipping labels rather than
scotch tape over the addresses if it was an issue. I still have some
in my drawer somewhere but haven't thought about them in a while, not
since december. To me this would look better than white labels which
is actually the choice among many charitable organizations if not a
combo of white with a clear one on top.

But to each their own, but you're asking the wrong person...
June 25, 2005 1:57:35 AM

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

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>
> frederick wrote:
>
>> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>> format pro printers.
>> Best value must take a user's needs into account.
>
>
> Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
> the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

"The W8200 is a crowning achievement in wide format printing. Capable of
printing 44 inches by 18 metres it is available in either a dye or
pigment ink version. This means for the first time you have unrivalled
colour reproduction that will last."

Quoted from a Canon press release:
http://www.canon.co.nz/business/products/business/story...
(Don't expect to be able to buy one for home use unless you are prepared
to spend a lot)

Now the question is if as Canon say that they now have unrivalled colour
reproduction that will last, then what about their claims for their
consumer dye based inkjets?

The closest I have seen to a real life test for Canon Dye ink (for their
current BCI-6 ink set longevity was published by "PC Pro" and the result
of exposed and behind glass comparisons over only a few months was:
"Canon's photos simply don't last very long. The level of fade is
substantially higher than seen elsewhere and being sealed in a photo
frame did little to help. This was even the case for ink/paper
combinations using its best PR-101 paper and is enough alone to steer
people right away from Canon's top-end photo printers. Uniquely, using
Ilford and even HP's top papers seemed to improve fade resistance (as
well as reduce cost)."
and:
"Epson's R800 is a clear winner due to its overall performance with a
variety of papers, not just the manufacturer's recommended options. It's
impressive enough that ink didn't fade at all (naked or behind glass) on
Epson's Premium Glossy Photo Paper, but it didn't fade on anyone else's
paper either."
("PC Pro", Issue 124)

OK - a few months doesn't mean that they will last 3 years - but they
last a hell of lot longer than Canon prints.

Heh - and a Canon rep told me that their iP9950 on PR 101 paper had 100
year archival properties...
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:01:47 AM

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

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>
>
> frederick wrote:
>
>> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>> format pro printers.
>> Best value must take a user's needs into account.
>
>
> Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
> the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.
>
> Gary Eickmeier


You are totally incorrect. The ip8500 and the i9900 do NOT use
pigmented inks. Pigmented black used on plain paper are included with
the IP4000/5000 Pixma Canon printers.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:08:56 AM

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

John Henderson wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink
>>printer is if you intend to sell your print.
>>
>>
>
>Or print envelopes that have a chance of being readable after
>getting wet.
>
>John
>
>

You are TOTALLY INCORRECT. Look at my words - "PIGMENTED PRINTER"

I have a Canon IP4000 dye based printer. It does have an extra black
pigmented cartridge that is used when plain paper is selected. This is
what you can use to print envelopes with.

The Epson R800/1800 is considered to be a pigmented printer. It does
not use dye inks at all.
June 25, 2005 2:19:48 AM

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

> Only commenting on the suggestion to put scotch tape over dye based
> adresses. Not the most attractive approach.

Agreed, but if the laser is on the fritz, and you got bills to send
out, and you ran out of those nice clear address labels... well scotch
time will do you. Though.... offices I know personaly borrow the clear
packing tape from the shipping department in this event, cussing under
their breath "stupid laser printer *rip* slap". That typical scotch
tape, the thin stuff just doesn't go very far... about 90 envelopes
assuming your letter head is on the return address....otherwise about
70. That 2 inch inch wide stuff more will cover 3000 or 4000.
June 25, 2005 2:28:41 AM

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>He's referring to "PROFESSIONAL" wide format printers. Not A3+.
>
>
> The confusion is very natural. I see people from all walks of life use
> the wrong term not just bottom tier minium wage flunkies.
>
> My ruling on this issue that the it's Canon's fault and not measekite's
> for putting on all their sales literature wide format ip printer. This
> causes people esp their high paided sales reps to look like idiots.
>

Maybe you too missed the posting by fredrick:

"The W8200 is a crowning achievement in wide format printing. Capable of
printing 44 inches by 18 metres it is available in either a dye or
pigment ink version. This means for the first time you have unrivalled
colour reproduction that will last."

Although is's nice to see someone standing up for mesershit as he needs
all the support he can get.

Frank
June 25, 2005 2:53:47 AM

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

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:Yv%ue.3524$Bx6.2019@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> John Henderson wrote:
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink
>>>printer is if you intend to sell your print.
>>>
>>
>>Or print envelopes that have a chance of being readable after
>>getting wet.
>>
>>John
>>
>
> You are TOTALLY INCORRECT. Look at my words - "PIGMENTED PRINTER"
>
> I have a Canon IP4000 dye based printer. It does have an extra black
> pigmented cartridge that is used when plain paper is selected. This is
> what you can use to print envelopes with.

Unless you want to print envelopes with color ink, in which case John
Henderson is absolutely correct and :"you are TOTALLY INCORRECT" (direct
Measekite quote.)

A more temperate suggestion from you would be - I have a Canon IP4000 dye
based printer. It does have an extra black pigmented cartridge that is
used when plain paper is selected. This is what you can use to print
envelopes with IF YOU WISH TO PRINT THEM IN BLACK INK. You change my
messages in an effort to make me look stupid. Since you regard me as the
Holy One, perhaps I should change your messages to correct your errors and
mean-spirited statements so you won't look so supid and opinionated.

You could have left out the TOTALLY INCORRECT reference on two counts: 1)
no need to criticize or chastise someone who is trying to help the OP and 2)
you were partially in error yourself. Many people buy Epson printers
because they have read evaluations of dye vs. pigmented inks and just want
their prints to last as long as possible. These printers are not only
people who wish to sell their prints.
>
> The Epson R800/1800 is considered to be a pigmented printer. It does not
> use dye inks at all.

The Epson R800/1800 is not "considered to be a pigmented printer," it IS a
pigmented printer.
June 25, 2005 3:28:31 AM

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

> You are suggesting it as a stop-gap measure to cover your butt when plan A
>doesn't work and not the way you would set up your addressing task for the
> long haul. Choice #1 laser, choice #2 pigment based inkjet, choice #3 dye
>based inkjet with scotch tape, choice #4 ball point pen?

Total stopgap measure, otherwise it's tacky as sin. 2 inch wide stuff
cut squarely isn't *as* bad. Though I have seen masking tape used in
one case. That's tacky too but gets inovation points as they were
nicely trimmed, and actually it was from a painter.

But needless to say my order of preference would be similar to yours

1 laser network copier
2 pigment inkjet
3 envelopes with window (very popular if a tad spendy)
4 inkjet with clear label on top / white label clear on top (this looks
smooth to me)
5. inkjet / inkjet white labels inkjet directly
6. typewriter (usually next to the copier gathering dust, time
consuming)
7. Plotter
8. pen
9. sharpy
10. clear tape
11. masking tape label (saw a blue one from a painter, but I think that
was intended)
12. crayon


> Choice #5 email, #6 telephone. :-)

Some to think about it, I don't see clear tape ontop of labels as often
as I once did, because my isp bills via e-mail.
June 25, 2005 3:43:03 AM

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

> Maybe you too missed the posting by fredrick:

Not at all... canon sales and marketing their a3+ wide printers wide
format and their pro wide printers "large format". I thought pointing
out the W was good for clairity which is what they are called except by
their marketing department.

> Although is's nice to see someone standing up for mesershit as he needs
> all the support he can get.

It wasn't so much standing up for measekite but rather putting the
blame where it belongs, with canon marketing who screwed up and decided
"Large Format" was a better term for their W (wide format) series
making a whole generation of sales managers look stupid.... which well
may not be a bad thing, except for photographers who are excited and
call asking about landscape cameras.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Product...
June 25, 2005 3:53:53 AM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>>Maybe you too missed the posting by fredrick:
>
>
> Not at all... canon sales and marketing their a3+ wide printers wide
> format and their pro wide printers "large format". I thought pointing
> out the W was good for clairity which is what they are called except by
> their marketing department.
>
>
>> Although is's nice to see someone standing up for mesershit as he needs
>> all the support he can get.
>
>
> It wasn't so much standing up for measekite but rather putting the
> blame where it belongs, with canon marketing who screwed up and decided
> "Large Format" was a better term for their W (wide format) series
> making a whole generation of sales managers look stupid.... which well
> may not be a bad thing, except for photographers who are excited and
> call asking about landscape cameras.
>
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Product...
>
It was the reference to "wide format" and "pigment inks" in fredricks
post I was referring to. Nothing to do with canon reps until mesershit
brought them into the discussion because no one had, beforehand made
reference to them.
Frank
June 25, 2005 4:24:55 AM

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

> Zake - this is beyond confusion. It is childish arrogance and boorish
> behavior.

Actually I come to expect this form anyone who has an MBA, or plays for
the NBA.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:39:04 AM

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>>If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>>>matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>>>
>>>
>>>>want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>>>>the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>>>>answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>>>>format pro printers.
>>>>Best value must take a user's needs into account.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
>>>the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>You are totally incorrect. The ip8500 and the i9900 do NOT use
>>pigmented inks. Pigmented black used on plain paper are included with
>>the IP4000/5000 Pixma Canon printers.
>>
>>
>
>He was not talking about the ip8500 nor the ip9900 which "some" would
>call "wide". He was refering to the "wide" as in things bigger than a
>A3+(Super B). I know lots of people call the ip9900 wide, so I don't
>blame you for being confused.
>

I called Canon. I asked them what is the current model for a WIDE
FORMAT PRINTER. They said the i9900.


>I prefer the use of "wide" as refering
>to things larger than standard paper, and even the ip9900 is just a tad
>wider than legal is long, vs things that are plotter sized.
>
>http://www.wide-format-printers.org/Canon_BJ-W9000widef...
>
>Needless to say he was refering to the imagePROGRAF(tm) ink find on W
>series printers, the really Wide ones.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 6:33:56 AM

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

birdman wrote:
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
> Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo Paper
> Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
> then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>
>

Is your monitor calibrated? With my Canon i960 I get prints that look
exactly like what I see on the monitor. Mis ink and Red river paper.
June 25, 2005 7:05:02 AM

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

Zake - Don't you think it would be most attractive to receive mail (
personal, business, or otherwise) with a bit of scotch tape over the
address? Should put one over the return address as well, I suppose.
Wouldn't you consider the sender a real class act? Or as someone who gives
questionable advice on this NG is fond of saying, the business is not
professional.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119665476.332370.35650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> If one really is conerned about this just place a patch of scotch tape
>> over the address. Big Deal.
>
> You wouldn't say that if you had to deal with any form of bulk mailing.
> Every extra step adds time and every extra little piece adds money.
> Besides, anything more than light rain would get the paper wet, and
> cause the ink under the tape to bleed. This is no fun. It's the main
> reason I got a laser in the first place... I live in washington and
> every other day my inkjet printed addresses would bleed. I e-mail more
> than I did then, so it's not a big issue, and the HP wasn't "so" bad.
>
> You should say just use windowed envelopes and no big deal, but those
> cost ever so much more.
>
June 25, 2005 7:20:24 AM

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

Zake - your are extremely kind in saying you don't blame Measekite for being
confused. When you pointed out that you were describing printers that were
not in their consumer division and that the units using pigmented inks are
really "wide" format commercial units he should have been adult enough to
thank you for pointing out that Canon, contrary to his statement, does make
printers that use pigment based inks (beyond the bci-3 carts in his
printer). The fact is that his experience, like most of us on this NG, is
limited to consumer units. Instead of being so adamant, defensive, and
combative, it would be to his benefit to have an open mind and learn from
someone like you who's experience is broader than his. It would benefit
everyone in the NG if he would accept that someone with experience in an
area in which he has no personal knowledge can know something that he does
not. Zake - this is beyond confusion. It is childish arrogance and boorish
behavior.
..
"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119665049.395742.94020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I called Canon. I asked them what is the current model for a WIDE
>> FORMAT PRINTER. They said the i9900.
>
> I know, I don't blame you for being confused... where if you call epson
> asking about wide printers, they tell you the current line is the
> stylus pro 4800/7800/9800. They don't consider 13 inch to be wide
> format at all. Either their consumer division is smart enough that we
> yanks call a A3+ printer wide, or they don't know any better.
>
> But the W in the wide format printers near as I'm aware stands for
> Wide, rather than the ip9900 which still a desktop printer rather than
> true wides which are well, either desks or need their own desk.
>
> My rule of thumb is if it takes standard paper sizes length wise or
> width wise, it's standard format... letter or legal. If it's bigger
> than paper, it's wide format. One may also refer the wider desktop
> printers as a3, a3+, super B, 13" wide to 15" wide (I can't remember
> the inch equilivent to A3+ off the top of my head). Just like you'd
> call a desktop printer a letter sized one, it resoves all confusing on
> this *wide* issue thanks to Canon... the leaders in confusion. You can
> take it, or leave it and call it what Canon calls it even though they
> are dead wrong.
>
June 25, 2005 7:23:34 AM

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

Rod - i960, MIS ink, Costco paper, and my prints are also what I see on the
monitor. I sometimes reduce Magenta if the subject's face is more on the
red side, but otherwise, no adjustments.

"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:o o3ve.55$fM6.18@trndny04...
> birdman wrote:
>> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
>> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
>> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling
>> equipment but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of
>> the printer, hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality
>> oriented printing.
>> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
>> space).
>> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium
>> Glossy Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more
>> accurate contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both.
>> I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another
>> Canon.
>
> Is your monitor calibrated? With my Canon i960 I get prints that look
> exactly like what I see on the monitor. Mis ink and Red river paper.
June 25, 2005 7:43:08 AM

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

Only commenting on the suggestion to put scotch tape over dye based
adresses. Not the most attractive approach.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119670561.588243.228060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Zake - Don't you think it would be most attractive to receive mail (
>> personal, business, or otherwise) with a bit of scotch tape over the
>> address? Should put one over the return address as well, I suppose.
>> Wouldn't you consider the sender a real class act? Or as someone who
>> gives
>> questionable advice on this NG is fond of saying, the business is not
>> professional.
>
> If you *really* want to know what I think... I'd think it was winter in
> Washington and they didn't want the ink to run, and they were out of
> those clear postage labels.
>
> I don't think a professional business would even consider using an
> inkjet with a paper feed that can only fit 20 or so envelopes. But as
> far as a small time operations go, esp cottage industries, and my only
> choice was inkjet, i'd go with transparent shipping labels rather than
> scotch tape over the addresses if it was an issue. I still have some
> in my drawer somewhere but haven't thought about them in a while, not
> since december. To me this would look better than white labels which
> is actually the choice among many charitable organizations if not a
> combo of white with a clear one on top.
>
> But to each their own, but you're asking the wrong person...
>
June 25, 2005 9:38:47 AM

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

You are suggesting it as a stop-gap measure to cover your butt when plan A
doesn't work and not the way you would set up your addressing task for the
long haul. Choice #1 laser, choice #2 pigment based inkjet, choice #3 dye
based inkjet with scotch tape, choice #4 ball point pen?

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119676788.342051.148280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Only commenting on the suggestion to put scotch tape over dye based
>> adresses. Not the most attractive approach.
>
> Agreed, but if the laser is on the fritz, and you got bills to send
> out, and you ran out of those nice clear address labels... well scotch
> time will do you. Though.... offices I know personaly borrow the clear
> packing tape from the shipping department in this event, cussing under
> their breath "stupid laser printer *rip* slap". That typical scotch
> tape, the thin stuff just doesn't go very far... about 90 envelopes
> assuming your letter head is on the return address....otherwise about
> 70. That 2 inch inch wide stuff more will cover 3000 or 4000.
>
June 25, 2005 9:38:48 AM

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

Burt wrote:
> You are suggesting it as a stop-gap measure to cover your butt when plan A
> doesn't work and not the way you would set up your addressing task for the
> long haul. Choice #1 laser, choice #2 pigment based inkjet, choice #3 dye
> based inkjet with scotch tape, choice #4 ball point pen?
>
> "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119676788.342051.148280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>Only commenting on the suggestion to put scotch tape over dye based
>>>adresses. Not the most attractive approach.
>>
>>Agreed, but if the laser is on the fritz, and you got bills to send
>>out, and you ran out of those nice clear address labels... well scotch
>>time will do you. Though.... offices I know personaly borrow the clear
>>packing tape from the shipping department in this event, cussing under
>>their breath "stupid laser printer *rip* slap". That typical scotch
>>tape, the thin stuff just doesn't go very far... about 90 envelopes
>>assuming your letter head is on the return address....otherwise about
>>70. That 2 inch inch wide stuff more will cover 3000 or 4000.
>>
>
>
>
Choice #5 email, #6 telephone. :-)
Frank
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 10:36:19 AM

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

Burt wrote:

>Zake - Don't you think it would be most attractive to receive mail (
>personal, business, or otherwise) with a bit of scotch tape over the
>address? Should put one over the return address as well, I suppose.
>Wouldn't you consider the sender a real class act? Or as someone who gives
>questionable advice on this NG is fond of saying, the business is not
>professional.
>
>

I think you should put a piece over you mouth and wrap another very
small piece around you very small dick. Then you should stick the
dispenser up your very big ass.

>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1119665476.332370.35650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>If one really is conerned about this just place a patch of scotch tape
>>>over the address. Big Deal.
>>>
>>>
>>You wouldn't say that if you had to deal with any form of bulk mailing.
>>Every extra step adds time and every extra little piece adds money.
>>Besides, anything more than light rain would get the paper wet, and
>>cause the ink under the tape to bleed. This is no fun. It's the main
>>reason I got a laser in the first place... I live in washington and
>>every other day my inkjet printed addresses would bleed. I e-mail more
>>than I did then, so it's not a big issue, and the HP wasn't "so" bad.
>>
>>You should say just use windowed envelopes and no big deal, but those
>>cost ever so much more.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
!