Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
zakezuke wrote:
>> You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have
>> Epson? Pigmented one?
>
> I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
> than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
> color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
> never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
> point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
> others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
> the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
> I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
> fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
> mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
> white type fading.
>
> It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
> anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
> are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
> should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well.
> I'm sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept
> test prints in the window in my car.
>
>> I mean it this way:
>> sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper
>> costs triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used
>> for printing, then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo
>> comes out at elast 4 times more expensive than if you send it to a
>> photo lab.
>
> What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head
> size looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so
> more print per stroke.
>
> I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
> expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
> is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
> cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
> printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
> them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
> in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
> costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
> size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
> but not a long box.
>
> I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
> which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.
i'm glad we come to agree. I never had any photo in direct sun, so i can't
say, but i do have a number of them in the room on the wall (not direct
sunlight) for a while now - some of them are still from my late i550 and
they are not visible faded, so i'm quite happy.
True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
this must help a bit...
There were times i used to think that color laser would do the trick, but
then i found out that they are not near as good as inkjets...damn...