Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Inkjet printers that use 4 inks

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

More about : inkjet printers inks

Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:06:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SimonLW wrote:
> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
> Thanks -S

If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.

Gary Eickmeier
May 5, 2005 6:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>
> SimonLW wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>> photos
>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>> Thanks -S
>
>
> If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
> will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
> every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
> whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
what looks good to the eye. I'm well satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer,
using a 3-color cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that occasionally,
I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>
> SimonLW wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>> photos
>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>> Thanks -S
>
>
> If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
> will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
> every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
> whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Oh, sure, I look at every print with a loupe, doesn't everyone? Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:08:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marvin wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> SimonLW wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>> photos
>>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>>> Thanks -S
>>
>>
>>
>> If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The
>> pix will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you
>> can see every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic
>> capability is whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and
> relatives, I'm happy with what looks good to the eye. I'm well
> satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer, using a 3-color
> cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that
> occasionally, I will take my file to a photo service that does a
> pro-level job - not a drugstore.

Yes, I also can see the dots from my HP printer with a strong magnifier,
in draft mode, at least, but the prints look darn good from normal
viewing distance. Like you, my friends and relatives probably wouldn't
know what a loupe was, much less examine a picture with one.
I believe it was Adam Osbourne who is known for the statement "Good
enough is good enough."


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:32:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>photos
> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
> Thanks -S

There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
experience...from about 4 days ago.
I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
about to learn a thing or two).

First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
system.

As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.

So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
a green and a red tank to the colour mix.

I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
with the 8500.

Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.

As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.

Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.

Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
already begun to fade.

HTH...didn't mean to write a novel.

WW
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:32:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WormWood wrote:
> "SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>photos
>>or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>>Thanks -S
>
>
> There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
> experience...from about 4 days ago.
> I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
> used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
> to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
> printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
> about to learn a thing or two).
>
> First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
> black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
> inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
> with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
> better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
> system.
>
> As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
> though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
> job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
> an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.
>
> So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
> Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
> money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
> a green and a red tank to the colour mix.
>
> I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
> opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
> additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
> when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
> quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
> surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
> leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
> x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
> the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
> towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
> won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
> nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
> expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
> look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
> the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
> red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
> was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
> edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
> the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
> grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
> as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
> with the 8500.
>
> Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
> 'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
> very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.
>
> As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
> thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.
>
> Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
> continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
> had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
> thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
> picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
> difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
> finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
> considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
> made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
> continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.
>
> Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
> after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
> for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
> about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
> worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
> about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
> printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
> already begun to fade.
>
> HTH...didn't mean to write a novel.
>
> WW
>
>
One of your points deserves more emphasis. These days with color
printing being a very competitive market, printer manufacturers are
making the ink, and paper a 'printing system', where they are designed
to work together, chemically. It is better to use the manufacturer's
paper when possible, or at least one recommended by them.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:50:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

IP4000 uses 4 dye base inks for photos (CYMK) and a separate pigmented
black tank for business documents. The printer also has twin paper
feeds and prints duplex. It is utterly fantastic. It can be had for
around $100 if you watch the sales and apply for the rebate.

I use the printer with OEM inks and either use Canon Photo Paper Pro or
Costco/Kirkland Glossy and cut my own small sized using a Fiskars rotary
paper cutter also purchased at Costco. The ink costs $9.00 a cart at
Costco.

SimonLW wrote:

>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
>or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>Thanks -S
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marvin wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> SimonLW wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for
>>> printing photos
>>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>>> Thanks -S
>>
>>
>>
>> If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The
>> pix will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you
>> can see every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic
>> capability is whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and
> relatives, I'm happy with what looks good to the eye. I'm well
> satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer, using a 3-color
> cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that
> occasionally, I will take my file to a photo service that does a
> pro-level job - not a drugstore.


I have an HP 990 and a Canon IP4000. I use and like the HP for business
draft printing. I like the Canon for Photo printing and business letter
quality printing that I plan to hilight since it does not smear. The HP
produces the best high quality business documents as long as you do not
hi Lite them. The IP4000 is fantastic.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:56:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>photos
> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
> Thanks -S

Use Photobox or similar for best cost/quality. Printing at home is expensive
and time consuming.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know nothing about Canon and it's print heads, but if they can be removed,
can't you soak in a warm ammonia solution to clear the clog. Worked for my
Lexmark, although it was still a lousy printer which I finally junked and
never replaced.
Dave Cohen

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z8see.2669$5o2.1550@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> IP4000 uses 4 dye base inks for photos (CYMK) and a separate pigmented
> black tank for business documents. The printer also has twin paper feeds
> and prints duplex. It is utterly fantastic. It can be had for around
> $100 if you watch the sales and apply for the rebate.
>
> I use the printer with OEM inks and either use Canon Photo Paper Pro or
> Costco/Kirkland Glossy and cut my own small sized using a Fiskars rotary
> paper cutter also purchased at Costco. The ink costs $9.00 a cart at
> Costco.
>
> SimonLW wrote:
>
>>I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>photos
>>or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>>Thanks -S
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:00:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WormWood wrote:

> There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
> experience...from about 4 days ago.
> I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
> used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
> to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
> printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
> about to learn a thing or two).
>
> First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
> black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
> inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
> with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
> better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
> system.
>
> As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
> though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
> job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
> an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.
>
> So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
> Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
> money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
> a green and a red tank to the colour mix.
>
> I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
> opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
> additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
> when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
> quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
> surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
> leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
> x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
> the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
> towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
> won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
> nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
> expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
> look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
> the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
> red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
> was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
> edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
> the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
> grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
> as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
> with the 8500.
>
> Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
> 'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
> very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.
>
> As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
> thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.
>
> Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
> continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
> had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
> thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
> picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
> difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
> finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
> considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
> made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
> continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.
>
> Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
> after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
> for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
> about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
> worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
> about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
> printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
> already begun to fade.

Agreed - my 8500 replaced an i950, and I thought the difference was
amazing. The color is rich, gorgeous, and very accurate, every nuance of
subtle shade change coming out in the print and matching the screen
well. Sharp, rich, and very photographic.

Gary Eickmeier
May 5, 2005 11:04:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <117kceutbk8aj7c@corp.supernews.com>,
Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:

>Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
>what looks good to the eye.

Here's the problem with that. If I can see it with a loupe, I can see
it with my eye, generally speaking. The output of the cheap printer
will only look good until the new wears off. You will see the dot
pattern in the prints, and you won't need a loupe.

>I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.

This turns out to be cost-effective, compared to printer ink. And my
local drugstore prints are not bad.
May 6, 2005 12:10:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:


> One of your points deserves more emphasis. These days with color
> printing being a very competitive market, printer manufacturers are
> making the ink, and paper a 'printing system', where they are designed
> to work together, chemically. It is better to use the manufacturer's
> paper when possible, or at least one recommended by them.
>


Paper choice is important but I feel there can be papers that work better if
you use the right profile with them as well. I was using the canon "photo
pro" paper and switched to ilfords "classic pearl" which is designed for
dye inks and got a custom profile made, this combo blows away the canon
paper and is less than half the price per sheet!

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:57:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I have an HP 990 and a Canon IP4000. I use and like the HP for business
> draft printing. I like the Canon for Photo printing and business letter
> quality printing that I plan to hilight since it does not smear. The HP
> produces the best high quality business documents as long as you do not hi
> Lite them. The IP4000 is fantastic.

My iP 3000is also fantastic and would fill your needs A4 prints are very
good..
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:18:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l9vee.33179$Ow2.6855@fe06.lga...

Snippage

> One of your points deserves more emphasis. These days with color printing
> being a very competitive market, printer manufacturers are making the ink,
> and paper a 'printing system', where they are designed to work together,
> chemically. It is better to use the manufacturer's paper when possible,
> or at least one recommended by them.
>

Thanks for emphasizing that point, Ron, because it is significant. Just
prior to actually buying my iP8500 I took the samples we'd printed, to my
sister's place. My sister is probably one of the world's least technically
savvy people, so I was extremely surprised by what happened. I showed her
these prints and in about 15 seconds she had them arranged in order of
quality

1. iP8500 quality setting
2. iP6000D quality setting
3. iP8500 standard setting

The difference between 2 and 3 is very small, but it is there, and she
spotted it immediately. She then went on to explain what she liked or didn't
like about each print. Her comments were bang on.

On the following two days I went to her condo, while she was at work, and
left a different printed photo of her cat. These were both mounted under
glass. Both were printed with my 8500 using Canon inks, but the first was
printed on Epson glossy photo paper and the second on Canon Photo Paper Pro.
She phoned on the evening of the second day to thank me for the second
picture, and then totally surprised me by saying, "This one's printed on the
Canon paper isn't it". She then waxed poetic about the level of detail
visible inside the cat's ear, about how you could see each hair.

My point here is twofold. The combo of manufactuer's ink and paper is not
just hype...it does make a difference...obviously one visible to untrained
eyes. Secondly, I think we 'technically savvy' people often underestimate
our friends and relatives. I agree...show them pictures printed on one of
today's entry level printers and they will "ooooh" and "ahhhhhh", and why
not, these printers do do an incredible job. BUT...then show them the same
picture printed on a high-end printer, and they will notice, and
appreciate, the difference. We should not underestimate our audience....some
of them might be paying customers, after all.

WW
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:14:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <117kceutbk8aj7c@corp.supernews.com>,
> Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
>>what looks good to the eye.
>
>
> Here's the problem with that. If I can see it with a loupe, I can see
> it with my eye, generally speaking. The output of the cheap printer
> will only look good until the new wears off. You will see the dot
> pattern in the prints, and you won't need a loupe.
>
>
>>I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.
>
>
> This turns out to be cost-effective, compared to printer ink. And my
> local drugstore prints are not bad.
>
>
You are a very lucky person. Without my glasses, I can't tell what a
picture IS, much less see those tiny dots. Wait a few years, the
printers will get better, or your eyes worse, and you will be happy.. Grin.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:26:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 15:08:35 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I believe it was Adam Osbourne who is known for the statement
> "Good enough is good enough."

I don't know if it was Adam that said that, but did you ever see
his Microprocessor Handbooks? Despite having a number of typos it
was much more than good enough. Some of the different CPU
architectures were fascinating, one of which was RCA's COSMOS, a
4-bit CPU I believe, and TI's 99000 (not sure if I spelled this one
correctly but it's close enough).
May 6, 2005 9:40:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <raCee.39997$QR1.6566@fe04.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>james wrote:
>> In article <117kceutbk8aj7c@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
>>>what looks good to the eye.
>>
>>
>> Here's the problem with that. If I can see it with a loupe, I can see
>> it with my eye, generally speaking. The output of the cheap printer
>> will only look good until the new wears off. You will see the dot
>> pattern in the prints, and you won't need a loupe.
>>
>>
>>>I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.
>>
>>
>> This turns out to be cost-effective, compared to printer ink. And my
>> local drugstore prints are not bad.
>>
>>
>You are a very lucky person.

Actually I have pretty severe myopia. I can't read microprint on
checks, but I can discern it easily, and under the right conditions,
I think I *might* be able to read it. Fine detail is no problem for
close work (I mean, fibers in paper, fabric, etc., I was real good at
negative spotting back in the day), that sort of thing is no problem,
but past a foot or so from my nose, it's all bokeh without my glasses.
Nice thing is, no astigmatism or other aberrations, so with my glasses,
I can out-spot people who are much younger with supposedly perfect
vision (unscientifically tested, being able to read signs that others
can't even make out letters on, shooting rifle targets at 50', etc.)


The reason I mentioned this in the thread, was because yesterday morning
I printed a photo, and was looking at it on my desk, and suddenly
realized just how well I could make out the dottiness of the print.
That was the best my 6-color HP can do, and it's much better than
magazine halftone or whatever you call it nowadays, but, certainly
without the continuity that I would expect from the cheapest drugstore
print. OTOH, the color and contrast are excellent on these prints, and
I'm not really complaining. But if I can do better, even a much more
expensive printer would be a good value, since the money is really in
the ink.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <427a204d$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "SimonLW" <anon@anon.com>
wrote:

> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
> Thanks -S

Take a look at the Canon 4 colour printers. They do produce excellently.
If you're gonna take a loupe to every photo you see, try it on film
based prints too.

Quality depends on viewing distance - Does an A3 print look good from 6
inches? If yes, it's a great picture.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:22:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Even better, if you have a cheap stereo that will start to sound great too!!
Dave Cohen

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:raCee.39997$QR1.6566@fe04.lga...
> james wrote:
>> In article <117kceutbk8aj7c@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and
>>>relatives, I'm happy with what looks good to the eye.
>>
>>
>> Here's the problem with that. If I can see it with a loupe, I can see
>> it with my eye, generally speaking. The output of the cheap printer
>> will only look good until the new wears off. You will see the dot
>> pattern in the prints, and you won't need a loupe.
>>>I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a
>>>drugstore.
>>
>>
>> This turns out to be cost-effective, compared to printer ink. And my
>> local drugstore prints are not bad.
>>
>>
> You are a very lucky person. Without my glasses, I can't tell what a
> picture IS, much less see those tiny dots. Wait a few years, the printers
> will get better, or your eyes worse, and you will be happy.. Grin.
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jean wrote:

> When I bought my i950, they wanted to sell me an "extended warranty" but it
> did not cover the heads so that was not a good option. Good to see you
> could make good use of their warranty and you may be right, the heads have a
> finite life which may be just long enough to go past the original
> manufacturer's warranty period. Even so, I am done with good printers, now
> I buy cheap, if it dies, I junk it and get another one.

Actually, I am a basically honest fellow, but if I weren't, I could get
my printer replaced every two years regardless, with these warranties.
There were no questions asked.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:19:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:47:03 -0400, Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net>
wrote:

>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>
>> SimonLW wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
>>> photos
>>> or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
>>> Thanks -S
>>
>>
>> If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
>> will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
>> every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
>> whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
>Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
>what looks good to the eye.

Thanks for the time trip. Twenty years ago, someone criticised
a new electrostatic plotter we were evaluating (to allow 8-1/2 x 11
prints instead of 11 x 17 impact prints) for exactly that reason.
Someone asked how long it had been since the other guy had read a core
dump with a magnifying glass.

Funny thing is that no one was ever bothered by the obvious
fabric dots in he impact prints.

> I'm well satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer,
>using a 3-color cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that occasionally,
>I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.
!