Printers

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

"John" <JF@comcast.net> writes:

> Is there any issue problems with the Canons I9900 printers as I have a
> chance to get one on sale but I do not want to make a mistake and whished I
> had gone with something else.

I see a lot of complaints that in some regions, prints from Canon printers have
a short lifetime before they fade (on the order of a few months for some
people). Note the fading doesn't affect everybody, but those that have had to
deal with it complain very loudly. If you were going to print in situations
where the print was expected to last for many years, perhaps an Epson with
UltraChrome inks (R800, R1800, or R2200), or possibly an HP using certain
papers. If on the other hand, you want prints very quickly, and don't need the
permanence, then the Canon should be fine.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

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

In article <3cfo7tF6nsi66U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>> Is there any issue problems with the Canons I9900 printers as I have a
>> chance to get one on sale but I do not want to make a mistake and whished
>> I had gone with something else.

[ ... ]

>Some people will say that the print life is too short. I've had samples from
>an earlier canon printer that uses these same inks hanging on the wall for
>years and they still look great. If you use the right paper, I believe
>you'll get a good life from the prints. I know I have.

Just out of curiosity -- under what illumination are these
prints living? More UV light (from fluorescents or from daylight
straight through a window can fade dyes much more quickly. However,
low-level incandescent, or light which has to bounce a few times after
entering a window before it reaches the photo is a lot less of a
problem. I suspect that the variation in experience between users is a
function of the lighting conditions where they are hung.

[ ... ]

>It does seem unless you shoot with a canon dSLR and print with an epson
>printer you are "stupid" and get flamed on these groups.

Well ... I guess that makes me "half stupid", because I use a
Nikon (D70 currently), but I print with an Epson (actually picked up at
a hamfest as one of a batch of refurbished printers. So far, I have
been quite pleased with it -- other than it having only a USB port for
connecting to the computers. (It will accept flash cards, or other
media with PCMCIA adaptors, which is how I've been transferring
selected images to it.

I selected that printer based on viewing of samples printed by
the same model from various sources.

> Most of these
>coments come from people trying to be popular and they have zero experience
>with anything other than what the herd tells them to buy.

The purchase (of both) came from before I discovered this
newsgroup, and thus was able to discover what "the herd" was pushing. :-)
And given my collection of older Nikon glass, I am still certain that I
made the proper choice -- for *me*.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

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

"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote:

> Is there any issue problems with the Canons I9900 printers as I have a
> chance to get one on sale but I do not want to make a mistake and
> whished I had gone with something else.
>
>
>
>

Poor image life if exposed to even the smallest amounts of ozone when using
the BCE-6 inkset. Supposedly the BCE-7 set is better in this respect but
Canon only sells it in Japan. Not for Gaijin.

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

Bubbabob wrote:

> "John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Is there any issue problems with the Canons I9900 printers as I have a
>> chance to get one on sale but I do not want to make a mistake and
>> whished I had gone with something else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Poor image life if exposed to even the smallest amounts of ozone when
> using the BCE-6 inkset.

Is this from actual experience or just regurgitating what you've read
somewhere on line?

I have prints made several years ago from when the 8200 model first came out
and they look as good today as when they were printed. Print life from dye
based ink depends on large part on the type of paper it's printed on. I
believe the people complaining about short print life aren't using the
correct papers.

--

Stacey

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

John wrote:
> Is there any issue problems with the Canons I9900 printers as I have a
> chance to get one on sale but I do not want to make a mistake and whished I
> had gone with something else.
>
>
>
I have had mine since they came out. Outstanding picture quality but
occassional paper handling issues on larger formats then 4x6. About an
inch from the end of the print a line of overspray/underspary is
sometimes visible and even Canon has stated this is a paper handling
issue. To date they have not offered any advice to eliminate it. I have
via work-around...(using a peelable adhesive just like Post-it Notes I
attach another piece of paper to the end of the subject
paper..cumbersome but it works). I have not found ANY printer that can
better the picture itself.

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bubbabob wrote:

>> Poor image life if exposed to even the smallest amounts of ozone when
>> using the BCE-6 inkset.
>
> Is this from actual experience or just regurgitating what you've read
> somewhere on line?
>
> I have prints made several years ago from when the 8200 model first
> came out and they look as good today as when they were printed. Print
> life from dye based ink depends on large part on the type of paper
> it's printed on. I believe the people complaining about short print
> life aren't using the correct papers.
>

Actual experience on Canon Photo Pro and premium papers. I've had cyan
and black go completely orange in 6 weeks with no sunlight exposure and 8
hr/day low level fluorescents. Prints in envelopes lasted much longer. I
don't want to have to mount every print I want to hang under glass or
plastic.

FWIW, prints on Canon Matte (wretched, ugly paper) go purple instead of
orange.

It takes 6 weeks in my office and 12 weeks in my house, which has very
low level illumination. Pretty clearly a case of gas fading. My office is
in a building with poor air circulation and probably 100+ CRT monitors. I
imagine the ozone level is way past the human safety level (Funny,
because we're a medical school).

Stuff I printed on an Epson 1280 with Generations 4 inks still look like
the day I printed them 2-3 years ago.

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Have you estimated your per print cost, say for 8x10 or 8x12? (Not
> including the printer, just paper/ink over say 50 or more prints, and
> including the costs of throwaways).
>

I have, and that's why everything goes to CostCo now. Not to mention 70 yr
vs. 12 week print life.

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

Bubbabob wrote:


>
> I have, and that's why everything goes to CostCo now. Not to mention 70 yr
> vs. 12 week print life.


12 week print life? LOL!
--

Stacey

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

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> writes:

> The life of an inkjet print from a Canon printer is not limited by exposure
> to light as much as exposure to the atmosphere itself. One really unique
> facet of what happens when you pay someone to "independently" assess print
> life is that they only assess the criteria they are paid for. Pretty simple
> when you think about it.
>
> The estimated life of a Canon inkjet print is calculated on whatever process
> Canon paid Wilhelm to use... Exposure to light. The fact that Canon's dye
> inks on ceramic coated photo paper, evaporate off the paper and shift colour
> based on the elements in the atmosphere were never considered in the "25
> year life" now quoted for their prints. Talk about controversial processes.
> Canon's professional dye ink plotters (the really big ones) use laminate to
> seal the surface. Not practical for home use.

Canon doesn't get to specify the process; Wilhelm invents and defines
the process. That's why he's an *independent* testing lab.

Canon does, of course, get to try to game the process, just like
everybody else :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;

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

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news 3ugv6$b87$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...

>
>>Some people will say that the print life is too short. I've had samples
>>from
>>an earlier canon printer that uses these same inks hanging on the wall for
>>years and they still look great. If you use the right paper, I believe
>>you'll get a good life from the prints. I know I have.
>
> Just out of curiosity -- under what illumination are these
> prints living? More UV light (from fluorescents or from daylight
> straight through a window can fade dyes much more quickly. However,
> low-level incandescent, or light which has to bounce a few times after
> entering a window before it reaches the photo is a lot less of a
> problem. I suspect that the variation in experience between users is a
> function of the lighting conditions where they are hung.
>
> [ ... ]
>

FWIW.
The life of an inkjet print from a Canon printer is not limited by exposure
to light as much as exposure to the atmosphere itself. One really unique
facet of what happens when you pay someone to "independently" assess print
life is that they only assess the criteria they are paid for. Pretty simple
when you think about it.

The estimated life of a Canon inkjet print is calculated on whatever process
Canon paid Wilhelm to use... Exposure to light. The fact that Canon's dye
inks on ceramic coated photo paper, evaporate off the paper and shift colour
based on the elements in the atmosphere were never considered in the "25
year life" now quoted for their prints. Talk about controversial processes.
Canon's professional dye ink plotters (the really big ones) use laminate to
seal the surface. Not practical for home use.

One simple way to extend the life of Canon prints made on Photo paper is to
laminate them. This probably won't get you 25 years on display - more like a
year or two because Canon issue a warning about their prints which say you
should store them in a dark place, away from light!!! What is a photo for,
then?

If you leave their unprotected prints in the path of an air-conditioned or
exposed to the atmosphere from a kitchen or in a room often filled with
cigar smoke, even exposed to decaying electronics, the life before colour
shift and fade may well be measured in weeks.

There are some in this group who defend the industry's most controversial
life of prints tester. All of them have passed over the fact he is funded by
the very companies we are now discovering are using him to defend their
false advertising claims. If the life of an inkjet print were measured
against the known life of a photographic print, we'd all stop buying inkjet
printers.

Douglas