Overall reddish prints
in [Printers]
|
Prev: HP Laserjet 1012: very annoying "Unsupported Personnality" problem!
Next: Help - looking for reset commands for Canon MP390
From: measekite on 27 Jun 2005 21:49 zakezuke wrote: >> I tested these two papers, glossy Canon photopapers, and HP glossy papers >>with ip4000 under the similar conditions. I do not have professional >>eyballs but to my untrained, nake eyes, all came out to be very nice. But >>prints made at Costco seems to be slightly sharper than others. But I like >>the overall color patterns of images on Kirkland papers. >> >> > >In the end that's all that matters.... what looks good to you. You can >look at specifications and numbers till you are blue in the face... but >in the end you just gotta try and see. > >Another useful test you might want to do is print on two papers the >same image and ignore the for a week, two weeks, 1 month. I use a >western window sill my self, one could try a coffee table for an >example of normal expsure to natural light. It's hard to be 100% >scientific but it should give you some clue what lasts longer. But >generally speaking the Canon OEM inks are more prone to faiding than >others, > I must buy different Canon oem inks than you for I have not experienced fading problems. >but at present I lack any useful info in helping to resolve >this. > > >
From: satoshi on 27 Jun 2005 21:54 zakezuke What you said makes sense. BTW, I forgot to mention that Costco used Fujifilm papers for printing digital images. Back of the prints have imprints of "Fujifilm". I have never seen Fuji photopapers. Did you? I have no clues what PPI Costco used. Somebody mentioned that Costco probably printed at 250 ppi. For my test, I used the identical images with the same ppi (ca. 350 ppi) and the same image size (6 x 4) to print to those 4 photo papers. Regarding fading matter, that has been discussed for millions of years. In near future, I expect to see the development and marketing of new high-tech photo paper which can solve the fading issue. Those color-fasting papers could dominate the market share. What surprised me today was that the printed pictures were quite water-resistant. I always thought that prints with ink jet printers will smear or lose all colors on contact with water. Satoshi "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119921629.242907.265140(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> I tested these two papers, glossy Canon photopapers, and HP glossy >> papers >> with ip4000 under the similar conditions. I do not have professional >> eyballs but to my untrained, nake eyes, all came out to be very nice. >> But >> prints made at Costco seems to be slightly sharper than others. But I >> like >> the overall color patterns of images on Kirkland papers. > > In the end that's all that matters.... what looks good to you. You can > look at specifications and numbers till you are blue in the face... but > in the end you just gotta try and see. > > Another useful test you might want to do is print on two papers the > same image and ignore the for a week, two weeks, 1 month. I use a > western window sill my self, one could try a coffee table for an > example of normal expsure to natural light. It's hard to be 100% > scientific but it should give you some clue what lasts longer. But > generally speaking the Canon OEM inks are more prone to faiding than > others, but at present I lack any useful info in helping to resolve > this. >
From: zakezuke on 27 Jun 2005 23:21 > What you said makes sense. > BTW, I forgot to mention that Costco used Fujifilm papers for printing > digital images. > Back of the prints have imprints of "Fujifilm". I have never seen Fuji > photopapers. Did you? When I think fuji.. 35mm that is... I think brilient blues and tropical fish... and some people look better on fuji than kodak royal gold which leans tward the slightly warm. I'm not familar with their inkjet papers at all, in fact so far i've only tried a handful. The only true dog paper i've found thus far was something called "great white glossy photo paper. While it looked ok, somewhat thin... it seemed to accuratly show the blank space between my inkjets. Picked it up at the same place that had the hammermill poster sign paper and some ilford textured paper... so I expected slightly better results even if it was cheap. > Regarding fading matter, that has been discussed for millions of years. > In near future, I expect to see the development and marketing of new > high-tech photo paper which can solve the fading issue. Those color-fasting > papers could dominate the market share. Or going back to older printing medium like sheep skin... which I think is still used in some western countries for offical goverment documents. Or taking ash and spitting on cave walls which have stood for tens of thouands of years. Printing isn't my field but it's rather funny the fact that much of this technology already exists just what the inkjet companies gives us is somewhat limited repackaged by the marketing department as new and fancy when in some cases was the same stuff used by pen and ink guys. Many photographers still for long term archival storage, while many use digital, resort to printing their color images on 4 sheats of black and white photo paper and store in a temp controled vault. Canon unfortunatly doesn't have an a4 letter sized archival printer that i'm aware. They seem to be answering the call for a new ink formula but hasn't hit american shores yet and even that isn't great in contrast to some of archival pigment inks.
From: zakezuke on 27 Jun 2005 23:28 > I must buy different Canon oem inks than you for I have not experienced > fading problems. I haven't bought any yet actually, i'm still using what came in the box. Both printers came from Newegg. But valid point that they could be physicaly different. That would explain totally different results. Another explanation is you could have UV tinted windows where I know I don't. Actually the next time you look perhaps you can share any info on them.... such as whether they were made, and check the windows in your office to see if they are UV coated. You can usually tell as esp if this was an after market coating put on, slight polarizing effect and mild blue/green/purple tinge to a white sheat of paper. You said in the past you had windows, so that can't be it.
From: Arthur Entlich on 29 Jun 2005 07:25
I'm not going to refute your personal experience, because I believe you are reporting them accurately. It's not something I have heard of before, but something to keep in mind. Paper surface shouldn't be transferring to the head, but maybe the swelling of the paper surface is enough to either bring it to head contact, or close enough to transfer some of the polymer to the head surface via the ink. Art Shooter wrote: > Seems a little strange that when you stop using Kodak and cheap paper the > problem disappears. I rarely get bad nozzle print offs infact in the time I > have used my present third party ink I have only had clean nozzle checks. If > I go back to either product and pigmented ink the problem returns. I have > now done this twice, but never again. > > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> wrote in message > news:YrSve.105015$El.24623(a)pd7tw1no... > >>It's stretching things. Both the Kodak example and the paper dust. >> >>Most deflection of nozzles and blockage are from the same cause, ... ink >>build up in the wrong places. >> >>Art >> >>Shooter wrote: >> >> >>>My only point was to highlight that paper can be the cause of head > > blocking, > >>>and in reply to the remark made by measekite instead I have had to go > > into > >>>chapter and verse. There is also another explanation for paper clogging >>>heads, in that some papers loose small fibres which attach to the > > underside > >>>of the head and that also will give the same deflective firing or if you >>>like head block, I have known cheap plain paper cause this. I am also > > sure > >>>there are other examples out there. >>> >>> >>>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> wrote in message >>>news:Dlwve.1804250$Xk.204128(a)pd7tw3no... >>> >>> >>>>OK, now I see where you are "headed" with this. It is true that Kodak >>>>uses swellable polymer surface on some of their papers. Swellable >>>>polymer is designed to give better permanence to dye inks, so the paper >>>>is definitely inappropriate for pigment colorant inks. However, in >>>>general, the ink shouldn't be piling up enough to hit the head unless >>>>the head has a build up of ink residue on it already. >>>> >>>>I will give this disclaimer... I haven't studied a 2200 enough to know >>>>if for some reason Epson places the heads much closer to the paper >>>>surface than most other Epson printers. Normally, with a clean head, >>>>ink should not be ending up back on the head surface even if the ink >>>>doesn't adsorb into the paper. >>>> >>>>Art >>>> >>>> >>>>Shooter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>No. I didn't explain very well. The paper becomes sticky, this is >>> >>>evident on >>> >>> >>>>>white boarders with no ink whatever, it then leaves a residue on the >>> >>>head >>> >>> >>>>>which in turn hardens and causes the blocked head. kodak explained it >>> >>>away >>> >>> >>>>>by the fact that Epson do not recommend glossy paper with the > > 2100/2200. > >>>My >>> >>> >>>>>point is again that paper can cause blocked nozzles and this is shown > > in > >>>a >>> >>> >>>>>nozzle test as deflective firing. OK after changing to dye ink there > > was > >>>no >>> >>> >>>>>problem with the Kodak paper. Change the paper from Kodak and all is >>> >>>well >>> >>> >>>>>with pigmented ink except then you get Bronzing with glossy but no >>> >>>blocked >>> >>> >>>>>nozzles. >>>>> >>>>>"CWatters" <colin.watters(a)pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message >>>>>news:RThve.130093$w33.7138441(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Shooter" <photoman52003-shoot(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>news:d9k6kp$i7r$1(a)nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Sorry can not agree as you get a deflective fire of the head, and > > this > >>>>>>>happens after printing. >>>>>> >>>>>>You mean the ink bounces of the paper back onto the head? Never heard >>> >>>that >>> >>> >>>>>>before. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > |