Postscript still important for laser printers? How much RAMis enough? LexMark?
in [Printers]
|
Prev: Postscript still important for laser printers? How much RAM isenough? LexMark?
Next: Problems with Epson Perfection 1200 photo and possible epson conflicts
From: Tim Okergit on 27 Jul 2010 14:33 On 07/27/2010 05:24 AM, Arthur Entlich wrote: > Canons unofficial rep? Why it used to me Measekite, wasn't it? ;-) He didn't post for more than a year and has participated in only 14 threads in 2009. I didn't read teh threads and can't say if he was as helpful as you are. If I was you, I'd ask for a pay from Epson :) > While Bob Headrick actually worked for HP in their inkjet cartridge > division, I have no affiliation with Epson other than that I use their > printers, and found their customer support wanting so I decided to jump > in and help other owners. > > To provide the "other side" of the fence, I also live in Canada. My > dealings with Canon have only been with their digital camera support, > and while not perfect, I have to say the information was there when I > needed it I don't believe you don't need much information for cameras. Taking them apart seems risky to me. > although the guy I spoke with was arrogant and not very > pleasant. The people I spoke to at Canon Canada were really nice in making you lose your time. > On the other hand, I bought two HP products which were absolute dogs, > one a slide and print scanner, and one a digital camera. HP certainly didn't make a name for its cameras. Here's their offering today: <http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/can.do?storeName=accessories&landing=computer&category=categories&subcat1=digital_cameras&orderflow=1&sort=Asc> Nothing that looks professional. Same for scanners. A good scanner is rather expensive. On this list: <http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02a/15179-15179-64195.html> was yours more on the top or the bottom of the list? I understand that putting on the market cheap equipment that doesn't work doesn't keep the customer satisfied but the difference with my Canon BJ-300 was that it was in no way a cheap printer and that, as I explained, it was most probably in almost perfect working order when I had to throw it away. A company may offer a product that eventually fails, but my story is something completely different: the product didn't fail, it's Canon that failed me. > The slide > scanner issue never got resolved although the unit was replaced twice > (by HP US, since they had no presence for that division in Canada at the > time). In the end I went back to my retailer who, even a year later took > the unit back, and got a credit from HP Canada, allowing me to use the > money to buy a Minolta branded product to replace it (which they special > ordered). So, here, HP reimbursed you. I understand that losing time is really not fun but HP finally acknowledged it had a problem. > The digital camera story is even worse... much worse. The camera had a > known defect (well, I didn't know about it until it happened to mine and > I started researching it on line). It ate batteries for breakfast (I was > using NiMH), due to bad Chinese caps in it which drained the batteries > and didn't hold their charge. It turned out a huge portion of these > cameras were defective, and the problems included the whole line up in > this series. HP refused to admit the problem they repaired my camera > several times unsuccessfully. HP Canada was very unhelpful, and it was > only after I sent them about 1/2" thick of documents from the internet, > plus my own testing and evaluation that they finally agreed to replacing > the camera with one from a different series. Then, the last minute > someone "above" the customer rep who had facilitated the exchange pulled > the plug on the whole deal and dug in his heels, again starting with > "there is not problem with this model of camera" all over again. It was > infuriating. I sent a copy of the whole correspondence, including the > on-line print outs to head office in California to show them the > problems occurring here in Canada. What did they do? They sent the whole > parcel back up to Canada to deal with it, and it ended up going to the > same guy I had the problems with. > > I eventually got some inside help from someone I met from HP who helped > me to get a new camera from them which was a new model which replaced > the defective one, but the whole process took nearly a year from the > point where I had begun. After speaking with my retailer about my > experience, they told me they had dozens of bad HP cameras which HP > refused to take back, and that they had a lot of angry customers. That > retailer, a large big box in Western Canada, stopped selling HP cameras > soon after my discussion with them, and have never brought them back to > their stores. Was this, by any chance durint the La Fiorina's days? Those jetset parties had to be paid for, you know. > As I understand it from discussions with retailers, HP Canada is still a > mess, be happy you haven't needed them. Really? It certainly wasn't the manager's opinion at Office Depot. I bought my 1012 on boxing day and it was $100 off. Most probably the store would have made more money seeling me another printer. Still that manager was adamant: HP was the way to go. You're sure you don't work for Epson? :) > I would agree they do make some > reasonable priced printers, although their consumables can be very costly. If the drum is in the cartridge, it's likely to cost more but you certainly save on maintenance. You can also have the cartridge refilled, which is much cheaper. > As to your other question, while I wouldn't go as far Mr. Block to > completely discredit color laser printers for photographic output, I > would agree that inkjet is a better technology for that purpose. Hum... I don't like the injet idea. Office Depot provides print samples for some printers, but I suppose they're provided by the company and don't mean much for the quality of the print I'll finally get. > Color laser printers do not have the same gradient values as inkjet, and > it is not just due to toner opacity or the number of ink colors inkjet > printers provide. Laser printers do not have the resolution of most > better inkjet models. The dots are bigger and therefore the blending is > poorer. Also, while inkjet papers can absorb the inks and leave a smooth > surface, laser toners sit on top of the paper surface, and often look > glossier or more matte than the paper surface itself. This gloss > differential doesn't look good. I don;t buy the opaque toner leading to > less mixing. If the dots were the same size and used similar patterns to > distribute the colorant, they would probably look similar. Toner is not > opaque, it is translucent, and so is pigment inkjet ink colorant. I never printed on glossy paper except for press photography, but I still get your point. > I expect that eventually, if the demand is there, laser output could > come very close to rival inkjet, but for most applications, people > aren't that demanding. I have received some recent color laser samples > that from a foot or so away almost rival photos, and I know of people > who sell laser output as "fine art" prints, and that includes > photographic subjects. Laser isn't quite there, but the right machine > can brink it pretty close. Which make is the right machine?
From: Tim Okergit on 27 Jul 2010 14:42 On 07/26/2010 10:22 PM, Warren Block wrote: > Tim Okergit<to(a)notme.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry, Warren noted this already. I got the Who's who wrong :) >> >> I hope you read what I wrote about PCL. From what Warren wrote, it seems >> that unless you want to send printer files to a print shop, which is far >> from necessary, PCL is perfectly all right. > > To use a digital camera analogy: PostScript is the big-sensor DSLR, PCL > is the 4x6mm-sensor P&S. You can do good work with either, and they > both have tradeoffs. But one is more capable and costs more. I don't see why PostScript should cost that much more. Linux offers Ghostscript that does pretty mcuh the same for free. Of course, you must have a Postscript printer. I see the royalties that HP had to pay to Adobe for this rip-off as the reason for which they decided to develop PCL for laser. For most people PCL does exactly the same. As for me, there's absolutely no difference.
From: Arthur Entlich on 28 Jul 2010 11:49 If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste, I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog: http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/ Tim Okergit wrote: > On 07/26/2010 02:49 PM, Warren Block wrote: > >>> If you count only the consumables, it's $111 / 60 , so less that $2. >> >> Yes, if in fact you can get 60 8x10 prints. That seems really unlikely >> to me. Even half of that still seems unlikely. > > What's the problem if you provide a good quality picture with good > exposure, good contrast, good color? If you can't get a good print > quality at once, what kind of printing will commercial labs provide? > I don;t know if you have a Costco nearby or not. I became a member just for heir color lab. They are one of the few "big box" stores who provide color profiles and have their equipment calibrated by Dry Creek on a fairly regular basis. In November I did a large exhibit of photographic fine art prints, and used them for most of it. The costs were ridiculously lower than it would have cost me in time and materials. The prints were bang on, and they use Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Your system/monitor/ needs to be properly color calibrated, and you need to use the profiles correctly in Photoshop (or whatever color managed software you use. Of course, they charge about $50 a year to join, so it would depend upon how much work you need per year to make it worthwhile (the membership obviously also gives you access to their full store and services). They have a internet service to upload your images to, and at least in my area, were able to provide results within 4-6 hours for pick up at the local store if I uploaded before store opening. Each store has a different component of printers (some have inkjet as well, although I haven't used their inkjet services yet). <edited out> > > If you try printing a picture whose color, exposure, contrast, focus are > wrong, there is no way if will possibly come out OK on paper. Otherwise, > what can go wrong? If you are speaking digitally, obviously, both you and the lab need to be color managed and profiled to the same standard. If your monitor is not color managed, you can't blame the lab for providing different results, because it could easily be your monitor/graphics card or software at fault. If you have agreed upon color management between you, the results should be nearly perfect. If you are speaking about older optical methods, there are many reasons a print could be "off", although admittedly many are lab deficiencies. With wedding photos, pure neutral whites are often a big issue, and that's why gray cards were invented on your side. On their side that's why test strips, densitometers, and calibration were invented ;-). I've run both a one-hour style and a custom lab, and because I demanded professional results from both, we got them. While the one-hour had more redos simply because the equipment back then was less sophisticated, what we turned out was as good or better than some pro-labs in our community. The only time a print got out of our lab with less than bang on results was if the client was in a rush and told us it was "good enough" and they had to run. Working in a one hour setting did place some time constraints on accomplishing redos in that time period. Art
From: Tim Okergit on 28 Jul 2010 21:03 On 07/28/2010 11:49 AM, Arthur Entlich wrote: >> What's the problem if you provide a good quality picture with good >> exposure, good contrast, good color? If you can't get a good print >> quality at once, what kind of printing will commercial labs provide? >> > > I don;t know if you have a Costco nearby or not. Yes, but I'm not a member and I see no photo service at costco.ca . I became a member just > for heir color lab. They are one of the few "big box" stores who provide > color profiles and have their equipment calibrated by Dry Creek on a > fairly regular basis. In November I did a large exhibit of photographic > fine art prints You wouldn't have some sample photographs on the net so we can see what kind of photography you're in? > If you have agreed upon color management between you, the results should > be nearly perfect. If you are speaking about older optical methods, > there are many reasons a print could be "off", although admittedly many > are lab deficiencies. With wedding photos, pure neutral whites are often > a big issue, and that's why gray cards were invented on your side. Gray cards, gray patches and color patches were standard tools in my days so I have no problem understanding. I also understand the need to calibrate the monitor. I just read about gamut, icc profiles and so on. Here, my understanding is rather shallow. I hope the labs provide good instructions :) > On > their side that's why test strips, densitometers, and calibration were > invented ;-). I've run both a one-hour style and a custom lab, and > because I demanded professional results from both, we got them. While > the one-hour had more redos simply because the equipment back then was > less sophisticated, what we turned out was as good or better than some > pro-labs in our community. Too bad you're not in business anymore. All my problems would be solved :) Don't forget the link to your pictures if you have any on the net!
From: TJ on 29 Jul 2010 13:34
On 07/28/2010 11:44 PM, Andrew Hamilton wrote: > > I know a few > pros who would tell their kids to find another line of work, and some > of them have bailed out. Can't make any money these days. Customers > expect perfection but won't pay for it. > Sounds like what I've been hearing about my profession all my life, yet I'm still here, hammering at this wall. But I'm not a pro photog - I'm a farmer. TJ -- Life isn't fair. It's not meant to be. Overcoming the disadvantages we face is what makes us strong. |