Another Experience

I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the
most part it makes sense.


"SimonLW" wrote in message
...

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

"measekite" wrote in message
...
I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the most
part it makes sense.


Did you get permission from the original author to repost this here?

[snip]

The ip6000 is just the ip4000 with card slots.That is why I keep telling you
the ip4000 does not qualify as a photo printer! You can not tell much about
a printer with a 4x6 print.Most printers can make a nice 4x6.The larger
prints require a better printer,that is why most PROFESSIONALS use Epson
printers for poster size prints.
"measekite" wrote in message
...
I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the most
part it makes sense.


"SimonLW" wrote in message
...

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

Ivor Floppy wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
m...


I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the most
part it makes sense.




Did you get permission from the original author to repost this here?

[snip]



UP UR HOLE WITH A 10' POLE
AND
TWICE AS FAR WITH A HERSHEY BAR

YOU PUTZ

Douglas wrote:

The ip6000 is just the ip4000 with card slots.That is why I keep telling you
the ip4000 does not qualify as a photo printer!


For being in the business you are a dumb ****. The IP4000 has 3 color
carts and 2 black, one a pigmented for text and the other a dye based
for photos.

The IP6000 is a 6 color printer like the discontinued i960.

From the Canon website you uninformed jerk

Large built-in 2.5" LCD for easy viewing, editing and printing
Direct photo printing from select memory cards/PictBridge compatible
digital cameras & DV camcorders
Wireless photo printing from compatible infrared mobile phones
Dual paper path with built-in 2 sided printing
6 individual ink tanks help reduce waste and can save you money
Maximum 4800 x 1200 color dpi with microscopic droplets as small as 2
picoliters

You can not tell much about
a printer with a 4x6 print.Most printers can make a nice 4x6.The larger
prints require a better printer,that is why most PROFESSIONALS use Epson
printers for poster size prints.
"measekite" wrote in message
m...


I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the most
part it makes sense.


"SimonLW" wrote in message
...



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

"Douglas" . wrote in message ...
Most printers can make a nice 4x6. The larger prints require a better
printer

Eh? Why do you say that? After all it doesn't matter where on an A4/Letter
page your 4x6 image is printed.

Larger prints need a better camera not a better printer.

CWatters wrote:

"Douglas" . wrote in message ...


Most printers can make a nice 4x6. The larger prints require a better


printer

Eh? Why do you say that? After all it doesn't matter where on an A4/Letter
page your 4x6 image is printed.

Larger prints need a better camera not a better printer.




Oh my, he is the professional telling everyone else how dumb they are
when he does not know his ass like a hole in the ground. It looks like
Full Exposure.

How large you can print and get a good result depends on many things.
The quality of the sensor, the size of the pixels, the lens quality and
the number of pixels you have to work with. After all of that probably
the most important thing is the photographer. People in this group do
not appear to concentrate of that.

Any way you are right on. :-)

measekite wrote:

I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do not
agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But for the
most part it makes sense.


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.


Really a silly story and totally meaningless. He states his printer
"once sat unused for 4 months" ...

4 Months?...

First of all, this guy doesn't even NEED a printer. Secondly, any bad
experience he claims to have had has no bearing on normal people who use
their printers on an almost daily basis, as I do. I make an effort to
print something at least every couple of days, to keep things "fluid".
I can afford it, I use compatible inks. Other can't because they use
expensive OEM inks and really don't want to "waste" any ink by printing
something. Letting a loaded printer sit idle is not good for its health.
My sister learned that message after not using her old Epson 740 for
about 3 weeks. It couldn't be re-started (unclogged).

Remember the term "Use it or lose it?" ;-)

-Taliesyn

Taliesyn wrote:

measekite wrote:

I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do
not agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But
for the most part it makes sense.


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.


Really a silly story and totally meaningless. He states his printer
"once sat unused for 4 months" ...

4 Months?...


Where in the Canon manual does it say how often you need to use it?


First of all, this guy doesn't even NEED a printer.


So you are deciding what someone else needs?

Secondly, any bad
experience he claims to have had has no bearing on normal people


Wait up, you think that this NG is typical of normal people. Why
Frankie Crankie is not even a person.

who use
their printers on an almost daily basis, as I do. I make an effort to
print something at least every couple of days,

Even if you do not need it.

to keep things "fluid".
I can afford it, I use compatible inks.


You mean you can not afford not to.

Other can't because they use
expensive OEM inks and really don't want to "waste" any ink by printing
something. Letting a loaded printer sit idle is not good for its health.




My sister learned that message after not using her old Epson 740 for
about 3 weeks. It couldn't be re-started (unclogged).

Remember the term "Use it or lose it?" ;-)




-Taliesyn

Taliesyn wrote:

measekite wrote:

I ran across this post in another NG and found it interesting. I do
not agree with the entire thing, especially about the IP6000. But
for the most part it makes sense.


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.


Really a silly story and totally meaningless. He states his printer
"once sat unused for 4 months" ...

4 Months?...


Where in the Canon manual does it say how often you need to use it?


First of all, this guy doesn't even NEED a printer.


So you are deciding what someone else needs?

Secondly, any bad
experience he claims to have had has no bearing on normal people


Wait up, you think that this NG is typical of normal people. Why
Frankie Crankie is not even a person.

who use
their printers on an almost daily basis, as I do. I make an effort to
print something at least every couple of days,

Even if you do not need it.

to keep things "fluid".
I can afford it, I use compatible inks.


You mean you can not afford not to.

Other can't because they use
expensive OEM inks and really don't want to "waste" any ink by printing
something. Letting a loaded printer sit idle is not good for its health.




My sister learned that message after not using her old Epson 740 for
about 3 weeks. It couldn't be re-started (unclogged).

Remember the term "Use it or lose it?" ;-)




-Taliesyn