3rd Party Ink - PC World Excerpts

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>>nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
>prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>
>

I did not think you were that old? ;-)

>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1oa791tn3h4sh4bt8c6mm25h9c0ti3tvdd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>>nothing.
>>
> That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
> prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>

Indeed you *can*, but don't expect all prints to last that sort of time. The
B/W prints were processed correctly (I know - I helped print them) - they
were printed on regular RC paper, developed, fixed (Ilford Hypam) and washed
for the recommended time - in other words just standard processing. Other
prints from around the same time (and same chemicals/processing) have been
stored in cardboard boxes and are still as good as the day they were
printed, its simply the action of light / ozone etc. that has faded these
big prints.

Oh, and they are behind glass too.

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news😛tPke.1255$rY6.234@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away
>>>to nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
>>prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>>
>
> I did not think you were that old? ;-)

Another stupid one-liner that contributes nothing to the NG.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>>Hecate - The Real One
>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You play the same game in your postings as you do in your replies to
valid criticism of your comments. You choose to answer only that which
suits you.

A perfect example is the response you provided below. You make one
rather meaningless comment which doesn't address the vast majority of
the issues I brought into the debate, and you think that satisfies a
response.

Well, it does not. You have made some very specific and inaccurate
comments which you cannot defend by then indicating " I said most not
all and that is true. The vast majority of the public do not refill carts."

This is a complete red herring, and has little to do with the falsehoods
you continue to attempt to spread.

You had better bone up on your debating skills, because you are very
likely going to need them shortly.

The fact that you mislead people in this newsgroup regularly with your
intentionally incorrect postings is bad enough. The fact that you
continue to malign not only a whole business sector, but specific
vendors which whom you have no personal buying experience with may well
end up costing you dearly.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> However, you neglect to mention the other side of this coin.
>>
>> 1) Many who use after market inks successfully just have no interest
>> in bothering in your petty little war.
>>
>> 2) You seem to represent the other side of this battle relatively on
>> your own, and you have No experience at all with 3rd party inks, nor
>> do you have more than apocryphal stories without any valid research or
>> statistics, making your statements nothing more than your opinion. So
>> in an argument between an individual with neither any personal
>> experience nor any valid science versus a group of individuals who
>> have used both OEM and 3rd party inks over a period of years, your
>> viewpoint (along with it's libelous statements) don't appear to carry
>> any weight whatsoever.
>>
>> If you were reasoned at all about this, and stated that some 3rd party
>> inks are inferior
>
>
> I said most not all and that is true. The vast majority of the public
> do not refill carts.
>
>> to OEM and may not justify the price differential, I don't think
>> anyone could fault you. However, you make blanket statements which
>> cannot be backed up with fact. And even when the so called "branding"
>> you "demand" of 3rd party vendors is revealed, rather than seeing this
>> as a step toward better communications between the vendor and his
>> clients, and having resolved one of the issue you claim to have with
>> 3rd party ink vendors, you continue to libel the company in question.
>> That, in itself, points to your taking a vindictive stand against one
>> or more companies, which once again points to libel.
>>
>> I would strongly suggest that you reconsider continuing what has
>> become a vendetta against a few smaller vendors who you have neither
>> knowledge or basis to make accusations or derogatory statements about.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ATTENTION NEW NG READERS:
>>>
>>> If you track all of these success stories about AfterMarket inks on
>>> this NG over a 2 to 3 week period of time you will find that all of
>>> these success stories come from a handful of tinkerers that I have
>>> collectively called the AfterMarket Club. Burt is their president
>>> and Frankie is their parrot.
>>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If they have, I strongly suggest you reveal your gripe, so people here
can judge the authenticity to your claim. You have publicly denigrated
several 3rd party ink companies here for months, but have provided not
one shred of evidence that these statements have any credence whatsoever.

The accusations you make have to have some equity to the up till now
unrevealed slight you claim occurred. So far, I see no veracity to your
claim, and in fact, numerous others state your claim is misguided based
upon their own experience with the same companies.

Libel can also be an exaggeration of opinion to the point where it harms
the profitability of a business.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> He cares because regardless of who a customer might use as their
>> source, that doesn't excuse your boorish behavior and libelous
>> comments toward a company you have no right to be criticizing. I
>> don't use them either, in fact I have never even spoken to them or
>> visited their website and yet, it offends me also.
>>
>> The point is they haven't "earned"
>
>
> yes they have
>
>> what you are up to, and you are apparently lacking the judgment to be
>> making that decision.
>>
>> Art
>>

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>wrote:
>>I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>Which is why I prefer:
>http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm

Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet technologies
with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say that the output
of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200, Xerox Phaser
8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much better than the Epson
Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now with more up to date
inkjets?

I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to compare
the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and finally an
overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.

[1] Solid ink
[2] Two part system with toner and developer.

--
Timothy

 

[frank]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> Only need one finger for communicating with Measekite!

:-D
Frank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

No, actually, it is not Bullshie (or bullshit, if that is what you were
trying to type), since I have refilled some cartridges, and you have
not, I have some experience, and you have none. You are entitled to your
opinion about refilling, but you and the readers of your posts should
realize that it is an uninformed opinion (sometimes called a
superstition).


In article <0uFke.1027$rY6.818@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
> >For me the math is pretty simple: I bought a Canon i960 4 months ago for
> >$89 + $20 shipping. I've done 7 cartridge refills at half a buck each
> >(labeled and dated tru-color ink from alotofthings.com).
> >Photos look
> >exactly like they did on the original Canon ink. Figuring $10 for Canon
> >cartridges, I'll be $199 ahead when the warranty runs out, so if my head
> >dies on the 366th day, I can buy a new printer & still be 90 bucks or so
> >ahead. If it dies before then, I'm covered by warranty, and even better
> >off. Every day it lasts past 1 year, I'm still farther ahead. I don't
> >see a downside to this, except for the effort of refilling (about as
> >hard & messy as putting gas in the car)!
> >
> >
> And that is Bullshie. Burt welcomes Mr Pecker to the AfterMarket Club
> as a new member.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

And guess who it doesn't make sense to? Our local know-it-not.

In article <l5Kke.952$kS3.893@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net says...
> Irwin - almost word-for-word my post just a short time ago in response to
> Measekite. Makes sense to me.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:41:43 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:1oa791tn3h4sh4bt8c6mm25h9c0ti3tvdd@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>>>nothing.
>>>
>> That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
>> prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>>
>
>Indeed you *can*, but don't expect all prints to last that sort of time. The
>B/W prints were processed correctly (I know - I helped print them) - they
>were printed on regular RC paper, developed, fixed (Ilford Hypam) and washed
>for the recommended time - in other words just standard processing. Other
>prints from around the same time (and same chemicals/processing) have been
>stored in cardboard boxes and are still as good as the day they were
>printed, its simply the action of light / ozone etc. that has faded these
>big prints.
>
>Oh, and they are behind glass too.
>
>
I'm not surprised if they weren't archivally processed. They'll fade
just as much as any other "standard" prints.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as not
being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
Tektronix/Xerox machines).

Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.

Art



me@privacy.net wrote:

> In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Which is why I prefer:
>> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>
>
> Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet technologies
> with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say that the output
> of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200, Xerox Phaser
> 8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much better than the Epson
> Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now with more up to date inkjets?
>
> I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to compare
> the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and finally an
> overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
>
> [1] Solid ink
> [2] Two part system with toner and developer.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
> may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
> not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
> Tektronix/Xerox machines).


The real pros told me it was very permanent.

>
> Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance
> relative to most other technologies. Probably superior to most
> inkjet, but may not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet
> inks.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
>> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why I prefer:
>>> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet
>> technologies with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say
>> that the output of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200,
>> Xerox Phaser 8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much
>> better than the Epson Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now
>> with more up to date inkjets?
>>
>> I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to
>> compare the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and
>> finally an overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
>>
>> [1] Solid ink
>> [2] Two part system with toner and developer.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You wouldn't know a "real pro" if they sat on you.


From:

Preservation of Ink Jet Hardcopies
An Investigation by Martin C. Jürgens
for the Capstone Project, Cross-Disciplinary Studies,
at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY

"Due to the waxy nature of the thermoplastic vehicle, oil
soluble basic dyes are needed for the ink. These dyes are
naturally quite waterfast, but they tend to show a lesser
lightfastness."


Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
>> may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
>> not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
>> Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>
>
>
> The real pros told me it was very permanent.
>
>>
>> Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance
>> relative to most other technologies. Probably superior to most
>> inkjet, but may not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet
>> inks.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>>
>> me@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>> In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
>>> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I prefer:
>>>> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet
>>> technologies with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say
>>> that the output of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200,
>>> Xerox Phaser 8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much
>>> better than the Epson Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now
>>> with more up to date inkjets?
>>>
>>> I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to
>>> compare the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and
>>> finally an overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
>>>
>>> [1] Solid ink
>>> [2] Two part system with toner and developer.
>>>

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <p5hme.1507315$Xk.906536@pd7tw3no>, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp@mvps.org> writes
>I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
>may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
>not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
>Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>
>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>
It just seems surprising that there isn't more such research. There
seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
don't want inkjet longevity shown up.

--
Timothy

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Art - I think he is referring to someone engaged in the "oldest profession"
since he is preoccupied with rants about whores and hawkers.

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:KkYme.1526260$8l.45119@pd7tw1no...
>
> You wouldn't know a "real pro" if they sat on you.
>
>
> From:
>
> Preservation of Ink Jet Hardcopies
> An Investigation by Martin C. Jürgens
> for the Capstone Project, Cross-Disciplinary Studies,
> at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
>
> "Due to the waxy nature of the thermoplastic vehicle, oil
> soluble basic dyes are needed for the ink. These dyes are
> naturally quite waterfast, but they tend to show a lesser
> lightfastness."
>
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
>>> may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as not
>>> being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
>>> Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>>
>>
>>
>> The real pros told me it was very permanent.
>>
>>>
>>> Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>>> to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>>> not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> me@privacy.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
>>>> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I prefer:
>>>>> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet
>>>> technologies with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say
>>>> that the output of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200,
>>>> Xerox Phaser 8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much better
>>>> than the Epson Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now with more
>>>> up to date inkjets?
>>>>
>>>> I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to compare
>>>> the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and finally an
>>>> overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Solid ink
>>>> [2] Two part system with toner and developer.
>>>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>
> You wouldn't know a "real pro" if they sat on you.


I do know you are not.

>
>
> From:
>
> Preservation of Ink Jet Hardcopies
> An Investigation by Martin C. Jürgens
> for the Capstone Project, Cross-Disciplinary Studies,
> at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
>
> "Due to the waxy nature of the thermoplastic vehicle, oil
> soluble basic dyes are needed for the ink. These dyes are
> naturally quite waterfast, but they tend to show a lesser
> lightfastness."
>
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time
>>> I may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink
>>> as not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in
>>> the Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The real pros told me it was very permanent.
>>
>>>
>>> Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance
>>> relative to most other technologies. Probably superior to most
>>> inkjet, but may not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet
>>> inks.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> me@privacy.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <m2b7911727ot6fag5oog84llqkd44alekd@4ax.com>, Hecate
>>>> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:28:37 -0700, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I prefer:
>>>>> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet
>>>> technologies with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say
>>>> that the output of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor
>>>> 2200, Xerox Phaser 8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight
>>>> much better than the Epson Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference
>>>> now with more up to date inkjets?
>>>>
>>>> I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to
>>>> compare the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and
>>>> finally an overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Solid ink
>>>> [2] Two part system with toner and developer.
>>>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:07 +0100, "me@privacy.net" <me@Privacy.Net>
wrote:

>In message <p5hme.1507315$Xk.906536@pd7tw3no>, Arthur Entlich
><e-printerhelp@mvps.org> writes
>>I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
>>may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
>>not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
>>Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>>
>>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>>
>It just seems surprising that there isn't more such research. There
>seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
>not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
>don't want inkjet longevity shown up.

More likely it's because lasers can't produce the continuous tone
quality of inkjets and are therefore not much use as photo printers
and it's in that filed where longevity matters.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

>>>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>>>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>>>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>>>
>>It just seems surprising that there isn't more such research. There
>>seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
>>not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
>>don't want inkjet longevity shown up.
>
>More likely it's because lasers can't produce the continuous tone
>quality of inkjets and are therefore not much use as photo printers
>and it's in that filed where longevity matters.

I don't think smooth tonal quality is an issue with colour lasers
anymore. In last couple of years I've seen cheap entry-level lasers that
can just about match inkjet prints. The only difference is glossy paper
can't be used effectively with lasers. Colour image quality from a laser
printer is quite impressive, especially on plain paper.

I expect in several years we'll see lasers with glossy toner or some
other technological innovation that matches inkjet prints.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <X8SdnWy-isumiwDfRVn-jA@golden.net>, Bill <bill@c.a> writes
>I don't think smooth tonal quality is an issue with colour lasers
>anymore. In last couple of years I've seen cheap entry-level lasers that
>can just about match inkjet prints. The only difference is glossy paper
>can't be used effectively with lasers. Colour image quality from a laser
>printer is quite impressive, especially on plain paper.
>
>I expect in several years we'll see lasers with glossy toner or some
>other technological innovation that matches inkjet prints.

You can get glossy papers for lasers, Xerox (presumably inter alios)
produces a 'photographic' paper. But if you are printing photos for a
photo album that are going to be behind a clear plastic sleeve you are
going to need to get very close to tell the difference.

--
Timothy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:58:19 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>
>>>>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>>>>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>>>>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>>>>
>>>It just seems surprising that there isn't more such research. There
>>>seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
>>>not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
>>>don't want inkjet longevity shown up.
>>
>>More likely it's because lasers can't produce the continuous tone
>>quality of inkjets and are therefore not much use as photo printers
>>and it's in that filed where longevity matters.
>
>I don't think smooth tonal quality is an issue with colour lasers
>anymore. In last couple of years I've seen cheap entry-level lasers that
>can just about match inkjet prints. The only difference is glossy paper
>can't be used effectively with lasers. Colour image quality from a laser
>printer is quite impressive, especially on plain paper.
>
I have yet to see one that can match the output from high end Epson,
Canon or HP printers. I';d agree that they can match the output of
Lexmark inkjets, but then so can a dot matrix...

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:58:19 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>
>>Hecate wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>>>>>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>>>>>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It just seems surprising that there isn't more such research. There
>>>>seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
>>>>not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
>>>>don't want inkjet longevity shown up.
>>>
>>>More likely it's because lasers can't produce the continuous tone
>>>quality of inkjets and are therefore not much use as photo printers
>>>and it's in that filed where longevity matters.
>>
>>I don't think smooth tonal quality is an issue with colour lasers
>>anymore. In last couple of years I've seen cheap entry-level lasers that
>>can just about match inkjet prints. The only difference is glossy paper
>>can't be used effectively with lasers. Colour image quality from a laser
>>printer is quite impressive, especially on plain paper.
>>
>
> I have yet to see one that can match the output from high end Epson,
> Canon or HP printers. I';d agree that they can match the output of
> Lexmark inkjets, but then so can a dot matrix...
>

A dot matrix digital photo. Hmmmmmm . . . .

Give my old Lex some credit, they're not as helpless as you make
them out to be - not that I'd ever go back to one ;-).

I had a Lexmark Z55 and it produced satisfactory photos when contrast
and brightness were abnormally adjusted. Mind you, I'm not talking
glossy digital photos. I wasn't into that yet. On the graphics side it
was fine without too much fussing. It produced some nice graphics work
for me. Yes, the driver was more suited for the Grade school crowd, but
it worked fine until I retired it in favor of a Canon. I give it some
credit as it was was retired in full operating condition after almost
two years. An earlier Epson 740 clogged itself to death. And a Canon
i850 that followed died too. Maybe the Z55's strong point was its
simplicity. It had few moving parts 🙂. . . .

And naturally, I refilled the same 2 cartridges over and over. Original
ones were abnormally small and expensive.

-Taliesyn

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <kjc1a1tddka13c4olp4mqgekjqp0ghu0ru@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>I have yet to see one that can match the output from high end Epson,
>Canon or HP printers. I';d agree that they can match the output of
>Lexmark inkjets, but then so can a dot matrix...

It depends on the circumstances. I would say that laser photos on cheap
paper are better than inkjet on cheap paper.

--
Timothy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:23:58 +0100, "me@privacy.net" <me@Privacy.Net>
wrote:

>In message <kjc1a1tddka13c4olp4mqgekjqp0ghu0ru@4ax.com>, Hecate
><hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>I have yet to see one that can match the output from high end Epson,
>>Canon or HP printers. I';d agree that they can match the output of
>>Lexmark inkjets, but then so can a dot matrix...
>
>It depends on the circumstances. I would say that laser photos on cheap
>paper are better than inkjet on cheap paper.


Define cheap paper.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[zakezuke]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Define cheap paper.

Surplus onion skin fanfold paper.

On an inkjet the color bleeds and generally doesn't look good.

On a laser it might catch fire. On lasers that have a straight path
this effect of burning paper exiting your printer looks better than
blotchy ink output on a typical ink printer. The effect on a U turn
path may not be as satisfactory.

However, I think what the parent means is uncoated 20-lb paper.

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There is an interesting thread on the Nifty-Stuff forum that compares inkjet
printing on several uncoated papers that are routinely sold as copy/laser
papers. Some also claim to be for inkjet printing as well. There is
definitely a difference in quality of inkjet printing from one brand to
another. The ink tends to bleed through or spread in the paper fibers to a
different extent I didn't pay much attention to it as I don't use an inkjet
with uncoated paper. I use an HP laser printer for text printing and
business documents. If you want to check this out you can go to
http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ and look up the thread on plain paper
inkjet printing.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118018434.458304.131310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Define cheap paper.
>
> Surplus onion skin fanfold paper.
>
> On an inkjet the color bleeds and generally doesn't look good.
>
> On a laser it might catch fire. On lasers that have a straight path
> this effect of burning paper exiting your printer looks better than
> blotchy ink output on a typical ink printer. The effect on a U turn
> path may not be as satisfactory.
>
> However, I think what the parent means is uncoated 20-lb paper.
>