Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.
>
> When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
> their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
> print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.

If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party Canon
compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to your logic,
the majority of the people on this NG are producing prints from Epson
printers that are not Epson prints, including yourself. That is
because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party inks and many different
brands of paper. To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
majority of the same characteristics.

>
> It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
> call it a 'Canon print' in this context.
>
> Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
> accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the
> print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface
> with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.
>
> All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
> course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed
> with glass directly on the surface of the print.
>
> So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
> about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
> best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
> papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.

Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade, that
might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the pigment inks.

>
>
> Art
>
>
> Brian Potter wrote:
>
>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>> still
>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>> There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick
>> with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>> shortcomings. There
>> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>>
>> BPotter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
>> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>
>>> In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>
>>>> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your facts!
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>>>>
>>>
>>> then
>>>
>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>
>>>> and I don't use Canon
>>>> papers nor inks.
>>>
>>>
>>> By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
>>> discussed.
>>
 
G

Guest

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

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
wrote:

>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
>a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
>a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
>manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
>will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>
>BPotter

>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print

>> then

>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.

I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
coffee.

Regardless whether I use vodka or water.

Geo
(Just having a coffee)
 
G

Guest

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

Canon inks and compatible inks are virtual clones of each other with
only minute differences. Paper has a larger variation, but still must be
compatible with Canon produced papers. It may be better or it may be
worse. Water is NOT compatible with Vodka. If you don't believe me try
brewing your tea with Vodka. Enjoy your strange brew because neither it
nor your logic holds any water.

BPotter



"GEO" Me@home.here wrote in news:423efab9.8962826@news.ucalgary.ca:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
> wrote:
>
>>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>>still a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make
>>it. There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
>>stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>shortcomings. There will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact
>>too.
>>
>>BPotter
>
>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print
>
>>> then
>
>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.
>
> I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
> coffee.
>
> Regardless whether I use vodka or water.
>
 
G

Guest

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations
> old, and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.
>
> As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid, they
> are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed dye
> and pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally thousands of
> years of historical data to draw from. We have cloth and paintings
> from back as far as cave paintings, including manuscripts,
> illuminations, oil and water color images, and so on to provide much
> of the information.
>
> Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may
> have a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the
> environment that will change how all these things respond, but baring
> any major disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests as a back
> up, we can make some pretty reasonable interpolations about the
> relative aging processes of different dyes and pigments. It isn't
> perfect, but it also isn't a complete guess.
>
> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage
> data we use currently will not last and the software and reading
> devices will become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to
> procure. That is where the print really shines, because it only
> requires light to view.
> Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will
> fade away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already
> does in a matter of years.


Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720 came
out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy and then
to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity there will
always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never fade and you
can archive it forever.

>
> How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
> say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
> their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your estate,
> or shred all your images because they don't want to be bothered with
> them.
>
> However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the
> materials, but more by historic precedence and value.
>
> In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each
> of us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to
> be generating.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not
>>> to mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it
>>> just make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for
>>> 100 years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in
>>> cleaning cycles to do so?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>>
>>> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
>>> consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its
>>> useful life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen
>> any prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper
>> and Epson ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how
>> about 50 years. I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20
>> years old? Tests are simulations.
>>
>>> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
>>> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
>>> from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".
>>
>>
>>
>> And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30
>> years old and they have faded.
>>
>>> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
>>> have been gone long before now.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence
>>> of image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some
>>> maintenance issues still being worked out, but considering that for
>>> literally under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full
>>> color photo quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,
>>
>>
>>
>> Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
>> years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.
>>
>>> we've come a long way.
>>>
>>> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
>>> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
>>> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the
>>> waste ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs
>>> are frozen at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my
>>> book, but a good start as a design.
>>>
>>> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
>>> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and
>>> few maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer
>>> may be inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that
>>>> case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that
>>>> Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a
>>>> tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter
>>>> and the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>>>
>>>> Hecate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper
>>>>>>> jams,
>>>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
>>>>>>> fantastic
>>>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected
>>>>>>> over a 100
>>>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their
>>>>>>> magenta
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about
>>>>>> the mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>>>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>>>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>
 
G

Guest

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>>
>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>> was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>
>
> So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
> and tires.

Thats right! And the same Honda model purchased 6 months apart can have
different non Honda parts but they are compatible and interchangable.
That said, I am not advocating that all 3rd party inks are truly
compatible. If I knew they were I would purchase them.

> It's still a Honda

Good choice. Honda is the best value; especially the Accord.

> drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
> performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print

Hopefully. That depends on how compatible the ink is. Some of the
really cheap inks and the really cheap papers are probably not true
representations of Canon.

> I
> receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
> reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
> use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
> in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
> keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. .

especially when you have to go to the bathroom

> .
>
>> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon
>> camera
>> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it
>> a "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>>
>
> You needn't wonder any longer.
>
> Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
> prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
> don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
> or even be Canon made.
>
> -Taliesyn
> __________________________________________________________
> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:54:36 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
wrote:

> Water is NOT compatible with Vodka.

?????

Geo
 
G

Guest

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

I'll give you that point. I suppose if one has a serious drinking
problem they may indeed use Vodka like water!


BPotter



"GEO" Me@home.here wrote in news:423f107f.14536175@news.ucalgary.ca:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:54:36 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Water is NOT compatible with Vodka.
>
> ?????
>
> Geo
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

In article <HTv%d.14078$C47.2453@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>
How fortunate for the future of the human race that you intend to end
you genetic line at this generation! ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

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

In article <22D%d.20816$Pz7.9632@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>According to your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are
>producing prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints,
>including yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd
>party inks and many different brands of paper.

That is true, when that is what they are doing. And they cannot claim
Canon or Epson ageing characteristics if they are using non OEM
materials.

> To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible,
>then they are representative of the OEM and should share the majority
>of the same characteristics.
>
On what basis do you reach that conclusion? I suggest you have a quick
review of the warranty on your printer, because Canon certainly reach a
different conclusion.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

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

In article <O4WdnSF9vqT0_6PfRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
<bpotter@thebar.net> writes
>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
>a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.

I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer on
Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print - and I
suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered trade name
being used to describe it as such!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

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

In article <3a836nF67lisiU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>>was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>
>
>So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
>and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get.

But not a Honda warranty. Those parts which you *can* change and retain
the Honda warranty have openly published specifications. Providing the
replacement part meets the Honda specification, Honda will honour the
warranty. They won't if you use a part which doesn't meet their
specification or if you change a part which does not have an open spec.
Canon ink does not have a published specification, nor does Canon paper.
>
>Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
>prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
>don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
>or even be Canon made.
>
And I haven't suggested that you need *anyone's* approval. You are
perfectly at liberty to call your products whatever you like, but when
you are trying to converse with anyone else you will make more progress
if you use the same terminology instead of silly word games to imply you
have a brand name product when you actually have something that the
owner of the brand name would strongly object to having their name
associated with.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 

bill

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,834
0
19,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:41:46 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that case,
>who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that Canon will
>develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a tendency for
>longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and the print
>results will be the overriding factor.



They can't as its Bubble Jet..


>Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>ThomasH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>>>>zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
>>>>results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
>>>>images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
>>>Sorry about the mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>>lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>>be quite subtle at first.
>>
>> --
>>
>>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...
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

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

OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
printer.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <O4WdnSF9vqT0_6PfRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
> <bpotter@thebar.net> writes
>
>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>> still
>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>
>
> I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer
> on Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print -
> and I suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered
> trade name being used to describe it as such!
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:57:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
>compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
>majority of the same characteristics.
>
Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
mean that their cartridges fit the printer.

--

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...
 
G

Guest

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

In article <nZK%d.209$FN4.18@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
>printer.
>
If that is what had been written then it would have been a reasonable
description and understood by most discussing the topic. Unfortunately
that isn't what was written. What was written was a lie.

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

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

Hecate wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:57:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
>>compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
>>majority of the same characteristics.
>>
>>
>>
>Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
>inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
>mean that their cartridges fit the printer.
>
>
>
I am not speaking of compatible cartridges. I am speaking of compatible
inks. If you refill a Canon brand cartridge it is most obvious that it
fits the Canon printer. If the ink has the same characteristics then it
is compatible. It needs to have the same characteristics so it will
function PROPERLY with the Print Head. That does not mean there may be
small variations with some differential in quality.

> --
>
>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...
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <nZK%d.209$FN4.18@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
> <measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
>> printer.
>>
> If that is what had been written then it would have been a reasonable
> description and understood by most discussing the topic.
> Unfortunately that isn't what was written.


I think that you can ASSume it. :-*

> What was written was a lie.
 
G

Guest

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

I think your posting, where you responded to an issue about Canon inks
being fugitive by replying about prints made with non-Canon inks was not
a matter of semantics at all, but was very misleading, and intentionally
so. Kennedy caught you at this, and you didn't even have the decency to
admit it was deceptive.

That's fine, but it puts all your postings into a very different light.
It would be wise for others to recognize that you will intentionally
use omission of information as a method to provide misleading
information, and it certainly gives me pause to take your statements
seriously.

The question when reading your postings will always be "what has he
neglected to mention", and I don't think that serves anyone. It
certainly doesn't improve the content of a forum like this for people
seeking honest and balanced information.

And your use of the Honda analogy to prove your point shows some pretty
twisted logic.

Art


Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>>
>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>> was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>
>
> So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
> and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
> performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print I
> receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
> reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
> use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
> in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
> keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. . .
>
>> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon camera
>> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it
>> a "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>>
>
> You needn't wonder any longer.
>
> Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
> prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
> don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
> or even be Canon made.
>
> -Taliesyn
> __________________________________________________________
> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

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

I think that Taliesyn made sense and was clearly understood.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I think your posting, where you responded to an issue about Canon inks
> being fugitive by replying about prints made with non-Canon inks was
> not a matter of semantics at all, but was very misleading, and
> intentionally so. Kennedy caught you at this, and you didn't even
> have the decency to admit it was deceptive.
>
> That's fine, but it puts all your postings into a very different
> light. It would be wise for others to recognize that you will
> intentionally use omission of information as a method to provide
> misleading information, and it certainly gives me pause to take your
> statements seriously.
>
> The question when reading your postings will always be "what has he
> neglected to mention", and I don't think that serves anyone. It
> certainly doesn't improve the content of a forum like this for people
> seeking honest and balanced information.
>
> And your use of the Honda analogy to prove your point shows some
> pretty twisted logic.
>
> Art
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>>>
>>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>>> was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>>
>>
>> So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
>> and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
>> performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print I
>> receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
>> reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
>> use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
>> in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
>> keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. . .
>>
>>> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon
>>> camera
>>> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call
>>> it a "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>>>
>>
>> You needn't wonder any longer.
>>
>> Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
>> prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
>> don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
>> or even be Canon made.
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>> __________________________________________________________
>> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
>
 
G

Guest

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

I exclusively used Epson inks on all my Epson printers for about 4
years, and they are my oldest prints. I actually moved to 3rd party only
after Epson moved to chipped cartridges, on principle. I still have
about 10 or 15 Epson ink cartridges which are being used for certain
applications, where I need results with dye inks which are repeatable.
I never have reported on my 3rd party ink prints as "Epson prints" in
terms of longevity or color, because that would be totally unfair and
dishonest. We do need to dot the 'i's when discussing longevity, as
best we can.

Interestingly, my Epson OEM ink prints done on Tektronix papers, some of
which are nearly 8 years old now, and exposed to relatively high indoor
lighting, show only mild cyan fade in lighter areas.

The same prints done on Epson photo paper (the glossy stuff) faded
pretty badly in about 18 months (cyan failure) in medium-high lighting,
however, the Epson matte paper has held up well. Some older HP matte
paper did not work well with the Epson inks, in terms of longevity, but
I have no idea how it compares to current HP papers.

"Compatible" inks can vary massively from their OEM counterparts. It
would not be fair to equate them in terms of any characteristics other
than that they may both work in the same printer.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.
>>
>> When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
>> their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
>> print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.
>
>
> If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party Canon
> compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to your logic,
> the majority of the people on this NG are producing prints from Epson
> printers that are not Epson prints, including yourself. That is
> because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party inks and many different
> brands of paper. To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
> compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
> majority of the same characteristics.
>
>>
>> It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
>> call it a 'Canon print' in this context.
>>
>> Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
>> accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the
>> print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface
>> with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.
>>
>> All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
>> course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed
>> with glass directly on the surface of the print.
>>
>> So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
>> about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
>> best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
>> papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.
>
>
> Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
> far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade, that
> might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the pigment inks.
>
>>
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> Brian Potter wrote:
>>
>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>>> still
>>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>>> There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick
>>> with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>> shortcomings. There
>>> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>>>
>>> BPotter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
>>> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your facts!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> then
>>>>
>>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>> and I don't use Canon
>>>>> papers nor inks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
>>>> discussed.
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

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

As it is, I have a heck of a time keeping up with current transfers to
media. I have literally changed storage devices and media a good dozen
times in the last 15 years, and I would literally have to hire someone
just to do that work. It is a tremendous waste of time, which I am
pleased to say my several 100 thousand slide image collection doesn't
require... well, except for a dozen or so rolls of Agfa slide film that
is fading).

I think I went through 4 different versions of Syquest drives and disks
that didn't have compatible formats. Between the floppies, zips, and
other optical storage...

I'm now getting ready to more to DVD, but I trust it even less than
earlier technologies, because each disk hold so much data.

And besides, this is all bogus. My point was simply that the original
black and white silver photo can last hundreds of years and needs no
"backup" or methods to up-tech them.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations
>> old, and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.
>>
>> As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid, they
>> are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed dye
>> and pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally thousands of
>> years of historical data to draw from. We have cloth and paintings
>> from back as far as cave paintings, including manuscripts,
>> illuminations, oil and water color images, and so on to provide much
>> of the information.
>>
>> Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may
>> have a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the
>> environment that will change how all these things respond, but baring
>> any major disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests as a back
>> up, we can make some pretty reasonable interpolations about the
>> relative aging processes of different dyes and pigments. It isn't
>> perfect, but it also isn't a complete guess.
>>
>> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage
>> data we use currently will not last and the software and reading
>> devices will become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to
>> procure. That is where the print really shines, because it only
>> requires light to view.
>> Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will
>> fade away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already
>> does in a matter of years.
>
>
>
> Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
> readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720 came
> out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy and then
> to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity there will
> always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never fade and you
> can archive it forever.
>
>>
>> How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
>> say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
>> their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your estate,
>> or shred all your images because they don't want to be bothered with
>> them.
>>
>> However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the
>> materials, but more by historic precedence and value.
>>
>> In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each
>> of us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to
>> be generating.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not
>>>> to mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it
>>>> just make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for
>>>> 100 years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in
>>>> cleaning cycles to do so?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>>>
>>>> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
>>>> consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its
>>>> useful life.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen
>>> any prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper
>>> and Epson ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how
>>> about 50 years. I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20
>>> years old? Tests are simulations.
>>>
>>>> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
>>>> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
>>>> from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30
>>> years old and they have faded.
>>>
>>>> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
>>>> have been gone long before now.
>>>>
>>>> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence
>>>> of image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>>>>
>>>> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some
>>>> maintenance issues still being worked out, but considering that for
>>>> literally under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full
>>>> color photo quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
>>> years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.
>>>
>>>> we've come a long way.
>>>>
>>>> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
>>>> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
>>>> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the
>>>> waste ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs
>>>> are frozen at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my
>>>> book, but a good start as a design.
>>>>
>>>> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
>>>> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and
>>>> few maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer
>>>> may be inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that
>>>>> case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that
>>>>> Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a
>>>>> tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter
>>>>> and the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hecate wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper
>>>>>>>> jams,
>>>>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
>>>>>>>> fantastic
>>>>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected
>>>>>>>> over a 100
>>>>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their
>>>>>>>> magenta
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about
>>>>>>> the mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>>>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>>>>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>>>>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
 
G

Guest

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

What makes a Honda a good car is it's Honda design, the quality of the
workmanship of the build at a Honda authorized factory, and the
materials used and authorized by Honda. If your "Honda" was made from a
bunch of 3rd party parts that were not approved by and designed for
Honda, I'm afraid you could not call your car representative of a Honda,
and I think if consumer reports tested such a car and reported it as a
Honda, Honda would sue them.

Further, and much more to the point, cars don't produce an end product
using expendable like a printer does (other than pollution from
gasoline), so it's a very poor analogy.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>>>
>>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>>> was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>>
>>
>> So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
>> and tires.
>
>
> Thats right! And the same Honda model purchased 6 months apart can have
> different non Honda parts but they are compatible and interchangable.
> That said, I am not advocating that all 3rd party inks are truly
> compatible. If I knew they were I would purchase them.
>
>> It's still a Honda
>
>
> Good choice. Honda is the best value; especially the Accord.
>
>> drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
>> performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print
>
>
> Hopefully. That depends on how compatible the ink is. Some of the
> really cheap inks and the really cheap papers are probably not true
> representations of Canon.
>
>> I
>> receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
>> reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
>> use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
>> in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
>> keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. .
>
>
> especially when you have to go to the bathroom
>
>> .
>>
>>> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon
>>> camera
>>> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it
>>> a "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>>>
>>
>> You needn't wonder any longer.
>>
>> Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
>> prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
>> don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
>> or even be Canon made.
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>> __________________________________________________________
>> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

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

On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon
OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality and
purity?

I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since
they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to last
for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without failures.

I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.

Art

Brian Potter wrote:

> Canon inks and compatible inks are virtual clones of each other with
> only minute differences. Paper has a larger variation, but still must be
> compatible with Canon produced papers. It may be better or it may be
> worse. Water is NOT compatible with Vodka. If you don't believe me try
> brewing your tea with Vodka. Enjoy your strange brew because neither it
> nor your logic holds any water.
>
> BPotter
>
>
>
> "GEO" Me@home.here wrote in news:423efab9.8962826@news.ucalgary.ca:
>
>
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>>>still a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make
>>>it. There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
>>>stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>>shortcomings. There will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact
>>>too.
>>>
>>>BPotter
>>
>>>>>>In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>
>>>>then
>>
>>>>In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>>and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.
>>
>> I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
>>coffee.
>>
>> Regardless whether I use vodka or water.
>>
 
G

Guest

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

Obviously, he's never been a bar tender ;-)

Art

"GEO" Me@home.here wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:54:36 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Water is NOT compatible with Vodka.
>
>
> ?????
>
> Geo
>
 
G

Guest

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

They might now, considering the prints may both look better and last
longer if NOT printed with their inks and papers. Of course, like all
inkjet companies, the money is in the paper and ink, so maybe Canon
wouldn't be all that pleased.

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <O4WdnSF9vqT0_6PfRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
> <bpotter@thebar.net> writes
>
>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>> still
>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>
>
> I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer on
> Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print - and I
> suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered trade name
> being used to describe it as such!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts