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.
>>
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.
>>