Could Canon ...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>>
>>> In article <okJte.546$N22.350@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> inkystinky@oem.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>> zakezuke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Look around this ng, as there are many good 3rd party ink suppliers.
>>>>>> You won't be sorry and you'll be a lot richer especially if you
>>>>>> do a lot
>>>>>> of printing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been meaning to ask, as it seems to be the norm here to take
>>>>> anyone's topic and transform it into a debate on OEM vs Aftermarket
>>>>> suppliers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does Media Street actually formulate and manufacturer their own ink?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO And they will not tell you what BRAND of ink they sell.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, of course, neither will Canon!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Canon is the source dummy.
>
>
> Doubtful dummy! Frank


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

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>> The real moral of the story is THERE IS NO GOD.
>
>
> Maybe not in your pathetic, meaningless life there is no GOD.
> But then again, maybe that's why you have such a pathetic, meanlingless
> life.
> Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> I'm sure there are some bad inks out there,
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of them.
>
>
>
> Bullshit!
>
>
>> That is not a BRAND and the jerks will not tell you who is the
>> mfg/formulator.
>
>
> bullshit!
>
>
> The driver is also different and that controls the end result quality.
>
> Not really as the mechanical limitations of the printer are the
> untimate deciding factors determining print quality.
> Frank


The driver controls the hardware and controls how the ink is laid down
on the medium.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>
> You must have no windows, you must not store your prints anywhere that
> would have natural light.

He lives in his mothers basement!
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Now - after Canon releases their Chroma-Life100 BCI-7 Epson might have
a run for their money. Still dye based, but dye based but people tend
to like dye. Hell I like dye. Near as i'm aware it's only available
on the Pixus ip9910, not what one would call a consumer grade printer,
and the Pixus ip90 something i've never seen.

http://web.canon.jp/technology/ij/03.html
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Inline reply in response to another of Measekites lies.
--
Ron


"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:QWXte.2047$Bx6.818@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
>>In article <ejJte.545$N22.154@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>inkystinky@oem.com says...
>>
>>
>>>If you want to buy a NONAME UNBRANDED potential printhead clogging
>>>garbage. It there is an aftermarket mfg/formulator that is ok to use it
>>>is almost impossible to find them.
>>>
>>>
>>It was pretty easy to identify a couple of pretty good prospects for ink
>>vendors, based on info from actual users (not just opinion holders) in
>>this ng.
>>
>
> Hey PeckerBloomer - We are not talking about vendors we are talking about
> mfg/formulators.
>
>>I'm sure there are some bad inks out there,
>
> Most of them.
>
>>I strongly suspect (but do not know from experience) that the universal
>>ink refill kits will give poor results. The TruColor Imaging ink I got
>>from alotofthings.com works perfectly in my i960, and is costing me about
>>50 cents per refill.
>
> That is not a BRAND and the jerks will not tell you who is the
> mfg/formulator.

As usual the above statement from Measekite is completely false. TrueColor
Imaging (as does Alotofthings) clearly states on their web site and eBay
store that all the ink they sell is manufactured by Sensient-Formulabs.
Measekite knows very well that all bulk ink sold by Alotofthings and
TrueColor is the Formulabs brand. Why this emotionally disturbed individual
chooses to make up blatant lies about 3rd party ink vendors is a mystery to
me. Since he has very little experience using any type of printer and no
experience using refill inks, the vendetta he has towards these vendors
cannot be based upon real life experiences or dealings with these
businesses.





>

>>I've refilled 12 cartridges in 6 months, so vs. $11 for Canon cartridges,
>>I've already paid for my next printer, with 6 months left on the warranty,
>>and no signs of any problems. Refilling the Canon cartridges is a
>>no-brainer, as I do not have any and very little time and trouble
>>involved.
>>
>>Oh yeah, on the actual subject of this thread, the heads & print
>>cartridges for the Pixma series are the same as most of the previous i
>>series, with only mechanical paper feed differences, so this ink should
>>give the same results in the current line.
> The driver is also different and that controls the end result quality.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <wXXte.2048$Bx6.1905@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
> >>NO And they will not tell you what BRAND of ink they sell.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >But, of course, neither will Canon!
> >
> >
>
> Canon is the source dummy.
>
And alotofthings.com is another source (supplier). But Canon does not
make ink (or paper). They make cameras & printers. They are not
chemists. They sell very good ink & paper, but at an exorbitant price.
With a little effort, and maybe a little experimentation, you can find
good ink and paper for as little as 10% of the cost of Canon BRANDED ink
& paper. If you don't want to save this money, that's OK, it's your
money, not mine.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>That is interesting since my friend who purchsed an R300 (his 3rd since
>>the CD mech gave him trouble on the first
>>
>>
>
>I don't doubt it, but I must question why he purchased three.
>

Two were replaced under the Epson warranty.

>The do
>have a 1 year warranty and the print hasn't been out all that long.
>Epson had bad trays, call them for a free one, esp if you are switching
>to Canon.
>
>
>
>>2) and uses it mostly for CD printing and some photos said, after
>>seeing my Canon IP4000 photo results that he deemed better
>>
>>
>
>I also have a friend who said the same thing about the ip3000. He saw
>the last output of my Epson and the first output of the canon. Same
>file, same software. His first choice was actually the ip3000 because,
>as he said "it looked blacker". To me it looked more purple but hey.
>He has had a Canon longer than I, I believe the i860. He didn't take
>time to noice the 3point text which was wasn't ledgeable from the
>Canon. The CDs them selves he picked the Epson, the one that didn't
>have a clog drop.
>
>I also showed him two other DVDs, in a slightly less fair contest, that
>had been sitting on western window sill. His responce was "wow that's
>awful, what did you use to print that". It was the Canon, same thing
>he was holding in his hand, direct sunlight 2 weeks. The blacks faided
>to charcoal grey, reds faided to pink, cyan to pastel, faces totally
>blanked out like someone erased them. The Epson output, which in all
>fairness wasn't the same output, faided a tiny bit. The paper was that
>Epson Costco 125 pack that they don't sell anymore.
>
>

Canon never recommends that prints need a tan to look good.

>So while we would disagree about the inital output, we could obviously
>agree about faiding.
>
>

I have not experienced any fading since I place my Canon IP4000 into
service.

>Needless to say I prefered the Epson's output. While technicaly a
>higher drop size it more than makes up for it with the light inks which
>serve to smooth out colors like sky.
>

I amsure that there are types of prints and contents where 6 color would
be an advantage while other types of content would not pose any visible
advantage.

>I esp liked the super-microweave
>while taking an age to print really gives the quality a huge edge over
>the Canon. The fact that I never had to mess with the saturation to
>take into account saturation was a huge bonus.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> My prints sit on a table in my office near 2 windows. They have not
> faded in 8 months.

Perhaps you can share your secret. Perhaps UV coating works, I don't
know. Mine fade pretty badly in weeks near a window rather quickly.
I'd love my printer much more if it wasn't an issue, but unfortatly it
is.

> You can adjust contrast, brightness, and sharpness as well as color for
> the profile you are using.

That was rather one of my points. Out of the box the Epson does these
things much much better without fiddling with the brightness,
sharpness, as well as the color settings. Those times I did have to
fiddle with the color profile were when I bought new carts, that that
could be helped by buying made in X country only. I already know that
some papers require +10 intensity and others require +22, and generally
speaking I have to turn the red down. And even then... and even then
there is no light cyan or light magenta to be used as a fill color
leaving white bits on the paper. No amount of contrast, brightness,
and sharpness is going to help you. Perhaps you can reccomend a color
setting for the sited photograph that looks close to the origional? If
you can actually do this it would be of great help to other Canon
owners who find the color photo output so fujirific.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>Canon never recommends that prints need a tan to look good.
>>I have not experienced any fading since I place my Canon IP4000 into
>>service.
>>
>>
>
>You must have no windows, you must not store your prints anywhere that
>would have natural light. I live in Washington where cloud cover is
>the norm. They do fade very quickly under real world condtions like a
>framed image on a coffee table.
>
>

My prints sit on a table in my office near 2 windows. They have not
faded in 8 months.

>
>
>>I amsure that there are types of prints and contents where 6 color would
>>be an advantage while other types of content would not pose any visible
>>advantage.
>>
>>
>
>Like skin tones, sky, shadows for that matter, or anything generally
>associated with photo printing. I like the ip3000 and ip4000 as much
>as the next person. I think they are great. But they don't offer the
>light inks, they don't offer super microweave printing, and printing
>photos requires more adjustment to look natural.
>
>

Mine look pretty good to me.

>http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/images/mire_vive_big.jpg
>
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/images/r300_vive_big.jpg
>http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/images/ip4000_vive_big.jpg
>
>These are the best examples I can find. I find the ip4000 to have
>unrealistic contrast like you would find in a flash photo, where the
>r300 image even though it's using a 3pl drop size blends light and dark
>much better which you can clearly see in the face and the sky.
>
>
You can adjust contrast, brightness, and sharpness as well as color for
the profile you are using.

>While Toms hardware isn't the final authority on printing, their test
>methods are very methotical.
>
>Also see the following
>http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/images/r800_vive_big.jpg
>http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/images/ip8500_vive_big.jpg
>
>Both are great general purpose printers and photo printing is very
>decent. But the OEM ink isn't lightfast at all even in contrast to the
>Epson r200 which doesn't even use Dura or UltraChrome pigmented inks.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I paid $9.00


canon_phreak wrote:

>Actually the price at Costco right now is about $10.33 per cartridge,
>Not $9.00
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>
>> You must have no windows, you must not store your prints anywhere that
>> would have natural light.
>
>
> He lives in my mothers basement!
> Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

>In article <wXXte.2048$Bx6.1905@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
>>Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>NO And they will not tell you what BRAND of ink they sell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But, of course, neither will Canon!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Canon is the source dummy.
>>
>>
>>
>And alotofthings.com is another source (supplier). But Canon does not
>make ink (or paper). They make cameras & printers. They are not
>chemists. They sell very good ink & paper, but at an exorbitant price.
>With a little effort, and maybe a little experimentation, you can find
>good ink and paper for as little as 10% of the cost of Canon BRANDED ink
>& paper. If you don't want to save this money, that's OK, it's your
>money, not mine.
>
>

Go get clogged Pecker Bloomer
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
>> It's in English. Matbe someone could translate for you.
>
>
> hehehehe...🙂
> Frank

hehehehe
Frankie CockRoach Crankie
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> I do not have a secret. This is just the way it is. What kind of paper
> are you using? I am using Costco/Kirkland Photo Paper Glossy and Canon
> Photo Paper Pro.

Yep, same stuff, that wonderful 69lb kirkland paper. The results are
also the same on the sample Photo Paper Plus. And before you ask I am
using the OEM ink that came with the printer. There is some other
stuff as well that well in all fairness isn't happy either way, like
uncoated warsaw index paper, Hammermill indoor label paper prenium
glossy. But all my experiments with color have been on the Kirkland
69lb paper as it's cheapish and consistent.


>> That was rather one of my points. Out of the box the Epson does these
>> things much much better without fiddling with the brightness,
>> sharpness, as well as the color settings.

> Not much fidling. Basically just set auto levels.

The auto levels are cool, and neat, but hardly accurate unless you live
in a place of periwinkle skies.

>> And even then... and even then
>>there is no light cyan or light magenta to be used as a fill color
>>leaving white bits on the paper.

>I have not noticed that either.

Look here
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/high_end_printers-05.html
and here
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-08.html
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>My prints sit on a table in my office near 2 windows. They have not
>>faded in 8 months.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps you can share your secret. Perhaps UV coating works, I don't
>know. Mine fade pretty badly in weeks near a window rather quickly.
>I'd love my printer much more if it wasn't an issue, but unfortatly it
>is.
>
>

I do not have a secret. This is just the way it is. What kind of paper
are you using? I am using Costco/Kirkland Photo Paper Glossy and Canon
Photo Paper Pro.

>
>
>>You can adjust contrast, brightness, and sharpness as well as color for
>>the profile you are using.
>>
>>
>
>That was rather one of my points. Out of the box the Epson does these
>things much much better without fiddling with the brightness,
>sharpness, as well as the color settings.
>

Not much fidling. Basically just set auto levels.

> Those times I did have to
>fiddle with the color profile were when I bought new carts, that that
>could be helped by buying made in X country only. I already know that
>some papers require +10 intensity and others require +22, and generally
>speaking I have to turn the red down. And even then... and even then
>there is no light cyan or light magenta to be used as a fill color
>leaving white bits on the paper.
>

I have not noticed that either.

>No amount of contrast, brightness,
>and sharpness is going to help you. Perhaps you can reccomend a color
>setting for the sited photograph that looks close to the origional? If
>you can actually do this it would be of great help to other Canon
>owners who find the color photo output so fujirific.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <OB8ue.2501$Bx6.1838@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
> Go get clogged Pecker Bloomer
>
Thank you, measley, for another informative insight from your vast
experience.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <JC8ue.2502$Bx6.1326@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
> >It's in English. Matbe someone could translate for you.
> >
> >
>
> What is matbe Peckerface? :-* :-D :-D :-D
>
A typo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom