Followup: Poor Results with HP 375 Explained and Corrected

[Guest]

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

I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
the problem seemed to be the paper.
Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")
It is most important, also, that the "Flash" option be chosen from
the "Preferences" menu and kept as the default, as this enhances
contrast. Also, the "Brightness" setting is quite important, although
the exactly correct brightness level may have to be determined
by trial-and-error.
I believe HP has a better paper than the one that comes with
the printer, but BB seems to think that the Epson paper is the best,
and is cheaper. (Fussy folks like me who need to buy paper and ink
separately may not get the 29 cent/p/p cost that HP claims when
you buy their paper/ink package.)
I would suggest that anyone who has been disappointed with
this printer try a different paper. With the right-paper it seems you
can truly obtain lab or near-lab quality. (If the less-than-smooth
appearance of the ink-jet technology bothers you- and it ALMOST
bothers me- I'd get a Canon with dye sub. I really do prefer dye
sub, but Canon never seems to have it all together with its
printers. If only they understood the convenience of card slots! Also,
they tend to pull support from older models too quickly. I have a
CD-300, one of their earlier models WITH card slots, which they
have failed to support with new drivers for WinXP.
Again many thanks to you all for your advice, especially Bob
Headrick who offered to print the files on his own printer!
Frank

 

[Guest]

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

"frank1492" <frank1492@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mc64b11dd0dhb5k54oba4k5b6oedj26jn9@4ax.com...
>I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
> thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
> I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
> a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
> the problem seemed to be the paper.
> Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
> now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
> The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
> are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
> images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
> might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
> slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
> over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")

Hmm.... I guess I need to restate my offer. The HP paper is tuned to the HP
ink and will likely give better results than a paper that is tuned to a
different ink set. This is not just marketing BS. If you want to try it
yourself pick up some HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo paper, or send me your jpg
and I will print a copy and mail it to you.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably
> get a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself.

Unless i'm sadly mistaken, the HP 375 is an A6 printer. How would one
fit letter sized paper in it? Chop it up?

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Cut to size with a Fiskars Rotary Paper Cutter at Costco for under $30.00

Great... what about fingerprints? Dusty borders pre-printing?
Slightly skewed edges, slightly wrong proportions pre-printing? And
the fact that you have to chop up the paper at least 4 times to make
(2) 4x6 (1)4x8.5 and still have lots of waste paper.

It sounds like you had no idea what paper this printer took and were
making a blind recommendation. Kirkland paper is a great deal, worth
giving a shot, is painfully clear you have no personal experience with
this printer making any reccomendation meaningless.

 

[Guest]

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

Maybe that is true for HP but not 100% true for Canon. While Canon
Photo Paper Pro is a hair better than Costco/Kirkland Paper it is not
that much better and cost 7 times as much. You really have to spend
time scrutinizing the print to see the difference.

I do not know if the same differences between Costco and HP papers would
be evident. Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably
get a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself. Be
sure and use OEM inks for a fair comparison.

Bob Headrick wrote:

>"frank1492" <frank1492@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:mc64b11dd0dhb5k54oba4k5b6oedj26jn9@4ax.com...
>
>
>>I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
>>thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
>> I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
>>a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
>>the problem seemed to be the paper.
>> Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
>>now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
>>The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
>>are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
>>images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
>>might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
>>slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
>>over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")
>>
>>
>
>Hmm.... I guess I need to restate my offer. The HP paper is tuned to the HP
>ink and will likely give better results than a paper that is tuned to a
>different ink set. This is not just marketing BS. If you want to try it
>yourself pick up some HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo paper, or send me your jpg
>and I will print a copy and mail it to you.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>
>
>
>

 

[zakezuke]

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

> If I had an HP printer I would try the Costco paper and if it works
> as well in HP printers as it does in Canons I would save a ton of money with
> all of the photos I print.

Hey... the logic of trying the Kirland Costco is sound. It looked fab
on my old HP, but the OP if i'm not sadly mistaken has an A6 printer
and near as i'm aware they don't sell Kirkland paper in 4x6. The last
time I looked at Costco the only option was I believe Kodak paper. You
"could" cut it but I found on my HP, which was an old PSC 950, I could
see my own finger prints after printing. On my Epson it scattered
powder around. Some to think about it my last 100 pack of Epson Glossy
paper did the same thing.

Needless to say I found it silly for someone to take the time to
reccomend a paper that wouldn't fit in a printer without indicating
they would have to cut it. But hey if someone wants to pre-cut 4x6 or
if the printer supports 4x8.5... great.

 

[zakezuke]

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

And with Canon OEM that would get very costly very quickly.

 

[zakezuke]

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

>I use an old guillatine type cutter from my many years of work in a darkroom.

It's been years since I did any darkroom work, but still I also have
the guillatine style but a lame sub $30 plastic model. My accuracy
with the guide is +/- 1mm which I only tend to notice on CD cases.

But yes, i'm one of those that prefers cutting 4x6 after the fact
mainly because I like to handle the paper as little as possible and it
seems to make sence to me to avoid contact with skin oils till after
everything is applied. For accurate cuts on my guillatine I employ the
use of seperate ruler. Otherwise the paper tends to bow resulting in a
curved cut.

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably
>>get a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself.
>>
>>
>
>Unless i'm sadly mistaken, the HP 375 is an A6 printer. How would one
>fit letter sized paper in it? Chop it up?
>
>

Cut to size with a Fiskars Rotary Paper Cutter at Costco for under $30.00

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>I use an old guillatine type cutter from my many years of work in a darkroom.
>
>
> It's been years since I did any darkroom work, but still I also have
> the guillatine style but a lame sub $30 plastic model. My accuracy
> with the guide is +/- 1mm which I only tend to notice on CD cases.
>
> But yes, i'm one of those that prefers cutting 4x6 after the fact
> mainly because I like to handle the paper as little as possible and it
> seems to make sence to me to avoid contact with skin oils till after
> everything is applied. For accurate cuts on my guillatine I employ the
> use of seperate ruler. Otherwise the paper tends to bow resulting in a
> curved cut.
>

I get great results with a simple exacta knife, a metal ruler, and
a sample 4x6 print as a measuring guide. I only slice to the 4 inch
width. After it prints I then slice off the excess to get the 6 inch
length - no measuring req'd, just cut off the unprinted section. This
method takes but a few seconds of my time and has never produced a
skewed result. Advantages are that I never have a dull blade, just
break off to get the next one. I get 10 blades for a dollar, an infinite
supply of razor sharp edges. One suggestion is not to press hard. Make a
few soft passes so as not to get a raised edge.

My sister has a rotary Friskers and she says its pretty useless as an
effective cutter. I tried it when she got it and wasn't impressed. It's
nowhere near as accurate and clean cutting as my exacta method. She now
uses an exacta knife too.

Taliesyn

 

[BURT]

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

As usual, Measekite's reasoning is ass-backwards and contains half-truths.
I use Costco's paper almost exclusively for photo printing on my Canon i960
printer and find that it does make beautiful prints with OEM or with MIS
refill inks. The prints made with each ink are so close in appearance that
I don't think you would be able to tell me which you liked best. So much
for his OEM ink suggestion. Now about the paper - While the appearance of
the prints is excellent with the Costco paper, there is no data to indicate
which paper would produce the longest lasting prints with regard to fading.
His only reference is to some prints that have been laying on his desk for
several months and mine is from prints that are framed behind glass or in
albums. The Canon papers do produce very nice prints with OEM and with MIS
inks and so do Epson Glossy papers work well with these inks in my printers.

The bottom line is that all of these combinations produce excellent prints
in the i960 printer. Which will hold up the longest has not been adequately
tested. If I had an HP printer I would try the Costco paper and if it works
as well in HP printers as it does in Canons I would save a ton of money with
all of the photos I print.


"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:EqCse.3221$NU5.1205@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe that is true for HP but not 100% true for Canon. While Canon Photo
> Paper Pro is a hair better than Costco/Kirkland Paper it is not that much
> better and cost 7 times as much. You really have to spend time
> scrutinizing the print to see the difference.
>
> I do not know if the same differences between Costco and HP papers would
> be evident. Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably get
> a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself. Be sure
> and use OEM inks for a fair comparison.
>
> Bob Headrick wrote:
>
>>"frank1492" <frank1492@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>news:mc64b11dd0dhb5k54oba4k5b6oedj26jn9@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
>>>thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
>>> I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
>>>a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
>>>the problem seemed to be the paper.
>>> Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
>>>now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
>>>The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
>>>are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
>>>images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
>>>might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
>>>slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
>>>over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")
>>>
>>
>>Hmm.... I guess I need to restate my offer. The HP paper is tuned to the
>>HP ink and will likely give better results than a paper that is tuned to a
>>different ink set. This is not just marketing BS. If you want to try it
>>yourself pick up some HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo paper, or send me your
>>jpg and I will print a copy and mail it to you.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[BURT]

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

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:f1Gse.3503$NU5.1965@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>>Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably
>>>get a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself.
>>>
>>
>>Unless i'm sadly mistaken, the HP 375 is an A6 printer. How would one
>>fit letter sized paper in it? Chop it up?
>>
>
> Cut to size with a Fiskars Rotary Paper Cutter at Costco for under $30.00

Wouldn't they let you take it home to use it? Or is your syntax a bit
screwed up? I guess you meant the following:
Cut to size with a Fiskars Rotary Paper Cutter WHICH YOU CAN PURCHASE at
Costco for under $30.00.

 

[Guest]

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

Burt wrote:

>As usual, Measekite's reasoning is Burtie Furtie-backwards and contains all-truths.
>I use Costco's paper almost exclusively for photo printing on my Canon i960
>printer and find that it does make beautiful prints with OEM or with Unknown MIS Labeled
>Bulk inks. The prints made with each ink are so close in appearance that
>I don't think you would be able to tell me which you liked best except for the ink. So much
>for his OEM ink suggestion. Now about the paper - While the appearance of
>the prints is excellent with the Costco paper, there is no data to indicate
>which paper would produce the longest lasting prints with regard to fading or which does not.
>His only reference is to some prints that have been laying on his desk for
>several months and mine is from prints that are framed behind my ass or in
>albums. The Canon papers do produce very nice prints with OEM and with Unknown MIS Labeled
>inks and so do Epson Glossy papers work well with these inks in my printers.
>
>

Of course Epson does, Canon says so.

>The bottom line is that all of these combinations produce excellent prints
>in the i960 printer. Which will hold up the longest has not been adequately
>tested. If I had an HP printer I would try the Costco paper
>

Thats what I said in just a few lines shmuck.

>and if it works
>as well in HP printers as it does in Canons I would save a ton of money with
>all of the photos I print.
>
>
>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:EqCse.3221$NU5.1205@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Maybe that is true for HP but not 100% true for Canon. While Canon Photo
>>Paper Pro is a hair better than Costco/Kirkland Paper it is not that much
>>better and cost 7 times as much. You really have to spend time
>>scrutinizing the print to see the difference.
>>
>>I do not know if the same differences between Costco and HP papers would
>>be evident. Since 125 sheets of Costco is $18.95 and you can probably get
>>a small pack of HP I would try them both ans judge for yourself. Be sure
>>and use OEM inks for a fair comparison.
>>
>>Bob Headrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"frank1492" <frank1492@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:mc64b11dd0dhb5k54oba4k5b6oedj26jn9@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
>>>>thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
>>>> I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
>>>>a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
>>>>the problem seemed to be the paper.
>>>> Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
>>>>now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
>>>>The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
>>>>are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
>>>>images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
>>>>might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
>>>>slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
>>>>over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hmm.... I guess I need to restate my offer. The HP paper is tuned to the
>>>HP ink and will likely give better results than a paper that is tuned to a
>>>different ink set. This is not just marketing BS. If you want to try it
>>>yourself pick up some HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo paper, or send me your
>>>jpg and I will print a copy and mail it to you.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>Cut to size with a Fiskars Rotary Paper Cutter at Costco for under $30.00
>>
>>
>
>Great... what about fingerprints? Dusty borders pre-printing?
>Slightly skewed edges, slightly wrong proportions pre-printing? And
>the fact that you have to chop up the paper at least 4 times to make
>(2) 4x6 (1)4x8.5 and still have lots of waste paper.
>
>

NONE OF THIS HAPPENS. NO FINGERPRINTS. NO DUSTY BORDERS. NO SKEWED
EDGES. NO WRONG PROPORTIONS.

>It sounds like you had no idea what paper this printer took and were
>making a blind recommendation. Kirkland paper is a great deal, worth
>giving a shot, is painfully clear you have no personal experience with
>this printer making any reccomendation meaningless.
>
>
>

 

[BURT]

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

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:4_Ise.3612$NU5.2371@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>As usual, Measekite's reasoning is Burtie Furtie-backwards and contains
>>all-truths. I use Costco's paper almost exclusively for photo printing on
>>my Canon i960 printer and find that it does make beautiful prints with OEM
>>or with Unknown MIS Labeled
>>Bulk inks. The prints made with each ink are so close in appearance that
>>I don't think you would be able to tell me which you liked best except for
>>the ink. So much for his OEM ink suggestion. Now about the paper - While
>>the appearance of the prints is excellent with the Costco paper, there is
>>no data to indicate which paper would produce the longest lasting prints
>>with regard to fading or which does not. His only reference is to some
>>prints that have been laying on his desk for several months and mine is
>>from prints that are framed behind my ass or in albums. The Canon papers
>>do produce very nice prints with OEM and with Unknown MIS Labeled
>>inks and so do Epson Glossy papers work well with these inks in my
>>printers.
>>
>
> Of course Epson does, Canon says so.

Measekite quotes from the gospels of St. Canon.

>
>>The bottom line is that all of these combinations produce excellent prints
>>in the i960 printer. Which will hold up the longest has not been
>>adequately tested. If I had an HP printer I would try the Costco paper
>
> Thats what I said in just a few lines shmuck.


Besides your crude and dishonest editing of my post, above, you need to read
yours and mine again. You hadn't mentioned Epson paper, and you definitely
didn't indicate that the MIS inks (and as a matter of fact, certain other
aftermarket inks) produced equally beautiful prints. You also forgot to
mention that longevity with any of these combinations has not been carefully
compared. These lapses on your part are known as lies of omission. You
forgot the comma betweek "lines" and "shmuck" and also misspelled schmuck,
schmuck.
>
(snip)

 

[frank]

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

measekite wrote:


AND I GET ENJOYMENT OUT OF JERKING YOU OFF.


I knew it! You're one of those sexual perverts aren't you? Is that why
you won't use your real name?
We have laws for perverts like you.
Are you registered?
Well...?
Frank

 

[BURT]

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

Zake - I cut the paper while I'm watching some dumb TV. Half an hour and
I've "butchered" a whole box into 4x6's. I have plenty of time to do this,
but if I were pushed for time I wouldn't even consider it. I once tried
Kodak paper in my Epson Stylus Color 900 and it was terrible. I tried the
Kodak suggestions for settings and their software, but I couldn't get a
result that I liked. I haven't bothered with Kodak paper on my Canon i960
as the Kirkland and Epson paper works so well. I haven't noticed any powder
or dust after cutting. I use an old guillatine type cutter from my many
years of work in a darkroom. I wash my hands thoroughly and completely dry
them before cutting the paper and haven't seen any printing problems from
fingerprints. As much as possible I try to handle the paper as little as
possible.

Some people prefer to print several 4x6 photos on the same full sheet of
paper and then cut them apart, but that requires more time as the cuts have
to be lined up accurately whereas precutting the paper with a cutting guide
is very accurate and fast.

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119054688.170317.190430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If I had an HP printer I would try the Costco paper and if it works
>> as well in HP printers as it does in Canons I would save a ton of money
>> with
>> all of the photos I print.
>
> Hey... the logic of trying the Kirland Costco is sound. It looked fab
> on my old HP, but the OP if i'm not sadly mistaken has an A6 printer
> and near as i'm aware they don't sell Kirkland paper in 4x6. The last
> time I looked at Costco the only option was I believe Kodak paper. You
> "could" cut it but I found on my HP, which was an old PSC 950, I could
> see my own finger prints after printing. On my Epson it scattered
> powder around. Some to think about it my last 100 pack of Epson Glossy
> paper did the same thing.
>
> Needless to say I found it silly for someone to take the time to
> reccomend a paper that wouldn't fit in a printer without indicating
> they would have to cut it. But hey if someone wants to pre-cut 4x6 or
> if the printer supports 4x8.5... great.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
> AND I GET ENJOYMENT OUT OF JERKING YOU OFF.
>
>
> I knew it! I am one of those sexual perverts. That is why I use my
> real name?
>
> Frank


:-*

>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Of course I meant the *HP* paper supplied with the printer. Sorry.
Bob, I appreciate your continuing offer. I would certainly bet
that the HP Premium Plus will work as well as the Epson, or maybe
better. I can only tell you that, to my eye, the Epson paper is
adequate to make me want to keep my 375, and that makes me
very happy. In the future I will certainly try the HP PP!
I think it is interesting that when I originally posted my
complaint about the 375, nobody told me to try different paper.
Perhaps I mischaracterized the way I thought the prints looked,
but I don't think so. Is it just that some people are unusually
sensitive to the effects of different finishes? (I am apparently
not so sensitive to "ink tuning" issues as I do think the Epson
paper produces excellent results.)
Please know that I do continue to appreciate your help
on this and may still take you up on your offer at some point
in the future! Thank you!






On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:43:42 -0700, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:

>
>"frank1492" <frank1492@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:mc64b11dd0dhb5k54oba4k5b6oedj26jn9@4ax.com...
>>I had originally reported being dissatisfied with the print quality-
>> thought the prints looked drab and lifeless.
>> I had the same files printed at the drugstore, and they seemed
>> a whole lot better, but the colors and hues were identical. Clearly
>> the problem seemed to be the paper.
>> Best Buy recommended that I try Epson High-Gloss paper. I can
>> now say that the results are pretty much the equal of the drugstore.
>> The Epson paper (supplied with the printer) produces results which
>> are simply too "matte" in my opinion, particularly when some of the
>> images were not really well-lit to begin with. To some, the difference
>> might seem slight, but to me it is huge! (Also, hold the prints at a
>> slight angle, and the images show a distinct outline, sort of like
>> over-enhanced video or a "cartoon effect.")
>
>Hmm.... I guess I need to restate my offer. The HP paper is tuned to the HP
>ink and will likely give better results than a paper that is tuned to a
>different ink set. This is not just marketing BS. If you want to try it
>yourself pick up some HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo paper, or send me your jpg
>and I will print a copy and mail it to you.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>