I960 color problem

[jake]

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

I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer? Mine
didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times and
it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to be,
not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt anything/
Thanks in advance

 

[Guest]

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

Jake wrote:
> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer? Mine
> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times and
> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to be,
> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt anything/
> Thanks in advance

I had a similar problem, it came about because I did not change the ink
cartridge soon enough, and the corresponding part of the printhead dried
out -- at any rate that's my diagnosis. I don't know why magenta is so
fussy, though.

Taking a hint from an Epson owner who used Windex, I squirted a little
bit of Windex into the magenta cartridge, did a deep clean, and ran the
test print - showed marked improvement. SO did it again, and did it for
all six cartridges while I was at it. Much, much better.

But lately I've noticed faint streaking on the prints, and that means
another round of Windex cleaning. It may be that some dried/drying ink
from the docking station sponge is clogging the print nozzles, so I
would like to know how to clean or replace that sponge.

HTH&GL

 

[jake]

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

Thanks for all the advice guys, I followed the link and I am going to try
that compressed air thing. Thanks again for all the help.
"Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
Mine
> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
and
> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
be,
> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
anything/
> Thanks in advance
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Was the printer ever working properly?
Did you change your printing protocols?
If the colors are excessively pink this may be a software issue (color
management being applied twice) particularly if the pink coloration shows up
in the print preview window.

 

[BURT]

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

First thing to do is insert another Magenta cartridge and see if the problem
might be the cartridge. Read Neil Slade's informative site on clearing
clogged jets. The link is
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html . Very good information on
dealing with banding, jets not printing properly, etc. Since it is not
printing the nozzle check correctly it would not be color profiles. It is
normal to not use paper when doing the head cleaning, but you do not want to
do several deep cleanings. Generally, as Neil Slade writes, the way to
prevent these problems is to print full color photos often. He suggests one
a day at least. Nozzles clog when you don't use the printer. The test
print for the nozzle check is very light. You don't want to see any breaks
or unprinted bands in any of the color rectangles. Another test is to do a
six color "purge print" page with setting at plain paper. I think Neil has
one of these on his site that you can download. If not, you can get it on
the MIS ink web site. You can see the actual colors of the inks and see if
the printing is continuous or has bands of unprinted areas.

"Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
>I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
> Mine
> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
> and
> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
> be,
> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
> anything/
> Thanks in advance
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Are you guys using OEM Canon Brand INK? If not what brand and source
are the ink you are using?

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

> Jake wrote:
>
>> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
>> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the
>> printer? Mine
>> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
>> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of
>> times and
>> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of
>> the
>> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed
>> to be,
>> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in
>> some
>> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
>> anything/
>> Thanks in advance
>
>
> I had a similar problem, it came about because I did not change the
> ink cartridge soon enough, and the corresponding part of the printhead
> dried out -- at any rate that's my diagnosis. I don't know why
> magenta is so fussy, though.
>
> Taking a hint from an Epson owner who used Windex, I squirted a little
> bit of Windex into the magenta cartridge, did a deep clean, and ran
> the test print - showed marked improvement. SO did it again, and did
> it for all six cartridges while I was at it. Much, much better.
>
> But lately I've noticed faint streaking on the prints, and that means
> another round of Windex cleaning. It may be that some dried/drying ink
> from the docking station sponge is clogging the print nozzles, so I
> would like to know how to clean or replace that sponge.
>
> HTH&GL

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:48 -0600, "Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote:

>Thanks for all the advice guys, I followed the link and I am going to try
>that compressed air thing. Thanks again for all the help.
>"Jake" <jfoster1@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
>news:113uopbhb2hmh42@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have noticed my I 960 is not printing in color correctly. I did a head
>> cleaning, when I do this does it not run any paper through the printer?
>Mine
>> didn't. I first did a nozzle check and the 6M cartridge did not show
>> anything. I did some cleaning and then a deep cleaning a couple of times
>and
>> it did start to show color on the page then. The colors at the top of the
>> page when it prints the bars is very light though, it might supposed to
>be,
>> not sure. I wonder if I could take the print head out and soak it in some
>> hot water and a 20% solution of ammonia, wonder if that would hurt
>anything/
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>>
>
I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

 

[Guest]

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

John H wrote:
[...]
>>
> I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
> in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.

This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.

Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
affects the pH.

Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper

Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. 🙂

HTH

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:48 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>John H wrote:
>[...]
>>>
>> I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the paper type
>> in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
>
>This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
>between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.
>
>Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
>pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
>both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
>neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
>an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
>problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
>presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
>course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
>affects the pH.
>
>Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
>and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
>fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
>react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
>different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
>formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
>when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
>so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper
>
>Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
>you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
>see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
>prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
>a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
>ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. 🙂
>
>HTH

Good advice. Thanks!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

 

[BURT]

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

My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
practical observation.

"John H" <notavailable@here.com> wrote in message
news😛t0141lj9odhjoagtfjqprgmcta6j75r3m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:48 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>John H wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>
>>> I use Epson paper (cheap) and was getting a pink tinge. I changed the
>>> paper type
>>> in print setup to the highest quality Canon paper. The pink went away.
>>
>>This brings up a point that many people underrate: the interaction
>>between ink and paper. I trust the following is both correct and clear.
>>
>>Ink will change colour when exposed to acidic (low pH) or basic (high
>>pH) environments. Papers are more or less acidic, and many papers are
>>both: to get a neutral pH, the makers usually add a base which
>>neutralises the acid. (Fine art and archival papers are either made with
>>an acid-free process, or are de-acidified, both of which cost more.) The
>>problem is that a bit of water will change the pH, especially in the
>>presence of other chemicals such as fillers and brighteners, and of
>>course the ink itself. Water dissolves the solids in the paper, which
>>affects the pH.
>>
>>Also, paper is also bleached and coloured to get the right colour tone
>>and brightness. The bleach is acidic, the colour is dyes. There are also
>>fillers such as gypsum, talc, brighteners, and plastics. All these will
>>react with the dyes and pigments in the inks in different ways. Result:
>>different colours from the same ink. Professional printers will actually
>>formulate their inks slightly differently for different paper stock, as
>>when printing up a set of letterheads, labels, memo pads, posters, and
>>so on for a client who wants their coloured logo on every piece of paper
>>
>>Bottom line: all ink will look different on different paper stock. If
>>you are using a new paper, make a test print, and wait a day or so to
>>see if a colour cast develops. If you are very serious about your
>>prints, do the fading tests, too, and keep careful notes. When you find
>>a ink + paper combo that does what you want, stick to it. And hope the
>>ink and paper manufacturers don't change their formulas. 🙂
>>
>>HTH
>
> Good advice. Thanks!
> --
> John H
>
> "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

 

[Guest]

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

Burt wrote:
> My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
> Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
> produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
> canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
> thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
> and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
> to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
> the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense.

You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.

> I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have
> printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
> excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
> quality, but just a practical observation.

And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)

-Taliesyn

 

[BURT]

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

When I first bought the printer I tried side by side comparisons of epson
photo glossy, premium glossy, Canon pro, and Kirkland glossy. OEM and MIS
inks. I felt that the pro setting produced overly saturated prints. I
will try it again. Thanks for the info. Who knows what evil lurks in the
depths of the drawers in which the photos are stored? Having lived in the
same house for 40 plus years, I'm afraid to look at what we have
accumulated. It would take an archeologic dig. Agent orange or toxic waste
is definitely a possibility.

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3ac9b0F6900naU1@individual.net...
> Burt wrote:
>> My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
>> that Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo
>> paper produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar
>> to the canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland
>> paper is thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy
>> photo paper, and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I
>> set the printer to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers
>> and sometimes reduce the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to
>> intense.
>
> You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
> the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
> my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
> print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.
>
>> I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I
>> have
> > printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
> > excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
> > quality, but just a practical observation.
>
> And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
> either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
> generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)
> -Taliesyn

 

[BURT]

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

excuse the double post - I just ran a few test prints on Kirkland paper with
MIS inks to compare settings for glossy photo paper, photopaper pro, and a
custom setting all the way over to the "fine" setting. With an 8x jeweler's
loupe the sharpness appeared to be, if not the same, extremely close. There
was a difference in saturation that was subtle but apparent. any one of the
prints, by itself, looked great. Side-by-side, it is a matter of taste. I
would have to hold the photo up in the room in which the picture was taken
to verify which is the truest . Then, again, the truest rendition of hue
and intensity may not be the most attractive print!

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3ac9b0F6900naU1@individual.net...
> Burt wrote:
>> My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
>> that Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo
>> paper produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar
>> to the canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland
>> paper is thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy
>> photo paper, and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I
>> set the printer to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers
>> and sometimes reduce the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to
>> intense.
>
> You set it to "Glossy Photo Paper". Interesting. I've only been using
> the "Photo Paper Pro" setting, which I believe is the suggested one for
> my printers. That seems to be the only setting that sets off the highest
> print resolution, as the prints take the longest to print.
>
>> I can not speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I
>> have
> > printed and kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look
> > excellent after six months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival
> > quality, but just a practical observation.
>
> And left unprotected they won't fade in your dark drawers in six months
> either, unless of course, you've got toxic waste, agent orange, and a
> generous dose of radioactive fallout in there along with them. ;-)
>
> -Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
>practical observation.
>

My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

 

[Guest]

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

John H wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
>>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
>>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
>>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
>>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
>>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
>>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
>>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
>>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
>>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
>>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
>>practical observation.
>>
>
>
> My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
> carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
> compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
> Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.

I hope that's not a sign of things to come elsewhere as this Epson
Glossy Photo Paper is very valuable to me for use as greeting cards, CD
liners, booklet covers, etc. I go through about two 120 sheet packs a
year. Although it can print very good photos, I don't like the look
and feel of the paper for that use. I prefer the Kirkland. The worst
for me is the Kodak Premium Picture Paper. You mentioned you haven't
had "good luck" with it. It's not luck. It's just not very good
paper. I don't like at all the drab printed results it gives. My Dollar
Store paper prints infinitely better than this Kodak. Its only positive
is that it comes precut to 4x6 . . . . good for my test prints.

-Taliesyn
____________________________________________________________________
3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.

 

[Guest]

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

Hi John,

If you have any of the Kodak paper remaining, try adjusting your printer
drive to the settings suggested on the Kodak site. We have tested most
printers and drivers so when using the settings and Kodak paper the results
are very good. Go to the following site.

http://www.kodak.com/go/inkjet

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"John H" <notavailable@here.com> wrote in message
news:cim241tdfqp2peuf8f477edl674dcvfj4o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
that
> >Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
> >produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
> >canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
is
> >thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
> >and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
printer
> >to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
reduce
> >the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
> >speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
and
> >kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
six
> >months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
> >practical observation.
> >
>
> My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now
they
> carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the
Kodak,
> compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
> Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
> --
> John H
>
> "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

 

[Guest]

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

Greetings Taliesyn,

Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you should
be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
and I will review for you.

Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
that
> >>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
> >>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
> >>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
is
> >>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo
paper,
> >>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
printer
> >>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
reduce
> >>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
> >>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
and
> >>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
six
> >>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
> >>practical observation.
> >>
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Baird wrote:

> Greetings Taliesyn,
>
> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you should
> be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
> adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
> and I will review for you.
>
> Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>

Greetings Ron,

Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.

From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
"Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.

The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.

I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I
don't use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to
suggest that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment
as they produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!

I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
(the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy. And
I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.

As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro setting):

Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
slightly more washed out.

Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.

Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.

I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic
tests don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium Picture
Paper. I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I found that to
be OK.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

John H wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is that
>>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
>>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
>>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper is
>>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo paper,
>>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the printer
>>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes reduce
>>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
>>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed and
>>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after six
>>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
>>practical observation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>My local Costco has stopped carrying the Epson paper for some reason. Now they
>carry only the Kodak and the Kirkland. I've not had good luck with the Kodak,
>compared to the Epson, but based on what you said, I'll try a pack of the
>Kirkland. I wonder who makes the Kirkland.
>
>

It is made in Switzerland. Ilford has a plant in Switzerland. Maybe
they make it?

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Baird wrote:

>Greetings Taliesyn,
>
>Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site for
>your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks.
>
Based on this question, can I assume that Kodak feels 3rd party inks are
inferior to OEM inks?

> If so, you should
>be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
>adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a sample
>and I will review for you.
>
>Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
>
>Ron Baird
>Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My experience with my canon i960 printer with both OEM and MIS inks is
>>>>
>>>>
>that
>
>
>>>>Kirkland photo glossy paper and the inexpensive Epson glossy photo paper
>>>>produce prints with excellent color balance and look very similar to the
>>>>canon glossy pro paper in side-by-side comparisons. The Kirkland paper
>>>>
>>>>
>is
>
>
>>>>thicker, has a smoother glossy surface than the Epson glossy photo
>>>>
>>>>
>paper,
>
>
>>>>and produces a print that looks like a photo lab print. I set the
>>>>
>>>>
>printer
>
>
>>>>to glossy photo paper and manual color for these papers and sometimes
>>>>
>>>>
>reduce
>
>
>>>>the intensity slightly if skin tones appear a bit to intense. I can not
>>>>speak to the issue of fading or longevity, but the photos I have printed
>>>>
>>>>
>and
>
>
>>>>kept in albums or in frames (not in sunlight) still look excellent after
>>>>
>>>>
>six
>
>
>>>>months. Not exactly a timeline to test archival quality, but just a
>>>>practical observation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Ron Baird wrote:
>
>> Greetings Taliesyn,
>>
>> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak site
>> for
>> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks.
>
> Based on this question, can I assume that Kodak feels 3rd party inks are
> inferior to OEM inks?

Not inferior, just different.

Differences in ink chemistry will have an effect on how the inks perform
on any given paper stock. Paper and ink are both chemically rather
complex substances and mixtures of substances. There is _always_ some
chemical reaction between ink and paper.

In addition, inks and papers differ in their physical properties of
absorbency, reflectivity, adhesiveness, and so on.

Both the physics and the chemistry affect the way a given ink + paper
combination works.

The printer manufacturers give a head strat by programming the printers
to change droplet size and colour combinations for different types of
paper. But you may still have to do some manual tweaking when you change
ink and/or paper. Depends how fussy you are, I suppose. 🙂

 

[Guest]

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

Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.

Taliesyn wrote:

> Ron Baird wrote:
>
>> Greetings Taliesyn,
>>
>> Just curious if you are using the suggested settings on the Kodak
>> site for
>> your particular paper. Also, are you using Canon inks. If so, you
>> should
>> be getting great results with that paper. Give the paper a try after
>> adjusting your settings. If still not good let me know and send me a
>> sample
>> and I will review for you.
>>
>> Talk to you soon, Taliesyn,
>>
>> Ron Baird
>> Eastman Kodak Company
>>
>
> Greetings Ron,
>
> Sorry, I don't mean to slam Kodak Premium Paper but it just doesn't
> perform, look or feel as good as most of my other papers.
>
> From the Kodak website the recommended settings for my Canon iP5000 are:
> "Other Photo Paper", Print Quality: "High", Color Adjustment: "Manual -
> Magenta -10, and Yellow +5".... Not my usual settings, but I tried them.
>
> The results are totally unacceptable - Strong head pass lines visible,
> quite washed out, speckled (very visible dots). The only recommendation
> that makes any sense is the Magenta -10, and Yellow +5 suggestion.
>
> I've run various tests on it earlier (on an i860) and didn't like the
> results very much. And today on the iP5000 I tried again. And no, I
> don't use Canon inks, they're made by Formulabs. If you're about to
> suggest that my inks may be in conflict, I won't buy that for a moment
> as they produce great prints with all other papers - even Dollar Store!
>
> I tried several settings with the paper and the only one that produces
> the most satisfactory print is "Photo Paper Pro". At this setting the
> result is still visibly poorer than the excellent result produced on my
> Dollar Store paper (not my favorite paper). I know that sounds like an
> insult to Kodak, but Kodak will have to get used to it as more and more
> inexpensive papers arrive on the market from places like China (mine is
> sold as Likon brand). The Likon print seems to have perfect contrast
> (the Kodak is a bit washed out like there's a film over it), the blacks
> are blacker and shows absolutely no visible print lines when the photo
> is turned sideways, whereas the the Premium paper shows lines. This
> Likon paper actually prints as good or better than Canon Photo Paper
> Pro. It's not instant dry (24 hrs recommended), but it works great. My
> preferred paper right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy

And who do you think makes Kirkland?

> . And
> I do understand that this Kodak Premium paper is not Kodak's best.
>
> As for the other settings tried (compared to the Photo Paper Pro
> setting):
>
> Plus Glossy - Not acceptable - very visible print lines, speckled and
> slightly more washed out.
>
> Glossy - a bit less of all the bad characteristics of Plus Glossy.
>
> Other Photo Paper - Do not use, the worst setting of the bunch.
>
> I do have Canon OEM ink that I could also run these same experiments
> with. But the ink I use is perfect with all my other papers - no
> horizontal print lines, perfect contrast, unspeckled clarity, etc.
> I really see no point in chasing my own tail any longer with settings.
> I've already done these same basic tests now on two separate printers
> and the results are the same. You claim it should give great results.
> Maybe someone, somewhere, on some other brand printer. But my basic
> tests don't agree with your generous assessment of Kodak Premium
> Picture Paper. I have used Ultima (once), and from recollection I
> found that to be OK.
>
> -Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

measekite wrote:

> Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a source.
>


I have an order with 88inkjets.com for several Formulabs-based
cartridges.

You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
deliver" list too?

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:53:22 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
>Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
>and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
>deliver" list too?

Hold on there folks.... I get my carts from alotofthings because they
(are suppose to) have Formulabs Ink in their refills (Arrow Carts).
Are you telling me that they don't?

Now let me add that my last order from them did come with half the
carts Arrow brand which they say are filled with Formulabs ink and the
other half were Premium Imaging Products brand carts which they said,
when I called about this, were suppose to also contain Formulabs ink.
FYI, for my i960, the Arrow brand carts were the 6Y, 6C & 6M while the
Premium brand carts were the remaining 6B, 6PC & 6PM.

DW

Remove "spam" from address to email.

 

[Guest]

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

They are an immature unprofessional organization without their own web
store but promoting am eBay site that is uninformative and
unprofessional as they com and refuse to answer any questions that they
infer as a criticism.

alofofthings=alotofcrap=alotofimmaturity=Formulabs need to promote
competition unless they do not care about the small quantity purchaser.

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Have you find many sources for Formulabs ink. alotofcrap is not a
>> source.
>>
>
>
> I have an order with 88inkjets.com for several Formulabs-based
> cartridges.
>
> You said "Alotofcrap" is not a source. Is that your pet name for
> Alotofthings? I thought they sold Formulabs filled cartridges
> and bulk inks to Americans. Did they place you on their "Do not
> deliver" list too?
>
> -Taliesyn