Which Printer?

[Guest]

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

I want to buy a new all in one printer, I have a choice of 2 which are Epson
RX420 or CX32600, which one is best and why?

thanks Keith

 

[Guest]

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

Keith Hampson wrote:

> I want to buy a new all in one printer, I have a choice of 2 which
> are Epson RX420 or CX32600, which one is best and why?

I would choose RX420 because it has better scanner, card reader, it is
faster, with better quality. The only advantage of CX3600 is Durabrite
ink (waterproof, durable photos).



--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

 

[Guest]

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

All in one printers do not give you the best in breed for all of the
function they provide. Also when one function goes out the thing is a
useless brick. They also cost more.

You are better off getting the best in breed printer for your purposes
and the best in breed scanner. You only need 2 devices plus if you want
to fax some good fax software.

You then have a scanner, printer, copier and fax machine.

I bought the Canon IP4000 and the Epson 4180 scanner. I did not install
any fax software as I use Email with attachments for transferring documents.

The Canon IP 4000 is a fantastic photo printer and a very good business
printer, though my HP 990Cse is a better business printer. The Canon
has 2 paper feeds and prints full duplex. If all I wanted was business
functions and printing photos was not important at all I would look at
the HP1200 series.

My Epson scanner does have software that is not the greatest but I did
not buy vuScan because it still is doing the job. The Epson can scan
all business documents plus photos, negatives, and slides.

Hope this helps.

Keith Hampson wrote:

>I want to buy a new all in one printer, I have a choice of 2 which are Epson
>RX420 or CX32600, which one is best and why?
>
>thanks Keith
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I thought you bought the IP 5000 (something about Costco not carrying
the 4000, or maybe I have that backwards) The IP 4000 is a 2 or 2.5
picolitre dot printer, which means it is even less likely to fade, but
will have a somewhat more "grainy" image result and somewhat poorer
color rendition.

Art

measekite wrote:


> I bought the Canon IP4000 and the Epson 4180 scanner. I did not install
> any fax software as I use Email with attachments for transferring
> documents.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Unless you want the waterproof feature of the 4-color models, I'd buy
the RX500 at Compusa this week for $129 AR. Dirt-cheap, superior
6-color photo printing, fast scanning/printing/copying in color, direct
printing from flash cards & digicams, direct scanning to flash cards w/o
a PC attached, and great all around all-in-one.

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I thought you bought the IP 5000 (something about Costco not carrying
> the 4000, or maybe I have that backwards) The IP 4000 is a 2 or 2.5
> picolitre dot printer, which means it is even less likely to fade, but
> will have a somewhat more "grainy" image result and somewhat poorer
> color rendition.


Costco.com carries both the IP5000 and the IP4000. It frequently runs
out of stock on the IP4000. Unfortunately instead of picturing the
IP4000 with an "out of stock" sign, they just remove it off the website
and put it back when the stock arrives. Taleysin bought the IP5000
because of this. I bought the IP4000 just before the IP5000 was
released. I was planning on returning my IP4000 for an IP5000 until all
of the reviews came out and I was then convinced that for my purposes
the IP4000 was better.

Both printers are at 2pl for photos. The IP5000 does 1pl for business
documents.

>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>
>> I bought the Canon IP4000 and the Epson 4180 scanner. I did not
>> install any fax software as I use Email with attachments for
>> transferring documents.
>>

 

[Guest]

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

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Fg84e.150915$gJ3.9818@clgrps13...
>I thought you bought the IP 5000 (something about Costco not carrying the
>4000, or maybe I have that backwards) The IP 4000 is a 2 or 2.5 picolitre
>dot printer, which means it is even less likely to fade, but will have a
>somewhat more "grainy" image result and somewhat poorer color rendition.
>
> Art

Huh? That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that droplet size is a
key factor in fading. Can you cite research on this?

 

[Guest]

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

Not offhand, and quite honestly, I don't have the time to research this.
It makes logical sense, both from the standpoint of how dye inks fade
and also in terms of the visual perception of fading in terms of the
human eye.

As I mentioned before, dye molecules are lost, in part, due to lack of
protection by other dye molecules. The more ink that is deposited and
that saturates into the paper (keep in mind picolitre is a volumetric
measurement) the more molecules that are deposited on top of each other,
and also the deeper into the surface the ink is likely to penetrate.
Both factors improve protection of dye molecules. Further, ink
molecules are more likely to leave from the edges of the dot, since that
is where there are less molecules of ink (the ink is more "exposed", so
a larger dot will diminish less in size relative to that surface area
than a smaller dot), reducing the perceived change in the density of the
dot. Imagine that a dot consisted of only one molecule of dye. If that
one molecule, in each case, were to "leave the paper" or oxidize and
become transparent, the whole image would disappear. But let's say each
dot consisted of 10 molecules of ink, and due to the protection they
afforded one another, only 5 left the paper. The image would fade half
the ink on it, but would leave a more intact image.

There may well be research to support this somewhere on the net, (or
maybe even some to debunk it) but I can't hunt it down. If someone else
has the resources, I'm open to hear about it.

Art



Caitlin wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Fg84e.150915$gJ3.9818@clgrps13...
>
>>I thought you bought the IP 5000 (something about Costco not carrying the
>>4000, or maybe I have that backwards) The IP 4000 is a 2 or 2.5 picolitre
>>dot printer, which means it is even less likely to fade, but will have a
>>somewhat more "grainy" image result and somewhat poorer color rendition.
>>
>>Art
>
>
> Huh? That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that droplet size is a
> key factor in fading. Can you cite research on this?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:lEa4e.151533$gJ3.99041@clgrps13...

> As I mentioned before, dye molecules are lost, in part, due to lack of
> protection by other dye molecules. The more ink that is deposited and that
> saturates into the paper (keep in mind picolitre is a volumetric measurement)
> the more molecules that are deposited on top of each other, and also the
> deeper into the surface the ink is likely to penetrate.

But... it is not likely that a smaller drop size corresponds to less ink on
the page. The ink limits are generally set based on the media and smaller
drops would typically result in more drops, all else being equal.

It is also not necessarily the case that lighter dye load inks would have
poorer lightfastness. For example, see Wilhelm's analysis of the DeskJet
5550 - the three ink prints are rated at 15/11 years under glass/open air
while the six ink prints are rated at 73/49 years. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for these and other cases.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Guest]

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

>"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:lEa4e.151533$gJ3.99041@clgrps13...

>>Caitlin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huh? That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that droplet size is
>> a key factor in fading. Can you cite research on this?

> Not offhand, and quite honestly, I don't have the time to research this.
> It makes logical sense, both from the standpoint of how dye inks fade and
> also in terms of the visual perception of fading in terms of the human
> eye.
>
> As I mentioned before, dye molecules are lost, in part, due to lack of
> protection by other dye molecules. The more ink that is deposited and
> that saturates into the paper (keep in mind picolitre is a volumetric
> measurement) the more molecules that are deposited on top of each other,
> and also the deeper into the surface the ink is likely to penetrate. Both
> factors improve protection of dye molecules. Further, ink molecules are
> more likely to leave from the edges of the dot, since that is where there
> are less molecules of ink (the ink is more "exposed", so a larger dot will
> diminish less in size relative to that surface area than a smaller dot),
> reducing the perceived change in the density of the dot. Imagine that a
> dot consisted of only one molecule of dye. If that one molecule, in each
> case, were to "leave the paper" or oxidize and become transparent, the
> whole image would disappear. But let's say each dot consisted of 10
> molecules of ink, and due to the protection they afforded one another,
> only 5 left the paper. The image would fade half the ink on it, but would
> leave a more intact image.
>
> There may well be research to support this somewhere on the net, (or maybe
> even some to debunk it) but I can't hunt it down. If someone else has the
> resources, I'm open to hear about it.
>
> Art
>

While I'm not saying your theory may not have some merit - it sounds like it
is only a personal theory at this stage - so probably shouldn't be stated as
fact. I have never read anything suggesting this in my fairly extensive
reading on this topic.

 

[Guest]

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

You are correct, this is a theory as it stands.

I just spent several hours reading over numerous articles from H.
Wilhelm, and several things came up of interest.

In general his findings are that the low dye load C and M inks lessen
permanence by 2 to 3 times that of dye prints done with high dye load
inks. Couldn't find anything about picolitre size versus fade timing.

The one exception regarding use of low dye load inks is HP's newer dye
photo ink sets, which actually seem to last longer than the 4 color
versions on their own) The photo inks are used in addition to the
regular CMY colors. Using HP's swellable polymer papers, these prints
have a standardized display lifespan of about 80 years with the 4 color
printing inks but over 100 with the 6 t 8 color sets (using his standard
lighting and timing, and frame with a regular glass front).

According to his studies, Epson pigment inks do best (2000P. 7500, 9500
Durabrite, followed by the Ultrachromes (2200, 7600, 9600, 4000) and C
series Durabrites) However, the newer R800 and R1800 Ultrachromes do
even better. Certain paper and ink combinations provide over 100 years).

Next is the HP Photosmart when used with their papers averaging about
78-102 year depending on paper and which ink set.

Epson's newer dye inks (R300, etc) when used with Colorlife papers
showed very low Ozone fading, which the older Epson dye inks on
microporous papers, and Canon's inks were very vulnerable to Ozone
fading, however with Microporus papers they

After that it gets a bit murky. Some Canon printers do fairly well (up
to about 38 years, very much dependent upon the paper used) others are
not rated (It appears, if I can read between the lines that Canon isn't
using his services anymore).

Lexmark is quite poor with 1 to 5 years for most types of papers and inks.

Art

Caitlin wrote:


> While I'm not saying your theory may not have some merit - it sounds like it
> is only a personal theory at this stage - so probably shouldn't be stated as
> fact. I have never read anything suggesting this in my fairly extensive
> reading on this topic.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Bob,

I agree that a smaller ink drop doesn't necessarily mean less ink on the
page overall, because, as you stated, smaller drops likely means more of
them. However, how they would respond to UV or ozone, for instance
would in part depend on how the drops get distributed.

In high dye load colors, the lighter the color being represented, the
more spacing between the dots and the more white paper being left
between. Obviously, if a color is dark enough to be made by laying down
a solid area of ink with no discrete ink droplets, I would agree that
the area would not be altered by the size of the ink drops it is made up
of. However, in lighter areas, where discrete ink droplet are formed and
visible (under a loupe) these have less protection from UV and OZONE
simply by their relative "exposure" (at their edges).

Your second point is indeed one I just became aware of a few posts back
through my research of Wilhelm's latest set of articles. HP has
obviously done something unique in their ink formulations that actually
improves light fastness with the extra low dye load colors. As I am
sure you are aware, this doesn't hold true for other brands of ink, in
general. Wilhelm suggests that with most inks, the low dye load inks
reduces fade resistance by 2 or 3 times.

In the dye ink world, currently HP holds the title, it would appear.

Art

Bob Headrick wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:lEa4e.151533$gJ3.99041@clgrps13...
>
>
>>As I mentioned before, dye molecules are lost, in part, due to lack of
>>protection by other dye molecules. The more ink that is deposited and that
>>saturates into the paper (keep in mind picolitre is a volumetric measurement)
>>the more molecules that are deposited on top of each other, and also the
>>deeper into the surface the ink is likely to penetrate.
>
>
> But... it is not likely that a smaller drop size corresponds to less ink on
> the page. The ink limits are generally set based on the media and smaller
> drops would typically result in more drops, all else being equal.
>
> It is also not necessarily the case that lighter dye load inks would have
> poorer lightfastness. For example, see Wilhelm's analysis of the DeskJet
> 5550 - the three ink prints are rated at 15/11 years under glass/open air
> while the six ink prints are rated at 73/49 years. See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for these and other cases.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>