I960 color problem

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

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" wrote in message
...
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

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" wrote in message
...
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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "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. 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."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "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. 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.

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" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "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. 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."

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.

John H wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:20:08 GMT, "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. 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?

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.

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 a
"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