Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

In article ,
measekite wrote:

I never said he was saying anything that was dishonest or that he was
trying to hide his identity. It is still spam.

FFS, just give it a rest.

plonk

measekite wrote:


Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want
to send
me a file that you have successfully printed on another paper, I
will be
glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return it to you (supply
details offline). You can then see what Kodak papers can do.


This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!



[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he
works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly on-topic,
so not
spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to add
irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.



It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.

No, it is useful information. If you think it is spam, feel free to add
him to your killfile. If you don't use a Kodak camera, then his posts
are of no use to you anyway. Those of us who DO have Kodak cameras find
them useful, and to the point. It's sad that other companies don't have
representatives supporting THEIR products here. Perhaps your complaints
are just 'sour grapes'....


--
Ron Hunter

measekite wrote:


Frank wrote:

measekite wrote:



Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you
want to send
me a file that you have successfully printed on another paper, I
will be
glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return it to you (supply
details offline). You can then see what Kodak papers can do.



This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!





[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he
works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly on-topic,
so not
spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to
add
irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.



It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.


I see that you are the only person in this entire ng who keeps
hounding RB from Kodak about his postings. Please stop! I for one am
getting upset with you and your bandwidth sucking replies. You are not
in charge of this ng so give it up!
Frank


Neither are you. Maybe we should have a representative from all of
2,000 companies sending public relations stuff. It is not Kodak or
anyone else, this NG is not a venue for business ventures.
No, it is a venue for HELP, and that is what he offers. Go away, or
killfile his (Ron Baird's), and while you are at it, do me the honor of
adding my name to that list as well.
Thanks.


--
Ron Hunter

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:21:13 GMT, measekite
wrote:



Frank wrote:

measekite wrote:



Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you
want to send
me a file that you have successfully printed on another paper, I
will be
glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return it to you (supply
details offline). You can then see what Kodak papers can do.


This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!




[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he
works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly on-topic,
so not
spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to
add
irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.



It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.

I see that you are the only person in this entire ng who keeps
hounding RB from Kodak about his postings. Please stop! I for one am
getting upset with you and your bandwidth sucking replies. You are not
in charge of this ng so give it up!
Frank

Neither are you. Maybe we should have a representative from all of
2,000 companies sending public relations stuff. It is not Kodak or
anyone else, this NG is not a venue for business ventures.


I would welcome the presence of any company that could provide useful
information regarding the use of their products and other products
they find useful.

That said, the Kodak paper sucks on my Canon iP8500 even using the
Kodak supplied profile.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:58:27 GMT, measekite
wrote:



Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want to send
me a file that you have successfully printed on another paper, I will be
glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return it to you (supply
details offline). You can then see what Kodak papers can do.



This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form of SPAM!



[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and whom he
works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly on-topic, so not
spam.



I never said he was saying anything that was dishonest or that he was
trying to hide his identity. It is still spam.


In interest of finishing this ,define spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to add
irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.



Here come the JUDGE :-*

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:20:55 GMT, measekite
wrote:

I am sure that Burt and a few others appreciated your help. However,
this is PR SPAM that you are being paid to write on behalf of your
company. It is never the less as helpful as it might be SPAM. PR is
SPAM and a generalized form of spamming.

Before I bought my Canon IP4000, the Canon Factory Rep and later Canon
Tech Support told me not to use Kodak paper in my printer. While they
touted Canon Photo Paper Pro (and it is excellent) they both said the
Epson Standard Glossy is a very good alternative. I have also found out
that Costco/Kirkland it also excellent.

So what? That doesn't mean that other papers can't be used
successfully.

Personally I have nothing against Kodak as I used their film for years
prior to switching to Fuji. And I hear that Kodak makes some decent
digital cameras as well getting away from making the very low end
brownie for the masses.

I also tried Kodak plain paper in my HP for business use. It is an OK
alternative but I still prefer Hammermill. What really aggravates me is
you will not admit to spamming trying to disguise it as help. I guess
there is help without spam and help with spam.

Ronald Baird wrote:

Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want to send
me a file that you have successfully printed on another paper, I will be
glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return it to you (supply
details offline). You can then see what Kodak papers can do. I will use
the settings we have found in our testing and also compare them to a print
made by our labs. The experiences you have noted are not common to most
printers and Kodak paper.

Since you are using Photoshop, you may want to review the ICC profiles that
are offered for our Professional Inkjet papers. You can find them on the
Kodak site under the Professional Tab Inkjet ICC Profiles. There is a
workflow provided for you as well. Of course it is also free. This may
help if you want to try that paper with Photoshop.

I can also appreciate your Brother In Laws situation. Truth is, Burt, that
most of those using digital cameras are not as computer efficient as you,
but just general folk that want to take advantage of this great new digital
technology. So, making something technical as easy as it can be is what
Kodak is trying to do. The suggestion that your Brother In Law connect his
camera to a computer (if allowed by the owner) is a viable way to get images
out of the camera. If the person did not want to use The EasyShare option,
they could choose the camera wizard offered by XP to download the images.
Or, they could download the CCS option of EasyShare (Camera Connection
Software) which uses PTP. This communication standard or Picture Transfer
Protocol is used by Kodak, who was one of the first to implement and was one
of the primary authors of the standard, which has been submittd to the ISO
and is in the process of being adopted. There are numerous advantages to
using PTP, one of which is that the new direct-to-printer standard
PictBridge, which runs on top of PTP.

However, most OS' do not have PTP drivers in the base OS. (Windows XP and
MacOS X do, everything else does not) This will require that you install a
driver to communicate with the cameras, like that of many other devices. To
install just the driver for Kodak cameras, run the EasyShare install disk,
or go to the Kodak web site and select custom install and install only
"Camera Connection Software." You will not get any of the EasyShare software
or the automatic transfer but your camera will be recognized by the computer
and will show up in windows Explorer as a logical drive (hard disk). Kodak
is a world known site and company so I suspect that there would be little
concern about downloading the feature.

Also, many others on vacation in Europe will use the Kodak Picturemaker,
other possible services like it. This allows you to remove the card from
the camera, insert it into the kiosk, get their images stored, then the card
prepared for the next round of picture taking. They can use their pictures
later for printing, slide shows, sharing with friends and family, and more.
That might have been the easiest solution for your Brother in Law.

Anyway, talk to you soon, Burt, let me know if you have any questions.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to


be


compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done profiles


for


all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me a print, made


on


kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that only does 4x6) and
your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface of the paper.


Wierd!


I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every complaint on this NG


with


the assurance that the paper is compatable with all the printers with the
suggestion that one downloads and prints out of the kodak software and


uses


settings specific to their printer. I followed their instructions and


still


couldn't get a decent result (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In
addition, I waant to use Photoshop to adjust images and print from as


well.


Their software is easy but not full featured like PS.

My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought a
Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom, 4
MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp images
and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with very


little


computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know how to use


his


camera while abroad and send images back to friends by email. He hadn't
brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so I couldn't attach


it


to my computer to see if the camera would be recognized as an additional
disk drive. The USB port/cable end that Kodak uses was different from the
standard AB cable used for printers and for my Olympus cameras. I don't
know if the Kodak cable is proprietary or just a different standard cable.
I emailed Kodak tech support and asked if the camera would be recognized


as


a drive when attached to the computer via USB cable and the reply said


that


he could hook the camera up to a computer, download their software to the
computer, and use their software to send an image by email. I replied


that


no one is going to want software installed on their computer by a


stranger


who wants to send an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should
buy a usb card reader to use when away from home. We found later that he
could simply attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak
tech support didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!

Gary L. Burnore wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:21:13 GMT, measekite
wrote:



this NG is not a venue for business ventures.



You're posting to more than one group, dip. Do you moderate both?
Bet not. Do you speak for both? Bet not. Do you netKKKop? Bet.



Listen imbicile and think. I am responding to posts. It is Kodak and
others that are cross posting :-D

measekite wrote in
:



Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want
to send me a file that you have successfully printed on another
paper, I will be glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return
it to you (supply details offline). You can then see what Kodak
papers can do.



This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!



[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly
on-topic, so not spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to
add irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.



It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.



Your daily advertising of 88Inkjets.com and Canon ip4000 printer are
considered free spam for both companies. Both of which are laughing their
heads off right now and thanking you from the bottom of their corporate
hearts for promoting their products. God, you're so stupid. If you insist
on playing the spam game then I'm going to nail for doing the exact same
thing whether you work for them or not. Spam of any color is still spam =
increased sales $$$ for multimillion Canon and 88inkjets.com. Mention them
once a month, fine. On a daily basis, SPAM. No ifs, ands or butts.

John A. Hanson wrote:

measekite wrote in
:



Chris Brown wrote:



In article ,
measekite wrote:




Ronald Baird wrote:





Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want
to send me a file that you have successfully printed on another
paper, I will be glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return
it to you (supply details offline). You can then see what Kodak
papers can do.





This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!




[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly
on-topic, so not spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to
add irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.




It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.





Your daily advertising of 88Inkjets.com and Canon ip4000 printer are
considered free spam for both companies. Both of which are laughing their
heads off right now and thanking you from the bottom of their corporate
hearts for promoting their products.


I do not really give a crap about a 3rd party ink hawker and a large
Corporate giant. The ink hawker is the only reasonable source for
Formulabs ink, that is a BRAND. The Canon IP series printers happen to
product the best results with the least troubles and while they are very
overpriced on ink they do not try to screw you out of the ink you
already bought like Epson with their chips and auto cleaning ink
guzzling each time you turn them on and off.

God,


And how do you know that is what they call me! =-O

you're so stupid. If you insist
on playing the spam game then I'm going to nail for doing the exact same
thing whether you work for them or not. Spam of any color is still spam =
increased sales $$$ for multimillion Canon and 88inkjets.com. Mention them
once a month, fine. On a daily basis, SPAM. No ifs, ands or butts.

Actually, measekite, 88 is not the only seller of formulabs ink. There are
several others once you investigate and contact a few vendors that I've
seen mentioned on this and other forums. You should be clear that you have
formed a particular dislike for another vendor, Aloltofthings, that we know
sells bulk Formulabs inks and some of their carts prefilled with formulabs
inks. You haven't done business with them, or purchased or used their
products, but your disdain for their web site, ebay site, and an email from
them that upset you seem to compel you to villify them at every opportunity.
I have seen posts from people extremely happy with alotofthings and haven't
seen one reporting on their personal experience with 88. Don't get me
wrong - I have nothing against 88, and for all I know they may be great to
do business with and sell wonderful products. I do know that doing business
with alotofthings was fine, and when I use the product I purchased from them
I will be glad to report to this NG based on MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and
not an ill founded prejudice. BTW, I appreciate Baird's posts and appreciate
that Kodak makes an effort to make their product function more universally
than just with Kodak printers. If I still had boxes of Kodak paper I would
really appreciate Baird's suggestions and being directed to the part of the
Kodak site that would make it useful for me. I would not be induced,
however, to go out at this point and purchase their paper since I am
delighted with Costco and Epson papers on my i960 printer and don't need to
jump through any hoops, install ICC profiles, and tweak my printer settings
to try to use more expensive paper that I have already had some problems
with.

"measekite" wrote in message
. ..


John A. Hanson wrote:

measekite wrote in
m:

Chris Brown wrote:


In article ,
measekite wrote:


Ronald Baird wrote:



Hi Burt,

I can appreciate your experiences and am glad to help. If you want
to send me a file that you have successfully printed on another
paper, I will be glad to make a print here on Kodak paper and return
it to you (supply details offline). You can then see what Kodak
papers can do.


This may be helpful to Burt and some others but this is PR - a form
of SPAM!

[nearly 200 lines of quoted material removed]

Ron isn't representing himself dishonestly - we know who he is and
whom he works for. His advice may well be useful, and is certainly
on-topic, so not spam.

On the other hand, your quoting vast quantities of previous posts to
add irrevelant and unhelpful one-liners is extremely bad netiquette.


It is public relations that Kodak is paying him to write. He is
representing a multimillion $ company. It is SPAM.




Your daily advertising of 88Inkjets.com and Canon ip4000 printer are
considered free spam for both companies. Both of which are laughing
their
heads off right now and thanking you from the bottom of their corporate
hearts for promoting their products.

I do not really give a crap about a 3rd party ink hawker and a large
Corporate giant. The ink hawker is the only reasonable source for
Formulabs ink, that is a BRAND. The Canon IP series printers happen to
product the best results with the least troubles and while they are very
overpriced on ink they do not try to screw you out of the ink you already
bought like Epson with their chips and auto cleaning ink guzzling each
time you turn them on and off.

God,

And how do you know that is what they call me! =-O

you're so stupid. If you insist on playing the spam game then I'm going
to nail for doing the exact same
thing whether you work for them or not. Spam of any color is still spam
=
increased sales $$$ for multimillion Canon and 88inkjets.com. Mention
them
once a month, fine. On a daily basis, SPAM. No ifs, ands or butts.