Kodak Soft Gloss Picture Paper for inkjet printers

I'm evaluating refill inks for my Canon i550 printer, using an older
version of this color scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html.
When I use Canon high gloss paper, each of the squares, all colors, has
sharply defined edges on all four sides. With the Kodak paper, many of
the squares have very ragged edges, especially along the edges that
border with black. (Same ink tanks were used with both brands.)

While barely visible on the above link, there is a gray scale just above
the red one at the top. With the Kodak paper, all four edges of each
gray square are as sharp as with the Canon paper. Drop down one row, to
the red squares, and the edges are horribly ragged, with the raggedness
greatest at the right end and getting less toward the left end.

All the rows below the red one have acceptably sharp edges, but not as
good as with the Canon paper.

I printed the test pattern a second time on the Kodak paper; same (but
not identical) ragged edges in the red row.

I'm disappointed that a product from a company like Kodak would give
such poor performance. Thanks for any comments/insights you offer.

Ray

Ray K wrote:
I'm evaluating refill inks for my Canon i550 printer, using an older
version of this color scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html.
When I use Canon high gloss paper, each of the squares, all colors,
has sharply defined edges on all four sides. With the Kodak paper,
many of the squares have very ragged edges, especially along the
edges that border with black. (Same ink tanks were used with both
brands.)

While barely visible on the above link, there is a gray scale just
above the red one at the top. With the Kodak paper, all four edges of
each gray square are as sharp as with the Canon paper. Drop down one
row, to the red squares, and the edges are horribly ragged, with the
raggedness greatest at the right end and getting less toward the left
end.

All the rows below the red one have acceptably sharp edges, but not as
good as with the Canon paper.

I printed the test pattern a second time on the Kodak paper; same (but
not identical) ragged edges in the red row.

I'm disappointed that a product from a company like Kodak would give
such poor performance. Thanks for any comments/insights you offer.

Ray

This is my second Canon unit (i9950). I used Kodak (Premium Glossy) in my
first because Jessops had it on special and I needed some A4 photo paper.
Never again! I don't know what in Hades they'd coated it with, or whether
Canon inks just aren't compatible with Kodak paper, but it wouldn't dry! It
came out slightly smeared and, ½-hour later it *STILL* wasn't completely
dry! I think quite a few people will tell you a similar story (though not
necessarily with Canon). I never tried it in my last but one printer (Epson
SP895) but I think there are some who will tell you the same about Epson.

Cerridwen wrote:
Ray K wrote:

I'm evaluating refill inks for my Canon i550 printer, using an older
version of this color scale image: http://displaymate.com/dwscs.html.
When I use Canon high gloss paper, each of the squares, all colors,
has sharply defined edges on all four sides. With the Kodak paper,
many of the squares have very ragged edges, especially along the
edges that border with black. (Same ink tanks were used with both
brands.)

While barely visible on the above link, there is a gray scale just
above the red one at the top. With the Kodak paper, all four edges of
each gray square are as sharp as with the Canon paper. Drop down one
row, to the red squares, and the edges are horribly ragged, with the
raggedness greatest at the right end and getting less toward the left
end.

All the rows below the red one have acceptably sharp edges, but not as
good as with the Canon paper.

I printed the test pattern a second time on the Kodak paper; same (but
not identical) ragged edges in the red row.

I'm disappointed that a product from a company like Kodak would give
such poor performance. Thanks for any comments/insights you offer.

Ray


This is my second Canon unit (i9950). I used Kodak (Premium Glossy) in my
first because Jessops had it on special and I needed some A4 photo paper.
Never again! I don't know what in Hades they'd coated it with, or whether
Canon inks just aren't compatible with Kodak paper, but it wouldn't dry! It
came out slightly smeared and, ½-hour later it *STILL* wasn't completely
dry! I think quite a few people will tell you a similar story (though not
necessarily with Canon). I never tried it in my last but one printer (Epson
SP895) but I think there are some who will tell you the same about Epson.


Yes, I noticed the Kosak papers were slightly damp right out of the
printer, but they dried rather fast. (Sorry, I didn't time it, because I
didn't consider it a problem compared to the ragged edges.)

Thanks for the comments.

Ray

"Ray K" wrote in message
et...

I printed the test pattern a second time on the Kodak paper; same (but
not identical) ragged edges in the red row.

I'm disappointed that a product from a company like Kodak would give
such poor performance. Thanks for any comments/insights you offer.

Can't coment on Kodak paper in Canon printers but I do know that such an
incompatibility isn't uncommon. What works well in one printer is hopeless
in another. I have an HP895cxi and an Epson 2100. One is a dye printer the
other uses pigment ink so I expect some differences however some papers work
great in both but others only work well in one or the other.

For info the best photo paper I've found that works well in both is the TDK
270g PRO Quality Photo Glossy...but it's sometimes hard to find.

CWatters wrote:

"Ray K" wrote in message
et...


I printed the test pattern a second time on the Kodak paper; same (but
not identical) ragged edges in the red row.

I'm disappointed that a product from a company like Kodak would give
such poor performance. Thanks for any comments/insights you offer.


Can't coment on Kodak paper in Canon printers but I do know that such an
incompatibility isn't uncommon. What works well in one printer is hopeless
in another. I have an HP895cxi and an Epson 2100. One is a dye printer the
other uses pigment ink so I expect some differences however some papers work
great in both but others only work well in one or the other.

For info the best photo paper I've found that works well in both is the TDK
270g PRO Quality Photo Glossy...but it's sometimes hard to find.

Thanks for the additional insights. My best bet is to stay with the
Canon paper, although changing the printer settings minimized many of
the problems. Read the thread titled "Refill inks from Atlascopy."

Ray

I just returned a box of Kodak "Ultra" Glossy Paper. The output using either
my Canon i950 or i960 was simply awful! I thought I would give it a try
since Kodak now has a free software program which is designed to
automatically set the correct driver parameters for the specific brand and
model printer being used with this "Hi-End" paper. Both the preset
automatic settings and the manually specified ones Kodak supplies produced
ugly output. Funny, the recommended Kodak paper setting for the i950 is
"Plain Paper" and the identical print engine i960 is specified to be set at
Photo Paper Plus Glossy"?
The plain paper setting was terrible and the Plus Glossy somewhat better but
still unacceptible quality.
I'm happily back using either Office Depot Glossy Photo or Ilford Smooth
Gloss Paper as suitable and less expensive alternatives to Canon's Photo
Paper Pro. The Ilford is even less expensive than the Kodak, just about the
same weight and with a much higher glossy surface. This was truly an
acception to the usual rule that you get what you pay for since, IMO, the
less expensive Ilford and OD papers are the superior products!

On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:31:06 -0400, "coinman1"
wrote:


I just returned a box of Kodak "Ultra" Glossy Paper. The output using either
my Canon i950 or i960 was simply awful! I thought I would give it a try
since Kodak now has a free software program which is designed to
automatically set the correct driver parameters for the specific brand and
model printer being used with this "Hi-End" paper. Both the preset
automatic settings and the manually specified ones Kodak supplies produced
ugly output. Funny, the recommended Kodak paper setting for the i950 is
"Plain Paper" and the identical print engine i960 is specified to be set at
Photo Paper Plus Glossy"?
The plain paper setting was terrible and the Plus Glossy somewhat better but
still unacceptible quality.
I'm happily back using either Office Depot Glossy Photo or Ilford Smooth
Gloss Paper as suitable and less expensive alternatives to Canon's Photo
Paper Pro. The Ilford is even less expensive than the Kodak, just about the
same weight and with a much higher glossy surface. This was truly an
acception to the usual rule that you get what you pay for since, IMO, the
less expensive Ilford and OD papers are the superior products!



I felt the same way about the Kodak Ultima. The settings for the 960
worked except the one setting that said "Picture" had to be put to
"NONE" after I tried that, it is absolutely the best print Ive seen.

Im sure you will never try Kodak ultima again but incase you do, set
the print type to none and im sure you will get good results.

Print Type set to "None"??
Kodak says to set Print Type to "Photo" in both the i950 and i960 printer
settings!
Strange that Kodak suggests settings that won't work after going to the
trouble of making such detailed setup charts for each specific printer.
That alone turns me off to them. Curious, have you tried the Ilford paper
and compared the two?
I still think the Ilford has a higher gloss and smoother surface.
Thanks for your input.

"beezer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:31:06 -0400, "coinman1"
wrote:


I just returned a box of Kodak "Ultra" Glossy Paper. The output using
either
my Canon i950 or i960 was simply awful! I thought I would give it a try
since Kodak now has a free software program which is designed to
automatically set the correct driver parameters for the specific brand
and
model printer being used with this "Hi-End" paper. Both the preset
automatic settings and the manually specified ones Kodak supplies
produced
ugly output. Funny, the recommended Kodak paper setting for the i950 is
"Plain Paper" and the identical print engine i960 is specified to be set
at
Photo Paper Plus Glossy"?
The plain paper setting was terrible and the Plus Glossy somewhat better
but
still unacceptible quality.
I'm happily back using either Office Depot Glossy Photo or Ilford Smooth
Gloss Paper as suitable and less expensive alternatives to Canon's Photo
Paper Pro. The Ilford is even less expensive than the Kodak, just about
the
same weight and with a much higher glossy surface. This was truly an
acception to the usual rule that you get what you pay for since, IMO, the
less expensive Ilford and OD papers are the superior products!



I felt the same way about the Kodak Ultima. The settings for the 960
worked except the one setting that said "Picture" had to be put to
"NONE" after I tried that, it is absolutely the best print Ive seen.

Im sure you will never try Kodak ultima again but incase you do, set
the print type to none and im sure you will get good results.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:53:27 -0400, "coinman1"
wrote:


Print Type set to "None"??
Kodak says to set Print Type to "Photo" in both the i950 and i960 printer
settings!
Strange that Kodak suggests settings that won't work after going to the
trouble of making such detailed setup charts for each specific printer.
That alone turns me off to them. Curious, have you tried the Ilford paper
and compared the two?
I still think the Ilford has a higher gloss and smoother surface.
Thanks for your input.


Well, Perhaps if I used a diffrent color profile etc etc.. I think
thats where alot of shifting begins. Kodak and others go through the
trouble of telling you what settings to use for what papers and what
printer but what they can not possibly cover is everyones colorspace
or printer profile they are using.

But yes, setting the print type to 'None", you will see the demo
graphic on the left "Desaturate" and thats what is needed and that
brings it down to earth. I would never use "Picture" for a print type.

Im just using a basic rgb profile.. none of the fancy adobe stuff that
brightens the reds and blue or anything enhanced... Hell, I want to be
in control of my saturation and colors, I dont want this "Guess-ware"
doing what they think is best when it cant see it..

All I know is the setting on the kodak paper is absolutely fabulous...
Also, I did use a yellow setting of 5 when they call for 10 for my
paper.

I have not tried the Illford paper so I can not comment on the
comparison. What I would like to know, Does the Illford have a rigid
backing like the kodak papers or a mat backing that gets warped with
ink.

Redriver is great paper but it does go out of shape a bit but its not
an issue. Its not heavy warping but its not rigid like the Kodak
ultima.

Oh, I really like the spray protectants from krylon as well. They give
a wonderful rich look when applied properly... 10-12 inches away...
Its a very nice studio sheen that enhancess any glossy paper. Very
very nice.. plus, you dont have to worry about ink on the photo
sticking to the glass that you framed it in... I think many have been
there and done that....

The protectant prevents that and fading as well. As a matter of fact,
I accidently got a drop of water on one photo from a glass i was
holding. All it did was form a bead and it blotted away without
damage.

I also read about using basic clearcoat finish that you could get in
any paint supply dirt cheap. I may try that next.

Sorry for making this sooooo lengthy..

Yes, the Ilford paper has a rigid backing and it absorbs all the ink you
need to throw at it. Also, it's not a billboard for their advertising as it
is with the Kodak, Kodak, Kodak. The surface of the Ilford already has that
deep glossy appearance which makes it look completely photographic. I have
yet to have a sticking problem but it is, however, still not waterproof. I,
too, have tried several protective coatings including Krylon to provide true
waterproofing when I produce posters and signs, but they all seem to dry
with many minute dust particles hardened in them which is not suitable for
the highest quality photo work.