6color?

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:56:52 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:

More to the point, if he truly believes in remaining true to the OEM
product line, both because it is so superior in quality and output (the
ink and paper "system") AND because it supports the R&D and profits for
inkjet printer manufacturers, why is he 'cheating' with a 3rd party
pape


Kirkland, used some of the time is not 3rd party paper but it is mfg (the
batches I have) by Ilford. I also used Epson matte paper and Epson glossy
on occasion.

Stop top posting.

r.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:20:11 -0800, Empedocles wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:28Â*pm, measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:47:26 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:
The sad part of this quote from Measekite is how little understanding
and faith he shows in the product he is so enamored with, Canon inkjet
printers, or at least the one he owns.

Actually, what is more sad is he is so willing to continue playing this
infantile game of "OEM inks over everything" that he has overplayed his
own cards, such that his posts mislead people into thinking what makes
the 4 color 1 picolitre Canon printers good isn't the head and other
technologies, which, BTW, Canon spent millions of dollars perfecting,
but that the quality those printers produce is a result of the ink
technology, which, in fact, is some of the simplest mixology and
chemistry in inkjet inks, particularly with those dye inks.

Anybody with a brain knows that it is the system that is responsible for
the quality of a printed photgraphic image. Â*The most important part of
the system is the design of the printer along with OEM ink that was also
formulated for the engineered design of the printhead. Â*The other part is
a quality paper. Â*There are many major brands that mfg all different types
of quality paperand these major mfg also make paper to the specification
of the printer mfg that is sold under their label.

snip

irrelevant long winded diatribe

And again he top posted. Â*Ask him why he top posts and does not use inline
posting.

I'm curious, measekite, why you promote OEM inks, but not OEM papers,
such as Epson papers for Epson printers, HP papers for HP printers,
etc. Any comment?

My prime matte paper is Epson Heavyweight Matte and that works just fine
in my Canon printer. Now photo results from an Epson 3800 on the same
paper look somewhat better and will last longer.

measekite wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:56:52 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:

More to the point, if he truly believes in remaining true to the OEM
product line, both because it is so superior in quality and output (the
ink and paper "system") AND because it supports the R&D and profits for
inkjet printer manufacturers, why is he 'cheating' with a 3rd party
pape


Kirkland, used some of the time is not 3rd party paper but it is mfg (the
batches I have) by Ilford. I also used Epson matte paper and Epson glossy
on occasion.

Stop top posting.

Stop lying!
r.
If he admits that the actually much more complex paper formulation,
coating process and technologies can be replicated adequately or better
at lower cost without damage to his output in 3rd party papers, why is
he incapable of accepting similarly the 3rd party inks, which are more
easy to replicate, and less costly for the most part, can't also be a
reasonable substitute to OEM? Further, long term accelerated age
testing is rarely done on 3rd party paper, and certainly I know of none
which have been done through official channels using Kirkland papers
(and the paper has changed manufacturers and characteristics numerous
times over the last several years, as well.)

All paper is mfg by paper mfg. The paper under Canons brand is to Canon's
specifications in conjunction with large paper mfg.

Aftermarket inks are sold by a bunch of fly by nites and thrown together
in china like much of their other crap with none or little oversight like
the milk and dog food.

Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:54 pm, IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:

Which you your self don't buy. You buy Kirkland which I have to agree
produces good prints but it's hardly "good" paper in the sense that
it's archival. And Canon OEM ink is hardly archival on it's own
paper, let alone Kirkland.
I should be clear here. Kirkland made in Switzerland was awesome. The
made in Mex was decent as well, not sure about the current batch.

But regardless, Measekite doesn't use PREMIUM paper.

measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:20:11 -0800, Empedocles wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:28 pm, measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:47:26 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:
The sad part of this quote from Measekite is how little understanding
and faith he shows in the product he is so enamored with, Canon inkjet
printers, or at least the one he owns.
Actually, what is more sad is he is so willing to continue playing this
infantile game of "OEM inks over everything" that he has overplayed his
own cards, such that his posts mislead people into thinking what makes
the 4 color 1 picolitre Canon printers good isn't the head and other
technologies, which, BTW, Canon spent millions of dollars perfecting,
but that the quality those printers produce is a result of the ink
technology, which, in fact, is some of the simplest mixology and
chemistry in inkjet inks, particularly with those dye inks.
Anybody with a brain knows that it is the system that is responsible for
the quality of a printed photgraphic image. The most important part of
the system is the design of the printer along with OEM ink that was also
formulated for the engineered design of the printhead. The other part is
a quality paper. There are many major brands that mfg all different types
of quality paperand these major mfg also make paper to the specification
of the printer mfg that is sold under their label.

snip

irrelevant long winded diatribe

And again he top posted. Ask him why he top posts and does not use inline
posting.
I'm curious, measekite, why you promote OEM inks, but not OEM papers,
such as Epson papers for Epson printers, HP papers for HP printers,
etc. Any comment?

My prime matte paper is Epson Heavyweight Matte and that works just fine
in my Canon printer. Now photo results from an Epson 3800 on the same
paper look somewhat better and will last longer.

You know this because...you have an Epson 3800...or you just read it
somewhere?
Well...?
NO LYING ALLOWED!!!

Not only are you the village idiot, you are a hypocritical village
idiot. You let all that wonderful Canon OEM ink spill onto third party,
after market photo paper?!?! You need to be flogged for such blasphemy.
I guess there is no need to believe what you claim about OEM ink
because you don't buy OEM print paper. After all, Canon says to use
their paper for best results. WHY AREN"T YOU USING THEIR PAPER???? If
third party paper is good enough then so is third party ink. Mixing the
two just defeats your who line of reasoning. Then again, you ARE our
village idiot so this type of thinking is to be expected from you.

measekite wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:56:52 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:

More to the point, if he truly believes in remaining true to the OEM
product line, both because it is so superior in quality and output (the
ink and paper "system") AND because it supports the R&D and profits for
inkjet printer manufacturers, why is he 'cheating' with a 3rd party
pape


Kirkland, used some of the time is not 3rd party paper but it is mfg (the
batches I have) by Ilford. I also used Epson matte paper and Epson glossy
on occasion.

Stop top posting.

r.
If he admits that the actually much more complex paper formulation,
coating process and technologies can be replicated adequately or better
at lower cost without damage to his output in 3rd party papers, why is
he incapable of accepting similarly the 3rd party inks, which are more
easy to replicate, and less costly for the most part, can't also be a
reasonable substitute to OEM? Further, long term accelerated age
testing is rarely done on 3rd party paper, and certainly I know of none
which have been done through official channels using Kirkland papers
(and the paper has changed manufacturers and characteristics numerous
times over the last several years, as well.)

All paper is mfg by paper mfg. The paper under Canons brand is to Canon's
specifications in conjunction with large paper mfg.

Aftermarket inks are sold by a bunch of fly by nites and thrown together
in china like much of their other crap with none or little oversight like
the milk and dog food.

Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:54 pm, IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:

Which you your self don't buy. You buy Kirkland which I have to agree
produces good prints but it's hardly "good" paper in the sense that
it's archival. And Canon OEM ink is hardly archival on it's own
paper, let alone Kirkland.
I should be clear here. Kirkland made in Switzerland was awesome. The
made in Mex was decent as well, not sure about the current batch.

But regardless, Measekite doesn't use PREMIUM paper.

Not only are you the village idiot, you are a hypocritical village
idiot. You let all that wonderful Canon OEM ink spill onto third party,
after market photo paper?!?! You need to be flogged for such blasphemy.
I guess there is no need to believe what you claim about OEM ink
because you don't buy OEM print paper. After all, Canon says to use
their paper for best results. WHY AREN"T YOU USING THEIR PAPER???? If
third party paper is good enough then so is third party ink. Mixing the
two just defeats your who line of reasoning. Then again, you ARE our
village idiot so this type of thinking is to be expected from you.

measekite wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:56:52 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:

More to the point, if he truly believes in remaining true to the OEM
product line, both because it is so superior in quality and output (the
ink and paper "system") AND because it supports the R&D and profits for
inkjet printer manufacturers, why is he 'cheating' with a 3rd party
pape


Kirkland, used some of the time is not 3rd party paper but it is mfg (the
batches I have) by Ilford. I also used Epson matte paper and Epson glossy
on occasion.

Stop top posting.

r.
If he admits that the actually much more complex paper formulation,
coating process and technologies can be replicated adequately or better
at lower cost without damage to his output in 3rd party papers, why is
he incapable of accepting similarly the 3rd party inks, which are more
easy to replicate, and less costly for the most part, can't also be a
reasonable substitute to OEM? Further, long term accelerated age
testing is rarely done on 3rd party paper, and certainly I know of none
which have been done through official channels using Kirkland papers
(and the paper has changed manufacturers and characteristics numerous
times over the last several years, as well.)

All paper is mfg by paper mfg. The paper under Canons brand is to Canon's
specifications in conjunction with large paper mfg.

Aftermarket inks are sold by a bunch of fly by nites and thrown together
in china like much of their other crap with none or little oversight like
the milk and dog food.

Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:54 pm, IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:

Which you your self don't buy. You buy Kirkland which I have to agree
produces good prints but it's hardly "good" paper in the sense that
it's archival. And Canon OEM ink is hardly archival on it's own
paper, let alone Kirkland.
I should be clear here. Kirkland made in Switzerland was awesome. The
made in Mex was decent as well, not sure about the current batch.

But regardless, Measekite doesn't use PREMIUM paper.

measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:20:11 -0800, Empedocles wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:28 pm, measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:47:26 -0800, Arthur Entlich wrote:
The sad part of this quote from Measekite is how little understanding
and faith he shows in the product he is so enamored with, Canon inkjet
printers, or at least the one he owns.
Actually, what is more sad is he is so willing to continue playing this
infantile game of "OEM inks over everything" that he has overplayed his
own cards, such that his posts mislead people into thinking what makes
the 4 color 1 picolitre Canon printers good isn't the head and other
technologies, which, BTW, Canon spent millions of dollars perfecting,
but that the quality those printers produce is a result of the ink
technology, which, in fact, is some of the simplest mixology and
chemistry in inkjet inks, particularly with those dye inks.
Anybody with a brain knows that it is the system that is responsible for
the quality of a printed photgraphic image. The most important part of
the system is the design of the printer along with OEM ink that was also
formulated for the engineered design of the printhead. The other part is
a quality paper. There are many major brands that mfg all different types
of quality paperand these major mfg also make paper to the specification
of the printer mfg that is sold under their label.

snip

irrelevant long winded diatribe

And again he top posted. Ask him why he top posts and does not use inline
posting.
I'm curious, measekite, why you promote OEM inks, but not OEM papers,
such as Epson papers for Epson printers, HP papers for HP printers,
etc. Any comment?

My prime matte paper is Epson Heavyweight Matte and that works just fine
in my Canon printer. Now photo results from an Epson 3800 on the same
paper look somewhat better and will last longer.

So the village idiot thinks third party paper "works just fine" and not
the absolute best available? You have double standards for paper and
ink? Some people think compatible ink "works just fine" too. How is
this any different than you thinking compatible paper "works just fine"?
You are too stupid to know when your own statements have defeated your
argument for using OEM ink.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:39:47 -0800, Burt wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
...
The sad part of this quote from Measekite is how little understanding and
faith he shows in the product he is so enamored with, Canon inkjet
printers, or at least the one he owns.

Actually, what is more sad is he is so willing to continue playing this
infantile game of "OEM inks over everything" that he has overplayed his
own cards, such that his posts mislead people into thinking what makes the
4 color 1 picolitre Canon printers good isn't the head and other
technologies, which, BTW, Canon spent millions of dollars perfecting, but
that the quality those printers produce is a result of the ink technology,
which, in fact, is some of the simplest mixology and chemistry in inkjet
inks, particularly with those dye inks.

Canon 1 picolitre four color dye printers are amazingly good at creating
perceived color gamut and blends. I say perceived because what they do is
use such small and finely spaced dye drops that they provide the perceived
result of a greater number of dye ink loads, as in 6 color versions, which
use larger ink droplets.

The beauty of the Canon 1 picolitre head is that besides using only 4 ink
colors (CMYK) they actually use less ink because for the lighter colors,
they use the white of the paper to "fill in" the lighter areas between the
almost imperceivable ink drops. This makes for a more stable print
because darker inks are used, while being very ink conservative.

Making standard 4 color dye inks, even ones for a 1 picolitre dot size is
not difficult to accomplish. Dye inks have, at least in theory, no
solids, so they should pass through very fine nozzles without difficulty,
and indeed 3rd party inks of this type for the most part are very
effective, although their permanence *may* be poorer than the OEM (or
not).

However, the 4 color print quality that Canon has accomplished is indeed
an accomplishment of printhead design and firmware.

The reason the 6 color and 4 color output have little difference has
little to nothing to do with the ink used., but because the 6 color
printer use larger ink dots since they can get away with it with the
lighter dye load C and M colors. The advantage to these printer is they
may print slightly faster since they use 6 heads rather than 4 (when
printing color) and they can cover more area with a larger dot, while the
1 picolitre dot head much print a lot more dots with less heads to create
the lighter gradient colors.

While Measekite continues to go on about OEM inks, what he completely
misses is the areas where Canon has shown some leadership in design, by
being the first company to show that with small enough dots a 4 color
printer can produce a photo-quality prints that reviles a 6 color version,
at lower cost, using less ink and providing a more stable result, because
the dots have more dye in them.

There's an expression about not being able to see the forest for the
trees...

Art

Art - a very good description of what I can see personally when comparing
prints from the i960 and ip5000 printers. I would expect to see some of the
four color printer ink dots with an 8x jeweler's loupe, but the colors do
look continuous to the unaided eye. One of the critics' concerns with the
ip5000, when it first hit the market, was their fear that the one picoliter
nozzles would clog more easily, but Canon stayed with the one picoliter
heads for subsequent generations of printers that used dye based inks and it
proved to be an improvement. Frankly, I had gone to Staples to buy two
ip4000 printers on a closeout sale for $50 each, after a rebate, as a backup
for when my two i960's failed (which they haven't yet.) They had a computer
error that showed the printers in stock, but they were out. They did,
however, have an unadvertised special to close out the ip5000s for $100
each. I wanted to contiue to refill my carts and knew that the new printers
had chipped carts and no resetter at that time, so I bought two ip5000s as
backups.

Oh you have two spare old technology units to replace even older
technology units instead of getting state of the art.

On Feb 4, 4:58*pm, measekite wrote:

Oh you have two spare old technology units to replace even older
technology units instead of getting state of the art.

You understand that Canon hasn't released anything beyond a 1pl drop
head don't you?

I'll grant you that the ip5000, unless you enable Japanese mode, isn't
going to use the cli8 type ink, but technology on printers doesn't
actually evolve "that" quickly.

measekite wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:39:47 -0800, Burt wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
...
The sad part of this quote from Measekite is how little understanding and
faith he shows in the product he is so enamored with, Canon inkjet
printers, or at least the one he owns.

Actually, what is more sad is he is so willing to continue playing this
infantile game of "OEM inks over everything" that he has overplayed his
own cards, such that his posts mislead people into thinking what makes the
4 color 1 picolitre Canon printers good isn't the head and other
technologies, which, BTW, Canon spent millions of dollars perfecting, but
that the quality those printers produce is a result of the ink technology,
which, in fact, is some of the simplest mixology and chemistry in inkjet
inks, particularly with those dye inks.

Canon 1 picolitre four color dye printers are amazingly good at creating
perceived color gamut and blends. I say perceived because what they do is
use such small and finely spaced dye drops that they provide the perceived
result of a greater number of dye ink loads, as in 6 color versions, which
use larger ink droplets.

The beauty of the Canon 1 picolitre head is that besides using only 4 ink
colors (CMYK) they actually use less ink because for the lighter colors,
they use the white of the paper to "fill in" the lighter areas between the
almost imperceivable ink drops. This makes for a more stable print
because darker inks are used, while being very ink conservative.

Making standard 4 color dye inks, even ones for a 1 picolitre dot size is
not difficult to accomplish. Dye inks have, at least in theory, no
solids, so they should pass through very fine nozzles without difficulty,
and indeed 3rd party inks of this type for the most part are very
effective, although their permanence *may* be poorer than the OEM (or
not).

However, the 4 color print quality that Canon has accomplished is indeed
an accomplishment of printhead design and firmware.

The reason the 6 color and 4 color output have little difference has
little to nothing to do with the ink used., but because the 6 color
printer use larger ink dots since they can get away with it with the
lighter dye load C and M colors. The advantage to these printer is they
may print slightly faster since they use 6 heads rather than 4 (when
printing color) and they can cover more area with a larger dot, while the
1 picolitre dot head much print a lot more dots with less heads to create
the lighter gradient colors.

While Measekite continues to go on about OEM inks, what he completely
misses is the areas where Canon has shown some leadership in design, by
being the first company to show that with small enough dots a 4 color
printer can produce a photo-quality prints that reviles a 6 color version,
at lower cost, using less ink and providing a more stable result, because
the dots have more dye in them.

There's an expression about not being able to see the forest for the
trees...

Art

Art - a very good description of what I can see personally when comparing
prints from the i960 and ip5000 printers. I would expect to see some of the
four color printer ink dots with an 8x jeweler's loupe, but the colors do
look continuous to the unaided eye. One of the critics' concerns with the
ip5000, when it first hit the market, was their fear that the one picoliter
nozzles would clog more easily, but Canon stayed with the one picoliter
heads for subsequent generations of printers that used dye based inks and it
proved to be an improvement. Frankly, I had gone to Staples to buy two
ip4000 printers on a closeout sale for $50 each, after a rebate, as a backup
for when my two i960's failed (which they haven't yet.) They had a computer
error that showed the printers in stock, but they were out. They did,
however, have an unadvertised special to close out the ip5000s for $100
each. I wanted to contiue to refill my carts and knew that the new printers
had chipped carts and no resetter at that time, so I bought two ip5000s as
backups.

Oh you have two spare old technology units to replace even older
technology units instead of getting state of the art.

hehehe...you just love shooting yourself in the foot don't you moron.
Tell us exactly which printers and camera you have.
Well...?