Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet.

If that is the case, then the 3rd party inks will have to play catch
up. Until then, they will be second rate when compared.



Maybe they are havng osme issues with then, or they are testing there
first.

Art

measekite wrote:

I do not see it at this point. Hopefully they will last. I would
hate to go to Epson and have to spend much more on ink and expose
myself to the greater probability of ink clogs. I would also miss my
duplex printing with twin paper feeds and the speed.

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:04:52 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:



Henry Wilhelm's tests of gas fading on inkjet prints and papers
show Canon ink on Canon Photo Paper (2nd best in its range??) to be
the worst combination of all the tested media (which included Epson
and HP dye prints). After 24hrs in just 1ppm ozone (the level you
could spend an entire lifetime in without any health effect, and
probably quite clean compared to most urban environments, but
enough to accelerate the oxidation issue) the Canon print lost 61%
of its cyan density, 35% of the magenta and 6% of the yellow! That
is more than 10x the Epson R300 on its worst media and about 30x
worse than the Epson SP4000 on Epson fine art paper. I'll leave
you to search the results to find the best... but it wasn't Canon!

This isn't, as you argue, an issue for professionals - there is
little point in printing at all if the result is only marginally
less fugitive than the image on an LCD screen!




PC Pro, in the UK recently did a "destruction" test on inkjet inks.

Two prints were made from a range of printers from a range of makers.
One print was kept in a drawer. The other was placed in a window for
six months, half the image being covered.

Pigment inks (i.e. Epson), even when placed in a window, still showed
little fading over six months.

For the dye inks, the best were HP, followed by the latest Lexmark
inks (shame the same can't be said about their printers).

Coming up the rear were Canon prints which faded *even when kept in a
drawer and not exposed to light*.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Arthur Entlich wrote:

I'm afraid "you" must be dozing off in the rocking chair now, as well,
my Lady. Kennedy went into detail as to the history, I believe in the
same posting that you just quoted from.

Art


Indeed, dear Lady Margaret, you must have been. I second the
posting by Kennedy and I also share his opinion about Canon
and their tactics toward customers. I asked them to print on
their printer boxes and paper wraps "may fade visibly in only
one year." This would be a correct information, wouldn't it?
But than who would be investing half a thousand in such printer
and another thousand in the inks, while knowing of this problem
in advance...
I would not.

I remember that back than as I have browsed quarterly results and
sales numbers of the camera companies, I saw how great Canon did,
and yet that their director of the printer division was replaced
or has retired. This was a clue, which I have ignored...

After this big recall action by Epson the issue of fading became
public. Epson resolved it and provided a fully new generation
of inks with a very good longevity. It is indeed stunning that
afterwards someone would be releasing a new printer generation
with such a problem!

Canon changed inks just around the time as they have launched
their S9nn series, now known as i9xx. They hailed their new inks
as archival class holding up to 28-30 years. It was much less
than Epson, but for me good enough, and I took the S9000 and not
the Epson 2200. Well, now we known that there was a "small print"
attached to this claim.

Thomas


Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:31:17 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Now, you would think that after that public fiasco, which cost Epson a
small fortune in replaced paper, ink and printers, that Canon would have
been a quite careful that their dye inks didn't suffer the same fate.
You might think that during more than 5 years since Epson got burned

"We" must have been dozing in our rocking chair five years ago. What
happened then with Epson?

Taliesyn wrote:

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Taliesyn
writes

Kennedy McEwen wrote:


As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.

Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?

I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
"FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
Get me out of here...... . . . .

Nobody holds you! We know that not everybody got, or will get a fading
problem of the same extend with the same product.

You put yourself into a mental trap "I do not have this problem, thus
it does not exist," instead of rather assuming "others observe a problem,
I might be next in some circumstances."

This is analogous to the typical news article in a software group, where
A reports that his/her computer crashes with the newest version of Marvel
Software by Fabulous Inc, and B writes "Nonsense, it does not crash for
me, I am so happy with Fabulous Inc."

But of course Marvel will not crash with everybody, it would not be on
the market. Of course some paper/ink combinations of Canon product will
not fade as fast as mine did. But the fact is that a growing number of
customers report such problems and that *you* might be next.

Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
dye and look like this example image which I have posted and made public,
*after* the hit counter was zero for 3 weeks, as it was not public and
known to Canon support only. I asked them again and again to at least
take a look at these images. Shame on them.

These all faded images were made on Photo Paper Plus. This seems to be
the common denominator in this equation. At least listen to the warning
and do not use this paper.

Thomas


-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________ ________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk

ThomasH wrote:

[...]
Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta

oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
Sorry about the mistake.

dye and look like this example image which I have posted and made public,
*after* the hit counter was zero for 3 weeks, as it was not public and
known to Canon support only. I asked them again and again to at least
take a look at these images. Shame on them.

These all faded images were made on Photo Paper Plus. This seems to be
the common denominator in this equation. At least listen to the warning
and do not use this paper.

Thomas


-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________ ________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
snip

Canon changed inks just around the time as they have launched
their S9nn series, now known as i9xx. They hailed their new inks
as archival class holding up to 28-30 years. It was much less
than Epson, but for me good enough, and I took the S9000 and not
the Epson 2200. Well, now we known that there was a "small print"
attached to this claim.

Thomas


They may hail them as archival, but I had very similar experience to what was
quoted from PC Pro with an s900 printer using canon's own inks and media --
clearly obvious fading in less than a month in still air without exposure to
sunlight or any other bright light source. I have had much better life from
epson printers [even from epson dye printers] using epson inks and media and
from hp printers using hp inks and media. I've no experience with lexmark, but
of the three printer families I have used over the years [four families if you
count an oly 400 and a 410 dye-sub], sadly, I'd have to put canon on the bottom
of my list [despite owning three of their cameras and several of their lenses].

Yes, the canon prints looked great when printed and the print speed was
fantastic, but all of that is of little use if I can't expect reasonable life
from the prints.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH wrote:

ThomasH wrote:

[...]
Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta

oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
Sorry about the mistake.

Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
be quite subtle at first.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that case,
who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that Canon will
develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a tendency for
longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and the print
results will be the overriding factor.

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH wrote:



ThomasH wrote:


[...]


Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta


oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
Sorry about the mistake.



Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
be quite subtle at first.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

In article , Taliesyn
writes

Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?

Your facts!

In article , Taliesyn
writes
I have an 8x10 Canon print

then

In article , Taliesyn
writes
and I don't use Canon
papers nor inks.

By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
discussed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , ThomasH
writes
ThomasH wrote:

Thomas, I don't know your nationality, but in the UK this guy is known
collectively as a tosser!

Ignore him - he can't even understand that displaying under glass
changes the environment!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article 5pl%d.3588$191.3388@trnddc02, SamSez
writes

Yes, the canon prints looked great when printed and the print speed was
fantastic, but all of that is of little use if I can't expect reasonable life
from the prints.

Printer manufacturers seem to have lost touch with reality - these days,
if the print won't last, why not just use the computer display?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)