Cannon IP5000 or Epson R300?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikey
  • Start date Start date
I don't think we are printing toilet paper.  :-)

Taliesyn wrote:
measekite wrote:

I am using the word "grain" as it has been used in the photographic industry for over 100 years.  And that it refers to the silver halide dots you see in film.  Therefore, since prints from digital cameras do not use film they cannot have grain.  However, digital prints made from scanned in negatives or slides may show "grain" in the result.

After all , this is a photographic forum so the word "grain" should be understood.


No, last I checked this was a "printer" forum. "Grain" are the dots
that the printhead spits out that forms an image. Take a magnifying
glass and look at the prints: dots! (grains)

-Taliesyn
 
Although you can't print (or write on) the back of the Kirkland paper, the
Epson Glossy paper will accept pen and inkjet inks on the back side. The
epson logo that is repeat printed on the back is so faint that most people
won't notice it. I have done several greeting cards on the Epson Glossy
paper with printing on both sides and people have complimented me on these
cards. The Epson heavy double sided matte paper is quite nice for greeting
cards with both sides printed as well. Obviously the colors are not as
vivid as with the Kirkland or Epson Glossy paper, but both sides print
uniformly and the result is very attractive.
 
Taliesyn - with my i960, MIS or OEM inks, and Kirkland, Epson glossy, or
Canon pro paper I found the best setting to be at "glossy photo paper" and a
manual setting with -4 adjustment to the intensity slider. This is in
keepint with Art Entlich's post to you as the i960 has different profiles
for different paper settings.
 
Burt said:
Although you can't print (or write on) the back of the Kirkland paper, the
Epson Glossy paper will accept pen and inkjet inks on the back side. The
epson logo that is repeat printed on the back is so faint that most people
won't notice it. I have done several greeting cards on the Epson Glossy
paper with printing on both sides and people have complimented me on these
cards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen you post this comment/suggestion earlier. But for me
it looks kind of cheap or incomplete. At least in my case it would
look cheap if I suddenly removed the insides of my cards and printed on
the bare unfinished inside.

I find greeting cards look so much nicer with a matte coated paper
insert page, either glued along the back spine of the folded page or
stapled to the cover like a booklet. I use either method. Using the
insert option gives me the possibility of printing things on 4 possible
pages inside the card. On several special occasions I added not one but
two pages or more. Occasions like Halloween and Christmas when I fill
the cards with interesting stories, facts, jokes, pictures, clip art,
etc. I guess they would then qualify as "booklets". ;-)

-Taliesyn

The Epson heavy double sided matte paper is quite nice for greeting
cards with both sides printed as well. Obviously the colors are not as
vivid as with the Kirkland or Epson Glossy paper, but both sides print
uniformly and the result is very attractive.
Click to expand...

My cards are strictly Epson Glossy Photo Paper. I used to do matte. They
don't look quite as impressive as Glossy. More like store cards. I will
try my Easter cards on Kirkland's Glossy Photo Paper and see how that
works. It feels much more durable than my usual Epson paper.

-Taliesyn
 
Taliesyn - did you try some prints with the hobbicolor kit? I just want to
be sure that the hobicolor cartridge functions properly before I buy them.
I will fill them with MIS inks. As mentioned before, the MIS carts are more
expensive and have a tiny sealing plug that is more difficult to handle than
the Computer Friends plugs for OEM carts. Your experience with formulabs
ink mirrors mine with MIS ink. I wouldn't mind having a few prefilled carts
available and would consider purchasing the alotofthings prefilled carts. I
can always refill them later, just as I do the OEM carts now.

I went on the Alotofthings site and couldn't bring up their catalog of
products. I've never done anything on the ebay site, and when I went onto
the alotofthings store on ebay the six color cart package offer had
expired.????
 
Burt said:
Taliesyn - did you try some prints with the hobbicolor kit? I just want to
be sure that the hobicolor cartridge functions properly before I buy them.
Click to expand...

I've had them filled since early January (BCI-6 only). They're not in
rotation at the moment. I've only made one or two test prints just to
see where they fall compared to Canon OEM. The colors are a bit warmer.
The cartridges should work perfectly. Obviously, if there was a leaking
problem it would have surfaced by now and the seller would have
withdrawn them. They are also much better looking than a lot of
cartridges I've seen. Nice, shiny plastic. I believe the seller has a
full money back guarantee if not satisfied. Check his website.
I will fill them with MIS inks. As mentioned before, the MIS carts are more
expensive and have a tiny sealing plug that is more difficult to handle than
the Computer Friends plugs for OEM carts.
Click to expand...

These have a rather large, easy to use plastic screw that threads
quite tight.

-Taliesyn
 
The forum I am posting to is a printer forum, not a photographic forum.

As I mentioned before, color film doesn't have "grain" because it has no
silver halide dots, only an artifact from them, the dye clouds.

Grain in printer images is not caused by silver halide "dots', but by
ink dots or groups of dots, it is still a type of grain, as within the
definition of something with texture.

The photographic field doesn't have ownership on the concept of grain or
graininess.

You certainly understood the use of the term, as it was presented, but
you decided to be a stickler for an antiquated and specific usage which
doesn't make your usage "right" and the other "wrong". A dictionary of
the English language doesn't even mention photographic grain, other than
as a side point "texture"

Art
 
LOL, just who exactly is being "anal" here? You were the one who
objected to someone referring to his inkjet prints as having grain, or
being grainy.

Here's your quote, just in case you forgot:

"If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
photos because there is only grain in film. "

Remember that "Only grain in film"

Plainly speaking... your usage is incorrectly restrictive. In fact, the
OP makes reference to a Photo Lab print as being "grain free" so he is
clearly NOT speaking of silver halide grain.

I think you had better take a good look in the mirror, before suggesting
I'm being "anal", but you may have to turn around to see ;-p

Art
 
What is it you are shaking your head about? My point is that the term
grain is used to refer to many things, not only silver halide "grains".
I thought that was also your point and usage.

In the case of color films, the dye clouds are called "grain" by most
people and manufacturers, because it is a convention, but all they
consist of is dots of color, just like the inkjet print. I have no
problem with this whatsoever. Everyone knows exactly what is meant.
Yet "measekite" considers the use of the term grain when referring to
inkjet prints as "inaccurate" "because digital images have no grain" and
yet he considers my comment about the fact that the term is also
incorrect for color films (using his extreme definition), "anal".

Pretty flawed logic. Grain can refer to anything which has discrete
dots, or spots, or texture, among other definitions. It is not a term
owned by those referring to photographs, or "silver halide spots".

Art
 
I cannot agree with you. While this is a printer forum most of the
people here buy printers to produce photographs. There is much overlap.
 
Oh... I thought you were shaking your head about what I posted, which I
couldn't quite understand, since we seemed to be on the same page.

Art
 
We'll agree to disagree, then. ;-)

Art
I cannot agree with you. While this is a printer forum most of the
people here buy printers to produce photographs. There is much overlap.
Click to expand...
 
And as for printer reviews, yes, http://www.photo-i.co.uk does seem
tomeasekite Feb 25, 9:02 am show options
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Because CR and the PC Mags come up with rankings that jibe neither with
the theoretical performance expected given the specs, nor the actual
performance as seen by me or reported by fellow forum (dpreview.com
forum) members.

I've wondered for a long time why that is and can only guess it's from
a confluence of specificities, otherwise known as a failure to control
for variables. i.e., using only Epson paper on the Epson printer, thus
conflating paper quality with printer quality. Also, using default
settings in the drivers, or some other procedure that might bear some
resemblance to what a novice would do, but which is so far removed from
something like color profiling or intelligent analysis & tweaking as to
provide useless comparison results.
 
I understand your point; however, the vast majority of the prints
produced by all photo printers printing from results produced by the
vast majority of camera came from what you would call novices. So to be
fair, they tested the printers in the same manner that most people use them.

My concern with the PC Mags and the Photo Mags is that they take
advertising form the mfg who produce what they are testing. I am
concerned they cannot help in their bias. As for CR, I do not have
confidence they really know what they are doing but they do point out
what to look for many times.
 
My concern with the PC Mags and the Photo Mags is that they take
advertising form the mfg who produce what they are testing. I am
concerned they cannot help in their bias. As for CR, I do not have
confidence they really know what they are doing but they do point out
what to look for many times.
Click to expand...

Indeed. When using your printer, be certain to wear a helmet, gloves,
safety glasses, hearing protection and knee and elbow pads. Also,
don't stand too close, just in case the printer rolls over. If you are
sitting, be sure to use a seat belt.
 
To be fair to what is the question, and they answer it in a way I think
is just bad test methodology. I want to know what _my_ (or other
"prosumer's") prints will look like, not what their subscriber base's
prints will look like. I want to know what a printer is capable of
given some intelligence, and so far photo-i is about the only site that
does regular reviews like that. Steve's, too, maybe.

"Pro" magazines like Photoshop User also fall short on basic ability to
"do science". They did a paper review but just talked about them
rather than taking some representative printers and making a matrix
testing each paper with each printer, and then evaluating some things
about each print (color accuracy, dynamic range, fade resistance, etc.)

It's frustrating how hard it is to find any review of techno-stuff that
has even a little bit of real, good ol' scientific method behind it.
They are out there, though. Not many, but there are some.
 
Back
Top