Canon i560 redux

[wolfb]

I posted my review for this printer a week or so ago and got no responses on
follow-up reviews. I love it! The only problem (minor) is the
Easy-PhotoPrint software that came along. It has limited features. It
works fine, but there is a lot of file swaping going on. To recap...Sam's
has this printer for $99.95. They sell the OM carts, a five cart set (2
extra large blacks) for $49.95 per set. Instead of buying the OM set for
your i850 for around $100, buy the new i560 which come with a complete set
ready to go. If you want your prints to last you must use OM ink. The
aftermarket refills will fade in a short period of time, but they probably
won't hurt the print head. If you are printing a lot of text, get refills,
otherwise stick with the OM. The i560 has the capability of hooking up your
Canon digicam directly to the printer and printing computer free. We will
see how that works when I get my G2 back from Canon for a firm ware upgrade.
The "pro" paper is an overkill in my opinion. You get totally sharp, color
correct prints using the Photo Paper Plus Glossy. I bought some Epson 4x6
sheets at discount and although you can tell the difference by holding the
prints side by side, the difference is not really worth the cost. I have
printed out about 70 4x6's, 4-5 5x7's and a couple 8x10's and the only color
that is noticably depleted is the yellow which is about 1/2 gone. The i560
is ink conservative! At that rate I'm beating the hell out of Wal-Mart for
print cost. I'd like to hear your experiences.

Wolf-==-

 

[Bill]

ready to go. If you want your prints to last you must use OM ink.

Not quite...the paper is more important than the ink when it comes to
print longevity, although the ink is important too.

I use Office Depot photo paper with AtlanticInkjet bulk ink, and the
results are identical to Canon original paper and ink.

correct prints using the Photo Paper Plus Glossy. I bought some Epson 4x6
sheets at discount and although you can tell the difference by holding the
prints side by side, the difference is not really worth the cost.

Any difference is worth it to me. I won't use Epson paper since the
results are not good enough. You can get excellent photo paper for your
printer that costs less than any of the four printer brands.

I have
printed out about 70 4x6's, 4-5 5x7's and a couple 8x10's and the only color
that is noticably depleted is the yellow which is about 1/2 gone. The i560
is ink conservative! At that rate I'm beating the hell out of Wal-Mart for
print cost. I'd like to hear your experiences.

Do the math...your ink costs and paper costs are far too high to be
competitive with a photo lab yet. Since you're in the US, your costs
will be roughly 60-70 cents per 4x6 print. The photo lab can probably
print for about 20 cents per photo.

But if you use high quality third-party paper and ink, you get the same
results as Canon stuff, but at a cost that is lower than any photo lab.
I use AtlanticInkjet ink and Office Depot Premium photo paper. I get
identical results to Canon originals, but at 1/4 the cost.

 

[wolfb]

Not quite...the paper is more important than the ink when it comes to
print longevity, although the ink is important too.

I beg to differ. Most studies I have read concerning print longivity deal
directly with inferior ink and mention nothing about paper. Although it may
be a factor considering acid content and all. I believe the definative test
site uses photon bombardment to simulate the long term effects of light
exposure to determine how long it is before the ink fades. Can you give me
a link about the paper thing?

Any difference is worth it to me. I won't use Epson paper since the
results are not good enough. You can get excellent photo paper for your
printer that costs less than any of the four printer brands.

With 20 index views on a 4x6 the highest quality image is not much of a
concern to me. I only print out my better pictures in full view using
premium paper and OEM ink.

Do the math...your ink costs and paper costs are far too high to be
competitive with a photo lab yet. Since you're in the US, your costs
will be roughly 60-70 cents per 4x6 print. The photo lab can probably
print for about 20 cents per photo.

You must be doing some Irish math there. I figure my cost for a 4x6 to be
significantly less than 20 cents, even using the Glossy Plus paper. At 70
cents a print I could have bought a complete new set of carts. As it is I
still can print 3 times what I have already done on my original set of carts
and still have money left over for paper.

But if you use high quality third-party paper and ink, you get the same
results as Canon stuff, but at a cost that is lower than any photo lab.
I use AtlanticInkjet ink and Office Depot Premium photo paper. I get
identical results to Canon originals, but at 1/4 the cost.

I might try the Office Depot paper, but probably won't use the generic ink.
Let me know what your prints look like in 3 years.

I do wish you the best.

Wolf-==-

 

[wolfb]

Bill, I take it all back about what I said paper not being important in
photo archiving, but check what they say at this site about your Office
Depot paper.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/PrintTest/PrintTest.htm
Go to the bottom of the first page.

Cheers
Wolf-==-

 

[Bill]

Bill, I take it all back about what I said paper not being important in
photo archiving, but check what they say at this site about your Office
Depot paper.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/PrintTest/PrintTest.htm
Go to the bottom of the first page.

I've read that already and it doesn't jive with my own results.

I have several photos on the fridge that are exposed to sunlight every
day. Granted, it's not direct sunlight, but it is ambient UV light. The
photos have been there for months and show no signs of fading or colour
shift compared to photos kept in albums. I have one photo using Canon
Photo Paper Pro and original ink, and several photos using Office Depot
Premium High Gloss with AtlanticInkjet ink, and all appear to be the
same.

The photos in frames and albums are in perfect condition, as expected.

I admit I haven't put any under flourescent lighting, never thought
about it. I'll have to take a couple of photos to my work and see if
they fade there.

 

[Bob Headrick]

I beg to differ. Most studies I have read concerning print longivity deal
directly with inferior ink and mention nothing about paper. Although it may
be a factor considering acid content and all. I believe the definative test
site uses photon bombardment to simulate the long term effects of light
exposure to determine how long it is before the ink fades. Can you give me
a link about the paper thing?

See Wilhelm's testing for the DeskJet 5550 for an example at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp5550 print permanence.html This data
shows some different papers using the same inks, with a difference of 4X or
more in lightfastness. Other similar examples can be found on Wilhelm site at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ including an article specifically related to
papers at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf
which shows differences of 30X or more for some combinations of various
manufacturers ink and common papers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Taliesyn]

Not quite...the paper is more important than the ink when it comes to
print longevity, although the ink is important too.

I beg to differ. Most studies I have read concerning print longivity deal
directly with inferior ink and mention nothing about paper. [clipped]

Well, you're wrong - OEM inks and papers are no better. You only THINK
you're getting something better because you paid more... make that, a
LOT more!

My kitchen wall is my study and test bed. The photo printed on Canon
Photo Paper Pro using genuine Canon inks was first to fade to about %30
of its original darkness within weeks. Other photos printed with generic
inks on generic and Epson Photo Papers have changed only ever so
slightly now after 5 months. Even photos made with my Lexmark Z55 on
Epson Photo Paper are still going strong. But the "Canon on Canon" is a
complete washout! The paper used is directly responsible for how long
prints last. I don't want anything to do with Canon Photo Paper Pro -
way overpriced and overrated. I have no complaint against their ink,
it's as good as my bulk ink from atlanticinkjet.com

-Taliesyn

 

[Ron Cohen]

That has to be one of the lamest sets of test results I've seen. These guys
seem to have a bias towards mini labs and conventional photo printing. I've
got numerous prints made on Office Depot paper with non-OEM ink (Formulabs),
unprotected and hanging in not the best of environments. The dire color
shifts as claimed in the testing just haven't shown up. Red River paper has
also been used with the same good results as Office Depot paper. I do find
it very interesting how some people insist that only OEM papers and inks
will provide acceptable results. Where do they think the paper and ink come
from in the first place? Answer: Outside vendors. They could well be the
same vendors as the ones producing the better papers and inks available as
3rd party supplies.

 

[Wayne]

Well, you're wrong - OEM inks and papers are no better. You only THINK

you're getting something better because you paid more... make that, a
LOT more!

Everybody knows that oem's are better than bulk ink; there are no
problems with printheads and, the most important, there are no
problems with fading.

My kitchen wall is my study and test bed. The photo printed on Canon
Photo Paper Pro using genuine Canon inks was first to fade to about %30
of its original darkness within weeks.

It all depends on the conditions and the coating of the paper. When
kept in perfect conditions (under glass or in an album), photos
printed on pr-101 and pp-101 don't fade so fast.

But the "Canon on Canon" is a
complete washout! The paper used is directly responsible for how long
prints last. I don't want anything to do with Canon Photo Paper Pro -
way overpriced and overrated.

You are completely wrong here. Not only the paper can be responsible
for fading. It might be YOU, who keeps the photos in WRONG conditions
or inks (dyes are destroyed by the ozone pollutant when exposed to
direct air or other gases).

I have no complaint against their ink,
it's as good as my bulk ink from atlanticinkjet.com

Yeah, right.


Wayne

 

[Taliesyn]

Everybody knows that oem's are better than bulk ink; there are no
problems with printheads and, the most important, there are no
problems with fading.

Boy, are you living in "Wayne's World!" I've seen many, many cases of
people having print head problems using OEM ink in this newsgroup.
I personally had an Epson clog frequently with Epson ink.

It all depends on the conditions and the coating of the paper. When
kept in perfect conditions (under glass or in an album), photos
printed on pr-101 and pp-101 don't fade so fast.

"Don't fade so fast"... I like that!
However, I don't live in a world under glass. Prints I print must
also stand the test without the aid of special effects like glass
protection, total darkness, temperature and humidity control. There
are papers that can live in a real world. To me, Canon's best paper
can only survive well as a "bubble boy."

You are completely wrong here. Not only the paper can be responsible
for fading. It might be YOU, who keeps the photos in WRONG conditions
or inks (dyes are destroyed by the ozone pollutant when exposed to
direct air or other gases).

A fade is a fade is a fade. If Canon paper is ONLY good under glass in a
dark corner, then that is proof that Canon's Photo Paper Pro is highly
susceptible to fading unless guarded with your life.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, that is indeed right. It's as good because I haven't noticed any
difference in side by side photo tests and bleeding of text. You can
substitute one for the other and never know the difference. Will
Atlantic inks fade sooner than 75 years? I'll let you know on my 129th
birthday. ;-)

-Taliesyn

 

[wolfb]

will provide acceptable results. Where do they think the paper and ink come
from in the first place? Answer: Outside vendors. They could well be the
same vendors as the ones producing the better papers and inks available as
3rd party supplies.

Humm! do you have proof of this? I'm not saying that it couldn't be true,
but wouldn't you think that after market suppliers of paper and ink would
want that known to their buyers. They only say "compatable" not
"identical". I have yet to see an ad saying "We get our inks/papers from
the same source as the "Big Boys" and it is identical". But I could be
wrong. I suspect Canon/Epson/HP have their own R&D labs for ink/paper and
their formulas are patented and guarded. The 3rd party suppliers reverse
engineer their product to act acceptably in home use situations. I'd like
to hear directly from someone that works for a 3rd party supplier. It could
be true, but I'm a bit skeptical. The bottom line is...There is a lot of
misinformation in the ink/paper market and what ever works for you and you
are happy with is the best solution.
I do wish you the best.

Wolf-==-

 

[wolfb]

Where do they think the paper and ink come

from in the first place? Answer: Outside vendors.
Ron Cohen

Nope, they come from the huge tank field some where in Area 51. The story
has it that the Gummit manufactured millions of gallons of ink, ran tubes
through the national natural gas distribution network and charges ink cart
manufactures to suck off the lines. It all comes from the same place, one
national supply, one type. Of course there is some remixing going on for
the pigment based inks versus the dye based products. The paper products
are stored in a salt dome in Texas. Just thought you'd like to know.
Sorry, I lost the link.

Wolf-==-

 

[buck]

Nope, they come from the huge tank field some where in Area 51. The story
has it that the Gummit manufactured millions of gallons of ink, ran tubes
through the national natural gas distribution network and charges ink cart
manufactures to suck off the lines. It all comes from the same place, one
national supply, one type. Of course there is some remixing going on for
the pigment based inks versus the dye based products. The paper products
are stored in a salt dome in Texas. Just thought you'd like to know.
Sorry, I lost the link.

Wolf-==-

Sorry to say, I feel a certain percentage of the general populace will believe this!!!
But it gave me a smile...

Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct

 

[Bill]

Everybody knows that oem's are better than bulk ink; there are no
problems with printheads and, the most important, there are no
problems with fading.

I too use AtlanticInkjet bulk ink, and I have no problems at all. The
results are identical to Canon ink, even under magnification.

It all depends on the conditions and the coating of the paper. When
kept in perfect conditions (under glass or in an album), photos
printed on pr-101 and pp-101 don't fade so fast.

Funny, my Office Depot paper is holding up just fine after several
months, and they're not all kept in "perfect conditions".

You are completely wrong here. Not only the paper can be responsible
for fading. It might be YOU, who keeps the photos in WRONG conditions
or inks (dyes are destroyed by the ozone pollutant when exposed to
direct air or other gases).

What exactly are the "wrong conditions"?

Putting them in a photo album? Setting them in frames? Putting them on
the fridge with magnets? Running them under water for the hell of it?

I've done all four.

 

[Bill]

That has to be one of the lamest sets of test results I've seen. These guys
seem to have a bias towards mini labs and conventional photo printing.

That's the same impression I got from their website. They seem to be
saying that most printers suck, and using a mini-lab is the only way to
go.

 

[Bill]

Humm! do you have proof of this? I'm not saying that it couldn't be true,
but wouldn't you think that after market suppliers of paper and ink would
want that known to their buyers. They only say "compatable" not
"identical". I have yet to see an ad saying "We get our inks/papers from
the same source as the "Big Boys" and it is identical". But I could be
wrong.

The big boys no doubt have contracts with the vendors, and they likely
have non-disclosure agreements too. So even if the same vendor was
supplying Canon and Office Depot, they can't mention it.