Changing colors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter C
  • Start date Start date
C

C

I'm relatively new to inkjet printing. My current printer is the Canon
i960. I've started out with Canon inks and now have switched to MIS inks.

I have made prints of good color with both inks but notice that the next
day the colors are not the same. Am I imagining changes in colors or is
this something that's for real?

I'm using Ilford Galerie Smooth Glossy paper.
 
C said:
I'm relatively new to inkjet printing. My current printer is the
Canon i960. I've started out with Canon inks and now have switched
to MIS inks.

I have made prints of good color with both inks but notice that the
next day the colors are not the same. Am I imagining changes in
colors or is this something that's for real?

I'm using Ilford Galerie Smooth Glossy paper.
Click to expand...


You're probably NOT imagining things. Wait a few weeks, and these changes
will become even more apparent. I've done a fair amount of testing with
papers and came to the conclusion generally, that you should stick to the
manufacturer's recommended ink AND paper. Yes, I know, you always pay a
little more, so it seems, but in the long run, quality is what counts. The
paper is as important as the ink, that means, there is a chemical relation
between the two, which has to be perfect. I've had good results with Epson
inks on SOME Kodak papers for example, but very bad fading with the same ink
and other Kodak papers. Of course you can trial lots of different inks and
papers, and if you do, I suggest, keep a database, so you can mark each
print with date , paper and ink type. Sometimes it will take 6 months, until
you notice fading of the ink on some papers. You must know yourself, how
much effort you want to put in, in order to save on expenses. It depends
largely on your volume and also on your expectation of quality. If you
decide, not to go through all the trouble, then I recommend you stick with
the manufacturer's recommendation. They have done all the testing for you
already.

Good luck

H.N.
 
You're probably NOT imagining things. Wait a few weeks, and these changes
will become even more apparent. I've done a fair amount of testing with
papers and came to the conclusion generally, that you should stick to the
manufacturer's recommended ink AND paper. Yes, I know, you always pay a
little more, so it seems, but in the long run, quality is what counts. The
paper is as important as the ink, that means, there is a chemical relation
between the two, which has to be perfect. I've had good results with Epson
inks on SOME Kodak papers for example, but very bad fading with the same ink
and other Kodak papers. Of course you can trial lots of different inks and
papers, and if you do, I suggest, keep a database, so you can mark each
print with date , paper and ink type. Sometimes it will take 6 months, until
you notice fading of the ink on some papers. You must know yourself, how
much effort you want to put in, in order to save on expenses. It depends
largely on your volume and also on your expectation of quality. If you
decide, not to go through all the trouble, then I recommend you stick with
the manufacturer's recommendation. They have done all the testing for you
already.

Good luck

H.N.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I've been printing color photos with real chemical and real paper for the
past 25 years. Fortunately the photo industry had some standards and, for
the most part, papers and chemicals were more forgiving.

It is somewhat disappointing that inkjet technology isn't as flexible. To
one who has made real color photos in a real darkroom where an 8x10 sheet
of paper with chemicals costs between 25-40 cents, it is a real shocker to
see costs 3-5 times that amount. To the photographer who has always
depended on a lab, inkjet technology is a bargain. To one who has
printed using traditional methods, it is not.
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:57:38 -0600, C wrote:

=>It is somewhat disappointing that inkjet technology isn't as flexible.

Paradoxically, it's _too_ flexible - paper and ink
chemistry are extremely variable. This is true even for
traditional printing - just changing the colour of the
paper may change its chemistry to produce unforeseen
effects on the ink you've been using. (That's why paper
makers offer limited ranges of colour and finish in each of
their specialty paper lines.)

I've recently run a series of test printouts, using a
variety of different papers and different settings on my
Epson Colour 740 (not the best printer, by any means.) The
variation in output is astonishing.

=> To
=>one who has made real color photos in a real darkroom where an 8x10 sheet
=>of paper with chemicals costs between 25-40 cents, it is a real shocker to
=>see costs 3-5 times that amount. To the photographer who has always
=>depended on a lab, inkjet technology is a bargain. To one who has
=>printed using traditional methods, it is not.

An excellent reality check. I'd add that for most
consumers, it makes no sense to print your own photos. Stay
with your film camera, or invest in a better one, and find
a a photo processor who satisfies your needs. And learn how
to use the camera - going digital does not compensate for
an inability to frame the picture, select focal length,
adjust for lighting conditions, etc.
 
C said:
Thanks.

I've been printing color photos with real chemical and real paper for
the past 25 years. Fortunately the photo industry had some standards
and, for the most part, papers and chemicals were more forgiving.

It is somewhat disappointing that inkjet technology isn't as
flexible. To one who has made real color photos in a real darkroom
where an 8x10 sheet of paper with chemicals costs between 25-40
cents, it is a real shocker to see costs 3-5 times that amount. To
the photographer who has always depended on a lab, inkjet technology
is a bargain. To one who has printed using traditional methods, it
is not.
Click to expand...

Very true. I also believe, alternative printing methods will take over
eventually. I'm thinking of something similar to thermal transfer, where all
the colours would be already in the paper, when you buy it, and the printer
stimulates with pulses. It would stop the clogs and blockages at least.

Cheers
H.N.
 
An excellent reality check. I'd add that for most
consumers, it makes no sense to print your own photos. Stay
with your film camera, or invest in a better one, and find
a a photo processor who satisfies your needs. And learn how
to use the camera - going digital does not compensate for
an inability to frame the picture, select focal length,
adjust for lighting conditions, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I've always counseled would-be photographers to get the best they can
afford and then to stick with one film type and manufacturer until every
intricacy of that film is learned and mastered. This lends consistency to
one's work. Depending on "on sale" film for one's work leads to
disappointment because one soon becomes a slave to the whims of each film
used.

Giving advice to any equipment-laden, know-everything amateur is an
exercise in futility at times.

I miss my color lab. The equipment is in storage with no place to set it
up. What does one do with a 30" wide processor until that time comes?
 
Guy Owen posted this link to a very interesting article.. I remember
somewhere in there is explains changes that can occur over a few hours/days
with some paper types.
 
Back
Top