dumb newbie ? - Canon ip6600 or HP 8250 which to choose

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shelly
  • Start date Start date
Measksite said: Snipped per request

With all due respect sir, we are not dealing with an average joe but
someone who at the very least has used Photoshop... and is making a
logical choice to do composure on the camera... and crop using your
most basic tools. Color, touchups are secondary to good solid
composure. See here
http://www.betterphoto.com/exploring/tips/thirds.asp then watch Akira
Kurosawa's Seven Samurai for an example of this... required for any
basic intoductory to photography class.

You say don't compose using the screen, but rather the view finder?
Actually composure starts in the mind using your eyes, even with a
handy dandy eye piece or your fingers shaped like two Ls. And even
then... you clearly have not worked with large format have you.

The rest of your post, with all due respect, is just technical babel
regarding the features of some cameras. A good photographer uses what
works... which in portrait photography tends to be the view finder, or
landscape photography which tends to be the screen. It's rather simple
to understand... is your subject the eyes the window to the soul, or a
broad breath taking scene? And even then most of the actual compsure
takes place in the mind, just in the case of portrait photography...
it's the finner details that tend to be more striking. All of this you
would already know if you have either read a book or taken an into to
photography class worth it's salt.

I could go into the history of cameras, the shift from rangfinders to
SLR.. etc... etc.. but i'd be wasting my time. It's painfully clear
that the poster has a clue about the benifits of software who has made
the choice to focus on composure. Your opinions on this subject are,
with all due respect... moot.
 
zake wilhelm is really not a good source to site for picture longevity. The
tests done at nifty forum show that what wilhelm says will last 60 years
barely made it 7 days under UV tests. Light and air will simply destroy any
picture. The hype with the ratings is just that hype.

Even Professional photolab pictures will not last when bombarded with UV and
gases.

It's like a cd, if stored in the jewel case on a shelf it will last 100
years. If you lend it to your sister who loses the case and it ends up on
the floor of her car with sand and dirt from the beach then it's going to
get all beat up.

Print your pictures and let them cure and then store them in a acid free
photo album or under glass and they will last for years.

The Canon pictures I printed a year ago are as crisp as the day they were
printed and they site on my desk unprotected. They just aren't being
bombarded by the sunlight. I should really put them away.
 
Canon IP6600 is rated for 140 to 1500, using 4x6 borderless, it's in the
PDF manual.

My cousin who has a 8250 says he's lucky to get 100 pictures before a cart
needs to be replaced. The Canon IP4000 I have is in the 250 to 400 ballpark
before one cart needs to be refilled. It just depends on the content.

Canon's are much easier for refilling so that brings my cost down. My cousin
on the other hand has gone through a small fortune with his HP because he
only uses OEM ink.

===========
 
Knightcrawler said:
Canon IP6600 is rated for 140 to 1500, using 4x6 borderless, it's in the
PDF manual.

My cousin who has a 8250 says he's lucky to get 100 pictures before a cart
needs to be replaced. The Canon IP4000 I have is in the 250 to 400 ballpark
before one cart needs to be refilled. It just depends on the content.

Canon's are much easier for refilling so that brings my cost down. My cousin
on the other hand has gone through a small fortune with his HP because he
only uses OEM ink.
Click to expand...
I guess your cousin is very smart.
 
Knightcrawler said:
zake wilhelm is really not a good source to site for picture longevity. The
tests done at nifty forum show that what wilhelm says will last 60 years
barely made it 7 days under UV tests. Light and air will simply destroy any
picture. The hype with the ratings is just that hype.
Click to expand...
You cannot trust the cult.
Even Professional photolab pictures will not last when bombarded with UV and
gases.

It's like a cd, if stored in the jewel case on a shelf it will last 100
years. If you lend it to your sister who loses the case and it ends up on
the floor of her car with sand and dirt from the beach then it's going to
get all beat up.

Print your pictures and let them cure and then store them in a acid free
photo album or under glass and they will last for years.

The Canon pictures I printed a year ago are as crisp as the day they were
printed and they site on my desk unprotected. They just aren't being
bombarded by the sunlight. I should really put them away.
Click to expand...
If I scrap the photo with sand paper it will not last either.
 
zake wilhelm is really not a good source to site for picture longevity. The
tests done at nifty forum show that what wilhelm says will last 60 years
barely made it 7 days under UV tests. Light and air will simply destroy any
picture. The hype with the ratings is just that hype.
Click to expand...

Well, I know wilhelm tests are not the best... but they are at least a
meter. And it's true that an unprotected photograph is going to not
last as long as one under glass... but I think we can trust wilhelm
just enough when they say Canon Chromalife100 is rated at 30 years
under glass vs Vivera inks rated at 108 years under glass on the proper
papers (for both) to support the idea that canon inks fade more quickly
than others.

But I would agree that the bci-6s don't last so long not under glass
exposed to direct sunlight, my first experiment was june and the photo
faided within a week to a large degree. On the premium paper it looked
damn good for 2 months before I lost it.

So valid point knightcrawler... should you know of any fair and
accurate ratings by all means bring them to the table.
 
I find this somewhat humorous.

Henry Wilhelm has only been the top archival expert in photo and ink
dyes for 30 years or more, and is considered an authority in his field.
He has written more scientific papers on the longevity of inks and own
a huge lab complex which is contracted to test inks and papers by many
major ink and paper producers. Yes, he's made a few missteps along the
way in neglecting to test for ozone, for instance, when the first low
dye load inks were introduced, although he now tests for that and other
environmental influences.

But instead, you point people to nifty forum (I have nothing against
them personally) as an authoritative source for longevity information,
when some of the tests involved taping images to window glass outdoors,
without complete analysis of the light.

Wilhelm uses standard display lighting accepted by architects and others
as his base for determining lux ratings. I tend to think his labs are
more typical of prints being displayed than an Arizona sun at 1 PM in
the summer afternoon.

I have seen Canon display images, kept indoors under fluorescent
lighting found in retail stores, to fade to the paint of being
considered a "failed" image in under one year.

Art
 
Arthur said:
I find this somewhat humorous.
Click to expand...

Me Too
Henry Wilhelm has only been the top archival expert in photo and ink
dyes for 30 years or more, and is considered an authority in his
field. He has written more scientific papers on the longevity of inks
and own a huge lab complex which is contracted to test inks and papers
by many major ink and paper producers. Yes, he's made a few missteps
along the way in neglecting to test for ozone, for instance, when the
first low dye load inks were introduced, although he now tests for
that and other environmental influences.

But instead, you point people to nifty forum (I have nothing against
them personally) as an authoritative source for longevity information,
when some of the tests involved taping images to window glass
outdoors, without complete analysis of the light.
Click to expand...

What do you expect from Da Church Members
 
Arthur Entlich said:
I find this somewhat humorous.

Henry Wilhelm has only been the top archival expert in photo and ink dyes
for 30 years or more, and is considered an authority in his field. He has
written more scientific papers on the longevity of inks and own a huge lab
complex which is contracted to test inks and papers by many major ink and
paper producers. Yes, he's made a few missteps along the way in
neglecting to test for ozone, for instance, when the first low dye load
inks were introduced, although he now tests for that and other
environmental influences.

But instead, you point people to nifty forum (I have nothing against them
personally) as an authoritative source for longevity information, when
some of the tests involved taping images to window glass outdoors, without
complete analysis of the light.

Wilhelm uses standard display lighting accepted by architects and others
as his base for determining lux ratings. I tend to think his labs are more
typical of prints being displayed than an Arizona sun at 1 PM in the
summer afternoon.

I have seen Canon display images, kept indoors under fluorescent lighting
found in retail stores, to fade to the paint of being considered a
"failed" image in under one year.
Click to expand...
Art - The fade tests that are being done by two participants on the
Nifty-forum are not meant to refute the Wilhelm test results. Wilhelm
didn't test the two inks that are currently being evaluated by these
individuals. They are doing a well controlled test with a known UV source
and with Ozone. This isn't a "tape it on the window" sort of test! Also
not the famous Measekite "they've been on my desk for a year and not faded"
test.

The variance between the original sample and the faded sample is being
compared, the color values from the faded sample are being "subtracted" from
the original to demonstrate the amount of fading colorimetrically. They are
being compared to Canon OEM ink samples and are being tested on several
papers including Canon Photo Paper Pro and the very popular Kirkland Glossy
Photo paper. There have been some time-lapse images that show the degree of
fading at various time intervals while being subjected to Ozone and to the
known UV light source.

Canon OEM, Formulabs bulk ink, and MIS bulk ink are being compared. While
the people doing the testing don't have the Wilhelm lab type of setup, I
think you would be pretty well impressed with their knowledge, equipment,
and methodology. I don't presume to know how to conduct such a test myself,
but it appears to me that these fellows will come up with some very useful
data, both for those of us who are using bulk inks to refill our carts and
for the manufacturers who may opt to improve fade characteristics when
seeing that end users are becoming more savvy and are able to compare these
products.
 
Burt said:
Art - The fade tests that are being done by two participants on the
Nifty-forum are not meant to refute the Wilhelm test results. Wilhelm
didn't test the two inks that are currently being evaluated by these
individuals. They are doing a well controlled test with a known UV source
and with Ozone. This isn't a "tape it on the window" sort of test! Also
not the famous Measekite "they've been on my desk for a year and not faded"
test.

The variance between the original sample and the faded sample is being
compared, the color values from the faded sample are being "subtracted" from
the original to demonstrate the amount of fading colorimetrically. They are
being compared to Canon OEM ink samples and are being tested on several
papers including Canon Photo Paper Pro and the very popular Kirkland Glossy
Photo paper. There have been some time-lapse images that show the degree of
fading at various time intervals while being subjected to Ozone and to the
known UV light source.

Canon OEM, Formulabs bulk ink, and MIS bulk ink are being compared. While
the people doing the testing don't have the Wilhelm lab type of setup, I
think you would be pretty well impressed with their knowledge, equipment,
and methodology. I don't presume to know how to conduct such a test myself,
but it appears to me that these fellows will come up with some very useful
data, both for those of us who are using bulk inks to refill our carts and
for the manufacturers who may opt to improve fade characteristics when
seeing that end users are becoming more savvy and are able to compare these
products.
Click to expand...
Thanks Burt. Possible you might post the results on this ng when they
are available.
Frank
 
Arthur Entlichwrote
quote="Arthur Entlich
fluorescent
lightin
Click to expand...

These emit u
Knightcrawler wrote

It's like a cd, if stored in the jewel case on a shelf it will las 10
years.
Click to expand...

Dye based DVD's are even worse, as a test I destroyed one with
standard flourescent tube.

Watch out you buddings DJ's, keep em away from 'Black Light uV
sources used in disco's etc

Dav

Dav
 
Hi Burt,

Thanks for the expanded information regarding these tests.

It seems to me they are testing materials that Wilhelm hasn't which is
fine, but whatever their testing conditions are, they don't make
Wilhelm's research any less accurate or valuable.

Wilhelm is trying to create an accelerated light testing situation that
considers normal lighting circumstances used in display of prints. He
is mainly looking at how fine art inkjet prints would be displayed. That
almost always means under glass, although he also looks at "bare" and
under UV glass.

The big question with any method of accelerated aging is this: what
intensity and quality of light is a reasonable manner to determine long
term damage to the ink/paper mixes.

Let's take this to the extreme. You could use the light and heat from a
nuclear blast, and the paper and image vaporizes. Does that mean that
the same ink/paper combo would vaporize under household lighting and
heating exposure over 10 years, one hundred years or even 10,000 years?
Not likely. If I expose a print to a light source that is 10,000
times the brightness as normal display, and it fades away in 5 hours,
does that mean it will last only 50,000 hours, which is a bit under six
years? No, of course it doesn't. If I dump a glass of water on a
print, and it bleeds into an unrecognizable mess in 10 minutes, does
that mean the print will be destroyed by 10% humidity within 100
minutes? Or, lastly, just to "drive" this home, if you take a Honda
Civic and run the engine at 200,000 rpm and the engine fails in 10
minutes, does that means a Honda Civic engine is only good at 2000 rpm
for 16.6 hours?

So, my point is fade tests, or ozone tests, or any other test has to
consider how excessive exposure can translate to actual environmental
conditions. It's not a simple linear relationship, and no one knows
absolutely what it will mean. It is only with the knowledge someone
like Wilhelm has acquired from having worked with dyes and colorants and
fade testing for dozens of years that allows him to not only make proper
tests designs, but to understand how to interpret them.

Do the people at the Nifty-Forums have this kind of expertise to make a
better test and interpretation, so we can compare and contrast their
results with Wilhelm's, or is this just going to be an attempt to
"debunk" Wilhelm's results by possibly using poorly designed tests and
even worse interpretation of them?

I am not saying Wilhelm hasn't made errors in judgment. He missed the
ozone issue with inkjets the first time around and made some estimates
that were probably reasonable for people in low ozone environments, but
people who happened to live in high ground ozone areas (near active
seashores, for one) were finding the prints fading in hours or days with
one ink (dye load cyan).

But even ozone is interesting. It turns out for some inks, exposure to
ozone during the first 48 hours while the ink is still "wet" (with
glycols, etc) can do major damage. But if the image is allowed to fully
dry without ozone contact, after that, the print is relatively stable.

It's a complex set of considerations which requires a lot of background
to get "right".

Art
 
Yes, I wasn't saying otherwise. In fact, Fluorescent tubes use the UV
emitted by activated mercury vapor to energize the phosphors on the
internal tube surface.

However, regular glass does filter considerable amounts of UV. I'm not
sure if Wilhelm is using a further glass surface that the light goes
through or not.

But, as you also realize, daylight also contains UV as does indoor
display lighting, which is usually either halogen (halogen is a high UV
source) or fluorescent. Tungsten lamps emit little UV, however, but
they are rarely used in display circumstances.

Art
 
Arthur said:
Hi Burt,

Thanks for the expanded information regarding these tests.

It seems to me they are testing materials that Wilhelm hasn't which is
fine, but whatever their testing conditions are, they don't make
Wilhelm's research any less accurate or valuable.
Click to expand...

OH YEAH
Wilhelm is trying to create an accelerated light testing situation
that considers normal lighting circumstances used in display of
prints. He is mainly looking at how fine art inkjet prints would be
displayed. That almost always means under glass, although he also
looks at "bare" and under UV glass.

The big question with any method of accelerated aging is this: what
intensity and quality of light is a reasonable manner to determine
long term damage to the ink/paper mixes.
Click to expand...

BOY OH BOY
Let's take this to the extreme.
Click to expand...

WHAT ELSE
You could use the light and heat from a nuclear blast, and the paper
and image vaporizes. Does that mean that the same ink/paper combo
would vaporize under household lighting and heating exposure over 10
years, one hundred years or even 10,000 years? Not likely. If I
expose a print to a light source that is 10,000 times the brightness
as normal display, and it fades away in 5 hours, does that mean it
will last only 50,000 hours, which is a bit under six years? No, of
course it doesn't. If I dump a glass of water on a print, and it
bleeds into an unrecognizable mess in 10 minutes, does that mean the
print will be destroyed by 10% humidity within 100 minutes? Or,
lastly, just to "drive" this home, if you take a Honda Civic and run
the engine at 200,000 rpm and the engine fails in 10 minutes, does
that means a Honda Civic engine is only good at 2000 rpm for 16.6 hours?

So, my point is fade tests, or ozone tests, or any other test has to
consider how excessive exposure can translate to actual environmental
conditions. It's not a simple linear relationship, and no one knows
absolutely what it will mean. It is only with the knowledge someone
like Wilhelm has acquired from having worked with dyes and colorants
and fade testing for dozens of years that allows him to not only make
proper tests designs, but to understand how to interpret them.

Do the people at the Nifty-Forums have this kind of expertise to make
a better test and interpretation,
Click to expand...

OF CORPSE NOT
so we can compare and contrast their results with Wilhelm's, or is
this just going to be an attempt to "debunk" Wilhelm's results by
possibly using poorly designed tests and even worse interpretation of
them?

I am not saying Wilhelm hasn't made errors in judgment. He missed the
ozone issue with inkjets the first time around and made some estimates
that were probably reasonable for people in low ozone environments,
but people who happened to live in high ground ozone areas (near
active seashores, for one) were finding the prints fading in hours or
days with one ink (dye load cyan).
Click to expand...

I THINK WE NEED A KYOTO ACCORD
 
Arthur Entlich said:
Hi Burt,

Thanks for the expanded information regarding these tests.

It seems to me they are testing materials that Wilhelm hasn't which is
fine, but whatever their testing conditions are, they don't make Wilhelm's
research any less accurate or valuable.

Wilhelm is trying to create an accelerated light testing situation that
considers normal lighting circumstances used in display of prints. He is
mainly looking at how fine art inkjet prints would be displayed. That
almost always means under glass, although he also looks at "bare" and
under UV glass.

The big question with any method of accelerated aging is this: what
intensity and quality of light is a reasonable manner to determine long
term damage to the ink/paper mixes.

Let's take this to the extreme. You could use the light and heat from a
nuclear blast, and the paper and image vaporizes. Does that mean that the
same ink/paper combo would vaporize under household lighting and heating
exposure over 10 years, one hundred years or even 10,000 years? Not
likely. If I expose a print to a light source that is 10,000 times the
brightness as normal display, and it fades away in 5 hours, does that mean
it will last only 50,000 hours, which is a bit under six years? No, of
course it doesn't. If I dump a glass of water on a print, and it bleeds
into an unrecognizable mess in 10 minutes, does that mean the print will
be destroyed by 10% humidity within 100 minutes? Or, lastly, just to
"drive" this home, if you take a Honda Civic and run the engine at 200,000
rpm and the engine fails in 10 minutes, does that means a Honda Civic
engine is only good at 2000 rpm for 16.6 hours?

So, my point is fade tests, or ozone tests, or any other test has to
consider how excessive exposure can translate to actual environmental
conditions. It's not a simple linear relationship, and no one knows
absolutely what it will mean. It is only with the knowledge someone like
Wilhelm has acquired from having worked with dyes and colorants and fade
testing for dozens of years that allows him to not only make proper tests
designs, but to understand how to interpret them.

Do the people at the Nifty-Forums have this kind of expertise to make a
better test and interpretation, so we can compare and contrast their
results with Wilhelm's, or is this just going to be an attempt to "debunk"
Wilhelm's results by possibly using poorly designed tests and even worse
interpretation of them?

I am not saying Wilhelm hasn't made errors in judgment. He missed the
ozone issue with inkjets the first time around and made some estimates
that were probably reasonable for people in low ozone environments, but
people who happened to live in high ground ozone areas (near active
seashores, for one) were finding the prints fading in hours or days with
one ink (dye load cyan).

But even ozone is interesting. It turns out for some inks, exposure to
ozone during the first 48 hours while the ink is still "wet" (with
glycols, etc) can do major damage. But if the image is allowed to fully
dry without ozone contact, after that, the print is relatively stable.

It's a complex set of considerations which requires a lot of background to
get "right".

Art
Click to expand...
From what I've seen so far, the people doing these very basic tests are
interested in the comparitive response of OEM, Formulabs, and MIS Canon
inks, Canon Photo Paper Pro, and Kirkland Glossy photo paper in various
combinations. I don't see any intent to compare these test conditions to
normal display conditions as Wilhelm attempts to do. I don't think there is
any intent to project, from these results, the longevity of prints as
Wilhelm has done. They just want to know how the various ink and paper
combinations compare under fairly harsh UV and ozone exposure. They are
already finding that each manufacturer has different color inks that do or
don't fade as compared to others and that the paper also makes a difference.
This is a rudimentary test at best, but it is certainly more objective than
the "photo on the desk" or "taped to the window" anecdotal evidence we have
seen on the NG.
 
I agree that the comparative results will have "some" value. But it may
be very hard to interpret. For instance, does a print that fails on
it's cyan ink under a harsh UV setting, indicate that is a bad ink set
relative to another which does not, but fades under ozone? In the real
world some prints are exposed to ozone but not light and vice versa, but
most are exposed to various amounts of both.

Certainly, if it is determined that a Kirkland paper holds up twice as
well as a Canon paper, and the image quality is otherwise similar when
first printed, then the Kirkland (maybe Ilford) paper is probably a
better choice, on that measurement. Of course, we already know that
swellable polymer papers reduce fading, but they have other negative
aspects, such as not being water resistant.

At this point, I guess its more a matter of just sitting back and seeing
what they do with the results. Should prove interesting.

Art
 
Arthur Entlich said:
I agree that the comparative results will have "some" value. But it may be
very hard to interpret. For instance, does a print that fails on it's cyan
ink under a harsh UV setting, indicate that is a bad ink set relative to
another which does not, but fades under ozone? In the real world some
prints are exposed to ozone but not light and vice versa, but most are
exposed to various amounts of both.

Certainly, if it is determined that a Kirkland paper holds up twice as
well as a Canon paper, and the image quality is otherwise similar when
first printed, then the Kirkland (maybe Ilford) paper is probably a better
choice, on that measurement. Of course, we already know that swellable
polymer papers reduce fading, but they have other negative aspects, such
as not being water resistant.

At this point, I guess its more a matter of just sitting back and seeing
what they do with the results. Should prove interesting.

Art
Click to expand...

Using the benchmark, Canon OEM inks, it will be interesting to see what
refillers are buying compared to the much higher priced Canon product. If
it is shown that the aftermarket inks fade more quickly we are then faced
with the decision to accept certain shortcomings in exchange for a 90%
price differential. The people who are doing the tests have a very
objective approach. They simply want to see what we have been buying with
anecdotal statements of the value of the aftermarket products. Same with
the photo paper.
 
Using the benchmark, Canon OEM inks, it will be interesting to see what
refillers are buying compared to the much higher priced Canon product. If
it is shown that the aftermarket inks fade more quickly we are then faced
with the decision to accept certain shortcomings in exchange for a 90%
price differential
Click to expand...

Actually I'd be more interested in data on Lyson... who has IIRC one
product with a claim of a wider color gambit and one that claims to be
more light fast. In cartridges they tend to be close to OEM prices...
so it would be interesting to see if some of those claims are true.

Also is Kirkland swellable or is it microporous.
 
zakezuke said:
Actually I'd be more interested in data on Lyson... who has IIRC one
product with a claim of a wider color gambit and one that claims to be
more light fast. In cartridges they tend to be close to OEM prices...
so it would be interesting to see if some of those claims are true.

Also is Kirkland swellable or is it microporous.
Click to expand...

Zakezuke - The project was limited to the inks that the most people have
written about on the Nifty forum No one there had mentioned using Lyson
products. It was necessary to consider products for which test prints were
readily available.
 
Back
Top