It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior

[TJ]

TJ wrote:



That is a real dumb farmer statement. You go to an art show and you see
framed photos. You do not know what museum glass or any other kind of
glass is and you know nothing technical about phtography. You see the
artwork you like and some of the ones you like does not have any
reflections and the artwork looks better. It costs about $50.00 more
and you are on vacation so what the hell you just buy it. You do not
ask what it was printed with. You do not ask what camera and lense took
the picture. You do not ask what paper it was printed on. All you know
is you liked it.

Maybe it was a picture of Old MacDonals Farm. Or it was a photo of a
chicken and you just love chicken.

And the guy who put a photo in a high-class show that was printed with
inferior materials on an inferior printer is a fool who will soon be out
of business. I'll reiterate my position in plainer terms: For the type
of printing that Ron says he does, OEM inks and papers used with a
top-of-the-line printer are the way to go, if you MUST use your own
printer. For the junk I print, they're the ultimate in overkill.
Aftermarket ink and a cheap printer are all I need.

Measekite, you can't get a rise out of me with personal insults, so you
try to insult my profession, even though you obviously know less about
it than I know about photography and printing. Smooth, really smooth.

Watch your back, Ron. Disagree just once with your new-found friend and
see how friendly he continues to be.

TJ

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:02:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"

I have no opinion about which inks are best. I don't know Ron from a
bar of soap. I have no vested interest besides having to use ink in
arguing the case.

But AAAARGH! Maybe you can't see the fading in your inks because you
are blind!

Not at all.

I quote from Ron about 3 posts back. Asterisks are mine:
"This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos,
fortunately **I had the foresight to have my prints professionally
printed**. Sorry if I have disappointed you all."

He sure did.

He then repeated this in a later post in response to your ignorant
attack on him for selling photos from a home printer!.

He sure did.

Then you attacked him about using ink in a printer he never owned.
Then when corrected you simply rephrased it to include the printer you
should have read properly in the first place. You say he praised 3rd
party stuff, and then suddnely changed his mind. Now here I am not
sure, but can you quote his praise? I tend toward Ron right now,
reading your ignorant way of posting.

I did quote where he praised the inks used in his iP8500. I did
misquote about the BJC6000. There are several posts in this group made
under the name "Ron" and not all by the same person. This "Ron" has
made very few posts here and then came up with this one that he knew
would cause a reaction. It is also a topic that has been hashed over
many many times as any Google search of this group will show. Why is he
saying nothing negative about after market ink in May and now is an OEM
shill and thinks after market ink is bad? Because he read one photo
magazine article? Yeah right.

You seem unable to give any other sort, no matter what his reasons.

BTW. In a later post you hit him with a real beaut! "What are your
test parameters?" They were not his test....get it?

You must have missed this post then:

"Michael I certainly have not praised aftermarket inks. My experiments with
them have found them to be vastly inferior and unreliable. Why do you think
I take photos that I sell to a professional printing laboratory that uses a
machine that costs several hundred thousand dollars?"

Does he say "My experiments" or not? Then goes on to say he found after
market inks to be "vastly inferior and unreliable". I think it is safe
to assume he performed experiments. From my lab days in college I was
taught experiments required tests and tests required parameters. Three
words come to my mind now regarding your post.... pot, kettle, black.

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

Dear me...how paranoid some of you are. If you do a google on this group you
will see that in the past I was initially very supportive/pro aftermarket
inks and refilling my own.

So which is it then? You responded to me with the following:

"Michael I certainly have not praised aftermarket inks."

It is hard for trolls to keep their BS consistent. BTW, I'm still
waiting to hear about those "experiments".

 

[measekite]

And the guy who put a photo in a high-class show that was printed with
inferior materials on an inferior printer is a fool who will soon be
out of business. I'll reiterate my position in plainer terms: For the
type of printing that Ron says he does, OEM inks and papers used with
a top-of-the-line printer are the way to go, if you MUST use your own
printer.

For the junk I print, they're the ultimate in overkill. Aftermarket
ink and a cheap printer are all I need.

Now I understand. The junk snaps you take are only worth of a cheap
trash printer and crappy generic inks. I can really understand that and
I am glad you finally admitted it. If the printheads get clogs that is
not big deal cause you will go out and find another cheap crap printer
and if the junk you print fades there is not loss there either. That is
probably due with all your buddies in this ng. Get a crankie printer
with crankie ink and nobody really cares.

I wish you would have disclosed that earlier. Now the only thing we do
not agree on is the unprofessional relabelers who do not disclose what
they are selling but again in your case you do not care.

Measekite, you can't get a rise out of me with personal insults, so
you try to insult my profession, even though you obviously know less
about it than I know about photography and printing. Smooth, really
smooth.

Hey there is nothing wrong with having a job as a farmer. We all like
to eat.

 

[measekite]

Not at all.



He sure did.



He sure did.



I did quote where he praised the inks used in his iP8500. I did
misquote about the BJC6000. There are several posts in this group
made under the name "Ron" and not all by the same person. This "Ron"
has made very few posts here and then came up with this one that he
knew would cause a reaction.

That is not true. He was not away of the many idiots who post here. He
was trying to provide advice to real photographers so they do not make
the same mistake he did. Maybe he was initially enamoured with the
savings he thought he was going to have using generic inks and then
found out that was not the case. He then conducted more research that
substianted his own findings and posted this here to help others. At
least he admited he made a mistake. How about you.

 

[fb]

Measekite, you can't get a rise out of me with personal insults, so you
try to insult my profession, even though you obviously know less about
it than I know about photography and printing. Smooth, really smooth.

Watch your back, Ron. Disagree just once with your new-found friend and
see how friendly he continues to be.

TJ

TJ, this is what meashershitheads does when he is cornered and caught in
one of his many lies.
His stupidity and ignorance are exposed. He is the biggest liar this ng
has ever known.
Ignore his stuck-on-stupid moronic ass.
Frank

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

I have lived and learned a lot since then Michael. I have a folder full of
A4 photos, protected from sunlight - printed on 'supposedly the best
aftermarket inks' that show fading already.

We have drawers full of photos, albums full of photos and stacks of
photos on a desk printed on Ilford paper and after market ink that show
no signs of fading. Either I'm very lucky or you are very unlucky, take
your pick. I suggest you switch to Ilford Smooth Pearl paper and Tyler
Martin inks. Your results will be much better.

Any reputable pro that prints with inferior inks would soon revert back to
original inks after being hassled by aggro customers waving faded photos in
their faces. Have a look on numerous other forums of photographers (who sell
their work) advising against using aftermarket inks.

Just how many professional photographers do you think post in this
group? Most here that use compatible ink are more than pleased with the
results and experience none of the problems you seem to have encountered.

To reiterate, what inks you use is your choice. I have travelled down that
road, and for my purposes, selling quality enlarged photographs it's a no
brainer.

Which makes me wonder why you even started this thread unless you just
like turmoil.

 

[Ron]

You have summed it up correctly Measekite. I am amazed at the reaction of
many in this group to my posts. As for the aftermarket inks I was
oringinally chuffed at the savings and this turned to disappointment and
disillusionment after viewing the results, after several months. If other
people choose to use aftermarket inks then that is their choice. However,
judging by the reactions by some on here - it is quite possible that some
are dealing/selling aftermarket inks. I have learned from my use of
aftermarket inks that the savings did not compensate for the poor results I
achieved - note that this took some time (after viewing numerous A4 photos
that I had stored away from light and in a highly protective environment)

Life is all about learning.

Cheers all

Ron from Downunder

 

[measekite]

We have drawers full of photos, albums full of photos and stacks of
photos on a desk printed on Ilford paper and after market ink that
show no signs of fading.

Ron I believe you

Either I'm very lucky or you are very unlucky, take your pick. I
suggest you switch to Ilford Smooth Pearl paper and Tyler Martin
inks. Your results will be much better.

That says it all. Ilford Smooth Pearl or Glossy does not work all that
well with dye ink and is subject to gas fading. Anybody says the
opposite is a damn liar. All you have to do is read the Ilford site.
They manufacture the paper. They go and warn their customers that their
Smooth paper is subject to rapid gas fading (even in total darkness)
when printed with dye ink. Ilford recommends that if you use due ink to
use their Galerie Classic Pearl or Glossy and let it dry for 24 hours.
They say the look is the same.

Now they will call Ilford liars Ron.

Just how many professional photographers do you think post in this
group? Most here that use compatible ink are more than pleased with
the results and experience none of the problems you seem to have
encountered.

Most of the poster post here have clogging and fading problems and that
is why they post here. They think they are going to get hellp.

Which makes me wonder why you even started this thread unless you just
like turmoil.

With normal people Ron would not creat turmoil just a nice friendly
discussion.

 

[measekite]

Since you joined the group and one other person some of the riff raff in
this ng are overwhelmed and seemed to crawl into the woodwork where they
belong. Some now admit that the generic inks over them the following:


an acceptable risk of clogging
an acceptable risk of fading
a reduced level of quality that they accept

in exchange for

what they thing are economical savings.

Some get the savings and others get screwed.

I hope that you can continue to participate in this ng. It gets kind of
boring to keep refuting idiots all of the time. While just a short time
ago a poster claimed good results with Ilford Smooth papers and dye ink
which Ilford advises will cause rapid fading even in darkness and Ilford
recommend Galerie Classic with dye ink and to let it dry for 24 hours.
Now this is what they say. After reading that I exchanged by Ilford
Galerie Smooth Pearl for Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl. The only thing I
like better about the Smooth is that the paper is somewhat heavier. If
you cut wallet size prints for proofs the heavier paper goes through the
Canon printer better.

There is so much I would like to learn about photography and discuss
other than the nonsense generic ink like cutting matts, framing, and
displaying and possibly selling a few prints as well as camera equipment
and taking photos as well.

There are many discussions of the technical aspects of photography but
fewer on the artistic side.

Hope you stay around and I am sure we will not agree on everything.

You have summed it up correctly Measekite. I am amazed at the reaction of
many in this group to my posts. As for the aftermarket inks I was
oringinally chuffed at the savings and this turned to disappointment and
disillusionment after viewing the results, after several months.

I too was very tempted but I decided to do extensive research before
committing my printer and I am glad I did. I just wish the generic ink
business was professional and their were companies out there that
produced good stuff. I hear Pantone makes some decent ink but it is
even more expensive than OEM stuff.

If other
people choose to use aftermarket inks then that is their choice. However,
judging by the reactions by some on here - it is quite possible that some
are dealing/selling aftermarket inks.

If you did not hear that from me that is good for I came to the same
conclusion. There were some that I kept after and they finally admitted
they were dealers and they stopped spamming. The ones that are left do
have some ties to the industry since they are so violent about their views.

I have learned from my use of
aftermarket inks that the savings did not compensate for the poor results I
achieved - note that this took some time (after viewing numerous A4 photos
that

What are the size in inches of the A4 and A3 prints.

 

[Taliesyn]

You have summed it up correctly Measekite. I am amazed at the reaction of
many in this group to my posts. As for the aftermarket inks I was
oringinally chuffed at the savings and this turned to disappointment and
disillusionment after viewing the results, after several months. If other
people choose to use aftermarket inks then that is their choice. However,
judging by the reactions by some on here - it is quite possible that some
are dealing/selling aftermarket inks. I have learned from my use of
aftermarket inks that the savings did not compensate for the poor results I
achieved - note that this took some time (after viewing numerous A4 photos
that I had stored away from light and in a highly protective environment)

Man, you must have been using some cheap recycled soda pop for ink to
have your photos fade significantly that had been "stored away from
light and in a highly protective environment".

I have not seen any such fading (of protected items) you speak of with
any of the refill inks I have used. What has been protected and put away
(from light) remains in its pristine colour brilliance. I have every
confidence my special projects, some of which were made 7 years ago will
retain their brilliance many, many years from now.

Every few months someone comes up with a new "it's official" claim. And
for the last 10 years I have ignored them, printed some marvelous
projects, and saved thousands of dollars by NOT using OEM inks which
cost 20 times more than the inks I am currently using. Yes, that's
"official" too - 20 times more!

-Taliesyn (he'll officially continue to use aftermarket inks!)

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

Man, you must have been using some cheap recycled soda pop for ink to
have your photos fade significantly that had been "stored away from
light and in a highly protective environment".

I have not seen any such fading (of protected items) you speak of with
any of the refill inks I have used. What has been protected and put away
(from light) remains in its pristine colour brilliance. I have every
confidence my special projects, some of which were made 7 years ago will
retain their brilliance many, many years from now.

Every few months someone comes up with a new "it's official" claim. And
for the last 10 years I have ignored them, printed some marvelous
projects, and saved thousands of dollars by NOT using OEM inks which
cost 20 times more than the inks I am currently using. Yes, that's
"official" too - 20 times more!

Anyone here that uses quality after market ink knows he is either
extremely incompetent when it comes to choosing compatible ink and photo
paper or he is just plain lying. I choose the latter. He is a troll.
Hardly any ink will fade if prints are stored as he claims he has done.

 

[Ron]

Measekite matting and framing is the next step I wish to pursue. The savings
to be made are huge, compared to having prints framed in a specialist
framing shop. Many photographers simply mount their photos for display with
matting and a backboard and then leave it up to the potential buyer to chose
their own frames.

As for cameras, well that is a huge task in deciding which gives the best
results for price. I shoot both slides, I have a nikon F5 and a much cheaper
pentax MZ6 and the cheaper MZ6 blows the nikon F5 away for beautifully
consistently exposed slides. For digital I have a nikon DSLR D70 which is
almost worn out so I am looking to purchase a new digital SLR camera.
Currently buyers for new digital SLR cameras are in a great position due to
Sony entering the DSLR market with a reasonably priced camera which will
drive prices down. Nikon has just released the D80, 10 megapixel, (has a
sony CCD), canon has just released a 400 series, 10 megapixel (priced lower
than the nikon D80) and pentax has just announced a soon to be released
K10D, 10 megapixel, with anti shake, anti dust and many other features,
which will should be cheaper than all of the above and is rumoured to blow
the above out of the water, with its image quality.

I encourage you to recognize what you love taking photos of and then to
pursue that area, being self critical and always learning and improvising
and especially zooming in. Also, often the best photo is the one behind you.

My loves are landscapes and night photography and would love to get into
close up/macro photography of flowers - especially roses (I have 85 roses in
my garden). People shooting would be great - to capture the character of
people's faces etc - problem with this is that you must get them to write a
consent/release form and I find that when people know they are being
photographed you are not capturing the real person (often the persona or
mask comes up on their face etc).

Cheers

Ron from Downunder

 

[frank]

Anyone here that uses quality after market ink knows he is either
extremely incompetent when it comes to choosing compatible ink and photo
paper or he is just plain lying. I choose the latter. He is a troll.
Hardly any ink will fade if prints are stored as he claims he has done.

Well I see our resident brainless jacass meashershithead fell for his
bullshit.
So what's new?
Frank

 

[TJ]

Now I understand. The junk snaps you take are only worth of a cheap
trash printer and crappy generic inks. I can really understand that and
I am glad you finally admitted it. If the printheads get clogs that is
not big deal cause you will go out and find another cheap crap printer
and if the junk you print fades there is not loss there either. That is
probably due with all your buddies in this ng. Get a crankie printer
with crankie ink and nobody really cares.

I wish you would have disclosed that earlier. Now the only thing we do
not agree on is the unprofessional relabelers who do not disclose what
they are selling but again in your case you do not care.

You understand nothing. Last August I took a snapshot of my mother
holding a stringer of smallmouthed bass she'd just caught. When we
returned home from vacation I made a 4 x 6 print of it using my "trash
printer"(HP PSC 2110) with tricolor and black cartridges I've refilled
over two dozen times each and Kodak "Premium Picture Paper." The
resulting print was accepted by the Syracuse Post-Standard daily
newspaper for their "Catch of the Week" feature. The photo ran on
Friday, September 8, 2006.

Most of the things I print have nothing to do with photography, and
they'd be considered "junk" by elitists like you, so that's the term I
used. But a few of the things I print are NOT junk - to me, at least. I
like the way they look, and I like to look at them and remember what
they mean to me. I do not archive those prints as prints, but as digital
images, and in several places. That way they can be replaced if
something happens to them - and fading isn't the only danger they face.

TJ

 

[measekite]

Man, you must have been using some cheap recycled soda pop for ink to
have your photos fade significantly that had been "stored away from
light and in a highly protective environment".

Ron, this is the high school kid from Canada that mentioned before. If
you say it is day he will say it is nite. Of course he cannot tell
fading correctly and he is willing to accept lower quality because that
is all he can afford. While he uses ink from a source where another
poster complained about clogging and fading but he twisted things and
denied it.

If he is satisfied with what he has that is his choice but do not tell
others who know there is a problem with the stuff that they do not know
what they are talking about and also discount professional reviews.

I have not seen any such fading (of protected items) you speak of with
any of the refill inks I have used. What has been protected and put away
(from light) remains in its pristine colour brilliance.

I do not beleive this.

I have every
confidence my special projects, some of which were made 7 years ago will
retain their brilliance many, many years from now.

Every few months someone comes up with a new "it's official" claim. And
for the last 10 years

he begain when he was 7 years old. and he knew then about how to
evaluate generic inks. Boy lets sell photos to 7 year old kids.

I have ignored them, printed some marvelous
projects, and saved thousands of dollars by NOT using OEM inks which
cost 20 times more than the inks I am currently using. Yes, that's
"official" too - 20 times more!

-Taliesyn (he'll officially continue to use aftermarket inks!)

see what I mean. what is this officially continue. what is official
about it.

 

[measekite]

Measekite matting and framing is the next step I wish to pursue. The savings
to be made are huge, compared to having prints framed in a specialist
framing shop.

I saw an art exhibit and spoke to the lady photographer for about an
hour over the weekend. She has been photographing for about 8 years but
she has been an artist and painter for all of her life. She really has
an eye and her photos are great. She won the grand prize with one of
her photos that she is selling for $350.00.

She used a Minolta Film camera all manual and has her processing done by
a former professional lab owner that is now retired but doing a little
on the side. She does all of her framing and matting and she did tell
me about a few tricks to get (adhesive wet mount) the photo straight.

I have a Logan mat cutter but it cannot cut full sheet mat. I forgot
what the max dimensions it cuts. I bought it a year ago and have not
even opened the box. I bought it on sale just to have but I know it
will not do 13x19. Too bad that you need a $2,000 printer to create a
16x20.

I may, next year decide to buy a wide format printer but would probably
have a tough time choosing between the Pro9000 and the Pro9500. From
what I read (have not seen results of the same photo on the same papers
produced by both) the dye Pro9000 should produce more emphatic results
than the Pro9500 but I am not sure of the archival qualities of those
results. I would be concerned about how good the 9500 does on glossy
and pearl papers. I know it will do fine on matte and some of the other
artistic papers.

Many photographers simply mount their photos for display with
matting and a backboard and then leave it up to the potential buyer to chose
their own frames.

That is what this lady does. She will sell them both ways. She does
offer a choice of frames and will sell them that way if the buyer chooses.

As for cameras, well that is a huge task in deciding which gives the best
results for price. I shoot both slides, I have a nikon F5 and a much cheaper
pentax MZ6 and the cheaper MZ6 blows the nikon F5 away for beautifully
consistently exposed slides.

Not familiar with the MZ6 but I too use a Nikon Film Camera. Later I
plan on a digital but have not decided between Canon or Nikon. I keep
changing my mind. I was using a Sony PS (great color but terrible
ergonomics) and am favoring the Panasonic FZ7 with a Leica lens. It is
a small EVR with a long 12X Zoom that has many usable features. The
Canon S3 has more features but not as many that are important to me.

For digital I have a nikon DSLR D70 which is
almost worn out so I am looking to purchase a new digital SLR camera.

For you the choice is probably a no brainer. The Nikon D80, a junior
D200, is a great choice if you have lenses. I like the Grid in the
viewfinder representing the rule of thirds. But then there is the Canon
DR XTi that has the dust cleaning system and maybe a better 9 point auto
focus and I think a spot meter.

How much of a problem was dust on the sensor with you D70. Did you
change lenses frequently?

 

[measekite]

You understand nothing. Last August I took a snapshot of my mother
holding a stringer of smallmouthed bass she'd just caught. When we
returned home from vacation I made a 4 x 6 print of it using my "trash
printer"(HP PSC 2110) with tricolor and black cartridges I've refilled
over two dozen times each and Kodak "Premium Picture Paper." The
resulting print was accepted by the Syracuse Post-Standard daily
newspaper for their "Catch of the Week" feature. The photo ran on
Friday, September 8, 2006.

First you are not taking a chance on a clogged head. If it clogs you
will not ruin the printer. Just throw the cart in Lake Onodaga and go
back to the salt mine. Or you could go fishin in Lake Skaneatlas. I
cannot spell the Indian names.

All you need to worry about is if the cart leaks and that has happened.

Most of the things I print have nothing to do with photography, and
they'd be considered "junk" by elitists like you, so that's the term I
used. But a few of the things I print are NOT junk - to me, at least.
I like the way they look, and I like to look at them and remember what
they mean to me. I do not archive those prints as prints, but as
digital images, and in several places. That way they can be replaced
if something happens to them - and fading isn't the only danger they
face.

If you want to lower your standards and accept the quality, fading, and
messy nuisance of refilling to spend less money that is your business
but do not deny that OEM is much better in all respects. Besides, your
type of HP printer has less risk. I, in addition to a Canon have an HP
that uses tri color carts. I buy a new on about every 10 months. I
would not think of generic ink or reilling the carts and go through the
mess. Saving $25.00 a year is totally meaningless and not worth my time.

 

[TJ]

First you are not taking a chance on a clogged head. If it clogs you
will not ruin the printer. Just throw the cart in Lake Onodaga and go
back to the salt mine. Or you could go fishin in Lake Skaneatlas. I
cannot spell the Indian names.

More than enough stuff has been thrown into Onondaga Lake over the
years, most of it from the Solvay Process chemical plant. I don't intend
to add to it. I'd rather it was restored to the pristine beauty of
Skaneateles Lake, but that's not likely in my lifetime. It's better now
than it was in the sixties, but there's a long way to go. It will never
look the way it did when legend has it that Hiawatha created the
Iroquois Confederacy on its shores.

I must compliment you on one thing, Measekite. Your capitalization,
punctuation, spelling, and grammar are much improved in this thread. I
notice it particularly when you are replying to Ron about photography,
and not ranting at us about your opinion on our choices. I now see that
can be used as a measure of your respect for the poster you're replying
to. The more you respect him, or perhaps the more you want to impress
somebody, the better you write. In this post and thread, of course,
you're not expressing respect for me, for you have none. You're trying
to impress Ron and retain your credibility with him.

All you need to worry about is if the cart leaks and that has happened.

And I'll bet I should only use Panasonic batteries in my Panasonic
portable radio, because Eveready and Duracell batteries could leak.

If you want to lower your standards and accept the quality, fading, and
messy nuisance of refilling to spend less money that is your business
but do not deny that OEM is much better in all respects. Besides, your
type of HP printer has less risk. I, in addition to a Canon have an HP
that uses tri color carts. I buy a new on about every 10 months. I
would not think of generic ink or reilling the carts and go through the
mess. Saving $25.00 a year is totally meaningless and not worth my time.

OEM is not better for all purposes in ALL respects. It's definitely not
better in price, as you have admitted. If I had to use OEM, I'd not
print a tenth of the stuff I do, because I couldn't afford it. I much
prefer to print something I want to without having to justify if it's
going to create more revenue than it costs.

My standards are my standards. I have neither lowered nor raised them,
and I won't without justification. Most of the stuff I print will be
recycled long before it fades. Judging from the signs on my vegetable
stand, the things I print using black pigmented ink that wouldn't be
recycled, things like receipts for online purchases and the like, won't
fade in my lifetime while sitting in a file waiting for a potential IRS
audit.

 

[Ron]

G'day Measekite.

I have never cleaned the senson of my nikon D70 DSLR camera, it has one dust
spot that shows up in some photos but very easily removed in any digital
editing program. I have made numerous lens changes while taking photos.
Perhaps some digital cameras are more susceptible to dust, ie. poor sealing,
higher static charges on their CCD's or CMOS (in the case of canon cameras).
In many cases attempts to clean dust from a sensor can make it much worse.

You really cannot go wrong in purchasing either a nikon, canon and the soon
to be released 10MP pentax K10D. The new pentax K10D has some advantages
over the other 2 equivalent camera brands. The pentax has dust removal, anti
hand shake compensation, any of the old pentax lenses from years ago can be
used on it, unlike the canon and nikon D80. Second hand pentax prime lenes
are some of the sharpest and cheapest lenses with incredible bokeh and they
were extremely well built. This new pentax is strongly rumoured to sell more
cheaply than its main rivals - an attempt, with its partner samsung, to
recapture a good share of the market.

As for the forthcoming wide format canon printers it will be extremely
difficult to decide which one to purchase. My opinion is that canon has not
released them by their announced dates because they want to nail longevity
of prints and give the epson 2400 a real shake for its money.

If I could possible get some time off work I would attend night classes in
learning how to frame and cut mats etc. May have to purchase a good book on
it and learn to do it that way. From my limited reading Logan makes some
great mat cutters - another item to add onto my shopping list.

Any chance, of you asking your friend, that does wedding photography, to let
you assist him? - the best way of learning the ropes. Don't know about that
USA, but here in Australia wedding photographers are in huge demand and make
top dollars. A friend of mine checked out wedding photographers here in
Canberra, for her daughter's wedding early next year and everyone is booked
out. She wants me to shoot the wedding, which I will do without charging her
or her daughter.

Once you switch to a digital SLR you will be chuffed to have that extra
quality and control. I was recently looking at a web site that did a
scientific comparison between the cheapest nikon DSLR, the nikon D50 and the
much more expensive upmarket nikon D200 and the D50 image quality proved to
be better noise wise - leading to better quality shots. So one does not have
to pay top dollars.

Anyhow cheers mate. My bed time

Ron from Downunder