Pixma 6600d - similar experience?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NONSBR
  • Start date Start date
N

NONSBR

Hi folks!

I recently purchased the 6600d (12/28/05) and was very pleased with the
initial results. I used the free glossy paper that came with the
printer (4 or 5 pages) and then switched to Canon's matte paper with
continued excellent results. Then around the 15th print, something very
strange happened - 3 printouts in a row looked smeared, indistinct, and
faded. After that, the next 5-10 prints were good, though not as a
distinct as the first 15 - but now, after maybe 40 prints (10-15% of
which were black and white prints) printing anything with color is
pointless, looking as if it were printed out on something of far less
quality.

I am throwing this out there for a couple of reasons ... for one,
Canon's utility reports that ink levels are adequate, though I have no
experience Canon's monitoring utility (and the accuracy thereof!). I
have also put the printer through 1 or 2 nozzle/deep cleanings (I know
it consumes a bit of ink), and the resulting patterns/colors are not
very distinct. Also, I am using the ink that came with the printer, so
I am not sure if that is some kind of starter quantity and perhaps that
is why it seems to have been consumed so quickly (and rendering a false
positive in the monitoring utility).

Ok ... so I may be just describing the plain old evolution of ink usage
or an inexperienced end user, but then why the report that the ink
levels are good? And if the ink levels are indeed low, is it me, or is
that pretty fast as far ink consumption is concerned? (I have no
previous experience with photo printers; I've owned various HP
all-in-wonder printer/scanner/copiers and that's about it).

I guess the overall goal of this post is for me to determine if the
equipment is bad or if I need to replace the ink. Or if I need to lower
my expectations on a $200 printer ...

Thanks much in advance ... sorry for the novella (I like to be
thorough).
 
NONSBR said:
Canon's utility reports that ink levels are adequate, though I have no
experience Canon's monitoring utility (and the accuracy thereof!).
Click to expand...

What utility? Are you looking at something on the computer or the LEDs on
hte cartridge holder when the lid is open?

Ok ... so I may be just describing the plain old evolution of ink usage
or an inexperienced end user, but then why the report that the ink
levels are good?
Click to expand...

I would hope not. I just bought hte same printer and expect pring 1000 to be
as good as print 1

I guess the overall goal of this post is for me to determine if the
equipment is bad or if I need to replace the ink. Or if I need to lower
my expectations on a $200 printer ...
Click to expand...

Could be low ink. Have you pulled a cartridge?
 
"NONSBR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Click to expand...
I would hope not. I just bought hte same printer and expect pring 1000 to be
as good as print 1
Click to expand...

I have had the 6600d since October, still producing top notch prints.
Have replaced the Black, Yellow and magenta cartridges, did a good
look
at the ink tanks before replacing with Canon OEM CLI-8s.
Could be low ink. Have you pulled a cartridge?
Click to expand...

I wonder if it is printing on matte paper that has done it,
matte sucks up the ink. Taking out the cartridges and inspecting
the ink levels is the certain way to determine their status.
 
I WOULD GET THE PRINTER REPLACED. IF YOU DO I THINK THE IP52OO MAY BE A
BETTER CHOICE.
 
Thanks for your feedback, Edwin.

The utility I was referring to was Canon's native print utility - not
much of a utility really, just the software that monitors the printers
ink levels (and which can trigger alarms when too low).

What has your experience been thus far? Do you know if the ink that
comes with the printer is less than a full-blown, store-bought
cartridge? (And no, haven't pulled the cartridges yet). I'll check and
post ...
 
Thanks ...

I thought about the paper being a part of the overall issue, so as a
test, I'll switch back to glossy ... how many prints would you say you
were able to get before replacing the cartridges? (I know this is a
highly variable thing, as everyone's pictures and print jobs are
different).
 
Then around the 15th print, something very
strange happened - 3 printouts in a row looked smeared, indistinct, and
faded. After that, the next 5-10 prints were good, though not as a
distinct as the first 15 - but now, after maybe 40 prints (10-15% of
which were black and white prints) printing anything with color is
pointless, looking as if it were printed out on something of far less
quality.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you may have changed printer-driver settings somewhere
along the way; but if not, then the chances are, that your printer is
defective.

You don't mention which program you are attempting to print from, but
Easy-Photo Print tends to ignore mistakes in setting up the printer
driver. With Easy-Photo, it probably best to start off with
configuring it via File > Preferences to uncheck the "Optimize Images
Automatically; and set "print quality" to "Quality Priority". If you
can't get consistently excellent print quality with setup, then a
defective printer would be a reasonable consideration.
I have also put the printer through 1 or 2 nozzle/deep cleanings (I know
it consumes a bit of ink), and the resulting patterns/colors are not
very distinct.
Click to expand...

With years of experience with Canon Photo printers, deep cleaning is
not something I've ever needed, even after sitting unused for six
months. Do a Nozzle Check, to see if the printer is working as it
should.
 
Thanks ...

I thought about the paper being a part of the overall issue, so as a
test, I'll switch back to glossy ... how many prints would you say you
were able to get before replacing the cartridges? (I know this is a
highly variable thing, as everyone's pictures and print jobs are
different).
Click to expand...

I didn't really count how many prints, but it was quite a lot of
8x10 top quality glossy prints, plus several manual type black and
white mss.
JUst wondering if you were printing on matte paper with
printers set on the 'High Quality' mark.
 
I WOULD GET THE PRINTER REPLACED. IF YOU DO I THINK THE IP52OO MAY BE A
BETTER CHOICE.
Click to expand...
Why better? Fewer colors, fewer ink nozzles, slower. How is this better?
 
Ron said:
Why better? Fewer colors, fewer ink nozzles, slower. How is this better?
Click to expand...
FOR ONE THING IT IS FASTER. IF COMPARISON FOLLOW THE IP6000/IP5000
SERIES THEN IT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY BETTER ON PHOTOS AT A MUCH FASTER SPEAD
AND SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER ON BUSINESS DOCUMENTS. IT ALSO HAS AN
OVERSIZED PIGMENT CART FOR TEXT.
 
measekite said:
FOR ONE THING IT IS FASTER.
Click to expand...

A factor for business printing of text, not much for personal printing of
photos.

IF COMPARISON FOLLOW THE IP6000/IP5000 SERIES THEN IT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY
BETTER ON PHOTOS AT A MUCH FASTER SPEAD
Click to expand...

So all those engineers t hat cam up iwht more colors and finer gradients for
photo printing are wrong? They wated their time?

AND SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER ON BUSINESS DOCUMENTS. IT ALSO HAS AN OVERSIZED
PIGMENT CART FOR TEXT.
Click to expand...

If business documents are the primary use, I tend to agree. If home
printing of photos is the major use, I doubt it would be better.
 
Edwin said:
A factor for business printing of text, not much for personal printing of
photos.
Click to expand...
NO TRUE. RUN THE COMPARITOR ON THE CANON USA WEBSITE
So all those engineers t hat cam up iwht more colors and finer gradients for
photo printing are wrong? They wated their time?
Click to expand...
THAT IS WHAT YOU SAY. THERE ARE VERY FEW OCCASSIONS WHERE YOU WILL
ACTUALLY SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE HAVING MORE COLORS. NOW IF YOUR
PHOTOGRAPHY IS COMPOSED OF THOSE EXCLUSIVE DELICATE COLORS THEN YOU MAY
SEE SOME.
If business documents are the primary use, I tend to agree. If home
printing of photos is the major use, I doubt it would be better.
Click to expand...
NOW YOU ARE NOT MAKING SENSE. MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME
WILL ONLY BUY 1 PRINTER. AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE (WHO OWN
DIGITAL CAMERAS OR PHOTOGS WHO SCAN FILM) ALSO USE THEIR COMPUTER FOR
LETTERS AND GRAPHICS (WORD AND POWERPOINT) AND FOR OTHER BUSINESS USES.
THEREFORE IT IS LOGICAL TO CONCLUED THAT THE IP5200 IS PROBABLY THE BEST
CHOICE.

IF ONE WANT A TRUE PRINTER DEDICATED TO PHOTOS THEN THE CANON I9900
WOULD BE THE BEST CHOICE DUE TO THE RESULTS AND THE FACT YOU CAN PRINT
ALL THE WAY UP TO 13X19. TOO BAD IT CANNOT GO 16X25 BORDERLESS.
 
measekite said:
NO TRUE. RUN THE COMPARITOR ON THE CANON USA WEBSITE

THAT IS WHAT YOU SAY. THERE ARE VERY FEW OCCASSIONS WHERE YOU WILL
ACTUALLY SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE HAVING MORE COLORS. NOW IF YOUR
PHOTOGRAPHY IS COMPOSED OF THOSE EXCLUSIVE DELICATE COLORS THEN YOU MAY
SEE SOME.

NOW YOU ARE NOT MAKING SENSE. MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME
WILL ONLY BUY 1 PRINTER. AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE (WHO OWN
DIGITAL CAMERAS OR PHOTOGS WHO SCAN FILM) ALSO USE THEIR COMPUTER FOR
LETTERS AND GRAPHICS (WORD AND POWERPOINT) AND FOR OTHER BUSINESS USES.
THEREFORE IT IS LOGICAL TO CONCLUED THAT THE IP5200 IS PROBABLY THE BEST
CHOICE.

IF ONE WANT A TRUE PRINTER DEDICATED TO PHOTOS THEN THE CANON I9900
WOULD BE THE BEST CHOICE DUE TO THE RESULTS AND THE FACT YOU CAN PRINT
ALL THE WAY UP TO 13X19.

TOO BAD IT CANNOT GO 16X25 BORDERLESS.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, 16x25 borderless with OEM inks. Like you, the miser, could
afford to print photos that size! One photo is equivalent to over 16
4x6 prints! How many of those "big boys" can you afford to tread? It's
not a problem for me, using non-OEM inks at about $1 per cartridge. But
you, you would never print one that size because of the cost.

-Taliesyn
 
Taliesyn said:
Yeah right, 16x25 borderless with OEM inks. Like you, the miser, could
afford to print photos that size! One photo is equivalent to over 16
4x6 prints! How many of those "big boys" can you afford to tread? It's
not a problem for me, using non-OEM inks at about $1 per cartridge. But
you, you would never print one that size because of the cost.

-Taliesyn
Click to expand...

We use a Canon i9900. The oem carts sell for $11.95 retail. You need 8
of them. That's 95.60 + tax = $103.73 for the full set of 8.
I'm now using Hobbicolor refills which cost $35 (tax % shipping)
delivered to me. I can get the equivalent of 5 refills for the cost of
$35. Five sets of 8 oem carts would cost me $518.63, so I 'm saving $483.63.
Color control testing shows no difference at all vs oem carts. Our
prints look EXACTLY the same.
That oem moron who keeps posting his lying oem bullshit has absolutely
no experience at all with after market inks.
Believe only those who are actual users.
Frank
 
Taliesyn said:
Yeah right, 16x25 borderless with OEM inks. Like you, the miser, could
afford to print photos that size!
Click to expand...

NOT EVERY ONE IS A POOR HIGH SCHOOL KID LIKE YOU. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO HAND LARGER PHOTOS IN THEIR HOUSE, OFFICE, GALLERY OR EVEN SELL
THEM. AND IT SURE COSTS LESS TO PRINT USING OEM INK THEN THE $100 TO
$200 A CUSTOM LAB WOULD CHARGE.

GO GRADUATE AND THEN GET A COLLEGE DEGREE AND THEN WE CAN TALK.
 
Back
Top