f



Epson R300 or Canon IP4000

Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed. 

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don
0
captnud
12/24/2004 4:17:02 PM
comp.periphs.printers 18139 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

29 Replies
624 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 58

Capt Nud wrote:

> Merry Christmas!
> 
> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 
> 
> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
> need the speed to get these books printed. 
> 
> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
> matte paper?
> 
> Thanks for your help....
> don

There've been some recent threads on this. Try loading more messages 
into your News Client, or use Google News to search.

-- 

John McWilliams
0
John
12/24/2004 5:35:50 PM
The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.

Capt Nud wrote:

> Merry Christmas!
> 
> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 
> 
> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
> need the speed to get these books printed. 
> 
> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
> matte paper?
> 
> Thanks for your help....
> don
0
measekite
12/24/2004 6:56:27 PM
I would look at the Epson C86.  It will be faster and does a great job on 
photos.  It also has the benefits of the ink being waterproof and more 
archival.



"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:vDZyd.2495$wZ2.1519@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>
> Capt Nud wrote:
>
>> Merry Christmas!
>>
>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few 
>> copies
>> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers 
>> are
>> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium 
>> paper. I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer 
>> is not an
>> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra 
>> tank. I
>> need the speed to get these books printed. Has any body used both of 
>> these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>> matte paper?
>>
>> Thanks for your help....
>> don 


0
Safetymom123
12/24/2004 9:03:58 PM
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.



And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..


>Capt Nud wrote:
>
>> Merry Christmas!
>> 
>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
>> of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
>> full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 
>> 
>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
>> issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
>> need the speed to get these books printed. 
>> 
>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>> matte paper?
>> 
>> Thanks for your help....
>> don

0
William
12/24/2004 11:34:54 PM
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The R300 does not use long last inks either.&nbsp; And that is per the Epson
factory rep.&nbsp; The only long last inks are the durabrite inks and they
are not for printing photos.&nbsp; And that is per Epson.<br>
<br>
William Bell wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midjr9ps0p4gemaf2i4o84udubpct0i17jveh@4ax.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:measekite@yahoo.com">&lt;measekite@yahoo.com&gt;</a> wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->


And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..


  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Capt Nud wrote:

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed. 

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
0
measekite
12/25/2004 4:28:48 AM
William Bell wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>
>
>
> And does not use Long last inks

That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100 
years...
And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss, 
so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher 
cost.

>and the Print head Rots,

Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head 
clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head failures...
At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get with ip4000, while 
quality is more or less the same.
It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and god 
know what else), but after that it prints very fast.


>
>
>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>
>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>
>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>
>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books printed.
>>>
>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help....
>>> don



0
SleeperMan
12/25/2004 8:40:31 AM
HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:28:48 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
>  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>  <title></title>
></head>
><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>The R300 does not use long last inks either.&nbsp; And that is per the Epson
>factory rep.&nbsp; The only long last inks are the durabrite inks and they
>are not for printing photos.&nbsp; And that is per Epson.<br>
><br>
>William Bell wrote:<br>
><blockquote cite="midjr9ps0p4gemaf2i4o84udubpct0i17jveh@4ax.com"
> type="cite">
>  <pre wrap="">On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:measekite@yahoo.com">&lt;measekite@yahoo.com&gt;</a> wrote:
>
>  </pre>
>  <blockquote type="cite">
>    <pre wrap="">The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>    </pre>
>  </blockquote>
>  <pre wrap=""><!---->
>
>
>And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..
>
>
>  </pre>
>  <blockquote type="cite">
>    <pre wrap="">Capt Nud wrote:
>
>    </pre>
>    <blockquote type="cite">
>      <pre wrap="">Merry Christmas!
>
>I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
>of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
>full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. 
>
>I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
>issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
>need the speed to get these books printed. 
>
>Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
>matte paper?
>
>Thanks for your help....
>don
>      </pre>
>    </blockquote>
>  </blockquote>
>  <pre wrap=""><!---->
>  </pre>
></blockquote>
></body>
></html>

0
William
12/25/2004 10:29:49 AM
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>William Bell wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>
>>
>>
>> And does not use Long last inks
>
>That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100 
>years...

And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100 years..

>And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss, 
>so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher 
>cost.



Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type used..

You do need to read up on these printers  as your facts are total wrong.


>>and the Print head Rots,
>
>Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head 
>clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head failures...
>At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get with ip4000, while 
>quality is more or less the same.
>It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and god 
>know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>
>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books printed.
>>>>
>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>> don
>
>

0
William
12/25/2004 10:34:15 AM
William Bell wrote:

> HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..


Nice. And, all caps!


Trimming replies is the norm of seasoned usenetters, unless they're 
trolls, newbies, or too important.

-- 
John McWilliams
0
John
12/25/2004 5:11:20 PM
William Bell wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> William Bell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>
>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>> last 100 years...
>
> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
> years..


Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper paper 
and proper storage.
Epson however claims 100 years...

>
>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart
>> and higher cost.
>
>
>
> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type used..
>

So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have 
gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same 
as canon's...


>
>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>
>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and
>> god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books
>>>>> printed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>> don



0
SleeperMan
12/25/2004 5:36:06 PM
R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.




"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
> William Bell wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>
>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>> last 100 years...
>>
>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>> years..
>
>
> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper 
> paper and proper storage.
> Epson however claims 100 years...
>
>>
>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart
>>> and higher cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type used..
>>
>
> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have 
> gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same 
> as canon's...
>
>
>>
>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>
>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and
>>> god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books
>>>>>> printed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>> don
>
>
> 


0
Safetymom123
12/25/2004 8:32:02 PM
Safetymom123 wrote:
> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.

Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon 
and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to 
last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't 
prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they 
claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!

>
>
>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>> William Bell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>
>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>> last 100 years...
>>>
>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>> years..
>>
>>
>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>> proper paper and proper storage.
>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>
>>>
>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>> used..
>>
>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>> is the same as canon's...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>> don



0
SleeperMan
12/25/2004 9:02:35 PM
Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will 
outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon 
isn't.

For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com


"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon 
> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to 
> last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't 
> prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they 
> claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>
>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>
>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>> years..
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>>> used..
>>>
>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>> don
>
>
> 


0
Safetymom123
12/25/2004 9:05:18 PM
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:36:06 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>William Bell wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>
>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>> last 100 years...
>>
>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>> years..
>
>
>Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper paper 
>and proper storage.
>Epson however claims 100 years...



Not with the R200/300   only the one that use  different Inks like the R800.

>>
>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart
>>> and higher cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type used..
>>
>
>So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can.

Crap seems that you are a Epson hater and a Dick head at then F off you Little
twerp.


Post when you have had a brain transplant.

>..if it doesn't have 
>gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same 
>as canon's...



Bollocks it better than the Canon 
>
>>
>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>
>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and
>>> god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a
>>>>>> few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer
>>>>>> is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson
>>>>>> having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books
>>>>>> printed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>> don
>
>

0
William
12/26/2004 12:55:23 AM
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:02:35 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
>Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon 
>and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to 
>last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't 
>prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they 
>claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
>It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>


F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..


>>
>>
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>
>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>
>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>> years..
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>>> used..
>>>
>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>> don
>
>

0
William
12/26/2004 12:57:44 AM
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:05:18 GMT, "Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will 
>outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon 
>isn't.
>
>For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com
>



The Canon is a bubble jet printer  and is not able to use the range of inks
types that a Epson can use  due to its method of firing the ink to the paper.


>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
>news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon 
>> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to 
>> last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't 
>> prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they 
>> claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
>> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such
>>>>>> gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional
>>>>>> cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is
>>>>>>>>> photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on
>>>>>>>>> InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at
>>>>>>>>> printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don
>>
>>
>> 
>

0
William
12/26/2004 1:01:04 AM
William Bell wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:02:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink,
>> which really didn't prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to
>> really last that long as they claim. For this we'll have to wait a
>> few decades...
>> It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like
>> always...damn!
>>
>
>
> F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..


Nope...not Canon lover, just Epson hater... :-)

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite
>>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have
>>>>>> such gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means
>>>>>> additional cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book
>>>>>>>>> is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing
>>>>>>>>> it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster
>>>>>>>>> at printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don



0
SleeperMan
12/26/2004 8:52:56 AM
Safetymom123 wrote:
> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and
> 2200 will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge
> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>

From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black one). 
That part is true.
I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be 
longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't 
much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also  a lot of 
people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.

BTW...if i (that's when i need my next printer) come to any other brand of 
printer (this doesn't include Lexmark) which carts are cheap and quality is 
great - durability is not a high issue for me, as i can always print a 
second photo after 10 or 20 years, and i also don't keep them  in sunlight), 
i'll gladly but it. Waterproof is again not imporant, since i don't plan to 
wash my photos... :-)))

Why do i hate Epson? looong story...
but, to keep it short, my friend once had Epson - some medium range one - 
and after less than one year all output started to look faded, without any 
contrast, quality bad... He took it to a service where they said it's all 
ok...supposely (as they say) what did i expect from that printer, and if i 
wanted better, i should pay at least double etc...
Now, maybe it's not Epson, just service personell in my country...doesn't 
really matter...but it shows how (maybe) totally innocent company (any 
product) can become the one to blaim for all...because of some idiots in the 
service...

But it does have cheap carts, though...(Epson, i mean). i wonder, if the 
price is similar to ip4000...?

Finally, (to William mainly)...it's good to defend your printer (i do the 
same for mine). At the end, if you don't do that, you'd be stupid for buying 
it...right? If you are certain that your product is the best, then you're 
certain that you bought just "the right thing" for you...otherwise, you'd 
always complain, like "damn, i should of buy that one..."


>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink,
>> which really didn't prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to
>> really last that long as they claim. For this we'll have to wait a
>> few decades... It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like
>> always...damn!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite
>>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years,  as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have
>>>>>> such gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means
>>>>>> additional cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800  as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book
>>>>>>>>> is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing
>>>>>>>>> it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster
>>>>>>>>> at printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don



0
SleeperMan
12/26/2004 9:06:41 AM
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>
> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon 
> and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to 
> last longer...

Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not mean 
anything about their lightfastness.  See 
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for examples of 
dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years depending on ink and paper 
differences.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP



0
Bob
12/27/2004 4:05:01 AM
Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...
>
> Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not
> mean anything about their lightfastness.  See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for
> examples of dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years
> depending on ink and paper differences.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Well...
how do you know that this will actually happen in real world?
Secondly, they only test one canon series on god know which paper (i think 
we both agree that paper is as important as ink). Canon do have silver 
halide-based paper, you know.
Also all manufacturers state that all prints should be kept in album or if 
in frame, behind a glass to prevent UV light damage and not in direct 
sunlight. If someone respects those recomendations, i bet that times will 
change a lot. Not all people print a photo and then put it on direct 
sunlight for whole day long.
BTW...i still hate Epson...until proven otherwise... :-)) 


0
SleeperMan
12/27/2004 7:50:15 AM
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:50:15 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy>
wrote:

>Bob Headrick wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>>
>>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>>> suppose to last longer...
>>
>> Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not
>> mean anything about their lightfastness.  See
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for
>> examples of dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years
>> depending on ink and paper differences.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>Well...
>how do you know that this will actually happen in real world?
>Secondly, they only test one canon series on god know which paper (i think 
>we both agree that paper is as important as ink). Canon do have silver 
>halide-based paper, you know.
>Also all manufacturers state that all prints should be kept in album or if 
>in frame, behind a glass to prevent UV light damage and not in direct 
>sunlight. If someone respects those recomendations, i bet that times will 
>change a lot. Not all people print a photo and then put it on direct 
>sunlight for whole day long.
>BTW...i still hate Epson...until proven otherwise... :-)) 
>



May be you need a Brain transplant as you just can't see to reason  or are you
just Dumb  or may be a Teenager..?


0
William
12/28/2004 1:52:33 AM
This is NOT true at all.  In fact I know from my own experience, with my 
Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT 
smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.

Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some 
sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk 
board.  (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos).  I'm not 
sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.

"Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 
> will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge resistant that the 
> Canon isn't.
>
> 


0
Tim
12/28/2004 4:15:38 AM
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
> Safetymom123 wrote:
>> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>> 2200 will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge
>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>
>
> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black 
> one). That part is true.
> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be 
> longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't 
> much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also  a lot of 
> people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.

Actually its NOT true.  The Canon ink IS water resistant.  Try it on a test 
photo.  Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with wiping the photo 
with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and white).  I'm referring to 
the BCI-6 ink.

Unlike my brothers Epson photo which wiped the picture clean off the paper.


0
Tim
12/28/2004 4:20:21 AM
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:20:21 GMT, "Tim" <none@none.com> wrote:

>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
>news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>>> 2200 will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge
>>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>>
>>
>> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black 
>> one). That part is true.
>> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be 
>> longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't 
>> much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also  a lot of 
>> people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.
>
>Actually its NOT true.  The Canon ink IS water resistant.  Try it on a test 
>photo.  Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with wiping the photo 
>with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and white).  I'm referring to 
>the BCI-6 ink.
>
>Unlike my brothers Epson photo which wiped the picture clean off the paper.
>



The Canons use Water Based Inks,  as they have to for the Bubble to work..


0
William
12/28/2004 6:09:45 AM
Tim wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:ravzd.7410$F6.1296201@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and
>>> 2200 will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge
>>> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>>>
>>
>> From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black
>> one). That part is true.
>> I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which
>> should be longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've
>> heard that it ain't much better than others...just commercial stuff
>> mainly... also  a lot of people refill, and after that this
>> longevity thing is excactly the same.
>
> Actually its NOT true.  The Canon ink IS water resistant.  Try it on
> a test photo.  Or at least it didn't rub off at all for me with
> wiping the photo with a wet rag (on a color photo, not black and
> white).  I'm referring to the BCI-6 ink.


AHA!
even better... :-))) 


0
SleeperMan
12/28/2004 9:56:42 AM
William Bell wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:50:15 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Bob Headrick wrote:
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>>>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>>>> R300 uses dye ink.  R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>>>
>>>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>>>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks
>>>> are suppose to last longer...
>>>
>>> Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not
>>> mean anything about their lightfastness.  See
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for
>>> examples of dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years
>>> depending on ink and paper differences.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>
>> Well...
>> how do you know that this will actually happen in real world?
>> Secondly, they only test one canon series on god know which paper (i
>> think we both agree that paper is as important as ink). Canon do
>> have silver halide-based paper, you know.
>> Also all manufacturers state that all prints should be kept in album
>> or if in frame, behind a glass to prevent UV light damage and not in
>> direct sunlight. If someone respects those recomendations, i bet
>> that times will change a lot. Not all people print a photo and then
>> put it on direct sunlight for whole day long.
>> BTW...i still hate Epson...until proven otherwise... :-))
>>
>
>
>
> May be you need a Brain transplant as you just can't see to reason
> or are you just Dumb  or may be a Teenager..?

Weeeelllll,
if we exchange our brains, then i'd be Epson lover and you'd be Epson hater, 
so, what would we gain here?

BTW...if i say i hate Epson, i don't say that it's photos doesn't last 
longer...it's just noone can really tell that one photo will last 104(!!!) 
years...if anyone says that it's just fucking idiot. Saying "around 100 
years" or similar would be of some reason (yet still stupid, as you can't 
really compare lab results with real life), but exactly 104 (or i bet they 
even stated months and days) is just stupid. I mean, please!!! what...in a 
new year of 105 those photos will just fade overnight or what?
In any case, i don't bloddy care what will happen in 104 years, in fact, i 
don't even care what will happen after 1 or 2 years, i just want my photos 
to look best NOW, if i will want to have best looking photo after 10 or 20 
years, considering speed of developing printers, whole system, inks, paper 
etc....will be SO MUCH different then we'll print new photos anyway...jusr 
compare photo from ip4000 and photo from 2 years old Canon which cost about 
the same as today ip4000 (or you better compare Epson's). You could WALK on 
the moon bu t still wouldn' t get even NEAR the similar quality if that 2 
year old printer didn't cost a fortune at that day... 


0
SleeperMan
12/28/2004 10:07:29 AM
I have a Canon IP4000 and I think it is great.  However, if you wipe it 
with a wet cloth  or your finger it will smudge.  Also a few drops of 
sweat dribbled on the photo and left a water spot.

The answer to protect the photo is to spray it with Krylon.  However, 
even the glossy Krylon (it comes glossy or matte) dulls down the finish 
but you have a choice.  You can at least mount them and hang them on a 
wall and eliminate reflective glass over your print.

Tim wrote:

>This is NOT true at all.  In fact I know from my own experience, with my 
>Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT 
>smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.
>
>Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some 
>sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk 
>board.  (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos).  I'm not 
>sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.
>
>"Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
>news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>  
>
>>Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 
>>will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge resistant that the 
>>Canon isn't.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
12/28/2004 6:39:16 PM
For dye based inks such as used in BCI-6 tanks, water resistance depends 
upon the type of paper being used. Prints made on microporous paper ( a.ka. 
instant dry) can be submerged in water immediately after printing without 
damage. Red River Ultra Pro and Office Depot Premium High Gloss are examples 
of microporous papers. Prints made on paper with a swellable polymer 
coating, such as Kodak Ultima, can be damaged with the slightest moisture. 
Excessive moisture such as running water or soaking will completely wash 
away the surface coating and the ink. There are other arguments about mp vs. 
sp paper such as gas fading and print longevity which tend to favor 
swellable polymer but when it comes to moisture resistance, microporous wins 
hands down.
-- 
Ron Cohen

"Tim" <none@none.com> wrote in message 
news:K55Ad.1024$kc6.475495@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> This is NOT true at all.  In fact I know from my own experience, with my 
> Canon S820 ink (which is the same ink used in the IP4000), the ink did NOT 
> smudge or even smear when I wiped it with a wet cloth.
>
> Yet guess what, my brothers Epson photo that I happened to get some 
> sprinkles of water on accidently, wiped the ink right off like a chalk 
> board.  (which is the reason I tried the water on my own photos).  I'm not 
> sure which model of Epson he has though, but he prints cd's in it.
>
> "Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
> news:iCkzd.3413$VZ7.1550@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>> Not understanding your logic.  The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 
>> will outlast the Canon.  They are also water and smudge resistant that 
>> the Canon isn't.
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Ron
12/29/2004 6:12:18 AM
Ron Cohen wrote:
> For dye based inks such as used in BCI-6 tanks, water resistance
> depends upon the type of paper being used. Prints made on microporous
> paper ( a.ka. instant dry) can be submerged in water immediately
> after printing without damage. Red River Ultra Pro and Office Depot
> Premium High Gloss are examples of microporous papers. Prints made on
> paper with a swellable polymer coating, such as Kodak Ultima, can be
> damaged with the slightest moisture. Excessive moisture such as
> running water or soaking will completely wash away the surface
> coating and the ink. There are other arguments about mp vs. sp paper
> such as gas fading and print longevity which tend to favor swellable
> polymer but when it comes to moisture resistance, microporous wins
> hands down.
i wonder in which group canon's pp101 (best available) falls...
i do have some photos, but i don't want to damage them by testing... 


0
SleeperMan
12/29/2004 8:18:22 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Which Printer Should I buy? Canon IP4000, Canon I865, Epson R300
Which is the best printer? Main points below. 1. Accuracy when printing to CD/DVD (My old Epson 900 was a devil to set up) going off center and needed adjusting. 2. Economy. Although I can get the ink for about the same cost which printer performs best. 3. Print quality Photo / CD DVD To put it into perspective here are the best prices I have found for the printers so far. 1. Epson R300 �84.95 2. Canon I865 �119.99 3. Canon IP4000 �99.99 Thanks Mike I have the R300 and love it. I do not love the price of the replacement ink. I have printed about 200 DVD ...

Which printer is best overall Canon IP4000 or Epson R300
For Disc Prints too? Thanks mark@manklow.fsbusiness.co.uk I chose the Canon ip4000 over the Epson R300 because is was substantially faster, had better photo quality, had better business document quality, had 2 paper feeds, and printed full duplex. Mark wrote: >For Disc Prints too? > >Thanks > >mark@manklow.fsbusiness.co.uk > > > > ...

epson r300 or canon pixma ip4000
ok i need a printer for cd/dvd printing , a few photos and general letter printing, can people give me first hand views on either the epson r300 or canon pixma ip4000 have read some online reviews but they all seem to love different ones. also what company do you use for you compatables thanks in advance On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:07:10 GMT, "Rev Dr Mark" <Rev_Dr_Mark@blueyonder.co.ukDEVIL> wrote: >ok i need a printer for cd/dvd printing , a few photos and general letter >printing, > >can people give me first hand views on either the epso...

Canon iP4000 and Epson C84 Printers
This week, the Los Angeles Times has advertisements from Fry's Electronics for a couple of interesting printers. Yesterday, it was the Epson C84, available for slightly _less_ than the cost of replacement ink cartridges for my current Epson C82 printer (about $70 US after mail-in rebate, of course). Today, it is a Canon iP4000 printer, which is said to have a faster print speed rating and to feature "built-in" two-sided printing, which might mean it is available under OS/2. The price is about $130 US + tax. I think I read recently that some Canon printer works...

Which of the 3 printers is the best? Epson R300 or Photo 900 or Canon i865
These 3 printers are all able of printing directly on CD's and DVD's, and they are priced approx the same in Denmark where I live. But which one should I choose? Thanx in advance Erik In my book The Canon is the Best, and cheaper to run..with being faster, the Canon i865 is fantastic for the price...and no clogging heads to worry about.. "Erik W." <erik.w@mail.com> wrote in message news:3fddc528$0$17592$ba624c82@nntp05.dk.telia.net... > These 3 printers are all able of printing directly on CD's and DVD's, and >...

Epson IP4000 Printer
I've seen a lot of reviews in this newsgroup and get the message that many of you are very pleased with your IP4000. I'm seriously considering replacing my old 760, but have one concern. I understand that the CD printing feature is not available in the US. Is this true? If so, is there a better Epson choice? Bill Bill Helbron wrote: > I've seen a lot of reviews in this newsgroup and get the message that > many of you are very pleased with your IP4000. I'm seriously > considering replacing my old 760, but have one concern. I understand > that the CD printing feature is not available in the US. Is this > true? If so, is there a better Epson choice? > > Bill First of all, watch out for you life if you say EPSON ip4000...it's CANON ip4000 :-))) second, yes, in US CDR printing is NOT available...in this case, Epson is NOT a better choice, but ONLY one... Ooops! On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:30:57 +0100, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote: >Bill Helbron wrote: >> I've seen a lot of reviews in this newsgroup and get the message that >> many of you are very pleased with your IP4000. I'm seriously >> considering replacing my old 760, but have one concern. I understand >> that the CD printing feature is not available in the US. Is this >> true? If so, is there a better Epson choice? >> >> Bill > >First of all, watch out for...

Epson or Canon Printer..
It's time to buy a new photo printer and I've always used Epson, my current model is the Stylus Photo 820. But I see Canon has quite a few nice photo printers. In the past my Epson prints were better than my neighbor's Canon prints. Is Epson still a better photo printer? In the past, I was told the Canon print cartridge had the print head so changing the cartridge was like getting a new print head. Is that true? I ask because I know my Epson doesn't work like that and I've learned how to use Windex on the little sponge in the printer to clean the clogged print head...

New Canon iPF 5000 photo printer better than Epson K-3 printers??
Hi all. I just came across this very favorable review of a new Canon photo printer with 12 (yes, twelve) ink carts. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml. The reviewer is very positive on this printer and sees it as a strong competitor to the Epson 4800. What do you all think? Check out the cost of cartridges! Oh, the review didn't speak about a capability to print on CDs. :) Joe Average ...

Resetter printer canon epson
Reset Printer Canon BJC-3000/6x00/7x00/8000 1. Power off printer 2. Hold Resume button then press and hold POWER, the beeper wil sound once. 3. Hold POWER and release RESUME 4. Press RESUME twice 5. When the indicator lights steady, press RESUME three(3) times The indicator should be orange. 6. Press Power to set data more on 'Free Resetter Software (http://canon-printer-resetter.blogspot.com) epson 'Epson Resetter Printer Service Manual and Repair (http://epsonresetter.blogspot.com ...

Are Canon Printers As Good As Epson?
I'm nearly ready to buy a new printer and am sick of the Epson ink bullshit- constant head clogging and cleaning of inks- but like their printer output. My girlfriend has a lower end Canon and loves it over the Epson she once had. I'm in the market for whatever high end printer Canon may have. My questions are- Is the output as good as Epson; Do they now have archival inks; Can the inks be refilled with one of the higher end ink systems like the Epsons; Is there a similar head clogging problem with Canon; I'm working on large scale panoramas- does Canon have facilities ...

Printer Server for Canon ip4000
Hi, I have tried connecting a Canon ip4000 (not R version) to a Hawking HPS1U printer server. It does not work, and Canon refuse to recommend a printer server. Does anybody know a printer server that does work with the ip4000? thanks, ...

Epson paper in Canon printer
Has anyone used Epson paper in a Canon s9000 printer? Specifically the paper is Epson S041706 Premium Glossy Photo Paper 255gsm. I'd be interested in knowing the results. Thanks Rescho ....or any Canon printer that uses BCI-6X series cartridges. Rescho "Rescho" <peterreschREMOVE@THISoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:41fc8f0d$0$1025$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > Has anyone used Epson paper in a Canon s9000 printer? > Specifically the paper is Epson S041706 Premium Glossy Photo Paper 255gsm. > I'd be interested in knowing the results. > Thanks > Rescho > > Rescho wrote: > ...or any Canon printer that uses BCI-6X series cartridges. > Rescho > "Rescho" <peterreschREMOVE@THISoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:41fc8f0d$0$1025$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> Has anyone used Epson paper in a Canon s9000 printer? >> Specifically the paper is Epson S041706 Premium Glossy Photo Paper >> 255gsm. I'd be interested in knowing the results. >> Thanks >> Rescho Not me yet, but i did hear that Epson papers do quite nicely on Canon printers...i must try one day. But i did try HP everyday semigloss photo paper on my ip4000 and ....disaster! Ink doesn't dry at all on that one... "Rescho" <peterreschREMOVE@THISoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:41fc8f0d$0$1025$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au....

Epson Photo R300 Printer
FYI for anybody buying an Epson Stylus Printer R300 to use in OSX. I just bought one and I am using it on a G4, 450 MHZ running OS10.2.8. It prints in OSX and it prints in OS9.2.2 but it will not print in classic mode. I called Epson help line and was told that some of there drivers don't print in classic. That if it prints in OSX and 9.X then they consider it an Apple OS problem. The apple support site says to connect the driver supplier for similer printing problems. I did not talk directly to Apple. As long as you can start your computer in OS9 you are OK, but if you can't ...

New Printer/Canon iP4000
Broke with tradition AND sense. Bought somethine other than an HP this time and didn't spend a week researching the subject and going into information overload :o Brought home a Canon iP4000. This printer will be used primarily for graphics (greeting cards) and text. I will do some photo printing on Ilford (Smooth Pearl) photo paper. Are there any inherant issues I need to know about? Someone told me that (unlike HP) I have to turn the printer off when not in use to keep the ink from wicking in the docking station. Then another said their Canon turned off automatically. I found "Auto Power" under the Maintenance Tab. Both were disabled. I enabled both and set Power off to 15 minutes. OK? And it doesn't say but I'm assuming the Auto "Power On" turns the printer on automatically when you start a print job (like the HP) Thanks, Monica Monica wrote: >Broke with tradition AND sense. Bought somethine other than an HP this >time and didn't spend a week researching the subject and going into >information overload :o Brought home a Canon iP4000. This printer will be >used primarily for graphics (greeting cards) and text. I will do some photo >printing on Ilford (Smooth Pearl) photo paper. Are there any inherant >issues I need to know about? Someone told me that (unlike HP) I have to >turn the printer off when not in use to keep the ink from wicking in the &g...

Printer driver missing from Epson Web site for Epson 2200 printers
There's no appropriate printer driver on the Epson Web site for Epson Stylus Photo printers using OS 10.4x. There are printer drivers on the page for Intel-based Macs using OS 10.4x, but my computer is a Quicksilver desktop G4, which is not Intel-based. (http://epson.ca/cgi-bin/ceStore/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=14402&prodoid=20306147&infoType=Downloads&platform=Macintosh) The two following drivers appear to be the closest, but neither one is the right one. I wrote to Epson about this oversight, but I haven't heard back from it yet. Does anyon...

Canon Printer with Epson Photo Paper?
Just gotten myself a canon i450. Anyone tried epson or hp photopaper with it? or should i just stick to canon paper. not too sure about the price difference though. thanx! john wrote: >Just gotten myself a canon i450. Anyone tried epson or hp photopaper with >it? or should i just stick to canon paper. not too sure about the price >difference though. I see you're in Singapore, so I doubt you will find an Office Depot nearby. :) But you might be able to order from RedRiver which apparently is very good stuff: http://www.redriverpaper.com/ I have a Ca...

Which is Better
My fifth HP died again. No more for them. I've looked at data and can't find any good, factual reviews on the two printers. Anybody got either, and what do you think of it? How's the quality? I do about 50% text/graphics; 50% photo work. Can only speak to the i960, it is a great machine Check dpreview "Henry Morrell" <hmorrell@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:8c7a02bd.0404270908.480bc5a8@posting.google.com... : My fifth HP died again. No more for them. I've looked at data and : can't find any good, factual reviews on the two printers. : Any...

Epson or Canon Photo Printers (not AIO)
Hi all, I saw a Canon vs Epson thread but I am looking more at photo printers and best photo quality. Its time to replace my aging Epson R210. Many years back, I owned an HP deskjet 400 but decided their quality was at most third amongst the Top 3 (Epson, Canon, HP). Canon almost died with crap quality when Epson released their 1440 dpi printers (canon had standard 360dpi and premium model 600dpi) many years ago but have since bounced back very strong in recent years. The Epson R230 would have been a very good replacement but I also wanted something of a later generation too...

Canon i860 Photo Printer compared to Canon MP360 Printer/Scanner/Copier
I'm trying to decide between a Canon i860 and a Canon MP360. The MP360 is a printer/scanner/copier while the i860 is a Photo Printer. I've compared the two units closely and can't see many differences, except the i850 uses 4 cartridges instead of the usual 2 and is a bit faster. They both can print borderless photos, can print on photo paper, and print 4800x1200 dpi. Plus they are about the same price on newegg.com. Are there any features that the i860 has that the MP360 doesn't? Otherwise why not get the MP360 and get a scanner too. any info would be appreciated...

Epson R300 vs Canon i965
Hi, Any opinions? Thanks rol Hi there Antonius, I just got my R300 up and running and prints looks great. However, I'm not in a position to compare. Would be interesting to know if someone has some feedback to share. Happy Holidays "antonius" <ruiol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3fe6d952$0$27618$a729d347@news.telepac.pt... > Hi, > Any opinions? > Thanks > rol > > "antonius" <ruiol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3fe6d952$0$27618$a729d347@news.telepac.pt... > Hi, > Any opinions? > Thank...

Problem with Canon Pixma ip4000 printer
X-No-Archive My Canon Pixma ip4000 printer: I haven't used it in months, and barely used it all before then, but just 2 weeks after my warranty ran out it has decided to stop working. When power is turned on, the printer head refuses to snap-to the center; it behaves as if it's locked or a pulley (rubber band?) isn't working. The power light flashes alternatively orange and green (which, according to the manual indicates a possible "repair shop" problem.) Before I bring this to a shop and spend probably the amount I paid for it brand-new, is there a way of fi...

Epson Stylus Photo R300 printer
Anyone out there using one of these under OS/2? Is it supported? Thanks, Richard ...

EPSON Stylus Photo R300 or CANON I865
I am looking at buying a new printer and I am stuck at which one to get so I am hoping the group could let me know there thoughts on each of the printers and which one they would choose, is there any websites that review these two printers, thanks. In article <3fe044e6$0$13343$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, John � <johnjewitt2003@hotmail.com> writes >I am looking at buying a new printer and I am stuck at which one to get so I >am hoping the group could let me know there thoughts on each of the printers >and which one they would choose, is there any websit...

Canon CD Print Software With Epson Printer?
I have two printers that print directly onto CD's, the Canon i865 and Epson R310. I'm having problems with the CD Print software that came with the Epson one, so i was wondering if it's possible to just use the Canon one? Or is each piece of software designed with only one printer in mind? Kris ...

Web resources about - Epson R300 or Canon IP4000 - comp.periphs.printers

Flickr: Martini DK
I'd like to thank the *Generous Comments* group for choosing me as "Photographer of the week" in week 44 2006. I've been taking photos for a ...

Canon Ink Finder
Message Dialog Close Display Update Message Product Comparison The maximum number of products that can be compared is 4. Please refine your selection. ...

Canon's PIXMA printers
Press releases always amuse us. The smug satisfaction thatthis product will finally be the one to fix all your woes, thisprinter will be the ...

Edible Ink - Printing Cake Frosting
At PrintCountry.com, our vast collection of edible inks - printing cake frosting ranges from Canon, to Epson, to HP. We offer a wide list of ...

Printer Support
Printer Support - Support Forum for printers, scanners and multi function devices

My MacBook fan was roaring. Why?
The MacBook sounded like a jet engine. Fan running full blast. I figured out what was wrong, but it took longer than it should have. I wonder ...

Canon Ink Cartridges cheap Canon printer cartridges Canon inkjet cartridges
Buy cheap Canon Ink Cartridges from Cartridge Save.Canon Free delivery on printer cartridges Canon inkjet cartridges

Site Map
Office Mojo

Conference Telephone - Polycom Conferance Phone - Konftel Conferance
We supply Business Telephone Systems, Office Phone Systems, Nortel Meridian Norstar Telephone system, BT Versatility Phone Systems, BCM50 IP ...

Resources last updated: 2/20/2016 4:11:13 PM