f



Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?

I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has 
been good. Now, for my specifications.

Cost - Under $250
Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. 
Chromlife, etc)
Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer

Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
those produced by an automated photo developing machine.

This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and Canon?

Thanks - KSC 


0
Zippy
2/26/2006 3:27:29 AM
comp.periphs.printers 18139 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

37 Replies
674 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 58

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:

>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has 
>been good. Now, for my specifications.
>
>Cost - Under $250
>Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. 
>Chromlife, etc)
>Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer
>
>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>
>This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and Canon?


Save another $100 and go for the Epson R800.
My two cents, anyway.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/26/2006 4:14:29 AM
Zippy Zoo wrote:
> I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870
> has been good. Now, for my specifications.
>
> Cost - Under $250
> Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex.
> Chromlife, etc)
> Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual
> manufacturer
> Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I
> sell should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be
> as good as those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>
> This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and
> Canon?
> Thanks - KSC

You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has 
longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200 
or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink 
printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since 
there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon 
and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.

-- 
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com 


0
SleeperMan
2/26/2006 9:46:34 AM
> You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has 
> longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for 
> ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 
> ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, 
> since there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination 
> of canon and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
>
> -- 
> Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
>

   Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if  you only need 
the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the initial cost. I 
haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson R1800, which is a wide 
format version of the R800. The Epson gives beautiful results, but the R800 
will run you initially $325 + to start. and it's a 7 color printer with an 
additional "glosser" cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on 
certain papers.
   Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than 
pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black.  Epson is using pigment 
on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the 
cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge 
that will start to add up quickly in ink costs.
   The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling and using a 
chip resetter. Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you 
save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get 
excellent  results.

-- 
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message 
news:RNeMf.448$oj5.159407@news.siol.net...
> Zippy Zoo wrote:
>> I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870
>> has been good. Now, for my specifications.
>>
>> Cost - Under $250
>> Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex.
>> Chromlife, etc)
>> Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual
>> manufacturer
>> Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I
>> sell should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be
>> as good as those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>>
>> This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and
>> Canon?
>> Thanks - KSC
>


0
Jan
2/26/2006 1:11:06 PM
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:46:34 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has 
>longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200 
>or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink 
>printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since 
>there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon 
>and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.


You're basically right about most of this.

Dye inks on the right paper still look 
somewhat better than pigments.

For my taste, though, the differences 
are now so minor that it's no longer worth 
fooling with dye inks.  Just my personal 
take on the matter.

FYI, the printers I've owned and used 
since 1998: Epson 600, 750, two 1160s, 
Canon S9000, HP DesignJet 30.  Currently, 
Epson 7000 and R1800.  

I did a lot of experimenting with pigment 
inks on the two 1160s, and found pigments 
(back then) to be unacceptable.  The R1800 
is the first printer I've owned that's 
actually built to use pigment inks.

I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking, 
it would be nice if a few of my prints 
outlast me.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/26/2006 1:33:41 PM
Jan Alter wrote:
>> You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity.
>> Epson has longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but
>> i'd go for ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit.
>> All you need is 5 ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than
>> that is wasting money, since there's no difference in quality, only
>> price is bigger. Combination of canon and canon's photo paper pro is
>> the one you can't miss. --
>> Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
>>
>
>   Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if  you only
> need the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the
> initial cost. I haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson
> R1800, which is a wide format version of the R800. The Epson gives
> beautiful results, but the R800 will run you initially $325 + to
> start. and it's a 7 color printer with an additional "glosser"
> cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on certain
>   papers. Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less
> longevity than pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black. Epson 
> is using pigment on all their color and black. Additionally,
> speaking for the Epson; the cartridges are small. They hold about
> 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge that will start to add up quickly
>   in ink costs. The basic way to get around this is to investigate
> refilling and using a chip resetter. Not only do you save the
> environment of cartridges but you save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM
> will run you, and using quality ink get excellent  results.
>
but in that case you can forget long lasting Epson famous state...
BTW...Canon uses pigment black for text only, while for photos it uses dye 
black



-- 
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com 


0
SleeperMan
2/26/2006 3:06:44 PM

rafe b wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:46:34 +0100, "SleeperMan"
><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has 
>>longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200 
>>or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink 
>>printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since 
>>there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon 
>>and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
>>    
>>
>
>
>You're basically right about most of this.
>
>Dye inks on the right paper still look 
>somewhat better than pigments.
>
>For my taste, 
>
OH GOD HE EATS DA INK

>though, the differences 
>are now so minor that it's no longer worth 
>fooling with dye inks.  Just my personal 
>take on the matter.
>
>FYI, the printers I've owned and used 
>since 1998: Epson 600, 750, two 1160s, 
>Canon S9000, HP DesignJet 30.  Currently, 
>Epson 7000 and R1800.  
>
>I did a lot of experimenting with pigment 
>inks on the two 1160s, and found pigments 
>(back then) to be unacceptable.  The R1800 
>is the first printer I've owned that's 
>actually built to use pigment inks.
>
>I'm getting to that age 
>
ANOTHER OLD FART

>where I'm thinking, 
>it would be nice if a few of my prints 
>outlast me.
>
>
>rafe b
>www.terrapinphoto.com
>  
>
0
measekite
2/26/2006 4:00:34 PM

Jan Alter wrote:

>>You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has 
>>longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for 
>>ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 
>>ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, 
>>since there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination 
>>of canon and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
>>
>>-- 
>>Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
>>
>>    
>>
>
>   Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if  you only need 
>the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the initial cost. I 
>haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson R1800, which is a wide 
>format version of the R800. The Epson gives beautiful results, but the R800 
>will run you initially $325 + to start. and it's a 7 color printer with an 
>additional "glosser" cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on 
>certain papers.
>   Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than 
>pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black.  
>
WRONGO BONGO.  CANON USES PIGMENT FOR BLACK ONE SIDED TEXT AND DYE FOR 
EVERYTHING ELSE

>Epson is using pigment 
>on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the 
>cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge 
>that will start to add up quickly in ink costs.
>   The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling 
>
BOY IS THAT STUPID

>and using a 
>chip resetter. 
>
MORE LUNACY

>Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you 
>  
>
CAN CLOG YOUR PRINTER

>save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get 
>excellent  results.
>  
>
AND THAT IS WHY MOST PEOPLE USE QUALITY OEM INK
0
measekite
2/26/2006 4:02:53 PM

rafe b wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has 
>>been good. Now, for my specifications.
>>
>>Cost - Under $250
>>Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. 
>>Chromlife, etc)
>>Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer
>>
>>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>>
>>This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and Canon?
>>    
>>
>
>
>Save another $100 and go for the Epson R800.
>My two cents, anyway.
>  
>
AND IT IS NOT EVEN WORTTH THAT

>
>rafe b
>www.terrapinphoto.com
>  
>
0
measekite
2/26/2006 4:04:05 PM
WHILE THE CANON I9900 PRODUCES BETTER LOOKING RESULTS YOU MIGHT WANT TO 
CONSIDER THE EPSON 2400

Zippy Zoo wrote:

>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has 
>been good. Now, for my specifications.
>
>Cost - Under $250
>Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. 
>Chromlife, etc)
>Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer
>
>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>
>This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and Canon?
>
>Thanks - KSC 
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
2/26/2006 4:05:34 PM
rafe b wrote:
> 
> I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking, 
> it would be nice if a few of my prints 
> outlast me.
> 
That's scary - I'm 72, so I'd need inks to last only a couple
of years :-( Fortunately, my daughter's the family genealogist, so I 
guess she'd appreciate archival inks/papers. Right now I use a Canon 
i4000, no idea of the lasting qualities of Canon's inks. I'm probably 
more interested in the lifespan of digital video tapes, which I'm using 
to transfer 8 mm movie film, S-VHS tapes, and Hi 8 tapes using my mini 
DV camera.
0
Dan
2/26/2006 4:30:49 PM
In article <RNeMf.448$oj5.159407@news.siol.net>, SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:

> Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - 3
> colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money...

Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.

Jon.
0
Jon
2/26/2006 6:15:00 PM
Jon O'Brien wrote:
> In article <RNeMf.448$oj5.159407@news.siol.net>,
> SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:
>
>> Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer -
>> 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money...
>
> Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing
> Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.
>
> Jon.

i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any 
color, i don't see why red would be one...
It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't 
see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 
colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see all 
available ones...

-- 
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com 


0
SleeperMan
2/26/2006 6:55:12 PM
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:55:12 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any 
>color, i don't see why red would be one...
>It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't 
>see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
>I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 
>colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see all 
>available ones...


You're making vast generalizations about color 
and yet not even stopping to consider the distinction 
between additive and subtractive color.

Have you heard of the IEC?  Ever used or created an 
ICC profile?

Ever heard of a Colorspan printer?

Why do printers use K ink instead of just CMY?
Do you know what UCR and GCR mean?

In short, what are your qualifications for speaking 
with such authority on the issue of color and gamut?

I understand the anger at Epson, Canon, et. al. 
for their outrageous ink prices.

But don't assume their engineers are total idiots.
They are not.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/26/2006 7:22:12 PM
In article <8QmMf.465$oj5.162015@news.siol.net>, SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:

> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with 
> any color, i don't see why red would be one...

Maybe the exact duplication of a colour has never been important to you. And I said Ferrari scarlet, not 'red'. There are also blues that can't be reproduced with CMYK printers, even the best lith printers. If colour accuracy is important to you then you need a printer with the widest possible gamut.

Jon.
0
Jon
2/26/2006 7:38:00 PM
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any 
> color, i don't see why red would be one...
> It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't 
> see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
> I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 
> colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see all 
> available ones...

There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a printed 
photo.  One limitation with using three colors is getting the mix just 
right, especially with very fine gradients.  It is not easy getting the 
overlays exact.

If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you.  It could be 
though, that they would be even better with other ink, other paper, other 
color balance, other exposure.  Much of phography is very subjective.  When 
Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says it is a great picture, no 
matter how out of balance the skin tone may be or how fuzzy the focus. 
Sometimes we just want more out of it.
-- 
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ 


0
Edwin
2/26/2006 8:10:32 PM
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with
>> any color, i don't see why red would be one...
>> It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i
>> don't see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those
>> basic three. I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 
>> or even 10
>> colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see
>> all available ones...
>
> There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a
> printed photo.  One limitation with using three colors is getting the
> mix just right, especially with very fine gradients.  It is not easy
> getting the overlays exact.
>
> If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you.  It
> could be though, that they would be even better with other ink, other
> paper, other color balance, other exposure.  Much of phography is
> very subjective.  When Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says
> it is a great picture, no matter how out of balance the skin tone may
> be or how fuzzy the focus. Sometimes we just want more out of it.

ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread 
was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a 
question of which color is right? Since first mistake comes in in the 
camera, then monitor etc...it's no point of printer being, say 0.00001% 
accurate if all other is only 0.01 % accurate. That what i meant.
But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck 
working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said. 
There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of 
color as picture have in order to get perfect print.
Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn...
have fun

-- 
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com 


0
SleeperMan
2/26/2006 9:00:46 PM
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
>Cost - Under $250
>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.

Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
considered for professional work.

Out of curiosity, what's the price of whatever the next technology up
is these days (sublimation? transfer? some better ink tech?)

J.

0
JXStern
2/26/2006 9:04:44 PM
TALKING FROM THE ANUS

Jon O'Brien wrote:

>In article <8QmMf.465$oj5.162015@news.siol.net>, SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with 
>>any color, i don't see why red would be one...
>>    
>>
>
>Maybe the exact duplication of a colour has never been important to you. And I said Ferrari scarlet, not 'red'. There are also blues that can't be reproduced with CMYK printers, even the best lith printers. If colour accuracy is important to you then you need a printer with the widest possible gamut.
>
>Jon.
>  
>
0
measekite
2/26/2006 9:14:36 PM
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message 
news:3p5402dn2isilq79ad2qt97j7fknrdenph@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
>>Cost - Under $250
>>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I 
>>sell
>>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good 
>>as
>>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>
> Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
> considered for professional work.

Well, the advances made in home printing in the last half dozen or so 
years *have* been pretty amazing.  There are printers available from 
several manufacturers for well under $250 that can noticeably exceed the 
print quality from the typical one hour photo developing place.

 - Bob Headrick

0
Bob
2/26/2006 9:50:20 PM
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:00:46 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of 
>color as picture have in order to get perfect print.
>Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn...


Again, you don't even recognize the distinction 
between additive and subtractive color.

Cameras and eyes capture additive primaries.

Prints work by laying down subtractive primaries.

These are not trivial, academic distinctions.

And nobody's forcing you to buy a 6-color or 
8-color or 10-color printer.  If the advantage 
isn't meaningful to you, don't buy it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/26/2006 9:56:44 PM
In article <0ToMf.25301$_S7.11238@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, inkystinky@oem.com (measekite the troll) expressed an opinion on something he knows bugger all about, as usual:

Were you an artist trying to produce prints of your work, rather than a bullshit artist trying to mislead people with your ignorance, you'd be aware of the problem.

I quoted Ferrari scarlet as being problematical because I know someone who gave up trying to reproduce the colour himself on his CMYK printer and went to a print shop using Roland eight-colour inkjets to get the job done, because they *could* reproduce it.

The person running the print shop, as part of his picture mounting and framing business, bought the Roland printers in the first place because he is a marine artist and got fed up with the offset litho printer he usually did business with not being able to reproduce some of the blues in his paintings.

Many of his customers come to him precisely because they, too, find his printers can reproduce colours in their paintings that others have failed to reproduce.

If you took some time off from being infantile in this newsgroup and looked at some of the gamut charts displayed on a plethora of web sites, you'd see that there are many colours that are problematic in printing. Just because you aren't discerning enough to care whether or not you can produce them on your cheapo printer doesn't mean that it's not an important requirement for others.

Jon.
0
Jon
2/26/2006 11:26:00 PM
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >>

>
> ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread 
> was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a 
> question of which color is right?

Pro mode?  Wanting good quality photos makes me a pro?  That is  just so 
silly.  I do want properly exposed, well lit, natural looking photos, but 
that does not make me a pro.  Consider me a part of the general public.


> But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck 
> working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said.

Mine has a mere 6 colors. What I spend on ink in a year I can earn in a few 
hours so it is not a big deal.    I happen to like rib eye steaks, but if 
you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them.




0
Edwin
2/27/2006 4:22:29 AM

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >>
>
>  
>
>>ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread 
>>was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a 
>>question of which color is right?
>>    
>>
>
>Pro mode?  Wanting good quality photos makes me a pro?  That is  just so 
>silly.  I do want properly exposed, well lit, natural looking photos, but 
>that does not make me a pro.  Consider me a part of the general public.
>
>
>  
>
>>But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck 
>>working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said.
>>    
>>
>
>Mine has a mere 6 colors. What I spend on ink in a year I can earn in a few 
>hours so it is not a big deal.    I happen to like rib eye steaks, but if 
>you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them.
>  
>
ASK DA BEEFER ABOUT STEAKS

>
>
>
>  
>
0
measekite
2/27/2006 7:13:05 AM

Bob Headrick wrote:

>
> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message 
> news:3p5402dn2isilq79ad2qt97j7fknrdenph@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cost - Under $250
>>> Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I 
>>> sell
>>> should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as 
>>> good as
>>> those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>>
>>
>> Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
>> considered for professional work.
>
>
> Well, the advances made in home printing in the last half dozen or so 
> years *have* been pretty amazing.  There are printers available from 
> several manufacturers for well under $250 that can noticeably exceed 
> the print quality from the typical one hour photo developing place.

ESPECIALLY CANON -- RIGHT BOOB?

>
> - Bob Headrick
>
0
measekite
2/27/2006 7:14:00 AM
WHO CARES

rafe b wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:00:46 +0100, "SleeperMan"
><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of 
>>color as picture have in order to get perfect print.
>>Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn...
>>    
>>
>
>
>Again, you don't even recognize the distinction 
>between additive and subtractive color.
>
>Cameras and eyes capture additive primaries.
>
>Prints work by laying down subtractive primaries.
>
>These are not trivial, academic distinctions.
>
>And nobody's forcing you to buy a 6-color or 
>8-color or 10-color printer.  If the advantage 
>isn't meaningful to you, don't buy it.
>
>
>rafe b
>www.terrapinphoto.com
>  
>
0
measekite
2/27/2006 7:14:33 AM
The current Canon dye inks "may" provide that kind of permanence, the 
R800 definately will.

Art

rafe b wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has 
>>been good. Now, for my specifications.
>>
>>Cost - Under $250
>>Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. 
>>Chromlife, etc)
>>Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer
>>
>>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
>>
>>This all said - which model is going to be best between  Epson and Canon?
> 
> 
> 
> Save another $100 and go for the Epson R800.
> My two cents, anyway.
> 
> 
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 3:19:40 PM
I hate to say it, but you fell down on that last one.  Television, first 
of all uses RGB primary light to product its image, and it still lacks a 
lot of hues.

Printers use reflective CMY, which is just not the same in terms of how 
colors are made.  In particular the reds, greens and blues, all suffer 
in accuracy.  As I stated before, the smaller the dot and more dot 
patterns that can be created, the more shades can be represented to the 
human eye.

Even RGB filters in digital cameras (using the Bayer matrix pattern) are 
not able to reproduce all greens properly.  Sony has added a darker 
green filter for instance for their CCD chips.

Art

SleeperMan wrote:

> Jon O'Brien wrote:
> 
>>In article <RNeMf.448$oj5.159407@news.siol.net>,
>>SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer -
>>>3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money...
>>
>>Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing
>>Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.
>>
>>Jon.
> 
> 
> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any 
> color, i don't see why red would be one...
> It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't 
> see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
> I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 
> colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see all 
> available ones...
> 
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 3:39:35 PM
No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling 
their souls to the highest devil.

Obviously, someone is willing to pay for more ink colors, so there is 
indeed likely to be some qualitative differences (again, mainly in 
pigments which do not have the same qualities to mix and reflect color 
that dye inks do).

If they were really serious about producing a CMYK printer, they could 
use that engineering expertise to produce heads with smaller dots and 
more complex dot patterning.  Using more colors, especially the low 
color load ones, allows them to use larger drops, and speed up the 
printing process without using more dots or faster mechanics and 
drivers.  It also allows them to sell a lot of cheap fluids like water, 
glycol and alcohol and very little colorant, which is more costly.  They 
also design the drivers to use about twice the amount of load color 
loaded inks to the high color loaded, which does indeed burn through 
more cartridges.

As least some HP printers used twice size cartridges for LM, LC, K, LK 
and Y, so they tended to run out more evenly.

With Epson's current system, each time a cartridge runs out there is a 
purging of all heads, so a heck of a lot of ink is lost down the drain. 
  That was also an engineering decision, yes?

Art

rafe b wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:55:12 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any 
>>color, i don't see why red would be one...
>>It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't 
>>see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
>>I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 
>>colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see all 
>>available ones...
> 
> 
> 
> You're making vast generalizations about color 
> and yet not even stopping to consider the distinction 
> between additive and subtractive color.
> 
> Have you heard of the IEC?  Ever used or created an 
> ICC profile?
> 
> Ever heard of a Colorspan printer?
> 
> Why do printers use K ink instead of just CMY?
> Do you know what UCR and GCR mean?
> 
> In short, what are your qualifications for speaking 
> with such authority on the issue of color and gamut?
> 
> I understand the anger at Epson, Canon, et. al. 
> for their outrageous ink prices.
> 
> But don't assume their engineers are total idiots.
> They are not.
> 
> 
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 3:52:14 PM
Again, be careful confusing RGB light separations and the reflective 
inks using CMY/K, they do not work the same way.

In light, add red and green and get yellow.  Change the mix and the type 
of yellow alters.  With the CMYK situation, the base yellow ink color is 
the "purest" yellow you are going to get from that printer.  If it is 
too saturated, there isn't a lot you can do other than space the dots 
further apart.

And lastly, digital cameras or LCD screens or CRTs are mostly RGB and 
cannot reproduce some colors very well.  Try to get a good variation of 
greens and cyans on a TV...

I do take your point that everyone has different expectations of color. 
  We even al have differing abilities to see colors, and our ability 
worsens considerably as we age, and our eye lenses yellow.

If you are pleased with the output you get, then its good enough if you 
are not providing your work to a demanding 3rd party.  However, I still 
wouldn't want to be reprinting my stuff every few years due to fading 
issues ;-)

Art

SleeperMan wrote:

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> 
>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>
>>>i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with
>>>any color, i don't see why red would be one...
>>>It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i
>>>don't see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those
>>>basic three. I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 
>>>or even 10
>>>colors, but only basic 3-  yet  - a wonder happens - you still see
>>>all available ones...
>>
>>There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a
>>printed photo.  One limitation with using three colors is getting the
>>mix just right, especially with very fine gradients.  It is not easy
>>getting the overlays exact.
>>
>>If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you.  It
>>could be though, that they would be even better with other ink, other
>>paper, other color balance, other exposure.  Much of phography is
>>very subjective.  When Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says
>>it is a great picture, no matter how out of balance the skin tone may
>>be or how fuzzy the focus. Sometimes we just want more out of it.
> 
> 
> ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread 
> was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a 
> question of which color is right? Since first mistake comes in in the 
> camera, then monitor etc...it's no point of printer being, say 0.00001% 
> accurate if all other is only 0.01 % accurate. That what i meant.
> But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck 
> working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said. 
> There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of 
> color as picture have in order to get perfect print.
> Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn...
> have fun
> 
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 4:02:02 PM
A good inkjet printer will still beat a laser, and the other 
technologies are just not really appropriate for most image 
reproduction. (and not necessarily better either).  The next step up in 
terms of quality might be a laser controlled digitally burned color 
"silver" print using a wet lab.

Art

JXStern wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@zoo.net> wrote:
> 
>>Cost - Under $250
>>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell 
>>should be able to last 20-30 years under glass,  and should be as good as 
>>those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
> 
> 
> Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
> considered for professional work.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what's the price of whatever the next technology up
> is these days (sublimation? transfer? some better ink tech?)
> 
> J.
> 
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 4:05:10 PM
That's exactly the point, however.  The images only need to please the 
person who is "paying for them".  So, for some, more color accuracy is a 
must either because they want it, can see it, or it is mission critical 
and a must have, and for some people it's an unnecessary or costly or 
time consuming endeavor that's just not worth it.  Happily, there are 
printers made for both of you! Whoopee!

Art

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >>
> 
>>ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread 
>>was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a 
>>question of which color is right?
> 
> 
> Pro mode?  Wanting good quality photos makes me a pro?  That is  just so 
> silly.  I do want properly exposed, well lit, natural looking photos, but 
> that does not make me a pro.  Consider me a part of the general public.
> 
> 
> 
>>But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck 
>>working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said.
> 
> 
> Mine has a mere 6 colors. What I spend on ink in a year I can earn in a few 
> hours so it is not a big deal.    I happen to like rib eye steaks, but if 
> you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
2/27/2006 4:17:02 PM
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:52:14 GMT, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:

>No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling 
>their souls to the highest devil.


Heh.  Who do *you* work for, Art?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/28/2006 2:26:17 AM
I work for me, but I spend much of my time these days working for 
improving the state of society, the planet, and values I hold dear.  Its 
what gives me the ability to speak with frankness and honesty about 
products, issues or corporate actions.  I honor no sacred cows.

Sorry if that goes against what you choose to believe about me, but you 
are certainly entitled to whatever it is you chose to believe.  At the 
end of the day, I have a pretty good idea where the truth sits.

If engineers (sacred cow, eh?) were just ethical enough as a group to 
say "no" to the bean counters and military industrial complex once in a 
while, we'd have a lot less garbage on the planet, a lot fewer unsafe 
products, a lot less recalls and lawsuits, and many less bombs, 
armaments, and weapons of mass destruction. Sure engineers help make 
great and neat stuff too, like heart lung machines, or jaws of life, or 
computers, but that's the easy thing to work doing.  I worry about the 
ones that will do whatever they are asked or told because its a job, 
regardless of the consequences of their "great innovation and intellect".

We are each responsible for what we help to spawn. Not only that, but in 
spite of what many of the profession seem to believe about themselves, 
engineers are fallible.  They aren't the gods of science and technology 
many assume themselves to be.

If you don't think Epson's engineers were involved in the design of many 
of the anti-consumer and anti-environmental technologies built into 
their more recent printers, I have a nicely engineered bridge to sell you.

Art

rafe b wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:52:14 GMT, Arthur Entlich
> <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling 
>>their souls to the highest devil.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  Who do *you* work for, Art?
> 
> 
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
0
Arthur
2/28/2006 5:14:47 AM

rafe b wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:52:14 GMT, Arthur Entlich
><e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling 
>>their souls to the highest devil.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Heh.  Who do *you* work for, Art?
>  
>
HE WORKS FOR THE SIERRA CLUB

>
>rafe b
>www.terrapinphoto.com
>  
>
0
measekite
2/28/2006 6:51:09 AM
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:14:47 GMT, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:


>I work for me


Isn't that nice.  What pays the rent or the mortgage?
An inheritance?  Lottery win?  Drug dealing?

Or what did you for a living, before you "retired?"

I really don't give a flip what you think about 
engineers, Art.  Though I can safely assume that 
you were *not* an engineeer, I think.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
0
rafe
2/28/2006 12:15:28 PM
Gee, Rafe, I didn't think you cared...

Are you offering me some work and need a copy of my c.v.?

I've pretty much revealed all, at one time or another, but I'm not 
making it easy for you... you'll have to do a google easter egg hunt, if 
you really care enough.

 > Isn't that nice.  What pays the rent or the mortgage?
 > An inheritance?  Lottery win?

Drug dealing?
 >

Why? Do you remember buying something from me at a Dead concert? ;-)

;-)

Art


rafe b wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:14:47 GMT, Arthur Entlich
> <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>I work for me
> 
> 
> 

> Or what did you for a living, before you "retired?"
> 
> I really don't give a flip what you think about 
> engineers, Art.  Though I can safely assume that 
> you were *not* an engineeer, I think.
> 
> 
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
0
Arthur
2/28/2006 1:53:07 PM

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Gee, Rafe, I didn't think you cared...
>
> Are you offering me some work and need a copy of my c.v.?

YOU SHOUKD BE LUCKY TO HAVE A RESUME.  I AM SURE YOU DO NOT HAVE A CV

>
> I've pretty much revealed all, at one time or another, but I'm not 
> making it easy for you... you'll have to do a google easter egg hunt, 
> if you really care enough.
>
> > Isn't that nice.  What pays the rent or the mortgage?
> > An inheritance?  Lottery win?
>
> Drug dealing?
> >
>
> Why? Do you remember buying something from me at a Dead concert? ;-)
>
> ;-)
>
> Art
>
>
> rafe b wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:14:47 GMT, Arthur Entlich
>> <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I work for me
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> Or what did you for a living, before you "retired?"
>>
>> I really don't give a flip what you think about engineers, Art.  
>> Though I can safely assume that you were *not* an engineeer, I think.
>>
>>
>> rafe b
>> www.terrapinphoto.com
>
0
measekite
2/28/2006 4:38:32 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

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 ...

Printer vs printer vs ...
I have an old HP. If I load a graphic into Mozilla it will print to the HP. If I load a graphic into PMView it will not print. Why? Jim L -- If you think people are out to get you you're paranoid. If you think people are out to get anybody they can what are you? Sir: inkleputDEL@ETEisp.com wrote: > I have an old HP. If I load a graphic into Mozilla it will print to the > HP. If I load a graphic into PMView it will not print. Why? > PMview has a size limitation. Look in the re-size option to see the largest size to which it will convert a picture. In ...

HP printer vs. Canon printer
I need to replace my Epson Stylus Photo 825 as one of the print nozzles is permanently clogged! I have been looking at both HP and Canon printers, more specifically HP 7550 & Canon Pixma ip6700. Has anyone had any experience with either printer, good or bad? I need a printer that will do everything from print invoices, newsletters to photos. Photos do not have to be gallery quality, but good enough for a newsletter. Also, in comparison, which brand has better prices on ink? Is one brand of ink better than another (assuming I would use the same brand of paper) in relation t...

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...

PS Printer Management vs. Epson Printer Management
Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color management, rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks. Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to match my monitor's image. (I recalibrate & prof...

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 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...

Epson ColorLife paper in a Canon photo printer ?
Howdy Is anyone using Epson ColorLife paper in one of the latest Canon 6-color photo printers ? If so: care to report on settings andor results ? Thanks .... Stan I find this a difficult paper to use in Epson scanners that have a profile for it. ...

Need a new photo printer Canon or Epson
I am getting in to digital photography in a big way and also like using Adobe photoshop to clean up old photos. I am looking for a good printer in the $200 to $400 range that is also economical on ink, any suggestions? Kenny A big way? Tell us how "KENNETH MAULTSBY" <kmaultsby@verizon.net> wrote in message news:dMOwc.8723$QI2.2345@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > I am getting in to digital photography in a big way and also like using > Adobe photoshop to clean up old photos. I am looking for a good printer in > the $200 to $400 range that is also econo...

Canon i950 vs. i960 photo printer
Hello, I just bought my first digital camera (Canon PowerShot A70). Now I'm ready to buy my first photo printer. I like the Canon i950 and have read great things about it, but then I found some articles about a new printer coming out in October called Canon i960. It looks like it's the same printer as the i950, except it has a high-speed USB and is able to print directly from a digital camera, whereas the i950 could not. The puzzling thing is that the i960 is going to be much cheaper than the i950. Why would that be?!? The i960 is about $199 and the i950 is about $249. So ...

Epson RX630 Mulitfunction Vs Dedicated Photo Printer
Hi. I've been looking at photo printers. The Epson RX630 has some appeal as it also has scanning and copying functions, but I'm just not sure if this means it's printing ability is significantly less than other dedicated printers. On paper the specs look OK, six colours, decent dpi, and 3 pl droplets. Just haven't managed to see the output from one and I can't find a review on the web anywhere (maybe they're too new). Does anyone have any experience with one of these? Keen to hear opinions. Thanks, Pete. ____________________________________________ Re...

Printer comparison: Epson R800 vs Canon 9900
A friend is looking to replace an Epson 890 printer. The candidates he's considering are the R800 and 9900. He's aware of the fact that the 9900 supports wider media, but is mainly interested in image quality comparisons. Has anyone made any? Thanks, Jason J Warren wrote: > A friend is looking to replace an Epson 890 printer. The candidates he's > considering are the R800 and 9900. He's aware of the fact that the 9900 > supports wider media, but is mainly interested in image quality > comparisons. Has anyone made any? > > Thanks, > Jason Both a...

Choosing the Right Photo Printer.(hp photo printer binoculars)
hp photo printer binoculars, The photo printers in the market provide great quality photo printing; they are affordable and easy to use. If you choose the right photo printer, you can easily print great digital photos and be amazed. If you do not feel ready to start using a photo printer yet, you can also find an inkjet printer that produces good quality high resolution pictures. There are also mobile photo printers if you are planning to print on the go. Here are the important points to consider when buying a photo printer: Resolution, Resolution is one of the most important...

Epson RX500 vs Canon MP700/730 Multifunction Printers
Any thoughts or experience on these multifunction printers. I am leaning toward the Epson RX500 as it would replace my Epson 820 printer and 1660 scanner. I want the ability to print quality photos and scan negs and slides. I see Canon has a MP700 and MP730, but I don't see the slide/neg scanning capability of the Epson and cannot tell if the Canon is four or six color. Considering the Canon only because many in the group seem to like them. Any input is apreciated. Jerry B ...

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...

Web resources about - Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer? - comp.periphs.printers

Printer's key - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printer’s key , also known as the number line , is a line of text printed on the copyright page (the verso of the title page ) of books, ...

Loving the new job. Fleet master for 30 printers(strong possib... - Facebook
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep ...

IC3D Printers (@IC3D_Printers) on Twitter
Sign in Sign up You are on Twitter Mobile because you are using an old version of Internet Explorer. Learn more here IC3D Printers @ IC3D_Printers ...

Thread: Are there any wireless laser printers that work?
I got a Brother printer a few years back on the recommendation of a friend, and it's been a wonderful printer. Fast and trouble-free. As someone ...

App Store - EPSON Printer Finder
Get EPSON Printer Finder on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.

Make Magazine 3D Printer Workshop - a set on Flickr
Working on 3D printer testing for the MAKE Ultimate Guide to 3D Printing due out this fall. Day 1, unedited, unofficial photos.

The 3D printer carving out a new curriculum
With Australia's technical expertise slowly whittling away, the team behind this gadget wants to take schools back to the basics of manufacturing ...

ASIC investigating company after inventor of world's largest 3D printer left out of pocket
... Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigates the administration of a company that tried to sell the world's largest 3D printer. ...

9to5Toys Lunch Break: Brother Laser Printer $45, 9′ MFi Lightning Cable $6, iPhone 6/s Plus Leather Folio ...
... Twitter , RSS Feed , Facebook , Google+ and Safari push notifications . TODAY’S CAN’T MISS DEALS: Daily Deals: Brother Monochrome Laser Printer ...

Prusa I3 is a DIY 3D printer you can actually afford
Imagine drawing an image and having transformed into a full 3D model? That's what a 3D printer can do for you. The Hictop Prusa I3 3D Desktop ...

Resources last updated: 2/13/2016 3:13:08 AM