>I am spending a lot of money on inks. So while its color is
>more vivid than the Kodak 8500, I am using the Kodak much much
>more.
Regarding clogged heads (mine is usually clogged whenever my
allergies kick up), papers, fading and brilliance of prints...
My experience with the Canon S9000 has been very positive. When
starting a printing session (I think the driver knows how long
it's been since it last did this operation) the S9000 does go
through a self-diagnostic and head cleaning operation. The only
time I've ever had any streaking/dropout problems have appeared
to be dust related. The head might pick up a piece of hair,
dust or lint off of the paper and cause problems with a nozzle
or two. Just go through a light cleaning operation and it has
taken care of it every time. It is pretty irritating when this
happens on expensive 11x17 paper, though. This has been the
very best printer (of any kind) that I've ever used. There is a
lot of intelligence in the driver and the printer.
The Canon seems to be very picky about paper. I haven't found
an HP or Kodak paper that works worth a squat in the Canon. The
Epson papers do ok, but I've had the very best results with
Canon's Photo Paper Pro and the Ilford Galerie Classics.
Canon's PPP has that "Simonize" look to it that puts most
show-cars to shame. The glossy surface is so glossy that you
can almost use it for a mirror. The Ilford Classic Pearl is
every bit a chemical print. There are ZERO indications that the
print was from an ink-jet printer. Zilch. However, it does
bleed if left out in the rain too long.
Brilliance of inks? Well, I think this has partly to do with
the paper surface, but I can honestly say that my prints are a
subtle or as intense as I could ever hope to have them be. That
high-gloss PPP is intense stuff. You could poke your eyes out
on a Velvia shot.
What about B&W? That depends. The Canon does B&W very well for
a inkjet printer. My problems with it have little to do with
the ink and more to do with the dot-pattern. In my opinion, it
does 8x10 and larger B&W prints very well, but 5x7s (and
smaller) are viewed too closely to get away with trying to fool
anybody. I guess my problem is that I'm a wet-darkroom kind of
guy and there is just no substitute for silver. B&W prints will
have a slight coolness (only identifyable when compared directly
to a real B&W print). However, if you select the "sepia tone"
printing option, the prints are nearly perfect. I wouldn't
hesitate to use the color printer for any "toned prints".
Fading. oooo bad topic. Gotta watch your papers for this. My
test print on PPP has pretty well lost much of the yellow. But,
it took six months of sitting exposed to the elements on my
dashboard and in a south window of my house. Comparitive prints
on Fuji Crystal Archive have faded too, but more in the area of
lost contrast/intensity than actual color shift. The wierd thing
about Canon yellow ink, is that it fades more under incadescent
lighting than from UV. My test print on Ilford paper in the
bathroom has held up perfectly. I figured the fumes would do it
in...
AG-wheeze-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|