Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 16, 2003, 11:04 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5
Default

[quote="wayne123"]1. People are not only printing from digicams

I was talking about prints from a file that can be saved

[quote="wayne123"]2. I don't want my prints to fade after couple of years - I store them in albums.

My understanding is fading has to do with light not darkness, but I admit i know nothing about this. The canon involved in this discussion has been tested to 25

[quote="wayne123"]3. I don't store pics from my camera on hard driver, CDs, etc. I print them only once and many people do so, or, I go to the photolab (very rarely however).

This is a personal choice <and unlike you I only speak for myself not many people>. Ink can last a thousand years without fading, but no ink is fire proof, flood proof, tornado proof, hurricane proof, robbery proof. When i want a photo down the road I back em up.

[quote="wayne123"]Do you think that if I print 300 4x6" images and after 5 years I will want to print them again, you must be kidding. First, it will cost me too much, second: I will probably have other things in mind and won't have time to print them again (or I may forget about them)

I have no Idea what you want to do in 5 years. The canon involved in this discussion has been tested to 25 years not 5, even though someone claimed only 5 years.

[quote="wayne123"]Thats why people care about fading and that's why I bought Epson 2200.


Again I only speak for me not other people. I am glad you found a printer that meets your needs. I have the Canon I 9100 and love i it.
DylanMN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2003, 4:13 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 54
Default

I was talking about prints from a file that can be saved


You were talking about "printing a digital cam pic" - so it is a pic from a digital camera (correct me if am wrong...).
__________________________________________________ __

My understanding is fading has to do with light not darkness, but I admit i know nothing about this. The canon involved in this discussion has been tested to 25


Well, not quite. If fading would only had to do with light then my prints (stored in albums) would be "immortal", they would never fade, when kept in darkness.

It doesn't have to be 25 years, it can be even 30 when kept in PERFECT conditions. Or it can be couple of months when exposed to direct air or sunlight.
__________________________________________________ __

This is a personal choice <and unlike you I only speak for myself not many people>. Ink can last a thousand years without fading, but no ink is fire proof, flood proof, tornado proof, hurricane proof, robbery proof. When i want a photo down the road I back em up.


You speak for yourself because you don't know what people do with their pics. I've done a lot of research and I know what are peoples habits.
Also, no backup is: fire proof, flood proof, tornado proof, hurricane proof, robbery proof.
And the backup can be damaged (CDs), HDD.
Prints cannot be damaged so easily (or lost).

BTW. How many people, do you think, has cd-burners ???
__________________________________________________ __

I have no Idea what you want to do in 5 years. The canon involved in this discussion has been tested to 25 years not 5


In your earlier post you wrote: "but I still don't understand why something that cost less then a beer in a bar to produce needs to last 25. years."

That's why: if they fade (let's say) after 5 years I will have to print them again, huh?
__________________________________________________ __

even though someone claimed only 5 years


Prints kept in wrong conditions can fade earlier...
__________________________________________________ __

Again I only speak for me not other people. I am glad you found a printer that meets your needs. I have the Canon I 9100 and love i it.


You asked in your earlier post: "I have never understood why anyone would care hold long the ink lasts when it comes to printing a digital cam pic".

If they print photos, they want to show them to friends, family, etc. Not only backup, backup, and backup... and have them only in computer. That's one reason why they buy photo-printers.
wayne123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2003, 5:35 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

at the beginning of this debate it was just a simple question. which one?

for me it came down to this: When i sell a print how confident am i that i have given that person the highest quality for the money they have spent on it. i warranty my prints for the life of the original owner and will replace that print should it fade as long as it has been cared for per my instructions. you can easily tell if a print is sun faded or come in contact with a foreign agent that would caused permenant damage. if it outside the warranty parameters i will reprint it for a nominal some.

if your using it for your own personal use its your choice. for proofing and smaller prints there really isn't an option. the wider color gamut and better papers go to the epson.

i read also about refilling and such. it's all work arounds in cost. you cannot guarentee the quality of ink from a lot of second source suppliers much less the color gamut. too many variables to control. to maintain price they go to different sources to deliver the price you want.

quality, range, control, repeatability, and longevity those are my standards

as long as the one you choose meets your standard you'll be happy.

ok, you can go on beating a dead horse now.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 1:35 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6
Default

Hi all, thought I would beat the dead horse some more. This thread has been an eye opener, and decision making read for me. I am an amateur at this, but that has nothing to do with what I am about to write. Short and to the point, for other newbies that maybe looking at this thread. You have to agree with every statement made in this thread. It all boils down to the pros and cons for your individual needs. Only you can decide this. Both of these printers are extremely good with pros and cons to each. For me the pros are 1. price versus quality as I am piching pennies at the moment 2. Longevity is not so important a I agree with the reply that stated just reprint the photo if it becomes unviewable 3. Size, the Canon is muchsmaller 4. If I want to print a larger print than an 8 X 10 I will use one of the photo labs, I cannot see myself using this feature often though it would be nice to have 5. I'm not sure of the noise level on the Epson, but the Canon is super quiet, and I am tired of listening to my current, very loud printer 6. Since I am pinching pennies, I may use some after market ink on occasion, and the Canon is able to supply this feature 7. I don't care about the fact I may ruin the printer in the long run by using these inks as the printer is just over $200, and I can throw it away in a few years, and if my finances have increased, buy a top of the line printer which will surely be better than the current crop 8. The ability to replace the print head should I decide to keep the printer running for more than a few years, I called Canon, and the price of the print head is $108, cheaper than buying another one should I break mine using after market inks
Only you can decide what is best for you, I had to be honest with myself because I really cannot afford the Epson 2200 though I do have the money so had to be very honest when considering which one to get. Sure, I would like to have all the features the Epson offers, mainly the longevity of the ink, and the ability to print wide carriage. As far as photo quality, from the 10 reviews, and 100 user comments I have read, I really don't think one does it better than the other. Well, I am buying the Canon as I am sure you have surmised, and I am sure I will be very pleased with it, and I won't be deeper in the poorhouse. These printers are so close in quality, but not in price, which should make it a very easy decission to make. If you consider your own needs, and budget, the decission will be an easy one to make. Take care all Tom
Tuberocity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 1:48 AM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6
Default

Hi all, thought I would beat the dead horse some more. This thread has been an eye opener, and decision making read for me. I am an amateur at this, but that has nothing to do with what I am about to write. Short and to the point, for other newbies that maybe looking at this thread. You have to agree with every statement made in this thread. It all boils down to the pros and cons for your individual needs. Only you can decide this. Both of these printers are extremely good with pros and cons to each. For me the pros are 1. price versus quality as I am piching pennies at the moment 2. Longevity is not so important a I agree with the reply that stated just reprint the photo if it becomes unviewable 3. Size, the Canon is muchsmaller 4. If I want to print a larger print than an 8 X 10 I will use one of the photo labs, I cannot see myself using this feature often though it would be nice to have 5. I'm not sure of the noise level on the Epson, but the Canon is super quiet, and I am tired of listening to my current, very loud printer 6. Since I am pinching pennies, I may use some after market ink on occasion, and the Canon is able to supply this feature 7. I don't care about the fact I may ruin the printer in the long run by using these inks as the printer is just over $200, and I can throw it away in a few years, and if my finances have increased, buy a top of the line printer which will surely be better than the current crop 8. The ability to replace the print head should I decide to keep the printer running for more than a few years, I called Canon, and the price of the print head is $108, cheaper than buying another one should I break mine using after market inks
Only you can decide what is best for you, I had to be honest with myself because I really cannot afford the Epson 2200 though I do have the money so had to be very honest when considering which one to get. Sure, I would like to have all the features the Epson offers, mainly the longevity of the ink, and the ability to print wide carriage. As far as photo quality, from the 10 reviews, and 100 user comments I have read, I really don't think one does it better than the other. Well, I am buying the Canon as I am sure you have surmised, and I am sure I will be very pleased with it, and I won't be deeper in the poorhouse. These printers are so close in quality, but not in price, which should make it a very easy decission to make. If you consider your own needs, and budget, the decission will be an easy one to make. Take care all Tom
Tuberocity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 4:41 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

Well the Epson 2200 is actually the quietest Epson ever produced next to the stylus 880. I have a hard time telling if its printing some days.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.