Will need new printer

On 9/16/2015 6:06 PM, philo wrote:
On 09/16/2015 01:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-16 18:43:25 +0000, nospam said:

In article , philo
wrote:


Thanks for the advice. Now that you mention it, I recall my wife
downloading the ICC color profile from Epson. The first test print was
absolutely 100% perfect and we keep it in our living room to show
people
what great results we got.



My credit card billing cycle is closed, printer just ordered


Thank you very much...the $200 rebate this month sure made it easy on
the budget.


Which one did you get?


--
PeterN

On 9/16/2015 11:08 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:16:16 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Regarding printing documents and letters with a printer intended for
dedicated photo printing, I have discovered that while printers such as
your R1800 and my R2880 and Eric's R3800 are quite capable when it
comes to printing letters, a less expensive to operate, general purpose
printer such as some of the all-in one printers are better suited to
that job.

I found that it was better to seperate the tasks and I leave my quality
photo printing to my R2880 with its more costly inks. My document
printing from my desktop, printing from my mobile devices (iPhone &
iPad) and more casual photo prints are left to an Epson Artisan WiFi
printer which cost me less than $100 at Staples.
The seperation of the two tasks has saved me considerably when it comes
to ink usage and expenditure.

I think the best option for letters, as long as you don't usually do
any color with them, is a laser printer. No more throwing away mostly
full, but dried up ink tanks from lack of use. And if you really do
need something in color, you always have the photo printer for
occasional work.


Agreed. I have an old refurbished HP laser that I bought about eight
years ago for under $300. I have replaced the toner cartridge once.
About two years ago I bought my wife am HP laser wireless all in one.
Since I am no longer a heavy user, these are fine. We can go months
without printing letters, and the ink cartridges dry out quickly. That
doesn't seem to happen with the lasers.
--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 6:41 AM, philo wrote:
On 09/16/2015 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-17 00:51:44 +0000, philo said:

On 09/16/2015 05:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:

My credit card billing cycle is closed, printer just ordered


Thank you very much...the $200 rebate this month sure made it easy on
the budget.

Enjoy! I am sure you will be a happy camper. ...er, printer.


Well, my wife will be using the printer. I now have the old one to
play with...it might be good enough for printing out letters...

Regarding printing documents and letters with a printer intended for
dedicated photo printing, I have discovered that while printers such as
your R1800 and my R2880 and Eric's R3800 are quite capable when it comes
to printing letters, a less expensive to operate, general purpose
printer such as some of the all-in one printers are better suited to
that job.

I found that it was better to seperate the tasks and I leave my quality
photo printing to my R2880 with its more costly inks. My document
printing from my desktop, printing from my mobile devices (iPhone &
iPad) and more casual photo prints are left to an Epson Artisan WiFi
printer which cost me less than $100 at Staples.
The seperation of the two tasks has saved me considerably when it comes
to ink usage and expenditure.

...and the new Epson all-in-one printers have WiFi and big ink tanks.


will experiment tomorrow.

Have fun.





I have a cheap laser printer for text...since 95% of what I do is just
printing out crossword puzzles...I'm still using a cartridge which
should otherwise have been replaced.
If we need a decent quality letter printed, the old Epson should be
better than that.

I ran some more tests on it this morning and the color quality is poor,
but for a text printer it's still pretty good...so I think I will keep
it and use it until the last of our old ink is used up.



OT warning.
When I got my first computers I bought a Lanier with a daisy wheel
printer, for briefs and letters, and an AppleII with an Epson dot matrix
for financial projections. In those days there was a perception that
anything done on a computer was accurate. The dot matrix printer made
the prepared projections screamed: PREPARED BY COMPUTER.
Wow! have prices dropped. I paid a bit over 14G for the Lanier and about
$4,200 for the AppleII with Visicalc and the Epson.

--
PeterN

On 9/16/2015 3:18 PM, philo wrote:
On 09/16/2015 01:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-16 18:43:25 +0000, nospam said:

In article , philo
wrote:


Thanks for the advice. Now that you mention it, I recall my wife
downloading the ICC color profile from Epson. The first test print was
absolutely 100% perfect and we keep it in our living room to show
people
what great results we got.

a downloaded profile is only '100% perfect' for the printer/ink/paper
combo used to generate the profile, which is the one in epson's labs
and not the one you bought.

Philo has an Epson printer and I am making the assumption that since his
wife downloaded the profile from Epson, it was probably matched with his
printer & inks, and an Epson paper. So I would guess that it was pretty
close to the one he bought, considering the generic Epson profiles are
contained in the driver.

however it might be close enough.

You would think.

for '100% perfect' you need to generate a custom profile for *your*
printer with the inks it currently has and the paper you're currently
using. different papers will need different profiles, as will inks but
inks are usually fairly consistent from batch to batch.

That is why I have printer/paper specific ICC profiles for various Epson
papers, Red River Papers, and Ilford papers. I use Epson inks.
If I used a different printer, paper and different inks, well I guess I
would have to download specific matching profiles or generate fresh ones.





Yep. Just like some musicians have perfect pitch...my wife is an artist
and has the equivalent to perfect color definition.

The definition of "perfect" being good enough that no human could tell
the difference.

We stick with Epson paper and ink as well...and have had incredibly good
results.

The only one you have to please is yourself. Unless you are selling, in
which case you must please your clients.

--
PeterN

On 9/16/2015 11:25 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , philo
wrote:


The definition of "perfect" being good enough that no human could tell
the difference.

there are a lot of humans who can tell the difference between a canned
profile and a properly made profile for the printer/ink/paper combo you
are actually using.

however, the difference is usually minor and most people don't care.

It is not a case of "most people don't care" that makes
the difference. What makes a difference is the job.

If you, for example, get a contract with Nikon to
generate an advertisement, which makes more than minimal
use of the color yellow... it won't make a difference
to anyone of the poster stapled to a telephone pole down
the rode from your home is even close to the same color
yellow as is seen in the poster stapled to an alley wall
on the other side of town. Clearly if the two posters
are printed on different machines, using different paper
and different inks, all will be fine even if stock
profiles are used.

Now consider putting an insert into a magazine, between
two pages that also have Nikon's yellow. Two different
types of paper, maybe two different printers and sets of
ink. And stock profiles would probably produce a
product that almost everyone would see as two different
colors of yellow... because they are both right there
next to each other! And Nikon will reject your work,
not pay you, and never talk to you again.


Absolutely true. And if I was selling fine art images, where the color
was that important to me, I would probably have to use custom profiles,
and would have purchased an Eizo monitor, instead of the Asus. (Which
came today.) Somehow I think over a billion colors is sufficient.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?=ASUS+PB287Q+28%22+Widescreen+WLED+Backlit+ LCD+4K+UHD+Monitor&N=11053606&InitialSearch=yes&st s=pi


--
PeterN

On 9/16/2015 11:32 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The definition of "perfect" being good enough that no human could tell
the difference.

there are a lot of humans who can tell the difference between a canned
profile and a properly made profile for the printer/ink/paper combo you
are actually using.

however, the difference is usually minor and most people don't care.

It is not a case of "most people don't care" that makes
the difference. What makes a difference is the job.

If you, for example, get a contract with Nikon to
generate an advertisement, which makes more than minimal
use of the color yellow... it won't make a difference
to anyone of the poster stapled to a telephone pole down
the rode from your home is even close to the same color
yellow as is seen in the poster stapled to an alley wall
on the other side of town. Clearly if the two posters
are printed on different machines, using different paper
and different inks, all will be fine even if stock
profiles are used.

Now consider putting an insert into a magazine, between
two pages that also have Nikon's yellow. Two different
types of paper, maybe two different printers and sets of
ink. And stock profiles would probably produce a
product that almost everyone would see as two different
colors of yellow... because they are both right there
next to each other! And Nikon will reject your work,
not pay you, and never talk to you again.

those are not a 'most people' scenario.

Fine photography never was a "most people scenario." I think the
majority of people here are interested in photography past the here's
junior, and "I've been there," snapshots.
Why you insist on dragging the level of discussion down is beyond me.



the reality is that most people do not care about accurate colour. they
were happy with 1-hour photo-processing and they're happy with whatever
they get from a printer, even *without* any colour management at all,
as long as it's reasonably close.

to put it another way, grandma isn't going to complain that her
granddaughter susie's dress is not the exact shade of blue it's
supposed to be or if her skin is a bit too yellow. it simply doesn't
matter.




--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 1:52 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The definition of "perfect" being good enough that no human could tell
the difference.

there are a lot of humans who can tell the difference between a canned
profile and a properly made profile for the printer/ink/paper combo you
are actually using.

however, the difference is usually minor and most people don't care.

It is not a case of "most people don't care" that makes
the difference. What makes a difference is the job.

If you, for example, get a contract with Nikon to
generate an advertisement, which makes more than minimal
use of the color yellow... it won't make a difference
to anyone of the poster stapled to a telephone pole down
the rode from your home is even close to the same color
yellow as is seen in the poster stapled to an alley wall
on the other side of town. Clearly if the two posters
are printed on different machines, using different paper
and different inks, all will be fine even if stock
profiles are used.

Now consider putting an insert into a magazine, between
two pages that also have Nikon's yellow. Two different
types of paper, maybe two different printers and sets of
ink. And stock profiles would probably produce a
product that almost everyone would see as two different
colors of yellow... because they are both right there
next to each other! And Nikon will reject your work,
not pay you, and never talk to you again.

those are not a 'most people' scenario.

You do see where I pointedly said that is NOT the
scenario that matters... Of course what does matter is
therefore a case of "those are not a 'most people'
scenario."

Think before you blabber so much.

i have been.

perhaps you ought to try it.

the reality is that most people do not care about accurate colour. they
were happy with 1-hour photo-processing and they're happy with whatever
they get from a printer, even *without* any colour management at all,
as long as it's reasonably close.

But the fact is that most people do care. That is why a
company like Nikon is very very careful about having the
yellow exactly the same on two page spread in a
magazine. Not close, not most of the time, but exact the
same every time.

*nikon* might care because it's their ad.

If it isn't, people will notice and people will react
negatively.

no they won't. they'll just think it's a bad print run and move on.

to put it another way, grandma isn't going to complain that her
granddaughter susie's dress is not the exact shade of blue it's
supposed to be or if her skin is a bit too yellow. it simply doesn't
matter.

Because she can't compare them. It isn't that she just
doesn't care.

sure she can compare them. the grandkid is right next to her wearing
the very same blue dress she bought for her.

most people are happy if the photo is in focus. they're really not all
that fussy.

photogeeks are fussy, but they're the minority.

And those who don't care, don't belong in photo groups, when they try to
lower standards. Perhaps, you ought to sit back quietly, learn, and
submit your photos for an honest critique. It might even improve your work.

--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 2:15 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

the reality is that most people do not care about accurate colour. they
were happy with 1-hour photo-processing and they're happy with whatever
they get from a printer, even *without* any colour management at all,
as long as it's reasonably close.

But the fact is that most people do care. That is why a
company like Nikon is very very careful about having the
yellow exactly the same on two page spread in a
magazine. Not close, not most of the time, but exact the
same every time.

*nikon* might care because it's their ad.

Signature colors are considered to be IP these days. Nikon might be
concerned about threespassing on let's say Cat's yellow...

again, this is not about nikon and a two page ad.

most people don't care if the yellow dress or yellow flower in their
photo is not *exactly* correct.


So what's your point.

--
PeterN

On 09/17/2015 10:11 AM, PeterN wrote:



Yep. Just like some musicians have perfect pitch...my wife is an artist
and has the equivalent to perfect color definition.

The definition of "perfect" being good enough that no human could tell
the difference.

We stick with Epson paper and ink as well...and have had incredibly good
results.

The only one you have to please is yourself. Unless you are selling, in
which case you must please your clients.




When it comes to color, my wife is more discriminatory that I am...
she does make sure that Photoshop properly communicates with the printer
however...she did tell me that some minor tweaks might be needed initially.

On 09/17/2015 10:08 AM, PeterN wrote:




I have a cheap laser printer for text...since 95% of what I do is just
printing out crossword puzzles...I'm still using a cartridge which
should otherwise have been replaced.
If we need a decent quality letter printed, the old Epson should be
better than that.

I ran some more tests on it this morning and the color quality is poor,
but for a text printer it's still pretty good...so I think I will keep
it and use it until the last of our old ink is used up.



OT warning.
When I got my first computers I bought a Lanier with a daisy wheel
printer, for briefs and letters, and an AppleII with an Epson dot matrix
for financial projections. In those days there was a perception that
anything done on a computer was accurate. The dot matrix printer made
the prepared projections screamed: PREPARED BY COMPUTER.
Wow! have prices dropped. I paid a bit over 14G for the Lanier and about
$4,200 for the AppleII with Visicalc and the Epson.




My first printer was a Canon BJC-5100


I bought it because is could do up to 11" x 16" or so.

I was a newbie and did not know that the printer relied so much on the
speed of the CPU and I was only using a P-1 @75 mhz with probably not
much RAM


It printed beautifully but I only did one large print as it took four hours!