Inkjet printing both sides

"rjn" wrote in message
...
"Burt" wrote:

My question to you is - on a thread dealing with printing
both sides of paper, why would you offer an unsolicited,
gratuitous comment on the evils of aftermarket inks?

Had I any suspicion that it would have set off a flame
fest, I wouldn't have.

But it was admittedly a gratuitous remark.

And despite the foamers and stalkers who claim
to be able to read my mind, the remark was only
intended to get inkjet newbies to investigate before
assuming that inkjet consumables are like optical
media - that anything sold "for" your printer brand
is necessarily safe to use in it, much less will provide
predictable results without testing and characterizing it.

Cheap CD-Rs may fail to store your data,
but they usually won't destroy your CD writer.
That can happen with re-fills, and when a newbie
discovers that the first replacement batch of full-
capacity ctgs costs as much as the printer, the
temptation to try a too-cheap solution is strong.

I assumed the experienced readers would recognize
that the statement was mostly tongue in cheek.
Guess not.

--
Regards, Bob Niland

I appreciate your response, Bob. When the issue of aftermarket inks come up
I would caution people to be wary of most prefilled aftermarket carts and
only use bulk inks for refilling that have been well tested in the
marketplace and recommended on forums such as this one. I questioned your
blanket negative and would prefer to see a more nuanced statement that
differentiates between generics, big-box store one-size-fits-all refill
kits, and well recommended inks like Imaging Specialist or Formulabs, both
brands of ink that are manufactured by respected ink formulators, that are
predictable, time after time. I think that this sort of response would be a
greater service to a newbie with an interest in trying non-OEM inks. They
should also be aware that they would do best with custom profiles, although
IS inks in my printers produce fantastic prints with little or no tweaking.

Our formost critic on this matter will remind us that Alotofthings one time
shipped a different Magenta bulk ink for Canon printers that created a very
poor color balance when printing photos. As soon as they were alerted to
the problem they immediately notified all customers to whom they had shipped
the wrong product and sent them the correct ink ASAP.

Believe me when I say that I wasn't flaming you - I only pointed up the fact
the the comment was unsolicited and was similar in context to our troll's
blanket negative posts on aftermarket inks. My touch of sarcasm was in the
same vein as your expectation that people would recognize your
tongue-in-cheek intent.

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:UXsEj.99490$pM4.49075@pd7urf1no...
Hi Burt,

I know this is a sensitive area on this newsgroup, unfortunately, due to
our neighborhood troll, but I think you may be "killing the messenger" in
this case.

I think the reason Bob brought this matter up was probably because I made
a comment in my small treatise on paper types about OEM ink and paper
combinations being more reliable than mixing and matching. In general,
this is true, BTW. Most inks and papers made or distributed under the
name of the OEM will have been tested if not formulated for each other.

However, that doesn't preclude that 3rd party inks and papers can't or
won't work. It is just that they take more testing to determine which
work best with one another. For the occasional printer, who wants
consistent results without a lot of experimentation or wishful thinking,
using OEM will probably be a better choice, although considerably more
costly.

For people who do a lot of printing and go through a lot of consumables,
it may well be worth it to experiment and test to find the best ink and
paper combinations. It can save well over 50% which can become
substantial for those who churn out even a couple of prints a day.

Art


Thanks for the response, Art. My experience with refilling was a very easy
one. I read several articles and visited enough sites to gain a better
understanding of what was available. Fortunately, I stumbled onto Neil
Slade's site, saw his sample photos printed with OEM and MIS inks, bought
the printer he recommended, and had no negative experiences from day one
with the products he suggested. I did print my own sample photos on Canon
and Epson glossy paper with both OEM and MIS inks and actually found that I
liked the MIS results better than he OEM inks! It took very little
experimenting to zero in on what worked for me. If I had blindly bought the
cheapest prefilled carts on ebay or the IMS generic refill kits at Costco I
would have probably had a poor experience and would have decided to stay
with OEM inks. I do have a problem with someone making a gratuitous blanket
condemnation of these products as you and I both recognize there is merit in
considering the use of good quality non-OEM inks if they satisfy your needs.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

That's what I was trying to explain via this word description in a
previous email, perhaps not very effectively...

Also, if you print the card the right way and do a four way fold, if
you print the front and back in one direction, and the inside panels
upside down and fold it, you can print the whole card on one sheet on
one side. Using a full letter size (8.5" x 11" page, the card will end
up folded dimensions of 5.5" x 4.25" front surface with the two inside
panels being 5.5" x 8.5" total.

Art




Terry Pinnell wrote:


Great, thanks Art. Goes into my file for future reference. Meanwhile
can anyone recommend a double-sided glossy inkjet paper please, UK
online supplied? I want gloss on both sides. Just bought 25 sheets of
A4, 150g 'Photo Gloss' from www.photopaperdirect.com, but that is matt
on the back.

BTW, after much frustration I eventually made my finished card by
printing images on the glossy side of my original paper, like this:

.-------------------------------------.
|.----------------. .----------------.|
|| Top of image | | Top of image ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Back | | Front ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|'----------------' '----------------'|
|.----------------. .----------------.|
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Inside Left | | Inside Left ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Top of image | | Top of image ||
|'----------------' '----------------'|
'-------------------------------------'

I folded it (vertically and horizontally) *before* printing, which I
felt would minimise the risk of spoiling the result by the
considerable handling/squeezing necessary for to get decent creases.
The disadvantage of this was that the slightly raised creases had a
little ink on them in places. (Tipp-Ex to the rescue!)

The major problem I had was getting the images and gaps positioned
correctly for the folds. I was using PaintShop Pro 8, but I'm darned
if I've ever properly understood why the Print Preview can't give a
workably accurate representation of what I'll actually get. In the end
I resorted to trial/error, using b/w economy mode. If anyone has any
practical advice on this aspect I'd appreciate hearing it please.


Ah, so you did, sorry! I must have skated quickly over that. Then used
the time gained by re-inventing the technique ;-) But I do admit to
feeling quite pleased with it. The finished card looks pretty good. In
fact I spent another hour or two going back over the various files I'd
used and making a 'template' which I can use in future, hopefully in a
fraction of the time that the original one took. It also positions
each of the 4 sections more symmetrically - that was the main aspect
with which I felt dissatisfied. I had to resort to trial and error
again to achieve these correct margins on each section. In essence, I
pushed each one diagonally out towards its corner.

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
...
SNIP

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Have a look at
http://www.on-linepaper.co.uk/
Specifically
click on the "Digital Fine art & Other Inkjet Papers"
Then search for "Double"

They appear to have a wide selection of double sided papers, more than I've
been able to find in the US.

Jim

Hey, reinventing the wheel is sometime show the greatest ideas are come
upon, and besides, as you stated, the self-satisfaction of coming up
with a solution to a problem sometimes outweighs the time it took.

Sounds like you'll be busy making greeting cards for the foreseeable
future, and hopefully giving Hallmark a run for their money.

Enjoy!

Art



Terry Pinnell wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:

That's what I was trying to explain via this word description in a
previous email, perhaps not very effectively...

Also, if you print the card the right way and do a four way fold, if
you print the front and back in one direction, and the inside panels
upside down and fold it, you can print the whole card on one sheet on
one side. Using a full letter size (8.5" x 11" page, the card will end
up folded dimensions of 5.5" x 4.25" front surface with the two inside
panels being 5.5" x 8.5" total.
Art



Terry Pinnell wrote:

Great, thanks Art. Goes into my file for future reference. Meanwhile
can anyone recommend a double-sided glossy inkjet paper please, UK
online supplied? I want gloss on both sides. Just bought 25 sheets of
A4, 150g 'Photo Gloss' from www.photopaperdirect.com, but that is matt
on the back.

BTW, after much frustration I eventually made my finished card by
printing images on the glossy side of my original paper, like this:

.-------------------------------------.
|.----------------. .----------------.|
|| Top of image | | Top of image ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Back | | Front ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|'----------------' '----------------'|
|.----------------. .----------------.|
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Inside Left | | Inside Left ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| Top of image | | Top of image ||
|'----------------' '----------------'|
'-------------------------------------'

I folded it (vertically and horizontally) *before* printing, which I
felt would minimise the risk of spoiling the result by the
considerable handling/squeezing necessary for to get decent creases.
The disadvantage of this was that the slightly raised creases had a
little ink on them in places. (Tipp-Ex to the rescue!)

The major problem I had was getting the images and gaps positioned
correctly for the folds. I was using PaintShop Pro 8, but I'm darned
if I've ever properly understood why the Print Preview can't give a
workably accurate representation of what I'll actually get. In the end
I resorted to trial/error, using b/w economy mode. If anyone has any
practical advice on this aspect I'd appreciate hearing it please.


Ah, so you did, sorry! I must have skated quickly over that. Then used
the time gained by re-inventing the technique ;-) But I do admit to
feeling quite pleased with it. The finished card looks pretty good. In
fact I spent another hour or two going back over the various files I'd
used and making a 'template' which I can use in future, hopefully in a
fraction of the time that the original one took. It also positions
each of the 4 sections more symmetrically - that was the main aspect
with which I felt dissatisfied. I had to resort to trial and error
again to achieve these correct margins on each section. In essence, I
pushed each one diagonally out towards its corner.

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

"jimkramer" wrote:

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
.. .
SNIP

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Have a look at
http://www.on-linepaper.co.uk/
Specifically
click on the "Digital Fine art & Other Inkjet Papers"
Then search for "Double"

They appear to have a wide selection of double sided papers, more than I've
been able to find in the US.

Jim


Thanks Jim. Found several candidates, although they are a bit pricey.
Also, not sure any of them are glossy on *both* sides. This looks
closest, assuming 'satin' is rather like gloss:
ImaJet-Folex Hi & Dri 2/Side Coated Photo Gloss / Photo Matt Paper
220gsm; 1/Side Hi & Dri Photo-Gloss paper with the renowned Satin Matt
Coating on the reverse. 50 sheets A4 @ £25.00 (+VAT).

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
...
"jimkramer" wrote:

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
. ..
SNIP

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Have a look at
http://www.on-linepaper.co.uk/
Specifically
click on the "Digital Fine art & Other Inkjet Papers"
Then search for "Double"

They appear to have a wide selection of double sided papers, more than
I've
been able to find in the US.

Jim


Thanks Jim. Found several candidates, although they are a bit pricey.
Also, not sure any of them are glossy on *both* sides. This looks
closest, assuming 'satin' is rather like gloss:
ImaJet-Folex Hi & Dri 2/Side Coated Photo Gloss / Photo Matt Paper
220gsm; 1/Side Hi & Dri Photo-Gloss paper with the renowned Satin Matt
Coating on the reverse. 50 sheets A4 @ £25.00 (+VAT).

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

The other thing to look at is a printing service. I've used Vistaprint:
http://www.vistaprint.com/
with very good results for glossy business cards, glossy post cards and
glossy greeting cards. If you subscribe to their neverending mailing list
and you will eventually get an offer that is what you want and reasonable
cost-wise. I think that their straight pricing is a bit high, but the
discount pricing is about right.

Jim

Burt wrote:

"rjn" wrote in message news:fa7cd56b-ac15-4d48-9023-582bca9...oglegroups.com...



On Mar 18, 9:23 pm, Arthur Entlich wrote:



(snip)



For really unpredictable results, use refilled ink. Regards, Bob Niland



Not so, Bob. There are some very good refill inks available

Not really.  Vendors will not disclose what they are really selling; they sell the same stuff under different names; so you cannot tell what is worse and what is not quite as bad.  Worse yet they will not tell you when they change sources so you never know if you get the same thing from the same vendor at different times.


color response will not be EXACTLY the same as OEM inks,

That is true


but the difference with some is negligable.

The difference is substantial.  Million of user buy OEM ink and pay more for a reason.


If the user wants to get the most precise color rendition you can get a custom profile for the ink/paper combination.

That can cost a lot of money and only if you know the ink and that ink is consistent


You would need to calibrate your monitor and use software that will provide color management with a custom profile. More interestingly, however, is your negative gratuitous comment about inks in a thread having to do with inkjet printing on both sides of the paper! Is this some sort of unsolicited public service or are you Measekite's alter ego?

Burt wrote:

"rjn" wrote in message news:6b471f97-01f9-4781-b7ae-bc5930c...oglegroups.com...



"Burt" wrote:



My question to you is - on a thread dealing with printing both sides of paper, why would you offer an unsolicited, gratuitous comment on the evils of aftermarket inks?



Had I any suspicion that it would have set off a flame fest, I wouldn't have. But it was admittedly a gratuitous remark. And despite the foamers and stalkers who claim to be able to read my mind, the remark was only intended to get inkjet newbies to investigate before assuming that inkjet consumables are like optical media - that anything sold "for" your printer brand is necessarily safe to use in it, much less will provide predictable results without testing and characterizing it. Cheap CD-Rs may fail to store your data, but they usually won't destroy your CD writer. That can happen with re-fills, and when a newbie discovers that the first replacement batch of full- capacity ctgs costs as much as the printer, the temptation to try a too-cheap solution is strong. I assumed the experienced readers would recognize that the statement was mostly tongue in cheek. Guess not. -- Regards, Bob Niland



I appreciate your response, Bob. When the issue of aftermarket inks come up I would caution people to be wary of most prefilled aftermarket carts and only use bulk inks for refilling that have been well tested in the marketplace and recommended on forums such as this one.

Many people in these forums are in the business or associated with marketeers who sell bulk ink.


I questioned your blanket negative and would prefer to see a more nuanced statement that differentiates between generics, big-box store one-size-fits-all refill kits, and well recommended inks like Imaging Specialist or Formulabs, both brands of ink that are manufactured by respected ink formulators,

Other than Formulabs there really is little difference.  And the vendors who buy from Formulabs and sell prefilled carts will usually not disclose what they are selling.  A few say they sell Formulabs ink in one section of their website but not in another.  There is not consistencey.  I found out that many times their web name from ink is the same but the actual mfg can vary from cart to cart or ink number to ink number.  You really cannot be sure of what you are getting.

This is a photo website and most photographers who spend a great deal of money on cameras and lenses want the best and longest lasting fade resistant prints they can get and are usually willing to pay for it.  Most use Epson pigmented ink and many afford wide format printers.  Canon ink may not quite have the longevity but the prints are usually more vivid and their printers are faster.  Other than the Epson 3800, I prefer Canon but Epson is very good.  I do not like HP for photos but do for business printing.


that are predictable, time after time. I think that this sort of response would be a greater service to a newbie with an interest in trying non-OEM inks. They should also be aware that they would do best with custom profiles, although IS inks in my printers produce fantastic prints with little or no tweaking. Our formost critic on this matter will remind us that Alotofthings

I would never buy from them.  They would not tell me what they are selling when I called and I did not like their attitude.


one time shipped a different Magenta bulk ink for Canon printers that created a very poor color balance when printing photos. As soon as they were alerted to the problem they immediately notified all customers to whom they had shipped the wrong product and sent them the correct ink ASAP.

They did not ship the wrong product.  The issues was that the mfg had some issues with the ink they sold.  Many vendors who bought that ink from that vendor had the same problems.  While not sure I think the mfg was Formulabs.  But they do not sell to the public under their own name unless you buy gallons of each color.


Believe me when I say that I wasn't flaming you -

I find it difficult to believe this post.


I only pointed up the fact the the comment was unsolicited and was similar in context to our troll's blanket negative posts on aftermarket inks.

It is obvious he does not like those who do not agree with him.  And he has a group of friends in the print forum but most can tell who they are.


My touch of sarcasm was in the same vein as your expectation that people would recognize your tongue-in-cheek intent.

? "Terry Pinnell" ?????? ??? ??????
...
"jimkramer" wrote:

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
.. .
SNIP

With a wedding anniversary due soon, I'm thinking I might try the
single-fold alternative, to get a larger card. But I'm still keen to
make both sides glossy, so still hope someone can recommend suitable
(UK-supplied) paper please. And of course that will need a redesign of
all the image sizes and positions. Maybe a trip to WH Smith would be
easier ... but where's the fun in that?!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Have a look at
http://www.on-linepaper.co.uk/
Specifically
click on the "Digital Fine art & Other Inkjet Papers"
Then search for "Double"

They appear to have a wide selection of double sided papers, more than
I've
been able to find in the US.

Jim


Thanks Jim. Found several candidates, although they are a bit pricey.
Also, not sure any of them are glossy on *both* sides. This looks
closest, assuming 'satin' is rather like gloss:
ImaJet-Folex Hi & Dri 2/Side Coated Photo Gloss / Photo Matt Paper
220gsm; 1/Side Hi & Dri Photo-Gloss paper with the renowned Satin Matt
Coating on the reverse. 50 sheets A4 @ £25.00 (+VAT).

Canon photo paper plus (double sided) satin 13 X 18 (5 X 7 ") code PP-101D.
10 sheets, 273 g/m^2, comes with special blotting paper snd some strange
holder (disposable) that allows the paper to dry without any of its surfaces
touching your desk.
I got it for 15 euros IIRC.
On my canon Pixma iP 4300 prints very well, and on both sides automatically.
There is even a special Canon album for double sided paper.
This satin paper reminded of my darkroom days, when I used Agfa Baryta warm
tone paper... It took me a whole afternoon for a dozen of photos, things are
so easy now with digital....



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr