Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.

"Patrick" wrote in message
...
he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.

"Patrick" wrote in message
...
he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.

"Patrick" wrote in message
...
he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.

Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

Burt wrote:
I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.


The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform
a paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

"Patrick" wrote in message
...

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.


Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

Burt wrote:
I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.


The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform
a paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

"Patrick" wrote in message
...

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.


Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

Burt wrote:
I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they recommended
and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the dark areas. I
feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the reasons you stated,
but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my canon i960. Epson, Canon,
and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no reason to waste my time
tinkering with the Kodak papers.


The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform
a paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

"Patrick" wrote in message
...

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.


Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to be
compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done profiles for
all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me a print, made on
kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that only does 4x6) and
your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface of the paper. Wierd!
I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every complaint on this NG with
the assurance that the paper is compatable with all the printers with the
suggestion that one downloads and prints out of the kodak software and uses
settings specific to their printer. I followed their instructions and still
couldn't get a decent result (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In
addition, I waant to use Photoshop to adjust images and print from as well.
Their software is easy but not full featured like PS.

My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought a
Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom, 4
MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp images
and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with very little
computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know how to use his
camera while abroad and send images back to friends by email. He hadn't
brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so I couldn't attach it
to my computer to see if the camera would be recognized as an additional
disk drive. The USB port/cable end that Kodak uses was different from the
standard AB cable used for printers and for my Olympus cameras. I don't
know if the Kodak cable is proprietary or just a different standard cable.
I emailed Kodak tech support and asked if the camera would be recognized as
a drive when attached to the computer via USB cable and the reply said that
he could hook the camera up to a computer, download their software to the
computer, and use their software to send an image by email. I replied that
no one is going to want software installed on their computer by a stranger
who wants to send an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should
buy a usb card reader to use when away from home. We found later that he
could simply attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak
tech support didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!

"Taliesyn" wrote in message
...
Burt wrote:
I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they
recommended and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the
dark areas. I feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the
reasons you stated, but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my
canon i960. Epson, Canon, and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no
reason to waste my time tinkering with the Kodak papers.


The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform a
paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

"Patrick" wrote in message
...

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.


Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending
it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick

There is very little difference, if any, in color tone and intensity when
printing on any of the three papers I mentioned when using my i960. I
acutally like the kirkland paper more than the canon pro and it is much
cheaper besides. I would bet that the Kodak paper is simply designed to be
compatable with the Kodak printer/ink system and they have done profiles for
all printers to expand their marketplace. A friend sent me a print, made on
kodak paper in a kodak printer (possibly the one that only does 4x6) and
your can see the darkest areas raised from the surface of the paper. Wierd!
I have seen the kodak rep's posts following every complaint on this NG with
the assurance that the paper is compatable with all the printers with the
suggestion that one downloads and prints out of the kodak software and uses
settings specific to their printer. I followed their instructions and still
couldn't get a decent result (prints didn't dry and had bronzing). In
addition, I waant to use Photoshop to adjust images and print from as well.
Their software is easy but not full featured like PS.

My brother-in-law is not computer literate and never will be. He bought a
Kodak digital camera that takes beautiful pictures - 10x optical zoom, 4
MPixels. One reason he bought it is because it comes with the docking
station and easyprint software. Kodak has approached the segment of the
marketplace that wants a dumbed down system which does not have a steep
learning curve. Not really a bad idea. The camera takes very sharp images
and has lots of excellent features, but it can also be used with very little
computer knowledge. So --- my brother-in-law wanted to know how to use his
camera while abroad and send images back to friends by email. He hadn't
brought his USB cable with hime when he visited us, so I couldn't attach it
to my computer to see if the camera would be recognized as an additional
disk drive. The USB port/cable end that Kodak uses was different from the
standard AB cable used for printers and for my Olympus cameras. I don't
know if the Kodak cable is proprietary or just a different standard cable.
I emailed Kodak tech support and asked if the camera would be recognized as
a drive when attached to the computer via USB cable and the reply said that
he could hook the camera up to a computer, download their software to the
computer, and use their software to send an image by email. I replied that
no one is going to want software installed on their computer by a stranger
who wants to send an email attachment. The tech reply was that he should
buy a usb card reader to use when away from home. We found later that he
could simply attach the camera via USB and it was read as a drive! Kodak
tech support didn't even know its own product. Pretty sad!

"Taliesyn" wrote in message
...
Burt wrote:
I also had problems with Kodak paper on my Epson Stylus 900. I installed
the software that Kodak recommended and used the settings they
recommended and still got ink that didn't dry well and bronzing in the
dark areas. I feel that Baird's suggestions are ok on the NG for the
reasons you stated, but I wouldn't use Kodak paper on my Epson or my
canon i960. Epson, Canon, and Kirkland papers work so well that I see no
reason to waste my time tinkering with the Kodak papers.


The interesting thing is that EPSON GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER is recommended
for Epson printers only. Yet is works on my Canon like it was designed
for it. I couldn't find any mention on the box itself that it was
compatible with other printers.

But on the Kodak Premium box they claim, front and back, that it "works
on all inkjet printers - HP, Canon, Epson, Lexmark, and Dell." And it
doesn't! How can it be that a company as large as Kodak can produce
a paper so incompatible.

How can a paper made to work exclusively on one line (Epson) outperform a
paper designed for a much wider range of printers.

In fact, EVERY paper I've tried prints fine on my Canon (even Dollar
Store paper - excellent!). Color varies, but they all print fine. Kodak
doesn't even print fine, it produces lines and grain, besides being
somewhat washed out.

-Taliesyn

"Patrick" wrote in message
...

he was responding to a question. Bug off!


Other people were chastised for doing what he is doing and it really
does not make any difference what the reasons is.


Other people have been told to FO because they were trying 'hard' to sell
there products, mostly without prompting.
Kodak paper has been slated here quite often. I myself did it earlier in
this thread.
Ron was responding to that by stating that if you follow Kodak's printer
setting recommendations you'll get good results. He wasn't recommending
it
over anything else or suggesting the OP buy it. I think that his post was
legitimate for this group.
If a product can give good results then knowing about it can only be a
good
thing. As it gives us all more choice.

I'd still like to know why Kodak paper is so 'off' on default printer
settings - at least it is with canon printers?

--
Patrick