Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

"Burt" wrote in message
om...
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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
feel that Ron 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.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

"Burt" wrote in message
om...
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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
feel that Ron 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.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
the other paper are. However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
--
Ron Cohen

"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

I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
the other paper are. However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
--
Ron Cohen

"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

I much prefer using Office Depot (Konica), Red River Ultra Pro or Ilford
Gallerie from Sam's over the Kodak Ultima I have on hand. Not just because
of the problems you mention, but because it isn't moisture resistant whereas
the other paper are. However, I have gotten some really nice prints using
Kodak Ultima, but not with any of the recommended settings. It's been a
while since I last used it and don't remember the settings used at the time.
As I get time I'm going to experiment with some of my remaining Ultima (five
packages left) and document the settings. I think that I used glossy paper
setting with my iP4000 and possibly plain paper settings with my i950. Plain
paper definately won't work with the iP4000 since that setting uses
pigmented black and that would cause very noticeable bronzing.
--
Ron Cohen

"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

I believe that Baird works for Kodak. I did buy some Ultima paper a few
years ago when it was on a two for one sale at Office Max. I didn't even
try to tinker beyond the Kodak suggested settings as I had paper that worked
well without wasting the time or ink. I gave the Kodak paper away and moved
on! Why waste the time when there are papers that work really well and are
cheaper besides.
"Patrick" wrote in message
...

"Burt" wrote in message
om...
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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to
have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even
try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I
seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website
for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
feel that Ron 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.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer
set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and
their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

I believe that Baird works for Kodak. I did buy some Ultima paper a few
years ago when it was on a two for one sale at Office Max. I didn't even
try to tinker beyond the Kodak suggested settings as I had paper that worked
well without wasting the time or ink. I gave the Kodak paper away and moved
on! Why waste the time when there are papers that work really well and are
cheaper besides.
"Patrick" wrote in message
...

"Burt" wrote in message
om...
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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to
have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even
try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I
seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website
for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
feel that Ron 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.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer
set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and
their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

I believe that Baird works for Kodak. I did buy some Ultima paper a few
years ago when it was on a two for one sale at Office Max. I didn't even
try to tinker beyond the Kodak suggested settings as I had paper that worked
well without wasting the time or ink. I gave the Kodak paper away and moved
on! Why waste the time when there are papers that work really well and are
cheaper besides.
"Patrick" wrote in message
...

"Burt" wrote in message
om...
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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to
have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even
try -
waste of ink.
Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I
seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website
for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I
feel that Ron 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.

Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer
set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and
their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

Patrick wrote:

"Burt" wrote in message
om...

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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
waste of ink.

I couldn't get Kodak Premium 4x6 to work on ANY setting on my iP5000, my
favorite being Canon Photo Paper Pro. So I went to the Kodak website, as
suggested by the Kodak Rep. Their suggested printer settings produced
a more inferior print than I came up with, if that's possible. Naturally
Kodak tried to blame my non-OEM ink. And naturally I took up the
challenge and proved them wrong. While OEM was a tad better, it was
still totally unacceptable. On a better paper (Dollar Store :-), the
difference in inks would not even be noticeable. And it wasn't when I
ran a test. I wasted enough ink and paper to satisfy myself that this
paper simply was not suitable for use, at least by me. Perhaps a total
newbie in digital printing might think it's just great. But is this the
market Kodak is catering to?

I am referring to Kodak Premium. Kodak Ultima is a better paper, but
performed poorly with non-OEM ink, and still no match for, you guessed
it, my Dollar Store paper (Likon brand), made in China. It works equally
well with ANY ink.

-Taliesyn


Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I

feel that Ron 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.


Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick

Patrick wrote:

"Burt" wrote in message
om...

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 think that is what has got my intrest on this. As I said I expect to have
to 'tinker' with the printer setting when trying new paper. However when I
saw the results on default setting that Kodak paper gave I didn't even try -
waste of ink.

I couldn't get Kodak Premium 4x6 to work on ANY setting on my iP5000, my
favorite being Canon Photo Paper Pro. So I went to the Kodak website, as
suggested by the Kodak Rep. Their suggested printer settings produced
a more inferior print than I came up with, if that's possible. Naturally
Kodak tried to blame my non-OEM ink. And naturally I took up the
challenge and proved them wrong. While OEM was a tad better, it was
still totally unacceptable. On a better paper (Dollar Store :-), the
difference in inks would not even be noticeable. And it wasn't when I
ran a test. I wasted enough ink and paper to satisfy myself that this
paper simply was not suitable for use, at least by me. Perhaps a total
newbie in digital printing might think it's just great. But is this the
market Kodak is catering to?

I am referring to Kodak Premium. Kodak Ultima is a better paper, but
performed poorly with non-OEM ink, and still no match for, you guessed
it, my Dollar Store paper (Likon brand), made in China. It works equally
well with ANY ink.

-Taliesyn


Ron Baird however seems to have faith in this product - I'd like to know
why? I can't try the Kodak site as I'm Linux based and windows free. I seem
to recall the process assumes windows.

I know two things and suspect a third;

1/ Kodak is a large and respected company in the world of photography
2/ Their paper seems too bad to be true.
3/ The pack I bought had a slip of paper in it pointing to their website for
printer settings - This makes me think they know they have a lemon.
I

feel that Ron 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.


Agreed - but on the off chance we're all stupid and have poor printer set-up
I'd still like to know Kodaks take on why default printer setting and their
paper don't mix!

--
Patrick