Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

Ron Cohen wrote:

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.

Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
cents (Canadian) per 4x6.

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.

Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

-Taliesyn

Ron Cohen wrote:

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.

Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
cents (Canadian) per 4x6.

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.

Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

-Taliesyn

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.

"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 use Kodak paper with my HP printers, and it works well. Kodak
supplies specific software, and firmware for these printers, so this is
no surprise. Can't speak for Epson, but would probably go with Epson
papers, and experiment a bit, as you have done.


--
Ron Hunter

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.

"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 use Kodak paper with my HP printers, and it works well. Kodak
supplies specific software, and firmware for these printers, so this is
no surprise. Can't speak for Epson, but would probably go with Epson
papers, and experiment a bit, as you have done.


--
Ron Hunter

Burt wrote:
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!


They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't
need a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
For Win9x versions, you do.



--
Ron Hunter

Burt wrote:
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!


They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't
need a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
For Win9x versions, you do.



--
Ron Hunter

I included that info in the question to the Kodak tech rep - I asked about
WinXP (which I have) and also about previous Windows OS that he might find
on someone elses computer. I believe that Win2K has plug and play with a
card reader or camera as well, but you would have to access it as another
drive and not through the media window as exists in XP.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Burt wrote:
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!


They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't need
a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
For Win9x versions, you do.



--
Ron Hunter

I included that info in the question to the Kodak tech rep - I asked about
WinXP (which I have) and also about previous Windows OS that he might find
on someone elses computer. I believe that Win2K has plug and play with a
card reader or camera as well, but you would have to access it as another
drive and not through the media window as exists in XP.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Burt wrote:
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!


They probably didn't know what OS he was using. For WinXP, you don't need
a Kodak driver for that camera, or many other Kodak cameras.
For Win9x versions, you do.



--
Ron Hunter

They will send you a sample ------ for a price!

"Taliesyn" wrote in message
...
Ron Cohen wrote:

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.

Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
cents (Canadian) per 4x6.

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.

Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

-Taliesyn

They will send you a sample ------ for a price!

"Taliesyn" wrote in message
...
Ron Cohen wrote:

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.

Haven't tried any of the above. Tried some on eBay (some very good, some
not that good). My favorite right now is Costco's Kirkland Professional
Glossy. Prints great, Looks great, feels great, priced great - about 7
cents (Canadian) per 4x6.

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.

Exactly as you stated, I too got some excellent results with
Kodak Ultima, but not with the recommended settings. My printer
worked well using OEM inks set to Photo Paper Pro. I believe
that's the only setting I can get my iP5000 to print at 9600 dpi.
But it failed when using non-OEM inks. As such, any paper with
such a narrow margin of tolerance isn't worth the trouble. There
are far better, more user friendly papers. So far no one's mentioned
Fuji papers, another Kodak Film competitor. As I'm always game for
trying new papers, I should pick up a sampler pack or something. Are
those days gone when companies sent you samples? ;-) . . .

-Taliesyn