Inkjet printers that use 4 inks

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

SimonLW wrote:
I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:


SimonLW wrote:

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S


If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The pix
will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you can see
every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic capability is
whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.

Gary Eickmeier

Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and relatives, I'm happy with
what looks good to the eye. I'm well satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer,
using a 3-color cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that occasionally,
I will take my file to a photo service that does a pro-level job - not a drugstore.

"SimonLW" wrote in message
...
I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

Use Photobox or similar for best cost/quality. Printing at home is expensive
and time consuming.

"SimonLW" wrote in message
...
I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
experience...from about 4 days ago.
I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
about to learn a thing or two).

First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
system.

As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.

So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
a green and a red tank to the colour mix.

I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
with the 8500.

Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.

As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.

Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.

Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
already begun to fade.

HTH...didn't mean to write a novel.

WW

IP4000 uses 4 dye base inks for photos (CYMK) and a separate pigmented
black tank for business documents. The printer also has twin paper
feeds and prints duplex. It is utterly fantastic. It can be had for
around $100 if you watch the sales and apply for the rebate.

I use the printer with OEM inks and either use Canon Photo Paper Pro or
Costco/Kirkland Glossy and cut my own small sized using a Fiskars rotary
paper cutter also purchased at Costco. The ink costs $9.00 a cart at
Costco.

SimonLW wrote:

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

Marvin wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:



SimonLW wrote:

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for
printing photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S



If you take a loupe to a store you can see the main difference. The
pix will look fine from a distance, but up close or with a loupe you
can see every little dot. For me, the standard of photographic
capability is whether I see those dots or not. Your mileage may vary.

Gary Eickmeier


Since I don't look at prints with a loupe, nor do my friends and
relatives, I'm happy with what looks good to the eye. I'm well
satisfied woth the prints I get from my HP printer, using a 3-color
cartridge and a black cartridge. If I need better than that
occasionally, I will take my file to a photo service that does a
pro-level job - not a drugstore.


I have an HP 990 and a Canon IP4000. I use and like the HP for business
draft printing. I like the Canon for Photo printing and business letter
quality printing that I plan to hilight since it does not smear. The HP
produces the best high quality business documents as long as you do not
hi Lite them. The IP4000 is fantastic.

I know nothing about Canon and it's print heads, but if they can be removed,
can't you soak in a warm ammonia solution to clear the clog. Worked for my
Lexmark, although it was still a lousy printer which I finally junked and
never replaced.
Dave Cohen

"measekite" wrote in message
m...
IP4000 uses 4 dye base inks for photos (CYMK) and a separate pigmented
black tank for business documents. The printer also has twin paper feeds
and prints duplex. It is utterly fantastic. It can be had for around
$100 if you watch the sales and apply for the rebate.

I use the printer with OEM inks and either use Canon Photo Paper Pro or
Costco/Kirkland Glossy and cut my own small sized using a Fiskars rotary
paper cutter also purchased at Costco. The ink costs $9.00 a cart at
Costco.

SimonLW wrote:

I wonder if there are any models that will do a good job for printing
photos
or is 6 or more ink colors the only way to fly?
Thanks -S

WormWood wrote:

There's more to it than what you see with a loupe. Here's my recent
experience...from about 4 days ago.
I had been using a Canon S820 (6 colour)...but I did a *baaaad* thing and
used aftermarket inks, and the printer head clogged. A new head costs close
to 200 American dollars...so it became printer-hunting time. My 6 ink S820
printed excellent photos by the way (or so I thought at the time...I was
about to learn a thing or two).

First FWIW. A friend has a Canon pixma iP3000. It is a 4 ink system...1
black and 3 colour tanks. It does a very nice job of photos, and is very
inexpensive. If you are printing family snapshots there is nothing wrong
with a printer like this. If you are printing professionally (for lack of a
better word) then you want at least a 6 ink system and more likely an 8 ink
system.

As a result of previous experiences I am pretty much set on Canon printers,
though I am of the opinion that all brands of high end printers do an equal
job. I like the Canon ink system...and I like Canon's software. This is not
an advertisement...buy whatever brand you like.

So...I researched Canon printers to death and had pretty much decided on the
Pixma iP6000D...while lusting after the iP8500 (but not wanting to spend the
money). The 6000 is a 6 tank system while the 8500 is 8 tanks. The 8500 adds
a green and a red tank to the colour mix.

I toddled off to my local professional camera store to get a few expert
opinions before parting with my cash. My research had indicated that the
additional red and green tanks in the 8500 made a significant difference
when printing colours in the red, green, and orange range. We selected a pro
quality photo of vegetables in a market...sitting in a wooden crate and
surrounded by other veggies. Lots of reds (tomatoes) greens (vines and
leaves) and some orange (an orange bell pepper). All prints we made were 8.5
x 11 borderless done on Canon Photo Paper Pro (glossy). First out was from
the 6000D, and I was amazed at the quality. The tomatoes were red, tending
towards a lighter red/orange around the top of the tomato on the stem end. I
won't waste space with more description, suffice it to say it was a very
nice picture. We then printed the same photo on the 8500. I was astounded. I
expected one of those situations where an expert in printed matter could
look at it and point out where the reds and greens were 'better'. In fact,
the difference was night and day. The tomatoes were a much deeper, richer,
red. The greens were likewise. The whole photo was noticably better. This
was a print that came with bragging rights! There was an area on the top
edge of the wooden crate that was washed out by sunlight in the print from
the 6000D. On the 8500 print, more detail was visible in this area...wood
grain not visible in the 6000D print was visible on this one. End of story
as far as I was concerned...I plunked down double the money and walked out
with the 8500.

Second FWIW. We printed this pic a second time on the 8500, selecting the
'standard' setting, instead of 'quality'. This produced a print that was
very similar to the 6000D at its 'quality' setting.

As a side benefit...the 8500 has a LARGE printhead...6000+ nozzles...this
thing churns out an 8.5 x 11 in about a minute...my S820 took closer to 3.

Since setting this up at home I have printed about 10 full page photos. I
continued to be amazed at the quality, as do others who have seen them. I
had been printing on Epson glossy photo paper with excellent results. I
thought I'd check the claim about 'Canon ink on Canon paper' (using the same
picture) so see if that was 'advertising-hooey' or not. It is not...the
difference is pretty significant. With the Canon paper you get a *glossy*
finish. With the Epson paper you get a shiny but more matte like finish...I
considered it to be high gloss until I saw the difference the Canon paper
made. Under glass the difference is less noticable, and I fully intend to
continue using the Epson paper for much of my printing.

Third FWIW. I cannot guarantee that the head clogged on my S820 because of
after-market ink but I strongly suspect that is the case. It once sat unused
for over 4 months (with Canon inks) without a problem. Sitting unused for
about 3 weeks with all after-market inks...I now have a paperweight. Not
worth the risk. During this episode I reprinted some photos previously done
about 14 months ago with after-market inks...even factoring in that this
printer is doing a much better job...I am pretty sure those older pics have
already begun to fade.

Agreed - my 8500 replaced an i950, and I thought the difference was
amazing. The color is rich, gorgeous, and very accurate, every nuance of
subtle shade change coming out in the print and matching the screen
well. Sharp, rich, and very photographic.

Gary Eickmeier

"Dave Cohen" wrote in message
ink.net...
I know nothing about Canon and it's print heads, but if they can be
removed, can't you soak in a warm ammonia solution to clear the clog.
Worked for my Lexmark, although it was still a lousy printer which I
finally junked and never replaced.
Dave Cohen

I had a go at that. I used isopropyl alcohol. It definitely dissolved the
ink because the alcohol it was soaking in got dirty, instantly. I soaked for
several hours..changing the alcohol several times until it stayed pretty
much clean. Dried it and reinstalled it. Did the head alignment thing..head
cleaning thing..no difference. Took it out and went through the process
again, but this time soaked it overnight. Did the alignment/cleaning
process. Absolute crap...soaking overnight made the output totaly useless.
Text went from being banded and faint to being banded, fainter, *and* fuzzy.
I suppose I could have tried other things, but I am not one for flogging
dead horses...or dead printers. It's still sitting here...it's hard to throw
something like this away...it *looks* just fine..

I don't know the internal workings of these heads...but I am guessing these
nozzles are just too fine for soaking to clean them out. Perhaps if I filled
6 empty cartridges with alcohol, or some other cleaning fluid, and then ran
through the cleaning cycle 2, 20, 100??? times...to force the fluid through
the head...that might make a difference...but, as I said, too much effort
for an unknown end result. To be honest....now that I see how much better
this 8500 prints...I'm actually glad the cleaning didn't work.

WW