I'm printing reports with lots of words, small photographic portraits
(2" x 2") and scans of simple line drawings, of about the same size as
the portraits, on a Canon IP4500 with MIS ink. The portraits look
better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
copier guaranteed). The portraits on the Southworth are slightly
fuzzy. However, I like the "feel" and presentation of the Southworth
paper better -- so use it. I think it makes the reports seem
"special."

The text and line drawings look good on both types of paper.

I'm lookng for paper suggestions for this application. Ideally, I'd
like a high quality paper with a great "feel" and presentation, that
would print small portraits crisply.

Thanks,
Larry

In article
<183fc052-6e1d-48ab-8974-(E-Mail Removed)>,
LF <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The portraits look
> better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
> Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
> copier guaranteed)

Larry-

Does Southworth make a similar paper specifically for inkjet printers?
Inkjet-specific paper often has a coating that improves the appearance
of photographs. The fact that your paper is guaranteed to be compatible
with Laser and copier, indicates it does NOT have that coating (which
could ruin a Laser printer).

Another thought - have you considered using a Laser Printer? Advantages
are that the ink (plastic toner) is waterproof, and it is usually less
expensive on a per-print basis.

Fred

On Mar 19, 12:17*pm, Fred McKenzie <fm...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article
> <183fc052-6e1d-48ab-8974-0c2785662...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *LF <fie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The portraits look
> > better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
> > Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
> > copier guaranteed)
>
> Larry-
>
> Does Southworth make a similar paper specifically for inkjet printers? *
><snip>
Good thought. I'll ask.

> Another thought - have you considered using a Laser Printer? *
<snip>
Portraits and pics are in color. Reports are printed on boths sides of
the paper, auto duplex.
I don't know anything about the quality of affordable color laser
that might do the job.
Another good thought.

Thanks,
Larry

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:03:23 -0700, LF wrote:

> I'm printing reports with lots of words, small photographic portraits
> (2" x 2") and scans of simple line drawings, of about the same size as
> the portraits, on a Canon IP4500 with MIS ink. The portraits look
> better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
> Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
> copier guaranteed). The portraits on the Southworth are slightly
> fuzzy. However, I like the "feel" and presentation of the Southworth
> paper better -- so use it. I think it makes the reports seem
> "special."
>
> The text and line drawings look good on both types of paper.
>
> I'm lookng for paper suggestions for this application. Ideally, I'd
> like a high quality paper with a great "feel" and presentation, that
> would print small portraits crisply.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry

To look really good you need OEM ink and Hammermill paper. Using
expensive paper with crap ink will not get you the quality you are after.

measekite wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:03:23 -0700, LF wrote:
>
>> I'm printing reports with lots of words, small photographic portraits
>> (2" x 2") and scans of simple line drawings, of about the same size as
>> the portraits, on a Canon IP4500 with MIS ink. The portraits look
>> better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
>> Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
>> copier guaranteed). The portraits on the Southworth are slightly
>> fuzzy. However, I like the "feel" and presentation of the Southworth
>> paper better -- so use it. I think it makes the reports seem
>> "special."
>>
>> The text and line drawings look good on both types of paper.
>>
>> I'm lookng for paper suggestions for this application. Ideally, I'd
>> like a high quality paper with a great "feel" and presentation, that
>> would print small portraits crisply.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Larry
>
> To look really good you need OEM ink and Hammermill paper. Using
> expensive paper with crap ink will not get you the quality you are after.

He isn't using crap ink. He's using MIS.

TJ

measekite wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:03:23 -0700, LF wrote:
>
>> I'm printing reports with lots of words, small photographic portraits
>> (2" x 2") and scans of simple line drawings, of about the same size as
>> the portraits, on a Canon IP4500 with MIS ink. The portraits look
>> better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
>> Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
>> copier guaranteed). The portraits on the Southworth are slightly
>> fuzzy. However, I like the "feel" and presentation of the Southworth
>> paper better -- so use it. I think it makes the reports seem
>> "special."
>>
>> The text and line drawings look good on both types of paper.
>>
>> I'm lookng for paper suggestions for this application. Ideally, I'd
>> like a high quality paper with a great "feel" and presentation, that
>> would print small portraits crisply.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Larry
>
> To look really good you need OEM ink and Hammermill paper. Using
> expensive paper with crap ink will not get you the quality you are after.

This coming from someone that uses compatible paper is rather ironic.
You expect us to take anything you say as truthful? The facts are that
quality compatible ink is as good as OEM ink just as you know compatible
photo paper is as good as OEM paper. You should have never told us you
buy compatible photo paper because we are going to hammer you with your
own hypocrisy every time you pop your ugly head out of your OEM hole.

I find it interesting that every time someone mentions that you use
compatible photo paper you won't reply to them. It must suck to step on
your OEM crank like you have done by admitting to using compatible photo
paper. Then again, I don't expect anything less than this type of
stupidity from our village idiot.

Empedocles wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:01 pm, Michael Johnson <c...@erols.com> wrote:
>> measekite wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:03:23 -0700, LF wrote:
>>>> I'm printing reports with lots of words, small photographic portraits
>>>> (2" x 2") and scans of simple line drawings, of about the same size as
>>>> the portraits, on a Canon IP4500 with MIS ink. The portraits look
>>>> better on Xerox Premium Multipurpose (96 bright) 24# paper, than on
>>>> Southworth 25% cotton 24# white fine linen paper (laser, inkjet and
>>>> copier guaranteed). The portraits on the Southworth are slightly
>>>> fuzzy. However, I like the "feel" and presentation of the Southworth
>>>> paper better -- so use it. I think it makes the reports seem
>>>> "special."
>>>> The text and line drawings look good on both types of paper.
>>>> I'm lookng for paper suggestions for this application. Ideally, I'd
>>>> like a high quality paper with a great "feel" and presentation, that
>>>> would print small portraits crisply.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Larry
>>> To look really good you need OEM ink and Hammermill paper. Using
>>> expensive paper with crap ink will not get you the quality you are after.
>> This coming from someone that uses compatible paper is rather ironic.
>> You expect us to take anything you say as truthful? The facts are that
>> quality compatible ink is as good as OEM ink just as you know compatible
>> photo paper is as good as OEM paper. You should have never told us you
>> buy compatible photo paper because we are going to hammer you with your
>> own hypocrisy every time you pop your ugly head out of your OEM hole.
>>
>> I find it interesting that every time someone mentions that you use
>> compatible photo paper you won't reply to them. It must suck to step on
>> your OEM crank like you have done by admitting to using compatible photo
>> paper. Then again, I don't expect anything less than this type of
>> stupidity from our village idiot.
>
> Measkite has blown his credibility re: OEM ink superiority long ago
> and still doesn't get it.

He gets it. He just won't admit it.