I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet and
groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
that works well for them.

I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten with
other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous. Kodak's
suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on the
Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.

I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one swellable
for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
some production and stop testing!

I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
experience to save time and money!

I use the ULTIMA Kodak paper (UPP-3-A) and I have gotten good results using
my i960

However, Kodak just updated its setting and there are revision.

here is the page site
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...equestid=26026

I printed the same image using Canon's best paper and the above I could
not see any difference nor could others.

Good luck


"Mindful" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet and
: groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
: work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
: that works well for them.
:
: I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
: Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
: Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
: evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten with
: other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
: trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous. Kodak's
: suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on the
: Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
: tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.
:
: I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
: try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one swellable
: for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
: some production and stop testing!
:
: I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
: experience to save time and money!

Thanks for pointing that out. I had saved a copy of the Kodak's previous
settings and didn't check for an update. It makes a BIG difference in
output quality. Very close to PPP as you say. Mine is bit less "snappy"
but I'm testing on satin finish.
In article <q3dGc.10190$nc.7370@fed1read03>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> I use the ULTIMA Kodak paper (UPP-3-A) and I have gotten good results using
> my i960
>
> However, Kodak just updated its setting and there are revision.
>
> here is the page site
> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...equestid=26026
>
> I printed the same image using Canon's best paper and the above I could
> not see any difference nor could others.
>
> Good luck

>
>
> "Mindful" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> : I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet and
> : groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
> : work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
> : that works well for them.
> :
> : I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
> : Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
> : Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
> : evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten with
> : other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
> : trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous. Kodak's
> : suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on the
> : Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
> : tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.
> :
> : I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
> : try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one swellable
> : for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
> : some production and stop testing!
> :
> : I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
> : experience to save time and money!
>
>
>

Greetings Mindful,

Not sure if your reference is to professional use or just general printing.
If you want particular ICC profiles for your printer when using the new
Kodak Professional Paper, go to the following web page. It will help you
with your printer.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...Profiles.jhtml

If your reference is to Kodak Ultima Paper then I suggest trying EasyShare
and letting that program print for you. As you may know, the program
includes tested settings for the best results with Kodak Inkjet Papers.
Most of them are listed on our site, as you have noted. In those
situations, I have found great results with your printer. The One Touch
feature to which I refer works quite well and should do a good job for you
as well.

Try visiting the One Touch site for details.

http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"Mindful" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet and
> groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
> work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
> that works well for them.
>
> I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
> Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
> Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
> evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten with
> other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
> trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous. Kodak's
> suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on the
> Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
> tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.
>
> I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
> try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one swellable
> for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
> some production and stop testing!
>
> I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
> experience to save time and money!

How do you guys manage to get anything even remotely
decent on Kodak Ultima paper using Canon i960? I'm
using Canon inks, "printer color management" and
print from Photoshop. With the printer settings
currently recommended on the Kodak website (media=
"photo paper pro"), the ink pools like hell, with
literally 0.5mm-sized pools (seen as "grain" in the
print). With the printer settings from the insert
in the Ultima paper package (either "photo paper
plus glossy" for i960 or "plain paper, custom
quality=1" for i950), the ink pools are reduced in
half, but the printouts are still too grainy. This
latter result is identical to what I get with the
Ilford Galerie Classic paper (using the "glossy
photo paper" setting per Ilford instructions) or
Ilford Galerie Smooth ("paper pro" setting).
Neither of these gets any close in smoothness to the
prints on Canon's own Plus Glossy or Pro papers,
where no pooling is seen at all.

However, I'd really like to use either Kodak Ultima
or Ilford Classic paper instead of Canon's for print
longevity. I wonder if it is at all possible though,
as I read that it is the high speed of the printer
that is the problem, so that non-Canon papers do not
absorb ink quick enough.

Yesterday I've also tried to install (and
re-install, and then again) the Kodak Easy Share
package (v3.4 for Windows 98) from their web site,
to see if it has any special tricks for this printer
and the Ultima paper. But the package simply
doesn't work -- the only choice in the paper type
menu is "Other", and "One-touch to good pictures"
feature claims to be not installed (which I actually
did install as well). A question to their tech
support submitted on their site was of course
unanswered.

Sorry about the frustrated tone (just can't stand
buggy software)

M M


"Ron Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<cchet0$bau$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Greetings Mindful,
>
> Not sure if your reference is to professional use or just general printing.
> If you want particular ICC profiles for your printer when using the new
> Kodak Professional Paper, go to the following web page. It will help you
> with your printer.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...Profiles.jhtml
>
> If your reference is to Kodak Ultima Paper then I suggest trying EasyShare
> and letting that program print for you. As you may know, the program
> includes tested settings for the best results with Kodak Inkjet Papers.
> Most of them are listed on our site, as you have noted. In those
> situations, I have found great results with your printer. The One Touch
> feature to which I refer works quite well and should do a good job for you
> as well.
>
> Try visiting the One Touch site for details.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
>
> Talk to you soon.
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
> "Mindful" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet and
> > groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
> > work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
> > that works well for them.
> >
> > I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
> > Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
> > Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
> > evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten with
> > other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
> > trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous. Kodak's
> > suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on the
> > Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
> > tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.
> >
> > I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
> > try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one swellable
> > for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
> > some production and stop testing!
> >
> > I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
> > experience to save time and money!

If the ink is pooling then I suspect you have other problems.
I use Ultima papers extensively with this paper using Photoshop color
management and adjusting the color, usually yellow, as advised on the Kodak
web site. In fact the Ultima satin finish looks even better than Epson high
end velvet/satin finish paper with the 960. I wish it were less costly.
Prints come out of the Canon "wetter" than ink based Espon printers in my
experience and require several minutes to dry, regardless of the paper used.
Are you using Canon ink cartridges? I have used a great variety of
manufacturer's papers and not experienced problems like this.

I did a comparison printout several weeks ago. The Kodak Ultimo was the
worst out of the group and exhibited banding that I have never seen before
out of the i960. Surface gloss was not good and it had that "painted
effect" (halo) when viewed at an angle.

Consequently, I steer clear of Kodak papers now as most other brands produce
better results with less effort. The Canon paper seems to be the best for
glossy. Maybe the Kodak Premium brand is better? I know the Ultima (i.e.
"painted effect") may be masked by spraying, but add to the inability to get
a borderless 4x6 inch print off it without resorting to manual trimming (no
tear strip) makes it very unproductive to use as well. Why it is printed on
the box as 4x6 while it is 4x6.5 inches is beyond me.

Fwiw, I had the same problem with their EasyShare software. Plus, it seemed
to like connecting online and phoning home for whatever reason as the
firewall went nuts controlling it. Didn't care for that either, nor signing
up for Kodak's Spam to get it (ugh!), so I removed it.

B~

"bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<_EHIc.19653$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> If the ink is pooling then I suspect you have other problems.
> I use Ultima papers extensively with this paper using Photoshop color
> management and adjusting the color, usually yellow, as advised on the Kodak
> web site. In fact the Ultima satin finish looks even better than Epson high
> end velvet/satin finish paper with the 960. I wish it were less costly.
> Prints come out of the Canon "wetter" than ink based Espon printers in my
> experience and require several minutes to dry, regardless of the paper used.
> Are you using Canon ink cartridges? I have used a great variety of
> manufacturer's papers and not experienced problems like this.

Yes I use Canon inks. On Ultima glossy paper, with the printer driver
set to "Plus Glossy", high quality, printer CM, I get pools of ink
about 0.25mm in size; with "paper pro" they are 0.5mm. On a print
showing a crowd of people with 6-7mm faces, this is too
grainy. Colors and saturation are OK. Ilford Classic is somewhat
better in terms of grain but colors are somewhat off (unfortunately
Ilford don't have a color profile for this printer), and Ilford
Smooth is better still and the colors are almost correct with
the "photo pro" paper setting. They are still far from the Canon
Pro paper in terms of smoothness (so this is not my printer
hardware problem). Adjusting the colors manually -- been there,
don't want to do that again, there are color profiles for that,
and besides, this doesn't seem like a color problem.

An update on the Kodak EasyShare software -- got a response from
a tech rep, not helpful at all. My un-educated guess is there
is a difference between the Win XP and Win 98 drivers for this
printer, and Kodak used the XP one (and let people download
their package and beta-test if it works with Win 98, which it
doesn't).

MM

Kodak apparently recently changed their settings for the i960,
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...questid=137894

I get great results using these settings but have had less success with
their EASY SHARE software.



"M Markevitch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: How do you guys manage to get anything even remotely
: decent on Kodak Ultima paper using Canon i960? I'm
: using Canon inks, "printer color management" and
: print from Photoshop. With the printer settings
: currently recommended on the Kodak website (media=
: "photo paper pro"), the ink pools like hell, with
: literally 0.5mm-sized pools (seen as "grain" in the
: print). With the printer settings from the insert
: in the Ultima paper package (either "photo paper
: plus glossy" for i960 or "plain paper, custom
: quality=1" for i950), the ink pools are reduced in
: half, but the printouts are still too grainy. This
: latter result is identical to what I get with the
: Ilford Galerie Classic paper (using the "glossy
: photo paper" setting per Ilford instructions) or
: Ilford Galerie Smooth ("paper pro" setting).
: Neither of these gets any close in smoothness to the
: prints on Canon's own Plus Glossy or Pro papers,
: where no pooling is seen at all.
:
: However, I'd really like to use either Kodak Ultima
: or Ilford Classic paper instead of Canon's for print
: longevity. I wonder if it is at all possible though,
: as I read that it is the high speed of the printer
: that is the problem, so that non-Canon papers do not
: absorb ink quick enough.
:
: Yesterday I've also tried to install (and
: re-install, and then again) the Kodak Easy Share
: package (v3.4 for Windows 98) from their web site,
: to see if it has any special tricks for this printer
: and the Ultima paper. But the package simply
: doesn't work -- the only choice in the paper type
: menu is "Other", and "One-touch to good pictures"
: feature claims to be not installed (which I actually
: did install as well). A question to their tech
: support submitted on their site was of course
: unanswered.
:
: Sorry about the frustrated tone (just can't stand
: buggy software)
:
: M M
:
:
: "Ron Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<cchet0$bau$(E-Mail Removed)>...
: > Greetings Mindful,
: >
: > Not sure if your reference is to professional use or just general
printing.
: > If you want particular ICC profiles for your printer when using the new
: > Kodak Professional Paper, go to the following web page. It will help
you
: > with your printer.
: >
: >
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...Profiles.jhtml
: >
: > If your reference is to Kodak Ultima Paper then I suggest trying
EasyShare
: > and letting that program print for you. As you may know, the program
: > includes tested settings for the best results with Kodak Inkjet Papers.
: > Most of them are listed on our site, as you have noted. In those
: > situations, I have found great results with your printer. The One Touch
: > feature to which I refer works quite well and should do a good job for
you
: > as well.
: >
: > Try visiting the One Touch site for details.
: >
: > http://www.kodak.com/go/onetouch
: >
: > Talk to you soon.
: >
: > Ron Baird
: > Eastman Kodak Company
: >
: >
: > "Mindful" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: > > I just got an i960 and have been scouring Steve's, dpreivew, usenet
and
: > > groups via google. I haven't found a posting of profiles that actually
: > > work well. I'd appreciate suggestions from folks have found something
: > > that works well for them.
: > >
: > > I've been using an unmodified photo-i web site test photo. When using
: > > Kodak Colorlife Satin the results are mediocre as compared to Canon's
: > > Photo Paper Pro or even Epson Heavyweight Matte. I don't see that much
: > > evidence of pooling but there is not as much "snap" as I've gotten
with
: > > other papers. I know their chemistry is quite different but I'm just
: > > trying to get equally good results from swellable as nanoporous.
Kodak's
: > > suggestions on the accompanying recommendations differ from those on
the
: > > Kodak web site. I tried +10 yellow but it looks too yellow to me. I
: > > tried +10 intensity and it seemed to improve pix but overall.
: > >
: > > I read good things about Red River and Ilford papers and am willing to
: > > try those. I'd like to settle on one nanoporous paper and one
swellable
: > > for now and then test others down the road. But for now, I just to get
: > > some production and stop testing!
: > >
: > > I could play around forever but I hope to gain from the group's
: > > experience to save time and money!