Kodak 4" * 6" Premium Picture Paper size

[beezer]

I've been meaning to do my comparison between several papers to see what
they look like side-by-side. Now is good a time as any to print the same
portrait on all brands and see what comes out.

Papers were:
Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
Fuji Premium Plus
Epson Dura Brite Glossy
Kodak Premium Picture Paper
Tetenal Spectra Jet High Glossy Paper Special

The Canon has the highest gloss and ink does not appear to be a layer above
it that has that halo effect. The paper is very flat which enhances the
gloss.

Tetenal is a close second although I notice more of a pebble effect to the
paper's surface which degrades the gloss a bit. Still, not bad. I had to
cut the paper to 4 x 6 inches though as all I have is letter size.

The Epson has much less gloss, maybe the least gloss out of the five. Color
is similar to the two above. Not impressed at all with surface. It
supposedly is optimized for Epson's DuraBrite inks so this may have some
gloss influence.

The Fuji, also a 4 x 6.5 inch size like the Kodak but has a tear off. It
has a nice gloss and cooler (bluish cast) and actually it doesn't appear too
bad. It does have that effect of the ink being painted on the surface and
somewhat raised as does the Kodak.

The Kodak paper demonstrated horizontal banding, approximately 1/4" apart,
which I have never seen before from the i960 printer. Very noticeable in a
brunette's hair but not elsewhere on the print(??). Not good. Also has
that effect of the ink sitting above the surface. Color appeared to be
between the Fuji and first three (slightly bluish). Setting were as
mentioned: vivid off, etc. Not satisfactory at all for the banding problem.

Still, I would favor the Canon paper as the ink appears to be inside the
paper and not resting on top. Prints appear more like a silver-halide
photographic print. The Tetenal is nice as a second choice. Epson if I
needed a bit less gloss.

Still, I like the Fuji color on the particular portrait I was working with
(gave me a cooler image). Unfortunately, if you do not load the Fuji paper
correctly, the damn tear strip may be at the wrong end.

Vote: Canon best. Kodak least due to ink not residing in paper (halo) and
banding in dark area.

I have used the sprays when prints go under glass. Not the Krylon, but
something from HP Marketing in a short spray can. They sell a matte and a
semi-gloss version as I recall. Got it from FreeStyle in Hollywood.

B~

I wouldnt grade this test as being fair due to the fact that you
probably are not using optimal settings for your ink, profile and the
paper you are using. I know this due to the fact that you mention
"banding" in the kodak paper. With optimal and recommended adjustments
and profile, banding is not evident at all.

So, before you throw away papers you may not like for whatever reason,
search the manufacturers site for the best adjustment and set your
profile to srgb.

Everyone, no matter who they are, what equipment they have, spent much
time in tweeking their photos, profiles, printer drivers to give the
best results for them. 9 times out of 10 you can set two identical
machines out of the box, side by side with the same paper, ink and
settings etc, and get noticable differences...

By all means, I salute your efforts but this demonstration is far from
scientific....

I like many papers such as redriver and several other brands
including Kodak, which takes alot of tweeking for my trained eye. I
demand the most absolute highest quality from my prints and I do spend
alot of time to achieve it.

 

[B. Peg]

I tried Ron's suggestions to no avail with the Kodak paper. As an aside,
the suggestions from the Kodak site do not work with the Canon software
package (i.e. +10 Yellow, and some others). Kodak should use some of the
various software packages that comes with the assorted printers as their
directions are dated material. Shouldn't need to be this way, however.

I will note, the Kodak software tripped my firewall so I don't know why it
is trying to call home. Won't be using that software (EasyShare) so I
removed it. You can't use their EasyPrint drivers without opting in for
their spam either. They won't install. Also, you need to sign up for some
of Kodak's spam just to download it. Ugh! They should package the software
and drivers with the paper if they want the customer to be happy with it and
not have to go online to make it work.

Also, the Canon "Vivid" was turned off (suggested) and I tried the three
paper (gloss) settings to no avail either. The paper requires too much
input from the printer to make it a worthwhile paper for the consumer. The
gloss effects, even without printing and ink, aren't up to that of the Canon
paper.

Note, I am not judging color balance - just the paper's surface and gloss.
Color can be altered in Photoshop. I could alter the Fuji paper's color
balance to my liking, but the halo effect was annoying.

Add to the need to trim the Kodak "borderless" (ahem!) prints to 4 x 6
inches.....ugh! The Kodak paper is going back in the drawer - or trash.
Very disappointed and I will leave it at the bottom of the pile for now.
There are far better papers out there without having to be so labor
intensive. I haven't tried the Kodak Ultima brand, just the Premium so far.

Haven't seen any of the RedRiver paper around here. Have seen some
Mitsubishi stuff coming on-board though.

B~

 

[beezer]

I tried Ron's suggestions to no avail with the Kodak paper. As an aside,
the suggestions from the Kodak site do not work with the Canon software
package (i.e. +10 Yellow, and some others). Kodak should use some of the
various software packages that comes with the assorted printers as their
directions are dated material. Shouldn't need to be this way, however.

I will note, the Kodak software tripped my firewall so I don't know why it
is trying to call home. Won't be using that software (EasyShare) so I
removed it. You can't use their EasyPrint drivers without opting in for
their spam either. They won't install. Also, you need to sign up for some
of Kodak's spam just to download it. Ugh! They should package the software
and drivers with the paper if they want the customer to be happy with it and
not have to go online to make it work.

Also, the Canon "Vivid" was turned off (suggested) and I tried the three
paper (gloss) settings to no avail either. The paper requires too much
input from the printer to make it a worthwhile paper for the consumer. The
gloss effects, even without printing and ink, aren't up to that of the Canon
paper.

Note, I am not judging color balance - just the paper's surface and gloss.
Color can be altered in Photoshop. I could alter the Fuji paper's color
balance to my liking, but the halo effect was annoying.

Add to the need to trim the Kodak "borderless" (ahem!) prints to 4 x 6
inches.....ugh! The Kodak paper is going back in the drawer - or trash.
Very disappointed and I will leave it at the bottom of the pile for now.
There are far better papers out there without having to be so labor
intensive. I haven't tried the Kodak Ultima brand, just the Premium so far.

Haven't seen any of the RedRiver paper around here. Have seen some
Mitsubishi stuff coming on-board though.

B~

I dont disagree. I myself would not run 3rd party software and I dont.
I have no trouble setting things up manually. I do have ultima paper
which is quite excellent and many others stated the same.

What is nice about Canon drivers is the ability to have control over
everything which in the long run make it compatible with many many
papers.

But yes, It should not be a job to print photos, it should be
convenient and farily simple to get descent efforless results. With
that comment, going with Canon papers would never disappoint and by
far would be the most convenient paper to use.

I was about to trash my Kodak ultima paper until running across the
settings that got me in range. I do like the results better than the
Canon pro papers and by choice I would have to pick Kodak.

I do like the rigid backing of the Kodak where most papers have plain
matte backing and tend to lose shape with moisture and age, the Kodak
Ultima seems to remain in original shape.

 

[Geoff]

Thanks Beezer ... just did a search and got lots of hits for Krylon
........... I'll try and get hold of some.

 

[Geoff]

Thanks for posting your results Peg ... I guess you'd expect the Canon paper
to give the best results off a Canon printer .......... I'll get hold of
some and give it a try.

 

[Ron Baird]

Hi Peg,

More than likely the experience you had was with the Kodak Updater. This is
an auto update feature that works in the back ground. Not sure what version
you tried, but consider downloading from the Kodak website for EasyShare,
and you should not have any trouble.

The mentioned Kodak Software Updater automatically checks for updates to
EasyShare software. A message notifies you when an upgrade is available. To
check for a new version of EasyShare software, you can also visit our Web
site at www.kodak.com/go/easysharesw.
To automatically check for updates, you need access to the Internet. If you
require a user name and password to access the Internet, you will be
prompted for this information at the time the update check is made. So, if
you are running a firewall, you need to allow this to happen. This feature
is similar to the Microsoft Update, Symantec virus and software (likely the
same as the firewall you are using), etc.

To activate or deactivate the Kodak Software Updater, do the following. On
systems running

a.. Windows 98, 98SE, 2000, or Me, choose Start -> Programs -> Kodak ->
KODAK Software Updater -> KODAK Software Updater Setup.
b.. Windows XP, choose Start -> All Programs -> Kodak -> KODAK Software
Updater -> KODAK Software Updater Setup.
NOTE: Windows XP users, Administrator privileges are required to install
software and to activate or deactivate the KODAK Software Updater.

Talk to you soon, Peg,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

 

[None40]

I bought a box of the Kodak 4" * 6" PPP to have a play with on my new Canon
i9959 printer as the paper was selling at 1/2 price at my local Officeworks
store. I tried doing some borderless prints using the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint
utility. The prints came out fine but were only borderless on 3 sides - the
trailing edge out of the printer had a border of about 1/4". I measured
the paper and it measures 4" * 6.5". Does anyone know why the extra 1/2
inch in the width? Also with borderless printing , is there overspray of
the ink and where does this go?

Cheers

Geoff

Many printers can't print to the final trailing edge -- they need the extra bit
to
hold on to the paper while the last is being printed.

Idiots though, at least they could micro-perf that extra half-inch the way HP
does
[and given the 'claim' of 4x6 on the box, one might reasonably expect that it
was].

Your absolutely right. Although since the aspect ratio is "wrong" for
most(all?) photos taken with digital cameras to print 4 x 6 maybe Kodak
thought is wouldn't matter that much. You'd have to trim your photos
anyway. I wonder why someone doesn't make 4.5 x 6 card stock? Or do they?