Recommend- a printer - for photos? (Don't want HP logo on back)

[measekite]

Interesting "fear of being found out" you have.

he is entitled to his own opinion.

In my case, people get blown away when I tell them: "Oh, I printed
that on my printer".

i doubt that with the generic ink you use

I don't tell them I used inexpensive aftermarket ink - otherwise
they'll be queuing at my door with their digital cameras in hand

and what do you say when the smoke clears

 

[measekite]

measekite wrote:



I would expect it to be difficult to find a paper that will work as well
as the original. Note: the question of longevity should be considered as
well. However if the label means a lot of the OP, then look he should and
should consider the trade offs.

i have run tests for about a year. there is no difference in fading.
the costco paper is about 97% as good. while canon photo paper pro is
minimally better it is not worth 7 times the price. the main difference
i have observed (using canon ink) is that the costco paper is like a
frozen pond that froze in a 5mph wind ( a very slight ripple - very
slight) and the canon photo pro paper is like a pond frozen with no wind.

 

[measekite]

I regularly use Kodak papers with my HP printers. The Kodak EasyShare
software (free download from kodak.com) makes it easy to do - it has
built-in settings for most printers. Some other papers don't work well
with HP inks.

kodak paper is terrible with canon printers.

 

[Stanley Krute]

Hi Ash

As others have pointed out, your obsession RE a logo
on the back is silly. One is free to be silly, of course,
but it doesn't alter the state.

-- stan

 

[Michael Meissner]

I would expect it to be difficult to find a paper that will work as well
as the original. Note: the question of longevity should be considered as
well. However if the label means a lot of the OP, then look he should and
should consider the trade offs.

I dunno, Ilford Classic Satin beats HP Premium Plus in terms of the print
quality on my HP printers, and IIRC, according to the Wilhelm tests, it is also
long lasting. The paper does not have a logo on the back. Note, some chain
stores sell some Ilford paper, but they aren't to the same specs as the paper
you buy at the photo speciality stores. Unfortunately if you want 4x6 prints,
you will have to cut down the letter size papers.

Kodak Ultima Satin was in between the Ilford and HP Premium Plus, IMHO, and was
available in 4x6 sheets. I've read that they recently stopped making it, so I
wouldn't get too enamored of it. It does have the Kodak logo on the back, but
that may be more acceptable than HP

 

[Michael Meissner]

costco/kirkland photo glossy (presumed to be Ilford) is 125 sheets for under
$20.00. it seems you are overpaying for the same thing.

Assuming it is the exact same paper. From what I've read, Ilford makes cheaper
paper available for the chain stores, and makes higher grade and more expensive
paper for the photo stores. So you can choose whether the price or the quality
matters most to you.

Note, there is no such thing as Ilford Classic Smooth paper, there is either
Ilford Smooth papers, which are nanoporous/instant dry/water resistant but not
as long lasting (on dye ink papers), and there are the few Ilford Classic
papers which are longer lasting, but are not water resistant papers.

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

kodak paper is terrible with canon printers.

That has not been my experience with the top grade, may it is with the lower
end stuff. No one I've showed the printing to can tell the difference from
Canon paper.

 

[Michael J. Mahon]

costco/kirkland/ilford works great in a canon printer with canon ink.
while paper is important it is more important to use factopry ink so you
do not ruin the printer. paper is either good or bad but bad ink will
give your printer the long kiss goodbye.

All but a few inkjet printers have essentially the entire ink/printing
system within the replaceable cartridge (Epson is a notable exception),
so the worst that could happen with "bad ink" is a "bad cartridge".

-michael

Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."

 

[measekite]

All but a few inkjet printers have essentially the entire ink/printing
system within the replaceable cartridge (Epson is a notable exception),
so the worst that could happen with "bad ink" is a "bad cartridge".

totally not true. only true with cetain hp printers that have an
integrated printhead. canon and epson are notable expecptions.

 

[measekite]

That has not been my experience with the top grade, may it is with the lower
end stuff. No one I've showed the printing to can tell the difference from
Canon paper.

canon tech support says this:

do not use kodak paper. it gives poor results. if one does not want to
use canon photo paper then we recommend epson paper. now you may not
have a canon printer even if the name on the printer says canon. if you
are using generic ink then you have a generic printer with a canon name.

 

[Ron Hunter]

canon tech support says this:

do not use kodak paper. it gives poor results. if one does not want to
use canon photo paper then we recommend epson paper. now you may not
have a canon printer even if the name on the printer says canon. if you
are using generic ink then you have a generic printer with a canon name.

Translation from 'business speak'. We don't have a deal with Kodak to
promote their paper, so it is trash, and won't work with our printers,
or will work only very poorly with them. Isn't business wonderful?

 

[measekite]

Translation from 'business speak'. We don't have a deal with Kodak to
promote their paper, so it is trash, and won't work with our printers,
or will work only very poorly with them. Isn't business wonderful?

oh yeah canon has a deal with epson

ha ha ha or is it he he he

 

[John McWilliams]

oh yeah canon has a deal with epson

ha ha ha or is it he he he

It's neither. Unless you are 7.

 

[The X-Book]

Why not turn a perceived weakness into a strength? Advertise that you
use genuine HP photo paper because of its high archival quality and
fade resistance. You could even go so far as to say that your
clientele *prefers* HP over any other brand (it's not like any of your
clients have ever specifically asked for a different kind of paper).

At any rate, being proud of the paper you print on is a much cheaper
alternative to having to find a new supply.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

HP photo paper is giving me excellent photos with an HP Photosmart 3200.

DSH

 

[Michael J. Mahon]

totally not true. only true with cetain hp printers that have an
integrated printhead. canon and epson are notable expecptions.

Interesting...I thought that Canon used an approach similar to
HP.

-michael

Parallel computing for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."

 

[Mike Rosenberg]

Interesting...I thought that Canon used an approach similar to
HP.

The Canon inkjets I've set up for clients recently have had a snap-in
printhead, separate from the cartridges, which means Canon is using an
approach intermediate between HP and Epson.

 

[Frank ess]

The Canon inkjets I've set up for clients recently have had a
snap-in
printhead, separate from the cartridges, which means Canon is using
an
approach intermediate between HP and Epson.

A few years ago any suggestion of using color laser printers for
photographic copies was easily dismisssed: quality of output rendered
them unusable. Is that still the case? While none of the reviews I've
managed to unearth have been wholeheartedly complimentary, a number
seem to suggest higher-quality prints from some units could be
serviceable.

I'm thinking in particular of the Konica-Minolta 2450, claiming "Up to
9600 x 600 dpi-class with Photo ART".

I print photos at home so seldom any more, but when I do it takes half
an hour and half an Epson color cartridge to clean the print head. I
could surely do without that bother for what usually amounts to a
proof print. Freeing up a little horizontal surface space wouldn't
hurt, either.

None of the local shops have that K-M 2450 printer in stock, so
there's no current likelihood I'll see a live sample. I think that
printer has been out for a year or so, and reckon it may soon be a
candidate for an improved replacement. My mono laser still works
perfectly (sound of woodknock). Just a passing (but not necessarily
idle) thought.

 

[Tony]

The Canon inkjets I've set up for clients recently have had a snap-in
printhead, separate from the cartridges, which means Canon is using an
approach intermediate between HP and Epson.

--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

The situation is actually less cut and dried.
Canon use clip in printheads for most of the printers but use integrated (head
in cart) arrangements for a small number of printers.
HP use integrated printheads for their deskjet series but use separate ink
tanks and user replaceable printheads for most of their high end inkjets
(business and professional series).
Tony

 

[Ron Hunter]

A few years ago any suggestion of using color laser printers for
photographic copies was easily dismisssed: quality of output rendered
them unusable. Is that still the case? While none of the reviews I've
managed to unearth have been wholeheartedly complimentary, a number seem
to suggest higher-quality prints from some units could be serviceable.

I'm thinking in particular of the Konica-Minolta 2450, claiming "Up to
9600 x 600 dpi-class with Photo ART".

I print photos at home so seldom any more, but when I do it takes half
an hour and half an Epson color cartridge to clean the print head. I
could surely do without that bother for what usually amounts to a proof
print. Freeing up a little horizontal surface space wouldn't hurt, either.

None of the local shops have that K-M 2450 printer in stock, so there's
no current likelihood I'll see a live sample. I think that printer has
been out for a year or so, and reckon it may soon be a candidate for an
improved replacement. My mono laser still works perfectly (sound of
woodknock). Just a passing (but not necessarily idle) thought.

While they have improved, especially as to size and price, they are
still better suited to charts and graphs than photos.