Just tested HP 8250 & Canon ip6600

[Shelly]

Wow, big difference! You've heard the saying, "A picture is worth a
thousand words".

I took in my memory card and printed out a picture on both the HP and
Canon. I also had the print of the picture I got from the photo lab. I
used the same picture for both. The only paper they had in the printers
was Epson glossy paper for both, so they were both on the same paper,
but not their respective manufacturer's paper. I printed it straight
out of the memory card, no editing or adjustments. The Canon's picture
was _much_ better. It had a sharpness and crispness to it that the HP
didn't have. The colors were also "truer" on the Canon. The flesh tones
were washed out on the HP. It was almost like the lighter colors were
more indistinct in their boundaries. Don't know if there is a technical
term for this, but that's what it looks like. I was able to keep the
photos I printed, too. Now, maybe the paper makes a difference in the
HP, I don't know.

So after that little test, I would definitely like the Canon better. My
only concern is still picture longevity. Can someone point to any
sources that discuss whether the newer Canon inks and paper last
longer? The ones I have seen only talk about the older Canon models.
Also, can one increase longevity by using other manufacturer's higher
grade paper, like the HP paper? Printing on Epson paper sure didn't
seem to cause much of a problem with picture quality on the Canon.

I'm just about sold after that.
Shelly

 

[Tony]

Wow, big difference! You've heard the saying, "A picture is worth a
thousand words".

I took in my memory card and printed out a picture on both the HP and
Canon. I also had the print of the picture I got from the photo lab. I
used the same picture for both. The only paper they had in the printers
was Epson glossy paper for both, so they were both on the same paper,
but not their respective manufacturer's paper. I printed it straight
out of the memory card, no editing or adjustments. The Canon's picture
was _much_ better. It had a sharpness and crispness to it that the HP
didn't have. The colors were also "truer" on the Canon. The flesh tones
were washed out on the HP. It was almost like the lighter colors were
more indistinct in their boundaries. Don't know if there is a technical
term for this, but that's what it looks like. I was able to keep the
photos I printed, too. Now, maybe the paper makes a difference in the
HP, I don't know.

So after that little test, I would definitely like the Canon better. My
only concern is still picture longevity. Can someone point to any
sources that discuss whether the newer Canon inks and paper last
longer? The ones I have seen only talk about the older Canon models.
Also, can one increase longevity by using other manufacturer's higher
grade paper, like the HP paper? Printing on Epson paper sure didn't
seem to cause much of a problem with picture quality on the Canon.

I'm just about sold after that.
Shelly

Go with what suits you. The only comment I would make is that paper can make an
enormous difference, I believe that comparisons should be made on paper that
the respective manufacturer recommends. Then when you have chosen your printer
you can look around for compatible paper if you wish.
Tony

 

[measekite]

Wow, big difference! You've heard the saying, "A picture is worth a
thousand words".

I took in my memory card and printed out a picture on both the HP and
Canon. I also had the print of the picture I got from the photo lab. I
used the same picture for both. The only paper they had in the printers
was Epson glossy paper for both, so they were both on the same paper,
but not their respective manufacturer's paper. I printed it straight
out of the memory card, no editing or adjustments. The Canon's picture
was _much_ better.

That is correct.

It had a sharpness and crispness to it that the HP
didn't have.

While that is true I believe that Epson paper works better on Epson and
Canon printers than it does on an HP printer. To run a real true test
you should use OEM ink and paper. Then the differences can be
attributable to the printing system.

The colors were also "truer" on the Canon. The flesh tones
were washed out on the HP. It was almost like the lighter colors were
more indistinct in their boundaries. Don't know if there is a technical
term for this, but that's what it looks like. I was able to keep the
photos I printed, too. Now, maybe the paper makes a difference in the
HP, I don't know.

So after that little test, I would definitely like the Canon better.

Me too

My
only concern is still picture longevity.

I have printing photos with an IP4000 using OEM ink (of course) and both
Costco/Kirkland (Ilford maybe) Canon Photo Paper Pro and Epson Matte and
left them on top of a desk for over a year. They have not showed any
sign of fading.

Can someone point to any
sources that discuss whether the newer Canon inks and paper last
longer?

Canon claims that the newest ink is supposed to last longer.

The ones I have seen only talk about the older Canon models.
Also, can one increase longevity by using other manufacturer's higher
grade paper, like the HP paper? Printing on Epson paper sure didn't
seem to cause much of a problem with picture quality on the Canon.

One can increase longevity by keeping them framed behind glass or in a
photo album. It also depends on the environment.

 

[Bob Headrick]

Wow, big difference! You've heard the saying, "A picture is worth a
thousand words".

I took in my memory card and printed out a picture on both the HP and
Canon. I also had the print of the picture I got from the photo lab. I
used the same picture for both. The only paper they had in the printers
was Epson glossy paper for both, so they were both on the same paper,
but not their respective manufacturer's paper. I printed it straight
out of the memory card, no editing or adjustments.

The Epson paper is probably not a good choice for either printer, especially if
it was the paper designed for pigmented inks. If you would like to email me
your jpg file and snail mail address I will put it on a memory card and print
it on my Photosmart 2610 and/or 8750 and send you a print. That may or may not
be relevant, but at least you can see what things would look like with the
right ink/paper combination.

I also wonder if the 8250 printed with a plain paper setting rather than a
photo setting. It has an automatic paper sense (which can be overridden) that
may have been confused by the Epson paper.

Regards,
Bob Headrick
(e-mail address removed)

 

[zakezuke]

I'm just about sold after that.

Do take Bob Headrick up on his offer, unless you're planning on
printing exclusivly to Epson paper. He's a trustworthy person and he's
willing to send you a free print. But it's still possible you like the
canon better.... many people do. And people like my self have never
seen the ip6600d in action, the printer is really under 3 months old.
While I do feel you should give Bob's proposal a fair shot... i the end
let your own eyes be the judge... in the end game all these numbers and
specifications really mean squat when your the photographer and you are
trying to print what you saw.

I can't the pages on http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for the bci-6
inks... but I do remember the old ink was rated at 25 years under
glass, the new chromalife100 inks at 30 years under glass, 100 years in
dark storage, 10 years on the premium glossy paper plus exposed to air
according to canon internal tersting (take with a grain of salt).

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=76655&forum_id=40

This is the only thread I know about that is presently discussing the
life of the new inks, and there isn't much said on the subject.
Steve's forums is pretty much these place to go for hard core
photography questions. But since much of the issue is gasfastness, one
might consider spraying one's prints to help protect them... that
should help keep prints looking faided longer. But generally speaking
people don't go canon for long life prints.. they go HP or Epson.

Also... from my understanding the two extra inks, the light
cyan/magenta are basicly the same as cyan/magenta just more watered
down and might be more prone to fading.

 

[Knightcrawler]

http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=634

They are running a test right now, already you can see that the "hype" with
rating pictures for 60 years or 100 years is kinda silly, unless kept away
from sunlight and air.

========

 

[zakezuke]

http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=634

They are running a test right now, already you can see that the "hype" with
rating pictures for 60 years or 100 years is kinda silly, unless kept away
rom sunlight and air.

Keep in mind that the 100 year number is based on under glass... so
pretty much away from air. with out that the hype number is 10. Where
HP the hype number is 108 years under glass vs the chromalife100 hype
number of 30 years. While this is hype... this is lab tested hype
under what I presume are similar conditions. This would sugest... if
you take away the hype... that the vivera inks out peform chromalife100
in terms of lightfastness.

 

[Shelly]

Bob - A very kind offer, thank you.

I tested both the printers at Best Buy. They didn't seem very inclined
to open up a package of HP paper for me to test. They claimed "paper
was paper" and Epson was what was in it. Actually, at first, they were
just going to print it on plain paper, not photo paper! At least I got
them to do better than that. And they did let me keep the pictures to
compare. I know others have said they've tried this type of test and
had to leave the pictures there.

I think I am going to give it one more go and try the same test at
either CompUSA or OfficeMax. I know they have they same printers.
Perhaps they will have them loaded with different paper.

I feel a bit rushed to decide because if I do go with the HP, BB had it
on sale through Saturday for 159.00. That is the best price I've seen
around here. So I feel a time pressure.

Bob, yes, the salesguy made a big deal about the automatic paper sensor
on the HP, so that leads me to believe that it was set. Possible that
it was printed at plain paper setting, though.

After looking at the prints I made yesterday again, I believe the main
different to be in contrast. There is just more contrast in the Canon
picture. I don't know if that's because of Canon's black or not, but it
is very noticeable. Makes the skin tones look more "right".

We'll see how today's test goes.
Shelly

 

[measekite]

Bob - A very kind offer, thank you.

I tested both the printers at Best Buy. They didn't seem very inclined
to open up a package of HP paper for me to test. They claimed "paper
was paper" and Epson was what was in it.

What do they know

Actually, at first, they were
just going to print it on plain paper, not photo paper! At least I got
them to do better than that. And they did let me keep the pictures to
compare. I know others have said they've tried this type of test and
had to leave the pictures there.

Buy from other places

I think I am going to give it one more go and try the same test at
either CompUSA or OfficeMax. I know they have they same printers.
Perhaps they will have them loaded with different paper.

I feel a bit rushed to decide because if I do go with the HP, BB had it
on sale through Saturday for 159.00. That is the best price I've seen
around here. So I feel a time pressure.

I would go with the Canon IP5200

Bob, yes, the salesguy made a big deal about the automatic paper sensor
on the HP, so that leads me to believe that it was set. Possible that
it was printed at plain paper setting, though.

After looking at the prints I made yesterday again, I believe the main
different to be in contrast. There is just more contrast in the Canon
picture. I don't know if that's because of Canon's black or not, but it
is very noticeable. Makes the skin tones look more "right".

The IP5200 has a dye black for even more contrast.

 

[measekite]

The Epson paper is probably not a good choice for either printer,

Speak for HP since you work for them. Canon Tech Suppt and their
instore sales reps both recommend Epson Glossy Paper as an alternative
to Canon Photo Paper Pro but claiming that Canon paper is the best. So
the choice for Epson in a Canon may not be a bad choice. It seems that
HP is more fussy on paper.

especially if
it was the paper designed for pigmented inks.

Epson makes many different types of paper.

If you would like to email me
your jpg file and snail mail address I will put it on a memory card and print
it on my Photosmart 2610 and/or 8750 and send you a print. That may or may not
be relevant, but at least you can see what things would look like with the
right ink/paper combination.

It seems many people in this ng do not recommend the RIGHT ink/paper
combination.

 

[Knightcrawler]

I just don't buy the 108 years as a real number. It's a prediction based on
some evidence. If the facts are incorrect which mostly they are then the
picture will not last 108 years.

I think most people can expect 10 years to be a REAL expectation of any
picture printed on any inkjet printer using dye ink, { and of course the
right photo paper}.

Pigment ink will of course last longer but the colors won't be as rich.
Pigment ink is great for displays outdoors where durability is more
important then image quality.

 

[measekite]

I just don't buy the 108 years as a real number. It's a prediction based on
some evidence. If the facts are incorrect which mostly they are then the
picture will not last 108 years.

Do this. Take a photo. Print it. Wait 108 years. Let us know

 

[Shelly]

Well, I have been to 4 different stores today. Not very helpful. You
think Best Buy wasn't helpful...I can honestly say they were the most
helpful place I tried.

One store didn't even have the HP hooked up. Another 2 had it hooked
up, but would only let me print on plain paper, wouldn't open any photo
paper. The closest I got was one store had HP photo paper open, but the
printer wasn't hooked up nor did it have any ink in it.

So I have to go with what I've already seen, and it looks like it's the
Canon. I would have like to have at least checked out an Epson
Picturemate printer, just to see how it compared. But none of those had
both ink and paper, either.

Most of these pictures will be in an album so they will (hopefully) be
protected. Or they will be used for school projects, etc. so it doesn't
matter if they don't last long. If I do want a particular picture to
last or plan to frame it, I'll guess I'll take it to the lab. I suppose
it's better to know the limitations up front rather than find out the
hard way. So in that respect, this has all been very educational.

And I do want the 6600 rather than the 5200. I really want the ability
to plug my memory card directly in and my camera may or may not be
PictBridge compatible (supposedly there's some software download or
some such on Canon's web site, but I haven't tried it yet.) So memory
card slots are important to me and worth the extra $$ since I can't use
my PC anyway.

Going to mull it over some more, but I thank everyone for their input!
Shelly

 

[irwell]

Do this. Take a photo. Print it. Wait 108 years. Let us know

I have photos I developed when a teenager over 62 years ago,
they are still good, so I must have done something right,
that was in the days of developers, fixing agents etc.
Make a mistake and there was no 'software' recovery option.

 

[zakezuke]

Well, I have been to 4 different stores today. Not very helpful. You

think Best Buy wasn't helpful...I can honestly say they were the most
helpful place I tried.

The instruction block I typicaly give is to go in with your own paper.
I know it's money out of your pocket but we are not talking about an
investment of $200, we are talking about a long term investment of $200
+ ink which tends to be $50 to $70/refill assuming OEM ink. You
don't have to buy big 8x10 packs but perhaps a 4x6 pack should do the
trick.

But again... if you're leaning tward the canon.... many people do...
and are willing to at the very least spray your prints... something you
can do reasonably soon after you print... that should help extend the
life.

But Bob Headrick's comments are 100% valid. Papers are part of the
system and there are at least two major types. The microporous coated
paper that is rather quick to dry which seems to be the preference on
canon, and the swellable type that seems to be the preference on the
HP. But at the same time... Epson has some very fine paper... in fact
their basic "glossy photo paper" which was sold at costco for a long
period of time was often prefered. Illford smooth pearl is another
paper that people tend to choose and choose a printer that works best
on that paper. Kirkland Photopaper at costco... a very decent
reasonably low priced ($20ish per 120p) is an excelent choice and great
value.

And going memory card readable printer isn't at all silly as some might
sugest. If your PC doesn't have them putting them on the printer
resolves the issue of the card reader falling behind the desk.

 

[measekite]

Well, I have been to 4 different stores today. Not very helpful. You
think Best Buy wasn't helpful...I can honestly say they were the most
helpful place I tried.

They are good at helping newbies because they are a half step ahead of them.

One store didn't even have the HP hooked up. Another 2 had it hooked
up, but would only let me print on plain paper, wouldn't open any photo
paper. The closest I got was one store had HP photo paper open, but the
printer wasn't hooked up nor did it have any ink in it.

The service at most stores is bad.

So I have to go with what I've already seen, and it looks like it's the
Canon. I would have like to have at least checked out an Epson
Picturemate printer, just to see how it compared. But none of those had
both ink and paper, either.

The IP5200 is probably the best value.

Most of these pictures will be in an album so they will (hopefully) be
protected. Or they will be used for school projects, etc. so it doesn't
matter if they don't last long. If I do want a particular picture to
last or plan to frame it, I'll guess I'll take it to the lab. I suppose
it's better to know the limitations up front rather than find out the
hard way. So in that respect, this has all been very educational.

And I do want the 6600 rather than the 5200. I really want the ability
to plug my memory card directly in and my camera may or may not be

That is a mistake. All you need is to buy a memory card reader for your
computer. They cost around $15.00 and will read all types of memory
cards. There is no need to compromise the photos you will take.

 

[irwell]

That is a mistake. All you need is to buy a memory card reader for your
computer. They cost around $15.00 and will read all types of memory
cards. There is no need to compromise the photos you will take.

Not a mistake, read what the OP says, Shelley's PC is old
and probably will not support a powerful Photoshop type software.
The memory card and LCD are a real convenience on the ip6600d.
No compromise is involved, whatever you mean by that expression.

 

[zakezuke]

That is a mistake. All you need is to buy a memory card reader for your

computer. They cost around $15.00 and will read all types of memory
cards. There is no need to compromise the photos you will take.

Measkite... with all due respect you are obsessed. The ip6600D is
$190ish or $165ish after mail in rebate. The ip5200 is $160ish . Your
average card reader costs $20ish or so and might fall behind the desk.
If you don't claim the mail in rebate you're spending $30ish on a
printer that has the card slots on the front, wont' fall behind the
desk, and also has an LCD to boot which even if you don't use it to
print pictures is ultra handy because it will display error messages in
cryptic english. If you do get the mail in rebate... which I don't see
for the ip5200... we're talking under $5 to get the lcd screen and
extra card slots. But the most important factor you... with all due
respect, are failing to take into account... the poster likes the
ip6600D. They want the ability to print direct from the media. Your
opinion on value is moot because you do get 4+2 color printing for your
extra money.

But probally the most ludacris thing you are saying, again with the up
most respect, is the ip6600D compromising photographs. Do you have any
evidence to support this opinion? We're talking about a printer with
512 nozzles/color. The ip5200 has 512 each cyan and magenta, 256
yellow and black... 512 pigment black. The i6600D has light inks. If
you were to say you compromise text printing... sure no argument, the
facts support this opinion.

What is unacceptable is when ever someone is asking legit questions
about printers you take the opportunity to feed them compelete and
utter bunk. You've never used the ip5200, nor the ip6600D.... though
you lied about testing the ip6600D in your lab using epson inks...
either that or you deliberately picked something that wouldn't work
well to falsify data which is just as bad.

And what's really sad... what's really sad is you've been making these
statements for three months... the first I noticed was september 25th
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...+BUSINESS+DOCS"&rnum=1&hl=en#68cd48305407c0a1
before, and I mean before this printer was available mail order. So no
printer, no reviews, absovutly no way to even justify your opinion
other than technical specifications.

Poorer on business documents? Could be so, there is evidence to sugest
this. Not so good on photographs... you can't know this unless you
have met one.

Please... if you have any shread of decency, any moral code of conduct,
any ethics what so over you would stop presenting your opinions as fact
when you have nothing, absolutly nothing, no experence, no information,
not one shread of infomation to backup these things you say because
you... and I think others will agree with me, make things up to prove
your point. I can't imagine that anyone with anything that resembles a
conscience could even imagine posing as a falce orical of information
and live with the fact that there is the remote possiblity that someone
out there is making a choice based on what you say. This is with all
due respect and kindness, wrong... this is beyond wrong... this
behavier is despicable beyond belief and if you had any insight to what
you are doing you would feel a level of deep shame the likes of which
g_d has never seen.

The only facts that we know about the ip6600D is
1. It's a printer
2. It has even distrobution of nozzles vs the lesser models that offer
pigmented black and 1/2 as many nozzles for yellow and black.
3. It offers double the nozzles of the ip6000 which many accept is a
lesser printer than the older i960
4. It offers 5pl and 1pl drops and low dye load inks (light
cyan/magenta)
5. It offers the usual duplex printing, lcd screen, card slots

And you are trying to argue that somehow someone who actually tested
the printer, actually has a picture on their hand, that somehow that
picture you have never seen would look better on a printer that has
less tanks? Have you ever even seen a side by side comparison. In
person or the website?

Do us a favor and when someone makes a choice based on good information
and knowing their own needs, rather than pointing your finger and
inflicting your absent minded code of conduct which is totally lacking,
accept the fact that you are not an authority, you don't have any
experence with these product, you are spewing an uninformed opinoin and
through your actions causing harm. I don't know how you can live with
your self.

 

[Frank]

Not a mistake, read what the OP says, Shelley's PC is old
and probably will not support a powerful Photoshop type software.
The memory card and LCD are a real convenience on the ip6600d.
No compromise is involved, whatever you mean by that expression.

Never ever listen to meashershithead's advice as he knows nothing!
Frank

 

[Tony]

Measkite... with all due respect you are obsessed. The ip6600D is
$190ish or $165ish after mail in rebate. The ip5200 is $160ish . Your
average card reader costs $20ish or so and might fall behind the desk.
If you don't claim the mail in rebate you're spending $30ish on a
printer that has the card slots on the front, wont' fall behind the
desk, and also has an LCD to boot which even if you don't use it to
print pictures is ultra handy because it will display error messages in
cryptic english. If you do get the mail in rebate... which I don't see
for the ip5200... we're talking under $5 to get the lcd screen and
extra card slots. But the most important factor you... with all due
respect, are failing to take into account... the poster likes the
ip6600D. They want the ability to print direct from the media. Your
opinion on value is moot because you do get 4+2 color printing for your
extra money.

But probally the most ludacris thing you are saying, again with the up
most respect, is the ip6600D compromising photographs. Do you have any
evidence to support this opinion? We're talking about a printer with
512 nozzles/color. The ip5200 has 512 each cyan and magenta, 256
yellow and black... 512 pigment black. The i6600D has light inks. If
you were to say you compromise text printing... sure no argument, the
facts support this opinion.

What is unacceptable is when ever someone is asking legit questions
about printers you take the opportunity to feed them compelete and
utter bunk. You've never used the ip5200, nor the ip6600D.... though
you lied about testing the ip6600D in your lab using epson inks...
either that or you deliberately picked something that wouldn't work
well to falsify data which is just as bad.

And what's really sad... what's really sad is you've been making these
statements for three months... the first I noticed was september 25th
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...+BUSINESS+DOCS"&rnum=1&hl=en#68cd48305407c0a1
before, and I mean before this printer was available mail order. So no
printer, no reviews, absovutly no way to even justify your opinion
other than technical specifications.

Poorer on business documents? Could be so, there is evidence to sugest
this. Not so good on photographs... you can't know this unless you
have met one.

Please... if you have any shread of decency, any moral code of conduct,
any ethics what so over you would stop presenting your opinions as fact
when you have nothing, absolutly nothing, no experence, no information,
not one shread of infomation to backup these things you say because
you... and I think others will agree with me, make things up to prove
your point. I can't imagine that anyone with anything that resembles a
conscience could even imagine posing as a falce orical of information
and live with the fact that there is the remote possiblity that someone
out there is making a choice based on what you say. This is with all
due respect and kindness, wrong... this is beyond wrong... this
behavier is despicable beyond belief and if you had any insight to what
you are doing you would feel a level of deep shame the likes of which
g_d has never seen.

The only facts that we know about the ip6600D is
1. It's a printer
2. It has even distrobution of nozzles vs the lesser models that offer
pigmented black and 1/2 as many nozzles for yellow and black.
3. It offers double the nozzles of the ip6000 which many accept is a
lesser printer than the older i960
4. It offers 5pl and 1pl drops and low dye load inks (light
cyan/magenta)
5. It offers the usual duplex printing, lcd screen, card slots

And you are trying to argue that somehow someone who actually tested
the printer, actually has a picture on their hand, that somehow that
picture you have never seen would look better on a printer that has
less tanks? Have you ever even seen a side by side comparison. In
person or the website?

Do us a favor and when someone makes a choice based on good information
and knowing their own needs, rather than pointing your finger and
inflicting your absent minded code of conduct which is totally lacking,
accept the fact that you are not an authority, you don't have any
experence with these product, you are spewing an uninformed opinoin and
through your actions causing harm. I don't know how you can live with
your self.

Whew!
Well done.
Tony