I definitely wouldn't knock Epson's pigment printers when it
comes to print longevity. Pigment inks give you the flexibility
of matte papers. Canon dye inks are worthless on any matte I've
tried. Images disappear faster than a pepperoni pizza in a frat
house.
> Canon has not even attempted to follow Epson into the
> archival area.
And this suprises me as Canon owns the DSLR world.
> I doubt that that droplets below a certain size is that
> important except for bragging rights when they are all so
> small as to be unseen by the unaided eye.
With some glossy papers you can see see that the printer prints
in lines across the paper. If the paper doesn't bleed the dots
enough you can see this pattern. It's about the same as what you
see with a dye-sub. The newer Canon printers do "fill the gaps"
better and seem to have a better diffusion pattern. Again,
we're talking magnifying glass stuff here. I can easily see it
with a 10X loupe, but from normal viewing distances they're
invisible. Sending an image 300 or 600dpi doesn't change
anything other than printing time.
> Canon may be stuck with impermanent dyes because their head
> design relies on heaters to boil the ink and blow it through
> the jet. Pigments may clog that kind of head.
Good point. There are big advantages to Canon's design, though,
when it comes to head life. I suspect that the new 8-tank Canon
printers might be addressing the yellow fade problem by leaning
on the Green and Red tanks more.
> HP just has a bad history of major shifts of support...
I'm still bummed about Carly the Axe.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|