Canon iP4000 or iP5000? For graphic output
Sarah Feliz
inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
transparency?
Any downside to these printers?
Thanks for your input,
Sarah
Patrick
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfe...@nada.com...
Both printers are suitable. The IP5000 is better with regards to
photos/graphics but at the cost of speed. The IP4000 is faster and its
output is still very good.
The above is just my experience.
--
Patrick
Taliesyn
Definitely the iP5000. I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
blown away by the quality of print.
Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
(in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco. You
can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
(sorry, I can't credit the author).
I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing. If
there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today I
have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
(cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
-Taliesyn
Davy
pitted against higher class printers, and sure you'll agree the 5000
stands up well.
Its very ink conservative, see through tanks and each replaceable and
NOT CHIPPED another good review is at Steve's Digicams.
One thing to note is the 1pL print head, which produces ink dots that
are much closer together than a 2pL.
PC Mag states that the 5000 is one step lower in picture quality than
the 4000, I feel that this is an error on their part - the clue is
the time they say it takes to print a picture on the highest setting,
the time they say it takes appears to be its second best setting
(don't let this put you off), they also say its better at pastels and
graphics, this is understandable because of the better vertical
resolution.
I feel that this is aimed at the office environment where text,
graphics, pie charts etc are required, one thing to remember
withPixma's is when doing 'glossy photoes' to use the top tray and
not the bottom one, because you dont want the nice glossy surface
damaged by the paper doing a 'U turn', anything else is OK.
Hope its of help.
Davy
measekite
IP5000. I have an IP4000 and use it mostly for photos but the 1pl
droplet size of the IP5000 makes for much better business text and
graphics with nearly as good photo quality but the a somewhat slower speed.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>> speed,
>> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>> transparency?
>>
>> Any downside to these printers?
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Sarah
>
>
> Definitely the iP5000.
I agree with this.
> I have the iP5000 and the i860, which is really
> today's iP4000 - they use the same printhead. The iP5000 produces a far
> more impressive image, I've seen it in graphic comparisons - sharper,
> better color, better contrast, etc. This is supposedly because it uses
> ink droplets that are smaller than any other printer's. I do glossy
> covered booklets and greeting cards (Epson Glossy Paper). You'll be
> blown away by the quality of print.
>
> Don't let anyone knock the iP5000 for speed. The only reason it appears
It does not appear slower it is. But the higher resolution does take
longer.
> to be slower is because it can print at twice the resolution, 9600 vs
> 4800 dpi, for the iP4000. Good things take longer. For greeting cards
> and all glossy work I set it to maximum resolution settings: Quality 1
> (in the custom box) and Photo Paper Pro.
>
> My greeting card paper of choice is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Costco
> used to sell it by the box, but it is being dropped by Costco.
Costco/Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper is nearly as good as Canon Photo
Paper Pro and 1/7 of the cost. Rumor has it that it may be made by
Ilford as they have a factory in Switzerland.
> You
> can, of course, always get it at a stationary store. Then again, your
> paper of choice may be matte. I like gloss for cards, it really brings
> out the color, and that is what you're looking for, no? Because I
> can only print on one side I attach a coated matte paper insert in
> the greeting card, either hand stapled at center or glued near the
> spine. This extra sheet allows me to add more to my cards, like a
> feature I did one Christmas on The Three Wise Men. I had room for
> background information and more images. Halloween too. I had a couple
> of half pages of kids Halloween Jokes one year: "When can't you bury
> people who live opposite a graveyard? .... When they're not dead."
> (sorry, I can't credit the author).
>
> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.
If your print load is very high like his it may make sense; otherwise
stick with Canon. Refilling is a pain. You can save enough by using
prefilled carts if you go that route. Beware of what you buy and where
you buy it. These vendors are not regulated and can put anything in the
carts. Most will not tell you what is in the box and do not specify
that on the website.
> If
> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega dollars
> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my greeting
> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly, today
> I have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough bulk ink to
Isn't that when you were eight years old? ;-)
> probably fill another 7. If you're thinking "ink freedom", then ask and
> there are several people here who will give you tips on which inks
> (cartridges) have proven to be both safe and produce accurate colors.
But beware that this NG has a resident AfterMarket Club with about a
half dozen or so regular members.
>
> -Taliesyn
measekite
Davy wrote:
>A good reveiw for the ip5000 is at Photo-i with picture comparisons
>pitted against higher class printers, and sure you'll agree the 5000
>stands up well.
>
>
>
Also www.pcmag.com reviewed the IP4000 vs IP5000 against each other.
>Its very ink conservative, see through tanks and each replaceable and
>NOT CHIPPED another good review is at Steve's Digicams.
>
>One thing to note is the 1pL print head, which produces ink dots that
>are much closer together than a 2pL.
>
>PC Mag states that the 5000 is one step lower in picture quality than
>the 4000, I feel that this is an error on their part - the clue is
>the time they say it takes to print a picture on the highest setting,
>the time they say it takes appears to be its second best setting
>(don't let this put you off), they also say its better at pastels and
>graphics, this is understandable because of the better vertical
>resolution.
>
>
If that is the case you should write a letter to the editor. Maybe they
will retest (they have done that in the past) or publish your letter as
they do on many occasions.
>I feel that this is aimed at the office environment where text,
>graphics, pie charts etc are required, one thing to remember
>withPixma's is when doing 'glossy photoes' to use the top tray and
>not the bottom one, because you dont want the nice glossy surface
>damaged by the paper doing a 'U turn', anything else is OK.
>
>
I use the bottom tray for business paper and the top for photos and feed
only 1 sheet at a time.
Taliesyn
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.
>
>
You mean tedious, messy and may not work, right?
Only if you do it, Measekite.
I just changed my black BCI-3e and then refilled the empty one with
fresh bulk, right in front of my computer screen, no gloves, no towels,
and absolutely no drops of ink on my fingers (because I'm good!). The
time it took to find the replacement cartridge, find the bulk ink and
syringe, switch cartridges, unseal the empty, fill the empty, reseal the
empty, wash the syringe, put everything away, took all of 8 minutes. And
I wasn't rushing. It's a fun job, I enjoy it. And the best part, it cost
me all of $1.00 dollar, based on the initial $17 outlay for the bulk
ink. Compare that to a new black BCI-3e bought at Wal-Mart (Canada) -
about $25 CAD with taxes. Paying $1 is a lot LESS PAINFUL than paying
$25, no matter which school of math you went to. If this is the
"refilling pain" you speak of, give me more pain, please!!!
-Taliesyn
Burt
We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
experiences on this NG. One participant choses to criticize our posts,
deride the vendors that have proven reliable in our dealings with them, and
group us together as if we were some bad-ink cabal. He has not used any
third party ink carts and has continually called refilling a pain and too
messy although he has never tried it. My experience is that any potential
mess is easily managed and contained and it is simple and quick to do with
the canon bci6 carts. Your best recommendation is from a friend who has
personally used a reliable vendor (not one that someone heard was reliable)
and has personally used a product that did not harm her printer and provided
color matches to her satisfaction. I feel that this post is an honest and
reasonable approach to explaining this issue and you can use your own
judgement in evaluating any responses.
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfe...@nada.com...
Taliesyn
> Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this NG.
> We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
> inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
> experiences on this NG.
Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in Fargo,
North Dakota. Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all
seem to use a different brand of ink! Oh well, so much for Measekite's
wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt. But I do
notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling. It must
be 5 months straight now. So we know he's keenly interested. Perhaps,
Burt, we'll invite him to next year's convention in St. John's,
Newfoundland. Pack your empties ... and don't forget the orange caps.
Isn't this exciting!!!
-Taliesyn
Burt
auxialliary group, the Paintball Survivalist Combat team would love to take
aim.
"Taliesyn" <tali...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1181tfm...@corp.supernews.com...
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on this NG.
>
>
Yes there is. While not a formal joining of members it is a group of
individuals that join each other in a common belief system much like
evangelism. Their posts retain a common theme and they leave little
room for differences of opinion much like a cult.
>We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have used third party
>inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
>experiences on this NG. One participant choses to criticize our posts,
>deride the vendors that have proven reliable in our dealings with them, and
>group us together as if we were some bad-ink cabal. He has not used any
>third party ink carts and has continually called refilling a pain and too
>messy although he has never tried it.
>
I prefer to go to the grocery store to get a steak rather than raising,
feeding, slaughtering and cutting my own beef. If I wanted to go to all
that trouble I could also save money.
The truth is if your print load is high you can justify seeking out the
truth about aftermarket inks. You will find that most of the vendors
are mom and pops hiding behind websites that do not provide a full
disclosure of details. An unlike the gasoline industry this one is not
regulated. Caveat Emptor.
>My experience is that any potential
>mess is easily managed and contained
>
Why spend the time to manage and contain. If you go to the aftermarket
route and you find a good professional vender that displays in writing
on their site what they are selling, you might be better off opting for
prefilled carts. You do not need to squeeze every cent and endure and
have to contain the mess.
>and it is simple and quick to do with
>the canon bci6 carts. Your best recommendation is from a friend who has
>personally used a reliable vendor (not one that someone heard was reliable)
>and has personally used a product that did not harm her printer and provided
>color matches to her satisfaction.
>
The difference between HP and Canon is in the printhead. As long as the
HP does not leak you get a new printhead with each cartridge. With the
Canon you risk clogging your printhead.
Many of these tinkerers who claim no clogging get that result because of
the high use of the printer. For average users you may run into difficult.
Many in the AfterMarket club attempt to stifle my view points because
the do not like what I say. And some, while they do not or reluctantly
disclose it are resellers themselves who want to promote the industry
ie. Got Milk while a few blatantly spam the NG advertising their wares.
>I feel that this post is an honest and
>reasonable approach to explaining this issue and
>
and so do I so
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I use compatible cartridges and bulk ink exclusively for my printers.
>>> There's absolutely no clogging and it costs me next to nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Refilling is a pain.
>
>
> You mean tedious, messy and may not work, right?
>
> Only if you do it, Measekite.
>
> I just changed my black BCI-3e and then refilled the empty one with
> fresh bulk, right in front of my computer screen, no gloves, no towels,
> and absolutely no drops of ink on my fingers (because I'm good!). The
> time it took to find the replacement cartridge, find the bulk ink and
> syringe, switch cartridges, unseal the empty, fill the empty, reseal the
> empty, wash the syringe, put everything away, took all of 8 minutes.
Well your the cats tukiss.
> And
> I wasn't rushing. It's a fun job,
If that is what you call fun; Do you do Windows.
> I enjoy it. And the best part, it cost
> me all of $1.00 dollar, based on the initial $17 outlay for the bulk
> ink. Compare that to a new black BCI-3e bought at Wal-Mart (Canada) -
> about $25 CAD with taxes. Paying $1 is a lot LESS PAINFUL than paying
> $25, no matter which school of math you went to. If this is the
> "refilling pain" you speak of, give me more pain, please!!!
In the US the ration is far less.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
>
>
>
> You can save enough by using
>
>> prefilled carts if you go that route. Beware of what you buy and
>> where you buy it. These vendors are not regulated and can put
>> anything in the carts. Most will not tell you what is in the box and
>> do not specify that on the website.
>>
>>> If
>>> there's a slight color, brightness or contrast variation between
>>> original inks and the ones I use, I can compensate. I'm not a pro
>>> so I don't work to a "standard". The difference in price is mega
>>> dollars
>>> and knowing I can print full color greeting cards for all my friends
>>> without counting pennies. Back 10 years ago I remember using original
>>> inks and not making any large images or color backgrounds on my
>>> greeting
>>> cards because they used a lot of expensive ink. Ha! Honestly,
>>> today I have 7 sets of prefilled compatible cartridges and enough
>>> bulk ink to
>>
In your case and at your age, and where you live you indeed made the
right decision for your self. But most people do not have you print
requirements.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> Burt wrote:
>
>> Sarah - Please understand that there is no "Aftermarket Club" on
>> this NG. We just happen to be individuals who have never met, have
>> used third party
>> inks from selected vendors, and have individually reported our own
>> experiences on this NG.
>
>
> Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
> We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in
> Fargo, North Dakota.
Be honest, it was Salt Lake, Utah
> Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all seem to use a
> different brand of ink!
I did not say you were the Label X club but the AfterMarket Club.
> Oh well, so much for Measekite's
> wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
> no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
Be honest, I dd not use Canon Carts in my HP printer. I use HP in my HP
and Canon in my Canon. If my print load was very high I would consider
researching in even greater detail and then research a full disclosure
vendor.
> Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt.
But remember that most of the members of the AfterMarket are hobbyists
and tinkerers. Now tell me would you buy a radio in store or build a
radio kit from parts.
Now I am be concervative in this areabut I still have built a number of
desktop computers from scratch, built a server, installed a network and
programmed a multi tiered based computer database program.
> But I do
> notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling.
To fully disclose the info that is dissemenated by the AfterMarket Club.
> It must be 5 months straight now. So we know he's keenly interested.
> Perhaps,
> Burt, we'll invite him to next year's convention in St. John's,
> Newfoundland.
Only after the US annexes Canada; but only the good part.
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Taliesyn - How about recruiting him as keynote speaker at the banquet?
>
I do not eat shit.
>Our
>auxialliary group, 3
>
Is that the one who wears dresses?
>the Paintball Survivalist Combat team would love to take
>aim.
>
>
Is that the only type of balls you have?
Taliesyn
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>>
>> Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the truth.
>> We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in
>> Fargo, North Dakota.
>
>
>
> Be honest, it was Salt Lake, Utah
Too public. We work in solitude, away from OEM spies.
>
>> Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all seem to use a
>> different brand of ink!
>
>
> I did not say you were the Label X club but the AfterMarket Club.
Oh, I see, like the Mazda Owners club and that other stupid little
car ... whatever it's called.
>
>> Oh well, so much for Measekite's
>> wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
>> no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
>
>
>
> Be honest, I dd not use Canon Carts in my HP printer.
They don't fit, by the way. But you probably already found that out.
And I've been filling my sister's HP carts as well for what must be
over 5 years now. Two of those suckers (color & Black) cost about $125
in Canada. She probably saved $1000 so far.
> If my print load was very high I would consider researching in even
> greater detail and then research a full disclosure vendor.
Humbug! You research by gossip, websites, hearsay, rumor, and then try
to figure it all out in a neat little package that will present
absolutely no risk to your inexpensive printer. Had it been an expensive
model I'd have some sympathy for you.
I research by buying the ink and using it in my more expensive printer
and seeing if I like it. I have no fear since I've refilled Canons,
Epsons, a Lexmark and an HP with different inks for about 10 years and
never encountered any problems. The difference between us is experience.
I have it, you have none. Hence your fear.
>> Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt.
>
>
> But remember that most of the members of the AfterMarket are hobbyists
> and tinkerers.
Huh? Who were you expecting, rocket scientists and engineers?
No, we're common "joe's" who like to print things and save money. It's
really quite an easy concept, like rolling your own cigarettes and
saving money. Except that I don't smoke. If we had any fear at all that
it could damage our printers we wouldn't be using it. Most of us own
printer that are more expensive than yours.
> Now tell me would you buy a radio in store or build a radio kit from parts.
Huh? ... again. I'm not building cartridges, nor radios.
>
> Now I am be concervative in this areabut I still have built a number of
> desktop computers from scratch, built a server, installed a network and
> programmed a multi tiered based computer database program.
"Well your the cats tukiss." (just returning the favor...)
>
>> But I do
>> notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling.
>
>
>
> To fully disclose the info that is dissemenated by the AfterMarket Club.
Hard work when you don't have any actual 3rd party ink to try out, isn't
it? Hey, you can get some on eBay. Oh, forgot, that's a pain for you
too. You're still trying to figure the risk factor and the hassles
involved with that as well. And PayPal. Another huge risk, right?
Life is really hard for you, Measekite. How do you live with yourself?
- Taliesyn
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Come on, Burt, the jig's up, Measekite is on to us! Tell her the
>>> truth.
>>> We all went to the Born Again Aftermarket Ink Club Convention in
>>> Fargo, North Dakota.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Be honest, it was Salt Lake, Utah
>
>
> Too public. We work in solitude, away from OEM spies.
>
>>
>>> Which, of course, doesn't explain the fact that we all seem to use a
>>> different brand of ink!
>>
>>
>>
>> I did not say you were the Label X club but the AfterMarket Club.
>
>
> Oh, I see, like the Mazda Owners club and that other stupid little
> car ... whatever it's called.
Actually the Mazda Owners club was merged into the Ford Club.
>
>>
>>> Oh well, so much for Measekite's
>>> wild but amusing conspiracy theory. No, Sarah, the poster Measekite has
>>> no experience in this field since he only uses Canon brand cartridges.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Be honest, I dd not use Canon Carts in my HP printer.
>
>
> They don't fit, by the way. But you probably already found that out.
>
> And I've been filling my sister's HP carts as well for what must be
> over 5 years now.
She must not print month since the print head in those carts only last
for a few refills.
> Two of those suckers (color & Black) cost about $125
> in Canada. She probably saved $1000 so far.
>
>> If my print load was very high I would consider researching in even
>
> > greater detail and then research a full disclosure vendor.
>
> Humbug! You research by gossip, websites, hearsay, rumor, and then try
> to figure it all out in a neat little package that will present
> absolutely no risk to your inexpensive printer. Had it been an expensive
> model I'd have some sympathy for you.
Well I was a research analyst and that was the way to begin. We saw
many of you hot shot high schools kids up and go. And with all of the
bright talk you guys were kept in the background because you needed to
learn how to make business decisions; still a little wet behind the
ears. But that is OK; we all were filled with a little piss and
vinegar when were had baby faces.
>
> I research by buying the ink and using it in my more expensive printer
> and seeing if I like it. I have no fear since I've refilled Canons,
> Epsons, a Lexmark and an HP with different inks for about 10 years
since you were 7 or 8. Mommy must have had a fit when you first started
and messed up the place.
> and
> never encountered any problems. The difference between us is experience.
> I have it, you have none. Hence your fear.
>
>>> Anything you glean from him take with three grains of salt.
>>
>>
>>
>> But remember that most of the members of the AfterMarket are
>> hobbyists and tinkerers.
>
>
> Huh? Who were you expecting, rocket scientists and engineers?
So you do admit the above
>
> No, we're common "joe's" who like to print things and save money.
Well than why don't you just print money then you won;t have to save it.
> It's
> really quite an easy concept, like rolling your own cigarettes and
> saving money.
Do you also make your own condoms or don;t you use them yet?
> Except that I don't smoke. If we had any fear at all that
> it could damage our printers we wouldn't be using it. Most of us own
> printer that are more expensive than yours.
I think my house is more expensive than your printer.
>
>> Now tell me would you buy a radio in store or build a radio kit from
>> parts.
>
>
> Huh? ... again. I'm not building cartridges, nor radios.
Why don;t you buy bulk oil and refine it yourself and put it in your car
if you have one.
>
>>
>> Now I am be concervative in this areabut I still have built a number
>> of desktop computers from scratch, built a server, installed a
>> network and programmed a multi tiered based computer database program.
>
>
> "Well your the cats tukiss." (just returning the favor...)
I am the cats meow.
>
>>
>>> But I do
>>> notice he talks non-stop about aftermarket inks and refilling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To fully disclose the info that is dissemenated by the AfterMarket Club.
>
>
> Hard work when you don't have any actual 3rd party ink to try out, isn't
> it? Hey, you can get some on eBay. Oh, forgot, that's a pain for you
> too. You're still trying to figure the risk factor and the hassles
> involved with that as well. And PayPal. Another huge risk, right?
> Life is really hard for you, Measekite. How do you live with yourself?
I don't
>
> - Taliesyn
Sarah Feliz
iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
would the iP4000 photos be better?
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/10/05 7:04 AM, in article 1181fs5...@corp.supernews.com,
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>I'm confused about the pcmag.com review of these printers. It says that the
>iP4000 produces better photos and the iP5000 produces better text and
>graphics but lower-quality photos. All this despite the 1-picoliter minimum
>drop size and the increased resolution of the iP5000. How can this be? Why
>would the iP4000 photos be better?
>
>
According to PCMAG the smaller droplet size is effective when producing
text and graphics ala business documents. The difference there is
substantial. As far as most of the photos the difference is marginal
with the IP4000 coming out on top but it was faster.
Sarah Feliz
does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
already stated.
With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/10/05 10:47 PM, in article
q%gge.15358$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
Patrick
Sarah,
Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
match has ensued (not taking any sides).
To get back to your questions.
I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice. I only use my printer for
photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
is like everything else there are good and bad.
As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
resolution (which I always do).
The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
consideration.
--
Patrick
Caitlin
>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the
> speed.
> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
> already stated.
>
> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos
> be
> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
>
I have read some speculation that this may be because PCMag may not have
tested the IP5000 at maximum photo quality setting, but only standard
setting. It's also possible it could have been a driver problem I suppose
(Hopefully fixed). I have the IP4000 and am very happy with it (though I
intend to get a pigment printer for the ink stability factor eventually) so
I can't make any comment about the actual difference - but I agree it
doesn't make sense that the IP5000 would be lower quality in photos.
Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in general,
it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)
Patrick
> > With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
photos
> > be
> > substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
> >
> > If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
> Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
> the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in
general,
> it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)
I don't know where the OP is from and I don't know whether this service is
provided globally but Canon's europe site will allow you to upload your own
image which they will then print on the printers you are considering. Here
is the europe url so you can see what I'm talking about;
http://www.yourprint.canon-europe.com/index.html
--
Patrick
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
>does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
>Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
>already stated.
>
>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
>substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
>
I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not used
when printing photos. While it does not make sense I am sure the
explanation would be interesting. Another thing that you could do is
contact Canon Tech Support with a copy of the PC Mag test report in hand
and discuss it with them. If you do please publish your findings here.
measekite
Patrick wrote:
>>So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
>>
>>
>speed,
>
>
>>inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
>>especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>>
>>Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
>>non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
>>transparency?
>>
>>Any downside to these printers?
>>
>>
>
>Sarah,
>
>Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
>match has ensued (not taking any sides).
>
>To get back to your questions.
>
>I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
>take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
>I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice.
>
AND A WISE CHOICE ALSO
>I only use my printer for
>photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
>both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
>ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
>is like everything else there are good and bad.
>
>
And because most of the ink junkies will not tell you what they are
selling you could wind up buying the same problem inks from various
vendors under their different webstore labels. There are some good ones
but if your print load is average or less then OEM is the best choice.
>As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
>qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
>resolution (which I always do).
>
>The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
>better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
>It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
>there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
>opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
>its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
>In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
>Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
>used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
>solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
>consideration.
>
>
The one thing that I have never seen addresses is as follows. The wide
format editiors choice in most of the reviews is the Canon i9900. Its
narrow carriage running mate the IP8500 (same 8 color print engine) that
came out after the IP5000 is a 2 picoliter system. If the trend is
going to 1pl and it is better why would Canon bring out their flagship
printer and not use 1pl? That is the question.
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
measekite
an independent service and all brands of printers and many different
papers were included.
Brian Potter
news:2woge.1192$3%4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>>I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But
>>why does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to
>>the speed. Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just
>>repeats what I've already stated.
>>
>>With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000
>>photos be substantially *better* not worse than those from the
>>iP4000?
>>
>>If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>>
>>
>
> I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
> write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not
> used when printing photos.
Incorrect. It use 1 pl droplets for photos.
Davy
Simply get on to Canon and order some print samples from their
automated service.
You'll have to put two orders in, one for the 4000 and one for the
5000. If you read the PC Mag review take note of the time they say it
takes to print a photo, this to me and one or two other suggest they
have not got it on the highest setting. Now then, does it not seem
odd that it produces better pastels, better graphics and better text
through the added vertical resolution, the photo quality has just
gotta be improved, the details in the picture has got to be improved
likewise.
Now if the picture is one step below the 5000 lets have some sensible
suggestions instead of quotes without explanations as we see so many
times throughout this forum.
Sarah Feliz
them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.
Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better hands
down.
What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better results
for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope the
kind people of this forum will have answers for:
1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see any such a
option. In fact, people have commented on the slowness of the iP5000 and I
don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing something?
And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I should be
using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?
Also, often this option is greyed out. Why?
2. What setting do I use for printing on Matte NON-PHOTO paper? By this I do
not mean "plain paper" either (or do I?) -- I'm talking about greeting card
paper, watercolor paper, textured paper, often non-coated. On my ancient HP
895C (which I adored), not only were there settings for "greeting cards" but
it produced stunning prints on most of these diverse papers (even though
they weren't "inkjet" processed). Can I expect such results with the iP5000?
The only settings I see that might be appropriate are: Matte Photo Paper,
Other Photo Paper, Plain Paper. Which is the right one?
I tried to print a few digital paintings (not photos) on several of these
kinds of papers but the printer seems to throw ink at the papers and the
subtlety of the brushwork in the paintings is gone. Is there any way I can
optimize the settings to get better results?
3. In Print Mode, I see the following options:
- Printing top quality photo
- Printing tables
- Printing composite doc
- Detailed setting
There’s no indication anywhere on how to use these settings? What does each
of these settings accomplish? Is “printing tables” a code word for
graphics? What does “composite doc” mean? Photo plus text? Graphic plus
text? When is it appropriate to use “Detailed Setting?” Inside this latter
setting there are additional settings, including the possibility of choosing
between Graphic and Photo? When do I use this, as opposed to “printing top
quality photo?”
When I have a digital painting, do I need the “graphic” or the “photo”
setting? What does each one do? Does anyone know? It’s exasperating not to
have the manual go over these things in detail. How is one supposed to
figure all of this out?
If anyone has experimented with these settings and come up with good
results, I’d love to hear from you.
I have a week to play with both printer. Then I must return one. Please
help me make that decision.
Many thanks,
Sarah
On 5/11/05 2:02 AM, in article d5shno$4u5$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk,
measekite
Brian Potter wrote:
If you are correct than why do you think that PC MAG rated the !P4000
above the IP5000 for fotos?
Mister Max
Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?
•meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."
Are you that ugly?
- Max
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
> Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 --
> one of
> them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.
>
> Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
> cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better
> hands
> down.
With the Canon you should use either Canon Photo Paper Pro or go to
Costco and buy Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper at 1/7 of the cost producing
98% as good a result. And be sure to use the proper profile. Also, Canon
photos prints are usually more saturated and vibrant that for some
tastes need to be toned down.
>
> What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better
> results
> for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope
> the
> kind people of this forum will have answers for:
>
> 1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see
> any such a
> option.
>
Choose the Canon Photo Paper Pro paper and use the High settings. If you
use Photoshop set the profile for PR1. Like I said before use either
Canon Photo Paper Pro or Costco/Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper. This is
made in Switzerland and my be made by Ilford.
> In fact, people have commented on the slowness of the iP5000 and I
> don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing something?
>
It is faster than most but not as fast as the IP5000.
>
> And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I
> should be
> using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?
>
Use the Canon Photo Paper Pro setting for that paper and also for
Kirkland Photo Glossy.
>
> Also, often this option is greyed out. Why?
>
> 2. What setting do I use for printing on Matte NON-PHOTO paper? By
> this I do
> not mean "plain paper" either (or do I?) -- I'm talking about
> greeting card
> paper, watercolor paper, textured paper, often non-coated. On my
> ancient HP
> 895C (which I adored), not only were there settings for "greeting
> cards" but
> it produced stunning prints on most of these diverse papers (even
> though
> they weren't "inkjet" processed). Can I expect such results with
> the iP5000?
>
> The only settings I see that might be appropriate are: Matte Photo
> Paper,
> Other Photo Paper, Plain Paper. Which is the right one?
>
> I tried to print a few digital paintings (not photos) on several
> of these
> kinds of papers but the printer seems to throw ink at the papers
> and the
> subtlety of the brushwork in the paintings is gone. Is there any
> way I can
> optimize the settings to get better results?
>
> 3. In Print Mode, I see the following options:
>
> * Printing top quality photo
> * Printing tables
> * Printing composite doc
> * Detailed setting
measekite
Mister Max wrote:
No, is your sister?
Burt
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message news:BEA7A8AD.32C2%sfe...@nada.com...
Sarah Feliz
What printer does one use for such papers?
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/11/05 7:33 PM, in article
6gzge.1586$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<meas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Thereąs no indication anywhere on how to use these settings? What does
>> each
>> of these settings accomplish? Is łprinting tables˛ a code word for
>> graphics? What does łcomposite doc˛ mean? Photo plus text? Graphic plus
>> text? When is it appropriate to use łDetailed Setting?˛ Inside this
>> latter
>> setting there are additional settings, including the possibility of
>> choosing
>> between Graphic and Photo? When do I use this, as opposed to łprinting
>> top
>> quality photo?˛
>>
>> When I have a digital painting, do I need the łgraphic˛ or the łphoto˛
>> setting? What does each one do? Does anyone know? Itąs exasperating
>> not to
>> have the manual go over these things in detail. How is one supposed to
>> figure all of this out?
>>
>> If anyone has experimented with these settings and come up with good
>> results, Iąd love to hear from you.
Caitlin
> So no dice for artistic non-photo papers for the IP5000?
>
> What printer does one use for such papers?
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
> On 5/11/05 7:33 PM, in article
> 6gzge.1586$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
> <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Umm... no it doesn't necessarily mean that - it means measkite is our
resident ill-informed troll and his advice it to be taken with a very big
grain of salt. I have him kilfilled, so have not seen all his responses to
this thread. Personally I have only used Canon and Kodak paper, and the
results on Kodak paper were very poor. You might also try posting your
question here: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=40
Larry
> I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
> does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
> Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
> already stated.
>
> With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
> substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?
>
> If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
>
The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.
I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
second ip4000.
The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
head wasnt as good as Canon expected.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Patrick
>results, I’d love to hear from you.
>I have a week to play with both printer. Then I must return one. Please
>help me make that decision.
Patrick
>
> What printer does one use for such papers?
I no longer use windows and so can't use Canons driver. This means I can't
help you with advice about settings.
Have a read through this review;
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pixma%205000/page-1.htm
Page four details test prints including some settings - you may find it
helpfull. There are comparison outputs including the HP8450 and Canon's
IP8500.
Arthur Entlich
a she and she's stunningly attractive. Nice thing a but the internet,
you never really know who you are comunicating with.
Art
measekite
Caitlin wrote:
>"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
>news:BEA83C00.E71D%sfe...@nada.com...
>
>
>>So no dice for artistic non-photo papers for the IP5000?
>>
>>What printer does one use for such papers?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Sarah
>>
>>On 5/11/05 7:33 PM, in article
>>6gzge.1586$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>><meas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>*snip*
>
>
Convenient
>Umm... no it doesn't necessarily mean that - it means measkite is our
>resident ill-informed troll and his advice it to be taken with a very big
>grain of salt.
>
>I have him kilfilled,
>
Good
>so have not seen all his responses to
>this thread.
>
Then you must be a jerk
>Personally I have only used Canon and Kodak paper, and the
>results on Kodak paper were very poor.
>
Then why use Kodak Paper?
>You might also try posting your
>question here: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=40
>
>
Better to Call Canon Tech Support. They are very helpful and can answer
many of your questions.
>
>
>
measekite
Larry wrote:
THIS IS THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED BY PC MAG. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR. SOMETIMES THEY PUBLISH
THE RESULTS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
BUT IF YOU DO A LOT OF TEXT AND BUSINESS GRAPHICS THE IP5000 IS YOUR
BEST CHOICE. THE FOTOS WILL STILL BE ALMOST AS GOOD BUT NOT QUITE.
>
>
>
Taliesyn
> Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 -- one of
> them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.
>
> Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
> cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better hands
> down.
>
> What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better
> results
> for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope the
> kind people of this forum will have answers for:
>
> 1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see
> any such a option. In fact, people have commented on the slowness
> of the iP5000 and I don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing
> something?
Sorry, Sarah, I've been "away" doing actual printing (4 CD project) and
digital song editing. The nice thing about using non-OEM ink on a large,
colorful project as this is that I can do as many test prints as I want
(any resolution) without worrying about ink costs. They're too low to
even consider.
But regarding the iP5000's best quality setting. . .
In Properties, in the Print Quality section, choose "Custom" and click
the "Select" button. In this new window slide the Quality indicator to
the far right, or "1" setting. The other thing to do is select "Photo
Paper Pro". This combination sets maximum photo resolution (9600).
I use these settings for all my high quality work, be it glossy photos
(any brand paper), or Epson Glossy Photo Paper for greeting cards and CD
liners, or my Meritline Glossy stick-on CD labels, or even for my coated
papers that I use for graphics. It generally gives wonderful results. At
this setting my 4x6 photos take about a minute longer to print than on
my i860 (iP4000) because of the higher resolution. But that's only
logical - Quality setting takes longer than Standard which takes longer
than Draft. Thus, 9600 will take longer than 4800 dpi.
The iP5000 uses both 1 pl and 5 pl droplets for photos, and the iP4000
uses 2 pl and 5 pl for photos. This information is from Canon websites
and is not a wild guess.
>
> And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I
> should be using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?
> Also, often this option is greyed out. Why?
For settings of specialized papers I can't help you as I don't use them.
The papers I do use seem to work best at my above settings.
Trial and error is one way to find out.
-Taliesyn
measekite
pete wrote:
>He is a troll
>
>
Cut your little pecker of if you can find it and Eat It.
Peter Piper Pick a Peck of Pickeled Peckers.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 --
>> one of
>> them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.
>>
>> Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking):
>> crisper,
>> cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better
>> hands
>> down.
>>
>> What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better
>> results
>> for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I
>> hope the
>> kind people of this forum will have answers for:
>>
>> 1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see
>> any such a option. In fact, people have commented on the slowness
>
> > of the iP5000 and I don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing
> > something?
>
> Sorry, Sarah, I've been "away" doing actual printing (4 CD project) and
> digital song editing. The nice thing about using non-OEM ink on a large,
> colorful project as this is that I can do as many test prints as I want
> (any resolution) without worrying about ink costs. They're too low to
> even consider.
Yes that is you . Bill Gates can do the same using Canon ink and he
does ot worry about ink costs either.
>
> But regarding the iP5000's best quality setting. . .
>
> In Properties, in the Print Quality section, choose "Custom" and click
> the "Select" button. In this new window slide the Quality indicator to
> the far right, or "1" setting. The other thing to do is select "Photo
> Paper Pro". This combination sets maximum photo resolution (9600).
Doesn't High with the Photo Paper Pro setting do the same thing?
>
> I use these settings for all my high quality work, be it glossy photos
> (any brand paper), or Epson Glossy Photo Paper for greeting cards and CD
> liners, or my Meritline Glossy stick-on CD labels, or even for my coated
> papers that I use for graphics. It generally gives wonderful results. At
> this setting my 4x6 photos take about a minute longer to print than on
> my i860 (iP4000) because of the higher resolution. But that's only
> logical - Quality setting takes longer than Standard which takes longer
> than Draft. Thus, 9600 will take longer than 4800 dpi.
>
> The iP5000 uses both 1 pl and 5 pl droplets for photos, and the iP4000
> uses 2 pl and 5 pl for photos. This information is from Canon websites
> and is not a wild guess.
How about the link for the particular article on the Canon website?
Sarah Feliz
at home) and so can't apply your settings. I don't even remember seeing a
Custom setting in Print Quality-- all I recall is a list of pre-set Photo
Papers. Is it possible that I have a different driver (am using Mac OS X, by
the way)? I remember that somewhere (under Color Options) there's a slider
that allows you to choose between Fast and Fine, with settings in between. I
have used it and found that the photos come out quite good. But sometimes
that's greyed out.
What about the more fine art papers (non-photo, thicker, textured,
watercolor, etc) -- do you have any experience with those? I use those for
greeting cards and small wall paintings and would love to know what the
optimal settings for these papers would be. Even though Canon may not
officially support these papers, even from the little testing I've done I
can see that on some it works great. The next question would be longevity.
How long can I expect these prints to last?
As to photo output in the IP5000 versus the IP4000--I'm concerned about the
fact that everyone points out how much better the IP4000 photos are. How
much of a difference in quality are we talking about? In what way are the
IP4000 photos better? Are the IP4000 photos better than IP5000 photos at the
highest setting? Has anyone done side by side comparisons with the same
photo?
What to do? I'm tempted to get the IP4000 just to test it side by side with
the IP5000 (but that would drive me crazy because I know I'll end up wanting
to keep both--which would be even more absurd given that this printer is
intended to be an intermediary step before I spring for the Epson 2400 after
the summer).
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/12/05 9:57 AM, in article 11872np...@corp.supernews.com,
Sarah Feliz
better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such? Or
do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
follow your advice on this printer.
Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/12/05 6:34 AM, in article
6YIge.1603$3%4.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
Taliesyn
I guess that really ticks you off that I have so much expendable,
affordable ink (and I'm happy with it) that you've compared me now to
Bill Gates. The "Bill Gates" of compatible inks! I'm honored.
>
>>
>> But regarding the iP5000's best quality setting. . .
>>
>> In Properties, in the Print Quality section, choose "Custom" and click
>> the "Select" button. In this new window slide the Quality indicator to
>> the far right, or "1" setting. The other thing to do is select "Photo
>> Paper Pro". This combination sets maximum photo resolution (9600).
>
>
>
> Doesn't High with the Photo Paper Pro setting do the same thing?
>
Dunno. It may, and it may not. That's something you can try with your
own printer. Just time how long a print takes using both methods. If
the print takes exactly as long and looks the same then I guess the two
are interchangeable. Just to be sure it's the highest setting, I've
always done it (my way) through "Custom".
>>
>> I use these settings for all my high quality work, be it glossy photos
>> (any brand paper), or Epson Glossy Photo Paper for greeting cards and CD
>> liners, or my Meritline Glossy stick-on CD labels, or even for my coated
>> papers that I use for graphics. It generally gives wonderful results. At
>> this setting my 4x6 photos take about a minute longer to print than on
>> my i860 (iP4000) because of the higher resolution. But that's only
>> logical - Quality setting takes longer than Standard which takes longer
>> than Draft. Thus, 9600 will take longer than 4800 dpi.
>>
>> The iP5000 uses both 1 pl and 5 pl droplets for photos, and the iP4000
>> uses 2 pl and 5 pl for photos. This information is from Canon websites
>> and is not a wild guess.
>
>
> How about the link for the particular article on the Canon website?
>
Just Google. I don't have a link, that's how I found it. But it is fact,
it's not an "I think".
-Taliesyn
Taliesyn
> Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
> better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
> they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such? Or
> do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
> and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
> follow your advice on this printer.
>
I'm not an expert, but can I chime in?... To me, "graphics" means
anything that is not a photo, something in the .jpg format.
If your digital art is in the form of a .jpg image then it should be
considered "photo". If your project consists of both .jpg and graphics
(a red box, clipart, etc) then you should probably select "Auto" in the
Color Adjustment box in Properties. If it's just one or the other,
select "manual" and then choose either "Photo" or "Graphic". Or you can
always just leave it at "Auto" and let the printer handle things. You do
have to experiment to see which method prints most closely to what you
expected.
> Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
Same as for photos: Quality setting to 1 in Custom-Set window in Print
Quality, and paper type set to Photo Paper Pro. Of course, the paper
setting may depend on what paper you're using. I mostly use paper that
works great with the Photo Paper Pro setting.
> Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
> matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
> to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
Yes, I do, I set it what I'm printing. I find that it makes a
difference. There is also a useful "Brightness" setting in the same
area. Sometimes I find my graphic output is too light, so I set it
from Normal to Dark. I did use this Dark setting to darken my whole
Christmas project. It more closely matched what I was seeing on screen,
and what I really wanted. There are a lot of minor adjustment you can
make that change the output. You can even adjust for more intensity.
Again, test prints (and lots of ink) come in handy.
-Taliesyn
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>Thanks so much for your response. I'm away from the printer right now (it's
>at home) and so can't apply your settings. I don't even remember seeing a
>Custom setting in Print Quality-- all I recall is a list of pre-set Photo
>Papers. Is it possible that I have a different driver (am using Mac OS X, by
>the way)? I remember that somewhere (under Color Options) there's a slider
>that allows you to choose between Fast and Fine, with settings in between. I
>have used it and found that the photos come out quite good. But sometimes
>that's greyed out.
>
>What about the more fine art papers (non-photo, thicker, textured,
>watercolor, etc) -- do you have any experience with those? I use those for
>greeting cards and small wall paintings and would love to know what the
>optimal settings for these papers would be. Even though Canon may not
>officially support these papers, even from the little testing I've done I
>can see that on some it works great. The next question would be longevity.
>How long can I expect these prints to last?
>
>
There is and will be a lot of controversy when answering that question.
All I can say is that all of the prints I made 8 months ago and just
lying around on a desk are the same now as when I printed them.
>As to photo output in the IP5000 versus the IP4000--I'm concerned about the
>fact that everyone points out how much better the IP4000 photos are.
>
I have an IP4000. It is faster and the photos are only marginally
better than the IP5000. For your purposes the IP5000 was a better choice.
>How
>much of a difference in quality are we talking about?
>
Very little.
>In what way are the
>IP4000 photos better?
>
That is subjective and depends on the particular photo. These things
can vary. I would not even think about it.
>Are the IP4000 photos better than IP5000 photos at the
>highest setting? Has anyone done side by side comparisons with the same
>photo?
>
>
Read ther reviews at www.pcmag.com
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the IP5000 is
>better for that purpose than the IP4000?
>
Output that has text, diagrams, graphs, powerpoint material combined.
Basically, anything that is not a pure photo. It prints that stuff at a
higher resolution. You must choose plain paper to get that quality.
>I print a lot of graphics but
>they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and such?
>
Yes
>Or
>do you mean something else?
>
And Yes. Non Photos
>I print a lot of digital art (digital paintings
>and graphic art --
>
Yes
>I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>follow your advice on this printer.
>
>
Absolutely
>Also what are your settings for the best output of these business graphics?
>Do you actually choose the "graphic" setting in the Print menu? For that
>matter, do you change your settings when you're printing graphics as opposed
>to when you're printing photos (I mean other than paper option)?
>
>
I choose High and Plain Paper. I also am using a high quality ultra
bright 106+ hammermill paper. I have tried other quality papers but my
preference is hammermill. They are owned by International Paper. Go to
their website and send them an email asking for a sample package of
their papers for both laserjet and inkjet. Both will work but I prefer
their inkjet paper.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
Hey Don't get a swelled head :-)
Just cause ur head comes to a point
Don;t think ur sharp.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> Can you specify what you mean by "business graphics" and why the
>> IP5000 is
>> better for that purpose than the IP4000? I print a lot of graphics but
>> they're not business graphics. Are you talking about pie charts and
>> such? Or
>> do you mean something else? I print a lot of digital art (digital
>> paintings
>> and graphic art -- I want to be sure that we're on the same page when I
>> follow your advice on this printer.
>>
>
> I'm not an expert, but can I chime in?... To me, "graphics" means
> anything that is not a photo, something in the .jpg format.
>
> If your digital art is in the form of a .jpg image then it should be
> considered "photo".
FALSE STATEMENT - I have scanned contracts with graphic art and logos
using my Epson 4180 flatbed scanner and save them as .jpg images. I
then imported those images into MS Word and wrote additional text. I
then printed them out using the Plain Paper setting at High. Lo and
Behold there was the birth of a business document with graphics that was
not a photo but it included numerous .jpg images.
Sarah Feliz
that.
What about when you're combining actual photos and text? Still Plain Paper
and High? If you're printing on one of the photo papers, though, I imagine
you change the Plain Paper setting to the appropriate photo paper used,
correct?
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock, watercolor paper, fine art
papers in general. I guess it's test and see.
If anyone's tried this on an IP5000 and would be willing to share his or her
results, I'd be most grateful.
Sarah
On 5/12/05 2:26 PM, in article
6SPge.1759$Y81...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
Sarah Feliz
Sarah
Burt
IP5000 for a large variety of projects and also uses the I series printer
that shares the same printhead and inks with the IP4000. I have read
reviews that indicate that the IP4000 and its previous incarnation in the I
series prints essentially the same quality photos and other prints. He
actually uses these two printers side-by-side and would be the source I
would use for comparative information. Measekite certainly knows and enjoys
using his IP4000 printer and has quoted the comparative reviews from PC mag,
but Taliesyn has the experience of side-by-side use to help you with. If
there is anything in the IP5000 driver settings that differs from the IP4000
he, again, would be the best resource for guidance on settings.
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA8F58A.3350%sfe...@nada.com...
Taliesyn
> Thanks so much for your response. I'm away from the printer right now (it's
> at home) and so can't apply your settings. I don't even remember seeing a
> Custom setting in Print Quality-- all I recall is a list of pre-set Photo
> Papers. Is it possible that I have a different driver (am using Mac OS X, by
> the way)? I remember that somewhere (under Color Options) there's a slider
> that allows you to choose between Fast and Fine, with settings in between. I
> have used it and found that the photos come out quite good. But sometimes
> that's greyed out.
Can't help you there as I'm on Bill Gates' system. Either way, for
optimum quality it should be at the "1" setting" (fine).
>
> What about the more fine art papers (non-photo, thicker, textured,
> watercolor, etc) -- do you have any experience with those? I use those for
> greeting cards and small wall paintings and would love to know what the
> optimal settings for these papers would be. Even though Canon may not
> officially support these papers, even from the little testing I've done I
> can see that on some it works great.
Sorry, I don't use art papers. My greeting cards are always on Epson
Glossy Photo Paper. It's a multiple use paper for me: greeting cards,
CD liners, booklet covers. Except that I don't use it for its intended
purpose - digital photos. For that I use other brands, even from my
dollar store, which produces a slightly superior image to Canon Photo
Paper Pro. Side by side, Canon's paper has a visible haze which the
dollar store paper doesn't have. The drawback is that the dollar store
paper takes a day to fully dry. The advantage is I get 20 sheets for
1 dollar. :-)
> The next question would be longevity.
> How long can I expect these prints to last?
Only God knows and he won't tell anyone. Canon has thrown some numbers
around which you can easily find using Google. Like photos from film
cameras, anything you print will fade over time. I haven't noticed any
fading in items I have protected behind glass/plastic or just put away
in drawers for several years. They look as fresh as ever. It's not a
concern to me, and I don't even use OEM inks. So that tells you how
little I'm worried about it. Unprotected, and on Canon's best paper, I
saw a photo fade really badly in my kitchen within 3 months. Yeah, I
know, a kitchen is a "harsh environment". But obviously, protection is a
good thing. Epson Glossy Photo Paper easily outlasted Canon's best when
left unprotected in my "kitchen test".
Another thought on printing graphics . . . If I'm printing on plain
paper, then naturally, I choose Plain Paper setting and High Quality.
Any higher resolution or other paper setting and the ink may soak into
the paper too much. But when I use what's called "coated paper" for
graphics, I use the Photo Paper Pro setting, Quality 1 (same as for
photos). This works great for me.
-Taliesyn
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>Aha! So that's the secret: Plain Paper and High. Hmm.... I'll have to try
>that.
>
>What about when you're combining actual photos and text? Still Plain Paper
>and High?
>
No. If you are using glossy paper like Canon Photo Paper Pro or
Costco/Kirkland Photo Paper choose the Photo Paper Pro setting with
High. Costco is 1/7 the price of Canon paper and 98% as good. Canon
Photo Paper Pro came with your machine. Buy a Fiskars rotary paper
cutter (cut with shiney side up) and you can cut your own 4x6 and 5x7.
The price is $18.95 for 125 sheets.
>If you're printing on one of the photo papers, though, I imagine
>you change the Plain Paper setting to the appropriate photo paper used,
>correct?
>
>
Yes
>Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock, watercolor paper, fine art
>papers in general. I guess it's test and see.
>
>
You can call Canon Tech Suppt. They are very good.
Taliesyn
>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>
>> Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: what's the best setting for
>> non-plain, non-photo paper? As in: card stock,
Card stock is generally not coated so its surface would be the same as
plain paper, thus "Plain Paper", High Quality setting.
-Taliesyn
measekite
Burt wrote:
>At the risk of repeating what has already been posted, Taliesyn uses the
>IP5000 for a large variety of projects and also uses the I series printer
>that shares the same printhead and inks with the IP4000. I have read
>reviews that indicate that the IP4000 and its previous incarnation in the I
>series prints essentially the same quality photos and other prints. He
>actually uses these two printers side-by-side and would be the source I
>would use for comparative information. Measekite certainly knows and enjoys
>using his IP4000 printer and has quoted the comparative reviews from PC mag,
>but Taliesyn has the experience of side-by-side use to help you with. If
>there is anything in the IP5000 driver settings that differs from the IP4000
>he, again, would be the best resource for guidance on settings.
>
>
I do not think he is a resource for the Mac Driver. You are also
misinformed about his i series and his IP5000 having the same print
engine. The 1picoliter print engine on the IP5000 never existed in the i
series.
Burt
While the Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper is excellent with OEM or
selected non- inks, that isn't what you seem to be looking for. Last year I
did get some samples of fine arts papers that are specially prepared for
inkjet printers. I never followed up as I wasn't doing primarily graphic
and fine art printing. After looking through your posts and responses I
googled 'fine art inkjet paper" (without the quotes) and up came lots of
vendors with a whole range of papers you should investigate. There are
specially coated watercolor papers, japanese art papers, etc. They will
either have an online catalog with descriptions of the papers or will send
you a printed catalog. Some may either send small free samples or sell a
sample kit of papers. They may also give you tips on settings for your
printer, but I'm afraid that you will have to spend a few dollars (these
papers are generally expensive, just like their counterparts in an art
supply) and do a little trial and error until you get a satisfactory result.
There may also be a newsgroup dedicated to fine art printing that you should
look for. Good luck!
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA5D7F3.E3BC%sfe...@nada.com...
> So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
> speed,
> inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
> especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).
>
> Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
> non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
> transparency?
>
> Any downside to these printers?
>
> Thanks for your input,
> Sarah
>
Burt
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ejUge.1854$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>At the risk of repeating what has already been posted, Taliesyn uses the
>>IP5000 for a large variety of projects and also uses the I series printer
>>that shares the same printhead and inks with the IP4000. I have read
>>reviews that indicate that the IP4000 and its previous incarnation in the
>>I series prints essentially the same quality photos and other prints. He
>>actually uses these two printers side-by-side and would be the source I
>>would use for comparative information. Measekite certainly knows and
>>enjoys using his IP4000 printer and has quoted the comparative reviews
>>from PC mag, but Taliesyn has the experience of side-by-side use to help
>>you with. If there is anything in the IP5000 driver settings that differs
>>from the IP4000 he, again, would be the best resource for guidance on
>>settings.
>>
>
> I do not think he is a resource for the Mac Driver. You are also
> misinformed about his i series and his IP5000 having the same print
> engine. The 1picoliter print engine on the IP5000 never existed in the i
> series.
I have the definite feeling that you have declared war on me and you
continually work at criticizing everything I post. Please read my message
again. I said that the IP4000 has the same printhead and inks as the "I"
series printer Taliesyn uses in addition to his IP5000. He had researched
and purchased a new print head for his "I" series printer (if you wish to
check his older posts you can see which "I" series printer he uses) and he
mentioned that the print head is the one listed as a replacement for the
IP4000 as well. If you wish to do some fact checking and post a response I
would be interested. I did NOT say that the IP5000 had the same printhead
as the IP4000 or his other printer. Although the PC driver and Mac driver
may be different, I suggested that since Taliesyn uses the IP5000, he may
still be a better source for the settings than a person who uses the IP4000
and applies his knowledge of that printer to the IP5000 driver he has never
used.
Sarah Feliz
Sarah
On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
GMUge.1872$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
Sarah Feliz
astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But they
all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
printer?
Sarah
On 5/12/05 8:01 PM, in article
GMUge.1872$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
<sfbjg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Burt
that the Canon IP4000 is the answer to most people's printing problems, most
graphic artists and many professional photographers use the high end Epsons.
That is why you see what you are describing. Short of finding someone on a
NG that has used them with canon printer, the only way you can find out if
these papers work with your canon printer is by trying a few of them. You
might email the paper vendors or, better yet, call them and ask. Usually a
phone call gets a better response, in my experience.
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA998F8.E7C2%sfe...@nada.com...
Burt
papers in my canon printer and they work just fine. Epson double sided
Matte paper and glossy photo paper with either OEM ink or MIS bulk inks
produce excellent results, depending on what you want to do with the prints.
I don't know if this info would imply that some of the fine arts papers
geared to epson printing would work as well. If they are prepared for the
Epson Dye based printers then I would expect decent results with the Canon
printers. It is certainly worth a try. Consider the cost of experimenting
an investment in your graphic arts professional future!
"Sarah Feliz" <sfe...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEA998F8.E7C2%sfe...@nada.com...
Sarah Feliz
Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
way up to Fine.
I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
ridiculous?
Sarah
On 5/12/05 7:23 PM, in article 11883td...@corp.supernews.com,
Taliesyn
> The Mac driver leaves out a number of steps. There is no Standard, High,
> Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
> Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
> called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
> Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
> frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
> way up to Fine.
>
> I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
> ridiculous?
>
Don't panic :-) you're not being cheated. It's the same for the Windows
driver, I can only go to High. It's probably to do with that fact that
plain paper cannot handle very high resolutions, the ink will be too
absorbed, looking runny. But you can still achieve the Fine (1) setting
by simply telling the driver you're using Photo Paper Pro instead of
Plain. That's what I do when needed. Try it to see how it works. You can
reduce (or increase) the ink output by adjusting the Intensity slider in
Properties. And also, individual colors can be increased or decreased as
needed, like if your image is too pink, reduce the magenta.
Yes, in Mac the Detailed Setting is equivalent to Custom in Windows.
-Taliesyn
Taliesyn
> Thanks a lot! I will follow up on these sources.
>
Seeing you're the "Artsy" type (I don't mean anything bad by that, so am
I to a degree), you must check out Red River Paper. They seem to be the
ultimate source for paper in this newsgroup. They've got more paper of
all types (yes, art) than you can imagine. I've only used them once a
few years ago for coated greeting card paper - and it was excellent, I
still have some.
-Taliesyn
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ejUge.1854$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>At the risk of repeating what has already been posted, Taliesyn uses the
>>>IP5000 for a large variety of projects and also uses the I series printer
>>>that shares the same printhead and inks with the IP4000.
>>>
The i860 and the IP4000 do share the same printhead and BCI6 inks but
the print engine is slightly different as is the print engine on the
IP5000 is somewhat different as well. This was pointed out to me by the
Canon Rep at Frys when they were closing out the i860 and i960 printers.
>>>I have read
>>>reviews that indicate that the IP4000 and its previous incarnation in the
>>>I series prints essentially the same quality photos and other prints. He
>>>actually uses these two printers side-by-side and would be the source I
>>>would use for comparative information. Measekite certainly knows and
>>>enjoys using his IP4000 printer and has quoted the comparative reviews
>>>
>>>
>>>from PC mag, but Taliesyn has the experience of side-by-side use to help
>>
>>
>>>you with. If there is anything in the IP5000 driver settings that differs
>>>
>>>
>>>from the IP4000 he, again, would be the best resource for guidance on
>>
>>
>>>settings.
>>>
>>>
The driver for the MAC externally is somewhat different and I do not
think anyone besides Canon knows what the internal difference is.
Probably only the programmer who wrote it unless he documented these
differences for Canon Tech Staff.
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>I just checked on some of these sites: the selection of papers is
>astounding, I look forward to studying all this in greater detail. But they
>all seem geared to work on Epson printers. The question for me is: will
>these papers work with the Canon IP5000, which is not a "professional"
>printer?
>
>Sarah
>
>
That is hard to say. Canon Tech Support said that Epson Photo Paper
does work well in a Canon Printer. I do have some Epson double sided
matte but have not used it yet. I think they were referring to Epson
Glossy. But it may be worth it to buy a small amount and try. It will
not damange your printer and there is no risk like there may be with
aftermarket inks.
measekite
Sarah Feliz wrote:
>The Mac driver leaves out a number of steps. There is no Standard, High,
>Draft, Custom setting. There is an option called "Printing a Top Quality
>Photo" -- would that be the same as High? And for Custom, there is a setting
>called "Detailed Setting" which seems equivalent but it does not allow Plain
>Paper to be set on Fine. The slider in fact cannot move at all, it stays
>frozen in the middle. Only with Photo Paper Pro can the slider move all the
>way up to Fine.
>
>I'm feeling a bit cheated here. I cannot set Plain Paper to High. Isn't that
>ridiculous?
>
>Sarah
>
>
I think you figured it out. Go with your gut feeling. You ask good
questions and I think you can determine the best course of action to get
the answers you want.
Burt
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:ejUge.1854$Y81....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>At the risk of repeating what has already been posted, Taliesyn uses the
>>>>IP5000 for a large variety of projects and also uses the I series
>>>>printer that shares the same printhead and inks with the IP4000.
> The i860 and the IP4000 do share the same printhead and BCI6 inks but the
> print engine is slightly different as is the print engine on the IP5000 is
> somewhat different as well. This was pointed out to me by the Canon Rep
> at Frys when they were closing out the i860 and i960 printers.
So what you are saying is that the statement I made was correct? I will
gladly accept your apology for unjustly and incorrectly criticizing my post.
>
>>>>I have read reviews that indicate that the IP4000 and its previous
>>>>incarnation in the I series prints essentially the same quality photos
>>>>and other prints. He actually uses these two printers side-by-side and
>>>>would be the source I would use for comparative information. Measekite
>>>>certainly knows and enjoys using his IP4000 printer and has quoted the
>>>>comparative reviews
>>>>from PC mag, but Taliesyn has the experience of side-by-side use to help
>>>
>>>>you with. If there is anything in the IP5000 driver settings that
>>>>differs
>>>>from the IP4000 he, again, would be the best resource for guidance on
>>>
>>>>settings.
>>>>
>
> The driver for the MAC externally is somewhat different and I do not think
> anyone besides Canon knows what the internal difference is. Probably only
> the programmer who wrote it unless he documented these differences for
> Canon Tech Staff.
Nonetheless, Someone who uses the IP5000 on a PC might be able to
extrapolate from his experience what the Mac driver settings might be as
opposed to trying to guess based on experience with the IP4000 PC driver.
Only conjecture.
I do see that Taliesyn responded and they worked out the difference in terms
used in the PC and MAC drivers. He was able to help her based on his
experience with the IP5000.