Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Lady Margeret Thatcher

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 12:25:31 AM3/14/05

to

Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

colinco

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 2:17:41 AM3/14/05

to

In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...

> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>
> -CD/DVD direct printing
> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon

big deal
> -"gloss" optimizer
needed for Epson ink

> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon

always good for an A3 printer

> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon

Canon will do 23"

> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>
> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>
>

Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two

Plasma BOY

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 7:37:43 AM3/14/05

to

No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon :p

MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco <colin...@yawhoo.com>
wrote:

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 11:21:31 AM3/14/05

to

Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good.
Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to
clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon
i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson
R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less
to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other
periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I
use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 11:30:14 AM3/14/05

to

colinco wrote:

>In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
>
>
>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>
>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>
>>
>big deal
>
>
>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>
>>
>needed for Epson ink
>
>
>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>
>>
>always good for an A3 printer
>
>

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Canon answer to the Epson
1800 is the Canon i9900, both wide carriage. The IP87500 competes with
the R800, both narrow carriage.

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 11:41:04 AM3/14/05

to

Personally, I think that a person considering purchasing an inkjet
printer should do research and consider Epson, HP and Canon. I feel
that the Canon is by far superior for many reasons. However, if I were
in the business of selling prints, I would have chosen Epson due to the
pigmented inks even though I feel the viewing quality of Canon prints
are better.

In that case reprinting is not an option and you have no control how the
customer will care for the print. You need longevity.

Douglas

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 2:31:35 PM3/14/05

to

First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT? I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
with dye based inks.Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
cases,and for all users,is pure bull!I have owned every brand of printer
made,and have had good and bad luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy
the printer that fits my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the
main factor!
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fSiZd.10111$C47....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 2:45:53 PM3/14/05

to

Douglas wrote:

>First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
>US.WHAT?
>

I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.

>I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
>is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
>Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
>vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
>unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
>uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
>with dye based inks.
>

>Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
>cases,and for all users,is pure bull!
>

Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.

Douglas

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 4:29:35 PM3/14/05

to

Here is your post! " Epsons print on

>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"

Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
have you owned in your life?
Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
learn!I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!

"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:RRlZd.10182$C47...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 5:28:24 PM3/14/05

to

Douglas wrote:

>Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>
>
>>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"
>>>
>>>
>
>Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
>vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
>closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
>I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
>have you owned in your life?
>Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
>and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
>hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
>the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
>fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
>others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
>learn!
>

:-*

I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
major university. Subsequent to that I got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer). I guess I need to finish High School! :-P

>I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
>
>

BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
hard knocks?

Lady Margeret Thatcher

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 5:50:43 PM3/14/05

to

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>:-*
>
>I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
>and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
>well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
>2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
>before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
>after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
>major university.

Well, as the OP, I guess I should say that I go back to the days of
the IBM 709x, the system/360, and fast machines like the CDC 6600s.
Also punch cards, 2914 disk packs, and 1403 line printers.

As well as S100 CP/M machines with dual 8" floppy drives, ca. 1978.

But that doesn't make me any more of a printer expert than the next
guy.

measekite

unread,

Mar 14, 2005, 6:01:52 PM3/14/05

to

Sounds like you are an expert on MVS and the acabus. ;-)

Lady Margeret Thatcher

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 12:05:17 AM3/15/05

to

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:01:52 GMT, measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Sounds like you are an expert on MVS and the acabus. ;-)

Yeah. MVS and MVT and MFT (remember those), plus Abacus releases 2.01
through 12.6.

Sure and begorra, but what does that have to do with the price of tea,
or tea-colored ink, in China?

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 8:58:29 AM3/15/05

to

Dear Iron Lady (or Maggie, if you prefer),

We are equally confused by the confusion.

Here is how "we" would break things down:

Epson 1800:

Use pigment inks which have a very long permanence (at least in
accelerated testing)

The gloss optimizer is a necessity due to the fact that pigment colorant
inks tend to be slightly "dull" surfaced when dry and therefore will not
look equally glossy on glossy paper, making the colored areas otherwise
more flat looking that the areas without ink. Therefore the gloss
optimizer is coated over the pigmented ink to equalize the shine with
glossy paper. Canon doesn't require this because it uses dye colorant
inks which do not causes flattening of the surface gloss or glossy papers.

Epson offers more types of specialty papers

Epson offers the DVD/CD direct surface printing

Epson has better color drivers

Epson heads are permanent, meaning they will usually last much longer,
but should they clog, they need to be maintained and unclogged.

The ink sets will cost more than Canon.

Epson makes a 8" wide version as well called the R800.

Number of nozzles in not that critical to results or speed (to a point).

The Canon will probably be faster.

The inks are dye colorant based and tend to me fugitive (fade)

The drivers do not provide as accurate a color balance

Ink sets will be cheaper than Epson.

Head failure (they are considered semi-permanent, and do fail) allows
for replacement by user, but the heads are costly when available.

Substitute ink and refilling are much easier on the Canon cartridges,
and they do not have a very sophisticated or complex system of
monitoring ink levels.

Canon offers a minimal paper selection.

I hope this provides some insight into the differences.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 9:05:40 AM3/15/05

to

In general, you will find that professional fine artists and
photographers will be using Epson printers. They may or may not bother
with 3rd party inks to save money. These people tend to need reliable
and consistent results.

Canon printers are purchased more by people who do not sell their work
and feel they can always "reprint" them when or if they fade, and tend
to be people for whom ink price is more important because they do not
sell their work. They tend to refill their cartridges to keep price
down on their ink costs.

Both factions have their purposes and reasons.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 9:24:29 AM3/15/05

to

It may be helpful, but I'm not sure it is truthful.

Have you seen the output of a R800 or a R1800 printer for comparison? I
somehow doubt it. I would say the output is very similar or better than
the Canon for these printers, in terms of color accuracy, because the R
800 and new R1800 printer uses both primary and secondary colored inks.

And I am not sure what the statement " Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents." means.

Epsons print on printable surface CDs/DVDs. These usually come with
either a white or clear inkjet ink receivable surface. Epson have
worked out a licensing agreement for North America with the patent owners.

With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 9:50:36 AM3/15/05

to

I really can't fault Douglas' assumption about your age, because
unfortunately, there is something in the certainty of many of your posts
that tend to express a rather sophomoric approach to the world.

Things simply are not as black or white as you tend to believe, when it
comes to printers, or most other issues.

Some of the blanket statements you have made over the last few months
are without warrant, and could not be based upon experience, because
they simply aren't accurate.

With all the experience you have, you should know better than make such
blatantly "absolute" statements about products. If Epson printers, as
one example, were as horrible as you made them out to be, they wouldn't
be selling tens of millions of them.

Without knowing the needs of the original poster, you directed "her"
away from one brand to another. Someone who works with systems they set
ups for others, or in sales, knows that the interests of the client are
best served by first finding out what it is they need the equipment to
do before suggesting one brand product is superior to the next.

I recommend Canon printers to people who must have speed and cheap ink
costs over permanence, as an example. I recommend HP for people who
will have long periods of time without their printer being in use or who
seek simplicity of use (as an example, I suggested HP for a school which
was outfitting printers for vision impaired students).

I almost always suggest Epson for people selling their work or demanding
fine art quality and many OEM paper types.

Art

measekite

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 2:08:23 PM3/15/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> It may be helpful, but I'm not sure it is truthful.
>
> Have you seen the output of a R800 or a R1800 printer for comparison?
> I somehow doubt it. I would say the output is very similar or better
> than the Canon for these printers, in terms of color accuracy, because
> the R 800 and new R1800 printer uses both primary and secondary
> colored inks.
>
> And I am not sure what the statement " Epsons print on
> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents." means.

It means that the printable CDs cost more than the standard ones cost.
That helps defray the cost of a label. Also, in 10 months my friend had
Epson replace his R300 3 times due to problems with the feeding of CDs.
I do admit he prints hundreds of them and that was the primary criteria
for choosing Epson. Had the British model been available in the US, he
said he might have opted for the Canon.

>
> Epsons print on printable surface CDs/DVDs. These usually come with
> either a white or clear inkjet ink receivable surface. Epson have
> worked out a licensing agreement for North America with the patent
> owners.
>
> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.

I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more problems
with Epson heads than Canon.

measekite

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 2:18:18 PM3/15/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I really can't fault Douglas' assumption about your age, because
> unfortunately, there is something in the certainty of many of your
> posts that tend to express a rather sophomoric approach to the world.
>
> Things simply are not as black or white as you tend to believe, when
> it comes to printers, or most other issues.
>
> Some of the blanket statements you have made over the last few months
> are without warrant, and could not be based upon experience, because
> they simply aren't accurate.
>
> With all the experience you have, you should know better than make
> such blatantly "absolute" statements about products. If Epson
> printers, as one example, were as horrible as you made them out to be,
> they wouldn't be selling tens of millions of them.

I have never said they are horrible. I believe that Canon is better at
this point for most purposes except for professionals who need longer
lasting inks. While I have always used HP and do think that my HP990CSE
is best for my business use (Hi Speed Draft that looks like near letter
quality for an inkjet) I originally decided to get an Epson printer for
Photos and for my wife's use. After researching all of the latest
models I decided on the Canon IP4000. I am happy with the choice. The
other alternative would have been the R300 but the results I saw were
better from the Canon. I also valued duplex printing and twin paper
feeds over CD printing. It is only after I bought my printer did I
learn that Canon uses less ink and that the carts are cheaper. I also
was concerned about clogging with fixed print heads.

>
> Without knowing the needs of the original poster, you directed "her"
> away from one brand to another. Someone who works with systems they
> set ups for others, or in sales, knows that the interests of the
> client are best served by first finding out what it is they need the
> equipment to do before suggesting one brand product is superior to the
> next.
>
> I recommend Canon printers to people who must have speed and cheap ink
> costs over permanence, as an example. I recommend HP for people who
> will have long periods of time without their printer being in use or
> who seek simplicity of use (as an example, I suggested HP for a school
> which was outfitting printers for vision impaired students).
>
> I almost always suggest Epson for people selling their work

I do not disagree with that.

Hecate

unread,

Mar 15, 2005, 6:09:16 PM3/15/05

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 12:49:59 AM3/16/05

to

Yes, that's a really good way to ruin the heads of a thermal inkjet.
But use itself also uses the printer heads up over time with thermal
printers.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 12:55:31 AM3/16/05

to

That's a good point. I thought Canon printers used an optical sensor to
recognize ink low condition.

Art

measekite

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 1:41:16 AM3/16/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> >> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.
> >
> > I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more
> problems with Epson heads than Canon.
>
> You may have heard that, but I think statistics would bear out otherwise.

If the majority of negative noise regarding print head problems favors
Epson, how can you find statistics that bear out otherwise. If that is
the case then the much information in this group is not representative
of the larger population.

>
> There are a lot of things about Epsons that absolutely make me
> disgusted with their marketing and business model, but they do some
> things well.
>
> I try not to pull any punches about inkjet printers. I watch the
> market, watch the thousands of emails I get personally each year
> describing problems with Epson printers (since that happens to be the
> area I have the most knowledge in, due to owning many of them and
> having taken them apart and read many service manuals), but I have
> also worked with people with Canons (occasionally, not my area,
> because I don't own any) and they do have many more head failures than
> Epson. Simply put, the reason is the heads aren't designed to be
> permanent,

Permanent to me is lasting over 5 years. I hope that my Canon will
serve me that long. As far as print heads go, the most transient is
really the most permanent; I am speaking of HP. Since the head and
cartridge are built together, the head never gets a chance to wear out.
My 990 will probably last until I have a mechanical or circuit board
failure. It is a great business purpose printer. The newer HP have
semi-permanent heads separate from the ink but are much less expensive
than Canon.

> and the Epson are. I also look at the newsgroups and lists but
> recognize the statistic biases in them.

What biases do you see?

My friend does not pirate CDs but has a huge music collection and prints
a great deal. I do not know of a duty cycle on the Epson that spells
out how many CDs a month the unit is designed to print. I almost got an
R300. I had a meeting with both the Canon and Epson representative at
the same time. Each told me the disadvantages of the others
merchandise. I chose the Canon.

Message has been deleted

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 7:30:44 AM3/16/05

to

I hear about more Epson head clogs than most other printers, because
Epson uses permanent heads, offers pigment colorant inks, they have the
number one spot in printer sales after HP worldwide (and HP uses toss
away heads), as well as because I encourage email about Epson printers,
and because I frequent Epson lists.

However, head failures with Epsons are statistically rare, and certainly
their print heads have a longer life span than any other inkjet printer.
I almost daily hear from people who are running 8 to 10 year old Epson
inkjet printers. That is very rare with other brands, because, they
fail due to breakdown, or the technology is so inferior relative to
current output that no one bothers using them. Epson's very first color
inkjet came out at 720 x 720 dpi output, which even today give a
reasonable nearly photographic output on good inkjet paper.

The biases I was speaking of are due to the issue I mentioned above as
well as that people who tend to be on printer news groups are either
people who spend a lot of time printing semi-pro (and many of those
people are Epson users) or they are people who only show up on the group
when they have a problem, and since Epson introduced the pigment color
inks and made the printers very accessible (cheap), they sell many to
people who do not give them a lot of use or who don't recognize that in
order to work with a pigment ink printer, you have to be more diligent
in keeping it from clogging.

I do suspect Epson could do better with formulation changes, better
cleaning routines, etc, but the C series printers are selling quite
inexpensively, and it is probably too costly to do it "right".

Hecate

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 6:23:17 PM3/16/05

to

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:53:35 GMT, measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>Actually, I've heard of more clogging problems with Epson heads, but
>>that doesn't mean the heads have died, just that they need cleaning.
>>OTOH, as to outlasting, I've heard of more Canon heads needing to be
>>completely replaced because they have burnt out than any other make.
>>
>>
>
>Could it be that the heads burn out because people do not heed the out
>of ink warning and keep using the printer with some of the inks dry.
>

AFAIK that shouldn't happen. I.e. the Canon driver should stop the
printer if the inks run dry. If not that doesn't say much for the
Canon driver or the printer.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 6:26:01 PM3/16/05

to

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:41:16 GMT, measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>If the majority of negative noise regarding print head problems favors
>Epson, how can you find statistics that bear out otherwise. If that is
>the case then the much information in this group is not representative
>of the larger population.

Not at all. The majority of problems you read about on this and other
newsgroups are to do with heads clogging - not heads *dying*.

Message has been deleted

Bob Headrick

unread,

Mar 16, 2005, 9:59:52 PM3/16/05

to

"Arthur Entlich" <arti...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nTPZd.58999$fc4.20929@edtnps89...

> That's a good point. I thought Canon printers used an optical sensor to
> recognize ink low condition.

I believe they use the optical method to recognize when the free ink area is
empty, then they drop count from there until the foam based portion is low on
ink.

Regards,
Bob Headrick

Larry

unread,

Mar 17, 2005, 6:37:05 AM3/17/05

to

In article <113htbh...@corp.supernews.com>, bo...@proaxis.com says...

I think its important to remember that the Canon system can let you run dry,
if you dont pay attention. (something you REALLY dont want to do.

Owners of Epson printers carp and complain the the Epson system stops
printing when there is still ink in the cartridge, but overall, that does
prevent you from ignoring the warning.

Im not claiming either system is better, just that they are different.

With HP you cant "burn out" the print head by running out of ink because you
get a new head with the ink in most of their printers.

I own several of each (4 Canons, 2 HP, 2 Epson) and I know most of their
quirks.

I would advise anyone using one of the "Newer" (anything with the BCI-3 or
BCI-6 carts) Canon printers to do this:

On "Low INK" warning, if you re-fill, do it here not when you get the
"Empty" warning your refill wont need a "soak period to get the sponge
filled).

If you dont refill, change cartridge on the "Empty" warning, as going further
can totally screw up the print-head.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

ThomasH

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 12:58:43 PM3/18/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> Dear Iron Lady (or Maggie, if you prefer),
>
> We are equally confused by the confusion.

I second all this what Arthur wrote.

Actually nobody "ignores" Epson printers. Do not listen to
emotional claims by measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>, whose
barrage of claims toward "Canon superiority" of print is without
merit. He probably sells Canon or has a Canon and tries to
convince himself how superior his device is. I have a Canon
too, and I regret, but not because of the print quality.

Take a look at web sites of professionals, such as NormanKoren.com,
or a good ink and supplies dealer for pros, such as Ink Jet Art
http://www.inkjetart.com/. You will realize that these allegedly
"less vibrant" prints are in fact the prime choice of most people
who make professional and art prints. As a matter of fact, for a
long time such people have not even seen a close competitor to
Epson, until Canon and HP begun to close up the gap, but there
is still no doubt who is a leader as a provider of a solution
printer/inks/papers in its entirety.

Go to a good photo store and compare demo prints. Rest assured,
even with a loupe you would not be able to guess which print
is made by an Epson and which by a Canon.

But, here come the big but: Canon printers have currently only
dye inks, which may fade in some conditions, as you know from
the other thread about Canon printers, where you posted your
reply. Somehow Epson and HP pass the tests by Wilhelm and provide
proudly the longevity results. You will not find anything like it
from Canon, because...
Canon has a problem and has nothing to present.
----------------------------------------------

If you invest in Canon, and I mean not the printer, but rather
the ever growing cost will be your paper and ink consumption, you
might end up bitterly disappointed in a short time. You saw the
examples of my prints. I made meanwhile an inquiry among our friends
and relatives who got our prints. We have reprinted almost 100
images anew, after mere 1.-2 years. The worse cases are _on the
glossy Photo Paper Plus_! The cheaper matte papers show some
fading, but its so far negligible.

Go figure the costs.
You have been warned, ...again.

Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading

measekite

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 3:05:02 PM3/18/05

to

ThomasH wrote:

>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Iron Lady (or Maggie, if you prefer),
>>
>>We are equally confused by the confusion.
>>
>>
>
>I second all this what Arthur wrote.
>
>Actually nobody "ignores" Epson printers. Do not listen to
>emotional claims by measekite <meas...@yahoo.com>, whose
>barrage of claims toward "Canon superiority" of print is without
>merit. He probably sells Canon or has a Canon and tries to
>convince himself how superior his device is. I have a Canon
>too, and I regret, but not because of the print quality.
>
>Take a look at web sites of professionals, such as NormanKoren.com,
>or a good ink and supplies dealer for pros, such as Ink Jet Art
>http://www.inkjetart.com/. You will realize that these allegedly
>"less vibrant" prints are in fact the prime choice of most people
>who make professional and art prints.
>

Professionals need pigmented inks. They sell their prints. How those
prints are handled and stored are out of their control. The can only
stay in business if they have happy customers.

Most of the amateurs do not need pigmented inks. They have a greater
propensity to clog your printer. As for the dye based inks in the Canon
Pixma series and the Epson R300 and its cousins, the Canon is superior
and replacement OEM ink is less trouble. According to Consumer Reports,
PCWorld, PC Mag, the great majority of 3rd party ink can cause
problems. Just read about those problems in this NG. For amateur use,
it is better to have more vibrant prints. Just keep them in an album or
display them in a frame behind glass. If you need to reprint a few it
is easy to do.

Remember, these professionals (many of whom who profess to use only OEM
inks, pass all of the additional costs on to the customer.

That said, I do not work for Canon. I went to the store to purchase an
Epson R300. I met with both the Canon and Epson factory representative
at the same time. Base on their answers to my questions ( and they did
eventually agree with each other) I became convinced to purchase a
Canon. I am happy with it. Of course their are things I do not like (a
jerky paper feed) when compared to my HP990CSE.

>As a matter of fact, for a
>long time such people have not even seen a close competitor to
>Epson, until Canon and HP begun to close up the gap, but there
>is still no doubt who is a leader as a provider of a solution
>printer/inks/papers in its entirety.
>
>Go to a good photo store and compare demo prints. Rest assured,
>even with a loupe you would not be able to guess which print
>is made by an Epson and which by a Canon.
>
>But, here come the big but: Canon printers have currently only
>dye inks, which may fade in some conditions, as you know from
>the other thread about Canon printers, where you posted your
>reply. Somehow Epson and HP pass the tests by Wilhelm and provide
>proudly the longevity results. You will not find anything like it
>from Canon, because...
> Canon has a problem and has nothing to present.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>If you invest in Canon, and I mean not the printer, but rather
>the ever growing cost will be your paper and ink consumption, you
>might end up bitterly disappointed in a short time.
>

People on this site profess that they achieve great results with Epson
and or Costco/Kirkland photo paper. It is said that Kirkland it really
Ilford Photo Glossy. As for ink, I use OEM Canon ink at $9.00 a cart.
However, if I printed 10 times as much I might try MSI or Formulabs
ink. MSI is only bulk but Formulabs as I understand it can be both bulk
and prefilled carts. In any event, Canon OEM is about $4.00 to $5.00
per cart less on the dye inks. I assume that the pigmented inks cost
even more.

Epson printers because of the way they work use more ink than Canon. So
the choice belongs to the user. I still think that most of the
professionals will favor Epson due to longevity.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 18, 2005, 11:31:17 PM3/18/05

to

In article <OvG_d.24351$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>Professionals need pigmented inks. They sell their prints. How those
>prints are handled and stored are out of their control. The can only
>stay in business if they have happy customers.
>
>Most of the amateurs do not need pigmented inks.

You haven't been on this planet for very long, have you? Do you really
think that many professionals buy R800 printers?

Fading of dye inks isn't just something that happens over months or
years. If your prints happen to hang in an open airflow then that
fading can become noticeable in days, and very objectionable in a couple
of weeks.

Epson do dye ink printers too. In fact they were the first to produce
true photo quality prints from dye inkjet printers on high gloss papers.
They got their fingers burned for claiming these could be treated just
like normal photos. Both the ink and the gloss paper formulations were
changed and upgraded, in particular, new technology self sealing papers
were introduced to try to prevent the problem occurring. It didn't, but
it did delay and slow it down somewhat - environments that faded prints
in a day now took a week. That is the sequence of event which led Epson
to first introduce colour pigment inks in the SP2000 - nothing to do
with professionals in the main, in fact most professionals at the time
weren't even using Epson OEM ink, but other 3rd party inks! Having been
one of the active campaigners to get Epson to 'fess up to this at the
time, believe me, they weren't worried about the cost of reimbursing a
few pro's - it was the millions of consumers that they worried about!

Now, you would think that after that public fiasco, which cost Epson a
small fortune in replaced paper, ink and printers, that Canon would have
been a quite careful that their dye inks didn't suffer the same fate.
You might think that during more than 5 years since Epson got burned
that Canon would have been working hard in their labs to eliminate or at
least reduce the fading rate of its own dye inks - the light cyan ink in
particular. You'd think that. But you would be wrong - just a quick
look into Google on fading inkjet prints shows that Canon are now in a
similar mess that Epson were in almost 5 years ago. Prints turning
orange and brown when left exposed to air. Yes, ozone speeds it up, but
just good old clean fresh air is enough to do it too - all it needs is
the print surface to be exposed to a lot of it.

So what have Canon done in all that time? Seek legal advice - they
haven't made any claims about the life of their prints that aren't
covered by so many legal caveats as to be worthless. Apart from that,
they have very similar problems and fade rates as the ORIGINAL high
gloss papers and inks that Epson produced. In short, your better off
buying an Epson dye printer now as far as 'gas fading' is concerned than
a Canon one! That is an absolute disgrace, for which the Canon company
and their supporters should be downright ashamed!

And what is the recommendation for keeping those high gloss dye prints
from fading in clean air? Cover them with glass!! I hope your house
has some pretty deep foundations, because your going to be stacking a
heck of a lot of glass to keep your prints the way they were printed.

measekite

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 12:24:45 AM3/19/05

to

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

That explains why my Canon prints show (as yet) no evidence of fading in
the past 4 months that they were laying around exposed to the air. You
see :-) in California we do not have good old clean fresh air. I
guess the smog is helping Canon out.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 4:04:52 AM3/19/05

to

In article <xIO_d.20184$Pz7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>That explains why my Canon prints show (as yet) no evidence of fading
>in the past 4 months that they were laying around exposed to the air.
>You see :-) in California we do not have good old clean fresh air.
>I guess the smog is helping Canon out.
>

Wahahaha! If I had $1 for every Epson 870/1270 owner who said that and
then found, "Err, yes, umm, they have faded a lot compared to the parts
that haven't been exposed to air", I would be a wealthy man.

ThomasH posted this example from his Canon S9000 not so long ago:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/image/35004631/original

He got somewhat less response from Canon when he broached them about
this than we got from Epson - but Epson weren't prepared, they hadn't
ensured all their claims for print longevity were fully caveated with
legal excuses.

Henry Wilhelm's tests of gas fading on inkjet prints and papers show
Canon ink on Canon Photo Paper (2nd best in its range??) to be the worst
combination of all the tested media (which included Epson and HP dye
prints). After 24hrs in just 1ppm ozone (the level you could spend an
entire lifetime in without any health effect, and probably quite clean
compared to most urban environments, but enough to accelerate the
oxidation issue) the Canon print lost 61% of its cyan density, 35% of
the magenta and 6% of the yellow! That is more than 10x the Epson R300
on its worst media and about 30x worse than the Epson SP4000 on Epson
fine art paper. I'll leave you to search the results to find the
best... but it wasn't Canon!

This isn't, as you argue, an issue for professionals - there is little
point in printing at all if the result is only marginally less fugitive
than the image on an LCD screen!

Lady Margaret Thatcher

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 4:33:02 PM3/19/05

to

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:31:17 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Now, you would think that after that public fiasco, which cost Epson a
>small fortune in replaced paper, ink and printers, that Canon would have
>been a quite careful that their dye inks didn't suffer the same fate.
>You might think that during more than 5 years since Epson got burned

"We" must have been dozing in our rocking chair five years ago. What
happened then with Epson?

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 7:31:37 PM3/19/05

to

In article <kh6p31phh1kefhfc2...@4ax.com>, Lady Margaret
Thatcher <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> writes

You must indeed have been, as it was all over the computer press and
even hit the main news on BBC and CNN for a while - albeit some of them
wrongly reporting that the problem was caused by ozone, which it wasn't:
ozone was merely an oxidation accelerant that Epson used in their labs
to evaluate the performance of various potential solutions.

It is documented pretty well at several sites. Bob Meyer conducted a
lot of testing (some on behalf of Epson in the search for solutions!)
with his ozone generating home air cleaning system and published details
of his results together with a fairly extensive history and explanation
of the problem on his web site at
http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/index.html

A fairly chronological record of the saga is also at Keith Krebb's site,
although Keith does get diverted on a personal crusade part way through
that site, at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/chrono.htm

There are lots of other sites that refer to it, including some archive
pages of the mainstream press and computer media.

The problem was first reported by Liz Glasgow and, quite frankly,
poo-poo'd by just about everyone - including myself! Epson tried every
excuse in the book, even suggesting that Liz's home must have a high
radon gas content and the inks were being broken down by radioactivity!
Then more and more people noticed it, as I did, and some of these people
had sent prints all over the world, not just professionals, but to
friends and families - just what you do with normal photos.

I happened to be going on a series of trips to Brazil at the time and
left some prints exposed for days or weeks to polluted urban air in Rio
de Janeiro and also in the Amazon - the prints in polluted Rio air faded
much *slower* than the prints that were hundreds of miles from
industrial pollution in the rain forest! It wasn't caused by pollution
and might even have been inhibited by pollution to a degree. There was,
however, a clear link with temperature and the amount of air that freely
circulated across the surface of the print.

You'll find that both of the sites above refer to many other people who
are still contributing to this and other printer forums today and were
actively involved in bringing Epson from an absolute denial of the
problem's existence to a full worldwide buy back offer, by raising the
issue in the computer and mainstream press. As an alternative to buy
back, Epson offered to replace the materiel with the recently introduced
pigment ink products.

Hecate

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 8:05:26 PM3/19/05

to

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:04:52 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Henry Wilhelm's tests of gas fading on inkjet prints and papers show
>Canon ink on Canon Photo Paper (2nd best in its range??) to be the worst
>combination of all the tested media (which included Epson and HP dye
>prints). After 24hrs in just 1ppm ozone (the level you could spend an
>entire lifetime in without any health effect, and probably quite clean
>compared to most urban environments, but enough to accelerate the
>oxidation issue) the Canon print lost 61% of its cyan density, 35% of
>the magenta and 6% of the yellow! That is more than 10x the Epson R300
>on its worst media and about 30x worse than the Epson SP4000 on Epson
>fine art paper. I'll leave you to search the results to find the
>best... but it wasn't Canon!
>
>This isn't, as you argue, an issue for professionals - there is little
>point in printing at all if the result is only marginally less fugitive
>than the image on an LCD screen!

PC Pro, in the UK recently did a "destruction" test on inkjet inks.

Two prints were made from a range of printers from a range of makers.
One print was kept in a drawer. The other was placed in a window for
six months, half the image being covered.

Pigment inks (i.e. Epson), even when placed in a window, still showed
little fading over six months.

For the dye inks, the best were HP, followed by the latest Lexmark
inks (shame the same can't be said about their printers).

Coming up the rear were Canon prints which faded *even when kept in a
drawer and not exposed to light*.

Taliesyn

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 8:50:30 PM3/19/05

to

I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????

-Taliesyn

measekite

unread,

Mar 19, 2005, 10:00:41 PM3/19/05

to

I do not see it at this point. Hopefully they will last. I would hate
to go to Epson and have to spend much more on ink and expose myself to
the greater probability of ink clogs. I would also miss my duplex
printing with twin paper feeds and the speed.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 12:19:10 AM3/20/05

to

In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<tali...@netscape.net> writes

>
>I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>

No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between a
test and a situation. A test requires a control! It further
demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between light
induced fading and other causes of fading - Epson coined the term "gas
fading" to distinguish it from what they make claims for: "light
fading". It also demonstrates that you don't understand what the glass
is there for: to protect the print surface from the very thing you cite
as potentially attacking it - the kitchen fumes. The question is: how
much glass are you going to need to protect *all* of your prints? It
also indicates that you don't understand that kitchen fumes are products
of an oxidation process - that is the primary chemical function of
cooking - and are therefore unlikely to be oxidants in themselves! In
fact, your statement demonstrates pretty well that you haven't a clue
about what you are talking about.

Now I also have some inkjet prints hanging on my kitchen walls. These
are Epson (dye) prints. They are NOT mounted under glass. They don't
look like they have faded either. What does that show?

Well, several things, amongst them:
1. The paper is as much a part of the problem as the ink. I didn't
mention above that the paper in this case is Epson Archival Matte Paper,
which has the lowest fade rate with dye ink of all Epson papers - much
lower than any combination of Canon ink and paper tested by Henry
Wilhelm.
2. Without a control to ascertain whether fading has actually taken
place, statements like "It doesn't look faded" or "it hasn't lost any of
its colour or vibrancy" cannot be quantified. The human eye is very
good at comparative assessments, it is abysmal at absolute radiometry.
Look again at ThomasH's prints from his Canon that were posted recently
- doesn't look too bad until you compare to the protected part.
3. The print is on a wall that doesn't get much air movement across it
(no windows, vents or doors on that wall or near the print) so the
problem is unlikely to be severe - although another print on Epson
Premium Glossy Photo Paper was removed after only a few months because
it had turned noticeably orange compared to the prints on EAM paper.

So sticking your head in the sand and claiming that because you can't
see the problem that it doesn't exist is just as stupid as it sounds -
if you don't appreciate the problem until it hurts you it will be too
late. Learn what the issues are and take steps to avoid the problem. At
the moment, unless you are going to protect all of your displayed prints
under glass, which kind of defeats the purpose of that nice high gloss
finish, the only solution is Epson Ultrachrome inks. Currently about
the worst solution is Canon ink on glossy Canon Photo Papers.

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 6:53:08 AM3/20/05

to

I'm afraid "you" must be dozing off in the rocking chair now, as well,
my Lady. Kennedy went into detail as to the history, I believe in the
same posting that you just quoted from.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 7:02:08 AM3/20/05

to

Yes, that not keeping the print under glass (which reduces the amount of
surface exposure to air "molecules") allows the print to fade more
rapidly. Also, a great deal of the result with dye inks particularly,
have to do with the type of paper surface or chemistry involved.

Further, unless you have a way to do an A:B comparison, how can you be
sure the print has lost no color or vibrancy? I thought the same of
some Cibachrome prints I did about 20 years ago, until I removed them
from the frames and mat and discovered they had lost about 15-20%
density where they were exposed to light. They still looked great, and
in fact some slightly underexposed ones looked better, but the loss was
still real, but my memory of the original wasn't quite a good as I had
thought.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 7:04:06 AM3/20/05

to

Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet. Maybe they are havng
osme issues with then, or they are testing there first.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 7:07:18 AM3/20/05

to

I swear I did not read Kennedy's posting until AFTER I wrote mine a few
minutes ago!

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <tali...@netscape.net> writes
>
>>
>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>
> No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between a
> test and a situation. A test requires a control!

<snip>

Taliesyn

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 9:27:02 AM3/20/05

to

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <tali...@netscape.net> writes
>
>>
>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>

> 2. Without a control to ascertain whether fading has actually taken

> place, statements like "It doesn't look faded" or "it hasn't lost any of
> its colour or vibrancy" cannot be quantified. The human eye is very
> good at comparative assessments, it is abysmal at absolute radiometry.

My memory and judgment serves me correctly. I just reprinted the photo
- same paper - same inks - and they're indistinguishable. Sorry, I
didn't perform the necessary quantitative radiometry tests you suggested
(I can't remember where I placed the equipment ;-). But as I normally
look at prints with my eyes, I didn't think it would be necessary. And
I'm sure I could live with a 1 or 2% difference in match, if there was
any difference at all.

> So sticking your head in the sand and claiming that because you can't
> see the problem that it doesn't exist is just as stupid as it sounds -
> if you don't appreciate the problem until it hurts you it will be too
> late. Learn what the issues are and take steps to avoid the problem.
> At the moment, unless you are going to protect all of your displayed
prints
> under glass, which kind of defeats the purpose of that nice high gloss
> finish, the only solution is Epson Ultrachrome inks. Currently about
> the worst solution is Canon ink on glossy Canon Photo Papers.

Stop telling me I have a "problem", that I have my head in the sand, and
that I'm not knowledgeable enough - and to use Epson products. I don't
have any "issues" and I need not "take steps" to anywhere. I'm doing
just fine with the printers, papers, and ink combinations I use.

I don't display my prized prints to the open air and I don't use Canon
papers nor inks. If I did have a noticeable "problem" I'd a seen it by
now, don't ya think? And trying to convince me I do have a "problem"
when I obviously don't is simply futile and not acceptable.

-Taliesyn

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 11:18:39 AM3/20/05

to

In article <3a5fhdF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<tali...@netscape.net> writes

>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><tali...@netscape.net> writes
>>>
>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>>
>
>

>Stop telling me I have a "problem"

Your problem is that you don't read, so why should believe any evidence
you provide based on using your eyes in any other way?

Should you make an effort to correct your visual deficiency, you might
try reading the first paragraph of my previous posts detailing why your
comment was irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

>
>I don't display my prized prints to the open air

Just "in the kitchen" - hardly a prized print then is it?

>and I don't use Canon
>papers nor inks.

Directly contradicting words 5 and 6 of your opening paragraph in this
thread.

As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.

Taliesyn

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 1:15:12 PM3/20/05

to

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <3a5fhdF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <tali...@netscape.net> writes
>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>

> As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
> to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.

Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?

I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
"FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
Get me out of here...... . . . .

-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk

measekite

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 1:28:23 PM3/20/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
> pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
> Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet.

If that is the case, then the 3rd party inks will have to play catch
up. Until then, they will be second rate when compared.

ThomasH

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 1:51:10 PM3/20/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> I'm afraid "you" must be dozing off in the rocking chair now, as well,
> my Lady. Kennedy went into detail as to the history, I believe in the
> same posting that you just quoted from.
>
> Art
>

Indeed, dear Lady Margaret, you must have been. I second the
posting by Kennedy and I also share his opinion about Canon
and their tactics toward customers. I asked them to print on
their printer boxes and paper wraps "may fade visibly in only
one year." This would be a correct information, wouldn't it?
But than who would be investing half a thousand in such printer
and another thousand in the inks, while knowing of this problem
in advance...
I would not.

I remember that back than as I have browsed quarterly results and
sales numbers of the camera companies, I saw how great Canon did,
and yet that their director of the printer division was replaced
or has retired. This was a clue, which I have ignored...

After this big recall action by Epson the issue of fading became
public. Epson resolved it and provided a fully new generation
of inks with a very good longevity. It is indeed stunning that
afterwards someone would be releasing a new printer generation
with such a problem!

Canon changed inks just around the time as they have launched
their S9nn series, now known as i9xx. They hailed their new inks
as archival class holding up to 28-30 years. It was much less
than Epson, but for me good enough, and I took the S9000 and not
the Epson 2200. Well, now we known that there was a "small print"
attached to this claim.

Thomas

ThomasH

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 2:30:20 PM3/20/05

to

Taliesyn wrote:
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> > In article <3a5fhdF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> > <tali...@netscape.net> writes
> >
> >> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >>
>
> > As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
> > to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.
>
> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>
> I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
> "FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
> thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
> Get me out of here...... . . . .

Nobody holds you! We know that not everybody got, or will get a fading
problem of the same extend with the same product.

You put yourself into a mental trap "I do not have this problem, thus
it does not exist," instead of rather assuming "others observe a problem,
I might be next in some circumstances."

This is analogous to the typical news article in a software group, where
A reports that his/her computer crashes with the newest version of Marvel
Software by Fabulous Inc, and B writes "Nonsense, it does not crash for
me, I am so happy with Fabulous Inc."

But of course Marvel will not crash with everybody, it would not be on
the market. Of course some paper/ink combinations of Canon product will
not fade as fast as mine did. But the fact is that a growing number of
customers report such problems and that *you* might be next.

Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
dye and look like this example image which I have posted and made public,
*after* the hit counter was zero for 3 weeks, as it was not public and
known to Canon support only. I asked them again and again to at least
take a look at these images. Shame on them.

These all faded images were made on Photo Paper Plus. This seems to be
the common denominator in this equation. At least listen to the warning
and do not use this paper.

Thomas

ThomasH

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 2:43:29 PM3/20/05

to

ThomasH wrote:
>
[...]

> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta

oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
Sorry about the mistake.

SamSez

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 3:53:21 PM3/20/05

to

"ThomasH" <henr...@coco.net> wrote in message
news:423DC61E...@comcast.net...
snip

>
> Canon changed inks just around the time as they have launched
> their S9nn series, now known as i9xx. They hailed their new inks
> as archival class holding up to 28-30 years. It was much less
> than Epson, but for me good enough, and I took the S9000 and not
> the Epson 2200. Well, now we known that there was a "small print"
> attached to this claim.
>
> Thomas
>

They may hail them as archival, but I had very similar experience to what was
quoted from PC Pro with an s900 printer using canon's own inks and media --
clearly obvious fading in less than a month in still air without exposure to
sunlight or any other bright light source. I have had much better life from
epson printers [even from epson dye printers] using epson inks and media and
from hp printers using hp inks and media. I've no experience with lexmark, but
of the three printer families I have used over the years [four families if you
count an oly 400 and a 410 dye-sub], sadly, I'd have to put canon on the bottom
of my list [despite owning three of their cameras and several of their lenses].

Yes, the canon prints looked great when printed and the print speed was
fantastic, but all of that is of little use if I can't expect reasonable life
from the prints.

Hecate

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 7:18:08 PM3/20/05

to

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henr...@coco.net> wrote:

>ThomasH wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
>
>oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
>Sorry about the mistake.
>

Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
be quite subtle at first.

measekite

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 8:41:46 PM3/20/05

to

I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that case,
who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that Canon will
develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a tendency for
longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and the print
results will be the overriding factor.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 10:55:14 PM3/20/05

to

In article <3a5st7F...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<tali...@netscape.net> writes

>
>Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>

Your facts!

>> In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><tali...@netscape.net> writes
>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print

then

In article <3a5fhdF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<tali...@netscape.net> writes

>and I don't use Canon
>papers nor inks.

By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
discussed.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 11:00:31 PM3/20/05

to

In article <423DD261...@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henr...@coco.net>
writes
>ThomasH wrote:
>>
Thomas, I don't know your nationality, but in the UK this guy is known
collectively as a tosser!

Ignore him - he can't even understand that displaying under glass
changes the environment!

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 20, 2005, 11:15:04 PM3/20/05

to

In article <uDp%d.20616$Pz7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it.

And, if you never do, does it matter?

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 2:19:15 AM3/21/05

to

Taliesyn,

You completely misrepresented your "facts".

You made a print with some non-Canon inks, on non-Canon paper, and tried
to use it to "prove" Canon inks don't fade. What kind of facts are those?

How does your experience with that print prove anything about Canon inks
when your "evidence" is made without them?

You know your statement has nothing to do with this thread, since the
discussion is about the problem with Canon inks. If I used Canon inks
in my Epson printers (assuming they would work) I really couldn't
complain that the ink faded because it was an Epson printer, could I?

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 2:26:48 AM3/21/05

to

Some of the test results indicate the current Canon inks offered outside
of Japan may be less stable for fading than 3rd party products available
for Canon printers.

Art

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 3:33:04 AM3/21/05

to

For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not to
mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it just make
more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for 100 years or
so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in cleaning cycles to
do so? Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its useful
life. Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country". If they had
been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would have been gone
long before now.

We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence of
image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.

I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some maintenance
issues still being worked out, but considering that for literally under
$100 a person can own a printer that produces full color photo quality
prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years, we've come a long way.

The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the waste
ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs are frozen
at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my book, but a
good start as a design.

I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and few
maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer may be
inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.

Art

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 3:48:39 AM3/21/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not to
> mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it just
> make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for 100
> years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in cleaning
> cycles to do so?

No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.

> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to consider
> having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its useful life.

That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen any
prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper and Epson
ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how about 50 years.
I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20 years old? Tests
are simulations.

> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
> from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".

And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30 years
old and they have faded.

> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
> have been gone long before now.
>
> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence of
> image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>
> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some maintenance
> issues still being worked out, but considering that for literally
> under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full color photo
> quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,

Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 5:26:18 AM3/21/05

to

Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.

When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and their
fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper print a
"Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.

It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly call
it a 'Canon print' in this context.

Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass accomplishes
two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the print
considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface with
gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.

All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of course,
no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed with glass
directly on the surface of the print.

So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.

Art

Brian Potter wrote:

> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
> a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
> manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>
> BPotter
>
>
>
>
> Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:

Message has been deleted

Arthur Entlich

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 9:05:01 AM3/21/05

to

As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations old,
and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.

As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid, they
are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed dye and
pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally thousands of years
of historical data to draw from. We have cloth and paintings from back
as far as cave paintings, including manuscripts, illuminations, oil and
water color images, and so on to provide much of the information.

Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may have
a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the environment
that will change how all these things respond, but baring any major
disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests as a back up, we can
make some pretty reasonable interpolations about the relative aging
processes of different dyes and pigments. It isn't perfect, but it also
isn't a complete guess.

What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage data
we use currently will not last and the software and reading devices will
become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to procure. That is
where the print really shines, because it only requires light to view.
Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will fade
away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already does in a
matter of years.

How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your estate, or
shred all your images because they don't want to be bothered with them.

However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the materials,
but more by historic precedence and value.

In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each of
us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to be
generating.

Art

Taliesyn

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 9:14:58 AM3/21/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>
> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it was
> made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>

So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print I
receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. . .

> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon camera
> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it a
> "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>

You needn't wonder any longer.

Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
or even be Canon made.

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 11:57:34 AM3/21/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.
>
> When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
> their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
> print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.

If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party Canon
compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to your logic,
the majority of the people on this NG are producing prints from Epson
printers that are not Epson prints, including yourself. That is
because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party inks and many different
brands of paper. To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
majority of the same characteristics.

>
> It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
> call it a 'Canon print' in this context.
>
> Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
> accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the
> print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface
> with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.
>
> All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
> course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed
> with glass directly on the surface of the print.
>
> So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
> about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
> best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
> papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.

Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade, that
might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the pigment inks.

GEO

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 12:00:11 PM3/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter <bpo...@thebar.net>
wrote:

>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
>a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
>a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
>manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
>will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>
>BPotter

>>>> In article <3a436uF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn

>>>><tali...@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print

>> then

>> In article <3a5fhdF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>> <tali...@netscape.net> writes
>>>and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.

I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
coffee.

Regardless whether I use vodka or water.

Geo
(Just having a coffee)

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 12:11:53 PM3/21/05

to

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720 came
out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy and then
to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity there will
always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never fade and you
can archive it forever.

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 12:19:38 PM3/21/05

to

Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>>
>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>> was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>
>
> So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
> and tires.

Thats right! And the same Honda model purchased 6 months apart can have
different non Honda parts but they are compatible and interchangable.
That said, I am not advocating that all 3rd party inks are truly
compatible. If I knew they were I would purchase them.

> It's still a Honda

Good choice. Honda is the best value; especially the Accord.

> drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
> performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print

Hopefully. That depends on how compatible the ink is. Some of the
really cheap inks and the really cheap papers are probably not true
representations of Canon.

> I
> receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
> reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
> use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
> in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
> keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. .

especially when you have to go to the bathroom

Message has been deleted

GEO

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 1:21:17 PM3/21/05

to

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:54:36 -0600, Brian Potter <bpo...@thebar.net>
wrote:

> Water is NOT compatible with Vodka.

?????

Geo

Message has been deleted

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:52:46 PM3/21/05

to

In article <22D%d.20816$Pz7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>According to your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are
>producing prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints,
>including yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd
>party inks and many different brands of paper.

That is true, when that is what they are doing. And they cannot claim
Canon or Epson ageing characteristics if they are using non OEM
materials.

> To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible,
>then they are representative of the OEM and should share the majority
>of the same characteristics.
>

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? I suggest you have a quick
review of the warranty on your printer, because Canon certainly reach a
different conclusion.

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:52:14 PM3/21/05

to

In article <HTv%d.14078$C47....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>

How fortunate for the future of the human race that you intend to end
you genetic line at this generation! ;-)

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:53:12 PM3/21/05

to

In article <O4WdnSF9vqT...@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
<bpo...@thebar.net> writes

>As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
>a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.

I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer on
Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print - and I
suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered trade name
being used to describe it as such!

Kennedy McEwen

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 4:53:17 PM3/21/05

to

In article <3a836nF...@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<tali...@netscape.net> writes

>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
>>was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>>
>
>So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
>and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get.

But not a Honda warranty. Those parts which you *can* change and retain
the Honda warranty have openly published specifications. Providing the
replacement part meets the Honda specification, Honda will honour the
warranty. They won't if you use a part which doesn't meet their
specification or if you change a part which does not have an open spec.
Canon ink does not have a published specification, nor does Canon paper.

>
>Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
>prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
>don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
>or even be Canon made.
>

And I haven't suggested that you need *anyone's* approval. You are
perfectly at liberty to call your products whatever you like, but when
you are trying to converse with anyone else you will make more progress
if you use the same terminology instead of silly word games to imply you
have a brand name product when you actually have something that the
owner of the brand name would strongly object to having their name
associated with.

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 8:54:21 PM3/21/05

to

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 10:30:37 PM3/21/05

to

In article <X%L%d.14359$C47....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<meas...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>I am not speaking of compatible cartridges.

Neither is Hecate, you fuckwit!

>I am speaking of compatible inks. If you refill a Canon brand
>cartridge it is most obvious that it fits the Canon printer. If the
>ink has the same characteristics then it is compatible.

The ONLY ink which has exactly the same characteristics as Canon ink
*IS* Canon ink!

> It needs to have the same characteristics so it will function
>PROPERLY with the Print Head.

That is compete crap. Providing it has the same viscosity, particulate
size, surface tension, pH and boiling point it will be compatible with
the printer head. It doesn't even need to be the same colour to be
compatible with the print head, let alone have the same chemical
composition!

You are a complete and utter fuckwit.

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 11:09:15 PM3/21/05

to

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <X%L%d.14359$C47....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite <meas...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>
>> I am not speaking of compatible cartridges.
>
>
> Neither is Hecate, you fuckwit!
>
>> I am speaking of compatible inks. If you refill a Canon brand
>> cartridge it is most obvious that it fits the Canon printer. If the
>> ink has the same characteristics then it is compatible.
>
>
> The ONLY ink which has exactly the same characteristics as Canon ink
> *IS* Canon ink!
>
>> It needs to have the same characteristics so it will function
>> PROPERLY with the Print Head.
>
>
> That is compete crap. Providing it has the same viscosity,
> particulate size, surface tension, pH and boiling point it will be
> compatible with the printer head.

These are characteristics.

> It doesn't even need to be the same colour to be compatible with the
> print head,

DUH! =-O

> let alone have the same chemical composition!
>

> You are a complete and utter fuckwit. :-*

measekite

unread,

Mar 21, 2005, 11:12:27 PM3/21/05

to

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <g4M%d.14362$C47....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite <meas...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>
>>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> In article <nZK%d.209$FN4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
>>> <meas...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>
>>>> OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a
>>>> CANON printer.
>>>>
>>> If that is what had been written then it would have been a
>>> reasonable description and understood by most discussing the topic.
>>> Unfortunately that isn't what was written.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that you can ASSume it. :-*
>>
> What you assume from "a Canon print" is obviously very different from
> what everyone else assumes - but that is not to surprising since you
> have demonstrated yourself to be a complete fuckwit!

If you had a brain place in your head it would be lonesome.

>
> Rapid fading of dye ink prints is a fact of life, get over it. You
> futile attempts to convince yourself it cannot possibly affect your
> precious Canon output (which has been assessed as amongst the worst
> offender by the world authority on image fading) are

> :-D childish :-D

> in the extreme.

measekite

unread,

Mar 22, 2005, 2:57:13 AM3/22/05

to

I think that Taliesyn made sense and was clearly understood.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I think your posting, where you responded to an issue about Canon inks
> being fugitive by replying about prints made with non-Canon inks was
> not a matter of semantics at all, but was very misleading, and
> intentionally so. Kennedy caught you at this, and you didn't even
> have the decency to admit it was deceptive.
>
> That's fine, but it puts all your postings into a very different
> light. It would be wise for others to recognize that you will
> intentionally use omission of information as a method to provide
> misleading information, and it certainly gives me pause to take your
> statements seriously.
>
> The question when reading your postings will always be "what has he
> neglected to mention", and I don't think that serves anyone. It
> certainly doesn't improve the content of a forum like this for people
> seeking honest and balanced information.
>
> And your use of the Honda analogy to prove your point shows some
> pretty twisted logic.
>
> Art