Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Help - best printer output
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Owens
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Need a good printer for fine art photo quality output.
Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
Any help appreciated.
Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
Any help appreciated.
P.L. Owens
plo...@plowens.com
DWA652
Aug 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/20/99
to
>Need a good printer for fine art photo quality output.
>Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
>Any help appreciated
>Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
>Any help appreciated
Best output: Epson 750 or 1200
Longest lasting: Alps MD-5000 or HP Photosmart
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
Photos + a large set of photo links including my PHOTO BOOK LIST - NOW WITH
BOOK REVIEWS!!!!
Steve Young
Aug 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/20/99
to
I do, Can't ya see? LOL ! Wise words for the day! (wear a cup)
-------------------------------------------
<TEC...@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message
news:37c0d0e1...@news.erols.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:32:49 -0700, Paul Owens
> <plo...@lightningcreek.com> wrote:
>
> >Need a good printer for fine art photo quality output.
> >Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
> >Any help appreciated.
>
> Help is on the way!
>
> Before we start, let me apologize for the long response. But you
> brought up a question that begged many other questions .. and some of
> them don't seem to get addressed here often enough, so I'm singling
> out your post here to make some points. Most are related to your
> question, some are related to what your question alludes to and some
> are just me being my usual 'high and mighty' self, as one e-mail
> respondent referred to me as..
>
> (For the record, I try to be helpful and informative to anyone who
> asks.. sometimes stating my opinion <but stating it as such> and
> sometimes offering advice. Always keep in mind that 'Advice is worth
> what you pay for it' .. I agree with that.. even when the advice is
> mine)
>
> With that said, let's move on to Paul's issues.
>
> First, I don't think you're seeing 'banding' the way it is
> understood. BUT... it is such a descriptive word that it is easy to
> see why you would use it to describe your symptoms. (True banding
> won't happen on this printer.)
>
> What you're most likely seeing is a mis-registration. (I'm guessing
> without seeing any samples) This might be easily solved by either
> running a registration check (Built into the printer, using the
> directions included with the printer documentation) or possibly a
> printing head problem, solved by changing the cartridges. If you
> change the carts and it still happens, it is probably a
> mis-registration.
>
> Both are easily solved.
>
> BUT .. you mention 'fine art photo' quality output and there hasn't
> been a consumer level inkjet printer invented yet that lives up to
> this criteria. Many people think their printers do, but they may have
> a lesser idea of 'quality' in mind.
>
> "Fine art photo" knocks the inkjet prints out of the running.
>
> I have the same printer that you have, yet I would never THINK of
> using it for such output.
>
> And before everyone jumps down my throat saying that I'm some sort of
> snob about inkjets, let me say that I've owned many of them, still own
> several (and love them for what they are and what they do) and I've
> been posting about them for more than 5 years to several newsgroups
> and listserves including this one. The BEST that I can say is that
> they are getting CLOSE to photo quality lately .. and 5 years ago they
> did not. I've gradually changed my opinions as the printers changed,
> but they still aren't photo quality. (Yet.. but I expect that within
> another year or so this will change.. and I'll gladly change my stance
> at that time and cheer for the manufacturer who introduces one.)
>
> "Fine Art Photos" are in a class by themselves .. and very few
> printers are equipped to handle them correctly.
>
> More importantly, even the printers that DO handle them correctly
> depend on some pretty impressive scanning techniques to get the most
> out of the color gamut and tonal range of the original work.
>
> So, without questioning your techniques or insinuating that they
> aren't adequate, (because I'm not doing either one..) I should ask if
> you are sure that you have such accurate scans that you are ready for
> the type of output that you are asking about. If you haven't gone that
> far in the scanning and manipulation, then the resulting print from
> the BEST printer will disappoint you.
>
> On the other hand, if you HAVE done all this work .. if you have had
> them professionally scanned and edited then there are many places that
> wil handle this type of work for you. If you have done the scanning
> yourself and you are a professional at doing so, you'd probably know
> all about the places that do this, so I'm going to make a small
> assumtion here.. you probably don't have the scanned images necessary
> for this level of output. You might not be ready for 'Fine Art Photo
> Quality Output' .. but you also have a good enough eye to know that
> you want something better than what you've been getting.
>
> And that's a "Good Thing" !!.
>
> Scanning is an art. Having a scanner doesn't make you an artist.
> Printing is an art. Having a printer doesn't make you an artist.
>
> Knowing the difference is an art. Apparently you know the difference.
>
> Congrats.. you're an artist! But does this help you get the 'fine art
> prints' that you want?
>
> I can print them for you. (No, this isn't a commercial, I'll print
> one or two for free if you pay postage just to show you) Then I will
> attempt to get you in touch with another printer in your area (if I
> can) so that you at least know WHERE to get the kind of output you
> are asking about.
>
> After I do that, I suggest that you get in touch with them and develop
> a relationship. That way, they will get to know what you want and what
> you expect. This will go a long way toward getting you the product
> that you have in mind. They will get to know you and your needs, and
> will develop a 'profile' on you (even if only mentally) so that when
> you bring in work, they'll be able to produce what you are looking
> for.
>
> Anyway, this got much longer than I expected.. especially for a
> response to a two line post!!!
>
> I apologize for the length, but I hope that I've been helpful in some
> way. (yeah, I ramble.. I know it) and I hope that I didn't ruffle
> any feathers along the way. If I did, then all I can say is that you
> people need to get a thicker skin!!
>
> Hey.. Usenet is tough.. Wear a cup.
>
-------------------------------------------
<TEC...@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message
news:37c0d0e1...@news.erols.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:32:49 -0700, Paul Owens
> <plo...@lightningcreek.com> wrote:
>
> >Need a good printer for fine art photo quality output.
> >Tried using my HP 1120C, but I get banding.
>
> Help is on the way!
>
> Before we start, let me apologize for the long response. But you
> brought up a question that begged many other questions .. and some of
> them don't seem to get addressed here often enough, so I'm singling
> out your post here to make some points. Most are related to your
> question, some are related to what your question alludes to and some
> are just me being my usual 'high and mighty' self, as one e-mail
> respondent referred to me as..
>
> (For the record, I try to be helpful and informative to anyone who
> asks.. sometimes stating my opinion <but stating it as such> and
> sometimes offering advice. Always keep in mind that 'Advice is worth
> what you pay for it' .. I agree with that.. even when the advice is
> mine)
>
> With that said, let's move on to Paul's issues.
>
> First, I don't think you're seeing 'banding' the way it is
> understood. BUT... it is such a descriptive word that it is easy to
> see why you would use it to describe your symptoms. (True banding
> won't happen on this printer.)
>
> What you're most likely seeing is a mis-registration. (I'm guessing
> without seeing any samples) This might be easily solved by either
> running a registration check (Built into the printer, using the
> directions included with the printer documentation) or possibly a
> printing head problem, solved by changing the cartridges. If you
> change the carts and it still happens, it is probably a
> mis-registration.
>
> Both are easily solved.
>
> BUT .. you mention 'fine art photo' quality output and there hasn't
> been a consumer level inkjet printer invented yet that lives up to
> this criteria. Many people think their printers do, but they may have
> a lesser idea of 'quality' in mind.
>
> "Fine art photo" knocks the inkjet prints out of the running.
>
> I have the same printer that you have, yet I would never THINK of
> using it for such output.
>
> And before everyone jumps down my throat saying that I'm some sort of
> snob about inkjets, let me say that I've owned many of them, still own
> several (and love them for what they are and what they do) and I've
> been posting about them for more than 5 years to several newsgroups
> and listserves including this one. The BEST that I can say is that
> they are getting CLOSE to photo quality lately .. and 5 years ago they
> did not. I've gradually changed my opinions as the printers changed,
> but they still aren't photo quality. (Yet.. but I expect that within
> another year or so this will change.. and I'll gladly change my stance
> at that time and cheer for the manufacturer who introduces one.)
>
> "Fine Art Photos" are in a class by themselves .. and very few
> printers are equipped to handle them correctly.
>
> More importantly, even the printers that DO handle them correctly
> depend on some pretty impressive scanning techniques to get the most
> out of the color gamut and tonal range of the original work.
>
> So, without questioning your techniques or insinuating that they
> aren't adequate, (because I'm not doing either one..) I should ask if
> you are sure that you have such accurate scans that you are ready for
> the type of output that you are asking about. If you haven't gone that
> far in the scanning and manipulation, then the resulting print from
> the BEST printer will disappoint you.
>
> On the other hand, if you HAVE done all this work .. if you have had
> them professionally scanned and edited then there are many places that
> wil handle this type of work for you. If you have done the scanning
> yourself and you are a professional at doing so, you'd probably know
> all about the places that do this, so I'm going to make a small
> assumtion here.. you probably don't have the scanned images necessary
> for this level of output. You might not be ready for 'Fine Art Photo
> Quality Output' .. but you also have a good enough eye to know that
> you want something better than what you've been getting.
>
> And that's a "Good Thing" !!.
>
> Scanning is an art. Having a scanner doesn't make you an artist.
> Printing is an art. Having a printer doesn't make you an artist.
>
> Knowing the difference is an art. Apparently you know the difference.
>
> Congrats.. you're an artist! But does this help you get the 'fine art
> prints' that you want?
>
> I can print them for you. (No, this isn't a commercial, I'll print
> one or two for free if you pay postage just to show you) Then I will
> attempt to get you in touch with another printer in your area (if I
> can) so that you at least know WHERE to get the kind of output you
> are asking about.
>
> After I do that, I suggest that you get in touch with them and develop
> a relationship. That way, they will get to know what you want and what
> you expect. This will go a long way toward getting you the product
> that you have in mind. They will get to know you and your needs, and
> will develop a 'profile' on you (even if only mentally) so that when
> you bring in work, they'll be able to produce what you are looking
> for.
>
> Anyway, this got much longer than I expected.. especially for a
> response to a two line post!!!
>
> I apologize for the length, but I hope that I've been helpful in some
> way. (yeah, I ramble.. I know it) and I hope that I didn't ruffle
> any feathers along the way. If I did, then all I can say is that you
> people need to get a thicker skin!!
>
> Hey.. Usenet is tough.. Wear a cup.
>
FHart32003
Aug 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/20/99
to
>> BUT .. you mention 'fine art photo' quality output and there hasn't
>> been a consumer level inkjet printer invented yet that lives up to
>> this criteria. Many people think their printers do, but they may have
>> a lesser idea of 'quality' in
>> been a consumer level inkjet printer invented yet that lives up to
>> this criteria. Many people think their printers do, but they may have
>> a lesser idea of 'quality' in
Exactly what is the "fine art photo" and what are the "critera"? and what do
you consider quality.?
CecilHW
Aug 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/20/99
to
Ya'll excuse my ignorance but I've never heard of "mis-registration" in a
printer or otherwise. Would you please elaborate on it's causes & cures?
TIA
CecilHW
printer or otherwise. Would you please elaborate on it's causes & cures?
TIA
CecilHW
TECHLAB wrote in a message:
<snip>
>What you're most likely seeing is a mis-registration.
<another snip>
>Both are easily solved.
0 new messages