Printer (and laptop) preferences?
Longfellow
comp.periph.printers) because I want to know about the experiences and
preferences of photographers specifically.
I bought an Epson 2200 when it was the only pigment ink game in town.
Quit using it when I couldn't get it to stay unclogged without using it
continuously 24/7; it would clog in the space of less than a day! Gave
up printing entirely. Was shooting slide film, which I was scanning for
prints as an option. Finally consigned the entire mess to the local
dump, fully packed in its shipping box with the unused roll accessary
and all!
But now I've gone digital, which means that prints are the reasonable
end result. And now I've got to choose a printer. Again!! Argh!
No more Epsons, and I don't care if they ever start using replaceable
heads, because they are no longer the only game in town. Which leaves
me the Canon and the HP (unless there is yet another photo printer
manufacturer about which I know nothing at all) between which to make a
choice. The blurbs are useless. The reviews are suspect; what to they
actually reflect? Soreheads and fanatics?
I read a lot of good things about the Canon printers. And then I read
that the HP B9180 just blows the Canons out of the water when it comes
to print quality. I've never had a Canon printer, but I've had several
HP printers and have had excellent service from each one.
I understand that fast and quiet is important for many people, but not
so important for me. What I'm looking for is bullet-proof reliability
and quality of image. Eventually, the option of using a range of media
may become relevant, but not at the moment.
I've considered the dye printer, but the idea of having colors knock my
eyeballs out the back of my head somehow just doesn't appeal to me :)
So I guess that pigment prints is that choice already made. Which leads
me to my second question:
What choices of laptops have been made, and what experiences had?
Here's why I ask: I know little or nothing about Microsoft and Apple
software products, having always used one or another *NIX operating
system and software. I will not trust either to a network gateway,
which means that my LAN system is a mixture of GNU/Linux and one or
another descendent of Berkeley's BSD UNIX. Problem with all that is
that software choices are limited (duh...)
I've used the GNU Gimp with great success, but it currently has a
limitation that cannot be countenanced: it is limited to 8 bit word
length, which means that it is an unacceptable bottle-neck for image
quality. I have used Cineprint, a fork of Gimp 1.x for Hollywood types
that uses 16 bit word lengths, but the printing plugins were pretty
primitive and I'd really like to step up to something more powerful.
Also, HP says that it will never provide a *NIX driver for the
B91800, and I've no idea how the Linux drivers work with the Canon
printers.
All of which means a PC (Mac is probably unacceptably expensive)
solution, ergo Microsoft stuff. What's now available is MS Vista, about
which I've heard little that is positive. Nevertheless, it would seem
that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2 is the way to go, specifically
because they both handle 16 bit word lengths. I've got a 40D Canon
which puts out 14 bit words.
I read that Lightroom 2 means that Photoshop Elements is all that
one needs, and I've been given to understand that all sorts of other
opinions are the only "truth", so I tend to discount it all. Which
leaves me having to ask those who have had to deal with all this.
What printer do you use? What laptop do you find a) most useful, b)
most reliable? What software works best and why? I'm currently leaning
to the HP because a) I've had good luck with HP, and b) the heads are
user replaceable and apparently much less hassle to replace than with
either of the Canon printers. I'm also currently leaning to the HP
Pavilion laptops, probably the 17" (although I really dislike the metal
finish!).
Opinions, experiences, all are invited!
Longfellow
SMS
> I'm asking about printer preferences in this forum (rather than in
> comp.periph.printers) because I want to know about the experiences and
> preferences of photographers specifically.
These are the best I've found in terms of the cost of ink and paper, as
well as quality:
1. The printer I usually use is at "http://tinyurl.com/6jrvjt".
2. If I need prints faster then I use "http://tinyurl.com/9jvwg".
Jay Ts
> [re: printers for photography]
> I understand that fast and quiet is important for many people, but not
> so important for me. What I'm looking for is bullet-proof reliability
> and quality of image. Eventually, the option of using a range of media
> may become relevant, but not at the moment.
You also might consider the cost of ink. I was looking at a HP printer
a while ago, until I realized that the cost of a full set of cartridges
was $245! And that was for their least expensive "pro quality" printer.
It might even have been the one you're looking at. (?)
I've given up on Epson for now, due to my own experiences, and because
of all the horror stories I've heard for years, regarding how easily
they go bad and how much it costs to fix them when they do. (I
haven't heard much about their Pro line though. Anyone?)
> What choices of laptops have been made, and what experiences had?
Take a look at Toshiba.
> Here's
> why I ask: I know little or nothing about Microsoft and Apple software
> products, having always used one or another *NIX operating system and
> software. I will not trust either to a network gateway, which means
> that my LAN system is a mixture of GNU/Linux and one or another
> descendent of Berkeley's BSD UNIX. Problem with all that is that
> software choices are limited (duh...)
Don't worry about Windows. I just keep the Windows systems on my LAN,
and they access the Internet through a Linux gateway running iptables
to perform firewalling and routing.
The Linux system is plugged into an additional router (with firewall) to
connect to the ISP.
Windows comes with a built-in firewall, and if you don't like that,
you can upgrade to a commercial one. But so far, I've found that all
I need to add for security is AVG Free Antivirus. It's free, and does
a pretty good job. Use Firefox for web browsing instead of Internet
Explorer, and continue using your Unix system(s) for email (i.e., do
not use Outlook). You should be fine.
If you do actually get a virus, it only takes a day or two to
reinstall Windows, all of your Applications, and re-configure
the system. ;-)
With 3 levels of firewalling to the Internet and a virus checker,
I don't worry much. No problems here!
> I've used the GNU Gimp with great success, but it currently has a
> limitation that cannot be countenanced:
I'm sure many regulars here are now ROFL after reading that comment. :)
I learned The Gimp a long time ago for web design and other things.
It's just one of many graphics/image editors I've used over the years.
The Gimp has MANY, MANY limitations compared to the major Windows
image editors. Get a Windows system, buy Photoshop, learn it. You
will see. (If you need less expensive proof, watch some Photoshop
courses on Lynda.com.)
> Also, HP says that it will never provide a *NIX driver for the B91800,
> and I've no idea how the Linux drivers work with the Canon printers.
You can set up your Linux system to share the printer on Windows
Networking using Samba. (I authored the 2nd version of Using Samba
for O'Reilly Media, and I studied that a bit.) But honestly, you may
do better just plugging the printer into a Windows system. It's
simpler, and you get full support of the manufacturer's driver.
> All of which means a PC (Mac is probably unacceptably expensive)
I agree. Even though I'm a long-time Unix user, I can't see any
reason to own a Mac. Last time I checked, a decent Toshiba Satellite
could be had for just $720, and that wasn't the least expensive model.
The Adobe apps run almost identically on both platforms, as far as
I can tell. I used to have a Mac, but realized one day that I hadn't
turned it on in 2-3 months -- I was doing everything I needed or wanted
to on either Linux or Windows -- so I sold the Mac.
Just make sure you get at least 2 GB of RAM so you can install Photoshop
without it complaining. (No, really, you will need it to edit
large, multi-layered images with Smart Objects, Smart Filters,
many levels of history, etc. Get more than 2 GB if you can.)
> What's now available is MS Vista, about
> which I've heard little that is positive.
If you can handle running Linux, BSD, etc., you probably can handle
wiping the laptop clean and installing Windows XP Service Pack 3.
I suppose someone on eBay will sell you a copy of that for cheap. (?)
You will need to make sure you have device drivers that run under
XP for the laptop's peripherals (sound, network, etc.).
(Unfortunately, you may also find yourself without OpenGL support that
Photoshop CS4 likes to have for its new and slightly-useful "gee wiz"
display stuff. It will still run without OpenGL, but without the
extra bells and whistles.)
> Nevertheless, it would seem
> that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2 is the way to go, specifically
> because they both handle 16 bit word lengths. I've got a 40D Canon
> which puts out 14 bit words.
Photoshop comes with Adobe Camera Raw, so you can import the 40D's
raw files with that and bring them into Photoshop as 16-bit images.
> I read that Lightroom 2 means that Photoshop Elements is all that one
> needs,
I suggest you see if you can get a demo of Photoshop and learn as much
as you can about it before settling on anything less.
Lightroom and Elements are nice, and I don't mean to be critical
of them. It's just that not everyone can live with their limitations.
> What printer do you use?
HP D7260. It's cheap (about $120) and accepts 3rd party refillable
cartridges, so ink costs are insignificant. My major cost
is for paper.
If you can afford something better, then you should get it! I got
the D7260 mainly out of frustration. One nice thing about it though
is that there is a Linux driver for it in the HPILP software (HP
Linux Imaging and Printing) available from HP at no charge.
How about this for an idea: put a cheap D7260 on your Linux system
for "everyday" printing (text, graphics, family photo) and get the
B9180 for occasional, expensive, high-quality printing.
> I'm currently leaning
> to the HP because a) I've had good luck with HP, and b) the heads are
> user replaceable and apparently much less hassle to replace than with
> either of the Canon printers.
It's also nice to have good-looking pigmented ink that will
last for 250+ years:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/PhotosmartProB9180.html
> I'm also currently leaning to the HP Pavilion laptops,
HP laptops are good too. I just don't have any personal experience
with them. It seems like everyone I'm meeting lately has either
a Toshiba or a Mac.
Jay Ts
http://www.jayts.com
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php
Tony Franks
Keep in mind that this SMS character has no real experience with anything he
posts about. It's all garnered from reviews he's read online and manuals that he
downloads to try to pretend to be a real photographer. It's his schtick. Like
those that role-play in virtual-life worlds because their own lives are so
empty.
In matters of taking this virtual-photographer troll's advice, "caveat emptor".
John McWilliams
> I'm asking about printer preferences in this forum (rather than in
> comp.periph.printers) because I want to know about the experiences and
> preferences of photographers specifically.
>
> All of which means a PC (Mac is probably unacceptably expensive)
> solution, ergo Microsoft stuff. What's now available is MS Vista, about
> which I've heard little that is positive. Nevertheless, it would seem
> that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2 is the way to go, specifically
> because they both handle 16 bit word lengths. I've got a 40D Canon
> which puts out 14 bit words.
My choices: MacBookPro; iMac 24" 2.6 Intel; G5. All print to Epson 3800
for photo work, to Epson R300 for casual stuff, and Epson 740 for drafts
and text. And yet I'm not a fan of Epson, though they've gotten better
with drivers' interfaces with Macs over the years, and all printers work
all right to excellent for the 3800. $500 for a full set of inks, but
that's something like 810 Ml of ink. (Alan has these figures much
handier than I).
LR 2.1 is the current version, and I print mostly from that for photos,
but also with PS CS3.
While the initial cost of a Mac is often higher, the savings in down
time, not having to guard against viruses, not cleaning registries, and
with most drivers of most everything I need installed, long term running
costs are low.
Mileage varies, of course.
--
john mcwilliams
whisky-dave
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:suKdnZflcbV7_obU...@posted.olypeninternet...
>
> I read a lot of good things about the Canon printers. And then I read
> that the HP B9180 just blows the Canons out of the water when it comes
> to print quality. I've never had a Canon printer, but I've had several
> HP printers and have had excellent service from each one.
I'm not what you'd call a photographer, more of someone that does
photography
amonst other things. A friend has a canon S900 A4 phot printer and sh;es
very pleased
with it reliability and just uses it for printing photos, she hasn't had
many problems with it
compared to my epson 1270 which keeps clogging up. Although it was better
behaved when I left it on 24/7. So my next photo printer might well be a
canon or HP.
>
> What printer do you use? What laptop do you find a) most useful, b)
> most reliable?
Personally I wouldn't choose a laptop unless I really needed the
portability.
I'd also go for a Mac probbaly an iMac 24" or maybe 20" if I wanted to carry
it betweeen rooms.
> I'm also currently leaning to the HP
> Pavilion laptops, probably the 17" (although I really dislike the metal
> finish!).
I often wonder why so many opt for a laptop like it's such an easy choice.
I tend to think it's the I need a plasma 40" TV type.
I'd choose a Mac for relibility both sotware and hardware sure tehy can go
wrong,
but PCs seem to have more problems from viruses. Macs seem more expensive
but it's difficult comparing like with like.
I simulated a disc crash on my Mac. I was using time machijne the new backup
software
that comes with Leopard OS and I had my Mac back up and running in under
4 hours including installing everything, and it was all dome with pretty
much one mouse click
and I wnet off and did something else for 3 hours.
I work with PCs too so I know what a opin they can be to get back to a
working state,
and for some time=money.
tomm42
Current Epsons have a new head design that minimizes clogging. Owners
of the 3800 report very few clogs. Keep in mind humidity plays a big
factor in head clogs too, Epson's specs I believe are at least 40%
humidity. Again the 3800 seems to have the clog problem solved.
Canon makes a good printer, either the 5100 for a 17 inch or the 9500
for 13 inch. I really prefer the 17 inch as ink costs are about 1/2 as
much as with the small cartridge 13 inch printers. But remember the
big cartridges are far more expensive. I have to replace just 3 of the
12 in my Canon iPF5000 and they will cost $72 a piece, on the other
hand they have been in the printer for a year. So you don't have to
run out every weekend for ink. Also most other carts are at 40% so I
won't have to replace them for a while, very seldom do a lot of carts
empty at the same time. The one problem with the Canon iPF series is
they are big printers, but well built.
I am using an HP B9180 at work, ink costs are the same as the Epson 13
inch but the carts are 27ml instead of 12 or 15ml so they have to be
replaced less frequently. Shop around places like IT Supplies and
Atlex have good prices, sometimes other vendors have sales too.
Tom
Alan Browne
> No more Epsons, and I don't care if they ever start using replaceable
> heads, because they are no longer the only game in town. Which leaves
> me the Canon and the HP (unless there is yet another photo printer
> manufacturer about which I know nothing at all) between which to make a
> choice. The blurbs are useless. The reviews are suspect; what to they
> actually reflect? Soreheads and fanatics?
I hate to say so, but I recently bought a hardly used Epson 3800. I've
had one instance of a clog which cleared up while printing a check
pattern. (For that matter the effect of the clog was so fine that an
ordinary viewer would not have spotted the effect in the print. I
didn't notice it until a day later). I use the printer sporadically.
Most recently a print after about a week of no use. No clog.
User replaceable heads? Sure. Get a Canon. But the day will come when
you need to change the head and it will be so expensive that you'll
elect to buy a new printer instead.
> I read a lot of good things about the Canon printers. And then I read
> that the HP B9180 just blows the Canons out of the water when it comes
> to print quality. I've never had a Canon printer, but I've had several
> HP printers and have had excellent service from each one.
>
> I understand that fast and quiet is important for many people, but not
> so important for me. What I'm looking for is bullet-proof reliability
> and quality of image. Eventually, the option of using a range of media
> may become relevant, but not at the moment.
"bullet proof"? Fergetit.
The manufacturers have improved their printers immensely and clogs are
very rare. Just take that for what it is.
Go Canon, Epson, HP and you can't go wrong... just don't expect miracles.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
ray
I believe that a complete rewrite of GIMP is underway that will remove
that limitation - I've not checked on it progress recently.
>
> Also, HP says that it will never provide a *NIX driver for the B91800,
> and I've no idea how the Linux drivers work with the Canon printers.
What Linux drivers for canon printers? There basically are none. canon
does not directly support Linux in any way, shape or form - their stuff
makes good boat anchors. Epson, however provides stellar support at the
avasys.jp website.
Longfellow
> Longfellow wrote:
>> [re: printers for photography]
>> I understand that fast and quiet is important for many people, but not
>> so important for me. What I'm looking for is bullet-proof reliability
>> and quality of image. Eventually, the option of using a range of media
>> may become relevant, but not at the moment.
>
> You also might consider the cost of ink. I was looking at a HP printer
> a while ago, until I realized that the cost of a full set of cartridges
> was $245! And that was for their least expensive "pro quality" printer.
> It might even have been the one you're looking at. (?)
Oh, yes. Ink costs suggest that's where they make their money. Sell a
printer once; sell ink as long as the printer lasts. Which is why I
only print the best stuff at full size.
> I've given up on Epson for now, due to my own experiences, and because
> of all the horror stories I've heard for years, regarding how easily
> they go bad and how much it costs to fix them when they do. (I
> haven't heard much about their Pro line though. Anyone?)
Apparently the big Epsons don't have the problem the pro-am printers do,
or if they do, the users are keeping quiet about it.
>> What choices of laptops have been made, and what experiences had?
>
> Take a look at Toshiba.
Yep, I will do that.
>> Here's
>> why I ask: I know little or nothing about Microsoft and Apple software
>> products, having always used one or another *NIX operating system and
>> software. I will not trust either to a network gateway, which means
>> that my LAN system is a mixture of GNU/Linux and one or another
>> descendent of Berkeley's BSD UNIX. Problem with all that is that
>> software choices are limited (duh...)
>
> Don't worry about Windows. I just keep the Windows systems on my LAN,
<snip>
As long as the Windows machine can't find the gateway, it'll remain
safe. I do all my network stuff on Linux (the last BSD machine is now
off-line). So the laptop is intended to be a dedicated system only.
>> I've used the GNU Gimp with great success, but it currently has a
>> limitation that cannot be countenanced:
>
> I'm sure many regulars here are now ROFL after reading that comment. :)
>
> I learned The Gimp a long time ago for web design and other things.
> It's just one of many graphics/image editors I've used over the years.
>
> The Gimp has MANY, MANY limitations compared to the major Windows
> image editors. Get a Windows system, buy Photoshop, learn it. You
> will see. (If you need less expensive proof, watch some Photoshop
> courses on Lynda.com.)
So far as I can tell, the Gimp lacks the CYMK capability and a decent
word length. The rest of it does anything I want it to do, except that
it's apparently very primitive and clumsy in it's command sequences; one
needs to do a lot of script writing to get it to perform well in a
production situation. I did some of that and decided that they weren't
all that useful; I don't do production, or at least I haven't. This
project may well change all that.
>> Also, HP says that it will never provide a *NIX driver for the B91800,
>> and I've no idea how the Linux drivers work with the Canon printers.
>
> You can set up your Linux system to share the printer on Windows
> Networking using Samba. (I authored the 2nd version of Using Samba
> for O'Reilly Media, and I studied that a bit.) But honestly, you may
> do better just plugging the printer into a Windows system. It's
> simpler, and you get full support of the manufacturer's driver.
My wife had a Windows machine for a while, until she decided she had one
too many blue screens because an app died. I had Samba running on my
box and the servers, but now I just telnet in as a pseudo-sysadmin and
fix her problems ;) No need for any security stuff behind a NATTING
router-modem. Especially when I can download viruses and play with them
in a hex-editor, and with complete impunity :D
Plugging the laptop into the printer is one way of going. Having the
printer on the LAN and plugging the laptop into the LAN allows me to
also access a backup drive... don't know if Windows can do that
directly... backup is spreading files around several machines now, used
to be tape drives... but digital images are "gone in 60 (nano)seconds"
if the files are lost, as opposed to a carefully stored box of slides,
but then...
>> All of which means a PC (Mac is probably unacceptably expensive)
>
> I agree. Even though I'm a long-time Unix user, I can't see any
> reason to own a Mac. Last time I checked, a decent Toshiba Satellite
> could be had for just $720, and that wasn't the least expensive model.
> The Adobe apps run almost identically on both platforms, as far as
> I can tell. I used to have a Mac, but realized one day that I hadn't
> turned it on in 2-3 months -- I was doing everything I needed or wanted
> to on either Linux or Windows -- so I sold the Mac.
>
> Just make sure you get at least 2 GB of RAM so you can install Photoshop
> without it complaining. (No, really, you will need it to edit
> large, multi-layered images with Smart Objects, Smart Filters,
> many levels of history, etc. Get more than 2 GB if you can.)
Yes, I've take the opportunity to read through all those caveats; I
figure 4 gig of RAM is the choice there. Remember contemplating a small
piece of big iron that was headless, had 64 gig of RAM, and was heavily
cabled to a disk server cabinet... couldn't figure out where to put the
damn thing... lol!!
>> What's now available is MS Vista, about
>> which I've heard little that is positive.
>
> If you can handle running Linux, BSD, etc., you probably can handle
> wiping the laptop clean and installing Windows XP Service Pack 3.
> I suppose someone on eBay will sell you a copy of that for cheap. (?)
> You will need to make sure you have device drivers that run under
> XP for the laptop's peripherals (sound, network, etc.).
>
> (Unfortunately, you may also find yourself without OpenGL support that
> Photoshop CS4 likes to have for its new and slightly-useful "gee wiz"
> display stuff. It will still run without OpenGL, but without the
> extra bells and whistles.)
Well, any sort of MS os would be a new adventure, and if I'm going to
pay through the nose for the stuff, I should make sure not to miss the
odd bell or whistle... CS4 is the latest PS, I gather? Worth it?
>> Nevertheless, it would seem
>> that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2 is the way to go, specifically
>> because they both handle 16 bit word lengths. I've got a 40D Canon
>> which puts out 14 bit words.
>
> Photoshop comes with Adobe Camera Raw, so you can import the 40D's
> raw files with that and bring them into Photoshop as 16-bit images.
Neat.
>
>> I read that Lightroom 2 means that Photoshop Elements is all that one
>> needs,
>
> I suggest you see if you can get a demo of Photoshop and learn as much
> as you can about it before settling on anything less.
>
> Lightroom and Elements are nice, and I don't mean to be critical
> of them. It's just that not everyone can live with their limitations.
At this point, I'm going to want to experiment with everything. The
project is photographically oriented, but the images themselves have no
reason to be intended to be photographically "true". So having apps
with less limitations will be a bonus.
>> What printer do you use?
>
> HP D7260. It's cheap (about $120) and accepts 3rd party refillable
> cartridges, so ink costs are insignificant. My major cost
> is for paper.
I looked this up, and its a standard format printer. I'm looking for a
13" printer that will do 11 x 14 (or 12 x 18) prints. When I was doing
a wet darkroom, I found myself doing 11 x 14 prints as the default,
don't recall why, exactly. But now it may have to do with age, who
knows?
> If you can afford something better, then you should get it! I got
> the D7260 mainly out of frustration. One nice thing about it though
> is that there is a Linux driver for it in the HPILP software (HP
> Linux Imaging and Printing) available from HP at no charge.
I'm using HPLIP (CUPS) for the all in one that is our standard printer.
HP is pretty good about providing drivers for Linux; they use RH 7.1 as
the prefered os for one of their major apps. (I know the guy who
teaches that system.) Thing is, they won't provide drivers for the
B9180, proprietary technology they can't reveal?
> How about this for an idea: put a cheap D7260 on your Linux system
> for "everyday" printing (text, graphics, family photo) and get the
> B9180 for occasional, expensive, high-quality printing.
Yes, I've done stuff on the all in one. Its an HP OfficePro L7680, and
it doesn't do too bad on prints.
>
>> I'm currently leaning
>> to the HP because a) I've had good luck with HP, and b) the heads are
>> user replaceable and apparently much less hassle to replace than with
>> either of the Canon printers.
>
> It's also nice to have good-looking pigmented ink that will
> last for 250+ years:
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/PhotosmartProB9180.html
That's what they say. I'm always skeptical of extrapolated conclusions,
however. I suppose that one can say that such prints will last at least
a lifetime...
>> I'm also currently leaning to the HP Pavilion laptops,
>
> HP laptops are good too. I just don't have any personal experience
> with them. It seems like everyone I'm meeting lately has either
> a Toshiba or a Mac.
Interesting.
The Mac is traditionally the choice for graphic folk, and the Toshiba is
the great granddaddy of laptops IIRC. I think I'm going to get all the
bells and whistles on a new machine, however. They say lots of
throughput speed is necessary to keep printers happy; starting and
stopping doesn't seem to harm anything when it's just a matter of
replacing a cartridge (if those who tell the stories are really
truthful, that is), but waiting for buffers to fill is apparently
another story. Or so I've read.
Another question occurs to me: What about screen size? I've thought
that the 17" screen is de rigeur, so to speak, for photo stuff, but then
it's not clear that a 15.4" screen might be just fine. Any thoughts?
Longfellow
tony cooper
wrote:
>> I've given up on Epson for now, due to my own experiences, and because
>> of all the horror stories I've heard for years, regarding how easily
>> they go bad and how much it costs to fix them when they do. (I
>> haven't heard much about their Pro line though. Anyone?)
I've been using only Epson printers for several years. If I don't use
it for a longish period of time, I have to run the head cleaning
process. That clears up the problem.
I wouldn't consider having a printer fixed so I don't know how much
that costs. If I wait for a special or a rebate, I can buy a new
printer for less than any repair bill. I don't think they have more
or less problems than any other printer of comparable cost.
I've been quite satisfied with Epsons, and more than satisfied with
the print quality.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LD
I went from a ten year old Phillips 15" LCD to a HP 22" w2207h with a
digital graphics card. The difference is astonishing and well worth the
money. If you plan on doing any Panoramas or even HDRI, a larger and more
capable monitor is very helpful.
Earlier you mentioned Vista. I've just gone from XP to Vista and Vista seems
much faster. While I experienced blue lockups on XP, I have so far seen none
on Vista.
Longfellow
> I believe that a complete rewrite of GIMP is underway that will remove
> that limitation - I've not checked on it progress recently.
That would be GEGL (General Graphics Libraries). It was going to be a
code replacement some versions back but never got up to speed for that
purpose. The major reason for the project, as I recall, was to increase
word length (color depth?) for GNU graphic software. Dunno about ray
tracing apps, though.
Checking just now reveals that some GEGL functionality is included in
the latest Gimp, but not the increased word length capability. That
includes float as a type, of course. OTOH, Cineprint had word length as
type float, which enabled CMYK functionality, IIRC. I did some alpha
testing of some of those changes a while back and still have the code
itself, though it'll have to be recompiled for the new libraries...
Problem is that both the Gimp and its spin-offs rely too heavily on
scripting for most users, and even coders get tired of having to edit
scripts all the time (or at least I do). So Photoshop might just be
worth hassling with Microsoft bloatware, especially as it looks like I
might be doing some continuous work (instead of incidental, that is...)
Longfellow
ray
Other options: run photoshop on Linux via Wine; install your MS as a
virtual machine inside your Linux install with VirtualBox.
Longfellow
Unfortunately, even Crossover WINE only runs Elements, and only at the
"Silver" level (installs and runs, functionality limited due to
bugginess). I just checked to make sure that's what the Crossover site
still says. It would be something like "the best of all possible
worlds" to be able to run Linux with Photoshop CS4 embedded, but it
looks like that's just a dream at the moment.
Thing is, a Windows laptop is most likely to serve several different
applications, and photography is only one of those. I'm setting up to
do some astrophotography, and will need a Windows machine to control the
mount. And then there are other hobbies that would benefit from a
Windows machine as well. So it's Windows as the only choice, AFAIK.
Wish that were not the case, but there it is...
Longfellow
Alan Browne
Nice thing on Mac's is running VMWare fusion (which I use) or Parallels.
This allows a full (and licensed from a discarded machine) WinXP
installation on the Mac and both run in parallel, near seamlessly. No
emulation, it is running the OS (with some instructions substituted to
call into Fusion of course). (Much better than 'bootcamp').
When I first got my Mac I ran CS3 in WinXP on the Mac. (Then asked
Adobe to transfer my license to OS X.
Is there such a thing as VMWare Fusion or Parallels for Linux? That
would be a much more seamless way to run PSE or CS3 on a Linux box. Of
course WinXP has to be a legal copy and VMWare fusion costs about $80.
This is anathema to many Linux users.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Longfellow" <n...@this.address> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:suKdnZflcbV7_obU...@posted.olypeninternet...
now there are many printers to choose from. I have the Canon Pixma ip 4300
for about 2 years and I am very pleased with it, but AFAIK (from other
posters in this group) that Canon does not support linux. This printer is a
consumer model, and costs like 130 euros (the current model is , I think, iP
4500). It can print up to letter size (A4), has chroma life 100 inks (not
sure if they are pigment based) which give excellent results with Canon
papers, and with some generic brands. It has 5 ink tanks, cyan, magenta,
yellow, photo black and document black, and each tank costs 12 euros (13 ml,
the doc black 26 ml). It's difficult to refill, though, because the tanks
have a tiny chip, probably PROM that means that an empty tank is rejected by
the printer and only with tedious attempts you can print. The head is user
replaceable, but knock on wood I have no problems so far. It can print on
printable cds and dvds, it has a permanent paper tray, it can print on both
sides of a document automatically, and has the smallest droplet in its
category, therefore being very economical with ink (1 pl), it has also pict
bridge. (I have also the Lexmark F 4270 all-in-one, 3 years and so far I had
2 times clogged ink cartridges, normally I have them refilled in one of the
ink stations that are here, I use it mostly for photocopies and fax and
print only so it just does not clog up).
Now for the laptop... My mother got a HP with celeron M, with win Vista OEM
for 530 euros, from www.cccira.gr but it's quite slow, even after we
installed 1 gig (1.5 gig total). But, my desktop which I bought from the
same shop is fantastic
http://www.cccira.gr/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=90_91&products_id=130
and cost only 750 euros, with a Samsung sync master 206 BW 20" LCD
I got a legit copy of win XP OEM from plaisio www.plaisio.gr for 66 euros
and am very pleased with it,
no flames please.
Another good thing with XP is that if you want to play a game, so let your
hair down, there are thousands of popular games.
HTH.HAND.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Longfellow
> Nice thing on Mac's is running VMWare fusion (which I use) or Parallels.
> This allows a full (and licensed from a discarded machine) WinXP
> installation on the Mac and both run in parallel, near seamlessly. No
> emulation, it is running the OS (with some instructions substituted to
> call into Fusion of course). (Much better than 'bootcamp').
>
> When I first got my Mac I ran CS3 in WinXP on the Mac. (Then asked
> Adobe to transfer my license to OS X.
>
> Is there such a thing as VMWare Fusion or Parallels for Linux? That
> would be a much more seamless way to run PSE or CS3 on a Linux box. Of
> course WinXP has to be a legal copy and VMWare fusion costs about $80.
> This is anathema to many Linux users.
This always makes me want to look again at the Mac's. Generally, all I
do is think about doing so, although occasionally I will actually go and
look again.
I recall having had VMWare freebee's a long time ago, and thought the
idea had real merit. Thing was, though, I wasn't using any Microsoft
software at the time, so didn't think I'd need it. Now, however, it's a
different story.
I must assume that there is a VMWare for Linux; as far as I know, there
always has been. And thinking about that once again leads me to wonder
if that is not the optimum solution here. Checking on the VMWare site,
I find that there is a Workstation suite/app for Linux that costs
$189.00US. Dunno if that's worth it when a new laptop comes with
Windows already. I guess the question is whether or not I want to also
run Linux apps as well.
I've never been adverse to paying a reasonable fee for the use of
software, although most of the software suits that have interested me
have had better, more powerful though less user-friendly,
implementations in open source software. Most of the heavy computing
that I've done has been on UNIX systems at work, using industrial
strength software, so I haven't had to turn to Windows as the only game
in town. Things have changed, of course.
Now, I'm looking at paying something south of a grand for the latest
Photoshop and Lightroom software, and that's okay: It's a choice of
software rather than a choice of whether or not to have the software in
the first place. So as far as I'm concerned, it's the matter of choice
that is of real importance. The reason is because I like to know what
my computer is doing and that means having access to the source code
itself; I could modify it if that were really important, but that's not
the main reason, and in this I differ from RMS, et al.
In any case, VMWare is something I'll have to think about; it's one
solution. Thing is, I'm going to have to think about what (how many?)
problems it would solve, if any at all.
Thanks,
Longfellow
Alan Browne
> In any case, VMWare is something I'll have to think about; it's one
> solution. Thing is, I'm going to have to think about what (how many?)
> problems it would solve, if any at all.
I can only reply from the position of a new Mac user (since Feb) who has
a near 30 year legacy of DOS/Windblows:
VMWare Fusion is essential.
Jay Ts
> Is there such a thing as VMWare Fusion or Parallels for Linux?
You ARE kidding, right? :-)
According to my *hazy* memory, VMware was first developed for Linux,
and they had a Windows port within a year of that. I ran VMware
while writing my book on Unix-Windows networking (Using Samba),
to implement a virtual network along with a few real computers.
Last time I tried it, VMware was even supporting audio and USB
devices. Running VMware full-screen produced a user experience
that would fool most Windows experts into thinking the machine
was running Windows natively. I assume things have only improved
since then.
One thing about running VMware on Linux is that you need to be
careful to run a Linux distro that VMware fully supports. You can
find the compatibility list (for *host* system, not just guest OS)
on their website, in the VMware Workstation user manual.
I don't remember trying to run Photoshop under VMware, but I was
running Adobe FrameMaker to write the book on VMware-hosted Windows
2000, and had absolutely no problem. The question would be if
VMware works with 3D graphics hardware and OpenGL. Make sure to
check into that. Not that it's necessary, but it would be very nice
to have for Photoshop CS4.
Years ago, VMware was the only way to run Windows on Linux, aside
from Wine (which the last time I tried it, was barely able to display
a Photoshop CS2 splash screen before dying).
Now there are other virtualization options that ship with recent Linux
distros. The latest releases of the Linux kernel come with virtualization
built in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine), and
SuSE OpenLinux (which is free, unlike the pre-Novell SuSE Linux)
comes with Xen virtualization. This little Wikipedia article
tells a little more on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
I'm making a special mention of Xen because I run OpenSUSE here, and
have a slight familiarity with it. It's been in OpenSUSE for over a
year, and is configured through SuSE's nice Yast2 graphical interface.
There are a huge number of virtualization options available, and
a list can be found in this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines
Jay Ts