Canon i9100 Printer - DPChallenge Forums

10/02/2003 10:47:56 PM · #1

Sorry to put this in like a double post, but thought since forums are now searchable, it may be better to start one thread that will encompass all questions for this printer.
Alright! I went ahead with the Canon i9100. Got it today, and it is freakin awesome!! printed on some of the Photo Pro Glossy (remarkable), some basic Kodak, and some Premium Glossy Kodak paper I had lying around, and they all came out looking great.
Anyone reccomending different paper. I really like matte finish (Canon's-none around here ot try), but would continue with the Canon glossy, since it does look very good.
I have seen some by (?) with a pearl finish, etc. Anyone experienced with these others and the i9100?

Problems printing with the i9100
To my question on paper to use and comparison

Canon i9100 printer Canon i9100 printer Canon i9100 printer Canon i9100 printer Canon i9100 printer

10/03/2003 12:01:04 AM · #2

I highly recommend the Epson Colorlife paper. It's quality is second only to the Ilford Galerie papers, but it's such a subjectively close second.

The Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl is my favourite, but it suffers from gas fading (which is why I generally don't recommend it first to people). Framing/matting (each and both) will protect against gas fading, but the IGSP paper really isn't useful for pictures you want to hang on your fridge or give to people (you never know where they'll end up and fade, looking like crap).

You can also use the Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl paper which provides (to the many people I've shown side by sides) identical quality.

Finally, I cannot recommend highly enough QImage for printing your images.

10/03/2003 12:39:23 AM · #3

I mainly bought this printer to do prints to matte (frame some) and place in poly bags to TRY to sell.
Does the Epson paper work /look good out of the Canon?
Ilford was the other one I was thinking of. Thanks for the comparison on those.
Unfortunately, I run a Mac, so no QImage here

10/03/2003 01:51:57 AM · #4

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Does the Epson paper work /look good out of the Canon?
Ilford was the other one I was thinking of. Thanks for the comparison on those.

Assuming you aren't profiling your own printer/paper/inks, you can find some generic paper profiles here, though they are for the s900/s9000. I've used them with the s820 and assume they'll work with the i9100.

I prefer the results of the Epson Colorlife paper to all other Canon papers (I've tried), with one exception: The Canon High Gloss Photo Film paper (HG-201) provides exceptionally crisp and vivid results, capturing finer detail (though only detectable through a loupe). The HG-201 paper is not cheap.

I've had Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper recommended to me (and I have a 20 packet handy), but I haven't had the time to test it yet. If I recall correctly, it also suffers from gas fading. I also have two Pictorico papers (Photo Glossy and Hi-Gloss White) in my stack of test papers, but I don't imagine I'll get to them this year.

The Ilford papers are comparatively cheap, especially considering the output quality, so it's worth your time and money to give them a try. Certainly, it's worth your while to also try the Epson Colorlife.

10/03/2003 03:03:39 AM · #5

Excellent! Thanks for the link to the profiles! Should come in handy

10/03/2003 08:28:48 AM · #6

I'm really surprised by the number of people who are thinking of or are actually selling prints that they produce at home on printers that have a very short (relatively speaking) "print left". Aren't you at all worried about what could happen down the road? Do you tell potential purchasers that they are "inkjet prints" and subject to fading over time?

The S9000, the predecessor to the i9100, has a print life of 2 years on Canon Photo Paper Pro with OEM inks. I don't think the ink forumlations have changed much in the i9100, so I don't think there would be a huge difference in the newer printer.

If I bought a photograph to display and it started showing signs of fading after 1 year and was unacceptably faded after 2 years, I would be quite upset...

10/03/2003 01:51:06 PM · #7

Originally posted by EddyG:

The S9000, the predecessor to the i9100, has a print life of 2 years on Canon Photo Paper Pro with OEM inks.

Yep, and my observation is that Canon paper sucks anyway. On the same printer Ilford and Epson Colorlife have a long life, around 10 years. Don't forget that these tests are done with the print unprotected. If you're selling prints, then presumably one would frame it and/or provide some additional protection against UV.

However, I have to agree that there are many variables and unknowns for desktop printing, so one might be better off finding a local lab that will produce prints from digital sources on a Frontier or Lightjet.

10/03/2003 02:11:19 PM · #8

the funny thing is (ie: the variables) is I have had a bunch of "snapshots" I printed off of a crappy Lexmark, with refillable ink, just filling up wall space, in a very well lit, natural light room for about 3 years, and can see nothing in the area of fading.
So I have to take it that anything that the company says (25-60 years non fade time) for Canon is not even close to true?
I started to read through some of the stuff on these "independent" tests and never saw anything about time. I mean by, there is a day and night in the real world. One site was mentioning "ovens," now this to me suggests that the photos are also being exposed to extreme temperature variations. Does this sound correct?
And for selling them. I have no problem with it. Right now I am only looking at 5x7's matted to 8x10 for $8-15. If someone thinks that is not fair, even with a longevity disclaimer, then don't buy it.

Message edited by author 2003-10-03 14:12:05.

10/03/2003 02:34:57 PM · #9

Well, unless you know how and where your print will be displayed, I personally think you are taking a risk.

For example, this guy did his own test on 6 papers on the i950 and found that in his office at work, he couldn't even get one month of usable life on some papers:

After one month the worst paper performer in this group is Ilford Smooth Gloss. The black has turned to chocolate and the pic overall has faded terribly. It's pretty much ruined.

In terms of "time", the Livick test that I linked to outlines how the prints are displayed: results listed are for indoor averaged out daily readings of 275 lux lighting illuminating the print, any higher daily uvlux averages and the prints will fade out much sooner than the times listed below.

Towards the bottom, it explains the various lux levels. 275 is considered an "average home daylight lux display level". That means, on average in a 24 hour period of light and dark, the illumination is 275 lux. There are no "ovens" or "extreme temperature variations" involved in those tests, which is why I quoted them.

I realize the Livick page I linked to is not the easiest to read/follow, but there is a lot of information there.

The Livick tests also address framing behind glass and say:

If your print is matted and framed using an ordinary protective glass you can then increase the length of fade time stated above by approximately 10% ... the testing shows that ordinary glass is basically used more to protect your prints from atmospheric gasses and or physical damage such as scuffing or abrasions.

which isn't that much of an increase. i.e., 2 years becomes 2 years 2 months.

Message edited by author 2003-10-03 14:37:07.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

10/03/2003 04:19:50 PM · #10

Is there any report on how long prints last if done by one of the Kodak machines that can take your prints from? The ones that take Cd's? Any difference between the one hour or the come back tomorrow service?

10/03/2003 07:04:03 PM · #11

Originally posted by EddyG:

For example, this guy did his own test on 6 papers on the i950 and found that in his office at work, he couldn't even get one month of usable life on some papers:

That test was for gas fading and we already know that you can protect against gas fading using matting/framing. This problem is not restricted to these (dye) inkjet-based papers either. Gas fading is always an issue and the recommended way to deal with it is to print your image with a large border (which is then also covered by matting) and mount it behind glass, UV protected or not.

However, the light fading issues are much more serious and should be assumed to be the prevalent factor in deciding against certain papers, especially if you're selling your prints. It's interesting that light, that which enables all photographers, should also be the greatest enemy to the realization of the photographic vision (in print).

Anyway, you can always sell your prints with a promise to reprint (not remounting though) if it fades (every 5 years or more). After all, the material cost is surely not what the artist seeks, but the realization of their artistic vision. Of course, it's not a very practical idea.

Is anybody producing limited edition prints wherein after the print run, the negative (digital file(s)) is destroyed?

10/04/2003 02:24:45 AM · #12

Anyone come across someplace to get a sample pack of various papers to try out? Did a basic search and found some from specific companies. Any others?

10/04/2003 04:51:04 AM · #13

Check out //www.legionpaper.com/ as they have a sample pack of 6 or 7 papers (2 of each), though only two of those are probably what you're looking for. The other papers are more useful for non-literal (watercolor and such) photographic printing. Legion is pretty tight with Epson, but you can still get good results on the Canon; I seem to recall that you buy different packs for Epson.

Epson is one of those rare exceptions where the papers they make can be used in other printers and still produce excellent results; truly, they are interested in the quality of prints. The other printer companies and some OEM'd type papers seem to be out just for the money grab; look to companies with a history in papers for better results. Ilford is one example. I can't seem to find Folex papers in my part of the world, but you might have better luck. I was quite eager to test their papers.

10/04/2003 08:11:08 AM · #14

Originally posted by C-Fox:

The one-hour places very often use a Fuji Frontier 370:

On the Livick page I linked to it says:

Printer Model: Fuji Frontier
Chromogenic Colour Process
Fuji's Crystal Archive Paper, The Rating Is 65.2 Years

I have almost all of my prints done at Sam's Club one-hour (which uses the Frontier). 8X10's or 8x12's for $1.99, and I don't have to worry about gas fading, light fading or any other type of fading since this is a real photographic development process.

The over-night places will use similar type equipment with similarly long print life ratings.

10/04/2003 08:21:38 AM · #15

Originally posted by EddyG:

I don't have to worry about gas fading, light fading or any other type of fading since this is a real photographic development process.

Ummmm...even "real" photos are affected by fading...especially light. (C:

10/04/2003 09:18:56 AM · #16

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Ummmm...even "real" photos are affected by fading...especially light.

Except that "real" photos last 65 years (as quoted in my post) before they have measureable fading, as opposed to a month or 2 years. I wasn't saying that chemically-developed pictures lasted forever, just that they last significantly longer than dye-based inkjet prints.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

10/04/2003 11:31:26 AM · #17

So if I get my digital pictures "professionally" printed, all stores use the same process they would for "real" photos? Or do I have to ask or????

99.9% of what I print I don't need to last, but there is that 0.1% that the extra time would be worth a trip to the store.

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Ummmm...even "real" photos are affected by fading...especially light.
Except that "real" photos last 65 years (as quoted in my post) before they have measureable fading, as opposed to a month or 2 years. I wasn't saying that chemically-developed pictures lasted forever, just that they last significantly longer than dye-based inkjet prints.

10/04/2003 04:21:01 PM · #18

Originally posted by EddyG:

8X10's or 8x12's for $1.99, and I don't have to worry about gas fading, light fading or any other type of fading since this is a real photographic development process.

The Livick tests don't actually test gas fading, but at least the frontier process/paper is better understood. In many cases, colour management is still an issue. Dealing with a local lab which provides ICC profiles is always a good idea.

Originally posted by EddyG:

The over-night places will use similar type equipment with similarly long print life ratings.

I'm afraid that's pure conjecture.

Anyway, I agree that dye-based inks are not the ideal solution if longevity is important; certainly, if you're selling prints, then the Epson 2200 is really your best choice. And if you are selling your prints, then I have to assume that colour reproduction is equally (if not more) important so you should avoid sending your prints to labs that sell convenience over quality. Ask about colour profiles before you use a lab and certainly ask about their printing process (frontier and lightjet are excellent) and papers (accept only fuji crystal archive on the frontier....fuji CA is also acceptable on the lightjet ).

If one insists on selling prints from a dye-based inkjet, then at least make informed decisions about your paper (as EddyG pointed out, the Canon PPP is a wholly bad decision), but you can still get 10+ years from some papers. But, let's return to this thread in 10 years and see what we've found.

Message edited by author 2003-10-04 16:35:26.

10/04/2003 04:35:07 PM · #19

Originally posted by C-Fox:

So if I get my digital pictures "professionally" printed, all stores use the same process they would for "real" photos? Or do I have to ask or????

Yes, you should definitely ask. Some places are producing 8x10s (sometimes slightly larger) and smaller on inkjet printers. Even if they're using something like the Epson 2200, you should be extremely wary of using such places. Ask about the machine they're using, the papers they use, if they profile and whether they will provide profiles.

Originally posted by C-Fox:

99.9% of what I print I don't need to last, but there is that 0.1% that the extra time would be worth a trip to the store.

And in these rare instances, you probably want accurate colour reproduction.

11/02/2003 11:38:45 PM · #20

To bring this back to a i9100 forum. I have started printing only on Ilford Classic Pearl paper. I am trying to get the best results by switching the ICC profiles between the BJC and the Colormatch (best results from the others). I am not getting much of a difference between the 2 at this time. Both are printing excellent.
As for the paper settings, I have used Photo Paper Pro, Photo Paper Plus Glossy and the "generic" Glossy Paper settings, and also no real differences at this time.
I am setting the prints up at 720dpi, but no difference at 300 either. They just continue to look excellent. I noticed on one of my prints (John Deere tractor) the green is pretty dark (just a touch compared to the original) on ColorMatch ICC, and am in the process of trying the BJC ICC profile, to check if it changes it.
I am hoping to find an i9100 ICC profile for Ilford papers soon. Anyone else with luck.
Anyone out there with any thoughts or things they are getting.
I also have some Lyson Matte Paper, but only printed a half color/half B&W. The paper seems just like thick paper to me. Will start some testing to see how it starts looking. It is a VERY matte paper, by the way.
By the way, the Photo Paper Plus Glossy I have had 3 tests. One set up in a south facing window (with temps alternating from 20 to 80 degrees within 24 hours) and half covered with cardboard, One on the fridge (again half with cardboard), and one in a polypro sleeve (same). They have been up for exactly a month and I have not seen any fading yet. Ilford goes up next. And MY tests go on.

11/03/2003 03:42:45 AM · #21

Have you tried here? Granted, they're s900/s9000 profiles and you'd know better if there's a difference with the i9100 and the s900/s9000 but those profiles might work. I use these profiles on the s820, but I know the s900 and s820 are basically the same.