3 or 6 colour printer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dick Campbell, Nov 4, 2003.

  1. I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    images.

    I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.

    Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?

    Dick Campbell
     
    Dick Campbell, Nov 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dick Campbell

    TSimmons Guest

    IMHO 7 colour and 8 colour print far better than 3/4 colour printers. I
    prefer the Epsons' myself

    Cheers
    TAJ Simmons
    microsoft powerpoint mvp

    awesome - powerpoint backgrounds,
    free sample templates, tutorials, hints and tips etc
    http://www.powerpointbackgrounds.com

    "Dick Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:mjJpb.177996$...
    > I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    > images.
    >
    > I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    > colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >
    > Dick Campbell
    >
    >
    >
     
    TSimmons, Nov 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dick Campbell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Dick Campbell"

    >I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    >images.
    >
    >I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    >colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    >Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?


    Generally the 4 color printers are business models and excel at things like
    printing pie charts or graphs with a few basic colors, and the 6 or 7 color
    printers were designed to be better for photography.

    A big visual difference is that the extra colors give you finer gradations in
    things like skin tones.

    If you're going to be printing photos you'll be better off with the photo
    printer models, either Canon or Epson or HP.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Dick Campbell

    Mustafa Krap Guest

    "Dick Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:mjJpb.177996$...
    > I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    > images.
    >
    > I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    > colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >
    > Dick Campbell
    >


    If you want maximum compatibility with your 300D then you are better off
    with one of the newer Canon models such as the I860 or I960. I really wanted
    the I9100 but couldn't justify the higher cost after just buying the 300D so
    I went with the I860 which has 5 ink tanks (CMYK and a separate black for
    text printing). I am very happy with the print quality and love being able
    to print straight from the camera using the separate Pictbridge connection,
    it's also fast and very quiet and has a separate 4x6 paper loading tray
    which works really well. I would suggest you make a trip to the local store
    and have a look at all the models and try to see some examples of their
    output, only you can decide if the difference between the 4 and 6 tank
    printers is that great. Personally I don't feel it's that big a difference
    but if you can afford one of the 6 tank models then you should get one, if
    you can only afford one of the 4 tank models then don't worry, I'm sure you
    will be more than happy with the quality of your prints.

    Rob.
     
    Mustafa Krap, Nov 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Dick Campbell

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <mjJpb.177996$>,
    says...
    > I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    > images.
    >
    > I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    > colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >
    > Dick Campbell


    Absolutely. If you are going to be printing photos, a 3 (actually 4 if
    you count black) color printer is not even an option.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Dick Campbell

    Mike Guest

    "Dick Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:mjJpb.177996$...
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >
    >


    As another suggested, go to a local store and check their printouts. My
    CompUSA had a bunch of prints done by customers laying around. At a glance,
    I was amazed by the quality of even the 3 color printers. So I don't think
    you'll be missing much. You might miss some, but if you're just exchanging
    snapshots, I don't think anyone will complain that you used 3 colors instead
    of 6!

    --
    Mike
    http://www.graphtablet.com Free graph paper for students and others.
     
    Mike, Nov 4, 2003
    #6
  7. Dick Campbell

    LLutton Guest

    >"Dick Campbell" <> wrote in message
    >news:mjJpb.177996$...
    >> Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?


    I have had both 3 and 6 color printers. I think the difference depends on the
    subject. For example, a portrait looked the same to me from both printers. The
    difference was apparent only when looking through a magnifying glass. The 6
    color print had smoother gradations. A print from the 6 color printer with sky
    or a lake looked a lot better. More color shades were visible.
    Lynn
     
    LLutton, Nov 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Dick Campbell

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:09:56 GMT, Todd Walker <>
    wrote:

    >In article <mjJpb.177996$>,
    > says...
    >> I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    >> images.
    >>
    >> I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    >> colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >>
    >> Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >>
    >> Dick Campbell

    >
    >Absolutely. If you are going to be printing photos, a 3 (actually 4 if
    >you count black) color printer is not even an option.



    Well, now hold on just a minute there.

    The Epson 3000 is around 6 years old now and still
    being manufactured and sold. It was the workhorse of
    choice for large-format inkjet photo printing, until some
    of the HPs and newer Epsons took its place. It is a 4
    color (CMYK) printer.

    In a similar vein, the Epson 1160 was a phenomenally
    succesful photo printer even though it was a 4-color
    model originally marketed for "office" duty. The 3000
    and 1160 remain the printers-of-choice for BW printing
    using quadtones.

    You are correct that the light colors (photo cyan and
    photo magenta) will yield smoother and less "dotty"
    highlight details. No question about that. But I can
    tell you -- I've sold hundreds of prints made on my
    two Epson 1160s.

    Fact of the matter is, big prints (from models like the
    3000 or 1160) are meant to be viewed from a reasonable
    distance. And if you do that, the advantage of the two
    light inks is somewhat diminished. If, on the other hand,
    you will be printing primarily smallish prints (5x8 or
    8x10") then by all means, go for a 6-color printer.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 5, 2003
    #8
  9. Dick Campbell

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Fact of the matter is, big prints (from models like the
    > 3000 or 1160) are meant to be viewed from a reasonable
    > distance. And if you do that, the advantage of the two
    > light inks is somewhat diminished. If, on the other hand,
    > you will be printing primarily smallish prints (5x8 or
    > 8x10") then by all means, go for a 6-color printer.
    >


    Excellent point and one that I would agree with. I still say if you are
    buying a photo printer today, get a 6 or 7 color version. But I'm a
    stickler for the highest quality possible :)

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 5, 2003
    #9
  10. Dick Campbell

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:20:34 GMT, "Dick Campbell" <>
    wrote:

    >I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    >images.
    >
    >I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    >colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.


    Why? The total ink cost per print is going to be pretty similar, and
    changing cartridges will consume maybe 1 minute out of every 1000 you
    spend makeing pitures. AND the total cost of the printer is not
    hugely different---at least at the entry level. To be sure, the
    high-end 6, 7, 8 color printers are more money because----Well, what
    would you do with a "high-end" 4-color inkjet??????? ;)
    >
    >Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?

    YES!!
    >
    >Dick Campbell
    >
    >

    I spent many years making "adequate" snaps with an Epson 600
    (4-color). Now I have Epson 1280 (6-color). The difference is
    immediately noticeable and significant.

    -Mark

    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Nov 5, 2003
    #10
  11. Thanks, it looks like I should look at 6 colour prinyers.


    "Dick Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:mjJpb.177996$...
    > I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    > images.
    >
    > I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    > colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?
    >
    > Dick Campbell
    >
    >
    >
     
    Dick Campbell, Nov 5, 2003
    #11
  12. On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:20:34 +0000, Dick Campbell wrote:

    > I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    > images.
    >
    > I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    > colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >
    > Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?


    No. Your eyes only can perceive three frequencies of light. You don't
    need more.

    The people here trying to say otherwise are fooling themselves in order to
    justify more expensive equipment.
     
    Bobby New York, Nov 5, 2003
    #12
  13. Dick Campbell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Bobby New York"
    >
    >No. Your eyes only can perceive three frequencies of light. You don't
    >need more.
    >
    >The people here trying to say otherwise are fooling themselves in order to
    >justify more expensive equipment.


    Here are comparisons of different Epson printers, including 4 color and 6
    color. For example, compare the 4 picoliter ink droplet 4-color 1160 at 8x to
    the 6 color models with similar ink droplet size ...

    http://www.inkjetart.com/news/13_comp/8.html

    And here are some older models that show the same basic thing ...

    http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2003
    #13
  14. Dick Campbell

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > No. Your eyes only can perceive three frequencies of light. You don't
    > need more.
    >
    > The people here trying to say otherwise are fooling themselves in order to
    > justify more expensive equipment.
    >


    You have obviously never compared 4 and 6 color prints side by side. The
    difference is significant.

    And three frequencies of light -- where do you get that from? Are you
    just a troll?

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 5, 2003
    #14
  15. On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:43:41 +0000, Todd Walker wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> No. Your eyes only can perceive three frequencies of light. You don't
    >> need more.
    >>
    >> The people here trying to say otherwise are fooling themselves in order
    >> to justify more expensive equipment.
    >>

    > And three frequencies of light -- where do you get that from? Are you just
    > a troll?


    Why is it that everyone who is wrong is accused of trolling. Screw you.
    It's great you are perfect. Not all of us are. I suppose you slap your
    kid when he spills his milk too.

    You are correct though on the three frequencies thing. Here's a good
    article showing that your eye sees lots of things.

    http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/vis00010.htm
     
    Bobby New York, Nov 5, 2003
    #15
  16. Dick Campbell

    Harry Da Hat Guest

    In a 6 color printer, there are much more smoother than in a 3 color
    printer. I just retired my Epson photo 890 for an HP 7660. What an
    improvement! They are both 6 color photo printers, and both take 2 carts.

    Harry
     
    Harry Da Hat, Nov 5, 2003
    #16
  17. Dick Campbell

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Why is it that everyone who is wrong is accused of trolling. Screw you.
    > It's great you are perfect. Not all of us are. I suppose you slap your
    > kid when he spills his milk too.
    >
    > You are correct though on the three frequencies thing. Here's a good
    > article showing that your eye sees lots of things.
    >
    > http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/vis00010.htm


    Take a couple of deep breaths and you'll feel better. I am a stranger to
    you on Usenet. There's no sense getting all worked up about anything I
    say to you.

    To answer your question, it's getting old to repeatedly see people post
    things here as fact that are simply not true. I reacted to your post
    because of this trend. Sorry if I offended you, but like I said, my
    opinion should mean virtually nothing to you.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 5, 2003
    #17
  18. Dick Campbell

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 12:06:42 -0600, "Bobby New York"
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:20:34 +0000, Dick Campbell wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking to buy (probably) Canon printer to print out my Canon 300D
    >> images.
    >>
    >> I am sure that 6 colours is "better" than 3 but, apart from the cost of 6
    >> colour, the simplicity of 4 ink tanks versus 7 appeals to me.
    >>
    >> Will I be missing out on much if I opt for a 3 colour printer?

    >
    >No. Your eyes only can perceive three frequencies of light. You don't
    >need more.
    >
    >The people here trying to say otherwise are fooling themselves in order to
    >justify more expensive equipment.



    But the difference between an 4-color Epson vs.
    a 6-color Epson isn't more "frequencies" of color.

    The two extra colors are simply weaker strengths
    of two that were already present in the 4-color set.
    (Typically, "photo" cyan and "photo" magenta.)

    The whole point being to allow highlights to be
    printed with less visible dots. Which is why there's
    no "photo" yellow, in fact.

    That said, there are some print technologies
    (eg. Colorspan) that use additional primaries,
    other than the "canonical" C, M, Y and K, in
    order to expand the CMYK gamut, which is
    rather weak in the deep blues and violets.

    For that matter, if your explanation was valid,
    why bother with K at all?



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 6, 2003
    #18
  19. Dick Campbell

    RobbH Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:29:03 -0800, Mark Herring wrote:

    [much preceding snipped]
    > I spent many years making "adequate" snaps with an Epson 600
    > (4-color). Now I have Epson 1280 (6-color). The difference is
    > immediately noticeable and significant.


    My experience was similar. In 1997 I thought the 600 was amazing, and it
    was. But no one ever mistook 600 prints for photo lab prints. In 2001 I
    switched to an Epson Stylus Photo 870 (6-color) and the difference is very
    dramatic. Many people (admittedly, not necessarily people sophisticated
    about photography) can't believe they're looking at inkjet prints. To put
    it simply, they look like photographs, while prints made on the 600 did
    not.

    However -- and this is a big however! -- I recently experimented with a
    very cheap Canon 4-color printer, the i320. I wasn't expecting much, but I
    was stunned. This entry-level inkjet, which wasn't even marketed as a
    photo printer, produced prints that were very nearly as convincing as those
    from the 870. Not quite, of course, but still far better than the old
    Epson 600 could do.

    My point is simply that the technology has improved at all levels. All
    other things (including droplet size) being equal, six colors (or seven or
    eight) are better than four. But 4-color printers can be a lot better than
    they used to be. And it's possible that a 4-color printer that uses
    smaller droplets might be preferable to a 6-color printer using larger
    droplets.

    r
     
    RobbH, Nov 6, 2003
    #19
  20. Dick Campbell

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:10:03 GMT, RobbH <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:29:03 -0800, Mark Herring wrote:
    >
    >[much preceding snipped]
    >> I spent many years making "adequate" snaps with an Epson 600
    >> (4-color). Now I have Epson 1280 (6-color). The difference is
    >> immediately noticeable and significant.

    >
    >My experience was similar. In 1997 I thought the 600 was amazing, and it
    >was. But no one ever mistook 600 prints for photo lab prints. In 2001 I
    >switched to an Epson Stylus Photo 870 (6-color) and the difference is very
    >dramatic. Many people (admittedly, not necessarily people sophisticated
    >about photography) can't believe they're looking at inkjet prints. To put
    >it simply, they look like photographs, while prints made on the 600 did
    >not.



    I had at least two Epson 600 prints that were good enough
    to be published. See the first two entries at the following URL:

    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/publications.html

    In fact, if you're in New England you'll probably find one
    or both of these books at your local Barnes & Noble or
    Borders bookstore.


    >However -- and this is a big however! -- I recently experimented with a
    >very cheap Canon 4-color printer, the i320. I wasn't expecting much, but I
    >was stunned. This entry-level inkjet, which wasn't even marketed as a
    >photo printer, produced prints that were very nearly as convincing as those
    >from the 870. Not quite, of course, but still far better than the old
    >Epson 600 could do.
    >
    >My point is simply that the technology has improved at all levels. All
    >other things (including droplet size) being equal, six colors (or seven or
    >eight) are better than four. But 4-color printers can be a lot better than
    >they used to be. And it's possible that a 4-color printer that uses
    >smaller droplets might be preferable to a 6-color printer using larger
    >droplets.



    Exactly. The extra two colors are really there to
    achieve the same effect as a printer that can vary
    droplet size -- or one that uses smaller droplets
    all the time. All it's trying to do is *not* lay down
    big drops of dark ink in highlight areas.

    So, to print a "light" cyan in some tiny square, the
    following combinations might be equivalent:

    Epson 600: 12 dots of dark C @ 10 picoliters/dot
    Epson 870: 30 dots of light C @ 4 picoliters/dot
    Canon i320: 60 dots of dark C @ 2 picoliters/dot


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 6, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Hidden Colour Printer Code Revealed!

    Silverstrand, Jul 28, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    781
    Silverstrand
    Jul 28, 2005
  2. Thomas

    Re: A3 Colour Printer???

    Thomas, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    Thomas
    Jul 16, 2003
  3. Alien Zord

    Re: A3 Colour Printer???

    Alien Zord, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    789
    Alien Zord
    Jul 16, 2003
  4. Tor Lillqvist

    Colour blindness, photography and colour management

    Tor Lillqvist, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,115
    Waldo
    May 24, 2004
  5. Scotius
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    949
    krishnananda
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page