maybe stupid question...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SleeperMan, May 2, 2006.

  1. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class (so, this
    means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning bigger) flash so
    it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not just 2-3m, or at least
    hot-shoe for connecting external one with wire...then maybe a bit less
    noise, but not that ISO800crap which some models have ---
    It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost jump...

    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
    SleeperMan, May 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SleeperMan

    Paul Allen Guest

    SleeperMan wrote:
    > As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class (so, this
    > means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning bigger) flash so
    > it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not just 2-3m, or at least
    > hot-shoe for connecting external one with wire...then maybe a bit less
    > noise, but not that ISO800crap which some models have ---
    > It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost jump...


    Some of the high-end Panasonic FZ cameras have hot shoes. The
    FZ-10,20,30 models, for example. You generally don't want to use
    any of them above ISO 100. The owners' manuals for these cameras
    are online, so it's fairly easy to check the specs of the built-in
    flash. Just ask Google.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, May 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:56:01 -0700, Paul Allen <> wrote:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >> As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class (so, this
    >> means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning bigger) flash so
    >> it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not just 2-3m, or at least
    >> hot-shoe for connecting external one with wire...then maybe a bit less
    >> noise, but not that ISO800crap which some models have ---
    >> It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost jump...

    >
    > Some of the high-end Panasonic FZ cameras have hot shoes. The
    > FZ-10,20,30 models, for example. You generally don't want to use
    > any of them above ISO 100. The owners' manuals for these cameras
    > are online, so it's fairly easy to check the specs of the built-in
    > flash. Just ask Google.


    A couple others with hot shoes:
    Kodak P850
    Fuji S9000/S9500
    Sony R1 (though this is really a different class of camera)

    I've had a reasonable amount of success running my Panasonic FZ at
    ISO200, though I wouldn't want to go any higher than that.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, May 2, 2006
    #3
  4. SleeperMan

    Veggie Guest

    Giclee poster prints

    I want to make several 16x20 prints from fine jpeg files taken by a
    Canon Digital Rebel. While price shopping, I came across winkflash.com
    that is much cheaper. But it is for "giclee" poster printing, whereas
    all the other printers don't say that. A little searching in usenet
    shows that giclee is basically high end inkjet printing.

    Has anyone tried winkflash.com's giclee posters? Satisfied with the
    results? What type of paper is used for giclee prints, I assume it is
    inkjet photo paper.
    Veggie, May 2, 2006
    #4
  5. SleeperMan

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:56:01 -0700, Paul Allen <> wrote:
    >
    >>SleeperMan wrote:
    >>
    >>>As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class (so, this
    >>>means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning bigger) flash so
    >>>it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not just 2-3m, or at least
    >>>hot-shoe for connecting external one with wire...then maybe a bit less
    >>>noise, but not that ISO800crap which some models have ---
    >>>It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost jump...

    >>
    >>Some of the high-end Panasonic FZ cameras have hot shoes. The
    >>FZ-10,20,30 models, for example. You generally don't want to use
    >>any of them above ISO 100. The owners' manuals for these cameras
    >>are online, so it's fairly easy to check the specs of the built-in
    >>flash. Just ask Google.

    >
    >
    > A couple others with hot shoes:
    > Kodak P850
    > Fuji S9000/S9500
    > Sony R1 (though this is really a different class of camera)
    >
    > I've had a reasonable amount of success running my Panasonic FZ at
    > ISO200, though I wouldn't want to go any higher than that.


    Hi...

    I'll add one more, if I may?

    Just got myself a re-furbed Olympus sp-350 a few days ago, and just
    last night tried using a 25 year old slave flash I had lying around.

    Works perfectly, provided that you choose the slave flash option in
    one of the menu's :)

    It also has a hot shoe, but near as I learned so far requires
    one of a selection of "pre-approved" flashes... I suspect they're
    the low voltage trigger models.

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, May 2, 2006
    #5
  6. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    In news:,
    Daniel Silevitch <> typed:
    > On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:56:01 -0700, Paul Allen <> wrote:
    >> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>> As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class
    >>> (so, this means top-of-the-range compact models) have better
    >>> (meaning bigger) flash so it would be effective on a bit longer
    >>> distances, not just 2-3m, or at least hot-shoe for connecting
    >>> external one with wire...then maybe a bit less noise, but not that
    >>> ISO800crap which some models have ---
    >>> It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost
    >>> jump...

    >>
    >> Some of the high-end Panasonic FZ cameras have hot shoes. The
    >> FZ-10,20,30 models, for example. You generally don't want to use
    >> any of them above ISO 100. The owners' manuals for these cameras
    >> are online, so it's fairly easy to check the specs of the built-in
    >> flash. Just ask Google.

    >
    > A couple others with hot shoes:
    > Kodak P850
    > Fuji S9000/S9500
    > Sony R1 (though this is really a different class of camera)
    >
    > I've had a reasonable amount of success running my Panasonic FZ at
    > ISO200, though I wouldn't want to go any higher than that.
    >
    > -dms



    i'll reply to all in a single shot...
    with my S2 ISO 200 is also maximum, although noise is quite visible.
    I do have a slave flash which i made myself from old analog flash, which
    works very well since it has lead number of 28...but it's linked to my S2
    with a photosensor, so in practice a near standing photographer can trigger
    my flash... and also it looks quite ....non proffesional, at least, and also
    since S2 doesn't know that additional one will fire, some shots are
    overexposed.
    I wonder if those low-cost SLR's have any better sensors - i mean can a man
    shoot with higher ISO settings...? I mean those starting models, like canon
    EOS350D...or similar...which still cost twice as my S2 though...
    It's just...oportunities like this sunday, when my nephew went to
    confirmation, i couldn't shoot from close distance in the church, so i had
    to increase ISO, which results in noise. OK, i reduced it somewhat with
    software...but still...


    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
    SleeperMan, May 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Re: Giclee poster prints

    Hi Veggie

    Different suppliers use different printers, different inks, and different
    media
    to produce high-quality inkjet aka giclee prints. Depending on those
    choices,
    it can cost the giclee supplier $1.50 to $7 per square foot to create the
    print

    Different suppliers also offer various finishing options: lamination,
    mounting,
    etc.

    I'd want info on printer, ink, and media before ordering a print from any
    supplier. Those choices determine various important image qualities,
    including but not limited to fade-resistance. They also help you make a
    judgement as to pricing reasonability.

    -- stan
    Stanley Krute, May 2, 2006
    #7
  8. SleeperMan wrote:
    > As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class
    > (so, this means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning
    > bigger) flash so it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not
    > just 2-3m, or at least hot-shoe for connecting external one with
    > wire...then maybe a bit less noise, but not that ISO800crap which
    > some models have ---
    > It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost
    > jump...


    My Panasonic FZ20 works well with my Jessops auto flashgun. The trigger
    voltage of the gun is well below the max. recommendation from Panasonic (12
    volts), and I can get the maximum flash power using the flash on manual
    setting.

    Dennis.
    Dennis Pogson, May 2, 2006
    #8
  9. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    In news:sZN5g.1221$,
    Dennis Pogson <> typed:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >> As owner of Canon S2, i wonder if any compact camera in this class
    >> (so, this means top-of-the-range compact models) have better (meaning
    >> bigger) flash so it would be effective on a bit longer distances, not
    >> just 2-3m, or at least hot-shoe for connecting external one with
    >> wire...then maybe a bit less noise, but not that ISO800crap which
    >> some models have ---
    >> It's just---i know that next step is SLR...but it's quite a cost
    >> jump...

    >
    > My Panasonic FZ20 works well with my Jessops auto flashgun. The
    > trigger voltage of the gun is well below the max. recommendation from
    > Panasonic (12 volts), and I can get the maximum flash power using the
    > flash on manual setting.
    >
    > Dennis.


    So, basically you must set manual settings to get a decent photo...
    I mean, there's no pre-flash on additional flash to get needed data. . .
    some trial and error...well, at least you have wired connection...

    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
    SleeperMan, May 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: Giclee poster prints

    High end Giclee prints on paper use acid free fine art papers that are
    spcifically made for ink jt. Some samples include Somerset White
    Velvet, BullDog Etching, and Hahnemuhle Torchon.
    Ink jet Photo paper usually doesn't have any texture, and ends up
    looking more a like a photo than art. Print your pictures onto a High
    end paper and you'll see a BIG difference.

    Veggie wrote:
    > I want to make several 16x20 prints from fine jpeg files taken by a
    > Canon Digital Rebel. While price shopping, I came across winkflash.com
    > that is much cheaper. But it is for "giclee" poster printing, whereas
    > all the other printers don't say that. A little searching in usenet
    > shows that giclee is basically high end inkjet printing.
    >
    > Has anyone tried winkflash.com's giclee posters? Satisfied with the
    > results? What type of paper is used for giclee prints, I assume it is
    > inkjet photo paper.
    twistedmartini, May 3, 2006
    #10
  11. SleeperMan

    Father Kodak Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    On Tue, 02 May 2006 18:12:36 GMT, "Stanley Krute" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi Veggie
    >
    >Different suppliers use different printers, different inks, and different
    >media
    >to produce high-quality inkjet aka giclee prints. Depending on those
    >choices,
    >it can cost the giclee supplier $1.50 to $7 per square foot to create the
    >print
    >
    >Different suppliers also offer various finishing options: lamination,
    >mounting,
    >etc.
    >
    >I'd want info on printer, ink, and media before ordering a print from any
    >supplier. Those choices determine various important image qualities,
    >including but not limited to fade-resistance. They also help you make a
    >judgement as to pricing reasonability.
    >
    >-- stan
    >

    Stan,

    If you are using a high quality printer, say an Epson 2400 (or 4800
    ....) with Epson K3 inks, on high quality paper at high dpi settings,
    perhaps even with a RIP, are you doing giclee printing? Am I missing
    anything?

    Thank you,

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Jun 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Re: Giclee poster prints

    Father Kodak wrote:
    > On Tue, 02 May 2006 18:12:36 GMT, "Stanley Krute" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Veggie
    >>
    >> Different suppliers use different printers, different inks, and different
    >> media
    >> to produce high-quality inkjet aka giclee prints. Depending on those
    >> choices,
    >> it can cost the giclee supplier $1.50 to $7 per square foot to create the
    >> print
    >>

    > Stan,
    >
    > If you are using a high quality printer, say an Epson 2400 (or 4800
    > ...) with Epson K3 inks, on high quality paper at high dpi settings,
    > perhaps even with a RIP, are you doing giclee printing? Am I missing
    > anything?
    >

    Stan may or may not still be reading here. You may be missing the point
    that giclee prints are nothing more than a fancy name for inkjet. It's
    from the French, roughly meaning "spurt", and having a slang sexual
    connotation.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 14, 2006
    #12
  13. SleeperMan

    Dmac Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Father Kodak wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 02 May 2006 18:12:36 GMT, "Stanley Krute" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi Veggie
    >>>
    >>> Different suppliers use different printers, different inks, and
    >>> different media
    >>> to produce high-quality inkjet aka giclee prints. Depending on those
    >>> choices,
    >>> it can cost the giclee supplier $1.50 to $7 per square foot to create
    >>> the print
    >>>

    >> Stan,
    >>
    >> If you are using a high quality printer, say an Epson 2400 (or 4800
    >> ...) with Epson K3 inks, on high quality paper at high dpi settings,
    >> perhaps even with a RIP, are you doing giclee printing? Am I missing
    >> anything?
    >>

    > Stan may or may not still be reading here. You may be missing the point
    > that giclee prints are nothing more than a fancy name for inkjet. It's
    > from the French, roughly meaning "spurt", and having a slang sexual
    > connotation.
    >


    Before you go thinking any old inkjet print is a true "Giclée" print,
    look here: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/inkjet-woes.htm
    A true "Giclée" (pronounced ZEE-CLAY) print was originally produced on
    an "Iris" brand printer. These horrible creations are thankfully -long
    gone from the printing scene.

    Most - Lets say reputable, for want of a better description - archival
    print sellers today use Canon w8400 or Epson 9800 and wider, pigment
    ink, photographic inkjet printers. These do not produce prints with the
    lasting qualities of a solvent ink print or what is commonly expected
    from a Giclée print. I challenge anyone to substantiate a claim they are
    Giclée prints. They are no more or less, photographic quality, inkjet
    prints.

    The 'real' Giclée printers today, use solvent ink and the prints last
    longer than the original Iris prints and as long any oil painting ever
    will. I own a Canon w8400 and a couple of (smaller) Epson Wide format
    printers. I use these to make enlargements on Photo paper for the
    general public. Nothing wrong with them for what they are but as far as
    calling them Giclée printers? Nah... They are just bloody big inkjets
    with a thirst to equal the best.

    I recently got a Roland "Soljet" solvent ink printer which I use for
    Giclée prints on canvas, "Metallic" paper prints, Rayon fabric and self
    adhesive signs. Prints from this machine are a little "grainer looking"
    than those from the Canon or Epson but they are true archival prints
    which can be displayed outside or inside, are waterproof and UV resistant.

    These are the real deal. Sadly the printer cost 3 times as much as the
    overpriced Epson 9800 so there is an amortization cost in every print it
    does. This makes Giclée prints, about 50% more expensive than inkjet prints.

    Forget the bullshit from the German Institute the printer makers fund as
    to print life from Epson and Canon printers. It's proven false and
    highly ambitious in the past. The oldest photo print from one of these
    Rolland machines has been on display for over 15 years and shows no
    signs of fading anytime soon.

    Epson prints from "K3" inks (their best yet) are supposed to last 200
    years or some equally ridiculous length of time, According the Institute
    they fund. How would you know? The printers using them have only been
    around for a couple of years and if the claims are anything like the
    bullshit for other inks Epson made in the past, they might take a colour
    shift at about year 2 and begin to look pretty average every year after
    that.

    One thing is absolutely for sure. Unless you print on uncoated (as in
    plain) paper or laminate an inkjet print or hide it in a dark place, it
    will never last anywhere near as long as the makers claim it will.

    --
    From Douglas...
    My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
    Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
    Dmac, Jun 14, 2006
    #13
  14. SleeperMan

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    Dmac wrote:

    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Father Kodak wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 18:12:36 GMT, "Stanley Krute" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi Veggie
    >>>>
    >>>> Different suppliers use different printers, different inks, and
    >>>> different media
    >>>> to produce high-quality inkjet aka giclee prints. Depending on those
    >>>> choices,
    >>>> it can cost the giclee supplier $1.50 to $7 per square foot to create
    >>>> the print
    >>>>
    >>> Stan,
    >>>
    >>> If you are using a high quality printer, say an Epson 2400 (or 4800
    >>> ...) with Epson K3 inks, on high quality paper at high dpi settings,
    >>> perhaps even with a RIP, are you doing giclee printing? Am I missing
    >>> anything?
    >>>

    >> Stan may or may not still be reading here. You may be missing the point
    >> that giclee prints are nothing more than a fancy name for inkjet. It's
    >> from the French, roughly meaning "spurt", and having a slang sexual
    >> connotation.
    >>

    >
    > Before you go thinking any old inkjet print is a true "Giclée" print,
    > look here: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/inkjet-woes.htm
    > A true "Giclée" (pronounced ZEE-CLAY) print was originally produced on
    > an "Iris" brand printer. These horrible creations are thankfully -long
    > gone from the printing scene.
    >
    > Most - Lets say reputable, for want of a better description - archival
    > print sellers today use Canon w8400 or Epson 9800 and wider, pigment
    > ink, photographic inkjet printers. These do not produce prints with the
    > lasting qualities of a solvent ink print or what is commonly expected
    > from a Giclée print. I challenge anyone to substantiate a claim they are
    > Giclée prints. They are no more or less, photographic quality, inkjet
    > prints.


    Well, let's see, according to the Giclee Printers Association, Epson
    Ultrachrome and Pigmented inks are "recommended" so unless you know of a
    non-Epson printer for which those inks are available it would appear that
    that organization believes that Epson printers are capable of producing a
    giclee print.

    > The 'real' Giclée printers today, use solvent ink and the prints last
    > longer than the original Iris prints and as long any oil painting ever
    > will.


    You can of course substantiate a claim that those inks will last 600 years.

    > I own a Canon w8400 and a couple of (smaller) Epson Wide format
    > printers. I use these to make enlargements on Photo paper for the
    > general public. Nothing wrong with them for what they are but as far as
    > calling them Giclée printers? Nah... They are just bloody big inkjets
    > with a thirst to equal the best.
    >
    > I recently got a Roland "Soljet" solvent ink printer which I use for
    > Giclée prints on canvas, "Metallic" paper prints, Rayon fabric and self
    > adhesive signs. Prints from this machine are a little "grainer looking"
    > than those from the Canon or Epson but they are true archival prints
    > which can be displayed outside or inside, are waterproof and UV resistant.
    >
    > These are the real deal. Sadly the printer cost 3 times as much as the
    > overpriced Epson 9800 so there is an amortization cost in every print it
    > does. This makes Giclée prints, about 50% more expensive than inkjet
    > prints.
    >
    > Forget the bullshit from the German Institute the printer makers fund as
    > to print life from Epson and Canon printers. It's proven false and
    > highly ambitious in the past. The oldest photo print from one of these
    > Rolland machines has been on display for over 15 years and shows no
    > signs of fading anytime soon.
    >
    > Epson prints from "K3" inks (their best yet) are supposed to last 200
    > years or some equally ridiculous length of time, According the Institute
    > they fund. How would you know? The printers using them have only been
    > around for a couple of years and if the claims are anything like the
    > bullshit for other inks Epson made in the past, they might take a colour
    > shift at about year 2 and begin to look pretty average every year after
    > that.
    >
    > One thing is absolutely for sure. Unless you print on uncoated (as in
    > plain) paper or laminate an inkjet print or hide it in a dark place, it
    > will never last anywhere near as long as the makers claim it will.


    So let's see, we're to take _your_ word that your solvent ink will last 600
    years but not a testing institute's word that Epson's ink will last 200?

    What's wrong with this picture?

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jun 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Re: Giclee poster prints

    Dmac wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:


    >> Stan may or may not still be reading here. You may be missing the
    >> point that giclee prints are nothing more than a fancy name for
    >> inkjet. It's from the French, roughly meaning "spurt", and having a
    >> slang sexual connotation.
    >>

    >
    > Before you go thinking any old inkjet print is a true "Giclée" print,


    No, I've not gone and done that. My old inkjet prints are when I so
    label them. <s>

    > look here: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/inkjet-woes.htm
    > A true "Giclée" (pronounced ZEE-CLAY)


    <Ah, that's wrong. Je parle francais.>

    print was originally produced on
    > an "Iris" brand printer. These horrible creations are thankfully -long
    > gone from the printing scene.


    I'd almost say, R.I.P., but it's to close to RIP///...\\\
    >
    > Most - Lets say reputable, for want of a better description - archival
    > print sellers today use Canon w8400 or Epson 9800 and wider, pigment
    > ink, photographic inkjet printers. These do not produce prints with the
    > lasting qualities of a solvent ink print or what is commonly expected
    > from a Giclée print. I challenge anyone to substantiate a claim they are
    > Giclée prints. They are no more or less, photographic quality, inkjet
    > prints.
    >

    The web is full of references to Giclee being done commonly by high end
    Epsons, HPs and Canons. There's no authoritative voice defining what is,
    or is not, a giclee print.

    J. Clarke has addressed the life of medium questions, so I won't.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 14, 2006
    #15
  16. SleeperMan

    Father Kodak Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:02:54 -0700, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Dmac wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:

    >
    >>> Stan may or may not still be reading here. You may be missing the
    >>> point that giclee prints are nothing more than a fancy name for
    >>> inkjet. It's from the French, roughly meaning "spurt", and having a
    >>> slang sexual connotation.
    >>>


    Well, as the OP, I *think* I learned something. What exactly that is,
    I'm not sure. In any case, merci bien for all the responses.

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Jun 14, 2006
    #16
  17. SleeperMan

    Dmac Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    John McWilliams wrote:

    > The web is full of references to Giclee being done commonly by high end
    > Epsons, HPs and Canons. There's no authoritative voice defining what is,
    > or is not, a giclee print.
    >
    > J. Clarke has addressed the life of medium questions, so I won't.
    >

    He sure has tried to with some seemingly impressive name dropping but
    not as well as this lot explains it...

    Seiko Epson R&D department during a funding meeting:

    Sales: We need to get a jump on HP and their bloody "UV" inks.

    R&D: Yeah, lets do something like using an environmental hazard - maybe
    chromium or cyanide or something in our inks.

    Accountant: Hey wait on... How much is this gonna cost?

    R&D: (dialing international phone number)... Let me talk to Willie.
    R&D: Willie, how much for a 200 year print life rating for our new inks?

    Willie: Oh, I don't know. I'm flat out writing up 500 years life for
    Canon's Pigment inks right now... How about $50,000?

    R&D to Accountant: $75,000 sound OK?

    Accountant to Sales: How much value is a 200 year life for this stuff?

    Sales: Well, if we set up an organization like Willie did... We could
    call it the "Giclie institute" and recommend Epson as *THE* printer to
    use, we might corner the market on big inkjet prints. Maybe 20 mil?

    Accountant: What's the chance of getting sued for all this manipulation
    of the truth?

    Sales: Who's going to be alive in even 50 years to sue us when the stuff
    fades? Anyway, by then our legal department will be so powerful, no one
    can afford to sue us when a $50 print changes colour.

    That about sums it up. Noteworthy (and missing from this thread) is the
    fact that the little word "UP" in front of "to" is ignored more often
    than the 200 before "years" is with all Epson deception.

    Another really obvious fact missing from the thread is that the life of
    any dye or pigment inkjet print is not determined by the inks alone but
    in a very large part by the paper or canvas used to make the print
    and... Whether or not it is coated with a liquid laminate after printing.

    Any "Fast dry" paper like "Photo paper" or "Poster Paper" will have a
    very limited life with EPSON, CANON or HP inks unless it is laminated
    after printing. HP are probably the most honest of them all in
    publishing life expectancies for their products. Even these figures are
    now seen as optimistic.

    Real World experience - that's prints on display in public places
    suggest their is every reason to suspect the tests the three printer
    makers paid to have done by the one lab in the world who is prepared to
    put the science of guessing into figures they can be used for misleading
    advertising are so far from reality and on the surface, to be looked at
    as false.

    This institute provided Canon with figures they used to fool the world
    into believing one of their inkjet prints would last 25 years before
    degrading. Canon later published (now taken down) a notice that this
    life could only be expected if the final print was kept away from
    environmental impact - basically in a dark, acid free location or under
    glass. Even under sealed glass, their prints won't last past 9 years
    without significant colour shift and fade.

    After all this bullshit from all the Printer makers (with the partial
    exception of HP), J. Clark would still have everyone believe any data
    from the Institute can be relied on. Bullshit! When an ink print is
    proven to last as long as a solvent print, I'll take notice. Until then,
    all Inkjet printers are in the same bunch... Sold by a bunch of market
    share hungry Japanese companies who have no regard for truthful advertising.

    --
    From Douglas...
    My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
    Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
    Dmac, Jun 15, 2006
    #17
  18. SleeperMan

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    Dmac wrote:

    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    >> The web is full of references to Giclee being done commonly by high end
    >> Epsons, HPs and Canons. There's no authoritative voice defining what is,
    >> or is not, a giclee print.
    >>
    >> J. Clarke has addressed the life of medium questions, so I won't.
    >>

    > He sure has tried to with some seemingly impressive name dropping but
    > not as well as this lot explains it...
    >
    > Seiko Epson R&D department during a funding meeting:
    >
    > Sales: We need to get a jump on HP and their bloody "UV" inks.
    >
    > R&D: Yeah, lets do something like using an environmental hazard - maybe
    > chromium or cyanide or something in our inks.
    >
    > Accountant: Hey wait on... How much is this gonna cost?
    >
    > R&D: (dialing international phone number)... Let me talk to Willie.
    > R&D: Willie, how much for a 200 year print life rating for our new inks?
    >
    > Willie: Oh, I don't know. I'm flat out writing up 500 years life for
    > Canon's Pigment inks right now... How about $50,000?
    >
    > R&D to Accountant: $75,000 sound OK?
    >
    > Accountant to Sales: How much value is a 200 year life for this stuff?
    >
    > Sales: Well, if we set up an organization like Willie did... We could
    > call it the "Giclie institute" and recommend Epson as *THE* printer to
    > use, we might corner the market on big inkjet prints. Maybe 20 mil?
    >
    > Accountant: What's the chance of getting sued for all this manipulation
    > of the truth?
    >
    > Sales: Who's going to be alive in even 50 years to sue us when the stuff
    > fades? Anyway, by then our legal department will be so powerful, no one
    > can afford to sue us when a $50 print changes colour.
    >
    > That about sums it up. Noteworthy (and missing from this thread) is the
    > fact that the little word "UP" in front of "to" is ignored more often
    > than the 200 before "years" is with all Epson deception.
    >
    > Another really obvious fact missing from the thread is that the life of
    > any dye or pigment inkjet print is not determined by the inks alone but
    > in a very large part by the paper or canvas used to make the print
    > and... Whether or not it is coated with a liquid laminate after printing.
    >
    > Any "Fast dry" paper like "Photo paper" or "Poster Paper" will have a
    > very limited life with EPSON, CANON or HP inks unless it is laminated
    > after printing. HP are probably the most honest of them all in
    > publishing life expectancies for their products. Even these figures are
    > now seen as optimistic.
    >
    > Real World experience - that's prints on display in public places
    > suggest their is every reason to suspect the tests the three printer
    > makers paid to have done by the one lab in the world who is prepared to
    > put the science of guessing into figures they can be used for misleading
    > advertising are so far from reality and on the surface, to be looked at
    > as false.
    >
    > This institute provided Canon with figures they used to fool the world
    > into believing one of their inkjet prints would last 25 years before
    > degrading. Canon later published (now taken down) a notice that this
    > life could only be expected if the final print was kept away from
    > environmental impact - basically in a dark, acid free location or under
    > glass. Even under sealed glass, their prints won't last past 9 years
    > without significant colour shift and fade.
    >
    > After all this bullshit from all the Printer makers (with the partial
    > exception of HP), J. Clark would still have everyone believe any data
    > from the Institute can be relied on. Bullshit! When an ink print is
    > proven to last as long as a solvent print, I'll take notice. Until then,
    > all Inkjet printers are in the same bunch... Sold by a bunch of market
    > share hungry Japanese companies who have no regard for truthful
    > advertising.


    Well, this has certainly been enlightening. I find it especially
    fascinating that an organization that as of 2003 had approved exactly 4
    printers, the Iris 3047 and three Roland models, was founded as a shill for
    Epson. I further find it fascinating that an organization that has _no_
    Canon products on its recommended list is a shill for Canon.

    I believe that you may have the GPA confused with some other organization.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Re: Giclee poster prints

    Dmac wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    >> The web is full of references to Giclee being done commonly by high
    >> end Epsons, HPs and Canons. There's no authoritative voice defining
    >> what is, or is not, a giclee print.
    >>
    >> J. Clarke has addressed the life of medium questions, so I won't.
    >>

    << Snipped bits dealing with Wilhelm et al >>

    Doug-

    You write with passion and wit in this thread. It'd be perfect except
    for slams at J.C.

    In any event, there is no "Institue Nationale des Artistes selon Giclee"
    (my made up) and there is no one accepted definition of what constitutes
    a giclee print, is there?

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2006
    #19
  20. SleeperMan

    Dmac Guest

    Re: Giclee poster prints

    J. Clarke wrote:

    >
    >
    > Well, this has certainly been enlightening. I find it especially
    > fascinating that an organization that as of 2003 had approved exactly 4
    > printers, the Iris 3047 and three Roland models, was founded as a shill for
    > Epson. I further find it fascinating that an organization that has _no_
    > Canon products on its recommended list is a shill for Canon.
    >
    > I believe that you may have the GPA confused with some other organization.
    >
    >

    No idea who the GPA is or what they do JC. The don't make any
    information available to the public on who owns the association or
    anything else critical to assessing the value of such a group.

    Roland make "Soljet" printers. One of which I have recently obtained by
    mortgaging my house. If after making my own judgment as to what
    constitutes a Giclée print being a solvent print (solvent as in paint)
    and this organization you refer to approved of that purchase for making
    Giclée prints, I'm flattered.

    If you took offense at my barb as to what probably goes on in the
    printer manufacturing industry, I apoligise. But you'd have to agree,
    it's not far off what 'seems' to be going on with printer makers
    advertising linear DPI of twice and three times the (real) vertical DPI
    and paying an institute to give them figures they start to quote for
    life expectancy which later - as life progresses, are shown to be so far
    wrong as to raises doubt in the minds of the most tolerant person.

    I belong to a Professional organisation quaintly called "World Institute
    of Photographic Masters". This institute was apparently set up by a
    fellow rejected for membership to a recognized industry body. The
    certificate on my wall looks nice, impresses my clients but means
    absolutely nothing except I shelled out money for it.

    GPA is in the same boat, in my opinion. gpa.bz is a mystery, seemingly
    set up by Kelly Dickson with some dubious benefits to it's paying
    members like...


    # Framed GPA Certificate to display in your print house
    # Opportunity to qualify for the use of the TruDécor™ and
    TruGiclée™trademarks

    Who actually owns the trademarks is unknown to me but I do know anyone
    with a few bucks and able to fill in an online form can set up an
    association and register a trademark. Maybe I ought to set one up for
    disgruntled buyers of overpriced printers who's prints don't last in
    single figure percentages as long as the makers claim they will.

    Could Da Vinci guarantee the life of his work? For that matter, did he
    imagine when he painted them, they would still be around now? I offer
    the same guarantee for my Giclée prints as Da Vinci did for his paintings.

    --
    From Douglas...
    My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
    Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
    Dmac, Jun 16, 2006
    #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. kpg

    stupid stupid stupid

    kpg, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    824
    T-Bone
    Nov 26, 2004
  2. Old Gringo

    Of Intrest ? Maybe Yes, Maybe No

    Old Gringo, Oct 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    557
    Old Gringo
    Oct 11, 2004
  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    753
  4. Michael P Gabriel

    Stupid is as Stupid Does!

    Michael P Gabriel, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    381
    stewy
    Jun 26, 2004
  5. iL_weReo

    Maybe it will; maybe it won't

    iL_weReo, Oct 11, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    498
    Desk Rabbit
    Oct 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page