Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it or justbuy a new one?

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I'll put a different perspective on this slightly. I do own many
> thousands of dollars of photo equipment, including film and digital and
> lenses. I own a Hasselblad as well. I still use Epson printers that
> are 5 years old, and some older for my prints. I do not get the state
> of the art out of them, but guess what? No one cares because when they
> see my images, people forget about or do not see that 10-15% difference
> in potential print quality that "some people" can get out of their newer
> printers. For one thing, a lot of people don;t know how to pre-process
> their images so their images suffer even when printed on teh best
> equipment out there, and secondly, the technical quality of the print
> isn't what photography is really all about.
>
> I worked for years in commercial color labs and most people can barely
> identify color that approached accurate.
>
> I suppose some people told Van Gogh his brush strokes and pallet knife
> were too bold and thick. That he didn't use enough "finesse" in his
> painting style (heck, he only sold one piece in his lifetime, and that
> was a commissioned piece he hated) ... and I'm sure some people feel
> Monet was too loose with his paints, and Seurat made the dots of his
> pointillistic images too big (gee what kind of inkjet printer was he
> using!).
>
> Photographs are first and foremost an artform, and the printed image is
> the artists interpretation plus the technology. I suppose it's great
> when people fawn over the technical quality of the print, but I'd rather
> they fawn over the aesthetics, like the story the image tells, the
> emotional response they have, the composition, the capture of the light,
> the color, etc., and that can happen, and in fact, it should be able to
> happen with a print done on a 5 or 8 year old inkjet printer, and it has
> and does.
>
> We can get very caught up in the technology and the techniques of the
> printing process, but that's not the process nor the art created. Sure,
> a bad print can ruin an image, but a great print can't make a bad image
> good, and the truth is a good image will be recognized as such even if
> the print is 20% less than state of the art.
>
> In the many years I have produced prints, I have never had a client even
> suggest that the print quality was not good enough.
>
> Art
>
>
Absolutely, Art. I print plain paper copies of family photos to display
on my vegetable stand. They're photos of things we've done over the year
past, or important events that have happened. The customers love to look
at them and make a comment or two. It's something that humanizes us,
something they never see in the local supermarket. Two of this year's
photos have garnered particular attention. One is from my nephew's
wedding, held here on the farm. He and his bride are standing there,
gazing into each other's eyes with obvious devotion and happiness. The
other is a scanned and restored snapshot of two of my brothers at our
first stand, from 1962.

I print them on plain paper with non-OEM ink because they're going to
take a beating. They're put into plastic signholders, but they might get
wet, exposed to direct sunlight, or dropped onto the ground. They aren't
meant to last, nor do they need to. I can print a new copy each week for
what it would cost me to print a single copy with fancy paper and OEM
ink. Hundreds of people have looked at these prints. Invariably, they
provoke at least a smile, and usually a comment or two ranging from "How
cute!" to "That's wonderful!" Not once has any customer said anything
referring to the technical quality of a print, good or bad.

Are they art? That's not for me to say. That's for each observer to
determine for himself. It doesn't matter to me. They do the job they're
supposed to do, and that's what matters.

TJ

On Oct 1, 12:15 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> It takes a moron to believe this idiot.
> This idiot is either a fool or very very stupid.
> Proly a bit of both.
> He is either nuts or lies.

This is rather amusing. We justify our conclusion with numbers,
facts, and observation.

Measekite instruction block
1) Buy an old Canon printer off craigslist or goodwill
2) Make some test prints
3) Fill with aftermarket ink
4) DOCUMENT the results

Until Measekite has done this, until he as actually made HIS OWN
observations, his opinions are WORTHLESS.

It's like me talking about the Kodak printers. I'm pleased there is
another player on the market. The cost for black is on par with canon
5 years ago, about 2.5c/page. I've not seen any test prints, I've not
used it. But I don't pretend to say it's better than sliced bread. I
list it as an option I know nothing about.

If you want longevity, with the exception of some lexmark solutions,
OEM tends to be better. However, Canon's longevity is really sub par
in contrast to Epson and HP dye solutions, not to speak of pigment
solutions.

For plain paper, for mixed text and graphics, for a **** disposable
Google map, there is little reason to go OEM and pay top dollar.
Given the cost of OEM ink, it's cheaper to use your printer with
aftermarket until it explodes and buy another **** printer. But the
printers don't explode.

Besides, if what Measekite said was true, then printers wouldn't have
a quality option when printing. Draft, Normal, superb. As such, the
choice between cheap and longevity is reasonable. This is ignoring
the pigment solutions.

Like I said, you prove you are the village idiot on a daily basis. You
can take the rest of today off since your work is finished for today.