• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Canon i9900 paper question

A friend of mine bought a Canon i9900 printer and is having difficulty selecting paper for it.
Any clues/hints/suggestions? He's mostly doing restoration work, but also some other stuff.
TIA!
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Nik,

I've got the European version of that printer, the i9950.
I use the following papers:
1) MOAB Kokopelli
2) Ilford Classic Pearl
3) Iford Smooth Pearl (not really recommended for this printer with it's dye inks due to longevity issues)
4) Tetenal papers
5) canon PR1 papers

Numbers 1 and 2 are my favorites.
I hope this helps,

Cheers,

Cem
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cem Usakligil said:
Hi Nik,

I've got the European version of that printer, the i9950.
I use the following papers:
1) MOAB Kokopelli
2) Ilford Classic Pearl
3) Iford Smooth Pearl (not really recommended for this printer with it's dye inks due to longevity issues)
4) Tetenal papers
5) canon PR1 papers

Numbers 1 and 2 are my favorites.
I hope this helps,

Cheers,

Cem

Hi Cem,

Where are the profiles?

Asher
 
I have been very happy with the Canon.. Very vivid colors.. I have not used any third party inks with my i9900. I have been able to compare the Canon with any Epson 2200 and 4000 and a large(20x24) print from Mpix on a Durst/Kodak printer. I like the Canon better than the Epson. I had an easier time setting up the Canon than the Epson.. I really can't tell you about the life span, but with proper mounting.. behind some glass or some other UV blocker, I am not noticing any fading. I sure it will, as will everything..
I use Black, Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta carts at the fastest rate.. I was told that by someone else also. So if anyone buys one get a couple of extras. I use Qimage to print with and the prints are very easy to match what I get on my screen. I have noticed that my Canon clogs less than either of the Epson's.. After a week or so of not printing, the Canon seems to just print and the Epsons need a cleaning cycle... I don't know if that's just me or what...
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
I agree with Duke, it is an excellent printer albeit with a real fading issue. Some of my prints from 6 months ago already suffer from hue shifts and fading. The ones that are properly framed behind a glass are OK so far. But I personally dislike having to put a glass in front of the beautiful gloss prints coming out of this printer, it is a shame really.

Asher, the web sites of Tetenal, Ilford and MOAB all have canned profiles for this printer in combination with their papers. I use them and they deliver very good results. Basically, that is why I stick to using only these papers since they come with profiles. Prior to that, I have tried profiling the printer using the now infamous PrintFix device (the original) from ColorVision/Pantone, but it has delivered terrible results so I've stopped using it.

I have also printed for a year or so using cheap 3rd party inks for "unimportant" prints. I stopped doing so since the color was inconsistent and fading was worse. Besides, the canned profiles are all based on the original Canon inks. That is why I now use original Canon inks only. I use, like Duke has mentioned before me, mostly black, photo cyan and photo magenta inks, followed by magenta, cyan and yellow. The red and green inks have only been replaced once in the last year or so. In the 2.5 years since I have bought the printer, it has never ever refused work or has had a clogged print head. I have had some very long periods of inactivity (three months or more) of not printing anything. I'd then switch it on, and after a cleaning cycle it would print as if no time has passed at all.

All in all, it is an excellent printer. The only problem I can mention is the print longevitiy issue. Mind you, I do not print B/W extensively. If I would, I'd probably choose the Epson 1800 or 2400 above the i9900.

Cheers,

Cem
 
I have used the Canon BCI-6 ink set for over I think 3 or 4 years now. First with s9000 and currently i9900.

Although it is my understanding Canon changed their paper formula out (and may have changed the BCI-6 formula as well), the original Canon paper faded quickly and I just don't use it any more for good prints.

I was using Kodak Ultima paper (and only the Ultima paper other kodak papers looked bad) with the s9000, but like the Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl paper better with the i9900. Using those two papers I have had little to no fading over a 2+ year period in open office environment and 4+ years in household environment (both open and behind glass). That is the limit of my ability to confirm longevity, but Canon paper was going in less then 6 weeks in office environment.

I have also had good results with Ilford Glossy, Epson Glossy (both of which I use the 11x17 and 13x19" sizes) and Epson Matte papers (usually for B+W prints), but have not used those long enough to form a good opinion yet, but so far no fading on any of them.

My only problem is the cost of buying OEM inks.

I should mention that I have never had a clog on my i9900 and only one on my s9000 (which was cleared by using the software - and I still have this printer on my backup computer).

I am looking at updating my printer only because I suspect the viability of access to the BCI-6 ink in the future. It seems to be dissapearing from stores all over the place slowly and is getting harder to find.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tom and Nikolai,

Are these supposed to be the last new ink before Canon's latest pigment inks? Remarkable what a role Ilford and Kodak can still have in providing great papers! I wonder whether or not they actually contribute to the technology or merely rebrand and repackage the paper?

The fading with Canon's own media is unfortunate, to say the least!

Asher
 
The number one suspect to the paper fade with earlier Canon papers was outgassing, especially of the cyan ink.

The reason both Kodak and ilford papers have done better is they have a sealant layer which when it gets wet from the ink lets it in and then seals up behind it, thus minimizing outgassing. Canon's earlier paper did not have this layer. The neagtive to this is that in high humidity environments sometimes the paper sealed before the ink got in and this causes some of the bad reports of ink pooling. Ilford is apparently a lot less susceptable to the higher humidities then the Ultima paper was. Note: I also have reason to believe Kodak updated the Ultima paper at some point to correct for the humidity problems. I live in a medium humidity area, but my house (where I do my work) is mostly dry so that is why I probably experienced few problems with pooling.

Interestingly enough the Kodak Ultima paper seemed to be more technologically advanced then their Professional inkjet paper, although they had better surfaces for the Professional paper (like Lustre). I wished they would put the Lustre surface onto the Ultima, that would have been perfect, but Kodak is stupid at times.

I was a bit obsessive about ink and paper for awhile there 2-3 years ago with the s9000 when I discovered the Canon paper fading so fast. So I did a semi-objective test for myself. I had, I think, 12 different papers I tried out with the OEM inks. At the time there were no good 3rd party inks (except the more expensive ones). I went so far as to read Kodak's white papers on their Ultima paper. Also came to the conclusion that both Wilhelm Research and Kodak both did a poor job of testing at the time and were bias towards certain papers. Both have also improved since then, but unless something has changed neither tested for the paper/ink/printer combinations I used.
 
Top