Scott, I agree with you about the quality of the review; I glanced at it and concluded that it was irrelevant to the way I work. It's for people who want to do Seattle Filmworks@home. That said, the problem is that I am using Epson printers in ways never foreseen nor currently supported by their manufacturer. These methodologies have been built up over more than 5 years of experimentation by thousands of enthusiasts and 3rd party suppliers. I would be crazy to jump ship to a unknown printer just because it prints screen-size jpeg's better than an Epson does. On the other hand, before the Epson 3000 my HP Designjet sure looked good! I will be waiting for actual users to wow me with their prints. Bill Morse PhotoProspect Cambridge, MA 02139 on 2/27/02 10:55 AM, Scott Lightner wrote: > Thanks John, > With regard to their comparison, I found this criteria: > > "We placed both printers side by side using the same 1.4-MHz Pentium > 4 with 128MB of RAM running a clean install of Windows 98 SE. We used > several test JPEG images averaging around 1.5MB and a single TIFF > 13MB image taken with a Nikon D1x digital camera. Each image was > printed out on the respective manufacturer's best glossy 8.5x11 photo > paper in both Highest quality and Photo quality. Each run was timed, > and the photos were compared for color accuracy and saturation, > sharpness, artifacts and dithering, and overall reproduction of the > original image. Secondary tests included black-and-white text quality > and speed, software, price per print, and special features such as > borderless printing". > > > I use Mac, and my files are of significantly higher quality and size > than either of these mentioned (Cross field Drum Scans with file > sizes ranging from 35 - 150 mgb). > Reading further, and the settings they used are explained: > > "We printed several colorful images (flower garden, cityscapes) in > each printer's highest quality setting and photo setting (Canon's > Photo Optimizer Pro with Image Optimizer, and Epson's PhotoEnhance > with Digital Image Correction and its patented Print Image Matching)". > > These are not the settings many of us would use. > > If any others have thoughts, comparisons, or personal experience with > the S9000 vs 1280, > please bring them on. > > Best, > ~S~ > > >> At 10:36 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote: >>> Does anyone have first hand experience with the new Canon S9000 >>> (13" wide) printers? >>> Their website does not yet list it. >>> >>> A comparison and contrast between this and the 1280 would be great. >>> >>> TIA, >>> ~S~ >> >> A comparison can be found at: >> http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,23008,3373126,00.html. >> >> John >> >> - >> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate >> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > > http://www.ecologyfund.com > http://www.workingforchange.com/shop/resp_shop_search.cfm - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.