TreeFree Inkjet Photo Paper

[Monsters.ink]

Hi,
Firstly, what a great forum. Best place for a newbie to go to help avoid an inkpending disaster with their printer.

I've just recently bought myself a Canon (As most people seem to have on this site - yay canon!) MP760 and like most people I'm looking to produce low cost high quality prints. I read a lot about inks and plan on using Formulab once my oem carts make that empty slurpping noise (metaphorically) but what should I look for in photo paper. I've read a lot about Kirkland / Costco paper being great value for money but I can't see myself forking out the international shipping fees to Australia. Are there any low cost options for us Aussies?

Another option I've read about is this so-called tree free paper. Has anybody had any experience with this paper? I've attached the website below for those interested. The supplier is sending me a small sample to trial and I'm afraid it might turn to sludge inside my new printer. I'll let you all know how I go with it...If I get the courage to use it.

www.rock-paper.com (Treefree rock paper)

 

[Grandad35]

Monsters.ink,

I took a quick look at their web site. I found the following statement interesting: "In order to produce a metric ton of traditional wood pulp papers, an average of four metric tons of wood chips is utilised, which is the equivalent of felling approximately 23 large trees." Because of the law of conservation of mass, this means that the paper companies are throwing away 3 metric tons of wood fiber for each metric ton of paper that they produce! I have visited several paper mills, and there is no way that a 25% conversion efficiency could be true. When I see such ridiculous statements, I assume that it was written by someone with an agenda and that none of the information can be trusted.

Also, 4000 Kgs for 23 trees gives 174 Kg/tree. This works out to a 7.5" diameter x 20' long tree (190 mm diameter x 6 meters long), hardly a "large" tree.

This concept is hardly new, as people have been making synthetic paper for many years (as they state). The only change that I see is that the proportion of plastic (resin) and filler (powdered rock, e.g. chalk) used in their product. There are applications where the extra cost of synthetic paper is justified by its special properties, but it has yet to be made at a low enough cost to be competitive in most applications. In any case, I did not see any mention of this paper having the coatings necessary to make it suitable for photo printing.

One more point - most plastics degrade when exposed to UV light, and it is not uncommon for a product such as this to embrittle and yellow in less than a year unless it has lots of (high cost) additives to retard this action. If you are looking for a 10 year life from your prints, look for data on its long term stability. Actually, a similar thing is true for most conventional photo inkjet papers - people talk of a "100 year life" for pigmented prints, but they are printed on paper that is not acid free and which can literally fall apart in a fraction of that time. It is interesting that mats are made from acid free paper, but that the photo paper itself is not acid free.

HTH

 

[fotofreek]

Monster - I'm sure you were speaking metaphorically about the carts running dry! Don't let them get below 1/4th remaining in the reservoir before refilling. Easiest to remove the entire set and have a replacement set ready to go in. Also easiest if you saved the orange seals from the bottom that can be rubberbanded on to seal the exit port while refilling and storing. If you are going to refill the same carts "on the fly," read Neil Slade's info on refilling. He just puts his finger under the exit port for a quick seal while refilling (I do that with a rubber glove on), closes the fill hole, removes his finger from the exit port to let the cart drip if it wants to, and then replaces it into the printer. Remember that leaving a cart out of the printer for any period of time beyond the time needed to replace a cart permits ink to dry in the intake port of the print head. If you haven't refilled before, there are lots of little tricks that make the process easier, cleaner, and faster.

 

[Monsters.ink]

Hi again,

Firstly, Thankyou to Grandad and fotofreek for your interest.
Well the results of my first experiment are in. Treefree (Matte) v. Kodak Everyday Paper (Matte) using OEM inks. I have to say that I expected a little more from the treefree. Firstly the colours seemed washed out towards the magenta spectrum and the grass greens were far too dark when compared to the low end Kodak paper which didn't look too bad at all. The most disturbing thing that I experienced though was that every picture printed on the treefree had a noticable sandy-like texture to the whole colour spectrum. A problem for me since I can buy superior matte or glossy canon/other name brand papers for around the same price, I ask you why would I bother? Ashes to Ashes, (If it'll burn) calcium carbonate to calcium carbonate. I commit this paper back from wence it came.

Until next time,

M.ink

 

[d86cfv]

Well, always one to play devils advocate, i went and ordered some samples of the Rock Paper.

I found the prints to be great, the company sent me 10 sheets of their glossy, super glossy, matte and premium matte photo paper. Their premium stuff is AWSOME. It's SO glossy lits like printing on glass. There were some defects in the surface of the print, i think it may have got damp during shipping as this was only on the top peice of the super glossy.

The Matte paper gave an interesting effect, almost like the photo was done with chalk.

The prints have been kicking around in my shop as display pictures as to what the MP760 can do. People pick them up daily and they are on a shelf in the window....