mac_hordam

<p>Aaah, Dustin Viewfinder, he was never very much in front of the lens but behind the camera he made some of the best films ever.</p>

<p><em>"Guess you missed that."</em><br> <em> </em><br> I guess you missed that my original reply was aimed at the OP yet you took it upon yourself to criticise it with your own preconceptions rather than allow the OP to reply. She may have actually found the points I drew attention to of help or she may not, she alone had the right to tell me to butt out if she thought that appropriate. However butt out I shall as I have no interest in discussing it further with anyone other than the OP, who, whatever camera she takes I hope has a safe and enjoyable trip.</p>

<p><em>"But still less mad than posting an utterly unhelpful rant."</em><br> <em> </em><br> Yours is the rant, you don't agree with me but just dismiss without explanation. I didn't agree with the OP's basic premise and took the time to explain the errors of her way with reasoned examples of why it doesn't, these days, make sense.</p> <p><em>"I suggest that the moderator delete that comment. It is not helpful and all its general points, though fair ones, could have been made in two, short paragraphs."</em><br> <em> </em><br> I could have made it in one sentence..... "Don't do it". That may well have been "not helpful", so it seems that although I make a number of general points deemed "fair ones" but take several paragraphs to do so because I wanted to be thorough in my reply the upshot is that those general points though fair ones should be deleted.</p> <p>What, without even a trial? Sounds like censorship to me.</p> <p>Perhaps someone would like to explain why taking a MF SLR on such a trip would be such a good idea in today's world in the same considered way I explained my response, I won't complain if it's not just two short paragraphs because it's going to need to be longer to make any sense.</p> <p>Was it perhaps the mention of the Panasonic camera that stirred up such antipathy. The genre of cameras to which that model belongs is one that has been devised to exactly suit the circumstances of the OP's needs for such a trip, the two (camera and purpose) are far better suited than any of the other suggestions so far. Most people so far have been suggesting cameras that the OP has already excluded, how are those comments any more helpful than my suggestion?</p>

<p>Quite honestly I'm surprised that anyone has even bothered to suggest camera models of supposed suitability for this venture. The idea is mad beyond belief.</p> <p>2 years of backpacking taking primarily portrait shots. Are these formal portraits? I suspect not unless you intend to hire studios along the way to do them. In which case they're candid portraits and yet you've ruled out rangefinder cameras that would at least be more suited to that type of shooting.</p> <p>You want a modular system that can <em>"pack in a compact way" </em>and already accept that <em>"*lightweight* (as much as can be for an MF SLR) " </em>is not really light weight. Being able to take the camera apart to pack it doesn't reduce its weight ...... it just makes it even more inconvenient when it comes to getting a grab shot. Also remember a MF SLR really benefits from sitting on top of a substantial tripod.</p> <p>This 2 years of back packing, will it encompass remote areas, regions of extreme temperature and wide varieties of weather? If so have you considered how to source and care for film in a world where the majority of people have seen the sense in abandoning film, have you considered how to get your films processed on your travels or are you compounding the madness by thinking of posting them home for processing thereby guaranteeing you don't find out about the light leak/sticky aperture blades/defective shutter etc., that has developed part way through.</p> <p>2 years of backpacking suggests you may be youthful and possibly of strong disposition and carrying the weight of such a kit plus all the other bits and pieces you'll want on such a trip may well be possible for you. But take a step back from it all for a while and consider how much more pleasant it would all be with a lighter load, a smaller pack and, if candids are indeed part of your proposed shooting, a more inconspicuous camera.</p> <p>Back in the '70s I lugged around a Nikon F2 kit in a camera case that I carried in one hand while carrying my backpack with a tripod and full camping gear (not so lightweight in those days), it didn't do me any obvious harm at the time, but I wouldn't last even a few days now trying to carry it. But if I could go back to those times with something like the camera I'm going to suggest for you I'd travel more comfortably and have a better and more complete record of my travels than currently exists. Not only because I could take more shots but also because I'd have instant access to them if I wanted to relive the journey (and they wouldn't be affected by mildew as many of my record sadly are). If you are youthful consider also that this may be the trip of a lifetime that you will want to relive when you get old, film is already becoming anachronistic in many ways just a decade or two into the digital era. If this is your trip of the '70s then forty years from now you may be regretting having shot film for it just as I regret there was no alternative but to do so when I did it.</p> <p>My suggestion a Panasonic ZS50 ($400) and have the ability to also take portraits of our fascinating planet as you travel, it's not all about the people ...see beyond our species. Hey even shoot a movie or two.</p> <p>Actually make that two Panasonic ZS50s ($800 and still in budget) and have redundancy built in for if and when crap happens, 'cause it's also that sort of world.</p>

<p>Now, after I'd posted my adjusted version above of the two original postings I went away and worked on just the OP's original out of camera jpeg to see what sort of result I might come up with. I think the version probably answers the "too flat" comments.</p> <p>As for the rocks in the foreground, well when I looked at the original I thought this is an okay shot of a pleasant bay that would serve well as a reminder of a day out but it needs something to lift it a bit from the ordinary into the satisfying. Bear in mind we're working with someone else's shot here so we can't retake it or shift our viewpoint, what we've got is what we've got.</p> <p>To my mind the main component of the image that can be used to create a bit more interest (without going garish in some part of the shot) is the foreground rocks. Crop them out and you really are left with a frugal image of a not exceptional headland an ordinary sky and a plain sea. So, as our ancestors found out, pounding the rocks is the thing to do.</p> <p>Before I get literally tied up in the second thousand words here's the picture, see what you think.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18013231-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p> <p>Edit ......... seems to be a profile problem somewhere, this isn't how it's supposed to look but who knows it may be just what folks might like and it might increase the real estate value in that area.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18013087-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p> <p>I know this isn't the weekly processing challenge but as a picture is better than a thousand words here's my "picture response".</p> <p>Just a quick blending and selective adjustment of the two posted images which looks better (more natural) to me on my monitor - YMMV.</p>

<p><em>"This works but only in increments of 10. Any way for single-digit changes?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>It should only do increments of 10 if you press Shift+Up/Down Arrow. Up/Down Arrows on their own should move it in increments of 1.<br> <br> The other advantage of using the arrows instead of the slider is that until you commit the changes that you make you only create one history state whilst making up and down arrow adjustments. So if you are changing Contrast say and use the slider to make a change of +25 then let go of the slider and then back off a bit down to +20 and again let go and then finally end at +15 you've got three history states.<br> Using the number box and Up/Down arrows you can make an adjustment then stop using the arrows, assess the result and as long as you are still in that number box use the Up/Down arrows again to your hearts content to make adjustments and only when you click off the box do you get one history state added.<br> <br> If you're like me and like to look at the differences a few changes can make on the sliders this ends up with a far more tidy history state for the file.</p>

<p>Can't you just go to the downloads page and download the appropriate update and by pass the CC service?</p> <p>http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates.html</p>

<p>Back to the "Nikon has...Nikon have" question. I think a lot depends on the context, I would be quite at home with either "Nikon has released details of it's latest DSLR", or "Nikon have released details of their latest DSLR".<br> But I would feel uneasy about "Here is a list of the lens range from Nikon, who has a good reputation for quality optics" preferring instead the sound of "who have".</p> <p>Is it, in the first instance, the mention of a single camera being released by an organisation of many that pre-conditions the mind to accept singular or plural. Whereas in the second instance multiple lenses are referred to again with an organisation of many and that sets the stage for wanting to hear the plural of the verb. (However it is only a single list) Perhaps if they had more than one "good reputation" it would be easier to decide.</p> <p>Far more annoying than any of this is the misuse of loose and lose, they appear to be used interchangeably by some but only serve to confuse. Or is that confoose? (Indeed should that be "are the misuse of"?). And where the hell should that last bracket be? Actually I think it's correct, there just seems to be a lot of punctuation going on there in a small space.</p> <p>Now there's another interesting thing, I say above that I prefer the sound of "who have". Well I'm of an age where, like many here (except the "loose and lose" misusers), I can read without reading out loud and yet it is the sound of the verb that I react to not the look of it, but the look is all that I have witnessed. So perhaps this all leads us to the conclusion that if it sounds right (or at least alright) then it is right. But in the case of loose and lose if you haven't made them look right by using the correct one they aren't going to sound right, at least not without perpetuating the error. There are rules to abide by and rules to break, just not the same rules.</p> <p>We all has somethink to loose by lose use of langwidge.</p>

<p>I've been scratching my head trying to think of the guy who seemed to be the preferred ebay seller of light seals. Finally the scratching has worked, it was Jon Goodman who traded as Interslice on ebay.<br> He doesn't seem to have anything there now but this thread<br> http://cameracollector.proboards.com/thread/7129/light-seals<br> might give some leads as it mentions him with a link or two. I used his seals to repair a Mamiya RZ and have no complaints. Someone mentions funky foam in that forum thread, (on page 2), which you can get in the UK from Amazon<br> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Funky-Sheets-Children-Craft/dp/B00L3EXWMU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1424801610&sr=8-2&keywords=funky+foam+a4</p> <p>Good luck</p>

<p><em>"Can this photo qualify as whimsical?"</em><em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>If whimsy is to play any part at all in this then I would more likely consider it to be a document recording a part of a building whose construction perhaps involved whimsical decision on the part of the bricklayer/architect. Of course there may not, at the time of building, have been any whimsical reasoning behind the type and placement of the window slits.</p> <p>In which case it, perhaps, becomes just a photo of a wall.</p> <p>Let me turn your question around a little and ask "Can <strong><em>any</em></strong> photo qualify as whimsical?" A photograph is a record and can indeed be a record of something whimsical but that doesn't make the photo itself whimsical. In your example I could agree that the photo is a whimsical one<strong><em> in your collection of photos</em></strong> if at the time you took it you were intending to take photos of other things and took this one as a capricious, or indeed, whimsical deviation from your other work.</p> <p>Of course I was not really going to add anything to this thread but came here on a, you guessed it, w...</p>

<p>Things to do.<br> For anyone who has downloaded and installed the program(s) and thinks they may continue to use them I would strongly suggest you download and save the User Guides.</p> <p>Optics Pro 8<br> http://support.dxo.com/entries/22091601-DxO-Optics-Pro-8-User-Guides</p> <p>ViewPoint1<br> http://support.dxo.com/forums/21269133-DxO-ViewPoint-Documentation</p> <p>FilmPack3<br> http://support.dxo.com/entries/21603998-DxO-FilmPack-3-and-4-User-Manuals</p> <p>You'll need to select the appropriate version for these older programs but doing it now may be of benefit if at a later date they become unavailable. Save them with your downloaded program in folders with your activation code in the folder name, then if you need to reinstall them in the future you have everything ready to go. Needless to say make back-ups of these and all data.</p> <p>For those having trouble with the activation code email I can only suggest using a different browser and email and try again. I used Chrome browser and a gmail email and it all worked fine (except Gmail put the email in the Spam folder). It may seem a bit of a palaver if you don't already use them but once done it won't need doing again, all depends how keen one is to get the programs...for free.</p> <p>And now a personal observation on just a brief usage of Optics Pro 8 and ViewPoint (not that interested in FilmPack). At this stage of using them I can't say I'm seeing anything to lure me away from my LR4/CS2 workflow so far. I had high hopes for ViewPoint but I can get better/easier results so far with LR4 and CS2, largely due, no doubt, to greater familiarity with them. Whether I could be bothered to persist with DxO to get the same fluidity when I'm already pretty happy with what my current workflow can do remains to be seen.</p> <p>But I'm not knocking the release of these programs for free by DxO, I wish Adobe would do the same for their old versions.</p>

<p>A few posts down we were alerted to DXO Optics Pro 8 as a free download. It's possible to download the full suite of 3 DXO software programs (older versions) by going to the link mentioned there and also to the following two links.</p> <p>DXO FilmPack3<br> http://www.dxo.com/intl/digitalphoto</p> <p>DXO ViewPoint1<br> http://www.dxo.com/intl/practicalphotography</p> <p>The format of the offer is the same as per Optics Pro 8 except the FilmPack site is in German, I'm assuming there will be a language selection at installation as there was with Optics Pro. Also the ViewPoint offer sends an email to you with the code rather than opening a page showing the code and download button. Check your Spam folder for this, mine arrived in there.</p> <p>Update : FilmPack does have a language selection so no problem there.</p>

<p>Depending on your camera that dial may not even be for exposure adjustment but instead just a film speed reminder. In other words <strong><em>in that situation</em></strong> it won't make any difference to your pictures where you set it at. If the camera has built in metering then it will matter so as above previous 2 posts.<br> Or are you using a separate hand held meter and that's where the ISO knob is, if so as above again.</p> <p>But as these are likely old cameras and/or old meters you may need to do tests to check the accuracy of their ISO settings anyway, so this first roll may be more of a starting point. (But don't change the ISO mid roll thinking you can check other settings, it doesn't work that way with film). You can check the camera/meter against a known reliable reference, which may be a digital camera. You don't have to take exposures just do meter readings and compare.(Same lighting conditions, same composition, same focal length if checking camera, no bright lights in the field of view)</p>

<p>And methinks I find myself banging my head against my desk too often, think whimsy.</p>

<p><em>"Seems to me that the financially successful photographer would not insist that his customers see the world according to his rules/viewpoints/values."</em><br> <em> </em><br> Okay carrying on in the seems to vein, it seems to me that the OP's son in law is not in a position to offer his clients "<em>exactly what they want"</em> without considerable inconvenience (i.e. obtaining C-types from a different continent). That inconvenience may be able to be worked around by convincing them that the giclée print is not an inferior product. If he can do that then he may still be able to remain a financially successful photographer.<br> <br> The high-end clients prefer C-types why? Perhaps because they perceive them as superior to giclées because of there own or someone else's <em>"rules/viewpoints/values". </em>What's wrong with the photographer having his own <em>"rules/viewpoints/values", </em>he doesn't have to spout them as such but he'll do himself more favours in this instance. Pandering to all of a client's wishes for the sake of it is nothing short of a pain in the derrière, which, of course, is the obverse of the giclée.<br /><br> <br> At some point in the future C-types are going to become less and less available, perhaps it behoves us all now, who produce giclée prints, to start a push for their more universal acceptance as the medium of choice rather than just waiting for the inevitable.<br> Our slogan :-<br> <strong>Allons enfants de la révolution digitale....liberté, égalité, giclée....pas des c-types.</strong><br> Which roughly translates as<br> Stuff it, if you don't want an inkjet print go somewhere else.</p>

<p><em>"is a pretentious French term"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>I think to be fair it's a French term sometimes used pretentiously. Perhaps, who knows, it's used by people who feel pretentious for using it and then go on to denigrate it as a term because they are more comfortable with less fanciful sounding words.<br> On the other hand if the high-end clients are so up themselves that they might choose to scorn giclée or inkjet prints (however they may be labelled) just because they are not C type prints then they are ripe for re-education whether they know it or not.<br> <br> <em>"People hate not having choices."</em><br> <em><br /></em>But to offer choices you don't want them to choose is not a good idea.</p> <p><em>"I don't think I could use the word "giclée" with a straight face"</em><br> <em> </em> <br> I wouldn't use the term giclée myself, (although further down I think I've persuaded myself to do so) but the OP's son-in-law is facing a situation of possible resistance to change and it could, as I say, be a word that might be used to wean them over to a print type that is available in his locality versus the C type which apparently is not. The absence of locally produced C types would make having both types available to show clients somewhat tortuous, made even more so because we are told the high-end clients are mostly in Europe whilst he is in South Africa. He really needs to arrive at a solution which best addresses all <strong>his</strong> variables, not necessarily the way any of us might choose to do it.<br> <br> <em>"For vibrant colors and image permanence, the state of the art is currently a 'giclée" </em><br> <em> </em><br> I'm not sure that I would concur that inkjet prints are state of the art for vibrant colors, I do actually feel a small possibility of client snow in the wind with that one. And why resentment on discovering what giclée really means, it comes from gicler a French (non pretentious) word which translates variously as spurt, squirt, spatter, spray. An inkjet spurts, squirts, spatters or sprays ink - it seems to mean what it says.<br> <br> It ought to be a more useful term than it has become because it should be taken to indicate to the client that the prints thus described are not only printed on an inkjet printer but are produced to a high level of print standard encompassing choice of paper and ink for archival performance, an attention to detail through the whole production process and personal involvement of the artist in the process. I think giclée has had a bad press and we've been guilty of following the herd when there is and has been already an appropriate word to use to describe what we now produce on our pigment ink printers. Why do we hunt around for other descriptions when something has already been invented.<br> Vive la giclée.</p>

<p><em>"Perhaps Mac was fortunate to have bought a 3880 printer that did not clog."</em><br> <em> </em><br> Nope, I do have a 3880, but I was referring to my 3800 which doesn't have quite the glowing record of the later model.<br> <em> </em><br> <em>"seven or eight years ago when I bought my Epson 3800......... Has it clogged ever? Yes at times"</em></p> <p>It did develop a tendency at one time to deposit splodges of ink randomly on the paper completely ruining the print. It seemed to grow out of that, conveniently just after I bought the 3880 as a back up. Anecdotally I've heard suspicions that Epson can do that to a printer with firmware updates, <strong>how they then implanted the desire in me to purchase another one I think is just a little spookier</strong>. But true 'cause Nikon can do it too.</p> <p><em>"........lots of people have had clogs, even with Cannon printers"</em><br> <em> </em><br> I hear that with those you can just light the fuse and it'll blow the clog to oblivion. And you then have a convenient hole in the wall through which to throw the Epson. :-)<br> <em> </em></p>

<p><em>"Don't decide on anecdotal evidence (that guy in the forum had no problem so....."</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>But isn't all this just anecdotal evidence from the other side of the coin? If you tell me that you have clogging problems then to me you become that guy in the forum, in other words anecdotal. If we get 20 people reporting clogs and 20 reporting no clogs it's an anecdotal tie. So you might as well flip a coin.<br> <br> There does seem to be some evidence (anecdotal) to support some printer models being <strong>more</strong> susceptible to clogging than others. Conversely there appears to be some evidence (anecdotal) to support some printer models being <strong>less</strong> susceptible to clogging than others.<br> <br> What there doesn't seem to be a great deal of evidence for (anecdotal or otherwise) is a blanket statement that the majority of large format printers clog. Had I been advised and taken heed of such a statement seven or eight years ago when I bought my Epson 3800 I would not have printed and sold the thousands of prints that it has produced over the years. Has it clogged ever? Yes at times, but surely the mere provision of a cleaning procedure in the software is recognition that this can happen and maybe 90% (hmmm, anecdotal) of the time will be all that's needed. My printer doesn't get used daily, sometimes not weekly and currently hasn't been used for some months. Nor does it get left powered on. Will it be clogged? Maybe, but also maybe not, I've left it sitting for months before and it works without a clog straight away. Other times I can be using it nearly every day and all of a sudden a clog appears, out of the blue (or should I say cyan?). A sensible thing to do is just run a nozzle check before doing a print run to check for a problem.<br> <br> This of course doesn't help those (incl the OP) who have one of the printers for which anecdotal evidence seems to suggest there is something more than anecdotally wrong with the machine. Neither does anecdotal or test verified evidence of trouble with such a machine give cause for a blanket warning to apply to all large format printers. The trouble is that trouble, i.e. clogging, is a lot more likely to have resonance with people than no trouble. Trouble obviously is a lot more of a problem than no problem. As has been said many times in threads on this theme, people with no problems are not very likely to report same, so doing a search for clogging troubles is going to find clogging troubles rather than flawless performance none of which is statistically reliable. Maybe Epson might have data on how many models they've sold and how many have proved clog prone but I'll bet they're not telling. So it's back to anecdote.<br> <br> Personally I'd have probably flung the OP's printer out of the window by now if I were experiencing the ongoing trouble described, but I'd then go on to get a 3880 (with my fingers crossed).</p>

<p>It appears to me that the area which needs addressing in the original question is... <em>"His high-end clients (mostly in Europe) seem to prefer the C-type prints.....".</em><br /> <br /> "Seem to" sounds a bit nebulous, in fact it <em>seems to </em>suggest that the high-end clients may not know too much about the different types of print but have possibly been told/persuaded that C type prints are the way to go and anything else may be inferior. These things happen in the persuasive world of establishing bona fides as purveyors of fine-art works. Witness the giclee term.</p> <p>JDM's debunking of the giclee term is quite relevant for those of us not wishing to impress with fancy words, BUT don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that giclee word may yet have a use.</p> <p>I suggest your son in law gets prints made in SA (a lot less trouble) finds a printer with whom he can work and if that turns out to be with inkjet prints make use of the giclee term to re-educate clients that this is now the cutting edge of technology and he as the photographer is making this his recommended print type.<br /> e.g. " The giclee process has evolved over the last twenty years to a point where it now easily surpasses those printing methods that were traditionally relied upon....blah blah blah" <br /> High end client has change of mind and decides he/she wants the latest reproduction technology on the wall...everybody's happy. Or not, but it's worth a try.</p> <p>Surely the clients will predominantly be concerned with the subject matter so the amount of persuasion if done subtly should not be too great.</p>

<p>I think this is going to end in tears and tears. Yes, that's the weepy things but also the rippy things too.</p> <p>It reminds me of making darkroom prints on gloss paper and squeegeeing them onto a sheet of glass to get a high gloss finished print. Sometimes it would work, the print would gradually dry and release itself from the glass, other times the edges would release and the bulk of the print would stay stuck....and it was really stuck. Soaking was the first thing to try but rarely did anything, there was always a stubborn bit of the print that would leave itself on the glass just as you thought it was about to release.</p> <p>You might try adding some wetting agent to the water to aid the water penetration but the real answer is always do first what you're planning to do now, use a matte when displaying under glass (I realise you had no control over that at the Haiti end of things).<br> This is not a recommendation but I wonder what effect a wallpaper stripper might have.</p>

<p><em>".....I am very serious about the quality of them...."</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>All the more reason not to have a printer under utilised and having the cartridges (and therefore the ink in them) become old and stale with whatever effect that may have on the final print quality. You are likely not going to have print repeatability with a perfect match if you are printing the same image years apart with a/fresh inks and then b/stale inks.<br> <br> You won't be compromising quality by going to a smaller A3+ Epson such as the R3000 (or 2880 if going for a used printer), it uses the same Ultrachrome K3 inks with Vivid magenta as the 3880, so you should be able to expect the same quality of print. The only difference is you wouldn't be able to print larger than A3+ with it. That may or may not be a problem for you, if it's not a problem then the smaller ink cartridges (25.9ml versus 80ml) actually make more sense for your particular level of throughput.</p>

<p>Bebu, if I can jump in on that one. I would definitely NOT recommend you purchase a 3800/3880 printer if all you intend to do is 10 or so prints a year. I'd suspect (can't be bothered to calculate it more precisely) that most of the inks would last something like 10 years before running out at that rate of use. Not a good idea. </p> <p>If you can settle for prints no larger than A3+ one of the other Epsons that has the smaller ink cartridges might be a better idea so that you replace them more frequently even though price per print for the ink would go up. But at 10 prints per year the total cost of printing per year isn't going to amount to a whole lot anyway so probably shouldn't be a consideration compared with the advantage of having fresher ink on hand for when you do print.</p> <p>If you do go with the A2 printer then the 3880 is generally considered to have fewer head clog problems than the earlier 3800.</p>

<p>Here you go</p> <p>http://www.dannyburk.com/fuji_bellows_extension.htm</p> <p>and</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/009MVq</p>

<p><em>"What should I look for when firing it back up?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>Exactly the same things you should look for ANY time you fire it up. Before doing a print run do a nozzle check, if that's okay then go ahead and print, if it's not then you need to run cleaning cycles (but not ad infinitum as Howard rightly points out). William's suggestion to remove the cartridges and give them a shake is also something you should do first (before any nozzle check or test prints) if the printer has been sitting for more than a few weeks, this redistributes the pigment in the cartridges.<br> <br> Old cartridges shouldn't be a problem, especially if you're printing just for yourself, people sell out of date cartridges on ebay all the time (not that I'm recommending them) and I've bought out of date ones from a dealer before now. I would suggest you source your cartridges from known and reliable sellers, too many fakes around to take a risk.<br> <br> Not sure why it's been suggested you look for a replacement. The 3800 if it still works alright (and you can find that out easily enough) is a fine printer that will give results as good as anything in its class. Turn it on, do the above, make prints.</p>