Identifying CD

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.

The results really depend on the skill of the one who designs the label.

The hardware and software do an excellent job. If you can design a
decent label, you would have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in
submitting your work on either a LightScribe or printable label.

The printable ones have much better contrast, and of course they aren't
monochrome. They also print in not very many seconds, whereas a
LightScibe disk takes on the order of 220 minutes to get scribed.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In article , lid
says...

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.

The results really depend on the skill of the one who designs the label.

The hardware and software do an excellent job. If you can design a
decent label, you would have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in
submitting your work on either a LightScribe or printable label.

The printable ones have much better contrast, and of course they aren't
monochrome. They also print in not very many seconds, whereas a
LightScibe disk takes on the order of 220 minutes to get scribed.

I assume you meant 20min which is what I'm used to?

On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:01:01 +0100 "Mike Swift"
wrote in article

In article ,
Jason writes
The Epson printers produce beautiful results - fully professional. You can


I hate Epson, they do indeed print great results but I've just sent a
new one to the recycle dump. I tried a full set of genuine carts for £60
($100), I thought this was a bit expensive so got a set of compatibles,
it wouldn't even let me print as it didn't recognise them, my HP on the
other hand complains that they aren't genuine but at least lets me use
them.

Mike

I print a lot of photos and am pretty picky about quality. I have tried
off-brand ink (the printer didn't complain) but have never been happy
with either the quality or the batch-to-batch consistency. Epson carts
are expensive.

On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:28:09 -0400 "Big Al" wrote in
article om


Go Canon. They are one vendor that makes 3 separate color ink tanks,
making it less expensive to just change one ink when low.
Epson's are like that, too. One of mine has five carts, the other is
seven.

On Wed, 14 May 2014 19:56:26 -0300, pjp wrote:

In article , lid
says...

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.

The results really depend on the skill of the one who designs the label.

The hardware and software do an excellent job. If you can design a
decent label, you would have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in
submitting your work on either a LightScribe or printable label.

The printable ones have much better contrast, and of course they aren't
monochrome. They also print in not very many seconds, whereas a
LightScibe disk takes on the order of 220 minutes to get scribed.

I assume you meant 20min which is what I'm used to?

LOL!

I often read my posts shortly after posting. Looks like I forgot to that
time. Murphy must have been looking over my shoulder.

20 minutes is right unless you're doing 11 labels :-)

BTW, I'm still laughing. And thanks for catching the error.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 19:56:26 -0300, pjp wrote:

In article , lid
says...
On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.
The results really depend on the skill of the one who designs the label.

The hardware and software do an excellent job. If you can design a
decent label, you would have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in
submitting your work on either a LightScribe or printable label.

The printable ones have much better contrast, and of course they aren't
monochrome. They also print in not very many seconds, whereas a
LightScibe disk takes on the order of 220 minutes to get scribed.
I assume you meant 20min which is what I'm used to?

LOL!

I often read my posts shortly after posting. Looks like I forgot to that
time. Murphy must have been looking over my shoulder.

20 minutes is right unless you're doing 11 labels :-)

BTW, I'm still laughing. And thanks for catching the error.


You just like your LightScribe discs as black as coal :-)

It's like baking a loaf of bread twice as long,
makes the bread twice as good :-)

*******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightscribe

"...also notes that "residual chemicals on your fingers could
cause discoloration of the label image". Such chemicals include
common hand lotions and hair care products.[6] Users not
observing these precautions have reported LightScribe discs to
become visibly faded within two months in the worst case.

I guess that means handling those CDs with rubber gloves.

Paul

Jason said on 5/14/2014 9:03 PM:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:01:01 +0100 "Mike Swift"
wrote in article

In article ,
Jason writes
The Epson printers produce beautiful results - fully professional. You can


I hate Epson, they do indeed print great results but I've just sent a
new one to the recycle dump. I tried a full set of genuine carts for £60
($100), I thought this was a bit expensive so got a set of compatibles,
it wouldn't even let me print as it didn't recognise them, my HP on the
other hand complains that they aren't genuine but at least lets me use
them.

Mike

I print a lot of photos and am pretty picky about quality. I have tried
off-brand ink (the printer didn't complain) but have never been happy
with either the quality or the batch-to-batch consistency. Epson carts
are expensive.

I too have tried off brand and 1 outta 10 new cart. don't work and I
have to toss and use another. I'm kinda hedging towards only Canon now.

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:27:59 -0400, Paul wrote:

It's like baking a loaf of bread twice as long,
makes the bread twice as good :-)

You've been reading my cookbook gain!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:53:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:27:59 -0400, Paul wrote:

It's like baking a loaf of bread twice as long,
makes the bread twice as good :-)

You've been reading my cookbook gain!

Should be "again" rather than "gain":-)

Still, I'm probably not bad enough to set a Guinness record for typos...

But it is a bit funny in the context of the 220 minute label burn.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:53:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:27:59 -0400, Paul wrote:

It's like baking a loaf of bread twice as long,
makes the bread twice as good :-)
You've been reading my cookbook gain!

Should be "again" rather than "gain":-)

Still, I'm probably not bad enough to set a Guinness record for typos...

But it is a bit funny in the context of the 220 minute label burn.


I understand you're a very patient person.

And your 220 minute label burn proves it.

Paul

On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:04:24 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:53:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:27:59 -0400, Paul wrote:

It's like baking a loaf of bread twice as long,
makes the bread twice as good :-)
You've been reading my cookbook gain!

Should be "again" rather than "gain":-)

Still, I'm probably not bad enough to set a Guinness record for typos...

But it is a bit funny in the context of the 220 minute label burn.


I understand you're a very patient person.

And your 220 minute label burn proves it.

Paul

Well, I multitasked. I used the time to paint the exterior of the house.

Looks nice in magenta, I must say.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:31:44 -0500, "R. C. White" wrote:

3. You mentioned "printable CD". Print directly onto the surface of the
disk? I think I've heard of such, but I've never seen a printer that can do
it. They would need a straight-through paper path because the disks don't
bend very well, with rollers set for very thick media - and probably special
inks.

My old Epson R220 accepts the optical disc from the front, where the paper
comes out. It sucks in the disc, then slowly spits it back out as it gets
printed. No special path, no special ink.

--

Char Jackson

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Thanks for all of the responses.

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.

I can not believe that my wife is the only one in this world who send
out disk with examples of there work, that require a professional
looking disk, BUT I find out she is.

From my perspective, the ability to print onto optical discs is far from
dead or dying. I personally don't do it anymore, simply because I've moved
past optical media for the things I do, but the capability is still there,
not just in older printers but also in some newer models.

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 22 May 2014 15:11:37 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:31:44 -0500, "R. C. White" wrote:

3. You mentioned "printable CD". Print directly onto the surface of the
disk? I think I've heard of such, but I've never seen a printer that can do
it. They would need a straight-through paper path because the disks don't
bend very well, with rollers set for very thick media - and probably special
inks.

My old Epson R220 accepts the optical disc from the front, where the paper
comes out. It sucks in the disc, then slowly spits it back out as it gets
printed. No special path, no special ink.

There are current Epsons (e.g. XP-800)and Brothers (e.g. MFC-J875) that
do the same.

Very pretty results, even when the label is designed by an artist of my
skill level.

I actually think LightScribe labels look pretty good. They can be sort
of professional looking in a limited monochrome way, but if you make a
lot of labels, the 20 minute burn time is prohibitive

Or is that 220 minutes :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:15 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Thanks for all of the responses.

From what I get from all of the post, all methods for Identifying disk
are either something you would not present to a customer with examples
of your work, or either dead or dying.

I can not believe that my wife is the only one in this world who send
out disk with examples of there work, that require a professional
looking disk, BUT I find out she is.

From my perspective, the ability to print onto optical discs is far from
dead or dying. I personally don't do it anymore, simply because I've moved
past optical media for the things I do, but the capability is still there,
not just in older printers but also in some newer models.

I've encountered discs where I didn't realise it _had_ a label until I
happened to notice that the data side of the disc was a different colour
(the slight purplish of a CD-R rather than the silver of a pressed CD).
A well-cut, and very carefully-applied, label can look very
professional. (Printing directly onto the disc is probably better,
though.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk) (William
Allen,
1999 - after Milton, of course)