The Great Paper Chase

Ilford has a document of recommended settings. It is here:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/pdf/Prntsetguide.pdf

I use the setting it recommends (High Gloss Photo Film media setting with quality set to High). I also use the "Photo" setting in the "Manual" section of the 1st tab of the driver (don't have it in front of me here at work). I plan to get a profile made by Ethan or Cathy at some point soon to get the best match of colors to screen.

I bought a sample pack that had 2 8.5x11's of each kind: Classic Pearl, Classic Gloss, Smooth Pearl, and Smooth Gloss. I didn't like the output of the Classic Gloss near as much. People say there is a lot of pooling with this paper on the i950 (I still don't know how to notice what "pooling" actually looks like). I didn't like the look of it near as much as Canon PPP. I am still looking for a Glossy alternative to Canon PPP. Many people here recommend Office Depot Premium Glossy but I cannot get it locally since we don't have any Office Depot near here. So far I am using Canon PPP when I need glossy prints or can't wait for Classic Pearl to dry. I recommend waiting 24 hours or so before framing or putting classic pearl prints in albums. They are mostly dry to the touch after a few hours but are still a little sticky.

You cannot buy smaller than 8.5x11 of the Ilford papers. I bought a rotary trimmer which I use to crop the sheets down to 4x6 or 5x7. I usually print 3 4x6's or 2 5x7's on a sheet and then cut them. I am using a Fiskar's 12" personal Rotary trimmer (around $25 US). It is ok but I hope to buy a really good trimmer like the Rotatrim M24 (around $150 US) someday.

-Darryl

RKral said:

Yes, the Great Paper Chase is performed on an HP, I realise. I just
wasn't sure where else to post this question. It is extremely
helpful for me to know that you are getting good results with
Ilford Classic Pearl on the i950 specifically. I'll order some of
that paper today.

Could you please tell me what settings you are using for the
Ilford, in your i950 printer driver? This might save me a lot of
time and paper!

Also, have you tried Ilford Classic Glossy on your i950?

Lastly: it seems Ilford Classics do not come in a 4x7 size...what
do you use on your i950 for 4x7?

Thanks again,

Rob

Click to expand...

Hi fotografer!

I'm not sure what printer you used to print these results, but the Canon and HP stuff appear to be incompatible to me. Even tho a Canon printer can do wonders on Canon PPP or Red River, it cannot print on HP paper at all - it really looks awful. I assume that using Canon paper on a HP printer would be the same!

Alfred

fotografer said:

Any comments are welcome!

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

Sort of stumbled on this thread while doing a search for cheap papers. Found it very informative.

I'm waiting for my new i960 to arrive, so i've been shopping for papers, especially something fairly reasonable in the 4x6 range for client proofs. Have read from another post that the Office Depot gloss papers do pretty well, but I didn't find them that much comparably cheap as to other brands. Just wondering what others use for this printer. Thanks bc

darrylr said:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/pdf/Prntsetguide.pdf

I use the setting it recommends (High Gloss Photo Film media
setting with quality set to High). I also use the "Photo" setting
in the "Manual" section of the 1st tab of the driver (don't have it
in front of me here at work). I plan to get a profile made by Ethan
or Cathy at some point soon to get the best match of colors to
screen.

I bought a sample pack that had 2 8.5x11's of each kind: Classic
Pearl, Classic Gloss, Smooth Pearl, and Smooth Gloss. I didn't like
the output of the Classic Gloss near as much. People say there is a
lot of pooling with this paper on the i950 (I still don't know how
to notice what "pooling" actually looks like). I didn't like the
look of it near as much as Canon PPP. I am still looking for a
Glossy alternative to Canon PPP. Many people here recommend Office
Depot Premium Glossy but I cannot get it locally since we don't
have any Office Depot near here. So far I am using Canon PPP when I
need glossy prints or can't wait for Classic Pearl to dry. I
recommend waiting 24 hours or so before framing or putting classic
pearl prints in albums. They are mostly dry to the touch after a
few hours but are still a little sticky.

You cannot buy smaller than 8.5x11 of the Ilford papers. I bought a
rotary trimmer which I use to crop the sheets down to 4x6 or 5x7. I
usually print 3 4x6's or 2 5x7's on a sheet and then cut them. I am
using a Fiskar's 12" personal Rotary trimmer (around $25 US). It is
ok but I hope to buy a really good trimmer like the Rotatrim M24
(around $150 US) someday.

-Darryl

darrylr said:

Yes, the Great Paper Chase is performed on an HP, I realise. I just
wasn't sure where else to post this question. It is extremely
helpful for me to know that you are getting good results with
Ilford Classic Pearl on the i950 specifically. I'll order some of
that paper today.

Could you please tell me what settings you are using for the
Ilford, in your i950 printer driver? This might save me a lot of
time and paper!

Also, have you tried Ilford Classic Glossy on your i950?

Lastly: it seems Ilford Classics do not come in a 4x7 size...what
do you use on your i950 for 4x7?

Thanks again,

Rob

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks darrylr!

I'll be giving the Classic Pearl a go very soon.

I'm not much up on the lingo either, but I bet I could guess: If you tried Kodak premium like I did theres BLOTCHES of ink that come out on the paper. My guess is this might be called pooling??!!

I just tried some more settings with Kodak: what a total ripoff: this paper just DOES NOT work on the Canon i950. I think it's false advertising to have on the front packaging of Kodak's papers: "works with all inkjet printers". The b ack packaging reads "works on all inkjet printers including...canon..." It DOES NOT work: the banding alone is dreadful.

I'd be interested to know your experience with color matching and if you're using Mac or PC, but I guess that's another topic?

Rob.

darrylr said:

Ilford has a document of recommended settings. It is here:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/pdf/Prntsetguide.pdf

I use the setting it recommends (High Gloss Photo Film media
setting with quality set to High). I also use the "Photo" setting
in the "Manual" section of the 1st tab of the driver (don't have it
in front of me here at work). I plan to get a profile made by Ethan
or Cathy at some point soon to get the best match of colors to
screen.

I bought a sample pack that had 2 8.5x11's of each kind: Classic
Pearl, Classic Gloss, Smooth Pearl, and Smooth Gloss. I didn't like
the output of the Classic Gloss near as much. People say there is a
lot of pooling with this paper on the i950 (I still don't know how
to notice what "pooling" actually looks like). I didn't like the
look of it near as much as Canon PPP. I am still looking for a
Glossy alternative to Canon PPP. Many people here recommend Office
Depot Premium Glossy but I cannot get it locally since we don't
have any Office Depot near here. So far I am using Canon PPP when I
need glossy prints or can't wait for Classic Pearl to dry. I
recommend waiting 24 hours or so before framing or putting classic
pearl prints in albums. They are mostly dry to the touch after a
few hours but are still a little sticky.

You cannot buy smaller than 8.5x11 of the Ilford papers. I bought a
rotary trimmer which I use to crop the sheets down to 4x6 or 5x7. I
usually print 3 4x6's or 2 5x7's on a sheet and then cut them. I am
using a Fiskar's 12" personal Rotary trimmer (around $25 US). It is
ok but I hope to buy a really good trimmer like the Rotatrim M24
(around $150 US) someday.

-Darryl

Click to expand...

Been using it almost exclusively after trying it out awhile back. I use the textured for a lot of nature images, the smooth for urban landscapes and people. It seems to give me a better gamut with my inks than anything else out there, pictures almost "pop" when you're dealing with high contrast situations. I've also printed some usually nightmarish slow fade from one color at the bottom to another at the top, and it looks awesome.

I profiled it as I do all other papers, but have talked with folks who've downloaded the profiles from their web site and they basically said no other tasks were required to get great results.

Only two problems: 1) The 355gsm textured is awesomely textured, much deeper and richer feeling and looking than the 230gsm, but my Epson 1280 hates it - hard to feed, even the thick paper setting is tight. I guess I'm wishing for Arches to make my printer better...but there are days when I wish I'd never tried the 355gsm textured because I want to use it all the time. The 230's fine, but a lot like other textured papers in look and feel, the 355 is unique in my experience.

2) People want to feel the prints if you've got soft and silky kinds of subjects. I just did an art fair where everybody was trying to touch the super-macro images of rose petals. I've NEVER had this problem before. I ended up taking one print and making it a "sacrificial" print.

I had prints at the art fair where I had one printed on Somerset Photo Enhanced and one on Arches Infinity, and in every case the Arches Infinity sold. Worth a trial pack at least.

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

L. Cressman said:

Why are you recommending the "glossy" setting for this "matte"
paper? I have found the "matte" setting works best. HP claims
"matte" works best. Was this perhaps a typo?
--
JLC
MyWorld Studios - Madison,MS

Click to expand...

--
JLC
MyWorld Studios - Madison,MS

fotografer wrote:

Ed,

Sorry I didn't read your post until now. May I know if you are using Epson 2200 to print on this paper? Because all the archival properties of such textured papers, if they are not swellable, will not render dye inks the same longevity. My second series of papers I sent to Bill Waterson for testing (before they decided to stop testing for inkjet prints!) showed Somerset Enhanced don't hold a candle in the longevity department even though they do with pigment inks...

Ed Nazarko said:

Been using it almost exclusively after trying it out awhile back.
I use the textured for a lot of nature images, the smooth for urban
landscapes and people. It seems to give me a better gamut with my
inks than anything else out there, pictures almost "pop" when
you're dealing with high contrast situations. I've also printed
some usually nightmarish slow fade from one color at the bottom to
another at the top, and it looks awesome.

I profiled it as I do all other papers, but have talked with folks
who've downloaded the profiles from their web site and they
basically said no other tasks were required to get great results.

Only two problems: 1) The 355gsm textured is awesomely textured,
much deeper and richer feeling and looking than the 230gsm, but my
Epson 1280 hates it - hard to feed, even the thick paper setting is
tight. I guess I'm wishing for Arches to make my printer
better...but there are days when I wish I'd never tried the 355gsm
textured because I want to use it all the time. The 230's fine,
but a lot like other textured papers in look and feel, the 355 is
unique in my experience.

2) People want to feel the prints if you've got soft and silky
kinds of subjects. I just did an art fair where everybody was
trying to touch the super-macro images of rose petals. I've NEVER
had this problem before. I ended up taking one print and making it
a "sacrificial" print.

I had prints at the art fair where I had one printed on Somerset
Photo Enhanced and one on Arches Infinity, and in every case the
Arches Infinity sold. Worth a trial pack at least.

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Hi L.C.

Sorry I didn't read your query as I was 'flying about' until recently.

I have tried glossy setting and matte setting from the HP PPPP option and their result is the same. I am not sure what you meant by matte paper setting being better, but I guess you mean the grain managemnet? I ahve found even this to be the same whether I choose glossy or matte setting.

This is just my observation, though. You may see different results yourself and I can't deny that. HP PPPP matte is good, but not the best, with the HP ps7000 series printers.

L. Cressman said:

Why are you recommending the "glossy" setting for this "matte"
paper? I have found the "matte" setting works best. HP claims
"matte" works best. Was this perhaps a typo?
--
JLC
MyWorld Studios - Madison,MS

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Bob,

If you are asking about pizza wheel marks on 7960 and whether they are different to, say, 7550, I simply don't know. I have not seen 7960 in action yet, except reading reviews from Vincent Oliver.

Bob Harmon said:

Are the pizza wheel indentations less with the hp7550 (7xxx
series)as compared to the
hp 7960 ? (assuming you are using the same paper in both machines)
Looking at the threads on this issue, there seem to be more
complaints on pizza wheels with the 7960. I guess the real
question would be are the
7550 and 7960 the same mechanically as far as the paper feed wheels
and
same pressure on the paper, etc. If they are then the pizza wheel
problem would be entirely a function of the paper used. However I
am guessing that there must be a mechanical difference with the
7960 to
receive more complaints on this issue. ?

Bob Harmon

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Hi Alfred,

Sorry for the late reply.

You'll be surprised that Canon PGPP works wonders with the HP ps7150! I actually already scanned all the images of my follow-up of this paper chase, and will be singing praises on the Canon PGPP and HP dye ink combo, but I simply don't have the time to do a proper review like I do with this review! Sigh.

I have received the light-fastness results from Waterson and Livick and Canon PGPP does better than their flagship PPP. You see, Canon papers are nanoporous, so I will presume they should work with other dye inks, but not the other way round. In that speedy printers like Canon will normally not work well with swellable papers, such as HP PPPP. But if you read a recent comment by another Canon user (the third one I have read from this forum), the newest HP PPPP series seem to work well with the Canon printers!

aevoegels said:

Hi fotografer!

I'm not sure what printer you used to print these results, but the
Canon and HP stuff appear to be incompatible to me. Even tho a
Canon printer can do wonders on Canon PPP or Red River, it cannot
print on HP paper at all - it really looks awful. I assume that
using Canon paper on a HP printer would be the same!

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Yes Darryl (and RKral),

Even though both Canon and HP printers are now all dye based for consumers (the i900 series from Canon and ps7000 series from HP), they are like chalk and cheese when it comes to paper compatibility!

I mean, the Kodak paper are ghastly with Canon dye inks but works well with the ps7000 series. I was hoping to share my findings with the follow-up of this Great Paper Chase review but I can't find the time to do it, alas!

RKral, I am not sure what works best for i950 but I do read over and over again that the Kodak series papers and most of HP papers should be avoided with your Canon printers! Try the Ilford Galarie Classic Pearl. They seem to show little aritfacts with some careful tweaks and this paper is known for its longevity with dye inks. Don't use the Ilford Galarie Classic GLOSSY paper with your i950, they will show pooling (like grains on photos) and paper will stick on album sleeves.

darrylr said:

Ilford Classic Peal works very well with the i950 and should last
much longer than Canon PPP. I use almost exclusively Classic Pearl
with my i950. It is about 1/2 the price on PPP as well.

I think this thread here is dealing more with what works on the HP
7??? series of printers and not necessarily what paper is good or
not in general.

-Darryl

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

I am using pigment inks. I can't attest to how it holds up with dye inks, although I'd suggest an email to Arches Infinity support - they're really good about responding.

You may also want to read this review - although they're printing with 1280 dye inks, and I do know that some HP inks are awful on Epson papers and vice versa.

http://www.dpandi.com/newsreviews/reviews/ai/index.html

Basically, my approach has been after reading all the stuff about some paper or another, to buy sample packs of a paper and print a few images - use the first sheet or two to dial in the profile, and then stick the second sheet up in a south facing window, the ultimate torture test.

If you print with dye inks on uncoated rag watercolor papers, you can get very decent longevity. I've got some pix printed from back when the Epson 1200 came out, and with only marginal care (meaning not hanging them in sun or over a photocopier) they look just like when they were first made. You can dial in a very good profile with dye inks, in fact better than with pigment inks. The look doesn't go with every picture, but a lot of scenics and portraits look fantastic. I used to print at 720dpi on watercolor paper, there wasn't any advantage to 1440 with the little bit of dot gain. If you go to http://www.inkjetart.com and read through, you'll get some good ideas on how to make it work best. I usually use Arches hot press (the deckled edges and embossed Arches logo gives people comfort.)

http://www.inkjetart.com/watercolor_printing.html

http://www.inkjetart.com/tips/output_examples.html

I make a point of dealing with inkjetart because they do have a lot of good tips and tricks, and provide excellent support. Gotta look after people like that. Besides which, their prices are very good.

fotografer said:

Ed,

Sorry I didn't read your post until now. May I know if you are
using Epson 2200 to print on this paper? Because all the archival
properties of such textured papers, if they are not swellable, will
not render dye inks the same longevity. My second series of papers
I sent to Bill Waterson for testing (before they decided to stop
testing for inkjet prints!) showed Somerset Enhanced don't hold a
candle in the longevity department even though they do with pigment
inks...

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Hi Ed,

Member said:

You may also want to read this review - although they're printing
with 1280 dye inks, and I do know that some HP inks are awful on
Epson papers and vice versa.

http://www.dpandi.com/newsreviews/reviews/ai/index.html

Click to expand...

You are right that some older HP inks are ghastly, giving garbage-worthy metamerism with some many Epson papers, be them cheap or top-quality stuff. The no.57 and no.58 inks (and I have read recently no.59 gray/black) seem more than tolerant to Epson's excellent range of media, prompting me to write an in-depth review and singing their (Epson's) praises.

Member said:

Basically, my approach has been after reading all the stuff about
some paper or another, to buy sample packs of a paper and print a
few images - use the first sheet or two to dial in the profile, and
then stick the second sheet up in a south facing window, the
ultimate torture test.

Click to expand...

Being simply a home-user with just a little more fuss with print quality, I rely on disinterested third-party such as Livick and Waterson's light-fastness estimate to tell me how my new HP inks fare with different varieties of media I threw at it. I agree that I normally need at least one sheet to do some rough adjustments to get decent-enough prints, thus I design my test file at 4x6, so that I can print a maximum of three per letter/A4 sheet to get the print settings in the ball-park, so to speak.

Member said:

If you print with dye inks on uncoated rag watercolor papers, you
can get very decent longevity. I've got some pix printed from back
when the Epson 1200 came out, and with only marginal care (meaning
not hanging them in sun or over a photocopier) they look just like
when they were first made. You can dial in a very good profile
with dye inks, in fact better than with pigment inks.

Click to expand...

This is a great comfort to know that dye inks are not as bad as they are estimated to be in terms of longevity. But I believe that not all dyes are made equal...

Member said:

http://www.inkjetart.com/watercolor_printing.html

http://www.inkjetart.com/tips/output_examples.html

I make a point of dealing with inkjetart because they do have a lot
of good tips and tricks, and provide excellent support. Gotta look
after people like that. Besides which, their prices are very good.

Click to expand...

Good that you live in the US! I can't get the benefit by residing in the UK. Sigh.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Very cool, You did a lot of work here, thanks.

fotografer said:

(Please post your thoughts and comments under the Readers’ Response
thread below)
Okay, perhaps ‘Great’ is a little too pompous, but hey, it has got
to be a little more catchy than titles like “HP Photosmart 7150
Paper Review” or the down-right boring ones like “Paper
Compatibility to Tri-Colour No.57 & Photo No. 58 Cartridges”.
But whatever the title may be, the quest is the same, and a serious
one – to discover that elusive paper with the look, feel, image
quality, and perhaps even longevity, of real silver-halide
photographs. Like many of you, I was hit by the
test-your-printer-till-it-drops (TYP-TID) syndrome soon after I
acquired and powered up my ps7150 in February this year.



I am sure you are familiar with the heavenly-feelings when the very
first print emerged from the printer. That glassy-eyed,
I-can’t-believe-my-eyes euphoric high was difficult to put in
words. However, when the pixy-dust settled somewhat (for me, it
happened the day after), I started to notice things I somehow
conveniently missed while I was so completely in the trance the day
before.
Colours were bright but a little forced, sharpness was a little too
artificial to be pleasing (I set everything to auto on my very
print), the paper was (I printed with the sample paper pack that
came with the printer)… well… it was… very… INKJET.
POOF! ZAP!!
I didn’t know what hit me. After it was successfully diagnosed as
TYP-TID syndrome, I have no choice but to find the PP:FLQ (photo
paper: feel, look & quality) as an antidote for my ps7150… (gosh,
is this cheesy or what?!)

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

This was really a great project that you undertook! I especially like the graphs, puts all the information in one place. Great job!

However, I do have a question that you may or may not be able to answer: How do the non-HP papers perform in respect to "pizza wheels", those ugly track marks caused by the star wheels of the HP 7960 on some papers? The HP Premium Photo paper is terrible in this regard, while the Premium plus is only noticeable with the light just so and really good eyesight! I'm really interested in the Ilford papers, but can't buy it locally so I have to mailorder. Shipping is steep and I'd hate to buy a bunch of the classic galerie and then find it tracks like the HPPP! Any assistance you or anyone else can render would be grealy appreciated.

Thanks

Shannon

fotografer said:

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

--
Shannon

Shannon,

Shannon S. McGee said:

This was really a great project that you undertook! I especially
like the graphs, puts all the information in one place. Great job!
However, I do have a question that you may or may not be able to
answer: How do the non-HP papers perform in respect to "pizza
wheels", those ugly track marks caused by the star wheels of the HP
7960 on some papers? The HP Premium Photo paper is terrible in this
regard, while the Premium plus is only noticeable with the light
just so and really good eyesight! I'm really interested in the
Ilford papers, but can't buy it locally so I have to mailorder.
Shipping is steep and I'd hate to buy a bunch of the classic
galerie and then find it tracks like the HPPP! Any assistance you
or anyone else can render would be grealy appreciated.

Click to expand...

Though these pizza wheel marks afflicted some lesser HP photosmart models, I have been reading it seemed to be especially more so for 7960.

If you read my review, the only marks I saw was the Fujifilm Multijet Premium Satin. It showed 'nasty' rubber roller marks, and the other papers didn't show those pizza wheel marks, even those gloss papers are not affected. But you see, mine is 7150, and when you don't get pizza wheel marks, and you'll tend to be quite lucky with other papers as well.

And if you do see those pizza wheel marks, one way of REDUCING the appearance is to use the HP PPPP or the new HP PPP, and if possible, non-glossy varieties. After some time when the star-wheel is more well-worn, maybe swtiching back to glossy media will show less/no pizza wheel marks. Disclaimer: this is only my hypothesis!

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

I would appreciate your opinion about using these papers with the new HP 7760. Have you any experience using this printer?

fotografer said:

fotografer said:

This was really a great project that you undertook! I especially
like the graphs, puts all the information in one place. Great job!
However, I do have a question that you may or may not be able to
answer: How do the non-HP papers perform in respect to "pizza
wheels", those ugly track marks caused by the star wheels of the HP
7960 on some papers? The HP Premium Photo paper is terrible in this
regard, while the Premium plus is only noticeable with the light
just so and really good eyesight! I'm really interested in the
Ilford papers, but can't buy it locally so I have to mailorder.
Shipping is steep and I'd hate to buy a bunch of the classic
galerie and then find it tracks like the HPPP! Any assistance you
or anyone else can render would be grealy appreciated.

Click to expand...

Though these pizza wheel marks afflicted some lesser HP photosmart
models, I have been reading it seemed to be especially more so for
7960.

If you read my review, the only marks I saw was the Fujifilm
Multijet Premium Satin. It showed 'nasty' rubber roller marks, and
the other papers didn't show those pizza wheel marks, even those
gloss papers are not affected. But you see, mine is 7150, and when
you don't get pizza wheel marks, and you'll tend to be quite lucky
with other papers as well.

And if you do see those pizza wheel marks, one way of REDUCING the
appearance is to use the HP PPPP or the new HP PPP, and if
possible, non-glossy varieties. After some time when the star-wheel
is more well-worn, maybe swtiching back to glossy media will show
less/no pizza wheel marks. Disclaimer: this is only my hypothesis!

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

Matt,

Basically 7760 utilises the same cartridges as my 7150. That is, the no.57 and no.58. So the results here should be 100% in your case.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )