Slashdot Mirror
PC Photo Printers Challenge Pros
zebadee writes "A survey carried out by PC Pro magazine looked at which of 100 home photo printers offered a better deal than handing your snaps to a photo lab.
The tests found that images from top PC printers kept their colour longer than professionally produced photographs.
In the report at the BBC it claims that the new generation of printers produced images with brighter colours and that were less likely to fade than many High Street developers or even some professional wedding photographers."
I went to the URL http://www.pcpro.co.uk/ then clicked on http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/66959, and I see NOTHING comparing the printers, only a message to get the latest edition of PCPro.
What is this? Some kind of marketing scam by Slashdot and PCPro, a way to "entice" people to purchase the magazine or something to get the real article?
This almost makes me wonder... why does Slashdot allow links to registration-only sites, sites where the content needs to be purchased, etc. when most times, a free version of the article is available elsewhere? What is going on lately?!
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
This article looks like a slashvertisment for PC Pro Magazine. I see nothing of substance -- you have to buy the magazine to see any of the results.
Extensive testing by PC Pro's labs has revealed that photographs produced by inkjet printers can be both far more expensive than those from traditional photo processors and fade far more quickly. But not if you choose the right combination of printer, ink and paper.
The test gives a great boost to the idea of buying very expensive ink cartridges from the manufacturers.
Please include the whole sentence: But not if you choose the right combination of printer, ink and paper It gives a whole other meaning :)
I just comment stupidly on the teaser and what other people (who haven't RTFA either) says
While it's certainly nice to hang photos or show around printed/developed photos, I feel less need to do so.
If you want to show a slide show, now you can just connect a laptop to a TV set (or use the laptop's display, if there are not too many people).
I mean, we are the digital generation, aren't we?
E.g., my parents print out ever single email they receive because they want to file and keep it. For the same reason, I leave my emails on my computer. My CD collection is digitized for easy searching and minxing in iTunes.
Soon, there might be cheap LCD-screens hanging everywhere in your house, displaying pictures or whatever. You press one button, the decoration changes.
Until then, printing is okay, I guess... but in maybe five years...
I don't need a signature.
There's a better article on the results at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092653.stm
OK, who gave Shrub his internet connection back?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
I don't care. We bought the English language from you guys in 1782 and you are now required by the Bill of Rights to speak and spell it correctly. If you do not meet these requirements, it's an act of war.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
I know some keen amateur photographers who have actually given up on home printing. When you take into account the ink and paper cost, it is often cheaper to get prints made in the high street, or using online services (where you upload a file and they send you the prints).
The quality of real prints on proper paper (eg. Fuji Crystal Archive) is hard to beat at home. Colour management is another nightmare that can waste time and paper.
Of course, you can use third party ink and paper in your top of the range printer to reduce costs, but then the archival qualities are unknown - only the combination of ink and paper certified by the manufacturer is guaranteed to be archival.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
What Bill of Rights?
:-)
I know of "Bill of London" and a "Bill of Idle" (small town in Yorkshire, with a Workingmans Club - so you can be a member of the Idle Workingmans Club)
but I don't know of Rights or any Bill from there.
You can cover your ears and go "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!" all you want but it doesn't make it any less true.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
Of course some of the high street chains will print from digital (though when I went once to try and get a quick print, the list of instructions on the kiosk looked like the toilet instructions in 2001, so I just went home and printed), but they talk about `developers'.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
It says that you can make better and cheaper photos at home, if you choose the right combination of printer, ink, and paper. Now I was wondering if the "right combonation" is just a one time set up, or would you have to change your setup depending on what kind of photography you happen to be doing. Should indoor, low-light prints be made with different paper or even a different cartridge, and bright outdoor prints with yet another? Also, how many prints would you have to need developed say, every month, in order for the lower cost per print to cancel out to investment in a printer and the inevitable replacement of ink cartriges?
Surely you know Bill of Redmond too? And if the Americans bought the language from the British, the patent system is truly broken and I'm not the least bit surprised the world Hates America. Who the fuck wants to say ALOOOMINUM anyway? I like saying ALU-MINI-UM, thanks. And I like the fact that I don't confuse my parent's siblings with small insects found in picnic baskets.
My Favourite Meme
At least Shrub never lied to the media and claimed he invented the Internet. Unlike the first guy he won the election over.
seen it at a lunch in a fancy hotel...
Plasma screens are everywhere and LCD are getting so cheap that this can work...
oh and printing is all about the paper when you compare to a shop printed they should ask what kind of paper you want if they dont then they are cheap and you can achive better on your home inkjet BUT your home inkjet *might* be more expensive
regards
john jones
The point is valid. Should the British Empire have been interested in standardizing spelling then they should have created a dictionary before the colonization of the America. We can not be held responsible for their lack of foresight in this matter.
Not informative... disinformative (if that is indeed a word). He selectively quotes to give the exact opposite meaning.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Looks like an editor didn't quite RTFA before posting it. Happens to the best of us.
I have to buy the magazine to read the article? Is pcpro using slashdot to do some advertising for them? Maybe i'll try it out too. I'll come up with an amazingly interesting story, accompanied by a link to the product i want to sell. Since nobody obviously ever validates the link before posting, i get free advertising! *sigh*
The article sais, pictures were printed on various printers. After 12 months
they were examined, and some were found OK while others faded away excessively.
All this was done at normal daylight/temperature - no accelerated tests were
made.
I cant see how this can be compared to professionally printed photographs or
wedding photos. They surely wont fade within 12 months of normal in-house
daylight.
An inkjet picture that doesnt fade noticably within 12 months is remarkable,
but not necessarily "better than professionally made photographs".
You may have encountered something called the slashdot effect, suddenly flooded the site may have just switched in an AD so as to ride the wave. When I went there I found this - Not to completely repost an article, here is a few paragraphs;
Extensive testing by PC Pro's labs has revealed that photographs produced by inkjet printers can be both far more expensive than those from traditional photo processors and fade far more quickly. But not if you choose the right combination of printer, ink and paper.
For a period of twelve months PC Pro's staff tracked how 150 colour photographs produced by inkjet printers from leading manufacturers survived being exposed to normal air and daylight.
'The results were astonishing, ranging from no fading at all, to one photo where every colour except cyan had vanished, and even that was cracking and flaking off the page,' said Nick....
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
wow, what amazing dis-information. You must work for the media....
genius.
all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
I, for one welcome our high-rez photo printing overlords...
Uh, wait...
We wrote one, but sadly YOU DIDN'T READ IT .
Ok, I admit not before coloniali s ation - but it was well before you started stamping your feet and threw all the tea in the harbo u r.
you want substance? I'll give you substance: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence _preview.html
This is a report done by the Wilhelm Imaging Research labs. All they do is test stuff to see how long it will last. You're not going to find "and it's still good enough to print grnadma's album" - you'll find a real scientific analysis.
Enjoy the substance.
Here is why:
1. Paper, Printer, Ink Costs
2. Hassle of finding the right brand/model/style/type(glossy, photo etc)
3.Printer Troubles
4.Cropping photos
5.Time
I use Wal-Mart for my digital prints, and they usually do a really good job, while Costco has been a nightmare for me(horrible quality, bad paper etc). You should find a good place to print in your area, and stick with it.
my $.02
University of Washington
Student
...is much easier to hide on a computer, compared to hard copy. Do you have any idea how much space 100k+ pics would take up, on paper? And the printing costs. Oh my!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Comparing apples to apples is all fine and good but what I want to see compared is fleshtone to fleshtone...
Plus all printers seem designed to screw up two out of every three pieces of photo paper, so each successful print costs about £5. Why is this stuff so expensive anyway?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
An Epson 2200 or Canon S9000 is going to set you back about $500. Good inks for the Epson (the Ultrachrome inks) cost another $90.00 (for all colors), and good paper (archive quality) goes for about $0.50 / sheet. With Epson, I get longevity at the cost of image "punch". With Canon, I get faster, quieter prints and stronger colors, but they fade faster. If I go with a cheaper Epson (say, the 2000), I have to deal with terrible metamerism, a cheaper Canon I get terrible B&W. Each print is going to cost about $1.50 a page at best. This doens't factor in the cost of the printer itself.
Or, I can custom profile my photos for specific machine output (using Dry Creek's wonderful database), take my photos to CostCo/Sam's Club/Walgreens, where they print on Fuji Frontier's, pay $0.18 for a 4x6, get better color and more longevity.
Pretty simple decision to me.
The article points out that for serious colour printing, cheap ink is a mistake (and it also lets you know which OEMs are supplying inferior ink.)
I don't have a problem with PcPro looking to recover the cost of some expensive research, and I don't have a problem with paying for OEM ink if it means my great-great-grandchildren will know what their ancestors looked like.
BTW, our lab is currently testing the Kyocera C5016 colour laser printer. If you want A4/letter in reasonable volume, with really rather good color and very cheap consumables, this is the one to go for. Printing black should be as cheap as on an ordinary mono laser, color is a fraction the cost of the HP equivalents. And I'm not even being paid to say this...
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
If you want to know more about print permanence, have a look at this site :
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
They did very strict studies on many printers and papers.
You should not, under any circumstances, read this sig.
Speaking as someone who spent four years working with digital photo printers, you will always get better results from a store (Ritz, Proex, Wal-mart etc) than you will ever get with a home printer. Reason? They buy a $750,000 digital printer, you buy a $200 printer. More accurately, save for some of the higher end dye-sublimation stuff, you are typically spraying ink onto a piece of paper which inevitably fades over time as it oxidizes. They have gotten better, but you're usually looking at about a 20 shelf life for the average home printed print. Fuji guarantees it's crystal archive prints not to fade for 100 years (Although, in all fairness let's see you try to get a reprint on a faded image in 50 years!) and Kodak guarantees its paper for 75. Maybe it won't make a difference, but you'd be surprised how much a 20 year old non-faded picture can mean to someone. The modern mini-lab digital printers are using good old fashioned (Well, old in the relative sense.) light sensitive color emulsion photo paper, exposed to a laser and then sealed in photo chemicals to produce their results. Lasting far longer than a simple dye could. Yeah, I know, I sound like an ad for a photo mini-lab, but I'm really sick of enlarging prints from a crappy faded inkjet printer, and people wondering why it looks so horrible. Oh yeah, and one other note, when you take your pictures in, make sure they're getting printed on the giant mini-lab in the back of the store, and not some POS dorm fridge sized printer on the counter. Because I know for a fact that certain stores *coughritzcough* lie about how long the photos coming off a Fuji PrintPix printer will last.
I only care if the so-called TOP printers below have CUPS
or GIMP drivers for them:
Epson Stylus Photo R800
Canon Pixma iP3000
HP PhotoSmart 8150
Canon Pixma iP4000R
This makes me glad I didn't ditch my SLR.
It is always the quality I want it to be: photo quality. No fading, no "archive qualtiy", no ink problems.
I recently bought an hp 325 and have been extremely pleased with the results. I specifically bought it because it is only for small format (4x6) digital photography and is very easy to use (a must for the wife). I do most of my printing from Picasa, but my wife likes to just plug the CF card into the printer and scroll through the images on screen.
As far as quality is concerned, the images are very crisp, with nice colors and brightness. Metallic images look great and blacks are very nice. If you're looking for an easy to use, high image quality photo printer, I recommend this line.
...only old people hand his snaps to a photo lab.
My city: Barcelona.
"I printed a test pattern on a piece of plain paper, and taped it to the outside of my south-facing window, so it would be subject to the full measure of California sun and the elements. A month later, the test pattern is still there. In particular, the cyan+magenta+yellow patches show no sign of color shift. Believe me, neither commercial offset printing nor ordinary color prints wouldn hold up nearly so well under these conditions. In fact, the paper is starting to show some signs of degrading, including a slight yellowing and a more brittle-feeling texture."
"So, it's not exactly a scientific test, but I think you can make prints on the 2200 with confidence that your grandchildren will still be able to enjoy them. Highly recommended."
Almost all of CDs that are older than 4-5 years are partially or completely unreadable.
That's sad, as many of these disks were very expansive (about 10$ a piece... the golden ones... burnt with my big white Philips-CD burner).
I have heard DVDs would last longer because the written layer is under the surface or something...? I hope they're better than CDs...
The best storage solution would be MO-Disks, of course.
I don't need a signature.
I'm not sure I care how long the print lasts? If it fades, or the quality isn't perfect, you can always print it again in 5, 10, 20 years, with presumably better technology. That is, if we still use printers.
Are the Lone Gunmen Dead As Well, Slashdot?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
A "high street" is the main shopping street in a city. Usually characterised -- and high streets are full of character -- by buildings of different ages and styles, with combinations of backlit, neon, vinyl appliqué and hand-painted signs at slightly different heights, not to mention various exotic odours, each one competing for your undivided attention. A high street evolves continually over the years, as shops change hands, have re-fits, burn down, flood out, get rebuilt and so forth. Small independent and large national retailers jostle side by side, peddling an array of wares: there are necessarily variations from one town to another, but you might find a take-away food outlet next to an electrical appliance warehouse, an art gallery next to a motor factor or a café above a second-hand record shop. Often, unlicenced street vendors may be found {at least, till the Old Bill move them along}. Whereas a shopping centre is purpose-built, and each unit is designed to look just like the ones either side and opposite.
You can see an excellent example of each kind of shopping development in Lewisham.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Using both traditional "wet" darkroom and the "digital" darkroom actively myself, a couple points are missing;
1) The main reason many digital prints (pro or home use) loook "better" is because of the premium "traditional" printing processes have been stopped by many of ht elarge photographic supply companies. It is not there there was not a demand for these products, but rather, more demand for digital products.
This in itself is not such a bad thing, but if any of you ever get to see, close up, in person, a properly made print using dye transfer technique or th eold Cibachrome printing process, you will see justg what can be done, and what is missing. The bototm line is that, it takes - like all other typesof art and craftsmanship - usually and extra 200% effort to improve someby only 10 or 20%. Also, since many of the premium photographic products have been discontinued in the past few years, it is very easy to make this whole issue a self full filling prophecy.
2) It would take somebody years of experience to learn the art of print making - any technique, and now, a 12 year old can produce a technically good print in seconds. This is not the bad part, the bad part is that I find it very ahrd to teach people nowadays - both young and old - some of the finer parts of the craft of printmaking - such as composition. The rules of composition go back hundreds of years, thousands even in the world of art, regardless of you medium. too many people now seem to think that because they can use a computer to produce technically correct prints, that the other "rules' are no longer needed now too.
3) if you go study graphic arts, photogrpahy, etc, of any kind for 3 or 4 years at college, you might as well give up trying ot find a decent job in your feild, or so it seems anymore. Because any and every 12 year old kid with a PC can produce technically excellent prints at home, the general level fo respect for work form any graphic art studio or photographer is not what it once was years ago. The end result, i have seen, is that many businesses can no longer afford to pay good people to do thier technical work. No offence, but there's a line form "Babylon 5" about hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool. If you are paying somebody near minim wage to run yoru machines, do your tehcnical work, well, you get what you pay for. However, it's a catch-22 situation - these places cannot often afford ot hire somebody worth the moeny because the public will not pay for it.
4) It's not always personell, sometimes it is machinery & supplies. For example, if you are a private photo-lab, and you sign a contract to do the work for a large chain store to develop 35mm filma nd do the prints, well everybody wants it doen in one hour, and done as cheaply as possible. The end result I see, is in order to keep up this leve of expectation, you run cheaper paper in your machine,a nd more importantly, you run your chemistry to past exhaustion. For exmaple, when developing film, colour or B&W, you can only do so many films (any format) per litre or gallon of developer before you have to replace or replenish it. The most common way to cut corners and save time and money is go past that point. Once you start to do that, your negatives never come out right, and afterwards, regardles of hwat print making process you are using, if you negative is poorly developed, you'll have a terrible time ever trying to make a good print out of it.
One last thought - this never comes up, but it should be made known, and it explains, IMO, exactly why Kodak, Agfa, and other are all rushing like mad to "do away" with traditional "wet" darkroom supplies.
If you go out and price the cost of any premium B&W photogrpahic paper - the very best you can find - the stuff made with real silver in it - you will find that many of the premium photo quality papers for PC printer use (either inkjet or laser) are actually more expensive.
Also, I ahve three enlargers in my darkroom, the newest is
No it isn't.
Look, I can sort of understand that space was a bit limited on the Mayflower, and that there were certain requirements that were, shall we say, rather more pressing than a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary.
But this is 2004, and there's no excuse anymore. OK? English is the language spoken in England. {Even the Taffs, the Paddies and the Jocks -- who are British but not English -- each have their own language [which almost certainly include disparaging words for English people], primarily so we don't have to talk to them.}
We really should have been a bit more Apache-like. You know -- if you want to make serious changes to the spelling or the grammar, you have to change the name of the language.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I guess you maybe print a lot of photos, but an Epson r800 costs about $400 according to Google and the first online printing service I found costs $0.30 for a 4x6 and $1 for a 5x7. That means that you, for the price of one printer, can get about 1000 4x6 plus 100 5x7. (probably fewer considering shipping and alike, but still many)
14 doesn't equal 100. ????
The article says they tested 14 inkjets. Well, the article doesn't say that, the headline does. It'd be nice if I could read the article. Too bad I don't buy print magazines.
Nice job posting this though. I'm glad the moderators proofed it before posting it too!
Thanks.
-- No sig for you!
Pigment-based inks on good paper will last as long as traditional commercial photo prints.
I print both on commercial machines (Fuji Frontier 370) and at home on an Epson R800. Both come out with excellent quality. It's hard to distinguish between the two. As for durability, both are rated for much longer than I really need.
-- No sig for you!
Almost all of CDs that are older than 4-5 years are partially or completely unreadable
Then I would say that you are particularly unlucky. The ONLY CDs that are unreadable for me were those ausio CDs that I left in my black car every day in the sun. Those are dead, no questions about it.
All the rest, that was stored mostly in-house is perfectly readable even after 5 years.
Don't trust DVDs that much, you might get a big surprise.
MO-Disks, that was a joke, right?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
1. Paper, Printer, Ink Costs
Quality often costs money. Unfortunately there aren't too many ways to get around this: disposable income makes the world go 'round.
2. Hassle of finding the right brand/model/style/type(glossy, photo etc)
This is generally a one-time decision made after some experimentation with a short list of products.
3.Printer Troubles
See item 1. Buy a current model from a reputable manufacturer - that offers a good warranty - and a model that has garnered favorable reviews from multiple sources. For the record I use a Canon i960 and have been very happy with the output and with the conservative ink usage (even printing 20+ 8x10s).
4.Cropping photos
This is a puzzler. How difficult is it to crop a photo? I guess you have two options: take better pictures or become more proficient with your photo editor of choice. (Not a flame - just an observation.)
5.Time
For some people - myself included - fiddling about with digital photos is an enjoyable and relaxing hobby, so the time spent is not considered wasted.
You use Wal-Mart for your digital prints? That's great. However, in general I would rather chew off my own left arm than set foot in Wal-Mart, making this an unattractive option.
In fact, one of the primary advantages of home photo printing for me is convenience: I can modify, recreate, etc. photos at any time and on short notice without waiting for additional parties. I control the entire process, which is worth more to me than the 50 cents or whatever I would save per print.
I emphasized 'for me' above because - guess what? - we all have different opinions. Your statement that Speaking from experience, I found that printing at home is not worth the time and money carries no weight: you are not a statistically significant sample set. IOW, to each his own.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The article on the BBC does not list the models of printer used in the text. It does provide a side bar of "top printers", but at least one of those, the Canon, hasn't been out for twelve months. Does anyone have some real test results they can point to? I'd like to know how the i960 I bought in October stacks up.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Buy a Canon. Yup hate to sound like a mindless fanboy buy that solved all of my problems with regards to home photo printing.
.19 prints I get. Nothing I can do about that but for immedite prints it can't be beat.
1. It costs about 40% more than the
2. Why is it possibly a hassle? Buy paper from the company that builds your printer. End of story and end of hassles.
3. Canon's don't constantly clog heads like other brands and have been very reliable in my experience.
4. The Free canon software that you get with your printer allows you to pre-crop and let's you see exactly what your going to get. Otherwise feel free to use the mindnumbingly easy jpegcrops.
5. Less than 1 minute per print.
Home prints are NOT the solution for heavy duty printouts. They are a not as good as the best setup commercial printers. They are almost as good and most people will not notice any difference.
Again I highly suggest you buy a Canon they are cheap to run, produce good results, and most importantly are easy to use.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I use a Canon S820 6-ink printer I bought for $100. I use RoyalBright glossy paper from Sams which ran $25 for 200 sheets. For the printer I use $1.59 cartridges from some place on Froogle. An 8x5" full glossy print gets me 4 pictures and costs far less than having them done online. I have pictures on my wall at work that have been up for two years and still look great.
I can go hiking, take pictures, and print a few when I get back to send home with my hiking buddy. You can't do that online.
Yes, it takes some practice to get pictures right. I use canon's easy print software and need to do some test prints with each type of paper I use to find the optimal setting. That is the key... what printer setting for what paper type I am using. I have 3 glossy settings and each produces a different result.
Jeff
I've been a happy user of ofoto.com for a couple years now. They have a Windows app you can download onto your PC for uploading photos to them, but it isn't required. They have a browser-based upload that works fine with Mozilla on Linux.
I like the fact that I can pick out the pics I want printed, upload them, then get them mailed to me and they arrive usually in about 5 days. Ofoto's prices are quite reasonable.
Ofoto.com is the main reason I never felt the need for a photo printer at home.
I am not affiliated with ofoto.com in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer.
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/
Yes. Yes I do. :-)
I subscribed to Playboy and Penthouse for years, and have every issue during that time. They are in several boxes in my garage. What to do with them? I'd hate to throw them away, and shipping wouldn't make it worthwhile on eBay. Hmmm, maybe as a tip for the trash collectors this year....
Having said that, I just had a nearly full 120GB hard drive crash. Unfortunately, it was my backup drive, and there were some things on there that I hadn't backed up offline anywhere yet. If a photo burns it is gone. I am still hoping that I can get some of my data back from this drive.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well, if you have that many issues, you ought to get something for them from a recycling company. Otherwise, just go around leaving them in waiting rooms in doctors' and dentists' surgeries and hairdressing salons .....
More of us than there are of you.
Color!
Elevator!
Aluminum!
Truck!
Potato chips!
More brain cells over here than over there.
Muppet!
Regarding the metal, I'm afraid you Americans are just plain wrong and always will be. This isn't a cultural difference, it's a FACT. It's called aluminium.
Just ask IUPAC (the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists). They say what chemicals are called and it's called aluminium.
Unfortunately, they also say that sulphur should be sulfur (I heard that the UK agreed to that providing the USA agreed to aluminium - don't know whether it's true). I've heard that the 'ph' in sulfur was a Victorian invention.
Thanks for the informative reply to someone trolling. I was actually about to ask what the meaning of 'high street' was... I'd never heard it before and figured it was a british-english term. We american-english folks sometimes get lost.
Is the meaning of 'walking on the high street' like the meaning of 'sailing the high seas'?
*this study paid for by HP and Epson
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Write books, wikipedia entries, whatever, but keep that knowledge alive! There is people that want to learn, even if just as a hobby because commercially it is not viable. I am tired of evolution meaning dumbing down and forgeting things. It just only means it will have to be repeated again, and it's highly ironic in the so called Information Age. Thanks.
I gave up on photo printers when every retailer in my area began offering prints from Kodak and Fuji kiosks for US$0.29. Sam's Club does them for 18 cents. I just can't see getting anywhere near that cost per print from an at-home solution. These self-serve machines accept several common memory card formats and even allow some basic editing of the image before printing. I bought a multi-format USB card reader so I can pull the pictures I want to print, including post-modification, from iPhoto and load them on a CF card. Not I can silence my wife's complaining that the pictures go into the black hole of my computer and she doesn't get normal prints. This is way cheaper than buying film and paying for whole roll processing when you factor how many prints you actually wanted. I figured we were paying up to a dollar or more for the prints we kept using her film camera.
I have a pretty good Epson photo printer and have made some nice booklets with it. But if I didn't print for a few weeks the ink would start to dry on the print heads and cause streaking that I couldn't eliminate with multiple cleanings. So I had to factor in the cost of replacing the black and/or color cartridges at $25 each when I wanted to print batches of pictures. Now I just run to CVS or Target and get nice glossy prints of the pictures I want for 29 cents each. The inconvenience of having to drive (a half mile to one or two miles to the other) is worth it for the cost savings and better quality. At least to me it is.
I have an HP PhotoSmart 7550 and I'd have to say that even with a generic program (or say, the windows printing wizard) it prints out BEAUTIFULLY in 6x9's etc whereas the photo-labs often hand me back a bunch of pixellated trash. Of course, with a 4MP camera some of the bigger pictures are going to be a bit pixelly, but overally I'd say most pictures in the area of 6x9 (or 8x10 when taken with decent lighting) come out very snappy. Certainly you can frame the 6x9's and nobody can tell that they came from a printer.
The major advantages?
a) Instant gratification: You can print, see if the print sucked, reprint,
b) Instant modification: Resize, adjust, etc on your PC as needed. Perhaps print some smaller prints with different contrast/brightness settings to see what looks best before printing a large set
c) Privacy: For those, um, personal pictures of you and your "significant other" (esp for slashdotters where your sign-other may be inflatable).
d) Reproduction: As long as you keep a copy of the original file on disk, you can always print out more copies later
e) Versatility: Heck, you can also print out pictures as/for postcards, greeting cards, etc
The major disadvantage though - one not mentioned in the article - is the sensitivity of photoprints from many printers to water. Even with my original HP cartridges I found a little drop would cause instant washout, and high condensation ruins a picture nicely. Normal prints seem to be a bit more resistant to this, perhaps they've got some form of glaze on them to protect against it?
Perhaps somebody might know of a chemical one can apply to protect the prints better against moisture? Short of lamination I can't think of anything offhand that wouldn't likely wash out the picture before setting in.
If you're in the Tampabay area, there's a magazine guy in the Oldsmar Fleamarket that specializes in Playboy. I picked up a brail edition Playboy as a gift for my Dad. One of the coolest things I've ever seen.
As for the porn, I'm not too worried about that. It's less than 20GB and, if it was to all vanish tomorrow, usenet would no doubt be able to supply replacements. Actually, maybe running a newsgroup server might be a good idea. Hmm...
I drank what? -- Socrates
I know it's not cost effective BUT it sure is a hell of a lot easier to fix the photo at home and print it then going to walmart or cvs to have them print my pictures. I print maybe 1 or 2 pictures a month if that.
I would agree that if you are printing 20 pictures a week it would make more sense to use an online service or go to a store.
Just my thoughts.
upmarket ?
Either this doesn't mean what you think it means or you haven't visited Gateshead
No but, yeah but, no but...
I've printed photos from time to time at home for a few years, but I still don't think it can come close to replacing professional printing.
;).
I agree that we're part of the "digital generation" but for previous generations (i.e. grandparents), they can't view the digital copies or reprint photos I give them every couple of years. So, taking a chance on printing quality/archival life isn't always worth it.
This article is great to show the potential of home prints, but you have to remember that 99% of users will NOT get optimum results from their printers. Most will use discount paper/ink/printers and it's not worth it to them to buy premium equipment/ink unless they print enough and know what they're doing.
Home printing is simply better suited (at this time) for convenience printing and stuff you don't want the world to see
What about the Target cost involved in going to the store? I take in my flash card or CD to Target to save a few dollars on printing. But while I'm there I figure I'll just get some paper towels, and quickly spend $50 on stuff I didn't really need. Then I go back to pick them up, and drop another $50 on more stuff I can do without. Net saving, *minus* $95.
Whasing is better-no need for paper. They did not use paper in the middle ages (or before) for that-paper was scarce and parchment would not do the job.l I think they went down a river and washed themselves.
Anyway, if you have hemoroids washing is recommended.
What is a "motor factor"?
Since most of his work, if not all, is worth a ton of money I would think that the owners would be willing to spend to preserve the paintings. Where did you see that article?
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
what the hell "High Street" is?
Once again the self rightous fools at slashdot chime in on subjects they have no understanding of. Keep to hacking your opens source shit and finding better ways to steal music. Leave the photography to people who know what they are doing.
- Advertisement -
Hey, if anybody is reading this and wants to get into the wet stuff, I've got a 6' stainless steel Leedal darkroom sink with cold water wash spigot and main thermostatic water faucet (you know, the big dial kind) for sale. Southwest Virginia, sacrifice for $350. (It was prob $3k when new)
I did B&W for a long time, and bought the sink to go in the darkroom I was building in my new house. Family responsibilities forced me to move out of that house, and I don't have room for a darkroom in the new house. Drop me an email at overzeetop at google mail dot com if interested.
- Advertisement -
* Introduction
This is a summary of what I have learned over the past year and a half. I'm not a professional and this isn't technical information. It's just practical information that may help some inkjet printing newbies out there. I learned what I know from visiting forums and first hand experience. I also conducted my own (very unscientific) 12 month test.
Hopefully, it will be more helpful than the PC Pro article. (that most of us couldn't see)
* The beginning.
I purchased a Canon i560 over a year ago as a general purpose printer. It was cheap. It had a modest TCO. It printed incredibly sharp text. And, BTW, it printed photos. As it turned out, I was stunned by the quality of the photos it produced and was thrown head first into an obsessive journey through forums, web searches, and experiments to find out how good things really could be.
From what I found on the Web, Canon prints, while beautiful, have a significantly shorter lifespan than HP or Epson dye prints. (note: the lifespan is typically defined as visible fading and discoloration, not disintegration ) Canon predicts about 25 years while HP and Epson predict closer to the 50-75 year mark. Epson pigment ink, when used with specific papers, has a predicted lifespan of over 100 years. Fuji Crystal Archive prints have a predicted lifespan of 65 years. Adding to the confusion, I found other sites with markedly different results using different test methods. I also found people claiming Canon prints would not last a year. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between but I was curious to find out if Canon prints really were as bad as some people claimed.
* 12 months of sun and heat.
My experiment consisted of placing a set of prints in an envelope in a cool dark place while an identical set was placed a few feet below a sunny roof window in a loft where the temperature regularly exceeds 100 degrees farenheit during the summer (not a place you would want to put any photos). I knew this would be a harsh test but I was curious to see how the Canon prints would hold up compared to Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak dye-sub prints. I also reprinted the photos after 12 months to have fresh prints for comparison.
After 12 months of heat, humidity and direct sunlight I found that the Canon prints exposed to sunlight did fade noticeably but not as badly as I would have expected. Most consumers would probably have a hard time noticing anything wrong with the prints until they were compared side-by-side to the originals. The Canon prints stored away from the sun looked identical to the new prints.
The Fuji Crystal Archive prints (printed on a Fuji Frontier) that were exposed to the sun did not show any noticeable fading and were indescernable from the prints stored away from the sun and the new prints.
The Kodak dye-sub prints (printed on a mini-fridge-sized printer at a large pharmacy chain) that were exposed to sunlight faded as much as the Canon prints. The Kodak prints stored away from the sun were indescernable from the new prints.
Having said that, I should mention that I have a number of 8x10s that were printed on a small, desktop Kodak dye-sub printer about eight years ago. They are all framed behind cheap glass and hung in open areas. They are not exposed to extreme conditions and have not shown any noticeable deterioration.
The take home points for me?
1. If the print is going to end up on a refrigerator or on a bulletin board then there is nothing to worry about. It's basically a disposable photo and all the printer manufacturers are suited for this.
2. If you want your photos to last but don't want the fuss of selecting and maintaining a more expensive printer then have them printed on a Fuji Frontier printer at a commercial location.
3. Consider the Epson printers that use pigment-based inks if you want to resell or archive your photos.
4. A
". . . the new generation of printers produced images with brighter colours and that were less likely to fade than many High Street developers or even some professional wedding photographers."
I didn't know professional wedding photographers resided fading so well they were the benchmark against which photographic prints will be held. I'd have guessed that wedding photgraphers would fade faster. They certainly seem to turn grey faster. Must be all those demanding parents of the wedding couple.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you're taking pictures of your puppy, WalMart is fine. They'll take your 2 megapixel snapshot, and turn it into an acceptable 5x7.
If you're like most "keen amateur photographers," you'll also go to WalMart, because you're too cheap, or too indiscriminate to use anything better. Many "keen amateur photographers" don't print much at all, actually -- they post their pretty pictures of sunsets and bugs online to photo.net, and they're happy. When they have to make the occasional print for Uncle Frank, they go to WalMart, and Uncle Frank doesn't know the difference.
For the "keen amateur photographers" who actually care about the quality of the images they produce -- I'm thinking of artists, and people who enjoy the craft of photography -- it is probably cheaper to produce inkjet prints than to use traditional photographic processes. For these people, sending prints to WalMart isn't an option. They want control over the printing process, and the pimply kid behind the counter at the local fotomat isn't going to make the cut.
Sure, these people could pay a master printer to make their prints, and the results would be fantastic. But, guess what? Master printers don't work at WalMart, and they don't come cheaply.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I went through the entire registration (with fake information) just to read the frickin' article only to find out I have to buy the magazine.
Slashdot, WTF?!!? Quit advertising for these pukes and post some real stories!
A supplier of vehicle spares: hoses, gaskets, anti-freeze, fuses, silencer repair tape, that sort of thing.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If you want that photo to last, just use a proven 100 year life time when done on the cheap technology - analog photography.
:-).
If you look at the quality that conventional photography has reached over the last 50 years, you'll see that the addition of film + paper + chemicals = years without worrying about pictures fading because of ink issues.
You still have to take care to prevent acidity and UV light hitting your photos - that's why you pay for quality framing, but on the whole, a conventional print will last easily 50+ and now probably ~100 years without deteriorating with nominal care taken.
I'm sure digital will catch up. We'll just have to wait a while to see the results. See you next century
Do you live in England?
-Seriously PCPRO is run by the SAME company as ALL the other pc mags but has twice as much content better cover disc and is aimed at IT pros not home users.
-It also actively promotes:- Firefox, Linux, OO.o (used to but said it needs better mail client integration)
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
I shoot originals on medium format (Mamiya 645) with Fuji Provia 100 almost exclusively and scan with a Minolta Scan Multi II. The scanner is actually the limiting factor! My COGS for an 8x10 print is just under $2 using Epson Archival Matte paper and Epson ink. I've sold hundreds of prints which still look fabulous after a couple of years on display.
My production process is not perfect- I'd like a better scanner and eventually will replace my 2000P's with 2200's or whatever comes out to replace that model. Still, I am very happy with the results I get and wouldn't be interested in farming out printing unless I move to high-volume offset (postcards or whatever.)
My work is online at Lumigraphics if anyone is interested.
i have this: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDe tail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=41642105 epspon photomate. at $150, it prints 4x6 prints full-bleed wonderfully (without the need for cropping)
we've been printing for 6 months, on the epson ink/paper combo (permabrite ?) and it looks great, with no short-term fading at all.
A pro-photographer friend of mine, who has large epson printers, swears by the Epson special ink/paper combo: he backs up Epson's statement: "'.. And, PictureMate photos will last longer than all the alternatives available today - about 2 to 4 times longer than photo lab prints...."
i use this little box to pring out the 4x6 snaps instead of using shutterfly, but i use them for larger sizes, etc. It's $29.99 retail for the 7 color ink pack and 100 sheets of paper, so about $0.25 per print, after HW costs.
it's very small and portable (see the handle) and although you could use it via USB to Mac or XP, as a real printer, we use our CF/SD cards to print, as i have enough USB cables.
Nikon D70 -> CF-card-reader -> Photoshop (XP or OS X) -> "finals" back on CF -> Picture mate (so we don't waste printing a contact sheet).
Some of the larger units by HP or Epson have an LCD dislpay so you can 'see' what you want, but we always touch up with software via our laptop(s), and like the portability, so we don't miss an LCD on the printer. But if you want camera->printer without a laptop, an LCD wouldn't hurt.
If she floats, she's a witch.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you're truly serious about getting into photography, before you go drop $1500 on a DSLR with a good lens, go spend a few hundred and take an intoductory photography class at your local higher-ed institue. Sure, it'll probably be B&W Photos, but you learn the invaluable aspects of composition, lighting, proper metering ("But I used the automatic function, why can't I see their faces?"), so on and so forth - all the things that you can't really pick up by just playing around with a camera. Sure, digital cameras are making the technical end of photography available to the masses, but having a digi doesn't mean that you're magically gonna become skilled at the artistic aspect of it.
On a side note, while decent photo printers might produce brighter and longer-lasting colors, I've noticed the accuracy of the colors isn't up to good old-fashioned halide prints. I haven't directly seen any 8-ink prints yet, but I suspect even they won't quite beat out good color fils, particularly not reversal (slide) film. Sure, prints from that are noticeably more expensive, but for a really nice photo, it shouldn't be THAT much of an issue.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
We have this BIG honkin' printer, got the roll media, got the automatic cutter, internet printing, Jedi light sword holder, coffee mug warmer...
8 32 _C7791B.html
.... no. Even with the right inks ... and your "negitive" is alway subject to deletion and media rot.
http://h50025.www5.hp.com/hpcom/sg_en/10_25_59_
It prints beaUtifully!
Would I trust my archival prints to it
I believe there's still film negitives from the dawn of photography still around.
Digital is a great b-a-c-k-u-p.
Keep your film cameras folks, it's cheaper and far prettier
Now, some pretty pictures:
http://www.shellycorbett.com/index.html
~hylas
I've found printing at home to be a waste of money. West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com) prints Chromira prints in 16x20 for around $25. They look better than prints made at home, and I can get enough to wallpaper a room for the price of a home printer, paper, and ink to do it.
I think you'll find, actually, that Idle is a district of the city of Bradford, it is not a town in its own right. And it's Working Men's Club, too.
It appears that a staff member posted some interesting info in the comments section of the article, so heck I try to register.
But their reg form says this when I try their suggested reg name (michaelp11):
"Please choose another username which does not contain the word ae"
Is 'ae' some sort of horrible slur in the UK?????
I tried to use their "contact us" link and it sends me to the same broken registration form, nice you need to register to tell them their registration form is broken, way to reduce support cost (and readership, but who cares about readership?)
They may be "PCPros" but their site was clearly designed by a "WebAmateur".
The rule is: any slashvertisement must contain the message within the summary (typically one or two sentences). Otherwise, it's not as effective. The message here is:
Additional evidence is in the BBC link:
It recommended avoiding so-called third-party inks not produced by printer makers because they tended to produce prints that fade the quickest.
I'm a hobbie digital photobug. I print about 200 pics per month. I have a Canon i960 - Still the best vs the PIXMA line(on sale @ tigerDirect for $98)...28 sec for an lab quality 4x6. 6 color, 2 pico-liter droplet technology. The new PIXMAs are mostly 4 color and slower. The PIXMA 5000 is 1 pico-liter tehcnology and 9600 dpi. That is one too see...Anyway, tried many third party ink refills(did not color match) and found that alotofthings.com had the BEST quality inks and great price. Plain old Epson glossy paper turns out to be the best per $$$ paper on the planet. For objective photo printer reviews, check out steves-digicams.com
From what I read on the net, Epson uses pigments and Canon uses dyes. Molecularly, dyes are smaller and therefor Canon can get the 1-2 pico-liter droplet and fine resolution. Epson can not get as fine but pigments tend to have the BEST archival properties.
I just plug my smart media card into the machine, Decide on which photos I want printed. Then pick up the prints about an hour later. For typical home photos, the quality is just fine. I usually don't make prints. I just copy directly the computer.
I, for one, have no use for some some expensive printer to create prints. Not for the few prints I make in a year.
"A debunked myth spouted by FOX news"
Gore's lie in taking credit for creation of the Internet is found in CNN's web site. In fact,he made the false statement during a CNN interview, so it is in their records.
What Fox News says about it does not matter. I've never heard them say anything about it. Most likely, they are doing what others are doing: looking at Gore's actual statement. I only care what Gore actually said.
So the question is, which is the more onerous constraint. I ain't no dye chemist, but intuitively, 'squirtable' seems less constraining than 'light sensitive,' because almost anything that could be deposited by old-fashioned photo processes can also be ground up fine and suspended in liquid for squirting. Any dye chemists out there who can shed some light (and color) on the question?
One other thing that definitely favors inkjet: Inkjets are not restricted to a mere 3 primaries. HP uses 6 (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow) while Epson adds black to the mix (and sometimes gray) for a grand total or 7 or 8. This will at minimum give you a larger color gamut, and probably blacker blacks.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
The only thing wrong with your long complaint about a lack of quality is that your typing accuracy is poor. Does somewhat undermine your complaint! I guess that all those photo labs are taking about as much care as you do...
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
Ah, sorry to break your bubble but MINE is REALLY A LOT BIGGER than yours...all 6 of them..http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/igen/iGen.jsp?vi ew=Landing&Xcntry=USA&Xlang=en_US
Sure I know that laser prints can't match the quality of a top-end inkjet, but a color laser (think lexmark c510 or hp 2550L) can give decent results for most uses. The cost is unbelievably cheaper, you can get nice color fidelity and resolution and even on el-cheap-o paper a laser print will not fade. For the few photos that have great sentimental value you may (a) print them at some good print shop or (b) keep them on an archival grade CD-R and print them every 5 years or so using your current printer.
I use a HP 970Cxi and have printed a few photos. Not bad, especially compared to average professional print services. One of the reasons I switched to digital from my trusty canon EOS SLR was that I had to only use a few print shops to get the kind of service I wanted. Now I can store my pictures on CD and print on the best printer I can find.
P.
I have a HP Photosmart, lovely pictures but the first time you touch them with a damp finger - they blur!
I've had occasion to WASH regular photo prints and they held up fine. Unless there's something bizarre wrong with my printer it's a definite issue for me.
Well Canon is comming out with some new ink tanks series called CromaLife100 campatible with the iP8600, iP8100, iP7100, iP6100D, iP4100, iP4100R, iP3100, MP900, MP790, MP770, and the new PIXMA printers. .
Computer translation: "The silver salt photograph which from the negative film you develop & print and the photograph which is printed with the ink jet printer fade, with lapse of time, gradually. This does being something due to the influence of the gas and the light which are included in the air. As holds down these influences to minimum, the photograph it is beautiful succeeding in no year making maintain, the new dye ink " BCI-7 " of CANON. It is the dye ink where beauty of of course is proud high conservation, evolved."
See the tranlation or the original
-- I need to remember to update my sig
Got mine. Tenth birthday present, IIRC, and a quarter century (um, plus) later, it still works.
Unfortunately, Pentax cancelled the model in 1997, though used equipment should be available for the next several decades.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Just found this article about new developments in display technology:Nanotech Brings Cheap Flat TVs From Diamond Dust.
So maybe I get a chance to hang a few of these on my walls...
I don't need a signature.
Hi all, Sorry to all you american's who can't get the magazine - we didn't expect it to go global. Pretty much every question that's asked here is answered in the mag but I can't post a 21-page article here. If you're worried about all the slashdot/bbc article sounding advertorial - that's because all of the contents are based on the press release we put out - not the main article itself. That's how most news stories work. If there are any simple/direct questions I'll do my best to answer some. But we're a touch busy on the next issue now. Bestest, N