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."
Please include the whole sentence: But not if you choose the right combination of printer, ink and paper It gives a whole other meaning :)
There's a better article on the results at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092653.stm
They do seem to be better - but are they ripping you with their prices? Colour HP cartidge works out at £1.70 per millilitre - 1985 Dom Perignon costs 23p per millilitre
having actually purchased the magazine and read the article it was really informative and well written.
The main point of it was to state that it is cheaper to produce large 8*10 prints (A4) at home than on the high street and the winner for quality and light fastness was the epson r800 which i am going to buy after christmas. They have published images of the prints on different papers and different inks from the manufacturers, the inkjets that used ultrachrome inks came out on top, the epson r800 and the HP's that used their next generation ink showed no fading after 3months in direct light behind glass (taped face out against a window)
I was impressed and would recommend buiying it, even just for the cover DVD which ACTIVELY promotes using linux as it includes the latest Suse distro.
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.
The article (haven't clicked, I'm a PC Pro subscriber so I have the Dead Tree Edition next to me) does indeed compare digital "print it at home" to digital "get it printed at a photo lab" (both "high-street" services and online offerings).
Their double page "longevity comparison" feature goes into great detail on the before-and-after survival of every combination of inks and papers under test, both unprotected and in glass frames, left in direct sunlight in their office window for 3 months. Apart from Lexmark's 19+90 inks (or Kodak Ultima paper on quite a lot of inks), they all survived well in frames, generally not so well in the open air.
Bit of a pity they only included one commercial photo-processor's prints in those fading/survival results (Snappy Snaps, silver halide on to Kodak Royal Paper) as I would've liked to see some better quality comparisons in that field. (faded in open air, didn't degrade noticably under glass, btw)
They also borrow (and credit) some stats from Cockeyed.com to point out that Scorpion Venom pwns all opposition in the expensive liquids stakes - £5532.18 per millilitre.
"At least Shrub never lied to the media..."
WMD, anyone?
"....claimed he invented the Internet"
A debunked myth spouted by FOX news.
You sir, are a f*cking idiot.
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
"However, in general I would rather chew off my own left arm than set foot in Wal-Mart, making this an unattractive option."
I agree with your sentiments about Wal-Mart, but let me point out that you can upload pictures to walmart.com and have them shipped to you. I have found the quality from Wal-Mart to be better than other on-line processing places. Of course, you're still doing business with Wal-Mart which will make you feel sort of dirty and partly responsible for the ruining of the American economy, but at least you don't have to set foot in the hell hole.
Buy a Canon.
Not me; I've bought my last one. I own an i950 and while it has stunning print quality as it rolls out of the printer, the pictures fade very fast. Not even in bright sunlight; in rooms that have a lot of light, yes, but not directly falling on the pictures. I can only imagine what would happen in direct sunlight!
I use Canon ink and Canon photo paper exclusively. I contaced Canon support and they claim some ridiculous longevity like 25 years... baloney. I'm seeing changes in 25 weeks or less. They have some method of coming up with their figures according to the brightness, pictures must be under plastic, etc. Well, gee, welcome to the real world where pictures sit out exposed to light and air.
I'd understand small changes in a few years, but what I'm seeing consistently borders on fraud IMO.
My digital photofile nephew swears by the midrange Epsons, claiming they have some patented ink that resists fading to a much greater degree. I think I may end up with a R800 soon...
Your mileage may vary. But I doubt it.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
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.
...but you can't remember where you read it because your tinfoil hat blocks the memories.
Different inks from different manufacturers have totally different formulations.
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.
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.
For the auto-didacts in the audience, go buy a couple of good books, an inexpensive camera with full manual controls (Pentax K1000 is great) and go nuts. If you've already got the fancy, shmancy DSLR, set it to "M" and don't change that setting until you're done with the books.
The reviews on Amazon are pretty helpful in selecting appropriate books for your own interests and abilities, but I always recommend "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print" by Ansel Adams for early reading on photography. You may not think that all of that info on silver emulsion photography would help with digital cameras, but you'd be wrong...
Regards,
Ross
most glass are opaque to large portions of the UV spectrum. Glass can be designed to stop virtually all UV, or to pass all UV or something in between.
But again the point is most people would not have their photos laying about where they would have constant UV exposure.
Go to a craft store that offer painting supplies. Ask for spray can of "Final Fixative" for charcoal sketches. I use the Grumbacher brand and it works great. Just let your prints dry well (I usually wait 24 hours). Tape your prints by the edges onto a piece of cardboard and spray it on outside your home. Let dry well and give them out.