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."

Comments

Re:The correct link

[TummyX]

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.

Printer Ink

[elfin_spectre]

The test gives a great boost to the idea of buying very expensive ink cartridges from the manufacturers.

Re:Printing -- how long?

[fistynuts]

Oh yeah, print is dead. Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

Generally, people like having something physical to deal with.

Plus, once a picture is printed out it requires no maintenance. I'm buggered if I'm going to dedicate a PC to showing a photo on my wall.

machines versus machines

[Daniel Ellard]

Besides the fact that the linked story flatly contradicts the premise of the posting... The implication that a good printer is as good as a "professional" is quite misleading. Color prints are typically not done by humans, they're done by a machine. If you want prints done by a human, they will cost more, but of the person is competent then you'll get much better prints -- where "better" doesn't mean "brighter colours" but "looks better". A printer or a printing machine reproduce their input, while a professional can look at a negative and decide whether to alter the contrast, color balance, burn or dodge, etc.

Re:Cost?

[UnAmericanPunk]

I have to agree with this... I am a semi-professional photographer and I've never seen anything from a home printer compare to what you could get done at a service bureau (or select photo stores, sometimes costco[which uses fuji crystal archive] which offers a 11x14 for $3). Also, I've moved on from the 8x10 prints to larger prints (11x14 or 16x20) and if you want a printer to do that then it's gonna cost a whole lot more money.
I wonder how the comparison with the "high street" stores was done. What paper was used by them and what printing machines did they use? That's a big factor... perhaps the article says, but I don't care to purchase the magazine to find out.

Only 12 months

[jetmarc]

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".

This is completely contrary to my experience

[Zog The Undeniable]

Halide colour prints (i.e. on conventional photo paper) are good for at least ten years, and many decades if they're not in direct sunlight. Ilfochromes are even better. Inkjet prints from your average Epson or HP printer will fade in weeks when hung on the wall. My father has one which was printed earlier this year and only the cyan parts are left.

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?

Real photo prints:

[SynapseLapse]

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.