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

Where is the REAL content of the article???

[some1somewhere]

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?!

Printing -- how long?

[koi88]

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...

Re:Printing -- how long?

[koi88]

Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

Print is not dead. It's dying. That's a difference.
I work in an advertising agency, and while all work is done on computers, most people print out everything, to check, for correction, etc. But you can clearly see that most younger and/or computer-skilled people print out considerably less.
My boss is running printing something every 10 minutes, he just doesn't like reading on the computer screen. I don't mind. Most younger people prefer to work only on the computer and only print out for the last check.

Not yet paperless, but certainly less paper.

Re:Printing -- how long?

[fistynuts]

I kind of agree with the fact that the amount of paper being used is decreasing, but it is happening remarkably slowly.
For example in my office we still use the same quality system that was used maybe 20-30 years ago. All of the documents involved have to be printed out for people to sign and file. The idea of doing this electronically has been banded about for a while but there's a huge amount of inertia (or perhaps downright opposition). We have files and files (and files) full of printed documents that are already stored on the servers for all to access.

Madness.

Cost?

[Geeky]

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.

Apples And Oranges

[R.Caley]

Maybe the summary and the BBC article are missleading, but if they are comparing developing and printing of chemical photographs with printing of digital ones, the comparison hardly seems interesting. I can't print from my 35mm film, and I don't think having my flash cards dunked in chemicals would be useful.

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'.

The Right Combination?

[NotTheEgg]

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?

Re:Printer Ink

[Ford Prefect]

The Epson printer mentioned (r800?) has IIRC 8 cartridges - I saw them for £7 which i didn't think was too bad. Mind you i don't do a lot of high colour print outs.

If you're thinking about doing a lot of printing, look into getting a continuous ink system. I don't have one (neither am I associated with the above company!), but I do print a fair number of my photos for people and it's something I'm really starting to think about.

As for the colour fading issue with different inks - I've been running my Epson Stylus Photo 1290 on proper Epson ink since I got it, and the photos I printed a while ago look absolutely identical to new copies I print. My father's got one in a frame and it's been up on a wall in a bright room for over a year, but no change...

If you just want your holiday snaps printing, then taking the memory card to the local supermarket or photo outlet can be fine - but as the article says, you do get a lot more control if you print them yourself. I got some printed at Jessops (free gift thing), and while the detail was great, the colours were... Brown. I get much better results from my own printer, even if it is a tad expensive to run.

Oh, and biggest tip possible - get a guillotine. Cropping printouts with a scalpel or scissors is asking for trouble. I make birthday and Christmas cards myself, people really appreciate it but the truth is I can never remember to buy cards. ;-)

Home Printing=Hassle

[AndreySeven]

Speaking from experience, I found that printing at home is not worth the time and money.

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

Printer == Not cost effective

[Civil_Disobedient]

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.

work with open source software???

[thomasa]

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

Use ink with pigments, not organic dyes

[ortholattice]

The article doesn't seem to mention this, unless I missed it in a quick reading. To prevent fading, you need to use printer that uses inks based on pigments, such as the Epson 2200:

"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."

Re:Printer Ink

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that all the printer ink used in every single inkjet printer everywhere in the whole world all comes from one factory, and it's in France. Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Lexmark and Epson all buy the same ink to fill their cartridges with, and the people who sell the refill kits also buy the same ink that the printer makers buy.

My own 12 month test/quest

[Malcreant]

* 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

Not Even Close

[Tim]

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.