Fall 2005 Photo Printer Buyers Guide

lfescalante writes "DesignTechnica has some great tips on what to look for when buying a Photo Printer. From the article: 'Some of the best printers offer 9600 x 2400 DPI and over 50 levels of gradation. Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print.'"

Comments

And ...

[Alranor]

The most important specification for /. readers:

Is it supported on Linux? :)

You can check at linuxprinting.org

Re:And ...

[djsamuraisam]

no, the most important specification for /. readers: Does it run linux? if not, Can it run linux?

Re:And ...

[dgatwood]

I'm not sure about Linux, but I think it's a safe bet that NetBSD runs on it. And my toaster, my refrigerator, and somebody ported it to my cordless drill....

:-D

Re:And ...

[zakezuke]

no, the most important specification for /. readers: Does it run linux? if not, Can it run linux?

Most linux users know about turboprint, some already posted a link to the epson drivers... here is the link to the offical canon linux drivers

ftp://download.canon.jp/pub/driver/bj/linux/

So

[Anonymous Coward]

No real news to post then?

Seriously, I would hope most Slashdot readers are capable of finding a good photo printer on their own. Those that need a little help can probably find a better source of information than this dry, four page advert.

Re:So

[mustafap]

Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab. If a photo is worth printing out, do it properly, so it gets printed with inks that wont fade with time. And certainly in my case, it's still cheaper. Home photo printers are a costly gimick.

Re:So

[Pieroxy]

While I completely agree with you for mass printing, there are cases where photo printer is so much more convenient that it outweight all the drawbacks (quality and price).

Not mentionning that modern inks (at least EPSON ones) don't fade with time as much as they used to. They are actually pretty good in that regard.

But when you're in a rush, doing tests, or just printing the one picture of the day, photo printers are the right tool for the job.

Re:So

[iangoldby]

When you're out shopping, the higher the resolution, the smaller the dots...

No, higher resolution does not necessarily mean smaller drops. Smaller drop size means smaller drops.

The best way to gauge any printer's photo capabilities is looking at sample prints at the store

Except that these are often highly tweaked images and are sometimes even printed from a demo application that doesn't even use the usual printer driver.

or on printer company websites.

Huh? Am I supposed to judge from an image on the website, or should I download a sample and print it out? (It reminds me of a TV ad trying to demonstrate how much better the colours are on their TV...)

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

No, the smaller the drop size, the more dots are needed to lay down an equivalent amount of ink.

I stopped reading at this point.

Re:So

[Tony Hoyle]

I have *never* seen any photo printer give the same quality as the sample prints they hand out in stores.

Not even close, in fact. I suspect they're not just using custom drivers, but custom ink and paper too.

Re:So

[caveat]

Just for the record, a lab print isn't ink-based, at least at the shop I go to - they use one of these suckers (maybe not that exact brand/model, but you get the point) to "paint" the image onto genuine light-sensitive color photo paper that's processed the old-fashioned way with chemicals. $1.99 for an 8x10, $2.99 for an 11x14. They look a hell of a lot better than any photo print I've ever seen, including dyesubs, and they last and last. When I do a print for my small photography side business, I do it this way...the client is almost always amazed with the result, and asks me what kind of printer I use, they just have to get one for themselves. I tell them "trade secret" :)

If you just have to use your printer, I'd suggest Ilford GALERIE Classic paper; it has an encapsulation system that soaks up the ink and mostly protects it from fading, It's pricey (enough so that there's NO economic advantage over a lab print) and takes a full day to dry out, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get from an inkjet. When I do prints for my own consumption, I ususally go this route for the convenience.

Re:So

[Limecron]

Just to play devil's advocate...

>> When you're out shopping, the higher the resolution, the smaller the dots...

> No, higher resolution does not necessarily mean smaller drops. Smaller drop size means smaller drops.

They said dots, not drops. Higher resolution does mean smaller dots. Smaller drops means you can produce different shades of color within each dot.

A common mistake when printer shopping is comparing just DPI. (Not to say the parent poster has done this.) On a monitor, your DPI is around 70-120, but each dot is 1 of 16 million colors (really 3 smaller RGB dots). On many printers, while the resolution can be 1440 DPI, a dot can be only one of 4 colors. Some can do blending on the same dot. Some can produce different shades of one color on one dot.

>> The best way to gauge any printer's photo capabilities is looking at sample prints at the store or on printer company websites.

> Except that these are often highly tweaked images and are sometimes even printed from a demo application that doesn't even use the usual printer driver.

Yes, you're right, this is pure crap. One of my long time wishes is that retail stores would have a set of generic test prints that they would produce on each printer that they carried. That way you could compare apples to apples across a variety of image and text prints.

>> Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

> No, the smaller the drop size, the more dots are needed to lay down an equivalent amount of ink.

Perhaps the author meant you can put a bigger variety of ink in the same area. The important factor of drop size, is that some printers will be able to produce different shades of a particular ink in the same dot using a smaller or larger drop size.

The whole thing does read like a big ad for buying a printer though. Not much useful technical information,

Re:So

[OzPeter]

I agree that you can't beat a decent lab for print price and quality. I am sure I saw something recently on /. that suggested that the price per print you could get from a typical lab was such that there was no economic advantage of printing at home.

My problem is the lab that I am now about to stop using can't following fscking instructions, or even bill me correctly for the work I have had done for me. Morons.

Of course real photos are made with precious metals in dark rooms with lots of environmentally unfriendly chemicals ;-)

Re:So

[mysticgoat]

Using a photo lab is certainly a good option for a lot of people, especially with "point & shoot" casual photographs. You can get some very good photos and prints that way.

However I might spend half a day or more working on a promising photo in the digital darkroom. I have gotten some excellent results from images that were technically bad but had good artistic qualities, and I rarely find a photo that won't benefit from some tweaking with the unsharp mask and the histogram. But to do this kind of work-up properly requires being able to do test prints on the printer and paper that I'll use for the final product.

A good home color printer beats using a lab for any photo buff who has reached the phase where he wants to do test prints or explore different papers. I'm currently using a Canon 9900, and I'm very pleased with its quality and economy.

Re:So

[mysticgoat]

I stopped reading at this point.

That's too bad, but I appreciate your honesty. It helps in assessing how much weight should be given to your comments. :-)

Printers that use small drops have more nozzles, and with more nozzles, they can use more sophisticated dithering patterns for color gradations. I use a Canon 9900, which has a nominal resolution 4800x2400 dpi, but each of those "dots" can be built up from overlayments of 8 different inks in a large number of different combinations. Printers with 9600 dpi can achieve the same quality with 6 different inks and fancier dithering patterns (more nozzles and a more expensive print head).

While TFA talks about the smaller drops providing more resolution, I don't think anyone should put too much weight on that aspect. All of these higher end printers are working with the way the paper will bleed neighboring "dots" into each other, and doing so at higher resolutions than the human eye can resolve. The end product is a watercolor painting. With some papers and ink weights, the end result is truly an analog product as the neighboring "dots" completely blend into each other before the ink dries.

Re:So

[RDW]

This is certainly true for typical consumer labs. However, if you can find a (reasonably priced!) pro-oriented lab that provides you with an ICC profile for the printer and paper they use, and you have a full colour-managed workflow with a properly profiled monitor, excellent results should be possible. There's a good guide to this approach here:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printe r_profiles.htm

Most of this workflow is also applicable to home printing, but you'll need to profile your printer & papers as well (probably worth it in the long run, as it should cut down on the number of test prints).

Re:So

[ChrisMaple]

Any printer filling in a uniform, moderately light area with a sparse pattern of dark ink will produce dots that are visible (and annoying) to any person capable of focussing closer than about 5 inches.

Re:So

[iangoldby]

I may not have been entirely clear, but what I was getting at is that a printer with large drops and nominally high resolution (close nozzle spacing or multiple passes) will produce large dots that overlap a great deal. A printer with small drops and high resolution will produce dots that overlap much less. The apparent sharpness should be better with the latter, but it is not laying down more ink. In fact at a given resolution, the printer with smaller dots is laying down less ink.

It isn't necessarily true that printers with closer-spaced nozzles/higher resolution have smaller drops - that depends on the quality of the printer.

But I expect you are quite right that printers with small drops have more nozzles (and more closely spaced), or otherwise require more passes to get full ink coverage.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

Home photo printers are a costly gimick.

Yes, home photo printers are a "costly gimick" [sic].

But so is Photoshop. Who needs to do that themselves? There are kiosks that let you do that really cheaply.

And setting the exposure on your camera? Gimmick! There are plenty of cameras that don't have such confusing features, and they're cheaper, too.

Feh.

I don't know about 'mustafap', but the progression of my photographic career/hobby is to one of having more and more control over my phtographs.

Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab.

Yes -- and the best source of photographs is from a professional studio. Does that make personal cameras just a costly gimmick?

Re:So

[mysticgoat]

Thanks for the link about printer profiles. I'll put it to good use later today.

Several months ago, I spent some effort in calibrating my software with my printer and my monitor, and got to where things were almost good enough that I could reduce my test prints to "proof of concept" kinds of things. After a lot of head scratching, I realized that I don't have sufficient control over the ambient lighting in the room to make it work. There was no way that I could be sure that what I was seeing on the screen would be close to how the image would print. Time of day, sunny or cloudy out, which lights I had on or off, and possibly some drift in my older monitor's settings were problems I can't solve at this point. Essentially, the effective gamma and color balance of my monitor are moving targets under these conditions.

I suspect that I'm not alone in facing these problems. For me, it is far easier and more efficient to do test prints than to work with profiles.

I can see a tremendous advantage in getting the printer profiled correctly, so that I can be sure that my final print is the same as what I would get if I send the image to lab (for multiple copies, for instance). So I will look at the link you provided most carefully, and probably revisit the profiling issue and make sure that I've got the printer part of it right.

Re:So

[OzPeter]

There's an easy fix to this .. shoot, develop and print B&W No colour correction needed ;-)

Re:So

[mysticgoat]

Any printer filling in a uniform, moderately light area with a sparse pattern of dark ink will produce dots that are visible (and annoying) to any person capable of focussing closer than about 5 inches.

While this is true, I don't see its relevance in a discussion of photorealistic printing quality. The only times I've ever run into anything close to what you describe is when shooting documents for OCR conversion to digital form-- which is "photo" work, but isn't intended to be "realistic" (distortions are purposefully introduced to increase the OCR accuracy).

Re:So

[modecx]

Oh, I've seen prints that rival those examples they have in the store, and with much older photo printers, using regular pigment based OEM inks, and regular inkjet photo paper. Indeed, I've made some myself!

Epson's modern UltraChrome K3 inkjets, for example, use the *exact* same ink set, with the same gamut as their wide-format professional series. I've seen images produced with the older generation models that would blow your mind. Of course, dye inks are going to generally produce a wider color gamut, but they fade, and fast. Epson's pigments are rated to last over a hundred years before fading noticeably, and they have an excellent gamut. I hear the UltraChrome K3 inks do superbly with black levels, and that's hugely important!

The trick is, to get great prints, you've got to be a friend of Photoshop, understand what a histogram is telling you, know how to adjust black and white points, know how to use "levels" and "curves", know how to adjust gamma and contrast, and further how to tune individual areas of an image, at the very least. It's imperative to understand what color space does for your images. The sRGB JPEG that comes straight from the average digital camera simply does not cut it if your images are contrasty, or have a ***wide*** range of vibrant colors. Some DSLRs support Adobe RGB 1998 color space for JPEG, and this is the way to go, but people just don't know. Of course, it's best to shoot in RAW if possible... Better color range, plus you have a better chance to fiddle with exposure.

It also helps GREATLY to have and use color management hardware and software to profile your monitor, at the very least. It makes all the difference in the world, but average people just are not going to go through the effort, partly because they don't know better, and partly because they're just printing a picture of their kid to put on the fridge, or give to Aunt Jane. However, if they saw what someone who knows better could do to their print, they might be inclined to learn!

Naturally, the images printed as examples are designed to show off what the printer can do. To begin with, they have wide variations in color, they have good contrast, and are sharp as a tack--everything to make the would-be buyer and printer drewl with envy. The images were likely made with professional cameras, lenses and other equipment, by someone who knows how to use them effectively... Then they were likely edited to near perfection. Adding all of that up, should one expect that grandma's prints would look like the examples? Of course not... But are the printers capable? Yes, absolutely!

And therein lies the problem. Software can't automatically do these things, and it will never do them to the capacity that an experienced human can. It's going to be above the head of the average person to go about doing these things, because the learning curve is steep, and they just want to print photos to hang on the fridge, after all. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Re:So

[TheNetAvenger]

Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab. If a photo is worth printing out, do it properly, so it gets printed with inks that wont fade with time. And certainly in my case, it's still cheaper. Home photo printers are a costly gimick. *(gimmick)

Ok, many of the items in the posted article are inaccurate or misleading at best. But that aside, let's address your issue.

Chemical print longevity on average falls far behind what is capable of Ink Jet technologies.

Epson introduced archival Inks standard on many of their printers over 6 years ago. The initial products provided 70-80 archival life, and the extended archive in subsequent models are rated for 200 years. You will NOT find this in a photo lab.

Additionally, to just dismiss ink jet printers is kind of missing the point of what they are for. If you are looking for LONG TERM storage of any images, turning them into a digital form and putting them a form of long live Optical storage is true 'preservation'.

So as for your inks that won't fade with time, A) Photo labs don't usually use Inks, it is a 'developed' chemical print. B) Chemical printing solutions have even more problems with photo fading, and if you don't believe this, go dig out a color photo you had printed even 10 years ago, the fade has already begun.

Where if you wanted long term you could pick up an Epson Printer, 200 year inks and paper, and seal the photo to prevent ozone and in air chemical contamination.

BTW as for one fact in the Article from the post that is misleading, it implies what is 'NEW' about the inks in the Epson R300 is that they have a 70-80 year archival status. However this is NOT what is NEW about these inks.

Go read on the dye/pigment based ink differences, and also notice do to the non-heat heads used by Epson that most of their printers are capable of using either type of ink, depending on the model. This means using a pigment instead of a dye based ink, they can print on richer variations in media and be sun fast for years. An example of this would be a banner for outside, as the ink on the banner comes down to being a form of paint and not an absorbed ink.

Re:So

[Lawrence_Bird]

perhaps work in the dark? or close the blinds and only use the same lighting
in the room?  You should also calibrate your monitor, though the most important
thing would be to get the white and black levels and gamma response correct.
Unless you have a really good reason to do so, playing with colors shouldn't
be necessary.  I've also found it best not to go too far with changes in contrast and brightness and similar, but thats just me.   And have to remember
you are altering what amounts to a slide, not a negative. 

Re:So

[zakezuke]

The best way to gauge any printer's photo capabilities is looking at sample prints at the store

Except that these are often highly tweaked images and are sometimes even printed from a demo application that doesn't even use the usual printer driver.

Then print from your digital camera using pictbridge. Most stores are agreeable if you bring in your own paper so long as you leave the prints there. You get some clue as to how well each printer will work for you and they get free demos that can be shown to other customers.

The only exception being Epson which their prosumer models don't offer pictbridge. I understand the logic... the target market are for people who edit then print... just people like my self might edit, save to card, and print from the camera or other pictbridge enabled device.

Re:So

[Grab]

Don't know about /. but Which? in the UK certainly came to that conclusion. Cost of ink cartridges is enough that it's not worth printing your own.

Smaller? I wan't larger!

[Greger47]

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

Gimme a printer with a couple of litres per drop and I'll place down some serious ink!

/greger

Re:Smaller? I wan't larger!

[karnal]

There's no replacement for displacement!

epson personal photo lab - $30 on Black Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been nice to have a more detailed review.
I've been looking at that epson personal photo lab since it will be only $30AR @ Radio Shack (I think you have to buy it with a camera to get that price).

Re:epson personal photo lab - $30 on Black Friday

[Seehund]

Lack of details? I'll say. A printer test that doesn't list the cost per page (or per 10x15 cm photo, for example) is a useless printer test IMO.

Nowadays, the price of the printer itself has been reduced to a symbolic starter fee for an ink cartridge subscription!

What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

The HP printers have three things going for them: First, they're cheap. Second, the printhead is on the cartridge, so a clog means a lost cartridge, not a lost printer or making a flush kit to force Windex through your print head. Third, the HP printers still look great in draft/high-speed mode. Some inkjets look like old color dot matrix printers in high-speed mode.

The big downside is drivers. UGH, HP drivers! They crash at random, require you to be an administrator to run the scanning software, add 20-30 seconds to your login time, and do weird things when other HP software is installed. (For example, installing my HP DVD burner software caused my HP printer driver's launcher to launch an explorer window pointing to the directory with the printer software install every single login. This, on a fresh install with nothing but the HP DVD software installed after XP.)

On the Mac side, people with Tiger and HP printer-scanner-copiers are -still- waiting for a promised update to enable HP-supported scanning, or are giving up and using ports of open source scanning software.

The HP PSCs are comparatively painless with Linux and *BSD, but check out some of the other options if you'll be using Windows or Mac OS on the same machine.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Overzeetop]

You obviously have never expeienced the hell that is the Epson Status Monitor which must run in order to use a consumer epson photo printer. If anything should go wrong, the system will hang (print system, not the OS). And if you've ever had to reinstall a driver due to a bug...oh, you're in for some fun. You see, the uninstall doesn't actually uninstall everything, and a full removal requires both manual tracking down of all the epson driver bits (search for E_ in the entire system directory), and editing the registry.

In addition it makes them almost impossible to use with a network print server. Any fault - paper out, ink low, etc - causes the job to hang, and fixing the problem results in the first burst of data getting printed, while the print server stays locked up tight as a drum. To get the system working again generally requires either a reboot or manually killing the entire print spooler service and manually restarting it. Even worse, if you clear the error and do not power down the printserver and the printer, the first burst of information will make it through to the printer, and then the printer will hang. No big deal? Well, since the first few lines of ink get put down, it effectively ruins whatever media you're using. For something on bond it's merely annoying. For an 8x10 glossy print or a printable CD or DVD, you've just thrown away $.25 to $2.00 (or more for a DL DVD) in media. Of course, as a bonus, your required power cycle results in wasting a slug of $$$ ink to the startup cycle.

Sadly, I stick with Epson because the output is just so damned good, and I really like the CD/DVD printing feature. Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Anonymous Coward]

With the new HP printers and the 300 page printing per cartidge, forcing someone to replace the printing head at every 300 page printing is VERY expensive. OTOH, canon ans epson have cheap and good cartridges, and you can change the printing head only when NEEDED. I never had to change one...
If only they turned on a little bit faster...

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[rolfwind]

See my other comment on this thread.

Dye-subs are maybe a little more expensive than inkjet but much better:

True Photo look with a real clear coat print on top - not smear resistant - smear proof!
No "drying out" of the cartridge (dye sub colors are dry to begin with).
Regardless of dpi - much smoother look.
99 years life of print.

I tried the inkjets a few years back (the HP photoprinter, forget th model - but hell, I even hassled myself with syringes to refill those overpriced PoS cartridges) and I'm sure nothings changed - dyesubs give you professionally looking results while an inkjet print looks like an inkjet print.

Spend the few dollars more in the beginning for a dyesub, it's well worth it down the road. I believe they start under $200 these days, probably cheaper (I only checked out Hiti printers).

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Anonymous Coward]

check out some of the other options if you'll be using Windows or Mac OS on the same machine.

What if I have Windows and Mac OS on the same machine?

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

I've had Epsons in the past, none at current. Do they have a removable print mechanism yet? I was really happy with the output and the price, but the frequent clogs were horrible. Any time I didn't print for a few weeks, I had to flush it out to avoid stuck nozzles.

I was no fan of their drivers, but thankfully either they or MS offered a version of the drivers wtihout the "helper" (ink salesman) apps.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Echnin]

Canon have some annoying driver policies too... I have a Canon printer connected to my Windows machine, and had trouble accessing it from Macs over the network. The OS couldn't find drivers, even when I tried getting them from the CD. Was really quite annoying, because it's not an old printer (ip5000). Googling around, though, I did found this howto for how to pipe it through a virtual printer: http://iharder.sourceforge.net/macosx/winmacprinte r/. And it works, I guess. Overall it's a pretty good printer, and looks better than the ip5200 in the article.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Overzeetop]

No, they still clog if you let them sit for more than a few days to a week. I made up a small "rainbow" image in pshop (about 8"x1") and printed it to a file. I just copy that file to the printer on bond paper once every three or four days and it seems to keep things clear. I do the same with my 24" HP designjet plotter, as I don't use the color heads very often (the rainbow is 2" wide, and it prints on a 6" sheet, which is the smallest size for the roll-feed cutter). At one point I had them on the scheduler (cron-like), but it didn't always work. Now with the epson on a printserver, I have to babysit every print anyway.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[salmacis2]

On the Mac side, people with Tiger and HP printer-scanner-copiers are -still- waiting for a promised update to enable HP-supported scanning, or are giving up and using ports of open source scanning software.

What are you talking about? I bought an HP all-in-one printer/scanner just yesterday for my Mac, and the scanner works great.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[asv108]

While HP Drivers for Windows and OSX might suck, if your running Linux, I've had nothing but success with a wide variety of HP printing products.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

Looks like they finally released a 10.4 driver for the PSC series in September.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[ydrol]

The big downside is drivers.

My HP 8450 has Full Linux support + Network Printing and Web Management.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[saskboy]

HP doesn't make quality software anymore if they ever did. Routinely when I activate Windows protection software called Steadfast, the HP software flips out and throws insane errors to dialogs, such as "File '.' not found".

Their scanning software for an older all in one printer, would not display on the screen maximized if you had a resolution smaller than 1024x768, and there were no scroll bars even to see the rest.

Their programmers have messed up, and I'm going to try to avoid HP now.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[parc]

Turn off your printer. I routinely go for weeks between prints, and I've only had the nozzles clog once -- I had neglected to turn the printer off. When you turn it off, the printer "parks" the heads in an air-tight "container." Since the ink doesn't dry out, no clogs.

Actually, I did have the nozzles clog one other time -- I had used cartridges that weren't Epson brand, a mistake I've never made again.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[parc]

Look at inkjets again. I've got an Epson R800. Photo life is estimated 80 years, and I can't see any dots in the image. We routinely print 8x10s and nobody has ever guessed that they weren't standard prints from a photo processor. I've never had ink smear, even when it's gotten water on it (I was very suprised by this). Dye sub printers do give a more "smooth" image than an ink jet, but at 1.5 pL per drop, you'de have to be using a jeweler's loupe to tell the difference.

Dye sub printers use their own cartridges. The ink's gotta come from someplace, you know. The cheaper dye subs lock you into a "cartridge" system, where you're paying for paper and ink, with no choice. If I'm going to do that, I might as well get a printer that can print standard pages as well (my R800 will spit out something like 15ppm of 8x10 standard text. What's you dye sub do?)

Now, my R800 isn't your standard consumer printer -- it was $380 when I bought it, and a full ink refill runs me $120 to print around 300 4x6 photos. But my photos come out far better than your standard $50-$100 printer.

What I'd REALLY like to see is a consumer direct photo printer. There's no reason we shouldn't be printing directly to photo paper in today's world -- that's what all the 1-hour "wal-mart" photo shops are doing.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

It's bad to mix ink types. If you're planning on using third-party inks, ebay the carts that came with the printer or give them to a friend. You can get generic cartridges for 1/8th the cost of first-party cartridges, so getting a large supply from one manufacturer to avoid bad ink combinations is a very good idea.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Overzeetop]

I've tried it both ways - on and off. The ink dries out anyway in about 2 weeks and causes clogs. I had one I'd left off for about two months during a move, and when it powered back up, about 2/3 of the jets were clogged. After wasting a full set of ink (empty, replace, empty) there were still 3-4 that would not print. That's when I decided to switch to the keep-alive print. Besides, everytime you power up, it runs a bit of ink through the heads (I believe that the startup routine has not chaged in the latest crop), so its not like your saving ink over a keep-alive print.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[jridley]

HP printers have these things going for them:
They're cheap (as in junk); plan on having to replace it every couple of years with light use. They break just looking at them (in my experience)

The printhead is on the cartridge, so it's expensive as hell when you run out of ink. And maybe even if you don't; in my experience HP carts clog all the damn time. I had to waste tons of ink running cleaning cycles, and I had to throw away carts with ink in them because I couldn't get them clean even with hot water/windex/alcohol/anything wipes.

Forget refilling; though you CAN do it, the printheads are designed to not last much longer than it takes to squirt their ink out. You might get one, two, MAYBE three refills.

Check out Canon. Nice drivers, infinitely refillable (ink cart is just a plastic box with ink in it; takes 30 seconds to refill), I've printed 25+ refills of ink out of it and have never had even one clogged nozzle.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[dgatwood]

This is why I dumped Epson for Canon and haven't looked back. I have the advantages of Epson---cheap ink tanks without a print head built-in---with the advantages of HP---a print head that I can remove in ten seconds flat and soak in isopropyl alcohol to clean it if it ever gets clogged.

Canon is a good example of a company that actually takes the time to design it right, IMHO.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[rainman_bc]

I honestly wouldn't refill an ink cartridge on a photo printer. Droplet size is very important for good quality photos. When you refull a canon cartridge, you will likely not get the same quality as you would from a canon cartridge.

Anyway, the Canon cartridges ar between $10 and $15 CAD. That's not too expensive compared to $60 CAD for an HP cartridge.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Solandri]

Second, the printhead is on the cartridge, so a clog means a lost cartridge, not a lost printer or making a flush kit to force Windex through your print head.

I'm still amazed that HP marketing has managed to fool so many people into thinking this is a plus. HP puts their print head on the cartridge because their engineering division wasn't able to figure out a reliable way to stop clogging. Putting it in the cartridge means you're paying for a new head with every cartridge even if you don't get a clog.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

What you say would make sense if there were a significant price difference between HP's and others' cartridges.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

I recently bought a Canon Pixma. I was surprised/happy to find that the print head was on a removable carriage, however I couldn't find any place online to order a spare. Have you seen them anywhere?

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[dgatwood]

No, but then again, I haven't looked. You don't mention what model of Pixma, but a quick google search for canon print head turned this up for $52.50:

http://www.precisionroller.com/find/Canon+J1023+QY 6-0054-000,++QY6-0047-000.htm

At that price, I think I'd try to clean it first if I ran into problems, but it's still a lot cheaper than replacing the printer (or paying for a new print head with each cartridge...).

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[Lost Race]

Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.

And of course we all know what that's like.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[mcgroarty]

Mine's an MP500, and the replacement is here in case anyone else wonders. $60 is steep, but better than replacing the printer.

Thanks, I appreciate your pointing to the site.

Re:What to look for: No HP!

[jridley]

I've done side-by-side comparisons and have been unable to tell the difference on printed photos.

My durability tests indicate that the aftermarket inks are far more resistant to fading than OEM inks, either Epson or Canon, though the OEMs have pretty much caught up in the last year.

If I really want GOOD quality photos, I have them printed at a photofinisher. Anything I print will only look good for a few months until it starts to fade, claims by the manufacturer not withstanding.

$10-$15 is for ONE COLOR ONLY. You need all 5 to equal the same as the HP cartridge. I'm paying about 75 cents each to fill them, I have had zero problems and can't tell the difference or in some ways the aftermarket inks are better.

Why pay for your own?

[LarsWestergren]

Ok, having your own photo printer is conventient, and as geeks we love our tech toys of course, but remember that these days you can have your digital images printed professionally at photo labs VERY cheap.

The prints will last longer, and cost per page is probably going to be the same or even lower, as the printer manufacturers keep jacking up the price for new ink cartriges and use ever more draconian tech and/or EULA measures to prevent cheap no-name replacements/refills.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[RandoX]

Because some places refuse to print your work if it looks too good.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[PhilHibbs]

I was just about to say the same thing. I got a bunch of 7"x5" prints at Boots (the biggest chemist (drugstore) chain in the UK) for 15p each, that's about a quarter. Four large photo-quality prints for a dollar, 7 for just over a quid, no-one needs it to be cheaper than that.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[sparkhead]

And most places don't. Heck at CVS it's a complete self-service kiosk. You print what you want, bring it to the counter and pay.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[lbmouse]

...because Walgreens won't print the pictures my wife took of me on our trip to a nude beach. Bastards! I know this is Slashdot, but don't ask for the pictures I took of her, or her sister... or the dog.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[Maxmin]

Funny thing is, I've only heard of that happening in the 'burbs. In NYC it's never a problem, but maybe that's coz we're mobbed with pro photographers.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[Lumpy]

Exactly, I have a pair of pro-photo quality epson printers, one is a large format. I cant even dust off my printer for the price of a 8X10, 25X7and 5 wallets printer at costco. and they NEVER refuse to print them if you send them through costco online and put in a "business sounding" name. No pro photo lab can touch their price on digital prints and home printing is obscenely expensive compared to it.

It's to the point that I'm going to sell my printers on ebay (except the R300 I love printing on CD's) and not even think of home printing ever again.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[terminal.dk]

There are multiple reasons for having your own printer and printing yourself:

1. Lifetime of home printed is better than chemistry online.
2. Large formats like 8x10" / DIN A4 etc is much cheaper at home (especially with refill inks)
3. You can get way better colors at home with a Scanner, an IT-8 target, and some software (I use ProfilePrism). I have custom profiles for different ink/paper combos, and I get way better colors than the sRGB crap used online.

I agree that 10x15cm / 4x6" are cheaper online, but that is all in their advantage.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[peterb]

Well, sure, this could be an issue. But let's be honest:

Your work isn't that good.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[Anonymous Coward]

digital images printed professionally at photo labs VERY cheap

Profesionally and very cheap is somewhat mutually exclusive. Yes, you can get printed on photographic paper cheap, such as at Walmart or Costco, but they aren't really "professional". Chances are, the person behind the counter isn't going to know or care squat about color balance, so it's a crapshoot to get it looking right.

If you're just printing snapshots of last week's party, it's a good deal though. If you have a masterpiece, then look at Dry Creek Photo for taking a stab at getting good quality out of places like Costco. Some people have good results with Costco, but depends upon the particular establishment and quality of personnel.

Then, there are professional printers, but I wouldn't classify them as "cheap"

Another overlooked aspect for home photo printers is versatility. For example, we print greeting cards from our printer instead of dragging ourselves to a Hallmarks and wasting gas.

I use my Epson 2200 for printing on canvas and other fine art papers. This is something you'll pay big wads of money for outside anyways, and you have complete control over the results.

Re:Why pay for your own?

[Moofie]

"Lifetime of home printed is better than chemistry online."

Where is this magical inkjet printer that prints for a lifetime?

Why?

[squoozer]

Unless you are into printing up your home made porn why would you print photographs at home? I always used to think it was a good idea price wise (even when I worked for a online photo printing outfit) as print shops didn't really cater for digital images and prices were stupid. The real print shops quickly got their act together and made home printing totally uneconomical. I admit there is a break even point where very large prints are cheaper to do yourself but only if you don't take into account the thousands spent on buying a large format printer. These printer manufacturer must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Why?

[badfish99]

I suppose that's why there's no mention of running costs in the article. Given the controversy over the price of ink, I would have expected to see some indication of the cost per print in a review. But they wouldn't want to upset their advertisers.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife the artist and her fellow artist folks laugh at you. Spend $5 on shipping and wait three days for the result of the print? Insanity! My wife will print half a dozen large images at home in the final stages of creation, determine that it's exactly what she wants (which is why she can't use a normal inkjet or laser), and then send it out to create the large number of prints for sale.

Fall ?

[Anonymous Coward]

is "Fall 2005" some sort of competition ?
sounds like a rockclimbing or skydiving compo

King Gillette

[Isosceles Triangle]

With inkjet ink costing more per ounce than champagne, King Gillette would be very, very proud...

obligatory

[Janek Kozicki]

640 picoliters should be enough for everyone.

oh, wait..

DPI is (almost) meaningless

[jcupitt65]

A good tip I heard from a printer designer was to ignore the DPI figure, as long as it's more than about 600. It (usually) means how precisely the printer can place dots. It does not say much about the detail or grain you'll see in the print. For that, you need to know the dot size. Of course there's a trade off: smaller dots means (other factors being equal) longer print times, since you have to squirt more dots to get the same level of ink density.

Higher end printers have several shades of grey ink as well as black. This can add a lot of the apparent smoothness of prints, especially if you are going to be printing any black and white photos.

Metamerism is also very important. Print a black and white photo and look at it under tungsten and in daylight. It should stay looking black and white! You'll find some will look red in tungsten and greenish in daylight.

Finally, look at color management. Does the driver let you use your own profiles, or is it more of a point and shoot thing?

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[Shanep]

A good tip I heard from a printer designer was to ignore the DPI figure, as long as it's more than about 600. It (usually) means how precisely the printer can place dots.

There is another issue, with so called photo printers. I don't know if this still holds true, so it would be good if someone could confirm this.

With older technology printers, dots per inch is actually meaningful. It literally accounted for the number of non overlapping dots, each of which could be considered a pixel. However with these new bubble jet and ink jet type printers, they need to spit many very small ink dots into the area which makes up a printed pixel, so as to build up a single pixel of varying colour through the use of dithering.

Fair enough right? Whatever needs to be done to make those images look great?

Well unfortunately, these photo printer makers are using deceptive marketing. Because a "dot" in their definition of dpi DOES NOT equate in a meaningful manner to a pixel, instead their "dot" refers to each of the smaller dither dots.

This is why for a long time, ink and bubble jets of 600dpi looked like crap against a 300dpi laser print out, where edge smoothness and text mattered.

9600dpi, 2400dpi, whatever. Don't bother telling me because it is now a meaningless figure. You could make a printer with a real dpi of 150, but made up of 9600dpi dither dots and it is still going to look like a 150dpi print out. But the brochure says 9600dpi, not 150dpi. This is an exageration btw, to make the point. The best thing to do is look at actual print outs and decide on quality with your own eyes, because manufacturer quoted numbers in this regard are pretty much useless when the most important metric is undisclosed and remains so because it would hurt sales.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[jcupitt65]

Yes, you're right. For inkjets ... it means pretty much zip. It's just a figure produced by marketing departments. Epson used to be very guilty of doing this, maybe they're better now.

Another tip a printer designer told me :) don't think of DPI, think of PPPI, or Pixels Per Printed Inch. Try sending a photo to the printer at higher and higher resolution. At what point do you stop seeing a quality improvement?

For the large format inkjets I used to work with (rated at 600 x 1200 DPI), image quality maxed out at about 150 pppi (because of the size of the dither cell, as you said). You can actually start to see a drop in quality beyond this since the printer is downsizing your image and you'll start to get moire effects. Plus of course your print is taking longer because you're shipping more data to it.

A desktop photo printer will have a much smaller dropsize, so the quality will peak at a higher pppi than that.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[Marauder2]

Yes, the DPI number is technically meaningless (some might say mostly harmless). What people really want is not DOTS per inch, but PIXELS per inch. Unfortunatly, that's not a number that is usually advertised, instead they give the deceptive dots per inch.

First, let's look at the pixels... A standard consumer P/S and low end professional DSLR camera would take images at around 6MP (Nikon D70), a high end professional would be closer to 12MP (Nikon D2X)

The 12MP D2X can take images at 4288 x 2848. Scaled landscape on an 8x10 (what most people end up printing at home, either 8x10 or 81/2x11) we get a resolution of (4288/10) x (2848/8) or 428.8 x 365 in true pixels per inch.

For the D70, it's native resolution is 3008 x 2000. Scaled landscape on an 8x10 we get (3008/10) x (2000/8) or 300.8 x 250 pixels per inch.

Of course if we, say, print a 5x3 which would give us 601.6 x 666 2/3 pixels from the 6MP D70. If we enlarge to say 13x19 we'd get about 153.8 x 158.3

Now the problem here is that Pixels per inch does NOT directly translate into Dots per inch. See http://imaging-resource.com/TIPS/PRINT1/PRINT1A.HT M for a more detailed description on why this is, and why, say, 720 DPI on a printer might translate into only about 130 true pixels depending on how accuratly the printer can place those dots. In short, it usually takes many DOTS of varying colors to make a single pixel. Plus there may be some interpolation and smoothing going on too.

PPI can be a factor of DPI but DPI by itself is meaningless. Printer manufacturers advertise DPI because they want the big numbers to impress uninformed consumers. With most of the high end, high resolution photo printers will give you comparable output in terms of resolution quality so you can't really go wrong there. What you really want to do is look at real photo printout samples if you can, not just for resolution but for things like color quality at different angles, the shine of the gloss for glossy inks, how much it smears/water solubility, etc. Those that plan to do any black and white need to be sure to look at black and white output, particulatly on the papers they plan to use. A printer that can do amazing color might do a poor job of B/W and something that can do great output on glossy paper might not do as good a job on matte paper.

My personal recommendation is to either go with the Epson R800 for up to the standard 8 1/2" wide prints, or the R1800 if you want to do larger prints (up to 13" wide). I have the R1800 and have used an R800 as well. The two printers are virtually identical other than a few things such as the position of the buttons and the maximum paper size. They use the archival quality UltraChome Pigments which are resistant to water, smearing, and are supposed to be fade resistant for 100-200 years depending on paper and environment. They can print on CDs and roll paper. The output looks great.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[jrockway]

> 9600dpi, 2400dpi, whatever.

It's a good thing, then, that the FCC has limited the maximum DPI to 56600. (53000 in some areas.)

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[Stiletto]

Reminds me of the time when they started inflating CDROM speeds, and you could no longer rely on the number behind the X. "36X CDROM??? Well we have 100X hahahahah!!!!!"

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.crystalcanyons.net/Pages/TechNotes/R800 Printer.shtm

DPI don't matter I guess.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless

[Shanep]

DPI don't matter I guess.

I never said DPI didn't matter. I said that the dpi figure that manufacterers of these printers use, is not meaningful like the traditional dpi value is. Of course smaller and more dither dots are better, but not anywhere near as important as the real dpi. Which apparently now should be ppi.

Re:Tripped did we?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. Autumn is not a season, but a girl's name!

Tin-foil hat brigade criteria

[merc]

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. ... and the better the secretly embedded printer's serial number may be hidden on your document.

*blinks*

Re:Tin-foil hat brigade criteria

[vettemph]

>>>secretly embedded printer's serial number

Put scotch tape over the yellow print head and hold a heavy duty vibrator against your printer while its printing. This should "randomize" your printer.

I should put together a book of "tips". :)

Bring back dot matrix impact printers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sod all this fancy colour hi-res snazzle. I remember reinking the ribbon on my Amstrad DMP2000 printer. Great for listings, especially with the fanfold paper - no worries about page ordering there!

oh and FUCK Firefox's 'Delete To Go Back' functionality. If you're at gmail beforehand you lose everything because gmail forces a reload.

I happen to own one of those..

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

I own the HP Photosmart 8450, the print quality is truly astounding.
It's an 8 colour (9 inks, two are black in seperate cartridges) printer.
It can do upto A4 size, prints on the glossy photo quality stuff are excellent. (I have a bunch of photos from holidays printed out on A4 and 10x15cm photo paper, HP premium plus photo paper glossy).. the grey shading also is very impressive.. ever notice the problems with lots of printers and grey colours? This doesn't have those problems. (it has grey a grey ink cartridge, 2 shades of grey and black)
My biggest gripe with the printer however is that the inks come in 3 seperate cartridges, so you get 3 inks per cartridge.. meaning whenever one cartridge runs out of a colour you'll need to buy a new cartridge (if you want to use that ink colour). Which as you can guess rakes in the cash for HP and annoys people who buy the damn things.

I'm not sure exactly why this is classed as a printer of 2005 (it was released in 2004), see here for a good review on it.

That was a crap review

[CarrotLord]

I wanted someone to tell me "buy this one if you want speed, this one if you want value, this one if you want quality, this one if you want large prints, and this one if you want a good all-rounder". Give me opinions, dammit, I don't have time to form my own! I'm a consumer, for crying out loud!

Re:That was a crap review

[CarrotLord]

... eg what I want is something that will do A4 (or ideally A3), edge-to-edge, high quality. I'm not worried about speed, and not particularly worried about cost per page... Someone tell me what to buy!

This is why.

[OS24Ever]

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

I use Mpix.com for all my large printing needs. They are actually exposing the digital exposure to Kodak film paper which can be common among some people. Their price and service can't be beat either. 8x10s for $2.

However if I need a 4x6, or a 8x10, a home printer is a decent deal. I recently picked up the Kodak 1400 dye sub printer for just this reason. There was a $100 rebate so it's a $343 printer, and the paper size of 8x14 lets me print 4 4x6s, 2 5x7s, 2 6x8s, or one 8x10 or 8x12 per page. I won't be printing out a 'major event' like my son's 2nd birthday portrait or the disaster that was the attempt at my daughters 4th birthday portrait because I usually want a ton of wallets, a good amount of 4x6s, and 5x7s and 8x10s for the grandparents, my desk, what not.

But for quick and easy home prints, a decent (but not outrageous) printer works for me. I've got a bad taste in my mouth for inkjet because the Canon S9000 I got when I got my first digital SLR in 2002 fades pretty badly unless you frame it. It doesn't stand up to my 'fridge test' where you print it, take a magnet, and pin it to the fridge for all eternity.

Fotki.com and the Kodak Easyshare Gallery have so far withstood that test rather well. However Kodak keeps making me sign a release form for every order for copyright reasons. Mpix does not, because there is no copyright displayed on my images. Apple has the same issue in iPhoto, but Kodak is their print engine. Fotki has been on the fridge for over a year now with no fading, next to a S9000 4x6 that is about as faded as it gets.

Re:This is why.

[alienw]

Or go to wal-mart and get them in one hour without shipping charges, for i think 18 cents per print. The quality is as good as anywhere.

Re:This is why.

[squoozer]

I admit that if you want a very small number of photographs every now and then (say 2 or 3 a month) then online printing isn't worth it because, as you point out, shipping costs swamp the printing costs. I would argue, however, that most people aren't in that situation. If you print a fair number of photographs in one go (traditially a films worth) then online printing is cheaper. If you print one or two a year then online may well still be cheaper simply because you didn't need to buy the printer. It's a tough call but my guess would be that the vast majority of people could save money printing online.

As for shipping prices I think you should shop around a bit. I just got 60 photos printed for IIRC 11p a shot + 99p postage.

Re:This is why.

[Evro]

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

With Wal-Mart, Target, and CVS, you can upload the pics and then go pick them up in-store and not pay shipping. Or you can just go there with your memory card or CD and use the kiosk. Sure, it's like 29 cents/print instead of 14 cents, but for 2 pics the price difference isn't that much.

Re:This is why.

[Idarubicin]

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

Some other people have already observed that you can go to Wal-Mart or the local photo shop with a memory card and avoid the shipping costs. (Many will let you submit photos online for in-person pickup, too.)

Still, even if you're out in the boonies and you can't easily or conveniently have the printing done locally, you might still be better off with the online services and paying the delivery charges.

Figure $100 for a cheap color inkjet that produces tolerable output, plus $50 every six months to replace that ink cartridge when it dries out. Think very carefully about how often you actually need 2 4x6s right this minute. (The parent poster may have done this math already, but I suspect that many of us haven't.) Sure you get instant gratification, but you also get a lower-quality print that's prone to fading and discolouration.

Re:This is why.

[jridley]

4x6's are 17 cents at the local supermarket (actually 10 cents when on sale, like right now). 5x7's are 99 cents, 8x10's $2.49. I can probably match the price on the bigger prints, but no way on the 4x6's.

Any photo that I want to print bigger than 4x6, it's probably because I want to frame it. If I want to frame it, I probably want it to last a long time while being exposed to sunlight and airborne pollutants. That calls for chemical photofinishing. So whether it's price-competitive or not, I probably want to get it printed chemically.

I don't have to pay shipping; I upload them to their website, then stop by on the way home from work and pick them up. If this kind of service isn't available to you locally, it will be soon.

Re:This is why.

[OS24Ever]

But I'm not fond of Wal-Mart and based on news articles and experiences in my area alone with going into a store you could be trying to do something 'cute' and 'artistic' with an infant and have them report you to social services. We had a student doing a 'freedom of speech' civics project get reported to the secret service because he took a picture of himself standing next to a picture of the current President with his thumbs down and a red thumbtack through the presidents face on the picture. His project was 'right to protest' yet the Wal-Mart in Kitty Hawk, NC thought otherwise and reported him.

A family lost their five month old son for six months because a father kissed him on his tummy while he was giving him a bath and mom snapped a digital picture and took it in for printing. This was here, in my home town of Raleigh, NC.

So printing at home works for that reason as well.

Re:This is why.

[OS24Ever]

About an hour after posting that I thought to myself $4.95? where the heck did I come up with that. I've spent $1.95 on shipping from Kodak a number of times. I think the $4.95 was for over $100 worth of printing I had done which was rather reasonable considering there was a 16x20 print in there and it had to be shipped UPS in special mailers.

Re:This is why.

[OS24Ever]

When you're a bit insane about it and were a boy scout and live out here in the boonies you remember the 'be prepared' statement and usually order your ink in packs of three.

I've got a lateral file drawer full of the six inks my inkjet uses, tons of photo paper, and what not that I keep at least one of each ink, usually three of each ink in. So at 12AM after the kids are asleep and I'm dinking with the printer I can just jump up and grab a new cart when I run out.

Re:This is why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez man, why would you put your daughter's pictures FIRST in the gallery labeled as "Calvin's 2nd birthday photoshoot"? For one second I was seriously concerned that you have either

1. Mistaken the gender of the baby at birth, or
2. Two, given your son an atrociously girlish hair cut

System Requirements

[FudRucker]

i have a Kodak Digital Camera, i was reading the specs for the Kodak Easyshare Printer Dock, i never owned this dock but it says system requirements:

System Requirements Operating System Apple MacOS X Microsoft Windows 2000 Microsoft Windows 98 Microsoft Windows 98 SE Microsoft Windows ME Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Microsoft Windows XP Professional

i wont bother to buy one of these if it must be attached to a computer via a USB umbilical cord with Windows installed, i would much rather have a printer dock that is independent of any computer and only requiring electricity and ink & paper...

Re:System Requirements

[melandy]

Don't know about the Kodaks, but HP has lots of photo printers that don't require you to connect to a PC. AFAIK, any of them that include an LCD screen can do this (you need the screen to see what you are doing). They also have some that work in conjunction with a digital camera that use the LCD of the camera as an interface. This requires a certain kind of camera (I believe they are sold as a bundle), so unless you are shopping for a new camera too, you might look elsewhere.

btw, you can connect these to a PC, but you don't have to, and the ones with a bunch of card slots (SD, compact flash, etc.) also function as a general card reader -- not just for photos -- when connected to a PC.

Re:System Requirements

[prockcore]

i would much rather have a printer dock that is independent of any computer and only requiring electricity and ink & paper...

The Kodak EasyShare printer docks are independent. You don't need to hook them up to a computer at all. You only need to do that if you want to use the easyshare software to pick which photos to print.

Longetivity?

[russianspy]

I am amazed that nobody mentioned anything about how long the prints are expected to last. That beautiful photo you're printing as a gift - will is still look the same 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?

Re:Longetivity?

[Coelacanth]

Epson makes printers with archival-quality inks (supposedly 100 year lifespan). I own an Epson R800 ($400), and though I use online services for large quantities of basic prints, the Epson is brilliant for making frameable prints, larger prints, etc. Works great with OS X, too.

Re:Longetivity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an HP 1220c, and under standard fluorescent lighting you are lucky to get *three months* out of the picture before it's faded. So sad.

Re:Longetivity?

[lthown]

Hey, someone else is beating my dead horse! Always gets me how none of the "reviews" ever deal with the issue that the majority of inkjet printers except the pigmented Epson ones are going to give you prints that will fade and turn orange in a matter of MONTHS some times.

Re:Longetivity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I own an Epson R800 ($400), and though I use online services for large quantities of basic prints, the Epson is brilliant for making frameable prints, larger prints, etc. Works great with OS X, too.

Highly intriguing as that may be, the topic was longevity. So, what is your 100 year experience of the photos printed by your Epson?

Duh.

Re:Longetivity?

[pla]

I am amazed that nobody mentioned anything about how long the prints are expected to last. That beautiful photo you're printing as a gift - will is still look the same 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?

I think you've overlooked the obvious explanation - Most people simply don't care how long it will last, because the answer really doesn't matter... 99.9% of them count as trash before they hit the printer, and for the very, very few shots you really value - well, digital photography has the perk that you can store the original data forever, and pop off a 100% perfect print any time you feel like it.

When someone hands me a photo, it goes into "the drawer". You all have a "the drawer", admit it. Do you really care about your niece Tiffany's 4th-grade-mid-term-graduation picture? About your neighbor's kid Billy's first bike ride? About the 627 blurry pictures of clouds, dirt, and water, that your newly-in-touch-with-her-earthy-photographer-self mother printed for you?

HELL NO!


Perhaps you work as a professional photographer, in which case I suppose the above might not apply (though I've seen some pretty worthless crap from pros, too, so that doesn't automaticall exempt you from the "photos count as tacky gifts" rule). But most pictures, whether digital or analog, only have value to either the photographer or the subect(s) (and not necessarily, or even most-of-the-time, to both).

Re:Longetivity?

[mysticgoat]

Always gets me how none of the "reviews" ever deal with the issue that the majority of inkjet printers ... are going to give you prints that will fade and turn orange in a matter of MONTHS some times.

This is a bit of mis-information that needs to be cleared up.

There is no significant problem with inks used in inkjet printers. There was, however, a problem with Epson's "micropore" photo papers a few years ago. The paper acted as an ozone scrubber, and the ozone it collected broke down the cyan dye. The result was the classic "Epson Orange" effect. It could happen in a matter of days in areas of high ozone concentration and mild UV exposure. Epson was badly burned by that, and they now have archival quality product lines that are very good.

The point here is that choice of paper is the most significant factor in longevity, with appropriate post-printing care of paper being the second most critical factor. If you want multigenerational archival quality*, you can have it with any of today's ink jet printers, if you are careful in choosing the right archival quality papers, and you protect the finished product with UV blocking glass or a coating of UV blocking acrylic spray. There is no reason why the product of inkjet printer won't hold up as well as other watercolor art, and museums have some watercolors that were done 200 years ago and are still vibrant.

*Multigenerational archival quality: the ability to print a photo of your grandparents that will not have degraded when your grown children show it to their grandchildren.

Re:Longetivity?

[blueturffan]

AC,

There are a number of factors that contribute to the longetivity of a print. The ink is of course a factor, but the paper is a huge factor as well. The type and intensity of light naturally also plays a part in how long it takes for an image to fade.

Using a new HP PhotoSmart printer Vivera inks and HP photo papers, you can expect to have prints that will not noticably fade in your lifetime. Use a refilled/remanufactured ink cartridge and "cheap" office paper, and your results can vary significantly.

By the way, I have pictures -- silver halide prints -- of my wife that were taken when she was a young girl (early to mid 70's) and they have faded miserably, despite having been kept in a photo album for nearly 30 years.

Why Own a Printer?

[Quirk]

I've not had a printer of any kind online at home since 2000, and, I've had no need of one. In the 80's, once a year, a big PC mag edition of new printers would come out all shinny and new, but, really, today I don't see the need for a printer at home. The cost of ink alone makes it more cost effective to have photos done at a shop and there's the added benefit of top of the line tech.

There was a divide in the late 90's when older users felt the need to print out material in order to study it. Remember the huge dead tree weight that came in the form of manuals in the 80/90s? My dad couldn't properly study new material unless he first printed it out.

Personally I think printers at home are pretty much an extravagance.

Re:Why Own a Printer?

[Overzeetop]

Interesting. I find that my hard copies don't run out of battery after a couple of hours, and that labeling CDs and DVDs looks much better when printed instead of scribbled with a sharpie.

Re:Why Own a Printer?

[Jerudong]

I might not need to own a printer if I lived in a developed area. But I live on the island of Borneo. The nearest print shop is a long distance through the jungle from here. My work requires I print a wide variety of documents, some in color, but my workplace lacks the facilities. I NEED my home HP bubblejet. There's no Kinko's in the jungle. I'm sure this is the case for many other people who live and work in rural areas, anywhere. The inkjet is essential if you're a modern professional in an undeveloped area.

Re:Why Own a Printer?

[colinrichardday]

And where can I print LaTeX documents? The places I know only do Microsoft Office files.

Re:Why Own a Printer?

[zakezuke]

There was a divide in the late 90's when older users felt the need to print out material in order to study it. Remember the huge dead tree weight that came in the form of manuals in the 80/90s? My dad couldn't properly study new material unless he first printed it out.

Personally I think printers at home are pretty much an extravagance.

That's true... totally an extravagance!
I don't need to use my printer to do envelopes. I don't need word processing to type up my letters, I could use a pen.
I don't need to label my CDs with an inkjet... I could use a sharpy.
I don't need to make fancy full color covers, the jewel case is transparent I can see what's inside.

-But I gotta admit the printer comes in real handy-
It's legible, unlike my handwriting, all the way down to 6points... 4points in a pinch. You try writing with a sharpy, at anything below 18point... or a felt tip at 8point.
It for the most part is faster than handwriting, at least for letters and anything above and beyond 5 lines.
Barcodes... barcodes... barcodes...

Article downplays superiority of dysub over inkjet

[rolfwind]

From TFA:

No matter if you choose inkjet or "dye sub" printers, crisp detail and smooth color gradation are the keys to good prints. When you get your photos back from the lab, they're shiny and smooth (without lines or dots). Getting this quality at home depends on several factors including printer resolution, i.e., how many dots per inch (DPI) of ink the printer lays on the paper as well as paper quality......

But I would never use inkjet, well anywhere. On photos because it would always smear and generally give out crappy results (you can see the intermittent lines). Plus it looks god-awful on regular paper and that ink cartridge dries out if you don't tend to regularly use it every few weeks.

Except for the cheap paper bit, dye-sub doesn't have these problems and even a lower resolution looks better because it' more blended in. My dye-sub puts on a clear coat too so it has that professional look from the photo lab, not the cheapo inkjet look. And I can only print on photo paper with my dye-sub so the quality is kinda always forced on me:) but I don't mind. The cartridges aren't with ink so it can't dry out (the color layers are on a plastic and heat transferred to the paper).

I use a Hiti printer (Hi-touch Imaging) which only focuses on these printers but they are good. I don't know if it supports linux but it's stand-alone anyway. Plus I find the price of consumables reasonable - fifty 4x6s and a dyesub cartridge bundled together for under 20 bucks.

But whatever company somebody goes with, avoid inkjet! Plus my photos have a life of 99 years - I don't think the same can be said for inkjet (imagine that stored in someplace moderately humid).

print vs. store cost comparison

[digitaldc]

My Dad just told me that he probably wont buy a photo printer because the cost per print is roughly 30 cents per picture, whereas a store can do it for much cheaper at around 20 cents.
Unless, of course you don't want to go through the hassle of stepping outside of your house.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

an egg.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you want complete creative control of the print process and don't particularly want to hand over your digital media to some spotty 17 YO that doesnt care about the print quality or the color balance, or the maintenance of the minilab, or the cropping etc etc etc. You get my message...

Depending on what the photos are, whether they are an irregular size (I'm also a framer for my wife...) or if they are a larger format than 7x5 I print at home, its much easier to get the cropping just right and a few other bits and pieces when you can set the printer up once and save the profile for the exact same paramaters (paper, ink, size, color/BW)

Holiday snaps etc just go to my local print shop where they are done at 6x4 on my choice of paper for 10p each for any number.

I havent printed any superlarge formats yet as we only just purchased our new camera and havent had anything that merited it, although I have decided that i want a large format print for my home office and then maybe a few more commission pieces for my employers.

just my 0.02

Re:print vs. store cost comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

he probably wont buy a photo printer because the cost per print is roughly 30 cents per picture, whereas a store can do it for much cheaper at around 20 cents.
Unless, of course you don't want to go through the hassle of stepping outside of your house.

Great. But I hope you live within walking distance of that store, because if you're driving there, you're probably going to be burning a bit more than 10 cents' worth of gas. Or paying more than 10 cents in postage, if you go mail order. You need to be printing a LOT of pictures before you start saving money by paying someone else to print them.

Actually, even walking or cycling, you might well burn 10 cents' worth of calories...

Re:print vs. store cost comparison

[Waffle Iron]

Great. But I hope you live within walking distance of that store, because if you're driving there, you're probably going to be burning a bit more than 10 cents' worth of gas. Or paying more than 10 cents in postage, if you go mail order. You need to be printing a LOT of pictures before you start saving money by paying someone else to print them.

Of course, if you plop down $60 on a new set of inkjet cartridges and then don't use them much, you'll be lucky to get 6 months before they dry out. In that case your ink will be drying up at the rate of 10 cents every 8 hours, 24x7. So if you print only a few pictures, you also save money by sending them out. That's why I junked my last inkjet and got a cheap laser printer.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison

[JAppi]

Why would you get some 17 YO to print your photos when you can take your photos to get professional prints at a professional print shop? Walmart is not a professional print shop.

No comparisons

[EMIce]

A buyers guide without comparisons isn't really all that useful. I'd like to know which machines have relative top quality and take separate cartridges for each color.

So print them over the Internet for 8c each

[bigtallmofo]

A quick search will show you plenty of places that will print your pictures and ship them to you without having to leave yourself for as low as 8 cents each.

While choosing such a bargain-basement site might not grant you the greatest quality, I can't imagine anyone wanting to struggle with inkjet printers only to pay more per print and have them not be as high of quality. I hate inkjet printers.

Re: great performances.

[CodeShark]

Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.

Um, no, been there done that.

Fact is that with systems, printers, AND girlfriends, it is much better to keep shopping for low-maintenance, great performance.

Oh, and by the way, of the three the third one requires more attention and TLC than the other two and deserves it as well. So get up from /. occasionally and take care of the lady as well...

Re:Article downplays superiority of dysub over ink

[Overzeetop]

Well, I think Epson would probably disagree with you on the longevity. I probably would, too, as I've had high end dye sub output look like the poster in the window of a beach popsicle stand in just a year or two (you know - all cyan with a touch of yellow here and there...not a hint of magenta to be found). The longevity figures are all artifically created, and DS mfrs are no more trustworthy than inkjet companies. Epson claims 108 (color) to 200 (b&w) years with their new pigment based inks. No, I don't believe them, but I also have lots of transparencies from the 60s and 70s, and silver prints dating back to the late 1800s - they're not perfect either.

I do agree that Dye Sub is the way to go for photographic prints. I've been hoping that the technology would really get some traction, but its been a slow sell. The continuous tone is just fantastic, and looks good even under a loupe (300dpi and lower can be a bit pixellated at >4x) - not something you can say about even the best inkjet prints. With the cost of 4x6 lab prints down in the sub 15 cent range, the consumables are going to have to find some real economies of scale to compete now. I looked up the Kodak in the article, and print packs look to be $80 for 50 sheets...$1.60 for an 8x10 or similar, or $.40 a 4x6 when printed 4-up. Not bad - certainly as good or better than dark prints from an inkjet with OEM supplies - but not really competition for mini-lab or mail order costs.

Another down side for DS is that you can't print on bond (for the occasional non-photo print) so you'll want a second printer for all your non-photo work. Not a big deal for the photo enthusiast, but annoying for the average user to need an extra printer for day-to-day stuff. It's also hard to find a printer that will do larger than A4 (for, say, an 11x14 print) for less than the cost of a new car. 13" inkjets are expensive by the throw-away standard of inkjets today, but you can still easily get in for under $500 if you shop around (the Epson R1800 comes to mind).

How do you judge cartidge dryout?

[davco9200]

I have an Epson Photo printer, and use it probably a couple times a month. But the biggest problem I have with it is not the quality of the print, but the cartridges drying out, so realistically, I only get a small handful of prints per cartridge. Are the differences between printers on that issue? It dramatically affects my costs, making it really expensive per print.

Relatedly, does anyone have any handy tips on keeping the cartridges wet / fresh longer? I can't predict when I will need to use the printer, so taking the cartridges out every time and putting them in baggies isn't really practical.

Re:How do you judge cartidge dryout?

[bigtrike]

I threw my Epson Stylus C64 in the garbage a couple days ago. The black cartridge worked intermittently. At the times the printer did work I had to do a couple cleanings in order to get a decent printout. Each cleaning seems to use about 5% of the ink in all cartridges, or about $4 in ink. The printer also refuses to print anything if any cartridge is below 10%. I had similar driver issues, but they were far from the biggest problem I had with this printer. Prior to trashing it I took some disassembly pictures, which are available here: http://www.e-normous.com/gallery/epsonc64

I will never buy another Epson product again.

Re:How do you judge cartidge dryout?

[ChrisMaple]

I have a Canon BJC-8200 which I've given very little use. The original cartridges are still good after 5 years.

Less ink = more ink? More ink = more accurate?

[courtarro]

"the smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print"

This is completely backwards. Smaller drops means more accurate placement, and the size of each drop likely has no effect on total ink dispensed since that's completely up to the controller that's spitting them out.

Re: great performances.

[Overzeetop]

I think the low maintenance, high performance lady is easier to find than the equivalent printer. At least I managed to get the former, but the latter seems to be all too elusive. ;-)

Interesting summary...

[tgd]

"Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper."

Huh? I'm pretty sure I've spilled some pretty big drops of ink, measured in centiliters onto the paper, and there was a LOT more ink per square inch than my inkjet gets on the paper.

Re: DPI IS Meaningless

[mpapet]

As a former product manager at an imaging OEM I can confirm that everyone should completely ignore "DPI" specs.

What they also fail to mention is the paper requirements in order to produce a photo-quality image. It's got to hold a heck of a lot of ink, so there's very few papers capable of holding/controlling that much ink.

A better predictor of "photo quality" is the number of inks.

The other thing to watch out on is what the borderless performance really is. I work with a Canon that won't do borderless on plain paper, so if I have a document with tiny margins, it generally screws it up.

At this point, I don't see a reason why it's really necessary when most photo processors do it arguably better, but on real photo paper that is much less resistant to fading.

What for?

[KlausBreuer]

And? What do I need a color photo printer for?
Sure sounds ghastly coming from a computer freak like me, but, heck, chaps: I got myself an age-old Hp Laserprinter, complete with lots of RAM and PostScripting, 600 dpi, flat paper storage, for about $200. Works like a charm, hooks up simply to my parallel port (but can hook into my network).
It's all I ever need for printing.

I print lots of photos. Either over the net, or by simply walking to a small Photo-Shop. They will print me any digital image at any size, in excellent quality, on paper, cups, shirts... and quite a bit cheaper (and better!) than I could manage with my own printer.

Why would I want a color printer?

Aaaachoooo! Waterproofing

[Generic Guy]

One of the things I didn't see addresses was how 'waterproof' the ink stuck to the paper. My sister has one of those HP portable photo printers, and I thought it did OK printing. She seems to like it. A few weeks later, I sneezed on a photo it had printed, and the ink literally blew off. Now there is a blank spot where her face should've been.

It makes me wonder how long they can last with sweaty hand or in humid climates, even with moderate handling. There is still the fading issue with a number of these photo printers, too.

Re: Linux

[mpapet]

Epson has a site in Japan with Linux drivers for most of their non-postscript printers.

http://www.avasys.jp/english/linux_e/index.html

Canon still doesn't officially acknowledge Linux and I don't know what HP's status is.

Of course, if you got a printer with native postscript support, then you could run it through cups. Emulated postscript can lead to some unpleasant surprises.

Is it just me?

[springbox]

Or can anyone else actually feel money being pulled from their pocket everytime they print out full page color anything? There must be a better way to do this than spitting out so much ink. Ugh.

Re:Tripped did we?

[OzPeter]

Don't you know yet that 'merkins like Verb based names for things:

Like Chuck and Ralph.

But then again they have funny names for everything. God forbid that I would "root" for my team.

And if I am really going to rip into their funny naming practices. Whats this thing with uisng your middle name as your first one? (Like W.Silly Person) Wasn't the name your momma gave you good enough for you???

Unfortunately I see this all the time as I live here now :-(

is that your 2 cents or your 2 pence worth?

[digitaldc]

:) I agree, you do put your photos at risk at a store, however most are so automated that the only way some 17 yo could mess them up is by putting their greasy prints on them when removing them from the machine.

Re: Linux

[mebollocks]

Hey it's not just Japan! http://www.epsondevelopers.com/linux

Ignorant and bigoted...

[absurdist]

...is no way to go through life.

Funny, I'm a Yank. And I know the meaning of both Fall and Autumn. Two different names for the same season. Now, should I refer to you as an "ignorant Brit" (assuming that you are) because you refer to the bonnet and boot of your car as opposed to the hood and trunk? Of course not. That would just show the world I was an ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic shithead.

In other words, pretty much like what you've done with your incredibly childish, pedantic comment.

Re:Ignorant and bigoted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I'm a Yank. And I know the meaning of both Fall and Autumn. Two different names for the same season. Now, should I refer to you as an "ignorant Brit" (assuming that you are) because you refer to the bonnet and boot of your car as opposed to the hood and trunk? Of course not. That would just show the world I was an ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic shithead.

This is totally offtopic and expect to get modded down.

What's really funny is the fact that most of the terms we Yanks use that the Brit's don't use the Brit's once used. Even words like Fall or Trashbin were terms they used at one time. In almost all cases if you have someone uptight complaining about the words we yanks use... you can say with pride, "we got these words from you".

is this accurate?

[andrelix]

"The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print." This is not quite accurate, it should state that the smaller the droplet, the more accurately it can place ink per square inch, or something to this affect....

Re:Tripped did we?

[timster]

Do they teach manners in Europe? Seriously, the fact that occasionally rude British types invade the forum and insult Americans doesn't exactly make this an "international" site. This is an American site, and you are visiting, and not too graciously if I may say.

Off topic, but for b&w Samsung lasers are popu

[Anonymous Bullard]

Photo schmoto... most photo printing folks probably also print some documents in black and white and considering the price of photo inks, people might consider getting a cheap mono laser. After recently studying the market, I learned that Samsung has for a few years now made some very compact and best of all cheap laser printers with Linux official support.

(and no, I'm not affiliated with Samsung in any way or form)

Dead trees is still a medium?

[porneL]

Here's my Photo Printer Buyers Guide:

Don't.

The second most important question

[jhol]

Does it come with nifty embedded serial numbers in all printed documents?

Re:The second most important question

[afidel]

The answer is YES. All major manufacturers are onboard with the US and other governments desire to have printers trackable.

Re:The second most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

pay cash. and don't register that printer you use to counterfeit money, then trash it before you start circulating it.

Re:The second most important question

[dgatwood]

I thought that was just color laser printers, which mostly print large white areas of mostly text, where yellow dots can be printed without attracting attention. It seems like somebody buying a photo printer is likely to notice extra yellow dots appearing in their photos and be pretty pissed.

Several folks have said that it isn't even possible to do this on inkjet printers, presumably because of the droplet size and the inaccuracy of alignment for overstrike printing. It might also be hard because the ink would tend to mix with the ink already on the page. You'd pretty much have to do it on a separate (and probably delayed) final pass, and on the average, it wouldn't be visible anywhere in a photo because there's usually not enough white space.

I'm not saying that there's not some subtle watermarking going on in inkjet photo printers, but if there is, I'm pretty sure it isn't the yellow dot method.

why is life important

[cinnamon colbert]

why is shelf life of a print imp ?
Isnt that the point of digital - you print another on demand ?

Maybe the software can print an invisible number on the print, and when you want another copy, you look at the print with a special lens and enter the number in your software and get another copy

Anyway, as soon as the morons* figure out that 5x7 lcds with magnets can be made and sold by the gazillion, prints will be pretty passe

morons = people who don't understand that design and gui are worth paying for , ie ipod vs the rest of the mp3 world

Re:why is life important

[lucier]

You ask: "why is shelf life of a print imp ? Isnt that the point of digital - you print another on demand ?" Shelf life is important to keep the customer satisfied, you want to go on enjoying the $300 print that you purchased from you, the artist. Reprints cost time, money and reputation. Most photolabs that are found in shopping malls in the United States are less expensive, strictly in terms of cost per square inch (or cm. if you live in the REAL world) than most inkjet printers. They fail miserably when it comes to print longevity and color accuracy. The larger the print the sooner problems present themselves. Most photo paper is just that, paper with an emulsion onto which the image is printed. The emulsion does NOT expand and contract in response to atmospheric conditions at the same rate at which the paper fibers do. At 5x7, it doesn't matter at all. At 8x10 no one but me notices. At 11x14 you can see the distortion if you look for it. I'll cut to the chase and tell you that at 16x20 or larger the paper fiber distortion is severe enough to negate the mounting process, wet mount, dry mount, whatever. There is more movement of the paper fibers than the glue can withstand. The result is a mounted $300 print with large, ugly blisters that the customer is rightfully outraged to have paid for. Needless to say, this work must be reprinted AND remounted. There goes the money you saved by going to the "Mini-Lab", there goes your "satisfied customer", and with them your (good?) reputation. No product is better than the work that goes into it. You get what you pay for, IF you're lucky. Shelf life is part of what the customer PAYS FOR! Having said all that, the review is next to useless. Luci

Re:Aaaachoooo! Waterproofing

[AsnFkr]

r, I sneezed on a photo it had printed, and the ink literally blew off. Now there is a blank spot where her face should've been.

Sure...you "sneezed" on the picture of your sister.

A Second Opinion

[x0dus]

While the DesignTechnica article is a pretty good overview of the latest batch of photo printers, you should check the reviews on the printers mentioned at printer-reviews.org. For example, someone posted that after connecting the Canon Pixma iP5200 printer to their computer they had to replace the motherboard. Personally I still prefer to send out for pictures than to print them myself. Cheaper and better quality.

Re:A Second Opinion

[zakezuke]

For example, someone posted that after connecting the Canon Pixma iP5200 printer to their computer they had to replace the motherboard. Personally I still prefer to send out for pictures than to print them myself. Cheaper and better quality.

If you go OEM ink, without a doubt it's cheaper to send out your prints. If you use 3rd party ink... well the price is so similar i'm not willing to say which is cheaper. At about $2.50 an ounce for ink matched to your printhead and $20ish for 100+ sheets of store branded photo paper, we are talking a nickle for the ink, about a nickle for each 4x6 plus another nickle for various costs depending on the printer model and what is needed to run bulk ink. It's when you start talking odd sizes of prints like CD and DVD covers, 8x10 or heck 8.5 x 11 that you start seeing that lab prints are not so cost effective depending where you shop.

Quality.. well inkjets while not the most reliable technology look good, really good... better than many vending machine dye sub printers.

Will any of them print the dates as well?

[backdoorstudent]

I'd like to be able to batch print piles of photos with the file creation dates printed on them also - preferably on the back. Does anyone have an easy solution?

two things...

[MooseTick]

I can email pictures to nearly Walgreens and pick them up in an hour. There are no minimum purchases and I can get 4x6 prints for $.19. I can also get a variety of other sizes. You can't beat that. I'd likely spend more than that in ink for a high quality photo printer and would have it dry out quicker than I would use it.

'Some of the best printers offer 9600 x 2400 DPI and over 50 levels of gradation.'
If this were true, then people could use their printer as a data backup system. 9600x2400 gives 23M dots per square inch. On a legal sized 8.5 x 14 you have 119 square inches. That gives you about 2.7GB of storage per sheet. Throw in some error correction and borders and perhaps you get 2GB per sheet. Add in the ability to print in gradiation or multiple colors and 10GB per sheet doesn't sound too far fetched.

Wouldn't it be nice to print off 10 pages each afternoon to back up 100GB of info? You could shread it when it gets old. To retrieve, you simply need to scan it with a high res scanner and interpret the bits.

you got it

[digitaldc]

treasure is a bit high in cholesterol though

Bulk Inkflow System

[yeOldeSkeptic]

I have two inkjet printers: a real cheap Epson Stylus 43SX and an Epson Stylus Photo R310. I use the 43SX for cheap color prints on ordinary paper and the R310 for photos.

I have succeeded in installing the 43SX under Linux and and currently in the process of installing the R310 so it will run under Linux too. I have used the Epson R310 under Win2000 and the results are satisfactory.

When printing to glossy paper the R310 prints look better than the prints I get from professional photo labs. Perhaps because I tend to tweak the colors and levels from my digicam using photoshop.

According to my experience:

• Print out a sample print from your digital camera and then adjust your monitor gamma so it will match the printer output. Now you can tweak the colors and levels ever so slightly and what you see on your monitor will be very close to the actual printer output.
• If your camera has manual exposure controls, underexpose your shots slightly. You can always adjust the levels later with Gimp or Photoshop.
• If you are going to visit the Philippines, there is a shop along Quirino Avenue where they modify your printer so it will accept a bulk inkflow system. They will remove the original Epson cartridges and attach ink cartridges that are connected to bottles containing printer ink. While your friends back in the states are complaining about the high cost of printer ink, you will giggle with delight as you pour ink into your bulk inflow system at a cost of only 20 dollars per liter per color!

  And I kid you not.

And some places don't

[Just Some Guy]

Walmart.com provides a release form that you print out and sign. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise: if you're willing to sign a release stating that you're the artist, then they're willing to print it.

Of course, this sidesteps the whole stupid issue of whether a photo that I wholly commissioned and paid for is my property or owned by the photographer. Never in a million years will I concede that the results of work I paid for are not mine to do with as I please.

Autumn has "autumnal", what does "Fall" have?

[BestNicksRTaken]

Fallic?!

Fallesque?

Fally?

Re:Autumn has "autumnal", what does "Fall" have?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Fallic?!

Forget bubblejet and micropiezo technology.... Fallic(tm) printing is here! While the other guys have hundrads of nozzles the new Fallic(tm) head does the same job with just one nozzle. Variable drop size from a few picoliters to a study stream making grain a thing of the past! The secret is in the prostate. Other techologies have to dither in order to get subtle shades, but with Fallic(tm) the inks used are mixed in the prostate before being ejected. And forget about clogs, after printing the bladder stores a special cleaning solution which totally cleans the Fallic(tm) head of medium that could dry. Any waste is dumped into a diaper for easy cleanup.

Variable drop size, streaming ink.... What more could you ask for?

How inkjet printers really work

[Tetravus]

"The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print."
Ha, more like the more ink the more likely you are to end up with a sopping wet unusable piece of paper.

Dye sublimation for life baby!

What's the Point of Digital Photography?

[NardofDoom]

I mean, if you're just going to print the damn things out anyway, why not just get a film camera and develop them? They'll even put it on a CD for you if you absolutely must look at them on a computer screen.

Re:What's the Point of Digital Photography?

[iggymanz]

1. instant gratification, see the results NOW.
2. can distribute copies to friends/family at almost zero cost
3. Easy to edit, splice, crop without all those funny filters, darkroom, papers and messy chemicals
4. don't have to pay for bad pictures

that said, I've been a photographer for over 30 years and have enjoyed developing my own photos, but now that I'm living with a pile of other folks don't have money or time or space for film photography

Re:What's the Point of Digital Photography?

[NardofDoom]

Then why print them out? Maybe it's the technophile in me, but I abhor taking something that's perfectly good in its digital form, has all the advantages of existing digitally, and then using perfectly good trees because you need something "real." If digital stuff isn't real, what do I spend all day doing? Making things that don't exist?

I can't justify having a printer just for digital photos, especially considering
1) I can order prints online, either within iPhoto or from another service
2) I have a gallery that I can host images on and share with friends and family
3) I can go print out a photo at any number of locations using their printer, if I really, desperately need a representative of my image in petrochemicals on dead trees
4) Ink cartridges for the damn things are more expensive than the printer itself, are dried out before I use them, and don't preserve well (though this is improving) 5) They only print photos 6) Storing photos on a hard drive takes up as much space as, well, a hard drive. Try keeping 10,000 dead-tree photos (as many as I have in my iPhoto library right now) indexed and searchable, not to mention preserved.

Re:What's the Point of Digital Photography?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because viewing images on-screen suck?

A human eye can discern about 300 dpi worth of detail. Compare that to a top-of the-range computer screen that offers 2000 pixels worth, distributed over 20 inchches, which gives a dpi of about 100. Simply no comparison. Ifyou want to enjoy your images in a limited fashion, sure, but allow those of us that wants to the pleasure of seeing an image for real.

Re:What's the Point of Digital Photography?

[iggymanz]

I make photos for display, have color pictures hanging I've made of the kids that still look good after six years. For $45 I can make a dozen or more 8x10 pictures, which is far less than studios have ass-plowed me for similar number of lousier unedited works. The printer with the same cartidge also does the once-in-a-blue-moon color diagrams I need for business too, so i'm having a hard time understanding someone being into digital photography and not wanting something to view where there's no computer present.

For what it's worth...

[Anonymous Coward]

'Fall' is an old English term.

It is the English who moved over to using the term Autumn some time after the word 'Fall' had already migrated to America a few hundred years ago.

In this case it is the American chaps that have tradition on their side and the English who use the new fangled word.

I'm English by the way, but credit where it's due.

Worst explanation ever

[sacrilicious]

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print.

The above makes no sense to me.

The smaller the drop size, the more ink can be placed on the paper? So I can make a floor wetter with a small bucket than with a big one?

And the more ink, the better the print? So presumably I could make any given print better by re-running the same paper through twice?

While apparently intended to be illuminating, I find the article's statements above (assuming they're true) to be like explaining digestion by saying "the act of chewing food causes the absorption of nutrients into the bloodstream"... true, but too many steps left out for comprehension. No explanation would have been better than their non-sensical one. They should have either given a better explanation, or just left it at "the smaller the number, the better the print."

Re:Worst explanation ever

[zakezuke]

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print.

The above makes no sense to me.

The smaller the drop size, the more ink can be placed on the paper? So I can make a floor wetter with a small bucket than with a big one?

The artical in many ways is well crap... They are buying into this whole marketing business of smaller picoliters is better. And it's true 1pl is the smallest drop size that i'm aware brought to us by Canon first with the ip5000... the next smallest being the Epson r800 and r1800 at 1.5pl IIRC. But... here's the kicker... you could spend $550 for the r1800 with 1.5pl or $850 for the r2400 with 3.5pl.... both rated at 5760 x 1440 dpi... and anyone that has ever used the r2400 knows that it is an inkhog... a beautiful inkhog with very little notisable grain, but regardless an inkhog.

What they are not explaining is these printers with the ultra small dot size can get away with having just the primary colors through dithering than printers with larger dot size. But the reverse can be said as well... use of light primary inks and secondary colors means you can get away with dithering less.

Re:Yes, but...

[symbolic]

With commercial photo labs you have big brother watching to make sure that none of your pictures can be misinterpreted, resulting in an unexpected visit by the local police. That remind me....I wonder if any of these printers use tracking dots.

Re:Tripped did we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume that he's British? Looking at the distribution of English speakers in the world, it would be more statistically likely that he's e.g. Japanese, Indian or Russian than British.

You see, "The Queen's English" is the English that's taught as standard English in every non-natively English speaking country in the world (and in the UK too, obviously...). To us damn foreigners, "American English" is a quaint deviation from the standard (unless we've been assimilated by Hollywood, which many of us are).

B&W inkjet all the way

[buddhahat]

I notice that everyone talks about the cost benefit trade off of sending digital images out to a printshop versus printing at home (inkjet vs C-print, cost per print, etc) but all these comments seem to be focused on color prints. While I'm sure those of us who print almost exclusively in black and white are a minority, I will say that Epson inkjets (2200 and now 2400 as well as the more expensive 4800 and up) are phenomenal at producing both neutral or toned b&w prints on a huge range of matte (or glossy) archival paper stocks. These prints will last up to 100 years with Epson inks or with some specialty b&w ink systems.

Though I still shoot mainly film (4x5, medium format and 35mm) I have now stopped chemical printing in the darkroom and print exclusively on inkjet.

Just another point of view on photo printing at home.

Re:B&W inkjet all the way

[zakezuke]

While I'm sure those of us who print almost exclusively in black and white are a minority, I will say that Epson inkjets (2200 and now 2400 as well as the more expensive 4800 and up) are phenomenal at producing both neutral or toned b&w prints on a huge range of matte (or glossy) archival paper stocks.

If B&W is really your bag... I mean really really your bag... you can get scaled black inks for many photo printers via third parties such as mediastreet or lyson.

http://www.mediastreet.com/site/generations_gq.htm l
http://www.lyson.com/quad-black-tone.html

Don't get me wrong... epson does a fab job in B&W... so does HP with their 8150 and 8750... the ones that have the optional #100 multi level grey cartridge IIRC. But... a 6 tank printer filled with various levels of black ink is going to have a bit of an edge over 2 or 3 tones of black.

what to look for

[inverselimit]

little yellow dots, that's what:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/

"Supported"

[Anonymous Coward]

Supported can mean one uber hacker got his printer to work after a lot of tweaking. I'm sitting on a printer right now that won't work, bought because I read it was "supported". googled like crazy, tried everything I could find, nada, zilch. It's an HP, too,(1210 PSC) supposedly one of the better "linux supported" printers, because it's an HP. My machine doesn't even register as a USB device. Why, can't say, not an uber hacker here. Now back some, when I had parallel port printers, they always worked easily for me under linux.

It's always something, x,y, works this distro version, but z doesn't. Next time x and z works, but y stops working. Sorta sucks sometimes....

My requirements

[SCHecklerX]

1) postscript
2) networkable without extra hardware
3) ink doesn't dry up if printer isn't used for a few months

CD printing on Canons

[zakezuke]

There are those of us who bought into Epsons to do CD printing... and well... their sub $300 printers are rather high maintance creatures. My experence with the r200 was not pleasent at all, and they only have one AIO printer that prints on CDs... and it's not cheap.

http://pixma.webpal.info/

Fortunatly most of the Canon Pixmas can print on CDs as well, just the feature is disabled for the North American market and it's not shipped with a CD tray. You can e-bay a tray... canon wasn't hip to places like partsnow selling them so you are dependent on people importing them independently. You can make your own or hack one from an old epson tray.

While I prefer the Epsons for flat out photo quality, colors that look good out of the box on most media without tweeking, and the ink's tendancy to wick less.... their low end printers clog if you look at them funny, they don't have anything resembling a frame, and diaper replacement can not be done without breaking plastic nor can you reassemble it without a jig. Not that there are not ways to extend the life of epsons... just my experence was I spent more time mucking with the printer than printing, and I prefer buying hardware either outlasts the warranty or at the very least can be maintained.

Re:Article downplays superiority of dysub over ink

[zakezuke]

But I would never use inkjet, well anywhere. On photos because it would always smear and generally give out crappy results (you can see the intermittent lines). Plus it looks god-awful on regular paper and that ink cartridge dries out if you don't tend to regularly use it every few weeks.

Always smear? Ummmm... on microporous paper I can run my prints under water without bleeding provided I wait at least 24hours. I tested a fresh print on Kirkland paper and it did bleed some but not all that much. I'll agree if we were talking the HP vivera inks which have a cure time of weeks but both Canon and Epson inks are microporous paper reasonably smuge resistant... and these are water based inks. There are other options for inks that use other solvents, just not typicaly on consumer grade printers. For added protection you can always spray your prints.

Plus my photos have a life of 99 years - I don't think the same can be said for inkjet (imagine that stored in someplace moderately humid).

You got me there.... I know Epson's durabright and ultrachrome pigment inks as well as hp's vivera inks are rated for a very long time... but on this level I gotta agree silver halide is really the way to go. You do have your waterfast, gasfast, lightfast all in one package.

Why would I need a photo printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of online photo printing services like snapfish or ofoto offer free prints for new customers (or just a new email address). I got hundreds of digital photos printed for free. I only had to pay shipping and handling, which is like $0.50 with snapfish, $2.00 at ofoto!

I should add

[zakezuke]

ftp://download.canon.jp/pub/driver/bj/linux/

I hate repsonding to my self... but I should add that the Japanese verion of the Pixma is known as the pixus. The model numbers are a wee bit different... in most cases 10 or 100 higher than the rest of the world models
for example
pixus ip3100 = pixma ip3000
i990 = i960 IIRC

Most canon models can be set to their japanese counterparts if nessicary through the service menu... with the notable exception of the new series of ip4200/ip5200.... or simply put any new canon printer that takes the chipped tanks. It seems in Japan that they are still using what we know of as the BCI series inktanks (bci-3/3e/6)... the bci-7s which use the new fancy chromalife100 formula... where in the rest of the world the new printers take the cli-8 & PGI-5 tanks. Basicly from my understanding... if you switch these printers to Japan mode.. they see they are using the wrong tanks and complain about it.... but also still complain if you use non-chipped tanks... so from what i've been told your stuck with a printer that won't print. Not an issue on the older ip3000/4000/5000/6000/8500.

Re:Tripped did we?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, "The Queen's English" is the English that's taught as standard English in every non-natively English speaking country in the world (and in the UK too, obviously...). To us damn foreigners, "American English" is a quaint deviation from the standard (unless we've been assimilated by Hollywood, which many of us are).

Incorrect... American English has tradition in it's side and has deviated far less in the past 400 years than the U.K no doubt due to a new fangled public library. Any other oddities are a direct result of starting cololonies before a standarized dictionary which we yanks can hardly be held accountable for. Not to speak of that vowel shift leading. You lot created the standard... we only kept the standard standardized.

Full control, that's why

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't print snapshots. I do print larger formats for framing, usually Super B (13 in. x 19 in.). I take photos using a Nikon D100 6 megapixel SLR. I use raw format and adjust them using Photoshop CS2. I print on archival paper using archival inks.

By printing it myself, I have full control and immediate turn around. Color calibration of my printer and monitor gets me close, but you still don't get the full impact until you see the print.

Then, if necessary, you can tweak again in photoshop and reprint. Without waiting for another 5 day turn-around from the lab.

re: HP Photosmart 8450

[Hezu]

I'm not sure exactly why this is classed as a printer of 2005 (it was released in 2004), see here for a good review on it.

In fact, it looks like HP has already discontinued that model:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/ho/WF10a/5043 -5683-5807-5807-6516595-6516639.html

Don't Nitpick..

[Anonymous Coward]

until you can tell the difference between "affect" and "effect".. retard.

Re:Article downplays superiority of dysub over ink

[rolfwind]

Well, I think Epson would probably disagree with you on the longevity. I probably would, too, as I've had high end dye sub output look like the poster in the window of a beach popsicle stand in just a year or two (you know - all cyan with a touch of yellow here and there...not a hint of magenta to be found). The longevity figures are all artifically created

I believe those figures are derived under an ideal environment - say in a photo album, printed on non-acidic paper (company brand) in UV protective plastic, etc.

But besides that, what you mentioned was constantly exposed to the sun's rays by the sounds of it. I think that ages and yellows almost any paper.