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 ...

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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.)

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*

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.

[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.

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?

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).

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: 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

[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.

The second most important question

[jhol]

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

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.

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.

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."

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: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.