Photo printer?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> writes:

> Which photo printer would you people recommend?

It depends on what size prints you want to make, how long you expect/need the
prints to last in various conditions (hanging on the fridge, behind glass,
etc.), and how much the ink & paper cost.

For a lot of uses, either an internet printer (I like mpix.com) will be cheaper
and give better quality than many home printers will give, but of course it
takes several days to get the prints back. Note, I have been disappointed by
the quality however of many local places that print pictures (particularly
Walmart), so I don't really recomend them any more.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http/www.the-meissners.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi, I ordered a set of compatible inks from www.lanzone.co.uk about 5
months ago and the quality is awsome. and at £12.00 for a set of six I
am a happy bunny. The quality has to been seen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
printer to be a false economy all the way around.

If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
Frontier.

If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
idea, and cost isn't really a factor.

But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
on lab prints.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".

Every time I spend $50 on ink for my HP, I certainly do.
I had been looking at a 6- or an 8-ink Canon, which is clearly a wise
choice.
But now that I'm getting into photography, I'm discovering that, if
it's worth printing at all,
it's worth printing large. I'm looking at a 30x80cm print that just
arrived, and I'm stunned by what I can do these days.

I am old-school, enough to remember modifying my enlarger head to
project on the wall, and pressing various items into darkroom service
that were intended for working with wallpaper The ease with which
I can turn an image from my 8megapixel camera into a large print still
has me practically wetting my pants. Likewise, the turnaround time
and cost of snapshot prints is neat as well.

I will no doubt reach the limits of this approach, and when I do, will
probably buy the 8-ink Canon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:
> I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
> printer to be a false economy all the way around.
>
> If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
> printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
> actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
> Frontier.
>
> If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
> having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
> if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
> of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
> images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
> idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
>
> But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
> wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
> maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
> on lab prints.

I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".

Cost wise, you can't beat lab prints if you're printing 6x4s, but ink jet
printers such as my Canon i9950 can beat the shops if you want to do 8x10s, at
least here in Australia.

Ben

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:
>>I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
>
>
> Every time I spend $50 on ink for my HP, I certainly do.

You'll get more 8x10s with that $50 of HP ink than you a shop would give you for
$50.

Ben

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
for $50.

20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).

Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.

On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)

The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
"right now" or "confidentially".

Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
printer (8-ink Canon?)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Jun 2005 14:46:14 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Photo
printer? "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
>wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
>maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
>on lab prints.

Well said and worth repeating.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.

 

[frederick]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas wrote:

> James Of Tucson wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
>> printer to be a false economy all the way around.
>>
>> If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
>> printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
>> actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
>> Frontier.
>>
>> If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
>> having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
>> if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
>> of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
>> images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
>> idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
>>
>> But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
>> wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
>> maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
>> on lab prints.
>
>
> I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
>
> Cost wise, you can't beat lab prints if you're printing 6x4s, but ink
> jet printers such as my Canon i9950 can beat the shops if you want to do
> 8x10s, at least here in Australia.
>
> Ben
Likewise in New Zealand. My Epson R1800 beats the shops in every way
(price, quality, control, convenience, paper choice, and probably also
durability) once you get to larger prints.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 01:14:04 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Photo
printer? "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
>for $50.
>
>20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
>ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
>Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
>still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.

It sure looks that way.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118218444.043463.192560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
> for $50.
>
> 20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
> ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
> Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
> still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.
>
> On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
> only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
> single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)
>
> The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
> "right now" or "confidentially".
>
> Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
> printer (8-ink Canon?)
>
I don't know where you are shopping, but in the next state to the west of
you, Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl sells for about $12 for a box of 25...at
photo stores, not Costco.
That being said, the only time we print on our inkjet is when we need
something NOW or to proof colors. We can get it done at Calumet via
Silverwire much less expensively, those little ink pots in the Canon
printers, albeit only $11, are pretty small.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:
> 16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
> for $50.
>
> 20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
> ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
> Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
> still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.
>
> On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
> only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
> single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)
>
> The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
> "right now" or "confidentially".
>
> Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
> printer (8-ink Canon?)

I don't know where you are, but you should be able to get very good inkjet photo
paper for half what you quoted above.

Even still, it looks cheaper for you to get the 8x10s printed at the lab.

Like I said in another post, it depends where you're from, and down-under it's
cheaper to 8x10s at home but 6x4s are much cheaper at the lab.

Ben

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I don't know where you are shopping

Amazon.com, for the purpose of a spot check on HP photo paper.

If we start talking about bargain hunting for ink and paper, or using
paper not recommended by the printer manufacturer, there's no floor
anyway. Of course I don't buy into the hype that you should only use
HP paper in an HP printer (obviously, HP is going to say that!), but on
the other hand, I have gotten better results with HP paper than several
other brands, so I think there may be some truth there.

I think a lot of people assume that it's always a cost savings if they
can print their photos at home, but that is not the case. In fact, it
appears that you really need to shop around for bargains on ink and
paper before you reach the break even point.

The fact that a person can get Ilford paper for $12 at a camera store
doesn't persuade me at all. It remains a question of convenience over
price.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118343443.366605.224240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't know where you are shopping
>
> Amazon.com, for the purpose of a spot check on HP photo paper.
>
> If we start talking about bargain hunting for ink and paper, or using
> paper not recommended by the printer manufacturer, there's no floor
> anyway. Of course I don't buy into the hype that you should only use
> HP paper in an HP printer (obviously, HP is going to say that!), but on
> the other hand, I have gotten better results with HP paper than several
> other brands, so I think there may be some truth there.

Ilford Gallerie isn't exactly "bargain hunting," many on this group have
reported stellar results with it on Canon, HP and Epson printers. It is
excellent paper, from a credible, established manufacturer. Images I've
printed on my Canon s9000 are better than what I've gotten from Canon's own
paper, and are virtually indistinguishable from prints from the lab we use.
Try Hannemule, Moab, Bergger, Lumijet, Museo and some other papers, you
might be surprised. All, or most of them, are old line photo paper
manufacturers, and know their way around image reproduction.

>
> I think a lot of people assume that it's always a cost savings if they
> can print their photos at home, but that is not the case. In fact, it
> appears that you really need to shop around for bargains on ink and
> paper before you reach the break even point.

I did say that it is still cheaper, in most cases, to do it at a lab, mainly
because of the ink costs.
>
> The fact that a person can get Ilford paper for $12 at a camera store
> doesn't persuade me at all. It remains a question of convenience over
> price.

What convenience? Is it more convenient to go to a brick and mortar to buy
what you need, when you need it, or to stay at home, order online and wait a
day or two? If the latter, try B&H, Ilford Gallerie goes for $12.95/25
sheets, HP Premium Plus High Gloss Photo Paper, $15.95/20 sheets.

Y'know, all I was doing was giving you an alternative, and you seem to have
turned it adversarial. Ah, well, no good deed goes long unpunished...
--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>What convenience?

Oh, you misunderstood. The convenience I mean is where I can do it all
without putting on pants or shoes, and likewise the security and
privacy. These aspects can actually have a much higher value than the
costs.


>Y'know, all I was doing was giving you an alternative, and you
>seem to have turned it adversarial. Ah, well, no good deed
>goes long unpunished...

Oops, not at all. Sorry. I feel obliged to caution others -- I've
seen lots of people fall into the trap of the false economy of the
photo printer. Politeness wasn't part of my upbringing, don't take it
personally!

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:

>
> But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
> wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
> maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
> on lab prints.

Some images work well done at a "lab", others don't. My canon i9900 can
print colors WAY outside the gamut of a lab machine but I've found the lab
does a good job if the colors are within what it can deal with and also
does a great job with B&W files. The canon doesn't do them very well.

I guess it does depends on the camera and what color space you work in? If I
develop the RAW files as aRGB of a saturated subject, the lab has to clip
them so badly it ruins the image. Sure I could develop it in sRGB and/or
tone down the colors till it was within what their printer can deal with
but then is it "as good"? Not in my opinion..

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118384303.250789.81850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >What convenience?
>
> Oh, you misunderstood. The convenience I mean is where I can do it all
> without putting on pants or shoes, and likewise the security and
> privacy. These aspects can actually have a much higher value than the
> costs.

There's an alternative to Amazon, it seems that B&H is substantially less
expensive. That's online, so I'm sure they don't care, either, about your
state of dress! <G> but I still can't find myself entirely trusting of
online transactions, speaking of security, and feel that an actual physical
presence gives me more, and when I can actually see to whom I'm giving my
money, feel a privacy advantage, too, if you know what I mean.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com