Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photo Printers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Photo Printers

    Folks,

    Related to the scanner thread, Julie is making noise about a new photo printer. Currently, I own an HP Photosmart 1215. It's a few years old, but it was - at the time - the best photo printer available.

    And yet, even in its highest quality mode the pictures are dithered.

    This is not uncommon - take your digital photos to CVS and their printer will churn them out dithered, too. Only theirs is a dye-sub so the picture looks glossier.

    My question - are the newest generation of photo printers actually capable of producing photo-quality results? Right now, Julie sends all her photos out to Ofoto, and they come back looking like glossy photos. No dithering, no blocking... they look just like the 35mm films we get back.

    While I realize that there's a big difference between home equipment and photo labs, is there any photo printer that produces REALLY GOOD results and not "slightly dithered"?
    The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

    I'm the least you could do
    If only life were as easy as you
    I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
    If only life were as easy as you
    I would still get screwed
    Tags: None
  • #2
    The ones that...uhmm...aren't inkjets? Not sure the name...sublimation printers?

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Nowhere
      The ones that...uhmm...aren't inkjets? Not sure the name...sublimation printers?
      Dye-sublimation, yes.

      Hmm... ok but are any of the little photo printers out there using dye-sub?
      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

      I'm the least you could do
      If only life were as easy as you
      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
      If only life were as easy as you
      I would still get screwed

      Comment

      • #4
        sublimation printer - Google Search
        http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=opera&rls=pl&q=sublimation+printer&btnG=Search

        Apparently yes...

        Comment

        • #5
          I think canon offer the service of sending you pictures printed from some of their models from your files. Should this be solely for printing photos? What size? Price of printer vs. price of prints is an important factor, too, depending on the number of pics you want to print. Do the photos need to be UV resistant? On what kind of paper?
          There's an Opera in my macbook.

          Comment

          • #6
            Photo printers aren't worth it. After you factor in the cost to purchase the printer, the ink/dye and photo paper, it's cheaper to bring it in to Walmart/Target/Costco, etc and have them do it. Most of them have an online service where you upload the photos, and then modify them (ala Picasso-style), and then submit them to print. Wait an hour or so and go pick them up at the local store. Cost $0.19-$0.30 a print (versus ~$0.50 for a personal photo printer) and has better quality than a photo printer.
            “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
            –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

            Comment

            • #7
              Jamm says the most important thing. Photo printers are for convenience.
              There's an Opera in my macbook.

              Comment

              • #8
                and privacy
                Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                Comment

                • #9
                  I think most photos aren't looked at by people any more when they are developed. Too expensive
                  There's an Opera in my macbook.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by az
                    I think most photos aren't looked at by people any more when they are developed. Too expensive
                    Yeah they are.
                    Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Really? I think in the megalabs here they aren't, because the labs are automated to a large degree - also people didn't seem to have a concern with privacy back when photography was still analog
                      There's an Opera in my macbook.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Back when people didn't have to be worried about Wal-Mart reporting them for child pornography because they took a picture of their child's first baths.
                        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          That's why you order online through Target. You can even get away with sending in copies of a portrait or such taken in a studio. Most places, if you tried that in person, would rattle off a line about them not being allowed to (not that they're wrong mind you).

                          *ahem*

                          We have a photo printer. One of those standard HP Photosmart models we received for Christmas. True, we get the occassional print that's well and truly ruined, but for the most part it does an impressive job. Then again, so does out Epson all-in-one... For quick prints they're great, but from a cost and quality perspective they are definitely a long way off from traditional print services.
                          “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Actually the stuff that comes out of the machines at Target or Walmart is pretty much crap. Ritz has decent output, but otherwise none of them can compare to Ofoto. Even Shutterfly, which is otherwise a decent service, isn't as good as Ofoto. Gotta love Kodak.
                            The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                            I'm the least you could do
                            If only life were as easy as you
                            I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                            If only life were as easy as you
                            I would still get screwed

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Actually the difference between dye sub printers and inkjets it that the inkjets have to use a variable dot size and dithering algorithms to approximate a continuous tone image - same thing that a newpaper print does. A dye sub printer is a continuous tone printer and it can print a dot of any color (within its color space of course) because the dye are melted together to form the color.

                              Inkjet prints will look best when a high gloss paper (read photo) coated paper is used. But the previous respondents are correct, it does take a bit of investment and time to produce equivalent quality prints to Ofoto and other commercial print companies. All depends on what is "good enough".

                              Here's a good web site:

                              Home - Luminous Landscape
                              https://www.luminous-landscape.com
                              Last edited by degrub; 27 March 2006, 20:45.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X