WTD: Photo printer recomendations

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand alone unit
that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye sublimation technology
and only allow 6x4 max prints.

I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other than it
looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display panel.

I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a max of
£200... less if poss.

I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo printers are
capable of showing up the differences between the two, more so if I went
further up the ladder.

Steve
23 answers Last reply
More about photo printer recomendations
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I suggest the PIXMA iP4000. It would be perfect compliment to your
    cameras and its print amazing photos edge to edge. It can print can
    4x6, 5x7 and 8 1/2 x 11 or A4 in Europe. It is around $180 Cdn. Not
    sure how much in Europe but it should be more than that.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Stevie Boy wrote:
    > I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
    > technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand
    > alone unit that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye
    > sublimation technology and only allow 6x4 max prints.
    >
    > I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other
    > than it looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display
    > panel.
    >
    > I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a
    > max of £200... less if poss.
    >
    > I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo
    > printers are capable of showing up the differences between the two,
    > more so if I went further up the ladder.

    I just got an Epson Stylus R300. It does excellent Photo prints @ 6*4. Havnt
    tried Full size but can't see why not.

    At £85 you can't complain.

    Oh it also reads and prints digicam mem cards too, without the need for a
    PC.

    HTH
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.


    "Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:33iublF412dnqU1@individual.net...
    > I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
    > technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand alone
    > unit
    > that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye sublimation technology
    > and only allow 6x4 max prints.
    >
    > I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other than
    > it
    > looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display panel.
    >
    > I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a max of
    > £200... less if poss.
    >
    > I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo printers are
    > capable of showing up the differences between the two, more so if I went
    > further up the ladder.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:56:23 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

    >You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.
    >
    ....and then walk away hurriedly in case you're tempted to buy the
    dog...

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
    If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need to
    walk away.


    "Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
    news:h2c9t0po93t6bgofm9phshssavp45g7tfk@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:56:23 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    > <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >>You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.
    >>
    > ...and then walk away hurriedly in case you're tempted to buy the
    > dog...
    >
    > --
    >
    > Hecate - The Real One
    > Hecate@newsguy.com
    > veni, vidi, reliqui
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:17:06 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

    >It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
    >If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need to
    >walk away.
    >
    >
    I haven't seen one review that gives it a good write up, and doesn't
    prefer other printers of the same type to the Epson.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Do you believe everything that you read? Some of these reviews I don't
    think they ever read the manual.

    I have one and it does great pictures. I know lots of satisfied Picture
    Mate users.


    "Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
    news:5n2ct0tbbusv3pg50nn2drv9s5e4kb3cn5@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:17:06 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    > <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >>It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
    >>If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need
    >>to
    >>walk away.
    >>
    >>
    > I haven't seen one review that gives it a good write up, and doesn't
    > prefer other printers of the same type to the Epson.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Hecate - The Real One
    > Hecate@newsguy.com
    > veni, vidi, reliqui
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Safetymom123" <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

    >You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.
    >
    >
    >"Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:33iublF412dnqU1@individual.net...
    >> I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
    >> technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand alone
    >> unit
    >> that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye sublimation technology
    >> and only allow 6x4 max prints.
    >>
    >> I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other than
    >> it
    >> looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display panel.
    >>
    >> I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a max of
    >> £200... less if poss.
    >>
    >> I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo printers are
    >> capable of showing up the differences between the two, more so if I went
    >> further up the ladder.
    >>
    >> Steve
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    If you are just looking for very good looking to great looking prints
    then you can just go look at the output of the 4x6 printers and pick
    by price. If you want to include the total cost of ownership, then the
    least expensive printer will be the Epson Picture Mate.

    According to a recent test report the Epson Picture Mate cost per
    print was, by far, the least expensive of the test group class at 29
    cents per picture. This price even makes printing at home reasonably
    competitive with commercial printing. With the Epson, it is cost
    competitive AND longevity competitive with commercial printing.

    An extremely important aspect of printing that is often entirely
    overlooked is longevity. If I take the time to print something for
    myself or family, then it is something I want to last!

    For longevity ratings of these 4x6 printers take a look at
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/WIR_4x6_Prints_2004_12_07.pdf

    Epson came in first place for color photos at 104 years with HP color
    at 82 years (Black and white 115), Kodak Easyshare at 26 years and
    Canon at 7 years.

    Here is an excerpt from one of the Epson reviews:

    "The PictureMate took 2 minutes and 22 seconds to print a photo from a
    PC--noticeably longer than either of the other snapshot printers we
    have tested. But the output was worth waiting for: Colors in the photo
    looked bright and luminous, detail popped out in sharp focus, and
    highlights and shadows looked natural."


    Here are a couple of online test reports:
    http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=330

    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/chart_test_report/0,chid,5911,prodid,21432,00.asp
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
    news:5n2ct0tbbusv3pg50nn2drv9s5e4kb3cn5@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:17:06 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    > <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >>It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
    >>If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need
    >>to
    >>walk away.
    >>
    >>
    > I haven't seen one review that gives it a good write up, and doesn't
    > prefer other printers of the same type to the Epson.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Hecate - The Real One
    > Hecate@newsguy.com
    > veni, vidi, reliqui

    I know nothing at all about this model, but your post got me curious so I
    googled reviews of this printer. They all seem to be very positive, so I
    don't know where you've been reading!?
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > I know nothing at all about this model, but your post got me curious so I
    > googled reviews of this printer. They all seem to be very positive, so I
    > don't know where you've been reading!?
    >

    Likewise, given the mixed views on photo printers I have in various groups
    it looks best if I do my own research.... Clearly nearly all photo printers
    do a good job it's just a case of which is right for me and which I feel
    prints more accurately.

    Steve
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jimbob" <meandyou@nospam.com> wrote:

    >Stevie Boy wrote:
    >> I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
    >> technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand
    >> alone unit that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye
    >> sublimation technology and only allow 6x4 max prints.
    >>
    >> I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other
    >> than it looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display
    >> panel.
    >>
    >> I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a
    >> max of £200... less if poss.
    >>
    >> I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo
    >> printers are capable of showing up the differences between the two,
    >> more so if I went further up the ladder.
    >
    >I just got an Epson Stylus R300. It does excellent Photo prints @ 6*4. Havnt
    >tried Full size but can't see why not.
    >
    >At £85 you can't complain.
    >
    >Oh it also reads and prints digicam mem cards too, without the need for a
    >PC.
    >
    >HTH
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:t74gt0lfj8s61epi69tbkrjdca190jasd5@4ax.com...

    > According to a recent test report the Epson Picture Mate cost per
    > print was, by far, the least expensive of the test group class at 29
    > cents per picture. This price even makes printing at home reasonably
    > competitive with commercial printing.

    HP has similar offerings. The Photosmart 375 has several cartridge and paper
    bundles, some offer less than 29 cents per print for ink and paper combined.
    Search for "photo value pack" at http://www.hp.com.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:55:51 GMT, "Safetymom123"
    <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

    >Do you believe everything that you read? Some of these reviews I don't
    >think they ever read the manual.
    >
    NO, but I do believe it when there are several reviews all saying the
    same thing from different sources, and giving examples of better
    choices.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:t74gt0lfj8s61epi69tbkrjdca190jasd5@4ax.com...
    >
    >> According to a recent test report the Epson Picture Mate cost per
    >> print was, by far, the least expensive of the test group class at 29
    >> cents per picture. This price even makes printing at home reasonably
    >> competitive with commercial printing.
    >
    >HP has similar offerings. The Photosmart 375 has several cartridge and paper
    >bundles, some offer less than 29 cents per print for ink and paper combined.
    >Search for "photo value pack" at http://www.hp.com.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
    >

    Or Bob we can look at a favorable review of both printers on Cnet to
    help us choose. The test pointed to the HP having a nagging little
    problem for photo fans, print quality. The printers you refer to only
    use 4 colors so grain or dots are noticeable whereas the Epson uses 6
    colors and produces a much more realistic photo.

    Cnet said:

    "(HP)Print quality
    Our test photos generally looked good, although we had a few
    complaints. Some colors, particularly pastel shades and yellows,
    looked washed out, while others, especially reds, seemed overly
    saturated. There was also a slight reddish tinge in the white, gray,
    and black areas, most likely because the tricolor ink cartridge uses
    cyan, magenta, and black inks to simulate grays. Sharp-eyed viewers
    could see individual ink dots with the naked eye. The printer was
    prone to nozzle clogs when left idle for a few days, resulting in
    pronounced horizontal banding, but that cleared up after a few prints
    and printhead cleanings."

    To sum up:
    Editors' rating: 7.3 Good
    User rating: 67% Thumbs up 33% Thumbs down from 12 users

    The good: Connects directly to cameras, digital media, and
    (optionally) Bluetooth devices; compact; easy to operate; Mac and
    Windows compatible.

    The bad: Color cast in light colors; photos look grainy.
    What's it for: Printing 4x6-inch photos on the spot.
    Who's it for: The snapshot-happy crowd.
    Essential extras: USB cable; 4x6-inch paper.
    The bottom line: This portable photo printer is economical and easy to
    use, but we have a few complaints about its output.

    Whereas of the Epson they said:

    "The Epson PictureMate uses a single six-color ink cartridge to
    produce borderless or bordered water-, fingerprint-, and
    smudge-resistant prints that Epson claims will resist fading for 100
    to 200 years. Our test prints were rich and brilliant, with solid
    blacks, saturated colors, and smooth, seamless gradients. We needed a
    10X magnifier to detect extremely faint horizontal banding caused by
    the movement of the printhead. Images were adequately sharp and free
    of jaggies. Black-and-white prints had a suitably wide dynamic range,
    with dense blacks and pure whites without color casts."

    Editors' rating: 7.3 Good
    User rating: 90% 10% from 60 users

    The good: Economical; excellent print quality; connects directly to
    cameras, media cards, and external storage devices; compact; easy to
    operate; Mac and Windows compatible.

    The bad: No color LCD for previewing or cropping images; AC-only
    operation; slow.
    The bottom line: This portable photo printer produces quality output,
    but we wish it ran on batteries. It could stand to be a lot faster,
    too.

    Not perfect but if quality is important then the choice is Epson.

    Regards,
    Richard, not speaking for my employer either but I _DO_ make printer
    purchase recommendations based on multiple test results. ;^)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:mqfht017kogv4poa39melin9muuba7n0ks@4ax.com...

    > Or Bob we can look at a favorable review of both printers on Cnet to
    > help us choose.

    It is easy enough to find competing reviews. Here are a couple where
    the Photosmart 375 beat the Epson Picturemate:

    In the November issue of Laptop magazine the Photosmart 375 won an Editors
    Choice award, garnering the only 5 out of 5 stars rating and besting offerings
    from Kodak, Epson, Canon, and Olympus. The reviewer, Louis Ramirez, calls the
    PS 375, "a must-have for any digicam owner" and says the unit delivers the
    "sharpest and brightest images" compared to the other printers.

    Another great review of the PS 375 appears in the November issue of Mobile PC
    Magazine, as the PS375 takes home the "Mobile Choice" award for portable photo
    printers beating the Canon CP-330, Olympus P-10 and the Epson PictureMate.
    Reviewer Mark McClusky awarded the unit 4 1/2 out of 5 stars. Mark liked
    the outstanding image quality, color LCD screen, and manual editing functions
    that are available within the unit. Key Quotes: "But most of all, we were
    shocked that, in our testing, two ink-jet based printers left two
    much-ballyhooed dye-sublimation printers in the dust." "Simply put, this
    little machine churns out magnificent images, with plenty of rich shadow detail
    and without any hint of jaggedness." "HP has also introduced a new line of
    inks, and we're believers if this printer is any indication of their quality;
    the color is beautifully saturated without seeming fake." "...the HP is an
    exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
    quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich but
    still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the HP."

    > The test pointed to the HP having a nagging little
    > problem for photo fans, print quality. The printers you refer to only
    > use 4 colors so grain or dots are noticeable whereas the Epson uses 6
    > colors and produces a much more realistic photo.

    Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in the
    past: email me a jpg to bobh@proaxis.com and your postal address and I will
    make a print and mail it to you. Perhaps you could do the same with the
    Picturemate and they can compare the photo's side by side and see which they
    prefer. The reality is that both printers are pretty good, and each has its
    strengths and weaknesses. I happen to like the LCD display and the built-in
    battery for portable operation the Photosmart 375 offers.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "...the HP is an
    > exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
    > quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich
    > but
    > still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the
    > HP."

    From the little snippet above it would seem that the reviewer has given
    golden stars to both printers just put the words in different ways.

    > Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in
    > the
    > past: email me a jpg to bobh@proaxis.com and your postal address and I
    > will
    > make a print and mail it to you.


    IS there a site where jpg photo images from a range of printers can be
    viewed?
    I'd love some samples but being on the other side of the Atlantic it aint
    gonna happen.

    Steve
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:33smbhF44lii8U1@individual.net...
    >
    >> "...the HP is an exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with
    >> drop-dead photo quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are
    >> bright and rich but still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the
    >> same level as the HP."
    >
    > From the little snippet above it would seem that the reviewer has given
    > golden stars to both printers just put the words in different ways.

    Yes, but with an edge given to the HP.

    >> Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in
    >> the past: email me a jpg to bobh@proaxis.com and your postal address and I
    >> will make a print and mail it to you.
    >
    > IS there a site where jpg photo images from a range of printers can be
    > viewed?
    > I'd love some samples but being on the other side of the Atlantic it aint
    > gonna happen.

    It is really not practical to scan and post on a web site photos from various
    printers. Your screen is typically 72-100ppi and cannot do a reasonable job of
    showing differences between printers. I have seen some sites that show highly
    magnified portions to compare printers, but this does not give any real ideas
    of what the prints look like.

    These days it is actually possible to send mail across the Atlantic :-). Send
    me an email with your address and a good quality jpg and I will send you a
    print from the PS 375. Perhaps you can get an Epson fan to do the same for the
    Picturemate.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:mqfht017kogv4poa39melin9muuba7n0ks@4ax.com...
    >
    >> Or Bob we can look at a favorable review of both printers on Cnet to
    >> help us choose.
    >
    >It is easy enough to find competing reviews. Here are a couple where
    >the Photosmart 375 beat the Epson Picturemate:
    >
    >In the November issue of Laptop magazine the Photosmart 375 won an Editors
    >Choice award, garnering the only 5 out of 5 stars rating and besting offerings
    >from Kodak, Epson, Canon, and Olympus. The reviewer, Louis Ramirez, calls the
    >PS 375, "a must-have for any digicam owner" and says the unit delivers the
    >"sharpest and brightest images" compared to the other printers.
    >
    >Another great review of the PS 375 appears in the November issue of Mobile PC
    >Magazine, as the PS375 takes home the "Mobile Choice" award for portable photo
    >printers beating the Canon CP-330, Olympus P-10 and the Epson PictureMate.
    >Reviewer Mark McClusky awarded the unit 4 1/2 out of 5 stars. Mark liked
    >the outstanding image quality, color LCD screen, and manual editing functions
    >that are available within the unit. Key Quotes: "But most of all, we were
    >shocked that, in our testing, two ink-jet based printers left two
    >much-ballyhooed dye-sublimation printers in the dust." "Simply put, this
    >little machine churns out magnificent images, with plenty of rich shadow detail
    >and without any hint of jaggedness." "HP has also introduced a new line of
    >inks, and we're believers if this printer is any indication of their quality;
    >the color is beautifully saturated without seeming fake." "...the HP is an
    >exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
    >quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich but
    >still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the HP."
    >
    >> The test pointed to the HP having a nagging little
    >> problem for photo fans, print quality. The printers you refer to only
    >> use 4 colors so grain or dots are noticeable whereas the Epson uses 6
    >> colors and produces a much more realistic photo.
    >
    >Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in the
    >past: email me a jpg to bobh@proaxis.com and your postal address and I will
    >make a print and mail it to you. Perhaps you could do the same with the
    >Picturemate and they can compare the photo's side by side and see which they
    >prefer. The reality is that both printers are pretty good, and each has its
    >strengths and weaknesses. I happen to like the LCD display and the built-in
    >battery for portable operation the Photosmart 375 offers.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
    >
    >

    Actually Bob, I purposely quoted the Cnet test for a couple of
    reasons:
    1. I deemed the test fair because it actually gave BOTH printers the
    same overall score of 7.3 out of 10 while pointing out their
    individual strengths and weaknesses.
    2. The test is available for anyone to read via the Internet so
    quotes from the test may be checked to see if anything was taken out
    of context.
    3. I did not wish to appear to be a shill for any one company.

    You on the other hand chose articles that cater to mobile printing
    (Laptop magazine and Mobile PC) where the strength of the little HP
    lies because it can operate from battery.

    In any case, I have seen the prints from the HP too and I CAN see the
    dots on this and other four color printers as can many here on usenet.
    It is a fact that, whether or not someone has keen enough vision to
    see these dots, the six and more color printers provide a more
    realistic picture than those having fewer colors. This has been asked
    and answered many times here on Usenet with sites listed where you can
    go see for yourself. HP certainly are aware of this, otherwise they
    would not bother with making printers with more ink colors. While
    would agree that some 4 color printers have improved amazingly, they
    still fall short for those with a more critical eye.

    To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
    from a range of printers can be viewed?

    Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
    be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
    smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.

    Go here to see printer types:
    http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

    Then here for comparison:

    http://www.inkjetart.com/news/E5000_comp8.html


    There are, or at least, were others but I would have to search for
    them. I believe David Chien had a site at one time with samples of
    various printers.

    Richard
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:ghbjt0d49s6b0q692sbhdaf61tuk96cb1j@4ax.com...
    > To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
    > from a range of printers can be viewed?
    >
    > Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
    > be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
    > smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.
    >
    > Go here to see printer types:
    > http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

    Yes, there are sites that you can compare, but in today's world of small drops
    and/or light dye loads a 17x magnification does not really give any indication
    of what the user will perceive when actually looking at a print, hence my offer
    to send Steve an actual print. Perhaps you could do the same and he could
    compare?

    - Bob Headrick
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:ghbjt0d49s6b0q692sbhdaf61tuk96cb1j@4ax.com...
    >> To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
    >> from a range of printers can be viewed?
    >>
    >> Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
    >> be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
    >> smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.
    >>
    >> Go here to see printer types:
    >> http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html
    >
    >Yes, there are sites that you can compare, but in today's world of small drops
    >and/or light dye loads a 17x magnification does not really give any indication
    >of what the user will perceive when actually looking at a print, hence my offer
    >to send Steve an actual print. Perhaps you could do the same and he could
    >compare?
    >
    > - Bob Headrick
    >

    If he likes, I will send him a glossy 4x6 6 color print of this
    picture
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20/samples/p1010078.jpg
    and you can do the same. Or I can send it to you and you can forward
    both to him in the same envelope. Either way is fine with me.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:53:14 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:ghbjt0d49s6b0q692sbhdaf61tuk96cb1j@4ax.com...
    >> To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
    >> from a range of printers can be viewed?
    >>
    >> Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
    >> be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
    >> smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.
    >>
    >> Go here to see printer types:
    >> http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html
    >
    >Yes, there are sites that you can compare, but in today's world of small drops
    >and/or light dye loads a 17x magnification does not really give any indication
    >of what the user will perceive when actually looking at a print, hence my offer
    >to send Steve an actual print. Perhaps you could do the same and he could
    >compare?
    >
    As Bob already knows I'm not an HP fan because every time there's a
    new version of Windows, HP can't be bothered to update their inkjet
    printer drivers, however,

    (This is a consumer magazine, but still...):

    Practical Photography (UK) Jan 2005:

    Direct Printer Test: Best Buy - HP Photosmart 375 Pros: Fast, good
    quality prints,great value. Cons: cheap feel to the printer.

    Epson Picturemate also tested: Pros: very simple to use. Cons: Image
    quality isn't great.

    They concluded that the HP was worth the extra money over the Epson
    and made it the Best Buy.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    << From: "Stevie Boy" zen20140@zen.co.uk
    Date: Mon, Jan 3, 2005 4:50 AM
    Message-id: <33smbhF44lii8U1@individual.net>


    "...the HP is an
    > exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
    > quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich
    > but
    > still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the
    > HP."

    From the little snippet above it would seem that the reviewer has given
    golden stars to both printers just put the words in different ways.

    > Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in
    > the
    > past: email me a jpg to bobh@proaxis.com and your postal address and I
    > will
    > make a print and mail it to you.


    IS there a site where jpg photo images from a range of printers can be
    viewed?
    I'd love some samples but being on the other side of the Atlantic it aint
    gonna happen.

    Steve
    >>


    Try getting the HP pictures wet and then do the same to the Epson. The Epson
    prints will absolutely not smear and if your quote is to the HP 375 with 3
    color inks and no separate black as contrasted with the 6 color Epson, I
    can't see how the HP pictures could be better. (Happy with my PictureMate.)
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Laptop Magazine and Mobile PC Magazine for printer reviews!
    Hahahahahaha.......as one person suggested, try using the HP Premium
    Plus Photo Paper and touch the picture, and watch as the photo comes
    right off. On top of that, the value packs that bring the cost per page
    for HP to $.29, cost a staggering $79.99......that's a joke, you have
    to buy all that to get the cost down. On top of that, the HP with a
    tri-color cartridge can't print true black, having to mix all colors,
    wasting ink to make composite black. Read review on sites that are
    dedicated to photo printing, and you'll see the Epson Picturemate is
    the hands down winner. And Bob, tell HP why is it that they call their
    Photosmart AIO's, photosmart, when they don't even ship with a photo
    cartridge. HP is a joke these days, with their miniscule ink carts,
    such as the number 28 ink cartridge, a tri-color cartridge with 8 ml.
    worth of ink. For photo printing stick with Epson and Canon.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo Peripherals