Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Passport photograph on inkjet printer?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
March 7, 2005 5:18:45 PM

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

Since the UK Passport Office accepts digital photos (1200dpi or greater) I
thought I would take my own photo and print it on my Epson 890.

I know about inkjet inks fading in sunlight, but does anyone know what would
happen to such a photo when it is laminated into a passport? Might there be
an ineraction between the plastic and ink that would cause my image to
expire before the passport (10 years)?

Mike
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:53:22 PM

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

It doesn't get laminated into the passport anymore (at least mine wasn't in
2003).
The photo is scanned and printed onto a laminate and that is put on the
passport.

--
Mick Doherty
http://dotnetrix.co.uk/nothing.html


"MikeD" <mike.dunstan@nochance.uk.thalesgroup.com> wrote in message
news:D 0hntl$2ju$1@rdel.co.uk...
> Since the UK Passport Office accepts digital photos (1200dpi or greater) I
> thought I would take my own photo and print it on my Epson 890.
>
> I know about inkjet inks fading in sunlight, but does anyone know what
> would
> happen to such a photo when it is laminated into a passport? Might there
> be
> an ineraction between the plastic and ink that would cause my image to
> expire before the passport (10 years)?
>
> Mike
>
>
March 7, 2005 6:16:47 PM

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

"Michael Doherty"
<EXCHANGE#WITH@AND.REMOVE.SQUAREBRACKETS.[mdaudi100#ntlworld.com]> wrote in
message news:CVZWd.2025$cp4.1198@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> It doesn't get laminated into the passport anymore (at least mine wasn't
in
> 2003).
> The photo is scanned and printed onto a laminate and that is put on the
> passport.

Ah, the onward march of technology.

Thanks Mick.

Mike
Related resources
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:28:19 PM

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

In article <d0hntl$2ju$1@rdel.co.uk>, MikeD
<mike.dunstan@nochance.uk.thalesgroup.com> writes
>Since the UK Passport Office accepts digital photos (1200dpi or greater) I
>thought I would take my own photo and print it on my Epson 890.
>
>I know about inkjet inks fading in sunlight, but does anyone know what would
>happen to such a photo when it is laminated into a passport? Might there be
>an ineraction between the plastic and ink that would cause my image to
>expire before the passport (10 years)?
>
I just had my passport renewed last week and printed the photo on an
Epson 1270, which is just the large format predecessor of your 1290. I
sent them prints on Premium Glossy at 1440dpi which they accepted.
Unlike the old days though, the photo is no longer laminated into your
passport. Instead it is rescanned and printed onto holograph embossed
plastic sheet. The results are somewhat less than satisfactory in my
view, since the image is certainly not as clear as the original, but it
seems to be good enough for the Passport Office. The reprinting is why
the background has to be very light, white or cream now, which it didn't
previously - so that the passport page can now be visible through it. My
previous passport had a light blue background and one or two before that
had a black background with a ring-light outlining my face - neither of
which are acceptable these days.

However, given that they are going to rescan the photo in any case, I am
surprised that they do not accept digital photographs directly at, say
300ppi, since the results would be vastly superior to the existing
method of resampling ink dots - and they would only need one copy. Even
uncompressed this would only be a 660kbyte file, and good quality jpeg
could take it down well below a 100kbyte attachment. It would also
speed the application process up considerably because you could send
them the images electronically, together with the electronic application
data - instead of having to wait for the data to be printed, posted to
you, returned to them with the photos, for them to be scanned and
printed together with the data and then posted back to you.

A totally electronic operation would also be a lot more secure than the
service they currently operate, where the data and photos can be
intercepted and changed at any point by anyone. The courier actually
falsified the delivery records twice when handling mine, so for a while
I believed it had been stolen and I could be invited to take a free long
term vacation in Cuba!

It all seems a real roundabout route for pretty poor quality, low
security results at the moment.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
March 8, 2005 6:02:21 PM

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

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z$j2wdEzhaLCFwuY@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <d0hntl$2ju$1@rdel.co.uk>, MikeD

> However, given that they are going to rescan the photo in any case, I am
> surprised that they do not accept digital photographs directly at, say
> 300ppi, since the results would be vastly superior to the existing
> method of resampling ink dots - and they would only need one copy. Even
> uncompressed this would only be a 660kbyte file, and good quality jpeg
> could take it down well below a 100kbyte attachment. It would also
> speed the application process up considerably because you could send
> them the images electronically, together with the electronic application
> data - instead of having to wait for the data to be printed, posted to
> you, returned to them with the photos, for them to be scanned and
> printed together with the data and then posted back to you.

Agreed. All they are gaining from me by surface mail is my signature. The
rest could be sent electronically.

Mike
!