Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Lab prints usually can be washed and dried and become fairly "fresh" again.
Since the learning curve is long and deep with digital printing, not to
mention expensive with the waste involved in the learning, unless you
really WANT to learn the methods, I still suggest people consider
uploading the images to a local shop.
Art
Burt wrote:
> Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
> full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are generally
> framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will happen to the
> ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy to produce lots of
> prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of short term value and
> will probably be disposed of much sooner than the 1800's and early 1900's
> posed portraits that were not numerous, were probably relatively expensive,
> were taken by photographers as very few people had their own cameras, and
> had a different kind of "value" placed on them. (I should add that most of
> these prints are severely faded after having been stored in drawers or boxes
> for decades.)
>
> I guess what I am saying is that for me this is an extension of the
> explosion of contemporary visual media that is fast moving and quickly and
> sequentially replaced, image after image. The enjoyment of the image is
> more fleeting and is followed by another image to enjoy, ad infinitum. The
> prints that I frame are in photo frames that permit me to replace a print
> with a new one in a few minutes. With only so much wall space to devote to
> photos I continually replace older images with new ones.
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:5gbSe.68656$Hk.54746@pd7tw1no...
>
>>Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
>>stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
>>prints.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Burt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
>>>>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
>>>>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
>>>>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
>>>>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
>>>>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
>>>>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
>>>>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
>>>>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
>>>>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
>>>>>30 cents.
>>>>
>>>>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
>>>>cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
>>>>some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab
>>>>one. If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most
>>>>expensive paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from
>>>>low quality and quick fading.
>>>>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need
>>>>a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
>>>
>>>
>>>Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
>>>there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
>>>reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
>>>printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
>>>and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
>>>several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks
>>>(that is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the
>>>people who is using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase
>>>the accuracy of the colors and uses an expensive, very precise
>>>colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks
>>>and OEM inks prints almost identically and side-by-side evaluation of the
>>>Kirkland paper vs. Canon photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper,
>>>both good papers, show virtually comparable results. I've done a very
>>>large sampling of OEM and MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of
>>>matte surface papers and compared them in various lighting situations.
>>>
>>>Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
>>>worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as
>>>good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
>>>printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well.
>>>The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film
>>>camera - the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the
>>>lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but
>>>they both provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will
>>>deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe,
>>>however, the best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink
>>>that make up a picture that can look great to the naked eye.
>>>
>>>After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
>>>what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it
>>>is simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do
>>>this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked
>>>out a way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
>>>
>>>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram