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

"kahout" <kevinh!delete!@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:8f2dnb38K4tgIibcRVn-3Q@garden.net...
> I am considering purchasing a photo printer... one of the dedicated 4 x 6
> models such as the Epson Picturemate.
>
> The printer will have a net cost of $100. I am debating the benefits to
> print images at home. Although the print materials work out to be 29
cents
> each, once I factor in the $100 for the machine, the prints come to 62
cents
> each over 300 prints.
>
> If you have this model, some suggestions on something similar, or going
with
> a "full-size" printer let me know your feelings.
>
> Kevin
>
The PictureMate printer is slow, slow, slow.
It has one and only one endearing feature. You get 100 sheets and the ink
for it for a fixed price. I tried one for events I do and gave up in
disgust. I now use a r310 (r300 in the US) and it prints nearly 3 times as
fast at better quality for about the same price. I'm more concerned about
the fading of pictures than the print cost so my new printer (coming soon)
is a dye-sub job. 3 seconds a print!

Doug

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

I have 3 printers for Photo printing, ranging from a Canon S9000 for A3/A4
down to an HP Photosmart 100 series which cost me (over a year ago) about
£100 which at current rates is about $180US.

I know this price is above your budget but I'm sure they have come down in
price.

Although this is a very good printer to have from a convenience point of
view the results are not brilliant but are certainly acceptable. I like the
fact that it takes one cart and I can leave it stacked with 6x4 paper. As we
have a vary young baby in the house it is ideal for quick handouts.

Regards,

Dave

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

Ryadia wrote:
> "kahout" <kevinh!delete!@tellurian.com> wrote in message
> news:8f2dnb38K4tgIibcRVn-3Q@garden.net...
>
>>I am considering purchasing a photo printer... one of the dedicated 4 x 6
>>models such as the Epson Picturemate.
>>
>>The printer will have a net cost of $100. I am debating the benefits to
>>print images at home. Although the print materials work out to be 29
>
> cents
>
>>each, once I factor in the $100 for the machine, the prints come to 62
>
> cents
>
>>each over 300 prints.
>>
>>If you have this model, some suggestions on something similar, or going
>
> with
>
>>a "full-size" printer let me know your feelings.
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>
> The PictureMate printer is slow, slow, slow.
> It has one and only one endearing feature. You get 100 sheets and the ink
> for it for a fixed price. I tried one for events I do and gave up in
> disgust. I now use a r310 (r300 in the US) and it prints nearly 3 times as
> fast at better quality for about the same price. I'm more concerned about
> the fading of pictures than the print cost so my new printer (coming soon)
> is a dye-sub job. 3 seconds a print!
>
> Doug
>
>
????
What printer does a 4x6 in only 3 seconds??


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Jim Townsend wrote:
>> kahout wrote:
>>
>>> I am considering purchasing a photo printer... one of the dedicated
>>> 4 x 6 models such as the Epson Picturemate.
>>>
>>> The printer will have a net cost of $100. I am debating the
>>> benefits to print images at home. Although the print materials
>>> work out to be 29 cents each, once I factor in the $100 for the
>>> machine, the prints come to 62 cents each over 300 prints.
>>
>> Did you factor in the cost of the camera and or scanner as well :-)

I guess my point with itemizing the real cost of printing was to answer
this: would I do any better printing at home with a 4x6 photo printer or
just going to the store, kiosk, or Internet. I have a Wal-Mart near by, a
Kodak kiosk, a Sam's club, and lots of Internet options.

I plan to spend some time reviewing and editing my own prints but digital is
all new to me. This is my first venture into digital P&S photography after
years of having a film SLR. I was trying to justify even getting the printer
at half cost; I'm going to pass for now.

I bought a 7Mp Sony P150 just so I have more options for cropping and
enlarging. I'm still debating if the Canon S70 with RAW mode might have
been the better choice. They were my final two after debating about having
a 10X zoom, flash shoe, etc. The final decision was based upon having a
camera that could take a fast shot without the cumbersome size, bags, and
other gadgets. I still have a use for my SLR with telephoto lenses and a
quality flash.... but each fills a need that I plan to fill separately.

Thanks everyone for your honest answers.

Kevin