Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about Photo printers

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 23, 2004 8:12:31 AM

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

Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
you
know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
cite your sources, thanks...

Question
Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with our
Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
good
as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I can
go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San Disk,
CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive goodprints
within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the same,
there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
professional machines.

I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm cameras
and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the pictures
printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that uses
SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo machine
only takes memory stick, bummer!!


Thanks,


John
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:12:32 AM

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

Since when is a college degree a guarantee of intelligence, and integrity?
Some of the most corrupt people in the world have college degrees! Some
without even a high school diploma, could put them to shame. You crack me
up!

Bill Crocker


"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...
>
> Question
> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of
> years
> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with
> our
> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
> good
> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I
> can
> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San
> Disk,
> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive
> goodprints
> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that
> we
> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the
> same,
> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
> professional machines.
>
> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm
> cameras
> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the
> pictures
> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that
> uses
> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo
> machine
> only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:29:45 AM

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

"Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sIKdnVMQE-OCyFfcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> Since when is a college degree a guarantee of intelligence, and integrity?
> Some of the most corrupt people in the world have college degrees! Some
> without even a high school diploma, could put them to shame. You crack me
> up!
>
> Bill Crocker
>
right...and like you need a degree to answer such an elementary question. He
was so insulting that I won't answer it...let him Google!
Related resources
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:34:15 AM

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

Bill Crocker wrote:

> Since when is a college degree a guarantee of intelligence, and integrity?
> Some of the most corrupt people in the world have college degrees! Some
> without even a high school diploma, could put them to shame. You crack me
> up!
>
> Bill Crocker

Bill, I don't think any of us should answer his
question, whether we meet his qualifications or not.

He clearly doesn't hold a doctorate in English, nor
a degree in journalism. He didn't even cite any sources
for requiring an answer.

Therefore, he's not qualified to ask.

Ken
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:55:13 AM

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

"John" <
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
> cite your sources, thanks...


Have you ever considered taking a course in public relations?
Some people need to be taught the basics.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 1:20:38 PM

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

"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...
>
> Question
> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of
> years
> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with
> our
> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
> good
> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I
> can
> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San
> Disk,
> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive
> goodprints
> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that
> we
> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the
> same,
> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
> professional machines.
>
> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm
> cameras
> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the
> pictures
> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that
> uses
> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo
> machine
> only takes memory stick, bummer!!

Well - I'm not "qualified" to answer your question, however my sources
include the management team of the world's third largest producer of digital
photo labs.....and several years experience in the print & imaging
marketplace.

Anyway. There is a huge price difference between pro labs and your
homeinkjet photo printer. Somewhere in the region of $50K vs $50 or so.
That plus the fact that the majority of lab printers use a totally different
process - basically your regular wet chemistry based photo process that you
have been used to for years.

In terms of stability of the output of the home photo printer, that will be
down to the quality of ink and paper you use. Google on "archival photo
printing" or similar.

The consumer inkjet printers available today do a good job of printing
photos. The main difference is price however. Both ink and paper are
expensive - and even more so if you buy archive quality. The lab photo
printers are designed to run 8-16 hours per day, 6 days per week and as such
the consumables (paper and chemistry) come in bulk and are far lower cost.
Your home printer on the other hand, is probably designed to make <20 photo
quality prints per day and last for maybe 18 months.

If I were you, I would try to convince my family to view the memory cards
purely as "digital film" and not to change their approach to having the
majority of photos printed at the lab. The only difference being that they
can delete the rubbish ones first. If they buy into this, then there is
little change in the way they have always taken photos. The main benefit is
that they can also print at home anything they don't want to take to the
lab, and manipulate images on the PC.

Personally, I get 90% of my prints done at the local lab and use my inkjet
for proofs and nirt work (need it right now). My wife was turned off by
digital photography due to her perception that she wouldn't get so many
physical prints to look at - however as soon as she started looking at the
memory cards as film, the whole thing just clicked.....
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 1:48:25 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:12:31 GMT, John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA>
wrote:

>Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
>question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
>but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
>you
>know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
>cite your sources, thanks...
>
>Question
>Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
>photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
>without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with our
>Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
>good
>as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I can
>go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San Disk,
>CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive goodprints
>within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
>have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the same,
>there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
>professional machines.
>
>I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm cameras
>and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the pictures
>printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that uses
>SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo machine
>only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>John
>
>
>
The durability, quality, and cost of home photo printer prints
vis-a-vis prints produced commercially has been extensively discussed
here. This information is readily available through Google.

I could answer your question, of course, as can any of the "regulars"
here. Unfortunately none of the educational institutions I attended
offered a curriculum in "Home Photo Printing."

Cheers,

Leonard
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 1:52:42 PM

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

"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...

As you clearly wont trust any answer that doesn't come from someone who has
a BSc in inkjets or a BA in 1 hour photolabs you will no doubt be keen to
see evidence that has been rigerously tested scientifically, so here is what
I suggest you do. Take a photograph, print it out on your inkjet, have the
same photo printed out at a number of photolabs (as not all are the same
quality). Place them in a nice sunny window - return to them in 10 years
time and see which one came out best
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 2:12:16 PM

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

In article <1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews>, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote:

> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
> you know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
> cite your sources, thanks...

Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah!

<gasp for breath, sigh> Thanks, I needed that. First time in a LONG
time I've heard from someone who thinks a degree is relevant to
current, practical knowledge. Isn't that cute...
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 4:44:29 PM

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

Qualifications:
BSc 1988.

Answers:
No. Yes. No. No. Yes. Maybe. Perhaps. No. How should I know?

References:
1. Stone, M. David. (October 5, 2004) Photo Printers: The Essential
Buying Guide. PC Magazine.
2. http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:26:23 PM

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

I don't meet your criteria, so I am not allowed to answer your questions.
That's a real shame because I know quite a bit about the subjects you wish
to discuss and have quite a list of good information sources saved in my
Favorites list. I also own a number of good books by qualified people and
could probably pass along some quite useful info. Sorry, but I don't meet
your requirements.

KB



"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...
>
> Question
> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of
> years
> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with
> our
> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
> good
> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I
> can
> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San
> Disk,
> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive
> goodprints
> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that
> we
> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the
> same,
> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
> professional machines.
>
> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm
> cameras
> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the
> pictures
> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that
> uses
> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo
> machine
> only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:29:37 PM

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

>"John" <
>> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
>this
>> question or professional photographers answer

Well, I guess Gates and Dell can't answer your question and neither can I even
though I have worked with inkjet printers and digital cameras since 1998.

Good luck with your answers.
By the way, what degree do you have?
Rosita
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:16:50 PM

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

Well, I don't meet any of your qualifications, but I know enough to tell
you that you don't provide enough information for even a vague answer.

First of all, what kind of home printer are you talking about? Inkjet,
dye-sublimation, laser? What brand? What paper? What storage
conditions - lying about in direct sunlight, kept in a damp bathroom,
sealed in clear plastic? Any ONE of these factors can have a little
influence, or a lot, as to the longevity of pictures, nevermind once you
start combining them.

Second, all labs are not created equal. What printing process are they
using? Most are probably using the exact same technology you'd use at
home (inkjet or dye-sub), they just use a bigger, more expensive version
of the same printer that's designed to print faster, on larger stock,
and go longer between repairs/maintenance. Speaking of which, how do
you know the machine(s) at the "pro" shop are being maintained properly?
That the people operating them know a good photo from a bad one?



John wrote:
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
> cite your sources, thanks...
>
> Question
> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with our
> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
> good
> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I can
> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San Disk,
> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive goodprints
> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the same,
> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
> professional machines.
>
> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm cameras
> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the pictures
> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that uses
> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo machine
> only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:10:49 PM

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

I guess the reason you specified the criteria is because of all the
bulshit answers to questions people give.

However, plain and simple the short answer is no. Now we can look at it
from a logical view. Photo prints have been around for over 100 years.
And photo labs (Kodak) for over 50. Good digital printers, inks, and
papers around for maybe 5 years. Other than doing lab experiments using
projected hypotheses, not enough years have past to do a real world
empirical observation.

Currently, some digital photo prints have faded in months. Some have
not. Some have been protected while some has not.

These answers are from my course in Home Digital Printing Longevity 101B.

Matt Ion wrote:

> Well, I don't meet any of your qualifications, but I know enough to tell
> you that you don't provide enough information for even a vague answer.
>
> First of all, what kind of home printer are you talking about? Inkjet,
> dye-sublimation, laser? What brand? What paper? What storage
> conditions - lying about in direct sunlight, kept in a damp bathroom,
> sealed in clear plastic? Any ONE of these factors can have a little
> influence, or a lot, as to the longevity of pictures, nevermind once you
> start combining them.
>
> Second, all labs are not created equal. What printing process are they
> using? Most are probably using the exact same technology you'd use at
> home (inkjet or dye-sub), they just use a bigger, more expensive version
> of the same printer that's designed to print faster, on larger stock,
> and go longer between repairs/maintenance. Speaking of which, how do
> you know the machine(s) at the "pro" shop are being maintained properly?
> That the people operating them know a good photo from a bad one?
>
>
>
> John wrote:
>
>> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent
>> to this
>> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
>> strict,
>> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about.
>> But if
>> you
>> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and
>> answer, but
>> cite your sources, thanks...
>> Question
>> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1
>> hour
>> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of
>> years
>> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go
>> with our
>> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look
>> just as
>> good
>> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other
>> hand I can
>> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San
>> Disk,
>> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive
>> goodprints
>> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine
>> that we
>> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look
>> the same,
>> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
>> professional machines.
>> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm
>> cameras
>> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the
>> pictures
>> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera
>> that uses
>> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo
>> machine
>> only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:58:08 PM

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

Kibo informs me that John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> stated that:

>Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
>question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
>but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
>you
>know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
>cite your sources, thanks...

*snort* On Usenet? - Good luck!

>Question
>Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
>photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
>without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with our
>Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
>good
>as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years.

The short answer is 'no'. The dye+paper used in most inkjets has a short
lifespan, even when protected from light & the atmosphere. If you want
your prints to last more than a year or two, you need to print via
conventional photo paper (ie; a pro lab), or at least use a high end
pigment-based inkjet.

> On the other hand I can
>go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San Disk,
>CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive goodprints
>within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
>have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the same,
>there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
>professional machines.

Most likely, yes.
I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most photo kiosks use
dye-sub printers, rather than conventional (wet process) printing on
true photographic paper, like 1 hour labs. Both of these technologies
are different from home inkjets, BTW.

>I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm cameras
>and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the pictures
>printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that uses
>SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo machine
>only takes memory stick, bummer!!

That's pretty shortsighted of them. My local service station recently
aquired a photo kiosk, & it takes CDROMs as well as a wide variety of
memory cards. I find it extremely convenient (& cheap!) for traditional
sized photos to give to relatives & friends. I was also very pleasantly
surprised to find that the output quality is excellent for the price, &
the machine doesn't screw around with the colour or tonal balance of my
images.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:58:09 PM

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

>>I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most photo kiosks use
dye-sub printers,
I'm not a hardware man but I have worked on photo kiosk software - which
means I've seen the insides of one. The printer had a wide belt which was a
bit like an old fashioned printer ribbon. I seem to recall it was a
transparent plastic material which carried some sort of colour coating which
got transferred to the picture. The ribbon was a consumable in that it got
used up in the printing process.

Perhaps someone can confirm what type of printer technology this rather
unscientific description indicates. I don't have a clue.

Keith
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:58:09 PM

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

usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:
> Kibo informs me that John <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> stated that:
>
>
>>Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
>>question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so strict,
>>but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But if
>>you
>>know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer, but
>>cite your sources, thanks...

I have no degree, and I am not a professional photographer, but I have
about 55 years experience with photography, including developing and
printing my own pictures. The answer depends on the specific photo
printer you buy. Some of the inkjets in combination with specific
papers will last 75 years, or more, others may fade in a few years if
exposed to air and light. I have an inkjet print in my wallet that
still looks the same as it did when I printed it about 5 years ago, but
it seldom sees light.
If you use a printer that uses a dye sublimation printing mechanism
(some Kodak and HP printers do this), the pictures are quite durable and
should last as long as a print from a conventional photo printer. Note
that you can take your pictures to a photoprinter and let them print
them on the same paper and with the same chemicals as they use of film
prints. These should last longer than you will.


>
>
> *snort* On Usenet? - Good luck!
>
>
>>Question
>>Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
>>photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
>>without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with our
>>Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
>>good
>>as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years.
>
>
> The short answer is 'no'. The dye+paper used in most inkjets has a short
> lifespan, even when protected from light & the atmosphere. If you want
> your prints to last more than a year or two, you need to print via
> conventional photo paper (ie; a pro lab), or at least use a high end
> pigment-based inkjet.
>
>
>> On the other hand I can
>>go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San Disk,
>>CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive goodprints
>>within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
>>have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the same,
>>there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
>>professional machines.
>
>
> Most likely, yes.
> I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most photo kiosks use
> dye-sub printers, rather than conventional (wet process) printing on
> true photographic paper, like 1 hour labs. Both of these technologies
> are different from home inkjets, BTW.
>
>
>>I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm cameras
>>and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the pictures
>>printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that uses
>>SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo machine
>>only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
> That's pretty shortsighted of them. My local service station recently
> aquired a photo kiosk, & it takes CDROMs as well as a wide variety of
> memory cards. I find it extremely convenient (& cheap!) for traditional
> sized photos to give to relatives & friends. I was also very pleasantly
> surprised to find that the output quality is excellent for the price, &
> the machine doesn't screw around with the colour or tonal balance of my
> images.
>

In the US, both Sam's Wholesale Club and Wal-Mart have machines that
will read most flash cards and also can use CDs. These will print on
the same paper as they use for film prints. Prices range from $.12 to
$.39 a print.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:58:09 PM

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

In article <k05ls0193p6uv39l0dkl404bicb8aiu6vl@4ax.com>, usenet@imagenoir.com
wrote:

> I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most photo kiosks use
> dye-sub printers, rather than conventional (wet process) printing on
> true photographic paper, like 1 hour labs.

I just checked-out this issue only yesterday between two Walgreens stores in
Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

I took a CD I had just burned - on my Mac OSX machine, no less - to the first
store. The machine there was "down" but appeared to be the dimensions of an
over-sized paper shredder and was pulled out from under the photo counter.

At the second store, I asked MANY questions of the clerk (this was during the
early afternoon yesterday so the full time staff was there). She assured me
that, at her particular store, the prints are made in the SAME machine by
essentially the SAME (wet) process as the film they process and print.

The helpful clerk directed me to a kiosk wherein I inserted the CD into a
slot. Within about 15-20 seconds, all 13 jpegs appeared within a nice
selection interface. It was all touch screen and took mere seconds after I
pushed the Select All button.

A little less than an hour later, I returned and picked up 13 glossy 4x6 photo
prints that ARE just like what I get there when I do film.

I suspect that the first store's "down" printer was a dye sub machine.

Printed on Fuji photo paper, the bright, borderless prints I received were
GREAT. After 7% sales tax, I paid 31-cents/print. I think that's how I'm
going to do MOST of my printing from here on out. I just spent $72 (+tax) on
a three pack of ink cartridges. Yikes!

After two weeks with my first digital camera, I am still so jazzed I can
barely stand it! The fun is back...

<grin>
JR
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:10:19 AM

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

>From: John johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA

>Question
>Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
>photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of years
>without fade.

Depends on which home printer ... this site estimates the print longevity of
eleven popular 4x6" home printers and shows a range of from 4 years for a Sony
dye-sub to 115 years for an HP Photosmart and 104 years for the Epson model.
The biggest surprise is that Kodak claims 100 years to their in-house tests but
to Wilhelm's test they only go to an estimated 19 and 26 years, due to the much
easier viewing conditions assumed by Kodak. So opinions vary widely.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev...

> Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that we
>have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs.

Which one do you have? Is it on the list at this web site?

>Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to this
>question or professional photographers answer.

Even people with doctorate degrees disagree so you have to read various sites
and decide for yourself.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:17:39 AM

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

>Depends on which home printer ... this site estimates the print longevity of
>eleven popular 4x6" home printers ... So opinions vary widely.
>
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_prev...

Should point out that printer # 3 on the list is the one most often used by the
mini-labs, printing on Fuji Crystal Archive paper with, in this case, a Fuji
Frontier mini-lab with Fuji chemicals. It ranks pretty well at 40 years,
behind the Epson and HP models but ahead of the other eight tested.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:53:59 AM

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

"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...


Sorry... I guess I'm just not smart enough to help you. :-(

(Do I need to cite sources? OK: My sister says I'm a moron.)

Good luck,
Bob Scott
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:30:38 AM

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

I don't have a college degree (associates in Specialized Electronics is all)
but I know about printers. I work for HP and work in the service business
and on printers for over 20+ years. Does experience matter ? I think so.
Anyway, If you are looking for a long life photo the newest HP printers
with the 90 series cartridges are rated to last 113+ years under glass
according to independent testing by Wiheim Research. They are rated to last
longer than Silver Halide phots. This is no small task. This will put
technology ahead of the game for many years to come and you can be sure that
your photos will be around longer than you will. Those cute little photo
printers can do the job. We sell a 375 model that can be purchased with or
without a battery to print photos just about anywhere you want. It's a
great technology. The paper is also part of the printing process now. They
use a 4 layer paper system and when you print on a HP you can look at the
wet prints and actually see how the ink is layered on the papers. (Premium
Plus Paper only for the rated spec) This is because the layers are actually
soaked into the paper at different levels according to the ink color. The
top layers of the paper are specifically designed to prevent fading. These
are direct features from the engineering people who published this
information. I'm just repeating the methods they told us.

Whatever you buy good luck with it and happy printing !

Steve

"John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> wrote in message
news:1103778751.21a76ff06dd924f861a91fa012be5ac4@teranews...
> Please I ask only those who have a college degree in a field relevent to
> this
> question or professional photographers answer. Sorry I have to be so
> strict,
> but I need advice from people who know what they are talking about. But
> if
> you
> know what your talking about and do not have a degree go ahead and answer,
> but
> cite your sources, thanks...
>
> Question
> Will a home photo printer produce the same long term results as the 1 hour
> photo lab? When I mean long term, I mean a photo lasting a number of
> years
> without fade. My family purchased a cute little photo printer to go with
> our
> Sony digital camera that is 5-6MP MP I believe. The pictures look just as
> good
> as a 35mm, but I wonder if they will last 5-10 years. On the other hand I
> can
> go to a photo lab and insert a Memory Stick, pro, SD, mini SD, XD, San
> Disk,
> CD/DVD, CF, or a floppy disk into one of the machines an receive
> goodprints
> within the hour. Dont tell me that the little photo printing machine that
> we
> have is as quality as the 1 hour photo labs. Because they both look the
> same,
> there has to be a huge price difference between the home machine and the
> professional machines.
>
> I've attempted to persuade my family not to completely dump their 35mm
> cameras
> and the idea of biringing their camera into a photo lab to have the
> pictures
> printed, but they do not listen. I personally own a Vivitar camera that
> uses
> SD cards and the 1 hour lab produces good results. But their photo
> machine
> only takes memory stick, bummer!!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
December 24, 2004 7:49:45 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:30:38 GMT
In message <ibLyd.6587$113.6072@trndny03>
"Steve m..." <Stevem5215@PLEASEno_spam_.com> wrote:

> ...
> The paper is also part of the printing process now.
> ...

What was the stuff the ink used to be splattered on? ;^)

(sorry...couldn't resist after reading all the replies so far...)

> <SNIP description of magic 4 layer HP ink paper system>
> ...
> These are direct features from the engineering people
> who published this information. I'm just repeating
> the methods they told us.

Oh. OH! Heh...

Jeff
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:02:53 PM

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

Kibo informs me that "Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> stated
that:

>>>I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that most photo kiosks use
>dye-sub printers,
>I'm not a hardware man but I have worked on photo kiosk software - which
>means I've seen the insides of one. The printer had a wide belt which was a
>bit like an old fashioned printer ribbon. I seem to recall it was a
>transparent plastic material which carried some sort of colour coating which
>got transferred to the picture. The ribbon was a consumable in that it got
>used up in the printing process.

Yes, that'd be a dye-sub. The dye is on the plastic film, pressed
against the paper, & a thermal element heats up the dye to make it
sublime (hence the name) & then condense into the paper.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
!