Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Which photo printer would you people recommend?
TIA
Dot
Which photo printer would you people recommend?
TIA
Dot
Photo printer?
- Thread starter dotcom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Processors
- Status
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
DotCom <dot@pigtails.com> wrote:
>Which photo printer would you people recommend?
What's your budget? How much do you print? What print size?
What kind of paper do you want to use? What level of quality
do you want?
Any of the 6-ink or 8-ink Canon printers would be a good choice.
I've had good results with HP, using HP paper and their 6-ink system,
but the ink is expensive.
There are people who swear by Epson, and then there are people who claim
the basic design is defective because the ink clogs the heads.
I don't know what's out there, orders of magnitude more expensive than
the highest consumer model Canon printer. What would you buy if you had
the budget of a premium photo lab?
In article <Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
DotCom <dot@pigtails.com> wrote:
>Which photo printer would you people recommend?
What's your budget? How much do you print? What print size?
What kind of paper do you want to use? What level of quality
do you want?
Any of the 6-ink or 8-ink Canon printers would be a good choice.
I've had good results with HP, using HP paper and their 6-ink system,
but the ink is expensive.
There are people who swear by Epson, and then there are people who claim
the basic design is defective because the ink clogs the heads.
I don't know what's out there, orders of magnitude more expensive than
the highest consumer model Canon printer. What would you buy if you had
the budget of a premium photo lab?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check out
review online.
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check out
review online.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
I have an Epson photo R200 - it's an A4 printer and is excellent. It is a 6
ink model and produces a wider range of tones than the 4 ink ones. It's not
cheap to run but I only tend to use it for A4 sized prints. Normal 5x7 are
generally cheaper to print in a local photography shop. It takes 6
individual ink cartridges, useful because they are replaced individually so
you never throw away unused ink.
So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a £1400
camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
stage. I also use Epson premium glossy paper, expensive but excellent.
Should any one have experience of a cheaper paper that produces equally good
results I would be please to know of the source (UK).
I buy cartridges on eBay. Shop price is from about £50 a set, on eBay I have
bought them for as little as £24 a set. I have heard various horror stories
of using non OEM inks so I shall keep away until someone shows me prints as
good as mine produced using the cheaper inks.
John
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
I have an Epson photo R200 - it's an A4 printer and is excellent. It is a 6
ink model and produces a wider range of tones than the 4 ink ones. It's not
cheap to run but I only tend to use it for A4 sized prints. Normal 5x7 are
generally cheaper to print in a local photography shop. It takes 6
individual ink cartridges, useful because they are replaced individually so
you never throw away unused ink.
So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a £1400
camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
stage. I also use Epson premium glossy paper, expensive but excellent.
Should any one have experience of a cheaper paper that produces equally good
results I would be please to know of the source (UK).
I buy cartridges on eBay. Shop price is from about £50 a set, on eBay I have
bought them for as little as £24 a set. I have heard various horror stories
of using non OEM inks so I shall keep away until someone shows me prints as
good as mine produced using the cheaper inks.
John
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <4281248e_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
eatmorepies <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote:
>So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
>want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a £1400
>camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
>stage.
Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
*lot* more on a printer.
In article <4281248e_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
eatmorepies <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote:
>So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
>want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a £1400
>camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
>stage.
Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
*lot* more on a printer.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>
> >So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
> >want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a
£1400
> >camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
> >stage.
>
>
> Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
> something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
> keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
> appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
> *lot* more on a printer.
I imagine the photo printing shop would do an excellent job on an 8x10. My
shop changes £2.50 for an 8x10 and I print one for about £1. I know my
prints won't be as colour fast as the shop's but I store RAW on CD so I can
produce another if I need to . I have only had 8x10 prints produced in a lab
from film, and that was a few years ago from stock 100 ISO colour film put
through an EOS600 with non L series lenses. The results were pleasing but
are no where near as good as those from my 350D, expensive lens and the
Epson printer. Also, I enjoy playing in Photoshop and then seeing my prints,
full size, without the wait.
John
>
> >So far I have only used Epson original cartridges in it, that's because I
> >want to get the finest quality prints - it would seem a shame to use a
£1400
> >camera and lens system and spoil it all by cutting corners at the final
> >stage.
>
>
> Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
> something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
> keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
> appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
> *lot* more on a printer.
I imagine the photo printing shop would do an excellent job on an 8x10. My
shop changes £2.50 for an 8x10 and I print one for about £1. I know my
prints won't be as colour fast as the shop's but I store RAW on CD so I can
produce another if I need to . I have only had 8x10 prints produced in a lab
from film, and that was a few years ago from stock 100 ISO colour film put
through an EOS600 with non L series lenses. The results were pleasing but
are no where near as good as those from my 350D, expensive lens and the
Epson printer. Also, I enjoy playing in Photoshop and then seeing my prints,
full size, without the wait.
John
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>
> Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
> something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
> keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
> appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
> *lot* more on a printer.
Oops, forgot to mention that the R200 does not do a brilliant job of black
and white prints. There are ocassionally slight gren or majenta tones when
the prints are viewed in different lights. I have found shooting RAW and
processing in Photoshop produces the best black and white prints. I shall
persevere with slight tone changes in the printer's fine settings but I
suspect I will have to move to an 8 ink printer before I get black and
whites with the same tonal quality I used to get in a wet darkroom.
John
>
> Interesting point of view. I consider the prints I make at home to be
> something of a test print or merely for convenience. Anything worth
> keeping is worth getting an 8x10, which I simply mail order, and which
> appear to be higher quality than anything I can do without spending a
> *lot* more on a printer.
Oops, forgot to mention that the R200 does not do a brilliant job of black
and white prints. There are ocassionally slight gren or majenta tones when
the prints are viewed in different lights. I have found shooting RAW and
processing in Photoshop produces the best black and white prints. I shall
persevere with slight tone changes in the printer's fine settings but I
suspect I will have to move to an 8 ink printer before I get black and
whites with the same tonal quality I used to get in a wet darkroom.
John
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 5/10/05 4:02 PM, in article Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com, "DotCom"
<dot@pigtails.com> wrote:
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
>
You don't say anything about your requirements or budget. But for someone
who wanted a high end consumer printer and did not want to go into the pro
(wide) models I would recommend either the Canon i9900 or Epson 1800.
Chuck
On 5/10/05 4:02 PM, in article Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com, "DotCom"
<dot@pigtails.com> wrote:
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
>
You don't say anything about your requirements or budget. But for someone
who wanted a high end consumer printer and did not want to go into the pro
(wide) models I would recommend either the Canon i9900 or Epson 1800.
Chuck
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:8pWdnUBivK5JwBzfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
> "DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
> news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
>> TIA
>> Dot
>
> I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
> out
> review online.
>
Even the IP 3000 does a great job, one friend has an Epson 2200, another has
an Epson 9600, these are both fabulous printers, how much do you want to
spend?
"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:8pWdnUBivK5JwBzfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
> "DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
> news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
>> TIA
>> Dot
>
> I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
> out
> review online.
>
Even the IP 3000 does a great job, one friend has an Epson 2200, another has
an Epson 9600, these are both fabulous printers, how much do you want to
spend?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
I guess most people will recommend the one they've got
I certainly do. Mine's a Canon Pixma ip5000 and I'm very happy with it. I
have a feeling that photo printers are getting to be a bit like CD players.
They all perform pretty much perfectly in what they are supposed to do - in
this case printing photos. I seriously doubt that I would notice any major
difference in quality between the major players. I therefore think the
choice comes down to ancilliary features. For example:
1. How cheap is it to run? Check out replacement ink costs before you buy.
2. Does it have any extra features that interest you. I chose mine for CD
printing and two-sided printing. I guess many of them do that but the point
is that extra features may, or may not, be persuasive depending upon how
important they are to you.
3. Speed of printing - again, only if that's important to you.
3. Reliability. Is it likely to go wrong? Canons have a bit of a bad
reputation for print heads failing (my first Canon's did). Although print
heads are a user replacable consumable, when you do the sums it's cheaper to
buy a new printer. However the other features outweighed this for me -
especially as I was able to get a 2 year guarantee this time and I reckon if
it lasts two years I shall be happy.
Regards
Keith
I guess most people will recommend the one they've got
I certainly do. Mine's a Canon Pixma ip5000 and I'm very happy with it. I
have a feeling that photo printers are getting to be a bit like CD players.
They all perform pretty much perfectly in what they are supposed to do - in
this case printing photos. I seriously doubt that I would notice any major
difference in quality between the major players. I therefore think the
choice comes down to ancilliary features. For example:
1. How cheap is it to run? Check out replacement ink costs before you buy.
2. Does it have any extra features that interest you. I chose mine for CD
printing and two-sided printing. I guess many of them do that but the point
is that extra features may, or may not, be persuasive depending upon how
important they are to you.
3. Speed of printing - again, only if that's important to you.
3. Reliability. Is it likely to go wrong? Canons have a bit of a bad
reputation for print heads failing (my first Canon's did). Although print
heads are a user replacable consumable, when you do the sums it's cheaper to
buy a new printer. However the other features outweighed this for me -
especially as I was able to get a 2 year guarantee this time and I reckon if
it lasts two years I shall be happy.
Regards
Keith
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>>Should any one have experience of a cheaper paper that produces equally
good
>>results I would be please to know of the source (UK).
I don't have an Epson but I get (to me) faultless results from my Canon
using third party paper (I've used Kodak and Ilford, both good old fashioned
photo names from my childhood).
There are many cheap suppliers on the web. For my last ink cartridges
(again, I buy third party) I used (from memory) Valueshop.co.uk.
Keith
>>Should any one have experience of a cheaper paper that produces equally
good
>>results I would be please to know of the source (UK).
I don't have an Epson but I get (to me) faultless results from my Canon
using third party paper (I've used Kodak and Ilford, both good old fashioned
photo names from my childhood).
There are many cheap suppliers on the web. For my last ink cartridges
(again, I buy third party) I used (from memory) Valueshop.co.uk.
Keith
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>>Any of the 6-ink or 8-ink Canon printers would be a good choice.
I was told that the newer head designs, bringing finer droplets, obviated
the need for the additional photo colours. I recently replaced my i950 (six
colours including photo magenta and photo cyan) with a pixma ip5000 (only
three colours plus two blacks) and cannot detect any deterioration in
picture quality.
Having said that, I see that Canon now also do printers with even more
colours, with an extra red and green added to the party. I guess it
probably comes down to how acute is your quest for perfection.
Keith
>>Any of the 6-ink or 8-ink Canon printers would be a good choice.
I was told that the newer head designs, bringing finer droplets, obviated
the need for the additional photo colours. I recently replaced my i950 (six
colours including photo magenta and photo cyan) with a pixma ip5000 (only
three colours plus two blacks) and cannot detect any deterioration in
picture quality.
Having said that, I see that Canon now also do printers with even more
colours, with an extra red and green added to the party. I guess it
probably comes down to how acute is your quest for perfection.
Keith
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
out
>>review online.
The ip4000 is amazingly cheap - under 100 pounds in the UK. In the end I
decided to pay an extra 30 quid to get the ip5000 which is basically the
same but (theoretically) double the resolution in each direction. Whether
this was worthwhile, I can't comment. My supplier was unable to show me an
identical photo printed on each for head-to-head comparison. I certainly
can't fault the ip5000.
Keith
>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
out
>>review online.
The ip4000 is amazingly cheap - under 100 pounds in the UK. In the end I
decided to pay an extra 30 quid to get the ip5000 which is basically the
same but (theoretically) double the resolution in each direction. Whether
this was worthwhile, I can't comment. My supplier was unable to show me an
identical photo printed on each for head-to-head comparison. I certainly
can't fault the ip5000.
Keith
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
I'd suggest you look at different dye-sub printers. I use a model that's a
few years old from HiTi and love it, but it they only do small prints. Most
models are 4x6 although they do have a model that does up to 6x8.
http://www.hitouchimaging.com
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
I'd suggest you look at different dye-sub printers. I use a model that's a
few years old from HiTi and love it, but it they only do small prints. Most
models are 4x6 although they do have a model that does up to 6x8.
http://www.hitouchimaging.com
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
> TIA
> Dot
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Thank you all for your comments.
Before coming back here to check replies I went ahead an ordered the HP
8450. I haven't heard anything about this printer but I feel I got a good
price, $179 including shipping, 3 full size cartridges and the USB cable so
I hope I made a good choice.
Thanks again to all who responded.
dot
Thank you all for your comments.
Before coming back here to check replies I went ahead an ordered the HP
8450. I haven't heard anything about this printer but I feel I got a good
price, $179 including shipping, 3 full size cartridges and the USB cable so
I hope I made a good choice.
Thanks again to all who responded.
dot
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:3Djge.2414$V%.743@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Having said that, I see that Canon now also do printers with even more
> colours, with an extra red and green added to the party. I guess it
> probably comes down to how acute is your quest for perfection.
>
And the red and green cartridges make a significant difference, particularly
when you are printing a photo of vegetation and red flowers...or tomatoes...
My iP8500 uses these cartridges...and I continue to be amazed by the output.
WW
"Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:3Djge.2414$V%.743@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Having said that, I see that Canon now also do printers with even more
> colours, with an extra red and green added to the party. I guess it
> probably comes down to how acute is your quest for perfection.
>
And the red and green cartridges make a significant difference, particularly
when you are printing a photo of vegetation and red flowers...or tomatoes...
My iP8500 uses these cartridges...and I continue to be amazed by the output.
WW
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Pete D wrote:
>"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
>news:8pWdnUBivK5JwBzfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
>
>>"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
>>news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>>Which photo printer would you people recommend?
>>>TIA
>>>Dot
>>>
>>>
>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
>>out
>>review online.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Even the IP 3000 does a great job, one friend has an Epson 2200, another has
>an Epson 9600, these are both fabulous printers, how much do you want to
>spend?
>
>
Of all of the narrow carriage printers the Canon IP4000 produces the
best results for the money. It is truly the best value. That said if
you primary interest is in printing photos letter size or less than the
best photo printer is the Canon IP8500. If you want to go to 13x19 then
the best and PC Mag editors choice is the Canon i9900. This is not a
PIXMA and does not have all of the Pixma features like dual paper feed
and duplex printing. It does produce the most striking and vibrant
prints on the market.
However, many users who intend to resell their prints tend to gravitate
to a printer like the Epson R1800 that uses pigmented inks due to their
belief (and they may be correct) that there is a much less tendency to fade.
But many of the true professional photographers, wedding photographers
in particular, do not do their own printing. They outsource their print
work to other professionals who usually use very expensive large dye
sublimation printers that truly protect against fading.
>
>
>
Pete D wrote:
>"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
>news:8pWdnUBivK5JwBzfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
>
>>"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> wrote in message
>>news:Sj9ge.7$887.2@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>>Which photo printer would you people recommend?
>>>TIA
>>>Dot
>>>
>>>
>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
>>out
>>review online.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Even the IP 3000 does a great job, one friend has an Epson 2200, another has
>an Epson 9600, these are both fabulous printers, how much do you want to
>spend?
>
>
Of all of the narrow carriage printers the Canon IP4000 produces the
best results for the money. It is truly the best value. That said if
you primary interest is in printing photos letter size or less than the
best photo printer is the Canon IP8500. If you want to go to 13x19 then
the best and PC Mag editors choice is the Canon i9900. This is not a
PIXMA and does not have all of the Pixma features like dual paper feed
and duplex printing. It does produce the most striking and vibrant
prints on the market.
However, many users who intend to resell their prints tend to gravitate
to a printer like the Epson R1800 that uses pigmented inks due to their
belief (and they may be correct) that there is a much less tendency to fade.
But many of the true professional photographers, wedding photographers
in particular, do not do their own printing. They outsource their print
work to other professionals who usually use very expensive large dye
sublimation printers that truly protect against fading.
>
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Keith Sheppard wrote:
>I guess most people will recommend the one they've got
>
>I certainly do. Mine's a Canon Pixma ip5000 and I'm very happy with it. I
>have a feeling that photo printers are getting to be a bit like CD players.
>They all perform pretty much perfectly in what they are supposed to do - in
>this case printing photos. I seriously doubt that I would notice any major
>difference in quality between the major players.
>
You will find that the Canon models results are more striking and more
vibrant than the other mfg.
> I therefore think the
>choice comes down to ancilliary features. For example:
>
>1. How cheap is it to run? Check out replacement ink costs before you buy.
>
>2. Does it have any extra features that interest you. I chose mine for CD
>printing and two-sided printing. I guess many of them do
>
The Epson and HP photo printers do not. The HP business printers do.
>that but the point
>is that extra features may, or may not, be persuasive depending upon how
>important they are to you.
>
>3. Speed of printing - again, only if that's important to you.
>
>3. Reliability. Is it likely to go wrong? Canons have a bit of a bad
>reputation for print heads failing (my first Canon's did). Although print
>heads are a user replacable consumable, when you do the sums it's cheaper to
>buy a new printer. However the other features outweighed this for me -
>especially as I was able to get a 2 year guarantee this time and I reckon if
>it lasts two years I shall be happy.
>
>Regards
>Keith
>
>
>
>
Keith Sheppard wrote:
>I guess most people will recommend the one they've got
>
>I certainly do. Mine's a Canon Pixma ip5000 and I'm very happy with it. I
>have a feeling that photo printers are getting to be a bit like CD players.
>They all perform pretty much perfectly in what they are supposed to do - in
>this case printing photos. I seriously doubt that I would notice any major
>difference in quality between the major players.
>
You will find that the Canon models results are more striking and more
vibrant than the other mfg.
> I therefore think the
>choice comes down to ancilliary features. For example:
>
>1. How cheap is it to run? Check out replacement ink costs before you buy.
>
>2. Does it have any extra features that interest you. I chose mine for CD
>printing and two-sided printing. I guess many of them do
>
The Epson and HP photo printers do not. The HP business printers do.
>that but the point
>is that extra features may, or may not, be persuasive depending upon how
>important they are to you.
>
>3. Speed of printing - again, only if that's important to you.
>
>3. Reliability. Is it likely to go wrong? Canons have a bit of a bad
>reputation for print heads failing (my first Canon's did). Although print
>heads are a user replacable consumable, when you do the sums it's cheaper to
>buy a new printer. However the other features outweighed this for me -
>especially as I was able to get a 2 year guarantee this time and I reckon if
>it lasts two years I shall be happy.
>
>Regards
>Keith
>
>
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
According to PC MAG the IP5000 is substantially better for text and
business printing. The IP4000 is marginally better for photo results
and is much faster. Both are good choices depending on you preferences.
Keith Sheppard wrote:
>>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
>>>
>>>
>out
>
>
>>>review online.
>>>
>>>
>The ip4000 is amazingly cheap - under 100 pounds in the UK. In the end I
>decided to pay an extra 30 quid to get the ip5000 which is basically the
>same but (theoretically) double the resolution in each direction. Whether
>this was worthwhile, I can't comment. My supplier was unable to show me an
>identical photo printed on each for head-to-head comparison. I certainly
>can't fault the ip5000.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
According to PC MAG the IP5000 is substantially better for text and
business printing. The IP4000 is marginally better for photo results
and is much faster. Both are good choices depending on you preferences.
Keith Sheppard wrote:
>>>I've heard some positive things about the pixma ip4000 by canon. Check
>>>
>>>
>out
>
>
>>>review online.
>>>
>>>
>The ip4000 is amazingly cheap - under 100 pounds in the UK. In the end I
>decided to pay an extra 30 quid to get the ip5000 which is basically the
>same but (theoretically) double the resolution in each direction. Whether
>this was worthwhile, I can't comment. My supplier was unable to show me an
>identical photo printed on each for head-to-head comparison. I certainly
>can't fault the ip5000.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <_kKge.1676$Y81.95@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But many of the true professional photographers, wedding photographers
>in particular, do not do their own printing. They outsource their print
>work to other professionals who usually use very expensive large dye
>sublimation printers that truly protect against fading.
I was wondering if anyone ever takes the digital image, makes a negative,
and prints it old-school?
In article <_kKge.1676$Y81.95@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But many of the true professional photographers, wedding photographers
>in particular, do not do their own printing. They outsource their print
>work to other professionals who usually use very expensive large dye
>sublimation printers that truly protect against fading.
I was wondering if anyone ever takes the digital image, makes a negative,
and prints it old-school?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> writes:
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
It depends on what size prints you want to make, how long you expect/need the
prints to last in various conditions (hanging on the fridge, behind glass,
etc.), and how much the ink & paper cost.
For a lot of uses, either an internet printer (I like mpix.com) will be cheaper
and give better quality than many home printers will give, but of course it
takes several days to get the prints back. Note, I have been disappointed by
the quality however of many local places that print pictures (particularly
Walmart), so I don't really recomend them any more.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
"DotCom" <dot@pigtails.com> writes:
> Which photo printer would you people recommend?
It depends on what size prints you want to make, how long you expect/need the
prints to last in various conditions (hanging on the fridge, behind glass,
etc.), and how much the ink & paper cost.
For a lot of uses, either an internet printer (I like mpix.com) will be cheaper
and give better quality than many home printers will give, but of course it
takes several days to get the prints back. Note, I have been disappointed by
the quality however of many local places that print pictures (particularly
Walmart), so I don't really recomend them any more.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Hi, I ordered a set of compatible inks from www.lanzone.co.uk about 5
months ago and the quality is awsome. and at £12.00 for a set of six I
am a happy bunny. The quality has to been seen.
Hi, I ordered a set of compatible inks from www.lanzone.co.uk about 5
months ago and the quality is awsome. and at £12.00 for a set of six I
am a happy bunny. The quality has to been seen.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
printer to be a false economy all the way around.
If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
Frontier.
If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
on lab prints.
I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
printer to be a false economy all the way around.
If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
Frontier.
If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
on lab prints.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
Every time I spend $50 on ink for my HP, I certainly do.
I had been looking at a 6- or an 8-ink Canon, which is clearly a wise
choice.
But now that I'm getting into photography, I'm discovering that, if
it's worth printing at all,
it's worth printing large. I'm looking at a 30x80cm print that just
arrived, and I'm stunned by what I can do these days.
I am old-school, enough to remember modifying my enlarger head to
project on the wall, and pressing various items into darkroom service
that were intended for working with wallpaper The ease with which
I can turn an image from my 8megapixel camera into a large print still
has me practically wetting my pants. Likewise, the turnaround time
and cost of snapshot prints is neat as well.
I will no doubt reach the limits of this approach, and when I do, will
probably buy the 8-ink Canon.
>I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
Every time I spend $50 on ink for my HP, I certainly do.
I had been looking at a 6- or an 8-ink Canon, which is clearly a wise
choice.
But now that I'm getting into photography, I'm discovering that, if
it's worth printing at all,
it's worth printing large. I'm looking at a 30x80cm print that just
arrived, and I'm stunned by what I can do these days.
I am old-school, enough to remember modifying my enlarger head to
project on the wall, and pressing various items into darkroom service
that were intended for working with wallpaper
The ease with whichI can turn an image from my 8megapixel camera into a large print still
has me practically wetting my pants. Likewise, the turnaround time
and cost of snapshot prints is neat as well.
I will no doubt reach the limits of this approach, and when I do, will
probably buy the 8-ink Canon.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
James Of Tucson wrote:
> I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
> printer to be a false economy all the way around.
>
> If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
> printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
> actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
> Frontier.
>
> If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
> having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
> if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
> of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
> images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
> idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
>
> But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
> wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
> maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
> on lab prints.
I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
Cost wise, you can't beat lab prints if you're printing 6x4s, but ink jet
printers such as my Canon i9950 can beat the shops if you want to do 8x10s, at
least here in Australia.
Ben
James Of Tucson wrote:
> I'm sure you're getting good results, but I've determined the inkjet
> printer to be a false economy all the way around.
>
> If you need immediate turnaround, that's one reason to justify having a
> printer. But I've found that for more than 10 prints or so, I can
> actually beat my printer by going to the local store that has a Fuji
> Frontier.
>
> If you need privacy, that's another reason that definitely justifies
> having a printer. If you're doing attorney-client privileged stuff, or
> if you're doing nude photography in a part of the world where that sort
> of thing is repressed, or any other reason you may have to keep your
> images private, then certainly, a printer under your control is a good
> idea, and cost isn't really a factor.
>
> But I've just gotten back some prints from Ophoto, and I'm pratically
> wetting my pants they are so good. Inkjet printers are high
> maintenance and while some of them give really great results, I'm sold
> on lab prints.
I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
Cost wise, you can't beat lab prints if you're printing 6x4s, but ink jet
printers such as my Canon i9950 can beat the shops if you want to do 8x10s, at
least here in Australia.
Ben
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram