Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo printer?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 11, 2005 1:02:42 AM

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

Which photo printer would you people recommend?
TIA
Dot

More about : photo printer

May 11, 2005 1:16:03 AM

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?
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:20:17 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:15:56 AM

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
May 11, 2005 2:15:57 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:26:54 AM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:30:51 AM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:02:39 AM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:21:12 PM

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?
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:38:14 PM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:42:10 PM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:45:51 PM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:48:36 PM

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
May 11, 2005 2:43:32 PM

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
>
May 11, 2005 8:02:49 PM

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
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:07:16 PM

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
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:09:46 PM

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.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:12:28 PM

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
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:15:27 PM

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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 12, 2005 7:18:21 PM

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?
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:57:05 AM

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
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 6:35:09 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 6:46:14 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 8:25:58 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:10:03 AM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:40:08 AM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:
>>I wouldn't call replacing ink cartridges "high maintenance".
>
>
> Every time I spend $50 on ink for my HP, I certainly do.

You'll get more 8x10s with that $50 of HP ink than you a shop would give you for
$50.

Ben
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:14:04 AM

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

16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
for $50.

20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).

Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.

On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)

The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
"right now" or "confidentially".

Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
printer (8-ink Canon?)
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:59:07 AM

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

On 7 Jun 2005 14:46:14 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Photo
printer? "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Well said and worth repeating.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
June 8, 2005 3:17:17 PM

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

Ben Thomas wrote:

> 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
Likewise in New Zealand. My Epson R1800 beats the shops in every way
(price, quality, control, convenience, paper choice, and probably also
durability) once you get to larger prints.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 3:58:05 PM

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

On 8 Jun 2005 01:14:04 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Photo
printer? "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
>for $50.
>
>20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
>ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
>Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
>still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.

It sure looks that way.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 2:17:10 AM

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

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118218444.043463.192560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
> for $50.
>
> 20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
> ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
> Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
> still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.
>
> On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
> only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
> single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)
>
> The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
> "right now" or "confidentially".
>
> Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
> printer (8-ink Canon?)
>
I don't know where you are shopping, but in the next state to the west of
you, Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl sells for about $12 for a box of 25...at
photo stores, not Costco.
That being said, the only time we print on our inkjet is when we need
something NOW or to proof colors. We can get it done at Calumet via
Silverwire much less expensively, those little ink pots in the Canon
printers, albeit only $11, are pretty small.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 7:50:03 AM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:
> 16 prints from my lab, on Kodak paper, which look really good to me,
> for $50.
>
> 20 sheets of premium photo paper, $37.00. Almost certainly a whole CMY
> ink, (#57, $28) and a good gulp of a #58, ($21).
>
> Without even considering the time spent fiddling with the stuff, I'm
> still pretty sure I'm coming out ahead at the lab.
>
> On the other hand, this wasn't a fair comparison, since my 8x10's are
> only really coming maybe 3 or 5 at a time, and so far I've done one
> single print larger than that (which I'm really, really happy with!)
>
> The equation would change if I was in a situation where I needed prints
> "right now" or "confidentially".
>
> Might also change if the media costs are substantially lower on my next
> printer (8-ink Canon?)

I don't know where you are, but you should be able to get very good inkjet photo
paper for half what you quoted above.

Even still, it looks cheaper for you to get the 8x10s printed at the lab.

Like I said in another post, it depends where you're from, and down-under it's
cheaper to 8x10s at home but 6x4s are much cheaper at the lab.

Ben
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:57:23 PM

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

>I don't know where you are shopping

Amazon.com, for the purpose of a spot check on HP photo paper.

If we start talking about bargain hunting for ink and paper, or using
paper not recommended by the printer manufacturer, there's no floor
anyway. Of course I don't buy into the hype that you should only use
HP paper in an HP printer (obviously, HP is going to say that!), but on
the other hand, I have gotten better results with HP paper than several
other brands, so I think there may be some truth there.

I think a lot of people assume that it's always a cost savings if they
can print their photos at home, but that is not the case. In fact, it
appears that you really need to shop around for bargains on ink and
paper before you reach the break even point.

The fact that a person can get Ilford paper for $12 at a camera store
doesn't persuade me at all. It remains a question of convenience over
price.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 12:17:17 AM

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

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118343443.366605.224240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't know where you are shopping
>
> Amazon.com, for the purpose of a spot check on HP photo paper.
>
> If we start talking about bargain hunting for ink and paper, or using
> paper not recommended by the printer manufacturer, there's no floor
> anyway. Of course I don't buy into the hype that you should only use
> HP paper in an HP printer (obviously, HP is going to say that!), but on
> the other hand, I have gotten better results with HP paper than several
> other brands, so I think there may be some truth there.

Ilford Gallerie isn't exactly "bargain hunting," many on this group have
reported stellar results with it on Canon, HP and Epson printers. It is
excellent paper, from a credible, established manufacturer. Images I've
printed on my Canon s9000 are better than what I've gotten from Canon's own
paper, and are virtually indistinguishable from prints from the lab we use.
Try Hannemule, Moab, Bergger, Lumijet, Museo and some other papers, you
might be surprised. All, or most of them, are old line photo paper
manufacturers, and know their way around image reproduction.

>
> I think a lot of people assume that it's always a cost savings if they
> can print their photos at home, but that is not the case. In fact, it
> appears that you really need to shop around for bargains on ink and
> paper before you reach the break even point.

I did say that it is still cheaper, in most cases, to do it at a lab, mainly
because of the ink costs.
>
> The fact that a person can get Ilford paper for $12 at a camera store
> doesn't persuade me at all. It remains a question of convenience over
> price.

What convenience? Is it more convenient to go to a brick and mortar to buy
what you need, when you need it, or to stay at home, order online and wait a
day or two? If the latter, try B&H, Ilford Gallerie goes for $12.95/25
sheets, HP Premium Plus High Gloss Photo Paper, $15.95/20 sheets.

Y'know, all I was doing was giving you an alternative, and you seem to have
turned it adversarial. Ah, well, no good deed goes long unpunished...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:18:23 AM

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

>What convenience?

Oh, you misunderstood. The convenience I mean is where I can do it all
without putting on pants or shoes, and likewise the security and
privacy. These aspects can actually have a much higher value than the
costs.


>Y'know, all I was doing was giving you an alternative, and you
>seem to have turned it adversarial. Ah, well, no good deed
>goes long unpunished...

Oops, not at all. Sorry. I feel obliged to caution others -- I've
seen lots of people fall into the trap of the false economy of the
photo printer. Politeness wasn't part of my upbringing, don't take it
personally!
June 10, 2005 6:43:53 AM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:

>
> 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.

Some images work well done at a "lab", others don't. My canon i9900 can
print colors WAY outside the gamut of a lab machine but I've found the lab
does a good job if the colors are within what it can deal with and also
does a great job with B&W files. The canon doesn't do them very well.

I guess it does depends on the camera and what color space you work in? If I
develop the RAW files as aRGB of a saturated subject, the lab has to clip
them so badly it ruins the image. Sure I could develop it in sRGB and/or
tone down the colors till it was within what their printer can deal with
but then is it "as good"? Not in my opinion..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:48:08 PM

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

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118384303.250789.81850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >What convenience?
>
> Oh, you misunderstood. The convenience I mean is where I can do it all
> without putting on pants or shoes, and likewise the security and
> privacy. These aspects can actually have a much higher value than the
> costs.

There's an alternative to Amazon, it seems that B&H is substantially less
expensive. That's online, so I'm sure they don't care, either, about your
state of dress! <G> but I still can't find myself entirely trusting of
online transactions, speaking of security, and feel that an actual physical
presence gives me more, and when I can actually see to whom I'm giving my
money, feel a privacy advantage, too, if you know what I mean.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!