Which printer to print my Rebel photos?

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

I want the prints to look professional, studio quality & not like they were
printed at home.
Also, not too expensive per photo.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
nik




http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

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

Although the printer manufacturers, like Canon, would have you believe that
high quality printing is automatic nothing could be further from the truth.
To begin with the initial image always needs some adjustment in an image
editing program. If you want "reliable" prints that match your monitor you
need a program that allows for color management. You also need to calibrate
your monitor. It is easy to buy the stuff (calibrator, some version of
Photoshop) but requires time and effort to understand color management and
the image editing program and what tweaks yield the type of prints you
prefer. There is a learning curve and a certain amount of experimentation.
The reward is prints that "look professional, studio quality & not like they
were
printed at home."
There is no way to do this on the cheap.The cost per print, no matter how
amortized, will be far higher than lab prints. However if you learn what
your are doing the quality will far exceed anything you can get from a mass
print finisher, even with a medium quality inkjet photo printer.

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news6o97j$bli$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> nik wrote:
>
>> I want the prints to look professional, studio quality & not like they
>> were
>> printed at home.
>> Also, not too expensive per photo.
>
> Find a lab near you that accepts uploads over the net. Then he can worry
> about paper stock, ink/laser exposed developing and capital costs. You pay
> 30 - 40 cents for a 4x6 and $20 for 36x24. And if you don't like it, he
> pays to reprint...
>

I've been very pleased with Kodak (used to be Ofoto)
http://www.kodakgallery.com/Welcome.jsp. You can upload jpegs, print quality
is excellent on actual photo paper. Regular price for a 4x6 is 25 cents and
a 5x7 is 99 cents. They are almost always running some kind of special and
19 cents for a 4x6 is typical. Shipping is fast - usually faster than I can
make time to drive to the local photo lab to pick up my prints. I'm sure
there are other similar online services, but I've been completely satisfied
with Ofoto/Kodak and haven't had a need to look farther.

HMc

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

If you only want to print 4x6, get the Epson PictureMate...great prints,
smudge free, archival inks...about $.29 per print. I've been very pleased
with mine. Print from card or PC...I've printed only from the PC, so can't
comment on the other.

Mike


"nik" <nikkiee@nikkiee.com> wrote in message
news:428f8ef7$0$858$5ec1c3@news.usenethost.com...
>I want the prints to look professional, studio quality & not like they were
> printed at home.
> Also, not too expensive per photo.
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks
> nik
>
>
>
>
> http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month
> Only!

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

On 21 May 2005 18:35:19 -0500, Howard McCollister <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I've been very pleased with Kodak (used to be Ofoto)
> http://www.kodakgallery.com/Welcome.jsp. You can upload jpegs, print quality
> is excellent on actual photo paper. Regular price for a 4x6 is 25 cents and
> a 5x7 is 99 cents. They are almost always running some kind of special and
> 19 cents for a 4x6 is typical.

I tried them once. I didn't like the way they punched up the colors
and lightened the shadows. And I didn't see any way to turn that off.

I prefer Adorama: <http://www.adoramapix.com/> . It's cheaper, too.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall