Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Printer Technology

PC Photo Printers Challenge Pros 295

Posted by samzenpus from the is-it-live-or-is-it-printer dept.
zebadee writes "A survey carried out by PC Pro magazine looked at which of 100 home photo printers offered a better deal than handing your snaps to a photo lab. The tests found that images from top PC printers kept their colour longer than professionally produced photographs. In the report at the BBC it claims that the new generation of printers produced images with brighter colours and that were less likely to fade than many High Street developers or even some professional wedding photographers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC Photo Printers Challenge Pros More

PC Photo Printers Challenge Pros

Comments Filter:

  • Where is the REAL content of the article??? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by some1somewhere ( 642060 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:09AM (#11102425)
    I went to the URL http://www.pcpro.co.uk/ then clicked on http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/66959, and I see NOTHING comparing the printers, only a message to get the latest edition of PCPro.

    What is this? Some kind of marketing scam by Slashdot and PCPro, a way to "entice" people to purchase the magazine or something to get the real article?

    This almost makes me wonder... why does Slashdot allow links to registration-only sites, sites where the content needs to be purchased, etc. when most times, a free version of the article is available elsewhere? What is going on lately?!

    • Re:Where is the REAL content of the article??? (Score:5, Funny)

      by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:25AM (#11102491)
      What is this? Some kind of marketing scam by Slashdot and PCPro, a way to "entice" people to purchase the magazine or something to get the real article?

      This is Slashdot; nobody - not even the editors - read the articles before posting...
      • It could also be the readers faults. Those of us with slashdot ads disabled get to see the articles early and mention to the mods if their is a problem before the general public sees it. However With the number of subscribers being alot lower then the normal amount of slashdot readers that means less of us to hit the website to catch an article before it goes out. We have the ability to comment and have links/titles fixed. As for content though I assume that link is just as good as a broken link.

        So readers

        • You, Nova1313, could be a Slashdot Editor today! ;)

          • It could also be the
          • readers' fault. Those of us with slashdot ads disabled get to see the articles early and mention to the mods if there is a problem before the general public sees it. However, with the number of subscribers being a lot lower than the normal number of slashdot readers, that means fewer of us to hit the website to catch an article before it goes out. We have the ability to comment and have links/titles fixed. As for content though, I as
      • Heh.

        Seems especially true of this new guy, samzenpus.

        Some of his blurbs are so out of context and opinionated, even for Slashdot.

        Maybe one of the other editors should give him a two-hour lesson on being a Slashdot editor.
    • You may have encountered something called the slashdot effect, suddenly flooded the site may have just switched in an AD so as to ride the wave. When I went there I found this - Not to completely repost an article, here is a few paragraphs;

      Extensive testing by PC Pro's labs has revealed that photographs produced by inkjet printers can be both far more expensive than those from traditional photo processors and fade far more quickly. But not if you choose the right combination of printer, ink and paper.

      For
      • Which is not, in fact, a comparison of printers. It's a teaser, which goes on to tell you to buy the magazine to read the actual article.

        I have no problem with them posting that on their website, but it doesn't belong on slashdot as "news".

  • Printer Ink (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elfin_spectre ( 838439 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:11AM (#11102433) Homepage
    The test gives a great boost to the idea of buying very expensive ink cartridges from the manufacturers.
    • That's the first thing I thought of when reading the article. With all those 'nifty' HP commercials out there (YOu know, where they freeze the scene in the pictures) all I can think of is soaring ink prices.

      It's getting ridiculous.

  • Printing -- how long? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by koi88 ( 640490 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:14AM (#11102447)

    While it's certainly nice to hang photos or show around printed/developed photos, I feel less need to do so.
    If you want to show a slide show, now you can just connect a laptop to a TV set (or use the laptop's display, if there are not too many people).

    I mean, we are the digital generation, aren't we?

    E.g., my parents print out ever single email they receive because they want to file and keep it. For the same reason, I leave my emails on my computer. My CD collection is digitized for easy searching and minxing in iTunes.

    Soon, there might be cheap LCD-screens hanging everywhere in your house, displaying pictures or whatever. You press one button, the decoration changes.

    Until then, printing is okay, I guess... but in maybe five years...

    • Re:Printing -- how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fistynuts ( 457323 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:20AM (#11102474)
      Oh yeah, print is dead. Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

      Generally, people like having something physical to deal with.

      Plus, once a picture is printed out it requires no maintenance. I'm buggered if I'm going to dedicate a PC to showing a photo on my wall.

      • Re:Printing -- how long? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by koi88 ( 640490 )

        Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

        Print is not dead. It's dying. That's a difference.
        I work in an advertising agency, and while all work is done on computers, most people print out everything, to check, for correction, etc. But you can clearly see that most younger and/or computer-skilled people print out considerably less.
        My boss is running printing something every 10 minutes, he just doesn't like reading on the computer screen. I don't mind. Most younger people prefer to work o
        • I kind of agree with the fact that the amount of paper being used is decreasing, but it is happening remarkably slowly.
          For example in my office we still use the same quality system that was used maybe 20-30 years ago. All of the documents involved have to be printed out for people to sign and file. The idea of doing this electronically has been banded about for a while but there's a huge amount of inertia (or perhaps downright opposition). We have files and files (and files) full of printed documents that a
        • Until there's a 150+ dpi monitor available that's cheap enough for businesses to buy, paper isn't going to die. Comprehension at 72dpi is just too low. For documents where graphics are the majority of content, it is probably acceptable. But for applications involving mostly text, it won't. My wife works in textbook publishing. They work with documents on the screen and print them for proofing simply because the error rate goes up significantly on the screen. A 72dpi printout results in 25% less compre
      • Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

        Within our IT office, most of our day-to-day work is done without paper. Sure, the programers keep printing out stuff but the rest of us manage just fine. It's when you leave our office and have to interact with the rest of campus that the paper is needed.
      • Maybe a few prints for your wall or your desk, but it makes way more sense to keep most pictures digitalized.

        You move the photos from your camera to your pc to the web, almost instantly; and it doesn't cost an extra dime. You can show others your pix right away, or edit the photos first.

        You say printed photos require no maintenance? I'd say it's the other way around. Once a photo is digitalized, and on your PC and web: you don't have to worry about physical damage, or loss. The photo will always be right
      • Oh yeah, print is dead. Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

        From time to time we get coppier salespeople stopping by our office; we keep meaning to tell them we have a paperless office.

      • Re: Printing -- how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gidds ( 56397 ) <slashdot.gidds@me@uk> on Thursday December 16, 2004 @03:12PM (#11107750) Homepage
        Oh yeah, print is dead. Just look what happened to the 'paperless office' idea.

        To be fair, a lot of the ideals of the 'paperless office' are here and in common use already. Many of the things which used to be on paper are sometimes, mostly, or completely in electronic form: phone lists, agendas, memos, directories, accounts, correspondence, ledgers, catalogues, manuals, brochures -- even source code is almost exclusively online.

        It's true that there's still a lot of paper about in offices, but its nature has changed -- a fair proportion consists of things which simply weren't possible in the old days.

        It's the same at home and elsewhere, too, of course. In my case, for instance, as most of my reading is now on the screen of my Mac or my palmtop, I can probably get away without buying another bookshelf in the near future. And my printer tends to get used for things like printing sheet music -- still just as vital (you can't have a choir singing over the tops of monitors!), but it's now fairly easy to engrave (typeset) your own arrangements and compositions, which would previously have involved publishers (and lots of money), or paper, ink, and photocopier (and lots of time).

        In short, many of the 'paperless office's goals have already been met -- it's just that we've found new uses for paper that we couldn't have before. (Whether you consider that 'progress' is up to you, of course...)

    • I have given up on paper. I use so little paper, the trees sent me fan e-mail!

      Seriously, I have stopped getting bills in the mailbox. They send the bills to my electronic bank and I get a notification over e-mail.

      All the papers I have written at the uni has been written, edited and delivered electronically.

      I work as an online journalist, all the work is done on the screen.

      I don't read paper-papers, only at work when we publish the contents of todays paper-paper online.

      I have stopped all advertisments f
    • But how many people, really, backup enough? I'm not talking offsite backups, but even burning photos onto a CD isn't much good when that CD is unreadable 5 years down the line.

      I've got photos of my family dating back into the 19th century, I doubt my descendents will keep digital photos that long.
      • Have you done any CD read testing? I have. I now have over 1000 CDs in long-term (in the basement) storage. I recently pulled out the oldest stack, from 1996 and tested them (50 discs). They were all 100% readable, in fact only 3 or 4 had even soft read errors, and I've seen that on discs fresh off the burner, so I can't even say for sure they have degraded AT ALL, since I didn't do deep testing on them when I archived them.

        DVDs are another matter. I'm using them, but I don't trust them at all. I've
    • Soon, there might be cheap LCD-screens hanging everywhere in your house, displaying pictures or whatever. You press one button, the decoration changes.

      Until then, printing is okay, I guess... but in maybe five years..

      I think you are well overestimating the price drop for LCD panels, which seems to be halving no faster than every two years. You also seem to be ignoring how much power they require to operate. Even in best case, I don't think a non-dumb 17" screen can be had in five years, unless it is a
    • It will be a long time before we have 20"x24" 300dpi monitors. Until that time, I'll still print my photographs in a darkroom or on a large format printer.

  • machines versus machines (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Ellard ( 799842 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:20AM (#11102479)
    Besides the fact that the linked story flatly contradicts the premise of the posting... The implication that a good printer is as good as a "professional" is quite misleading. Color prints are typically not done by humans, they're done by a machine. If you want prints done by a human, they will cost more, but of the person is competent then you'll get much better prints -- where "better" doesn't mean "brighter colours" but "looks better". A printer or a printing machine reproduce their input, while a professional can look at a negative and decide whether to alter the contrast, color balance, burn or dodge, etc.

    • A printer or a printing machine reproduce their input, while a professional can look at a negative and decide whether to alter the contrast, color balance, burn or dodge, etc.

      Actually professionals I know employ the use of either a 35mm scanner or camera with inverse video to evaluate adjustments before they print. This helps to save on test strips let alone paper and chemistry. While a professional can make valued judgments based on what they can see on a negative use of these tools are very helpful no
    • And this still happens with the digital photographs the article is really discussing does it ?

  • Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Geeky ( 90998 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:22AM (#11102485)
    I know some keen amateur photographers who have actually given up on home printing. When you take into account the ink and paper cost, it is often cheaper to get prints made in the high street, or using online services (where you upload a file and they send you the prints).

    The quality of real prints on proper paper (eg. Fuji Crystal Archive) is hard to beat at home. Colour management is another nightmare that can waste time and paper.

    Of course, you can use third party ink and paper in your top of the range printer to reduce costs, but then the archival qualities are unknown - only the combination of ink and paper certified by the manufacturer is guaranteed to be archival.

    • Re:Cost? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by UnAmericanPunk ( 310528 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:48AM (#11102563) Homepage
      I have to agree with this... I am a semi-professional photographer and I've never seen anything from a home printer compare to what you could get done at a service bureau (or select photo stores, sometimes costco[which uses fuji crystal archive] which offers a 11x14 for $3). Also, I've moved on from the 8x10 prints to larger prints (11x14 or 16x20) and if you want a printer to do that then it's gonna cost a whole lot more money.
      I wonder how the comparison with the "high street" stores was done. What paper was used by them and what printing machines did they use? That's a big factor... perhaps the article says, but I don't care to purchase the magazine to find out.
    • You haven't followed the links (well, this is Slashdot).

      When you take into account the ink and paper cost, it is often cheaper to get prints made in the high street, or using online services

      From the article "According to PC Pro, producing a print 8x10in on an Epson R800 printer using top quality paper costs £1.87. At Jessops the same image would cost £2.50 and at Snappy Snaps £9.99. A 10x7in snap at Boots would cost £4.99."

      The quality of real prints on proper paper (eg. Fuji Crys

    • I know some keen amateur photographers who have actually given up on home printing. When you take into account the ink and paper cost, it is often cheaper to get prints made in the high street, or using online services (where you upload a file and they send you the prints).

      The quality of real prints on proper paper (eg. Fuji Crystal Archive) is hard to beat at home. Colour management is another nightmare that can waste time and paper.

      I'm somewhere between high-end amateur and professional. I've investe

    • Not Even Close (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tim ( 686 )
      Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you're taking pictures of your puppy, WalMart is fine. They'll take your 2 megapixel snapshot, and turn it into an acceptable 5x7.

      If you're like most "keen amateur photographers," you'll also go to WalMart, because you're too cheap, or too indiscriminate to use anything better. Many "keen amateur photographers" don't print much at all, actually -- they post their pretty pictures of sunsets and bugs online to photo.net, and they're happy. When they ha

  • Apples And Oranges (Score:4, Interesting)

    by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:28AM (#11102502)
    Maybe the summary and the BBC article are missleading, but if they are comparing developing and printing of chemical photographs with printing of digital ones, the comparison hardly seems interesting. I can't print from my 35mm film, and I don't think having my flash cards dunked in chemicals would be useful.

    Of course some of the high street chains will print from digital (though when I went once to try and get a quick print, the list of instructions on the kiosk looked like the toilet instructions in 2001, so I just went home and printed), but they talk about `developers'.

    • Re:Apples And Oranges (Score:3, Informative)

      by brain159 ( 113897 )
      The article (haven't clicked, I'm a PC Pro subscriber so I have the Dead Tree Edition next to me) does indeed compare digital "print it at home" to digital "get it printed at a photo lab" (both "high-street" services and online offerings).

      Their double page "longevity comparison" feature goes into great detail on the before-and-after survival of every combination of inks and papers under test, both unprotected and in glass frames, left in direct sunlight in their office window for 3 months. Apart from Lexma

  • The Right Combination? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NotTheEgg ( 839387 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:29AM (#11102504)
    It says that you can make better and cheaper photos at home, if you choose the right combination of printer, ink, and paper. Now I was wondering if the "right combonation" is just a one time set up, or would you have to change your setup depending on what kind of photography you happen to be doing. Should indoor, low-light prints be made with different paper or even a different cartridge, and bright outdoor prints with yet another? Also, how many prints would you have to need developed say, every month, in order for the lower cost per print to cancel out to investment in a printer and the inevitable replacement of ink cartriges?

    • Re:The Right Combination? (Score:5, Informative)

      by danmcl ( 838005 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:46AM (#11102551)
      having actually purchased the magazine and read the article it was really informative and well written.

      The main point of it was to state that it is cheaper to produce large 8*10 prints (A4) at home than on the high street and the winner for quality and light fastness was the epson r800 which i am going to buy after christmas. They have published images of the prints on different papers and different inks from the manufacturers, the inkjets that used ultrachrome inks came out on top, the epson r800 and the HP's that used their next generation ink showed no fading after 3months in direct light behind glass (taped face out against a window)

      I was impressed and would recommend buiying it, even just for the cover DVD which ACTIVELY promotes using linux as it includes the latest Suse distro.
    • if you choose the right combination of printer, ink, and paper.

      I think everyone here is forgetting one of the most important elements that will affect the quality of your photos. YOUR CAMERA.
      • Amen to that. And pay no mind to megapixels either. My own {admittedly unscientific, but I'm short-sighted which is like I see the world through a magnifying glass} measurements suggest that 4 pixels per mm. is the threshhold of discernibility. Even a VGA {640 x 480} print looks OK at postcard size {150mm. x 100mm.} The largest print you can reasonably get two of on an A4 page {allowing for margins and assuming a 4 x 3 aspect ratio à la 35mm. film} is 180mm. x 135mm. Any non-toy camera sho
  • I have to buy the magazine to read the article? Is pcpro using slashdot to do some advertising for them? Maybe i'll try it out too. I'll come up with an amazingly interesting story, accompanied by a link to the product i want to sell. Since nobody obviously ever validates the link before posting, i get free advertising! *sigh*

  • I, for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:57AM (#11102587)
    I, for one welcome our high-rez photo printing overlords...

    Uh, wait...

  • Home Printing=Hassle (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AndreySeven ( 840823 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:05AM (#11102618)
    Speaking from experience, I found that printing at home is not worth the time and money.

    Here is why:

    1. Paper, Printer, Ink Costs

    2. Hassle of finding the right brand/model/style/type(glossy, photo etc)

    3.Printer Troubles

    4.Cropping photos

    5.Time

    I use Wal-Mart for my digital prints, and they usually do a really good job, while Costco has been a nightmare for me(horrible quality, bad paper etc). You should find a good place to print in your area, and stick with it.

    my $.02

    • Just to throw in a word..

      For Canadians, I've found Future Photo is great -- you can't walk into a Future Shop with a memory card but you can pick up your prints from your local store when they are ready. CDN$0.39/print. (They are on sale for CDN$0.29/print).

      Great quality.

      (I am not affiliated with Future Photo.)

    • 6. A good enough camera to produce high enough resolution photos that the picture is worth printing in the first place.

    • 1. Paper, Printer, Ink Costs
      Quality often costs money. Unfortunately there aren't too many ways to get around this: disposable income makes the world go 'round.

      2. Hassle of finding the right brand/model/style/type(glossy, photo etc)
      This is generally a one-time decision made after some experimentation with a short list of products.

      3.Printer Troubles
      See item 1. Buy a current model from a reputable manufacturer - that offers a good warranty - and a model that has garnered favorable reviews

    • Buy a Canon. Yup hate to sound like a mindless fanboy buy that solved all of my problems with regards to home photo printing.

      1. It costs about 40% more than the .19 prints I get. Nothing I can do about that but for immedite prints it can't be beat.
      2. Why is it possibly a hassle? Buy paper from the company that builds your printer. End of story and end of hassles.
      3. Canon's don't constantly clog heads like other brands and have been very reliable in my experience.
      4. The Free canon software that you get with

      • Re:Not it isn't (Score:3, Informative)

        by Leomania ( 137289 )
        Buy a Canon.

        Not me; I've bought my last one. I own an i950 and while it has stunning print quality as it rolls out of the printer, the pictures fade very fast. Not even in bright sunlight; in rooms that have a lot of light, yes, but not directly falling on the pictures. I can only imagine what would happen in direct sunlight!

        I use Canon ink and Canon photo paper exclusively. I contaced Canon support and they claim some ridiculous longevity like 25 years... baloney. I'm seeing changes in 25 weeks or less.

  • Porn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gilmoure ( 18428 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:08AM (#11102629) Journal
    ...is much easier to hide on a computer, compared to hard copy. Do you have any idea how much space 100k+ pics would take up, on paper? And the printing costs. Oh my!
    • Do you have any idea how much space 100k+ [porn] pics would take up, on paper?

      Yes. Yes I do. :-)

      I subscribed to Playboy and Penthouse for years, and have every issue during that time. They are in several boxes in my garage. What to do with them? I'd hate to throw them away, and shipping wouldn't make it worthwhile on eBay. Hmmm, maybe as a tip for the trash collectors this year....

      Having said that, I just had a nearly full 120GB hard drive crash. Unfortunately, it was my backup drive, and there w

  • This is completely contrary to my experience (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:09AM (#11102634)
    Halide colour prints (i.e. on conventional photo paper) are good for at least ten years, and many decades if they're not in direct sunlight. Ilfochromes are even better. Inkjet prints from your average Epson or HP printer will fade in weeks when hung on the wall. My father has one which was printed earlier this year and only the cyan parts are left.

    Plus all printers seem designed to screw up two out of every three pieces of photo paper, so each successful print costs about £5. Why is this stuff so expensive anyway?

    • Pigment-based inks on good paper will last as long as traditional commercial photo prints.

      I print both on commercial machines (Fuji Frontier 370) and at home on an Epson R800. Both come out with excellent quality. It's hard to distinguish between the two. As for durability, both are rated for much longer than I really need.

  • Printer == Not cost effective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Civil_Disobedient ( 261825 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:09AM (#11102638)
    An Epson 2200 [luminous-landscape.com] or Canon S9000 [luminous-landscape.com] is going to set you back about $500. Good inks for the Epson (the Ultrachrome inks) cost another $90.00 (for all colors) [inkjetart.com], and good paper (archive quality) goes for about $0.50 / sheet. With Epson, I get longevity at the cost of image "punch". With Canon, I get faster, quieter prints and stronger colors, but they fade faster. If I go with a cheaper Epson (say, the 2000), I have to deal with terrible metamerism, a cheaper Canon I get terrible B&W. Each print is going to cost about $1.50 a page at best. This doens't factor in the cost of the printer itself.

    Or, I can custom profile my photos for specific machine output (using Dry Creek's wonderful database [drycreekphoto.com]), take my photos to CostCo/Sam's Club/Walgreens, where they print on Fuji Frontier's, pay $0.18 for a 4x6, get better color and more longevity.

    Pretty simple decision to me.

  • Those who read the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:10AM (#11102640)
    Will have seen it is actually very interesting. HP has if anything gone backwards slightly, whereas Epson's Photo 800 is more or less capable of producing commercial quality print. It has the usual CMYK, pure colors, both matt and gloss black, and machine varnish. Used with Photoshop, it should be capable of giving archival color prints which are dodged, burned and generally improved as much as you could want, and in reality will be cheaper than doing it at home. I for one am very glad that I disposed of all my enlarging kit a few years back, because the cost of high quality scanning and printing is now less than even an entry level color enlarging kit, and with none of those unpleasant chemicals.

    The article points out that for serious colour printing, cheap ink is a mistake (and it also lets you know which OEMs are supplying inferior ink.)

    I don't have a problem with PcPro looking to recover the cost of some expensive research, and I don't have a problem with paying for OEM ink if it means my great-great-grandchildren will know what their ancestors looked like.

    BTW, our lab is currently testing the Kyocera C5016 colour laser printer. If you want A4/letter in reasonable volume, with really rather good color and very cheap consumables, this is the one to go for. Printing black should be as cheap as on an ordinary mono laser, color is a fraction the cost of the HP equivalents. And I'm not even being paid to say this...

  • Best site for print permanence (Score:4, Informative)

    by gignoux ( 195471 ) <gignoux@ke[ ]lcenter.org ['rne' in gap]> on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:16AM (#11102658)
    If you want to know more about print permanence, have a look at this site :
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ [wilhelm-research.com]

    They did very strict studies on many printers and papers.

  • Real photo prints: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SynapseLapse ( 644398 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:18AM (#11102663)
    Speaking as someone who spent four years working with digital photo printers, you will always get better results from a store (Ritz, Proex, Wal-mart etc) than you will ever get with a home printer. Reason? They buy a $750,000 digital printer, you buy a $200 printer. More accurately, save for some of the higher end dye-sublimation stuff, you are typically spraying ink onto a piece of paper which inevitably fades over time as it oxidizes. They have gotten better, but you're usually looking at about a 20 shelf life for the average home printed print. Fuji guarantees it's crystal archive prints not to fade for 100 years (Although, in all fairness let's see you try to get a reprint on a faded image in 50 years!) and Kodak guarantees its paper for 75. Maybe it won't make a difference, but you'd be surprised how much a 20 year old non-faded picture can mean to someone. The modern mini-lab digital printers are using good old fashioned (Well, old in the relative sense.) light sensitive color emulsion photo paper, exposed to a laser and then sealed in photo chemicals to produce their results. Lasting far longer than a simple dye could. Yeah, I know, I sound like an ad for a photo mini-lab, but I'm really sick of enlarging prints from a crappy faded inkjet printer, and people wondering why it looks so horrible. Oh yeah, and one other note, when you take your pictures in, make sure they're getting printed on the giant mini-lab in the back of the store, and not some POS dorm fridge sized printer on the counter. Because I know for a fact that certain stores *coughritzcough* lie about how long the photos coming off a Fuji PrintPix printer will last.
    • A few things to consider. First, they say in the article that regular photographic prints will fade in the sun. Last I checked most people don't leave their photos hanging in the sun, and if they are at all good will be mounted behind glass.

      Second, the claim that 'brighter' inks is a good thing is very questionable. This applies to some of the Fuji films as well - the increased saturation can look unnatural in many situations.

      Third - the higher cost for larger prints is generally from operator interventio
  • I only care if the so-called TOP printers below have CUPS
    or GIMP drivers for them:

    Epson Stylus Photo R800
    Canon Pixma iP3000
    HP PhotoSmart 8150
    Canon Pixma iP4000R
    • My main printer is a HP Business Inkjet 1100. CUPS drivers are BSD-licenced {you can even comment-out the hardware-enforced cartridge expiry date}. It's kind of industrial, which I like; not quite up to the standards of the old HP, but better than most of Carly Fiorina's plasticky tat. Separate red, yellow, blue and extra-large black cartridges. USB and HP-proprietary interfaces {the latter accepting a converter for Centronics or Ethernet}. Duplexer {admittedly this isn't much good for photo printin
  • I recently bought an hp 325 [hp.com] and have been extremely pleased with the results. I specifically bought it because it is only for small format (4x6) digital photography and is very easy to use (a must for the wife). I do most of my printing from Picasa, but my wife likes to just plug the CF card into the printer and scroll through the images on screen.

    As far as quality is concerned, the images are very crisp, with nice colors and brightness. Metallic images look great and blacks are very nice. If you're lo

  • Use ink with pigments, not organic dyes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:41AM (#11102744)
    The article doesn't seem to mention this, unless I missed it in a quick reading. To prevent fading, you need to use printer that uses inks based on pigments, such as the Epson 2200 [advogato.org]:

    "I printed a test pattern on a piece of plain paper, and taped it to the outside of my south-facing window, so it would be subject to the full measure of California sun and the elements. A month later, the test pattern is still there. In particular, the cyan+magenta+yellow patches show no sign of color shift. Believe me, neither commercial offset printing nor ordinary color prints wouldn hold up nearly so well under these conditions. In fact, the paper is starting to show some signs of degrading, including a slight yellowing and a more brittle-feeling texture."

    "So, it's not exactly a scientific test, but I think you can make prints on the 2200 with confidence that your grandchildren will still be able to enjoy them. Highly recommended."

  • does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sucati ( 611768 )
    I'm not sure I care how long the print lasts? If it fades, or the quality isn't perfect, you can always print it again in 5, 10, 20 years, with presumably better technology. That is, if we still use printers.
  • Are the Lone Gunmen Dead As Well, Slashdot?

  • not the whole story (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @09:21AM (#11102951)
    Using both traditional "wet" darkroom and the "digital" darkroom actively myself, a couple points are missing;
    1) The main reason many digital prints (pro or home use) loook "better" is because of the premium "traditional" printing processes have been stopped by many of ht elarge photographic supply companies. It is not there there was not a demand for these products, but rather, more demand for digital products.
    This in itself is not such a bad thing, but if any of you ever get to see, close up, in person, a properly made print using dye transfer technique or th eold Cibachrome printing process, you will see justg what can be done, and what is missing. The bototm line is that, it takes - like all other typesof art and craftsmanship - usually and extra 200% effort to improve someby only 10 or 20%. Also, since many of the premium photographic products have been discontinued in the past few years, it is very easy to make this whole issue a self full filling prophecy.

    2) It would take somebody years of experience to learn the art of print making - any technique, and now, a 12 year old can produce a technically good print in seconds. This is not the bad part, the bad part is that I find it very ahrd to teach people nowadays - both young and old - some of the finer parts of the craft of printmaking - such as composition. The rules of composition go back hundreds of years, thousands even in the world of art, regardless of you medium. too many people now seem to think that because they can use a computer to produce technically correct prints, that the other "rules' are no longer needed now too.

    3) if you go study graphic arts, photogrpahy, etc, of any kind for 3 or 4 years at college, you might as well give up trying ot find a decent job in your feild, or so it seems anymore. Because any and every 12 year old kid with a PC can produce technically excellent prints at home, the general level fo respect for work form any graphic art studio or photographer is not what it once was years ago. The end result, i have seen, is that many businesses can no longer afford to pay good people to do thier technical work. No offence, but there's a line form "Babylon 5" about hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool. If you are paying somebody near minim wage to run yoru machines, do your tehcnical work, well, you get what you pay for. However, it's a catch-22 situation - these places cannot often afford ot hire somebody worth the moeny because the public will not pay for it.

    4) It's not always personell, sometimes it is machinery & supplies. For example, if you are a private photo-lab, and you sign a contract to do the work for a large chain store to develop 35mm filma nd do the prints, well everybody wants it doen in one hour, and done as cheaply as possible. The end result I see, is in order to keep up this leve of expectation, you run cheaper paper in your machine,a nd more importantly, you run your chemistry to past exhaustion. For exmaple, when developing film, colour or B&W, you can only do so many films (any format) per litre or gallon of developer before you have to replace or replenish it. The most common way to cut corners and save time and money is go past that point. Once you start to do that, your negatives never come out right, and afterwards, regardles of hwat print making process you are using, if you negative is poorly developed, you'll have a terrible time ever trying to make a good print out of it.

    One last thought - this never comes up, but it should be made known, and it explains, IMO, exactly why Kodak, Agfa, and other are all rushing like mad to "do away" with traditional "wet" darkroom supplies.
    If you go out and price the cost of any premium B&W photogrpahic paper - the very best you can find - the stuff made with real silver in it - you will find that many of the premium photo quality papers for PC printer use (either inkjet or laser) are actually more expensive.
    Also, I ahve three enlargers in my darkroom, the newest is
  • 14 doesn't equal 100. ????
    The article says they tested 14 inkjets. Well, the article doesn't say that, the headline does. It'd be nice if I could read the article. Too bad I don't buy print magazines.

    Nice job posting this though. I'm glad the moderators proofed it before posting it too!
    Thanks.
  • The article on the BBC does not list the models of printer used in the text. It does provide a side bar of "top printers", but at least one of those, the Canon, hasn't been out for twelve months. Does anyone have some real test results they can point to? I'd like to know how the i960 I bought in October stacks up.

  • "The tests found that images from top PC printers kept their colour longer than professionally produced photographs."

    *this study paid for by HP and Epson

  • I gave up on photo printers when every retailer in my area began offering prints from Kodak and Fuji kiosks for US$0.29. Sam's Club does them for 18 cents. I just can't see getting anywhere near that cost per print from an at-home solution. These self-serve machines accept several common memory card formats and even allow some basic editing of the image before printing. I bought a multi-format USB card reader so I can pull the pictures I want to print, including post-modification, from iPhoto and load t
  • I have an HP PhotoSmart 7550 and I'd have to say that even with a generic program (or say, the windows printing wizard) it prints out BEAUTIFULLY in 6x9's etc whereas the photo-labs often hand me back a bunch of pixellated trash. Of course, with a 4MP camera some of the bigger pictures are going to be a bit pixelly, but overally I'd say most pictures in the area of 6x9 (or 8x10 when taken with decent lighting) come out very snappy. Certainly you can frame the 6x9's and nobody can tell that they came from a

  • Target Cost (Score:3, Funny)

    by verloren ( 523497 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @12:51PM (#11105587)
    What about the Target cost involved in going to the store? I take in my flash card or CD to Target to save a few dollars on printing. But while I'm there I figure I'll just get some paper towels, and quickly spend $50 on stuff I didn't really need. Then I go back to pick them up, and drop another $50 on more stuff I can do without. Net saving, *minus* $95.

  • My own 12 month test/quest (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Malcreant ( 601676 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @01:28PM (#11106076)
    * Introduction

    This is a summary of what I have learned over the past year and a half. I'm not a professional and this isn't technical information. It's just practical information that may help some inkjet printing newbies out there. I learned what I know from visiting forums and first hand experience. I also conducted my own (very unscientific) 12 month test.

    Hopefully, it will be more helpful than the PC Pro article. (that most of us couldn't see)

    * The beginning.

    I purchased a Canon i560 over a year ago as a general purpose printer. It was cheap. It had a modest TCO. It printed incredibly sharp text. And, BTW, it printed photos. As it turned out, I was stunned by the quality of the photos it produced and was thrown head first into an obsessive journey through forums, web searches, and experiments to find out how good things really could be.

    From what I found on the Web, Canon prints, while beautiful, have a significantly shorter lifespan than HP or Epson dye prints. (note: the lifespan is typically defined as visible fading and discoloration, not disintegration ) Canon predicts about 25 years while HP and Epson predict closer to the 50-75 year mark. Epson pigment ink, when used with specific papers, has a predicted lifespan of over 100 years. Fuji Crystal Archive prints have a predicted lifespan of 65 years. Adding to the confusion, I found other sites with markedly different results using different test methods. I also found people claiming Canon prints would not last a year. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between but I was curious to find out if Canon prints really were as bad as some people claimed.

    * 12 months of sun and heat.

    My experiment consisted of placing a set of prints in an envelope in a cool dark place while an identical set was placed a few feet below a sunny roof window in a loft where the temperature regularly exceeds 100 degrees farenheit during the summer (not a place you would want to put any photos). I knew this would be a harsh test but I was curious to see how the Canon prints would hold up compared to Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak dye-sub prints. I also reprinted the photos after 12 months to have fresh prints for comparison.

    After 12 months of heat, humidity and direct sunlight I found that the Canon prints exposed to sunlight did fade noticeably but not as badly as I would have expected. Most consumers would probably have a hard time noticing anything wrong with the prints until they were compared side-by-side to the originals. The Canon prints stored away from the sun looked identical to the new prints.

    The Fuji Crystal Archive prints (printed on a Fuji Frontier) that were exposed to the sun did not show any noticeable fading and were indescernable from the prints stored away from the sun and the new prints.

    The Kodak dye-sub prints (printed on a mini-fridge-sized printer at a large pharmacy chain) that were exposed to sunlight faded as much as the Canon prints. The Kodak prints stored away from the sun were indescernable from the new prints.

    Having said that, I should mention that I have a number of 8x10s that were printed on a small, desktop Kodak dye-sub printer about eight years ago. They are all framed behind cheap glass and hung in open areas. They are not exposed to extreme conditions and have not shown any noticeable deterioration.

    The take home points for me?

    1. If the print is going to end up on a refrigerator or on a bulletin board then there is nothing to worry about. It's basically a disposable photo and all the printer manufacturers are suited for this.

    2. If you want your photos to last but don't want the fuss of selecting and maintaining a more expensive printer then have them printed on a Fuji Frontier printer at a commercial location.

    3. Consider the Epson printers that use pigment-based inks if you want to resell or archive your photos.

    4. A

  • My Set Up (Score:3, Informative)

    by lugannerd ( 698512 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @04:38PM (#11108831) Journal
    I'm a hobbie digital photobug. I print about 200 pics per month. I have a Canon i960 - Still the best vs the PIXMA line(on sale @ tigerDirect for $98)...28 sec for an lab quality 4x6. 6 color, 2 pico-liter droplet technology. The new PIXMAs are mostly 4 color and slower. The PIXMA 5000 is 1 pico-liter tehcnology and 9600 dpi. That is one too see...Anyway, tried many third party ink refills(did not color match) and found that alotofthings.com had the BEST quality inks and great price. Plain old Epson glossy paper turns out to be the best per $$$ paper on the planet. For objective photo printer reviews, check out steves-digicams.com

    From what I read on the net, Epson uses pigments and Canon uses dyes. Molecularly, dyes are smaller and therefor Canon can get the 1-2 pico-liter droplet and fine resolution. Epson can not get as fine but pigments tend to have the BEST archival properties.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close