Photo Printers

[Gurm]

Folks,

Related to the scanner thread, Julie is making noise about a new photo printer. Currently, I own an HP Photosmart 1215. It's a few years old, but it was - at the time - the best photo printer available.

And yet, even in its highest quality mode the pictures are dithered.

This is not uncommon - take your digital photos to CVS and their printer will churn them out dithered, too. Only theirs is a dye-sub so the picture looks glossier.

My question - are the newest generation of photo printers actually capable of producing photo-quality results? Right now, Julie sends all her photos out to Ofoto, and they come back looking like glossy photos. No dithering, no blocking... they look just like the 35mm films we get back.

While I realize that there's a big difference between home equipment and photo labs, is there any photo printer that produces REALLY GOOD results and not "slightly dithered"?

[Nowhere]

The ones that...uhmm...aren't inkjets? Not sure the name...sublimation printers?

[Gurm]

The ones that...uhmm...aren't inkjets? Not sure the name...sublimation printers?

Dye-sublimation, yes.

Hmm... ok but are any of the little photo printers out there using dye-sub?

[Nowhere]

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=opera&rls=pl&q=sublimation+printer&btnG=Search

Apparently yes...

[az]

I think canon offer the service of sending you pictures printed from some of their models from your files. Should this be solely for printing photos? What size? Price of printer vs. price of prints is an important factor, too, depending on the number of pics you want to print. Do the photos need to be UV resistant? On what kind of paper?

[Jammrock]

Photo printers aren't worth it. After you factor in the cost to purchase the printer, the ink/dye and photo paper, it's cheaper to bring it in to Walmart/Target/Costco, etc and have them do it. Most of them have an online service where you upload the photos, and then modify them (ala Picasso-style), and then submit them to print. Wait an hour or so and go pick them up at the local store. Cost $0.19-$0.30 a print (versus ~$0.50 for a personal photo printer) and has better quality than a photo printer.

[az]

Jamm says the most important thing. Photo printers are for convenience.

[Wombat]

and privacy

[az]

I think most photos aren't looked at by people any more when they are developed. Too expensive

[Wombat]

I think most photos aren't looked at by people any more when they are developed. Too expensive

Yeah they are.

[az]

Really? I think in the megalabs here they aren't, because the labs are automated to a large degree - also people didn't seem to have a concern with privacy back when photography was still analog

[Wombat]

Back when people didn't have to be worried about Wal-Mart reporting them for child pornography because they took a picture of their child's first baths.

[Jessterw]

That's why you order online through Target. You can even get away with sending in copies of a portrait or such taken in a studio. Most places, if you tried that in person, would rattle off a line about them not being allowed to (not that they're wrong mind you).

*ahem*

We have a photo printer. One of those standard HP Photosmart models we received for Christmas. True, we get the occassional print that's well and truly ruined, but for the most part it does an impressive job. Then again, so does out Epson all-in-one... For quick prints they're great, but from a cost and quality perspective they are definitely a long way off from traditional print services.

[Gurm]

Actually the stuff that comes out of the machines at Target or Walmart is pretty much crap. Ritz has decent output, but otherwise none of them can compare to Ofoto. Even Shutterfly, which is otherwise a decent service, isn't as good as Ofoto. Gotta love Kodak.

[degrub]

Actually the difference between dye sub printers and inkjets it that the inkjets have to use a variable dot size and dithering algorithms to approximate a continuous tone image - same thing that a newpaper print does. A dye sub printer is a continuous tone printer and it can print a dot of any color (within its color space of course) because the dye are melted together to form the color.

Inkjet prints will look best when a high gloss paper (read photo) coated paper is used. But the previous respondents are correct, it does take a bit of investment and time to produce equivalent quality prints to Ofoto and other commercial print companies. All depends on what is "good enough".

Here's a good web site:

https://www.luminous-landscape.com