Photo Printers

[ND66]

My personal experience and preference goes with Epson. The difference between HP & Epson:
HP’s prints with bigger droplets and overlays them on top of each other, Epson droplets are much smaller, laid next to each other.
But in my opinion the biggest factor is the paper used to print photos. Not all brands are equal, also the older it gets, the worse it gets.
Lots of times the printer paper settings means a lot (like Photo Paper setting when printing on only photo quality paper will produce better picture, ETC.) and what color space is used with it.
If all I wanted was 4 X 6, PictureMate from Epson would sound good to me, if I didn’t give up printing pictures at home.
Rather then investing in new photo printer I’ve purchased Spider2 monitor calibration device and have all my prints done at www.whcc.com
Also www.Mpix.com does a good job too.
If you choose to do it at home, I would recommend printer with single color cartridges like the Epson Stylus Photo R800 has.
I’m not sure if HP does that, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at photo printers.
As far as your comment here “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.”,
Sometimes the photo is not sharp enough to start with & you can’t tell unless you zoom in really close to see it.
Andy.

[Wombat]

Actually the stuff that comes out of the machines at Target or Walmart is pretty much crap.

Must depend on the store. My friends order pics from flickr, and whether mailed to them, or picked up at Target, they've all been quite happy.

[Jessterw]

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.

You must have a terrible Target. Just to try them out and because, well, they offered up 10 free prints, I sent some of my photos from Flickr (taken with a cheap HP digital camera) in. Two of which were scanned copies of studio pictures we had done. Studio as in professional studio photographer and not Sears or whatnot.

The quality? Best prints I've ever had done. The studio ones came out awesome without any noticeable color differences or loss in overall quality. I've gotten prints through Ofoto before, and while they are better than most, they were'nt any better than the ones I got through Target.

Granted, this may all be a result of my not obtaining the prints by walking into a local location and having them done.

[Liquid Snake]

The problem with taking your pictures to Walmart is that the results are gonna be all over the place. The minilab machines can produce excellent output but it's up to the operator. At a place like Walmart, the chances of the operator being a photo enthusiast who cares about the results are pretty low. So most of the time your pictures just get put through the machine on automatic mode. The machines also have to be calibrated constantly; there's no telling how often this is done and if it's done properly.

High-end photo printers these days (Epson R2400 etc) can output results that rival or beat what you get from the minilab. Yes, it costs more and takes more work, but you have complete control over the output. Whether it's worth it or not depends on how important this is to you.

[Damien]

The new Canon photo printers are excellent. But if you print a lot of photos it is not worth buying a photo inkjet printer. I just purchased one of the canon printers and I am very impressed. Borderless printing with canon photo gloss paper looks just like they came out of the photo lab. I really could not tell the difference. If you do go that way make sure that you use the correct colour profiles for the correct canon paper. The profiles are on the CD.
Most people don't know to match the paper with the profile, it makes a world of difference to your photos.

[az]

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.

WTF!

[Jessterw]

Yes, believe it or not az, there are people here in the US that find the naked butt of a baby disgustingly inappropriate. So much so that places that process film and digital photos can, presumably, report you for child pornography.

Never stopped me from getting several prints done of my daughter. It's a given right to be able to show future dates and spouses naked photos of their love as a baby

[Umfriend]

The new HP line is way better than the old 1000/1200 line. I was shocked by how much the 7xxx line results improved on the 1xxx line.
And yes, paper is very important.

[VJ]

I have a HiTi dye sub printer (4" x 6" only) and it does give out a very nice quality (after some tweaking to get optimal colours).

Stricty financially speaking, Jammrock is correct: it is not worth it (it will be cheaper anywhere else), but being able to print decent pictures at home does have its benefits.
If you do go for one, I would advice to keep it seperate from the camera (it most likely will outlast your camera).

I'll see if I can scan a dye-sub printed photograph, that way you can see how it deals with colours.
Do check out the Hiti site, it is possible they still offer you to mail the your picture, print it and send it by mail (as a demonstration).


Jörg

[Jammrock]

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.

Costco has good prints.

[Liquid Snake]

Try looking here for some good minilabs: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/F...igital_Lab.htm