Asymmetrical Information

Jane Galt wrote:

>A colleague is looking for, like, the best photo printer ever.
> Can anyone give recommendations.

Not really from recent experience. But a well attended Slashdot thread yesterday covered newer photo quality printers.

It's probably worth a quick read.

"PC Photo Printers Challenge Pros"

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/16/0035208&tid=126&tid=194

Jane-

Unless you give at least some price range, this is impossible to answer. There are a lot of nice imagers in the $10K+ range. And don't forget to considder cost-per-print, both for paper and ink, maximum print size and maximum source image resolutions, and whether you want paper or film (real tranparencies).

(fub: Jane doesn't like slashdot, they're into this open source stuff, which she disses)

Check recent postings at Instapundit

Jane - I've been pretty happy with the Epson 1280. It can do 4"x6" prints up to 13" x 19" easily with decent quality. The print quality for documents is reasonable also, but not as good as a laser printer. The printer does tend to drink ink so I bought a continious inking system from www.inkjetart.com for $300. It works great.

The only costs I have now are the paper costs for printing.

If you do get the continious inking system make sure you spray the prints with Krylon or other protectant for color fastness.

The 1280 is a decent printer (I have one), but if you want archival prints there's really only one choice: the Epson 2200.

The canon I860 is super. The quality is amazing.

You can buy refill kits from Cosco (Price Club)
The Canon refills are 7 times more expensive.

It you just want black and white look at the Samsung ML1740 laser printer for about $100 - $150.
Super machine. 17 pages / min
ink cost is avout 2 cents a page.

Perhaps get both?

Walgreen's/CVS?

They're going to be able to a afford a waaaay better quality printer than your friend will.

For true archival printing the Epson 2200 is the only game in town (along with its bigger brothers).

Devilbunny, see the slashdot discussion referenced above. This is no longer always the case.

A BBC story on the impressive durability of home-printed photos cites PC Pro magazine's list of "top printers": Epson Stylus Photo R800, Canon Pixma iP3000 or iP4000R, HP PhotoSmart 8150.

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4092653.stm

A post on printers, here.

Wow! That was like when the Fonz would do a cameo on Laverne & Shirley! (And lest that be misinterpreted, that's a compliment to both; I was young enough in the '70s that I would have considered that to be very cool.)

The Canon i9900. Resolution 4800 x 2400 (we're talking the resolution of glossy magazines here). USB or Firewire interface. Capable of large-format printing. Hands down the best photo printer around.

I use the Epson R200. A $99 printer that actually gives unsurpassed print quality on properly sized images. The image quality from this printer is superior to most high quality prints from professional photo labs. And that comes from someone who is incredibly fussy about how their pictures look.

Disadvantages: It takes for freaking ever to generate an image -- about 5 minutes for a high resolution 4x6. You MUST use Epson paper. The ink is expensive.

My next printer purchase will be the Epson R800. I've seen it at several photo shows but have not yet used it. Print quality is superb and it is very fast.

And let me add that my father, who is a professional photographer, has both the Epson 1280 and the 2200 and the little R200 produces better images. Honestly. The print engines in those printers are old and do not generate the small ink drop size of the newer models. They are faster, though.

E-mail your photos to Wal-Mart's photo center and they'll print them out for pickup at the store of your choice for $0.24 per print, or ship them to your door for a fee. Sam's club is even cheaper (0.18 each, I think) if you're a member.

Probably other stores offer similar service.

If you can stand wait a few days for prints, you might consider sending out to an internet printing service. I have been very happy with Shutterfly (but there are lots of others) especially when I wanted one printed BIG (20" x 30" for about $20!). I haven't done a careful study, but it seems cheaper, and I think the prints are more durable.

I have been very inpressed with the results of dye sublimation printers. I purchased the HiTi 640PS in December of 2003. The prints are remarkable. The paper and print ribbon are reasonably priced. I have printed hundreds of prints and the machine just keeps cranking. A much better experience than any ink jet I have owned. Other companies, like Sony, are getting into the dye-sub market now, but HiTi makes a quality product.

The thing about owning your own printer as opposed to using a service is control: I used on online service before (ophoto), but when a whole batch of photos (from the birth of my son) came back greenish, I gave up on them. This is the same thing you get from the stores. They do not pay those people enough (nor charge you enough) to work with the print before printing it. You get whatever the machine decides to spit out. With Photoshop Elements, or another piece of software, you can take the time to assure that you get the most out of each of your prints.

Ophoto told me that the prints came out green because there was something wrong with the file: "check your camera" they told me. Yet, when I reprinted those same files on the HiTi, they came out fine.

What about a used or refurbished Xerox/Tektronix Phaser solid ink printer? You can find plenty of them on eBay, and they do beautiful, professional quality output.

The only real drawback is that they are big.

You can't afford the best printers: they're in the photo processing shops. Why on earth would you buy some dinky little consumer printer when you can easily dump you data at the Wal-Mart and get a real photo print back? All photo processing equipment in commercial establishments these days can take both film and data input.

If you think you're going to get better quality than the Wal-Mart, there are other shops and online options (including Kodak) that will give you more highly trained staff and guaranteed fresh chemicals. But give Wal-Mart a try first.

In the end it will be cheaper than amortizing your own printer, and the paper and chemicals are more archival.

Almost any current photo printer from Canon, Epson or HP will produce prints are indistinguishable from high-quality lab prints. I have a 6-color dye-based Epson that's several years old and even it produces jaw-droppingly beautiful prints -- better than anything I ever got from a lab (which is why I haven't upgraded yet).

That said, assuming your friend is looking at printers targeted at individuals rather than service bureaus, the pigment-based Epson 2200 is probably the leading candidate (it seems to be what pro photographers and artists who are generating prints to sell use most often). Another contender would be the Canon i9900. Quite a bit cheaper than the Epson and the print quality is probably as good, but the longevity of the prints is not going to be as great.

Ofoto.com! Why make the big capital investment when Ofoto will do it for you?

Thanks, guys, and thanks, Jane for doing my blegging for me. Armed with your opinions I will now tear my hair out deciding.

After all those photo recommendations, though, I hate to say that I may have been convinced by the Shutterfly/Ofoto people. I want photos indistinguishable from professional prints, but if it's going to cost me a $500-plus, I'll probably stick with Shutterfly. I'd have to print out about 2300 photos at 22 cents a piece, not counting considerable ink and paper costs, to make a $500 investment worth it. I don't print nearly that many photos.

Jane and co. - please don't hate me if after all your time spent I stick with the pros. You've really helped me make a tricky decision.

Well, if you're printing small sized prints (e.g. letter sized or smaller), there are 6+ color photo printers in the $100 range that will work fine--if you're thinking you might be satisfied with Ofoto or Shutterfly then I don't think you're in the market for an Epson 2200.

Shutterfly and Ofoto are fine if you want a large number of 4x6 prints--printing those at home is tedious and not necessarily cheaper. What Ofoto and Shutterfly are not really very good for are small orders--you want only a few prints and not only do you have to wait for them to be shipped to you, but the shipping/handling costs make the price per print not very good.

For larger prints, the problem with the online services is that you wait for the print to come and then it may not look the way you want it to--too dark, too light, color balance a bit off. When printing at home, you can get that stuff right with a small test print first.

For really large prints, though, the online services start too look good again, because the equipment for poster-sized prints is prohibitive.

So here's what I'd say you need:

1. A lower-cost photo printer (at least 6 color) for quick convenient 4x6s in small batches and enlargements up to letter size.

2. An online service for big batches of prints (if you're into that sort of thing--personally, I happily gave up envelopes full of prints in boxes when I went digital).

3. An online service for very large prints.

Mark W's. comments, are wisdom gained from mucho experience. Harken unto him.

Patience and tenacity also help. And if all else fails read the directions.

Enough already with the technical mumbo jumbo! :)

Just tried Shutterfly for the first time today. They gave me 15 free prints for signing up so I dumped a wide variety of test prints into their service and will see what kind of pictures I get back.

I was extremely impressed with the Website interface and simplicity. It required almost no thought to go through the process of getting the images that I wanted onto the Website and order the prints.

Thanks to all of you for the heads up!

I will also recommend Shutterfly. The quality of the 15 free photos was so impressive, I have used it now for making Christmas cards and photo books (also very well done). I'm sure the other competitors are also good, but I have not used them.

Snapfish.com did a great job for me with Christmas prints for the assorted family members. Even put together a memory book of 20 pictures for a reasonable price. Good Luck!

Why do you need prints? That's so Twentieth Century. I've heard of frames that will display digital photos and you can change them when you get tired of them. Most of my photos never hit paper.

I've started going with Ofoto. They don't always get an extensiveoy photoshopped photo right but they're so inexpensive I can have them do it again. The pain, not to mention the cost, of current generation "photo quality" printers is just NOT satisfactory at the consumer level. I have an hp that cost me $400 and another hp that cost $800. They're both hit and miss and I get a higher percentage of good prints from Ofoto. Given the cost of buying the best quality paper and manufacturer's print cartridges (which always run out at exactly the wrong time) I've given up on "consumer" printers for now. I have used a friend's Epson that cost about $900.00 and an hp that cost $1500. They both produced very good quality output, but they're both a bit pricey for the average consumer and just as expensive. Printing a run of the mill 4 x 6, for example, costs me near $1.00 each with best quality paper and ink. Ofoto does them for 29 cents, provides storage for relatives, etc. etc. to view. Plus I have an SBC/Yahoo 1.5 GB-3.0 GB DSL account which provides an ungodly amount of storage space. I'm looking into that now. Be forewarned that if you send to Ofoto or Shutterfly that you'll have best luck with prints of at least 300 d.p.i. usually shot at about 5 x 7 size (5-6 megapixels) for 4 x 6 prints. That gives you plenty of room to crop. There likely are other good photo finishers on the web and I've looked at a variety of lists which "rate" them I've probably tried ten or more. I'd pick Ofoto first for consistency in quality. Just received 120-130 4 x 6 prints from them. I think there were only 5 or 6 bad ones in the lot. They even picked up some heavy grain in the face of one subject, something I totally missed when I looked at it again in Photoshop. My do-it-yourself printing probably won't exceed a dozen or so prints in 2005 and then only when I want an 8 x 10 in a hurry. There ARE some custom printers on line which service primarily pro shooters. The quality of their work is consistently higher IMHO, but the cost for the average 4 x 6 or 8 x 10 is *substantially* higher..

SteveoBrian,

Care to share the names of some of the online pro photo services?

Thanks.

Jane - enough about printers already! Merry Christmas.

Comments are Closed.