If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
Hi,
Sorry for my flurry of posts but we just got this new digital camera... How does the quality of photos you can print at home compare to the quality you can get by having digital images printed at a photo store? I would like to get a photo printer if the quality is close to what we can get at the store. Also, what is the price of a decent photo printer. Thanks in advance, Steve |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
Suggest the Canon IP4000, currently at $149 at CompUSA, probably
cheaper elsewhere. Great quality, individual color ink tanks, reasonable cost per print. OTOH, if all you want is 4x6 prints, many vendors are cheaper than you can do at home! I do mostly full-page prints, for about $1 each, cheaper than the $2-3 dollars most vendors want. Paul B. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
I wouldn't advise it. The quality of the prints will not compare with what
you will get in a photo store. And when you factor in the cost of the printer, ink and paper the cost per print will far exceed the cost you will pay in the store. I use a 20D and regularly get 7"x5" prints in my local store. Just the other day I dropped in a CD of 70 jpegs and had nice sparkling prints on Fuji Archival paper within an hour for around 20 cents (Euro) per print. Why would I or anyone else want to bother with home printing with convenience and prices like that? Regards, John, Ireland |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
carrigman wrote: I wouldn't advise it. The quality of the prints will not compare with what you will get in a photo store. And when you factor in the cost of the printer, ink and paper the cost per print will far exceed the cost you will pay in the store. I use a 20D and regularly get 7"x5" prints in my local store. Just the other day I dropped in a CD of 70 jpegs and had nice sparkling prints on Fuji Archival paper within an hour for around 20 cents (Euro) per print. Why would I or anyone else want to bother with home printing with convenience and prices like that? Because you can get better quality with much greater creative and technical control if you print your own. I have a Canon 8500. Not sure about the cost ratio, but I don't care either. Gary Eickmeier |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
"carrigman" wrote in message ... I wouldn't advise it. The quality of the prints will not compare with what you will get in a photo store. And when you factor in the cost of the printer, ink and paper the cost per print will far exceed the cost you will pay in the store. I use a 20D and regularly get 7"x5" prints in my local store. Just the other day I dropped in a CD of 70 jpegs and had nice sparkling prints on Fuji Archival paper within an hour for around 20 cents (Euro) per print. Why would I or anyone else want to bother with home printing with convenience and prices like that? Regards, John, Ireland Online ordering is the least expensive, but a pain if you don't have broadband. We don't get 5x7's for 20c where I live (Massachusetts). Perhaps the Costco's do but that requires membership. Quality wise, I think either method can produce excellent results. Dave cohen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
I would not advise getting a photoprinter and expecting good quality prints
unless you want to put in the time and effort to learn how to do it. Alas this latter necessity, taking the time and effort to learn the art and technology of a process, is beyond the ken of most consumers addicted to marketing promises of push-button instant gratification in everything from toasters to religion. If done properly your prints, and printing includes optimizing the image in a photoprogram prior to printing, made at home will be far superior to anything Walmart or its ilk can produce. Otherwise you will be wasting money more than time because the process of obtaining quality inkjet color prints is neither foolproof nor automatic. Stick to the 100 year old Kodak model of third party photofinishing and never bother to learn what a well finished and printed photograph can look like. Personally, and it has taken significant time, effort and $ to learn how to do it, I would never have a print made by a mass market finisher unless I needed several hundred copies for a mass mailing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
In article .com,
wrote: Hi, Sorry for my flurry of posts but we just got this new digital camera... How does the quality of photos you can print at home compare to the quality you can get by having digital images printed at a photo store? I would like to get a photo printer if the quality is close to what we can get at the store. Also, what is the price of a decent photo printer. Thanks in advance, Steve There was just an article on this in the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/te...oto.ready.html October 8, 2005 Why Do-It-Yourself Photo Printing Doesn't Add Up By DAMON DARLIN Prices of printers have dropped up to 30 percent in the last few months thanks to a savage price war. Is this then the time to buy a photo printer for your home? After all, for about $200 you can get the Hewlett-Packard Photosmart 8250 that in just 14 seconds spits out a photo that equals the quality of those coming back from the photo finisher in an hour. For the same price, Canon's iP6600D prints a borderless 4-by-6-inch photo in 46 seconds, but also prints on both sides of dual-side photo paper. The catch is that after you make an initial investment, you are going to pay at least 28 cents a print, if you believe the manufacturers' math. It could be closer to 50 cents a print if you trust the testing of product reviewers at Consumer Reports. In the meantime, the price of printing a 4-by-6-inch snapshot at a retailer's photo lab, like those inside a Sam's Club, is as low as 13 cents. Snapfish.com, an online mail-order service, offers prints for a dime each if you prepay. At those prices, why bother printing at home? Consumers seem to be saying just that. For the 12 months ended in July, home printing accounted for just 48 percent of the 7.7 billion digital prints made, down sharply from 64 percent in the previous 12 months, according to the Photo Marketing Association International, a trade group for retailers and camera makers. The number of photos spewing out of home printers is up quite handsomely, however, because of the overall growth of digital photo printing - up about 68 percent from the year-earlier period - but retail labs clearly have the advantage. You might say this is an example of the wisdom of crowds. Despite the ceaseless efforts of manufacturers to convince consumers that printing at home is fast, convenient and a whole lot of fun, the evidence shows that many people are tuning out the marketing. It does not take an advanced business degree for those consumers to see how printer manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard and Canon make their money. They use the "razor blade" business model. It is named from the marketing innovation of King C. Gillette, who in the early years of the last century sold razors for a low price but made all his money on the high-margin disposable razor blades. Printer manufacturers also use this tied-product strategy. Printers return relatively low profit margins. But the ink, ounce for ounce, is four times the cost of Krug Clos du Mesnil Champagne, which sells for around $425 a bottle. Ink is about the same price as Joy perfume, considered to be one of the more pricey fragrances, at $158 for a 2.5-ounce bottle. They don't just get you on the ink. Some photo printers force you to buy the cartridge and paper together in a "value pack." The ink or printer ribbon can run out before you are through with half the paper, so you risk building an ever-increasing stack of unused photo paper. The industry, from the photo finishers to the camera makers, has been concerned since the rise of the digital camera that consumers weren't printing enough pictures. There's a general sigh of relief that the percentage of printed photos has risen from 31 percent in 2003 to a projected 35 percent this year, the Photo Marketing Association says. The trend is slight, but it is in the right direction. The shallowness of the trend line also suggests that a new culture of photographs has been created. Consumers print their photos, but moreover, they share their photos more often and technology allows them to do it without printing. Cameras now come with liquid-crystal-display screens of 2.5 or 3 inches designed just for that purpose. Consumers upload photos for free storage and sharing to Snapfish.com, Shutterfly.com or EasyShare.com, a service owned by Eastman Kodak. You no longer have to send printed snapshots to Grandma. You can send a URL. The growing popularity of these services is why Hewlett bought Snapfish and Kodak bought Ofoto.com to merge it into its online service. Wal-Mart and Costco have also created an online service for storing and printing photos. Snapfish allows you to order prints stored online for pickup at your nearest Walgreens. Storage on the online services is free and for now, they offer limitless storage. Though each one has slightly different merchandise, you can also use them to print out albums, calendars and mugs with your uploaded photos on them. Ben Nelson, the vice president and general manager of Snapfish, said that surveys of its customers found that 46 percent did home printing and 45 percent printed at retailers. "We were kind of scratching our heads over that," Mr. Nelson said. What Snapfish came to realize, he said, is that consumers vary their behavior depending on the photo. If they want it now, they print at home. Those with 30 to 40 prints go to a retailer. If they are creating large projects like a mass mailing greeting card or a photo album, they seek a mail-order company. "We've shifted our services to enable all three," he said. That's not to say that home printers are always an uneconomical proposition. If you want an 8-by-10-inch photo, a home printer will do it for about a third of the $3 a copy Walgreens charges. But before you make the plunge on these specialized printers, you should ask yourself how often are you going to do that kind of printing. Dimitrios Delis, who tracks facts and figures for the Photo Marketing Association, says that 85 percent of all prints are the classic 4 by 6 inches. Any time you print in volumes - like Christmas cards or the Little League team picture - you'll be better off having the retailer handle it. "If they want to make many prints at home, it is not economical or convenient," Mr. Delis said. Prints made at home will certainly last a long time. That's certainly one good reason that these printers are popular with hobbyists and professionals. Independent studies say that home printers produce copies that should last 80 to 100 years without fading or yellowing, assuming you used leading inks and recommended photo paper. Marketers at Canon and Hewlett like to point out that those studies also show that prints made by photo processors decades ago now show signs of fading. (Today's photo processing machines are supposed to produce prints that will last as long as the home-printed versions.) What may be the better solution is the home office printer that can double as a photo printer on those rare occasions that you are printing at home. Many come with separate ink tanks, so you don't have to replace all the colors when you inevitability run out of black ink. Canon sells clear cartridges for ink so you can verify when the ink is gone rather than rely on the printer to tell you to replace the cartridge. After all, when this liquid gold is costing you $65 an ounce, you'll want to use every last drop. E-mail: Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top * Photographs by Christian Bonanno http://christianbonanno.com/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
"bmoag" wrote in message news:K1Q3f.3007
Personally, and it has taken significant time, effort and $ to learn how to do it, I would never have a print made by a mass market finisher unless I needed several hundred copies for a mass mailing. The prints I get done in my local store are your typical family snapshots, the kind of prints that I suspect the OP is interested in. The quality is top class. For my more "creative" work I upload files to www.photobox.co.uk I pay about Euro15 (about 18 USD) for an 18" x 12" print. The quality is superb, equal to if not far better than any Ilfrochrome print I would have got from a Velvia slide. Regards, John, Ireland |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a printer?
wrote in message oups.com... Hi, Sorry for my flurry of posts but we just got this new digital camera... How does the quality of photos you can print at home compare to the quality you can get by having digital images printed at a photo store? I would like to get a photo printer if the quality is close to what we can get at the store. Also, what is the price of a decent photo printer. Thanks in advance, Steve Printers are usually heavily subsidised by the manufacturers, who hope that they will recoup their loss by charging you extraordinarily high prices for ink and paper. A set of genuine Epson cartridges for their R200, for instance will cost you more than a brand new printer with a full set of cartridges included. However, you don't have to buy the genuine paper and ink in order to get good (even excellent) results. For really top quality output it has to be said that Epson ink on Epson paper is unbeatable (on Epson printers) but there are many third party suppliers around whose products come very close to equalling Epson quality. I've tried quite a few of the third party brands, and the best ones so far are the cartridges sold under the 'Ritec' and 'Datasafe' brands (actually, both the same cartridge) These, in conjunction with Fuji 'Everyday' photo paper give terrific results - very bright and colourful, with deep blacks (sometimes a weakness with third party ink) and (so far) good longevity and resistance to fading. When I tell you that a pack of 50 sheets of Fuji A4 paper can be bought for £6.00, and the Ritec/Datasafe cartridges are currently costing £1.36 each (compared to genuine Epsons at £10 - £12 each) you will see that home printing can be both economical and good quality. Finally, I've used third party ink in every one of the four printers that I've owned in the last 7 years - and all but one ( a Stylus 300 that wore itself out) are still going strong with no clogging, and no ill effects from the cheap ink. Nothing beats the convenience (and satisfaction) of producing your own photo's, and today's 'budget' photo printers really are marvels of precision engineering, producing results undreamed of only a few years ago - so, imo, get your printer and a supply of Ritec/Datasafe ink, and go for it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fighting Canon i9900 printer | Stacey | Digital Photography | 25 | February 9th 05 01:00 AM |
4x6 printer... | CNT | Digital Photography | 41 | January 18th 05 11:10 AM |
Very Basic printer query | MB_ | Digital Photography | 6 | December 27th 04 01:16 AM |
HP OfficeJet 145 Black/color ink old. 8 days to expire. Printing will stop. | Donald Gray | Digital Photography | 63 | December 26th 04 01:22 AM |
Printer question: multipurpose vs. dedicated photo, fixed head vs.on-cartridge | not really me | Digital Photography | 0 | July 19th 04 03:28 AM |