Photo Printer Recommendations?

Can anyone recommend any good and some what cheap photo printers that
produce good photos? For the first time I tried printing my own pictures I
took with my 2.1 m. pix camera. I used the cheap printer that came with the
Dell I got over Christmas time. I used a full sized black cartridge but
also used the miniature color introductory cartridge that came with printer.
I got horrible results. First I tried printing a picture the size of a
whole piece of paper. After one third of the picture was printed I started
seeing a big streak up and down the picture. Then another streak was
printed. I then tried printing a smaller picture the size of a postcard and
again there was a vertical streak in the picture. Also, besides the
streaks, I was not happy with the rest of the picture.

On the other hand, I took my memory card up to my brothers house and he
stuck it in his portably printer. He printed out two 6 x 4 picks that look
as good as you get from the photo shops. His portable printer only prints 6
x 4 picks tho. Also, it took forever for my cheap Dell printer to print my
two picks.

Anyway, I want something under $200.00 (preferable around $100.00) that
can print picks up to the size of a piece of paper. I at least want to
print decent picks half the size of a regular piece of paper. Any
recommendations?

Also, I read on another group something about archival ink? I was
looking at a nice Canon photo printer on amazon.com but would the pictures I
print start to fade in one or two years? What do I need to know about this
subject?

Much Thanks!

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:40:39 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

Can anyone recommend any good and some what cheap photo printers that
produce good photos?

Omega D-5. Of course you'll need to get those digital images properly
written to film negatives first ;)


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:40:39 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

Also, I read on another group something about archival ink?

LOL ! As if the term archival has any relationship with DI !!!!!

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

"John" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:40:39 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

Also, I read on another group something about archival ink?

LOL ! As if the term archival has any relationship with DI !!!!!


Is this newsgroup a non-digital group? If so I apologize for the post.

In article t,
"Von Fourche" wrote:

"John" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:40:39 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

Also, I read on another group something about archival ink?

LOL ! As if the term archival has any relationship with DI !!!!!


Is this newsgroup a non-digital group?

BINGO!!!

If so I apologize for the post.

Accepted.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:36:11 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

Also, I read on another group something about archival ink?

LOL ! As if the term archival has any relationship with DI !!!!!


Is this newsgroup a non-digital group?

Well non-digital for some and anti-digital for others ;)

If so I apologize for the post.

That's OK. Come to think of it, it's about time to post that old copy
of the charter I have somewhere.

In the FWIW category, get them printed on RA-4 paper. Cheaper and way
better than anything inkjet squirties can do.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

In article ,
John wrote:


In the FWIW category, get them printed on RA-4 paper. Cheaper and way
better than anything inkjet squirties can do.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

I am not so quick to judge, I recently bought a new printer
an R1800. This sucker rocks- I just finished a job doing 125-5x7,
25-11x14, 50 8x10's I reloaded the ink once. Total cost of the pigment
inks and paper a little over 400.00 - Since there was a request for
digital files- and I have a digital camera the approach was a no
brainer. Saved the film process cost and time scanning the files.

The resized files to 11x14 at 200 dpi actually looked good once printed-
I have few regrets -and the client was happy. If I had let a lab touch
this I would have been frustrated, and not quite so far on the plus
side. Certain things digital just make sense. Initiating a thread in
this NG is not one of them-WE remember the Charter- Darkroom means
Dark! and Plenty of work there exists for me! So round about the OP just
got my recommendation and a suggestion for future posts.
--
My reality-looking for that perfect picture
I can enter into and never look back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:27:49 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:

In the FWIW category, get them printed on RA-4 paper. Cheaper and way
better than anything inkjet squirties can do.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

I am not so quick to judge, I recently bought a new printer
an R1800. This sucker rocks- I just finished a job doing 125-5x7,
25-11x14, 50 8x10's I reloaded the ink once. Total cost of the pigment
inks and paper a little over 400.00 - Since there was a request for
digital files- and I have a digital camera the approach was a no
brainer. Saved the film process cost and time scanning the files.

In the professional sense, digital certainly is the way to go.
Longevity isn't an issue as most of the images will be permanently
retired within months if not weeks. Therefore initial image quality,
speed of production and cost are the only factors.But of course the
average person isn't going to lay out the $$$$$.$$ for the R8100. For
small and large runs, printing digital files to RA-4 is still the way
to go. For an intermediate quantity, inkjet can be satisfactory.

The resized files to 11x14 at 200 dpi actually looked good once printed-
I have few regrets -and the client was happy.

In the biz, that's the most important factor.

If I had let a lab touch
this I would have been frustrated, and not quite so far on the plus side.

I changed labs until I found one that I liked and who did the job
right the first time around. CPQ Colorchrome is actually quite good.

Certain things digital just make sense. Initiating a thread in
this NG is not one of them-WE remember the Charter- Darkroom means
Dark! and Plenty of work there exists for me! So round about the OP just
got my recommendation and a suggestion for future posts.

Just don't try to tell me you can make a better image via digi-squirt
print than you can in the darkroom !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

In article ,
John wrote:


Just don't try to tell me you can make a better image via digi-squirt
print than you can in the darkroom !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

I sense a taunt
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:45:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:

Just don't try to tell me you can make a better image via digi-squirt
print than you can in the darkroom !

==
John S. Douglas

I sense a taunt

Close. You wouldn't believe the number or PPA and WPPI card carriers
that swear digital is the greatest thing that ever happened to
photography. Have you dealt with Clay Blackmore ? He's not to far away
from your area.

http://www.clayblackmore.com/

All digi-printed onto color RA-4 materials of course.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net