Digital Printing

[hlweyl]

Hi all, I did a search and found some good reading, but no answer to my question.

I'm upgrading my old digital camera (HP 1.3 MP). I'm leaning towards Canon now (something pocket size in the 5 megapixel range.) and I currently don't print my own pics, I store them on Sony's Imagestation and just purchase from them. They currently charge 19 cents per 4 x 6 print. The quality is also better than my old HP 880 series printer.

So my question is this: has anyone compared the quality of prints from Imagestation to a nice printer? If so, do you find it more economical to print your own?

 

[RSO 34]

I use an Epson 2200 for my personal printing. I also sometimes order prints from my personal photography website host, Smugmug. Smugmug is more expensive but I have found the quality to be superior to Imagestation and Ofoto (but I have also preferred Ofoto to Imagestation).

The 2200 will run approximately $650 and produces better prints than I can get commercially, mainly because I can control the color calibration "in house" and see immediate results to determine if any "tweaking" is necessary. I have never broken down the per photo cost because it has varied with the different sizes I print as well as alternating black & whites and sepia prints.

I guess the main question I would have for you is what is your level of photographic ability combined with your intended use such as photo size. There is no need to go with a higher end printer such as the 2200 if you are only printing 4x6 photos and you have "average" skills. If you are intending to become proficient in imaging software such as Photoshop, you will never get to appreciate the results if you choose one of the inexpensive alternatives in printers.

You also need to consider whether you want the "hard copies" of your photos to last. Espon printers and epson archival inks, when combined with Epson photo paper, are color fast for approximately 65 years. This is a longer lifespan than you will find with the traditional print services currently available.

Your costs will go up in direct proportion to the quality of your final product. I would recommend Epson printers in general (FYI - I have no relationship with Epson other than as a satisfied consumer) and specifically those that use multiple color ink cartridges. Many lower end printers use one black and one "color" cartridge but the 2200 uses one black and 6 different color cartridges to give a more accurate and richer final print.

I guess a simple answer would be if you plan on printing up every photo you shoot in a particular "session" it is more economical to outsource the task to Imagestation or Ofoto (once again, my preference is for Ofoto - similar pricing but better color control). For best possible image control and quality, it is more "economical" to print them yourself with one of the multi-cartridge Epson printers. Just remember to use only Epson inks and Epson papers for the best and longest lasting results.

 

[VBNSX]

I currently use a olympus C-5050 and also a canon i960 for photo printing.. the quality for the printer is top notch (for my purposes). It's really neat since you can print 4x6 or 8.5x11.. or whatever you choose. Considering the cost of i960 I'd say it's rather worth it. I have taken pictures from events and other 'scenario' pictures and find that the picture quality is beyond what I expect for what i paid.

Just my .02

good luck.

x

 

[Acura NsX Pilot]

I use a Canon 10D digital SLR and have taken the same photo and had one printed at a photo processing store and did one on my hp 7550 which is for sale... :redface: ....sorry for the shameless plug. The prints were 4 x 6 and I found no significant differance in quality IMO. I would be more then happy to send you samples from my printer from a photo online or one of your own.

Photo paper cost can vary but for general photos i use cheap paper from staples which I purchased for $10/100 sheets 4x6 8 mil thickness

HP 7550 7 ink jet photo printer

 

[hlweyl]

I guess the main question I would have for you is what is your level of photographic ability combined with your intended use such as photo size. There is no need to go with a higher end printer such as the 2200 if you are only printing 4x6 photos and you have "average" skills. If you are intending to become proficient in imaging software such as Photoshop, you will never get to appreciate the results if you choose one of the inexpensive alternatives in printers.

Thx for all the advice guys. I'm actually fairly proficient with photoshop (I still have the old 5.0), but for my purposes, it sounds like having one of the online services would be a good solution. For me, I just want a system for printing quality family photos that is efficient and cost effective. But now I'm wondering about the degradation of the photos from the online services over time... is this anything to worry about?

 

[DocL]

I think that RSO pretty much said everything that I would have. (We seem to have similar experiences in digital photography and we use the same equipment.) If you just want to print family snapshots and aren't looking for the "professional" level, then I suggest buying the Epson Stylus Photo R320. I just bought one for simple printing and I am amazed at the quality of the photos, considering that it is a $200 printer. I even printed some macro photos and comparred them to a professional print that I had made at a speciality shop and it looked almost identical. The R320 printer also uses six ink cartridges, which is at least the minimium that you should have for digital printing. You should also use the best recommended paper for any printer that you purchase. Using a cheaper, generic photo paper will give you lousy results.

Good luck.

 

[RSO 34]

But now I'm wondering about the degradation of the photos from the online services over time... is this anything to worry about?

"Traditional" photo developing generally produces photos that are color fast for a fairly long time subject to environmental conditions. For example, if the photo is displayed in direct sunlight it will fade much faster than a photo in a shaded part of the house.

Photos in albums will degrade much more quickly if stored under acetate sheets in those albums. A good photo album that will not degrade your photos is not inexpensive so the ultimate choice comes down to how important those photos are to you. With digital photos, you can always print up another copy if you have the original digital files so that is not as important unless the storage media changes during the time that your original degraded to the point of needing a replacement. However, I would recommend that any "traditional" (i.e. other than an online album) photo album never use acetate sheets and only use acid free pages with tissue paper separating the backing pages. You should also only use acid free mounts whether it be a "scotch-type" tape or any other adhevise.

Once again, generally speaking "run of the mill" family photos may be done by outside printers without any fear of loss of quality in the forseeable future depending upon environment considerations of the location where they will be displayed and/or stored. I would also suggest that you take the same digital file of one photo you know is good and have it processed through several labs such as Ofoto and Imagestation and make your own determination as to which one produces the truest copy of that digital file.

One caveat on that final point. Your computer monitor may not be calibrated to display the actual color balance of the original digital file so your comparisons to the ultimate printed photos may not be entirely identical. That is why you should compare the ultimate prints to see which one you find more pleasing to you.

 

[RSO 34]

If you just want to print family snapshots and aren't looking for the "professional" level, then I suggest buying the Epson Stylus Photo R320.

The good doctor and I continue to agree on this point as well. I picked up an R300 (predecessor to the R320) last year as a backup for smaller "jobs" in addition to wanting an inexpensive printer to be able to print on CDs/DVDs. I have done some track events as a photographer and my event CDs are always individualized by printing a photo of the driver/car directly on the CD along with the title and date of the event. This inexpensive printer was a great addition to be able to produce a uniquely personal memento for attendees.