Should I buy a printer?

<szeik RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129295840.529506.240280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
>

Well you've received some very interesting replies and where I agree with
most of them I still come out in favor of having the printer, depending on
what printer, what you're going to print and why.

If you plan to buy an inexpensive 4x6 or even 8x10 printer then I may just
go along with the other and say it's not worth it. If you plan to just
print the photos as they were taken then again, I tend to agree with the
others. On the other hand if you need to have your prints as you are
working on a project or done specifically for a project then I highly
recommend a printer. Or if your local photo shop isn't convenient then I'd
recommend a printer.

We have two printers in our house. One is a small HP photo printer which
does 4x6 prints. The other is an Epson 2200 which does up to 13" by xx on
roll paper. (it also does normal size prints on sheet paper) Admittedly the
HP is hardly ever used in favor of the prints received from our local Ritz,
but the 2200 is often used for project work. As an example, my wife and
daughter do scrappbooking and having the 2200 to print off pics as need in
what ever size need or cropped however needed is wonderful for them. In
their case it's just impractical to prepare the photos and bring them up to
the local lab to get then printed.

In my case, I just spent the last couple of nights printing off 13x19 prints
for a project I'm working on. In this case I was doing some Photoshop work
and was able to blow off a few proofs before sending the real print job to
the printer. Having a printer that can do that is very convenient.

All that said, I'll echo the posters comments. It's expensive to keep the
2200 in ink let alone buy the printer to begin with. It takes some work to
get everything calibrated properly and to understand how the printer works
and how your software works with the printer, but once understood, printing
is a no brainier.

Lastly, I'll mention this about quality. If you need the best possible
looking print bring your stuff to a good lab. That said, I'll bet you that
the average person will look at prints done by the Epson 2200 and think you
had them printed professionally.

--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

On 14-Oct-2005, szeik RemoveThis @hotmail.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

Hello Steve,

Put me in the camp of recommending that you don't get a printer. I have
chased after the ultimate printer for about 3 years. When I wanted to print,
half the time the ink would be dried out. Then, I had a few of my home
printed 8"x10"'s hanging by my desk, out of direct sunlight, and in one year
they had faded really bad! If you are printing every day, or have invested
in the photography hobby big time and want the control then maybe. Then you
need to buy an archival quality printer, paper, and ink. I personally think
the control is in the software that you "enhance" your pictures with and the
printing is pretty mundane. I'm sure I'll get hit on that remark.

I upload my images to Winkflash who charge $.12 for 4"x6"; $.29 for 5"x7";
and $1.99 for 8"x10". They charge a flat $.99 for shipping. I'm sure they
have good competition out there, but they are who I use.

Good luck...dave
 >> Stay informed about: 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
 >> Stay informed about: 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
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

"carrigman" <carrigman.RemoveThis@deathtospammershotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dioh49$kr3$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>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
 >> Stay informed about: 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?
>

I disagree about the quality of the prints possible on a home job.
With good equipment, careful attention, and great quantities of
patience and persistence, home printing can be excellent or better.

I do want him to buy a printer so he can suffer the frustration,
inconvenience and expense of doing it himself, just like the rest of
us.

It's important to realize that the person who can take advantage of a
home printer is likely to become its slave, if he has high standards.
Otherwise, I see no compelling reason to begin the relationship.

You trade off instant (sort of) gratification at home for another kind
of convenience, and overall less expense.

I have an old and very good photo printer (Epson 750) but I only crank
it up when there is no other way.

You may be able to infer something significant from this: It's been a
year since I bought a new Canon i9900 and it's still in the box. Still
in the box. Up to now the inconvenience (read: hassle) of setting it
up and tuning it in far outweighs whatever gains I anticipated.

Seems to me the question, "Should I buy a printer", signals a need for
more experience. Wait a few months. If you can get along without for
that length of time, perhaps you don't need one.

Owning a printer is a little like owning a car: the world would be
better off if it weren't necessary, but somehow a dependency
developed. Hard to quit.

--
Frank ess
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

"bmoag" <aetoo.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

<szeik.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129295840.529506.240280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> 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.

Depends on the photo store. But you should be able to get very good
quality standard sized prints off any competent store. Beware of the
cowboys though - a badly set up system is possible.
>>
>> 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.

That isn't true with the Fuji kit provided that the operator is half
decent the print quality should be better than anything a high end
inkjet can manage even with the most expensive materials.

You can control what happens when you submit images for printing,
although they "improve" the user interface so often that finding the
right options can be a bit of a chore.

It is not as convenient though since to get a really low lab price you
need to be printing batch sizes of 50+ 5x7 at one time (and for 20c in
the UK that is the 24hour processing rate).

Regards,
Martin Brown
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

szeik RemoveThis @hotmail.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
>
>
Some of the photo printers are as good, if not better, than you will bet
at Sam's, or Wal-Mart, or Walgreens. However, this is NOT the important
aspect of the question. You should consider how you will use the
printer. Will you print other things on it? Will you want 100 prints a
week? How much are you willing to spend on paper and ink cartridges (or
dye-sub. ribbons)?

From a strictly financial point of view, getting the prints at Sam's
Club is much cheaper, and a LOT less trouble than printing 100 pictures,
then trimming them, or paying $.75 a picture for 4x6 dye sub. pictures.
But for a quick 'one off' type printing, and use the printer for
letters, internet printouts, and greeting cards, that makes sense.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

Toss another vote into the "don't buy a printer" ballot box. I have
used a Epson 1280 which could produce very good pictures, however,
unless you live in the middle of nowhere with no stores nearby (course
mail-order always works), or you have to have the pictures NOW, I do
not see the reason to deal with a printer at home. For 95% of all my
pictures I use Costco, they have printer profiles online you can
download, specific profile for each printer, even with certain
paper...each print you can even add your own message to which will be
printed on the back of the print...amazing quality (yes I have compared
to all other 'normal' printing places, but have not compared against
pro photo shops)...I have everything up to 12"x18" prints from Costco,
all look stunning and I can not imagine anyone wanting to deal with a
home printer when it's so easy and cheap (12"x18" print is $2.99 at
Costco!)...

Just my $0.00 worth...
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer? 

Frank ess wrote:

> 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.

That's a fair bit cheaper than in the UK for 1 hour processing.

> I disagree about the quality of the prints possible on a home job. With
> good equipment, careful attention, and great quantities of patience and
> persistence, home printing can be excellent or better.

You can almost match the colours, but you can't match the gloss finish
on the Fuji machine prints. A good lab printer is always in good
calibration - you just have to match your system to theirs.

> I do want him to buy a printer so he can suffer the frustration,
> inconvenience and expense of doing it himself, just like the rest of us.

And leave it in the box for a year or so?

> You trade off instant (sort of) gratification at home for another kind
> of convenience, and overall less expense.

The whole advantage of having a calibrated printer at home is that you
can turn round images quickly. Mine is an i9100 - good enough.
>
> I have an old and very good photo printer (Epson 750) but I only crank
> it up when there is no other way.
>
> You may be able to infer something significant from this: It's been a
> year since I bought a new Canon i9900 and it's still in the box. Still
> in the box. Up to now the inconvenience (read: hassle) of setting it up
> and tuning it in far outweighs whatever gains I anticipated.

Sounds like you have more money than sense. Unless the Epson 750 is
*truly* exceptional a more modern printer should crucify it.

> Owning a printer is a little like owning a car: the world would be
> better off if it weren't necessary, but somehow a dependency developed.
> Hard to quit.

Not at all. Just find a local lab with the right kit and an operator
that knows what they are doing. These days is not all that hard to do.

You need batch size of 50+ on 5x7 prints to be cost effective. My advice
to a beginner is try a couple of local photo labs machine print
services. You can alway buy a printer and then pay the extortionate
consumable charges for the inks and papers later if they cannot deliver.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 >> Stay informed about: Should I buy a printer?