Printing

I'm after some advice:

I have an HP inkjet printer, and have been very dissapointed with the results produced. When compared to the results having them printed at jessops, the inkjet doesn't come close. I have an Optio S4, and so far have been a bit underwhelmed by the results acheivable at home.

Would I acheive better results with a dye-sub printer? I am confused about the resolution, as most dye-subs are arround 300 to 400 dpi, but my inkjet claims to be 2400 x 1200 dpi on maximum resolution.

What system do they use in the photo lab printers? What is the best home printing solution?

Thanks for your comments.

General_Mayhem

The standard printing resolution on-the-street is around 300dpi. That's true 300dpi with each pixel being able to represent all the possible colours. Inkjet, on the other hand, has only 4 (or 6 for most photo printers) colours to mix with, giving 16 colours. They give the appearance of continuous tone by dithering, or producing a tiny pattern of dots. This is why inkjets need loads more resolution.

Dye-sublimation printers work by vapourising the dye off a ribbon so the dyes mix together before landing on the target paper. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) They use temperature to control the amount of each dye. General the dyes are Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow (no black). Hence, the blacks are not necessarily as dense as you might get from inkjet, but the colours are more natural, and you cannot see any dots at all.

I have an (aging) Epson Photo 870 printer which produces stunning results every time. It has 6 inks. However, it does take a while to print, and the overall print cost is quite high.

I recently invested in a HiTi Photoshuttle, which is 310dpi dye-sublimation. It only prints 6x4 size photos (or stickers), but prints in a total time of about 60seconds off my 2.4GHz machine. The results are stunning, and look just like a Jessops' print Cost is a mere 35pence per print.

In my experience, I've found HP printers a real pain to get right, in terms of colour. Every Epson I've used works really well out of the box. All printers can be calibrated - which improves things no end - but the process is time consuming and not for the feint hearted I still use the Epson for 8x10 & A4, plus "normal" printing, and the HiTi for photo outputs. For serious large format outputs (8x10 for other people etc), I use the Internet (try Jessops online, or www.photobox.co.uk )

However, that said, here are some general things:

1. Always use the original ink cartridges. Colour profiles depend on specific inks, and compatible cartridges can waste you loads of time.
2. Use good media. An Epson on plain paper looks yuck Put in some premium semi-gloss paper and Wow!
3. Set the driver settings according to the paper type (very important).

So, here's a quick guide:
* Dye-subs produce really nice photo output, but are fixed to one size
* Inkjets can produce good output, but you need to choose ink and media carefully. Also, keep using it so the nozzles don't dry up!

HiTi available from: www.hitishop.co.uk (very helpful company)

Hope that helps
Matt

Thanks Matt, you truly know your stuff.

Out of interest how do laser printers compare?

I certainly agree with what I understand of what Matt said! Before trying anything else, experiment with your present printer, using the right ink and good paper. Ink-jets have been capable of very good results for several years now.

Laser printer quality seems to vary greatly. Some produce very shiny and unnatural colours - really only suitable for presentation graphics.

I've seen the output of the Epson AcuLaser C1900, and that's really nice. The quality is good, but not up to a lab print. It's more like a magazine or high quality newspaper output. The colours are very rich, but the detail doesn't approach a good quality inkjet print. Different technology, different result. I would definitely use one, but inkjets, dye-subs, and internet 'real prints' will all still have their place.

One thing I forgot to mention, is that 'real prints' are often much more resistant to fading. So if you want to show something off it might be worth using such services.

I'd definitely agree with George - experiment with the settings of your current inkjet first It is worth spending some time (a few hours) with a small test photo, rather than a large A4 image, and just playing with the settings. Write down what you do (or mark on each output image) then compare. It might save you a lot of bother.

Matt

I'm a long time Canon user but recently bought a HP 7960. The prints - straight out of the box - are simply stunning

Greengrass,

Thanks for the correction My experience with HP goes a long way back - I haven't tried any of their newer printers. I should have stated that.

Still, the other points regarding ink, paper, and driver settings still stand. Which reminds me of another point: if you have problems, try downloading the newest driver from the manufacturer's website - that can make a big difference, especially if you have an older printer

Matt

Thanks for all your comments. It looks like I will have to go away and have a long play with what I have before I spend any money.

I don't think, price and quality wise, home printing is truly competative to lab results (15p for a 6" x 4" with Jessops). So the revolution is still a way off. If I have to have them processed next-day in shop for quality prints, I am no better off than using my 35mm.

Well perhaps that is a bit harsh, there are other benefits to digital, but it is no cheaper, which was one of the selling points for me

General_Mayhem,

You can definitely get the quality at home. As I said, the HiTi performs as well as lab prints. And given the right premium paper you can get lab quality output from an inkjet (maybe not yours, but definitely from inkjets).

Regarding price, yes it's true that Jessops (and other internet companies) can beat home printing. I find that 35p is pretty good for the odd 10 or 20 shots I output each month at home. But then, if I were to buy media in the quantities Jessops buy it at then I could probably match their price too!

Regarding digital costs overall - well yes, the investment is more, much more. But then you have more flexibility. I have taken something like 7000 images in a year on digital (Canon S30 and *istD), and can print "on demand" - when others want 'hard' copies. A majority of my images are web-based (through www.pbase.com ). I find it useful being able to process a whole run of shots, then waiting before deciding what really needs printing. Just the raw equivalent film costs for my *istD would have been about £500 in four months That's a saving in my book

Swings and roundabouts
Perhaps you should shoot more and print less

Matt

I don't think home printing will ever be as cheap as the high street and this goes back to film cameras. The high street price for a "standard" print was always cheaper than at home especially for the package deal. The cost of home printing for normal prints wasn't worth it but for the odd one off or special print that had to be dodged. spotted and generally manipulated, you could get a result that was difficult to obtain outside the specialists such as Colab and even then you were in their hands as to the interpretation. At least with digital, you can view the results straight away, you can get rid of the ones you don't want and if there is something special or in a rush you can do it more easily than spending hours in a darkroom. Whilst I agree with Matt, I have a slightly different view because my output is different. for most of my work, I intend to stick with film. This is because most of the work is for display prints and there wouldn't be the same saving. However for all the web work and "snaps" at my wifes guide events etc, I use a Minolta RD3000. (No *istD when I bought it and although a bit long in the tooth,it has lenses designed for the format and is capable of the results I need.)

As always, Horses for courses!

Regards
Kim

Do one or more of the following solutions:

Solution 1: Upgrade to InDesign CS3 or Illustrator CS3.
For upgrade information, see the Adobe website at www.adobe.com/products/#design_publishing.

Solution: 2 Only print from the Adobe Print dialog box.
Print from inside the Adobe Print dialog box and do not invoke the Epson Print dialog box or the Canon Print dialog box.

I had the same problem when I replaced my old HP 15A

That's got to be some sort of record.

You do realise this is a seven year old thread?

Still seems a little expensive to me. Current cost for 4 x 6 in. post-order prints in Norway is around NOK 1.50 (approx. 15 p in real money).

It was 7 YEARS AGO ... stands to reason prices will have fallen as technology has got better/cheaper.