Anyone Print At Home ?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092653.stm
Home printed pictures can be cheaper and higher quality than those from High Street developers, tests shows.
A survey carried out by PC Pro magazine looked at which of 100 home photo printers offered a better deal than handing your snaps to a photo lab.
The tests found that images from top PC printers kept their colour longer than professionally produced photographs.
But using the wrong printer cartridge could means snaps fade in months, warned the magazine.
The group test of 100 home photo printers for PCs discovered how much it costs to create images using the devices compared to online developers as well as High Street names such as Jessops, Boots and Snappy Snaps.
The comprehensive test also revealed how quickly different printers produced images, the quality of the finished image and how resistant finished pictures were to smudging or water damage.
It found that although some ink for printers now costs more than £2 per millilitre it can still be cheaper to produce prints from photographs at home than it is to send them off to a High Street store.
"If you really like your photos, then it's definitely worth printing at home instead of going to the high street, but only if you choose the right printer," said Nick Ross, top tester at PC Pro.
TOP PRINTERS
Epson Stylus Photo R800
Canon Pixma iP3000
HP PhotoSmart 8150
Canon Pixma iP4000R
Source: PC Pro magazine
Mr Ross said that a new generation of printers produced images with brighter colours and that were less likely to fade than many High Street developers or even some professional wedding photographers.
Some High Street photo shops can be the cheapest when it came to developing prints that were 6x4in, said Mr Ross, but the test revealed that images 7x5in and 8x10in in size were cheaper to produce at home.
According to PC Pro, producing a print 8x10in on an Epson R800 printer using top quality paper costs £1.87. At Jessops the same image would cost £2.50 and at Snappy Snaps £9.99. A 10x7in snap at Boots would cost £4.99.
"Considering how inconvenient it can be to go to the High Street and how silver-halide prints can fade in the sun, we're adamant that it's now better, cheaper and more convenient to print at home," he said.
Ann Simpson, marketing manager at Snappy Snaps believes the convenience of high street printing will continue to attract customers.
"Some people will want to do their own thing on their computer but the feedback to us is that customers often have to print two or three pictures at home in order to get a good one," she said.
"Many people are not skilled at getting the colour, contrast and cropping right and they don't want the hassle," she added.
The magazine test found that which ink consumers use determined how long their prints lasted before they started fading.
It recommended avoiding so-called third-party inks not produced by printer makers because they tended to produce prints that fade the quickest.
I print at home, I use an Epson R300, not the best printer money can buy but it does the job for me. Nearly all my family and friends have home PCs so simply burning a CD is an easy way to share pictures. When it comes to that one special picture of the kids I find it much easier to print at home.
smp said:
"Considering how... silver-halide prints can fade in the sun
Anything will fade if you leave it in the sun long enough. No-one ever bothered about 'silver halide' prints fading before... I wonder if this fading lark is just another angle for the marketeers to get us?
Interesting article though.
I wonder if this survey was sponsored by Canon/Epson/HP 
True that everything fades in time, but I've heard of some inkjet prints fading after just a few months - surely "proper" prints would last for a lot longer than that?
If I was to get a small photo printer, I'd be tempted by one of these as it's one of the few small photo printers to produce prints larger than 6"x4"
True that everything fades in time, but I've heard of some inkjet prints fading after just a few months - surely "proper" prints would last for a lot longer than that?
If I was to get a small photo printer, I'd be tempted by one of these as it's one of the few small photo printers to produce prints larger than 6"x4"
ehasler said:
If I was to get a small photo printer, I'd be tempted by one of these
I'd heard of those... 'Dye Diffusion Thermal Transfer Continuous Tone Printing, Yellow / Magenta / Cyan / Overcoat / 4 - Pass.' Unfortunately it looks like a dropped fax machine!
An A4 one would be an idea.
simpo two said:AKA Dye Sublimation - you can get A4 versions, for example Kodak 1400 and Olympus P-440
If I was to get a small photo printer, I'd be tempted by one of these
I'd heard of those... 'Dye Diffusion Thermal Transfer Continuous Tone Printing, Yellow / Magenta / Cyan / Overcoat / 4 - Pass.' Unfortunately it looks like a dropped fax machine!
An A4 one would be an idea.
Thanks Ed - here are some prices for it:
www.systeminsight.co.uk/acatalog/Kodak_1400_Photo_Printer.html?title=1400%20Dye%20Sub%20Printer%20and%20Supplies
www.systeminsight.co.uk/acatalog/Kodak_1400_Photo_Printer.html?title=1400%20Dye%20Sub%20Printer%20and%20Supplies
A GRAND for 25 sheets of paper and a ribon?!!!
£40 a sheet and a free ribbon! 
ehasler said:
I wonder if this survey was sponsored by Canon/Epson/HP
I doubt it - at one point they say:
"HP Picks up the non-coveted award of most expensive ink supplier..."
They list the worlds most expensive liquids for comparison:
Price per ml
Scropion Venom - £5,532.18
Thailand Cobra Venom - £21.76
CHemical LSD - £17.49
Chanel No. 5 - £3.64
HP 343 Tricolor ink - £2.71
Not the best advert for an HP printer I ever saw!
A good article though, very interesting to read that you can print better quality for much less money than the high street...
I use www.photobox.co.uk which for quality prints above 24 x 16 is cost effective
Scooby_snax said:
I use www.photobox.co.uk which for quality prints above 24 x 16 is cost effective
I'm thinking of using them for my exhibitions next year. Are they not so competitive on A4 size? I can do A4 here but would need to buy an Epson and Ultrachrome inks to make lasting prints - ie too much capital for a pocket money hobby.
£3.50 for A4
I have to say that the quality of work I have received from them and this includes 30x20 poster size is comparable to a handprinted Cibachrome from a trannie....correction it is better more detail from Digital.
For clients I spend a fair amount of time adjusting the image in Nikon Capture4 then in Photoshop CS...upload the file to photobox and a couple of days later have the print back.
I have to say that the quality of work I have received from them and this includes 30x20 poster size is comparable to a handprinted Cibachrome from a trannie....correction it is better more detail from Digital.
For clients I spend a fair amount of time adjusting the image in Nikon Capture4 then in Photoshop CS...upload the file to photobox and a couple of days later have the print back.
I use an R800. Though very very good, the print quality doesn't touch the results you get from proper printing outlets. Good thing about the R800 though is the archival ink - supposed to last ages.
I've done the basic math - when printing small, I go PhotoBox. When doing a full A4, I print at home.
D
I've done the basic math - when printing small, I go PhotoBox. When doing a full A4, I print at home.
D
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff