the best printer

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:38:13 +0000 (UTC), "eddie" wrote:

what would you recommend for the best printer for a beginner.

To do what?

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

TO PRINT

of course

-:)

"Hecate" wrote in message
: On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:38:13 +0000 (UTC), "eddie" : wrote:
:
: >what would you recommend for the best printer for a beginner. : >
: >
: To do what?
:
: —
:
: Hecate
:
: veni, vidi, reliqui

I understand the Canon i960 is the one to beat
for image quality and speed, if you want to do
images.

"frank1492" wrote:
I understand the Canon i960 is the one to beat
for image quality and speed, if you want to do
images.

I own one (i.e. Canon i960) and I agree after being decades buried in HP printers it is hard to find fault with. Outstanding images using their glossy paper.

BP~

Don’t know how much you want to spend, but I recently bought the Canon i9100 and its output to premium glossy paper is awesome. Borderless up to 13×19.

In the writings of eddie, the <c4l11i$q8q$>
scrolls contained these prophetic words:

what would you recommend for the best printer for a beginner.

eddie from u.k

Ok, this is the line up:

i865 for general printing, and decent photographic printing. i965 for specialist photographic printing, uses 6 inks.
i9100 Specialist A3 printer.

All the Canons are excellent, check out http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ for some reviews as well as http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html just remember the Americans have a 0 instead of the 5 to denote that they don’t have the CD-R printing on the i865/965…

The i965 produces a 6×4 print in about 40secs and is photographic quality. i865 is a bit slower, but still produces excellent images.

Out of these for a beginner I would commend the i865.

Epson print interfaces for a beginner is too complicated, and HP don’t even consider as they are just too expensive to run.
—
Scottish Heritage:
http://www.CelticShadows.co.uk

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is never going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print?

I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and tell them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not when you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .

But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.

—
Chuck

"eddie" wrote in message

what would you recommend for the best printer for a beginner.

eddie from u.k

frank1492 wrote:

I understand the Canon i960 is the one to beat
for image quality and speed, if you want to do
images.

Not sure about that particular model, but Canon is a very nice choice for quality image printing.

Uni

Chuck wrote:

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is never going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print?

I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and tell them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not when you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .
But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.

Both Epson and HP will make prints that last far longer than color prints on photographic paper. (Depending on the printer and the paper.) These will now last 50 to 100 years.

The prints you are doing are probably good for 25, but may start showing fading in 10.

I regularly print inkjet that looks as good or better than anything on photo paper. You must be doing something wrong.

Clyde

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:29:58 -0800, "Chuck" wrote:

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is never going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print?

Wrong, wrong, wrong……

Go to a photo lab if you need convenience and don’t to have any real-time tweaking.

Inkjet prints on the right paper last as long as conventional. With pigment inks, they last LONGER.

The best inkjets are producing results equal or better than "conventional" processes.

For custom printing, a home printer wins in many more ways too. **************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:48:48 GMT, Clyde
wrote:

C
I regularly print inkjet that looks as good or better than anything on photo paper. You must be doing something wrong.

Clyde

He’s not doing ANYTHING–he’s going to the lab!!!
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:43:08 +0100, Faolan
wrote:

I
Epson print interfaces for a beginner is too complicated, and HP don’t even consider as they are just too expensive to run.

I would hate to meet the person that could not get a print out of ANY current inkjet–including Epson.

There are many Epsons that should be on the beginner list **************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

Chuck wrote:

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is never going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print?

I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and tell them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not when you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .
But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.

And inkjet prints as so darn fragile – even with pigment inks and premium photo paper. You can always spot and inkjet user – "Yes, you may look at my printed photos, just don’t touch them!!!"

Uni

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is never going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print? >>

OK I’ll start following your advise and start uploading my 200 Meg files for printing and return to me which will NOT equal the quality and archival qualities of a print from an Epson 2200 or the Epson 4000 for which I am waitlisted.

David N.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:56:53 -0700, "Life is fun" wrote:

TO PRINT

of course

-:)

Four colour images? Spot colour? Jpegs? Direct from camera? And so forth 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Good boy.

—
Chuck

"David Napierkowski" wrote in message

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is

never

going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a photo lab print? >>

OK I’ll start following your advise and start uploading my 200 Meg files

for

printing and return to me which will NOT equal the quality and archival qualities of a print from an Epson 2200 or the Epson 4000 for which I am waitlisted.

David N.

"Clyde" wrote in message

Chuck wrote:

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is

never

going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a

photo

lab print?

I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and

tell

them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not

when

you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .
But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.

Both Epson and HP will make prints that last far longer than color prints on photographic paper. (Depending on the printer and the paper.) These will now last 50 to 100 years.

The prints you are doing are probably good for 25, but may start showing fading in 10.

I regularly print inkjet that looks as good or better than anything on photo paper. You must be doing something wrong.

Clyde

I’m NOT talking about one of those "ink printers" at a photo lab . . . I’m talking about regular photo lab processing. It’s only been around for about a year. If you’ve done it prior to that they used an ink ribbon. Now they use chemical processing just like regular photograph printing from 35mm negatives.

You tweak, you burn, you bring and they photo process on photo paper real photos not ink-crap with poor blends, running ink and jamming paper.

Lazy? Maybe . . . but it’s smart, economical AND professional.

The best answer, again – to the original question, is bring your photo to a photo lab for processing.

Uni wrote:

And inkjet prints as so darn fragile – even with pigment inks and premium photo paper. You can always spot and inkjet user – "Yes, you may look at my printed photos, just don’t touch them!!!"
Uni

I regularly take my inkjet wedding prints to wedding shows to let brides look at them and tough them. I’ve never had any smear.

Clyde

Chuck wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

Chuck wrote:

For photographs . . .

Go to a photo lab . . .

Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is

never

going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a

photo

lab print?

I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and

tell

them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not

when

you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .
But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.

Both Epson and HP will make prints that last far longer than color prints on photographic paper. (Depending on the printer and the paper.) These will now last 50 to 100 years.

The prints you are doing are probably good for 25, but may start showing fading in 10.

I regularly print inkjet that looks as good or better than anything on photo paper. You must be doing something wrong.

Clyde

I’m NOT talking about one of those "ink printers" at a photo lab . . . I’m talking about regular photo lab processing. It’s only been around for about a year. If you’ve done it prior to that they used an ink ribbon. Now they use chemical processing just like regular photograph printing from 35mm negatives.

You tweak, you burn, you bring and they photo process on photo paper real photos not ink-crap with poor blends, running ink and jamming paper.
Lazy? Maybe . . . but it’s smart, economical AND professional.
The best answer, again – to the original question, is bring your photo to a photo lab for processing.

I know what you are talking about. This isn’t new technology. It’s pretty standard color printing by machine. It’s pretty much what the 1-Hour photo shop has been doing for years. BTW, it wasn’t a "ink" ribbon, it was a dye-sub ribbon. They are still available. And laser and LED printing to photo paper has been around longer than a year too. Still it’s pretty much the same photo paper that been used for a very long time.

Yes, there have been incremental improvements in color processing and paper over the years. No, there haven’t been any great leaps in the technology – well for awhile.

I’ve been doing photography for 30 years and have taken many photos to the lab. I’ve also done plenty of my own darkroom work. There are color technologies that will last longer than the top current inkjet prints. Dye Transfer is/was one of them. Good luck finding anyone that will do one for you.

IlfoChrome is another pretty long lasting color process, but it takes a real artist (and money) to get that done right. Alas, there never were too many of those around and they are getting fewer. Fuji also makes a process that lasts about as long as the top inkjet prints now. You can get that at the best pro photo labs. Of course, you’ll pay for it.

Now you can certainly get some nice prints from regular "C" prints, but their longevity isn’t near the top inkjets right now. Kodak, Fuji, Whihelm, and others put that at about 25 years. Since I can get over 100 years with Epson’s UltraChrome, that pretty well beats "C" prints.

More importantly, I get better prints at lower cost and way faster by printing from Photoshop. I know there is a difference in the "look" on photo paper vs. inkjet, but I and my customers like the look of the inkjet better.

You may like the look of the photo paper better and that’s fine. Just don’t say it’s more archival than inkjet; at least until you’ve actually done some research.

Clyde

"Chuck" wrote in message
[snip]

I’m NOT talking about one of those "ink printers" at a photo lab . . . I’m talking about regular photo lab processing. It’s only been around for

about

a year. If you’ve done it prior to that they used an ink ribbon. Now

they

use chemical processing just like regular photograph printing from 35mm negatives.

Huh? I’ve never encountered a photo lab that used "ink ribbons" unless *specifically* asked for dye-sub prints, and those labs were and are very rare indeed. "Regular photo lab processing" has *always* output wet-process prints unless told otherwise.

[snip]

The best answer, again – to the original question, is bring your photo to

a

photo lab for processing.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but do try to read the post before you jump in. Not only have you answered the wrong question, but your statement is overly broad.

"Clyde" wrote in message

Uni wrote:

And inkjet prints as so darn fragile – even with pigment inks and premium photo paper. You can always spot and inkjet user – "Yes, you may look at my printed photos, just don’t touch them!!!"
Uni

I regularly take my inkjet wedding prints to wedding shows to let brides look at them and tough them. I’ve never had any smear.

He’s been spouting this nonsense for a long time. He’s clueless.

Flycaster wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

Uni wrote:

And inkjet prints as so darn fragile – even with pigment inks and premium photo paper. You can always spot and inkjet user – "Yes, you may look at my printed photos, just don’t touch them!!!"
Uni

I regularly take my inkjet wedding prints to wedding shows to let brides look at them and tough them. I’ve never had any smear.

He’s been spouting this nonsense for a long time. He’s clueless.

Photoshop for Dummies, That Way —->

🙂

Uni