printing out photos?

[mfalco]

One does NOT need a dye sublimation printer to get good results.

MANY pros use the Epson line of pigment ink jet printers. These have archival quality of over 100 years, AND produce excellent results.

DyeSub printers are fine, but not necessary, nor do they offer a larger Dynamic Range vs. others.

Good results are different than great results. I use my inkjet photo printer all the time and love it.

An $80 HP Photosmart has "archival quality of over 100 years" whe using HP premium plus photo paper.


DyeSub printers do offer higer resolution than inkjet printers.


If you can show me a picture from an inkjet printer of actual photo quality, like the ones the photo store gives me from my film, I would love to see it.

 

[Charlie99]

If you can show me a picture from an inkjet printer of actual photo quality, like the ones the photo store gives me from my film, I would love to see it.[emphasis added]

[slight hijack] The photos you get from the typical photo store from your film are printed out on the same machine used to print digital photos. No, it's not an inkjet. [/highjack]

 

[Puffer Fish]

My buddy at the professional camera shop I frequent has another suggestion. He opines that the sRGB color space (used by most digital cameras) is bunk. Shoot, process and print in Adobe RGB color space if your camera and software support it.

Then there is the cost factor. Costco is now cheaper than anything you can do with a home printer even considering only the cost of paper and ink (and not the cost of the printer). A while back Charlie posted a neat tip as to how to get your computer to line up with the Costco printer. He alluded to it in an earlier post. Hey, Charlie, can you find the old thread or repost the details? You had some really good ideas.

—Bob

This thread has a bunch of really, really great stuff in it on printing (much of it from ScubaBOBuba). But would like to point out two issues with the above information:

1. If you want to manage a color stream -camera - computer/monitor - printing, the only effective way is to use one color space. While I know sRGB really sucks (depending on the colors involved), If you want to have clean/accurate image transfer, use just one.

2. If you can take pictures in adobe, manage the image in adobe, view the image in adobe and print in adobe, then it is great to use it. Problem is, I have yet to see anyone actually do that with normal computers/cameras/printers. No pc system can.

The above is one of the great myths around color management. The first rule is "there can be only one"

The cost issue is interesting. Buy commercial inkjet paper and the current high resolution epson pigment printers are about 1/3 lower in cost over Costco, or anyone else I have seen. The older 2200 is a bit more costly, but not by a lot over a discount printer. What you get in return, by doing you own is a far longer lasting image and that should be worth something.

 

[RonFrank]

If you can show me a picture from an inkjet printer of actual photo quality, like the ones the photo store gives me from my film, I would love to see it.

I make prints on my Epson 2200 that are a good as anything I've ever printed in a lab. There are some processes that I still like that are wet, like Ilfochrome, but that is NOT a thermo dye sub process.

There are a large number of professionals that use the Epson line of printers to produce high quality prints. Pro's could hardly justify spending $6,000 on an Espon 9800 if it was incabable of producing photo quality archival prints.

DyeSub technology has some advantages, mainly speed, but some serious drawbacks as well. First off, one is locked into glossy prints, and a very limited paper selection. If you really are interested in learning about printers, I'd suggest you read this webpage, which BTW lists one advantage of injeks as having HIGHER resolution vs. DyeSub technology.

Different labs use different printer processes, so suggesting that your photo store produces better prints without indicating what process they are using is rather pointless. Better is also very subjective, but I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to tell what process produced what prints without examination of the paper used which is generally a dead give away assuming one knows about print processes.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/November_2004.html

 

[Puffer Fish]

I make prints on my Epson 2200 that are a good as anything I've ever printed in a lab. There are some processes that I still like that are wet, like Ilfochrome, but that is NOT a thermo dye sub process.

There are a large number of professionals that use the Epson line of printers to produce high quality prints. Pro's could hardly justify spending $6,000 on an Espon 9800 if it was incabable of producing photo quality archival prints.

DyeSub technology has some advantages, mainly speed, but some serious drawbacks as well. First off, one is locked into glossy prints, and a very limited paper selection. If you really are interested in learning about printers, I'd suggest you read this webpage, which BTW lists one advantage of injeks as having HIGHER resolution vs. DyeSub technology.

Different labs use different printer processes, so suggesting that your photo store produces better prints without indicating what process they are using is rather pointless. Better is also very subjective, but I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to tell what process produced what prints without examination of the paper used which is generally a dead give away assuming one knows about print processes.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/November_2004.html

Ink jets today have much higher resolution and far greater durability. The other neat aspect is that in the Epson line, they are now carried through from the R800 all the way to the 60" models with the same inks. I have both the 2200 and the R800 and the 2200 produces great photo quality prints, the R800 has twice the resolution, but it takes a microscope to see the differences.

One of the more humerous aspects of this is that all high quality art reproductions are done on ink jet (Mostly Epson and HP). Go to any museum in the world, and buy the best, most accurate reproduction, and you will be buying ink jet.

 

[Charlie99]

One of the more humerous aspects of this is that all high quality art reproductions are done on ink jet (Mostly Epson and HP). Go to any museum in the world, and buy the best, most accurate reproduction, and you will be buying ink jet.

Giclee printers, while using a process that might be described as "ink jet", aren't quite what most people are thinking of when they say "inkjet". An entry level Giclee printer such as the Epson 9600 is about $5,000.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Giclee printers, while using a process that might be described as "ink jet", aren't quite what most people are thinking of when they say "inkjet". An entry level Giclee printer such as the Epson 9600 is about $5,000.

The R800, R1800, R2400.......all the way to the 9800 are all basically the same inks, only (this is very important) - the first three are actually higher in resolution (twice as high).

I would agree, most people are not usually talking about this type of "inkjet", when they say the word.

They print at around 5,700 x 1,440 for the smaller and 2440 x 1,440 for the large (approximates). No dye sub can do anything even close to that.

There is a ton of information on this and their durability at:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

[Jim Ernst]

there has been so really good info on this thread and thanks to all that have furnished it, i have had great results from my hp photosmart 7850, i think this is an inkjet printer????? thanks again!!!

 

[PapaBob]

Hmm, IMO this is BAD advice. Color space is exactly that. While some may provide more, SRBG IS the space most widely used. Adobe RGB is what I shoot, however when I post stuff to non-color aware apps, it's in sRGB.

This is not a Chevy vs. Ford debate.

Hi Ron:

I don't really disagree with you but need to clairfy my post. My local pro felt you get a noticably better result on a photoquality inkjet printer (he was talking about the Epson 2200 and R2400) if you use the Adobe RGB color space. I have not done the experiment yet. He fully admits that you must use sRGB when transmitting to a device that expects this color space. As you correctly point out, sRGB is the most common color space in use.

For example, my local Costco only prints in sRGB. Why? Because almost every digital point and shoot on the planet uses this color space. I once made the mistake of burning a disk in Adobe RGB and taking it to Cosco. The prints had a noticable color shift.

So your advice is well taken. If you are posting on the web or plan to go to your local Costco, Sam's Club, Walgreens or other volume retail processor, forget Adobe RGB.

---Bob

PS I drive a Chevy.

 

[PapaBob]

Just a late follow up to my last post. Over Christmas I took a shot of a carousal that had some really vivid and varied colors. I took the RAW shot into the Adobe ACR and did some minor adjustments and sharpening. I then saved one Jpeg in Adobe RGB and one Jpeg in sRGB. The result, identical images except for color space.

On screen in Photoshop the Adobe RGB shot was a winner which is expected because it has a wider color gamut. However, when I printed both images on my Epson 2200 (at highest quality settings) the differences between the two color spaces was only apparent upon examination of the fine details in shadow areas and at normal viewing distances you could not tell the shots apart. My conclusion (which surprised me) is that, at least on my inkjet, any extra color gamut for the Adobe RGB color space does not get reproduced when compared with sRGB. My bow is to Ron on this issue and I think Puffer and I agree that, whatever color space you are using, you have to have all your equipment on the same page. Interesting experiment.

I don’t know if I agree with people in the industry that equate the “s” in sRGB with a word I cannot post. Although Adobe RGB has the wider gamut, if the device reproducing the image does not display it then the differences in color space will not be noticeable.

That said, I shoot in Adobe RGB and can always covert to sRGB in Photoshop for my postings or Costco runs. As technology improves, you are probably better off creating your images with the widest color gamut available to you.

—Bob