What is Digg?29 Comments
- tagerton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Buying an expensive inkjet printer is pointless. You can have an external source print it for less on a $100,000 printer that will look better than your $4000 printer any day. And even if the prints do look as good and are as cheap, you will still never make up the intial cost of these $3000 printers. And don't think I don't know what I'm talking about. I have Canon's highest end inkjet printer and am also signed up with a professional photo printing service. The photo lab spanks the pants off of my i9900 any day, even with good paper.
Moral of the story: photo labs beats home printing. - vitriolage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'll take good ol' fashion silver halides any day of the week.
- edstate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My Epson 960 prints damn well... but the inks (10 of them) all cost 11.99 each, and they evaporate. And if you want to print black, and the cyan is out, you can't print. Pissed!
- selectodude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4:(
Wrong topic...n00b. - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ive heard (but not seen) that the best printers don't actually print, but rather shine light on regular photo paper that then gets developed in the traditional way. Of course these printers are not for home use, but people can send their files to photolabs with this equipment to get their images printed.
Home based printing is good for convenience, not for quality or cost. - tghd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is crap, printing at home has its advantages but for me and many other photographers its better to print from a lab. Its cheaper the prints are usually better quality and its one less thing to worry about.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've been a fan of ArsTechnica for nearly a decade, but this article seems lacking:
1. It claims each printer's color gamut has its strengths and weaknesses, but provides no info for what those are.
2. It provides no images to document any differences between printing technologies or quality.
3. The author writes, "Your buying decision is likely to be influenced more by features related to convenience, cost per print, and ease of use," but provides no real data about convenience, cost per print, or ease of use. Thanks!
4. The author's ultimate conclusion is "it depends".
The article discusses some of the differences between the printers but provides no real commentary as to which is better, and doesn't provide enough empirical data to allow the reader to decide for themselves. I'll refrain from burying this article as lame, but I'm disappointed it doesn't live up to ArsTechnica's usual standards. - ELWOOD_BLUES, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Tagerton,
I wonder if you really know what you are talking about or know just enough to come off as knowledgeable.
Current Inkjets can produce better output then chemical processes, and they can easily print on non-traditional papers. End results are based solely on the operator since they are very close in quality, but I give the edge to Inkjets. (I will grant a possible exception in the Lightjet for print quality.) Moreover, prints that are larger then a 5x7 are cheaper on Inkjet then most of the pro labs I have used. Typically, 4x6 size prints are cheaper from a lab.
If your workflow works better with printing in-house, rather then sending the work out, and you can get great results, then go with an inkjet. If your workflow works better by sending work out then do that. Just don't come up with absolute statements based on your experience with a consumer printer. Canon does produce Pro level printers, your i9900 is not one of them, even though it is quite capable of producing great results if the operator knows what he/she is doing. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Owning your own printer isn't about print quality or price, it's about control and instant gratification. With the right printer, paper, and profiles I know exactly what to expect--if for some reason I still don't get what I'm looking for I can tweak the settings and reprint on the spot. It's the same reason some people prefer to have their own darkroom.
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6have yet to see pro photogs call their inkjets "inkjets" or digital prints "digital prints". It's always some bizarre branding to hide from the stigma of digital in the fine art world "ultrachrome print" "giclee print" "c-print" "lightjet" "carbon pigment". One day I hope digital imagers will stand on their own and stop hiding behing the coat tails of traditional photography. As a digital user I call my prints what they are and am usually ostracized for it thanks to the likes of epson and others. C'mon folks, let's not be ashamed. My name is lopla and my fine art prints are inkjets.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but I at least see why people want to hide the origin of their prints. There is an incredible difference in quality between low-end and high-end prints, but most people are only familiar with the Wal-mart special $50 printers. The ideal solution is to educate people on the differences, but that's not always practical or possible.
- napk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@tagerton
If you're judging the state of home digital output by the quality of your ***** Canon i9900, you're blissfully ignorant. - Eihcet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At home we use our inkjet for printing documents and a Canon Elphy DyeSublimation for photo's. The Dye Sublimation printer was only $99 new, however it costs about $30 for each set of 108 4x6 photos or $0.28/each.
The Pro's: No ink cartridges to clean / align / or get clogged. Photo longevity is supposed to be comparable to the pro equipment--by pro I mean Costco's/Walmart/etc. I can't tell a difference from the Pro's [Note: I am not comparing to the Professional Labs that some photographers use for studio prints... I'm not up to that level. ] So anyway.... for my use the picture quality is excellent,. The printer is very small and can run on batteries if you want to travel with it. Etc.
The Con's: Biggest and smallest paper size is 4x6 for this price range. You can buy 3x5 punch-out paper but it still uses as much of the roll as a 4x6 would. The dye/roll cartridges are good for exactly 36 pictures each (it's a 3 pack for 108 pictures that is $29ish retail.)
So, anyway, it's good for printing out stuff at home rather than wait for a batch of photo's and run out to Costco's or Wal Mart, etc. With the ink-jet photo printers I was always ending up with clogged ink and buying special paper and printing out 4-5 proofs until I got the one I wanted just right, etc. With the Dye sub, it's been much easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer - sirjimbob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Epson 4800 on Luster Paper for B/W Prints
Epson R1800 on Luster Paper for Color Prints
Almost as good as a digital c-print - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3agreed. creating art in itself is a massive hassle. Who can be bothered doing it themselves, I have enough to do.
- andrewvc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3To clarify your misunderstandings:
C-Prints are prints from color negative film. These are not digital at all
Lightjet prints don't even use ink, so they definitely don't count.
Carbon prints are analog
Giclee prints and Ultra-chrome prints are inkjet prints, but to be fair there is a difference between them.
I see plenty of work labeled "Inkjet" at major museums. I don't think anyone really cares though.
It's actually kind of useful to distinguish if you're in the market for a new printer :). - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have a ipf5000. The printer is huge and weighs in at over 100lbs. It makes stunning large prints, although a little quirky interface. The ink is cheap on a for print basis. Has the epson 3800 been out I might have thought about that. The one downside to the canon is the minimum print size is 8 x 10, which makes photo cards more challenging. Check all specs before buying.
The luminous landscape reviews are pretty spot on
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ - napk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Most of you are idiots, and all of you should head to http://www.wilhelm-research.com immediately before commenting further.
- seoimage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some good tips and reviews here as well:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/inkjet-printer.htm
http://www.atlanticinkjet.com/printer-ink-articles.asp
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/inkjet-printers/index.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/Printers/2001-3155_7-0.html - CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Interesting timing for this article. The technology that will really revolutionize photographic inkjet printing (or any inkjet printing, really) is Silverbook's Memjet printer technology. The print head doesn't move, instead it extends across the entire print area. This enables them to print an entire sheet of paper (including large format) at one page per second. The speed is amazing, but I will admit I'm not sure how much it will change print quality, I'm sure the technology is on-par with current technologies from Epson, HP and Canon. They will be licensing the technology to anyone that buys it, so I'm guessing it will be used by them as well eventually.
I am glad to hear about printers not using as much color ink for B&W photo printing. I look at a lot of digital prints, and especially the older ones look terrible, and many agencies scanning the images (if they don't have the original files) don't even realize they're supposed to be monochrome images, which is annoying (and points out how terrible the B&W performance has been on inkjet printers). We have an Epson photo printer at work, I can't remember what model it is, and while the quality is great, it lacks many options in the printer driver. For instance, there is no option to print in B&W only. I don't mean not using color inks, I mean if someone wants to print a B&W image, it needs to be converted before you print it, because you can't choose to print B&W only in the printer driver options. I've never run into shortcomings like that from HP or Canon, they always seem to overdose the user with options in the advanced settings, actually. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1wilhelm is a homogenized theoretical joke with no REAL world proof of anything. Basing your life's work on what wilhelm states is a huge mistake. I have used some of the combinations from their tests and have gotten fading within 3 months. But hey I guess I should have kept my print in a special chamber at a constant temp and humidity then maybe it would have lasted 200yrs..
- sideswiped, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ ELWOOD_BLUES
Exactly.
Not to mention that current pigment based inkjet prints(UltraChrome K3, Lucia, and Vivera inks) are expected to out last most traditional printing processes by two to three fold. I may be wrong, but your average lab will use some sort of a lightjet/laser/led setup to expose a silver-halide/dyebleach light sensitive paper. Kind of a technological mashup of traditional and digital. The problem is the display life of these prints top out at ~50 years under optimal conditions. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1one time my dog peed on my english homework and I turned it in to the teacher
I said my printer messed up
she was a bitch and deserved to fondle my dog's piss. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1in response to:
To clarify your misunderstandings:
**C-Prints are prints from color negative film. These are not digital at all
yes digitally printed c-prints are now being called "c-prints" and being passed off as traditional hand printed c-prints
**Lightjet prints don't even use ink, so they definitely don't count.
my point is digital prints all together
***Carbon prints are analog
no, inkjets using carbon ink sets are making "carbon prints" as in they are being passed off as traditional carbon prints..
***I see plenty of work labeled "Inkjet" at major museums. I don't think anyone really cares though.
I don't care either as long as they are not labelled as traditional media - rovertly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ars Technica = automatic digg
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Shhh! The people aren't supposed to know this!!
- jeshjohn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I use the Epson Stylus Pro 7800 and it is very nice doing giclee prints.
Of course the images I print from are 300DPI and 1GB. - cTTbLaKeMAn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Myspace sucks. Who would want to go to it anyways from school? This little proxy trick is for n00bs and it is definitely old news.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is