S/D: Photo Printers

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Would like to buy one for Mr Pumpkin to go with the camera he bought himself for MY Christmas last year.

Have seen a couple of nice Bluetooth compatable ones - would like one of those.

― Rumpie, Thursday, 27 October 2005 07:47 (twenty years ago)

Having your own photo printer works out very expensive, and quality isn't as good as getting them printed out professionally.

I've got an epson printer, but most of the time I get photos printed out by photobox. Printing them out yourself, the paper isn't that cheap, ink is horrendously expensive, and the longevity isn't as good - more likely to fade, and the finish isn't as nice.

― Vicky (Vicky), Thursday, 27 October 2005 08:29 (twenty years ago)

For the past year I've been printing onto normal A4 (not photo) paper from my pc printer.

The photo quality is obviously nowhere near what it should be, but it gives me a hard copy as what I have on my memory stick.

― Rumpie, Thursday, 27 October 2005 08:40 (twenty years ago)

Actually Vicky the quality is apparently as good as having'em printed. Or at least you will have good results that will last you a (or rather your) lifetime. Some photos will remain good for at least 80 years. I doubt anyone will care how the pics will deteriorate after that time. ;-) It all depends on how you get'em printed out of course.

One of the best snapshot printers around is HP Photosmart 475.

I think it's a good idea if you want to print out a snapshot but not if you want to do *bulk prints* (if that's the right way to say it). I think if you need to print out a dozen or more, you're better off going to the photographer. :-) But re quality: much has changed and research has shown that they'll apparently last for a long time. Also keep in mind that pics from the photographer will also fade in time. :-)

Check out http://www.ZDNET.com for some reviews. :-)

― nathalie, a bum like you (stevie nixed), Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:32 (twenty years ago)

Thanks, I'll have a look!

― Rumpie, Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:39 (twenty years ago)

Buy anything from the Apple store in the medium price range. Or, I should say, just don't get the cheapest one. Add $50-100 to the cheapest one and see what's in that price range. It will be good and will probably have a camera dock and all that shit.

― Stiltskin, Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:43 (twenty years ago)

every time i see one of these advertised on tv, i say "they're for n00bs". am i right? or am i l33t?

― g-kit (g-kit), Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:44 (twenty years ago)

camera dock, you mean? Yeah, it seems more complicated if you ask me.

― Stiltskin, Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:45 (twenty years ago)

i mean the photo printer things. for people who like to do everything in a predefined way by only pressing one button, then phoning tech support when they want to change an ink cartridge or somesuch.

― g-kit (g-kit), Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:47 (twenty years ago)

Well I wouldn't say so - I'm not a 'photographer' by any means, and I am 'helpdesk'.

― Rumpie, Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)

many x-posts

There may be home printers that have much better quality than my printer, but the photos from my Epson, on top notch photo paper, is not as good quality as the professional prints I get. Photo printers have come on leaps and bounds, but I've yet to see a home printed photo and a lab printed one side by side and been unable to tell the difference, it's always been quite obvious.

I doubt anyone will care how the pics will deteriorate after that time. ;-)
haha, are you trying to get my back up or what?! ;0)

From a professional point of view (I'm an archivist) although it's very hard to tell what the life span will be, the advice is, if you want as permanent as you can get, go for a lab printed photo. If you want a photo to put on display, the home printed ones tend to fade faster.

But maybe I'm just picky

― Vicky (Vicky), Thursday, 27 October 2005 10:55 (twenty years ago)

Home photo-quality printers really don't make sense, unless you have to have prints on demand. They work out at about three times the price-per-print, the quality is poorer, and they will fade faster (being ink-based). Kodak do good prints, either through their Ofoto thing or direct from iPhoto, and you can get prints from Flickr now too.

― stet (stet), Thursday, 27 October 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

they will fade faster (being ink-based).

No, research has shown that they expect to last up to 100 years. I'm not sure if that's ink-based or not. I'm only getting a photo printer to have prints on demand which I can give to my parents (in law) when we have the baby. :-)

― nathalie, a bum like you (stevie nixed), Thursday, 27 October 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.