[Thunderbird]

I have been considering the purchase of an Epson ink jet printer to use for making reprints of pictures originally taken with a 35mm camera. They are currently on a Photo CD.

How is the quality of the prints from Epson printers compared to an original developed picture (assuming that the input source is a high quality scan such as from a Photo CD?) Mac Addict had a review of the 777i last month, and they said that there is very little quality difference. I am looking at buying one of the mid-range models. How do they compare?

Are there different printing technologies in the current Epson models? Do the more expensive printers just allow a larger print size, or is there a quality advantage too?

I guess what it comes down to is this... Could the average person tell the difference between a developed picture, and one printed on photo paper with an Epson printer?

[Paul S]

I have an Epson Photo 870 and do prints all the time from my Kodak DC280. I think more times than not, they look better than 35mm. The colors are brighter and it seems crisper. Sometime dark patches of shadows might be a little pixelated, but that's it.

Epson has the new Photo 780 (which replaces the 870 even though the number is lower) and it looks great. Twice the max. resolution of mine (2880 vs. 1440) and it supposedly does true edge to edge printing on 8.5 x 11. List is $199 and rumor has it there might be a $50 rebate in the works.

It will do better photos than the 777 because it uses a 5 color plus black instead of 3 color plus black. The extra 2 colors photo printers have allows for better shading and flesh tones. I have an Epson 800 with the 3 color system and it doesn't compare to the photo printer at all. Especially for flesh tones.

Outside of Photo vs. standard Epson printers, higher models get you speed, then larger paper sizes. That's about it. All of the photo printers are rated at 1 minute 50 seconds for an 8X10 if you print at 720 dpi. I always go 1440 so mine take 4 of 5 minutes. Regular text is anywhere from 8 - 10 pages per minute.

If you want great prints, here are some pointers to help. Most digital cameras have the picture at 72dpi. I don't know what the settings are from the PhotoCD. 72 isn't so hot. I use Photoshop and increase the resolution to 300dpi in the Image Size setting. This makes for great prints. Also, only use the Kodak Premium High Gloss Photo Paper. Other Kodak stuff isn't as good and Epson has an issue with their paper fading faster than it should. I have used many different papers with mine to see if I could save any money. You would be amazed at the difference paper makes. Kodak is really the best. A 50 pack runs about $20. That's about the most expensive one out there, but still isn't that bad.

I hope this helps. If you have questions, I'll continue to monitor this post.

Paul

[tr]

I have an Epson Photo 1270 and I am doing exactly what you are considering: printing photos from 35mm film via Photo CD. I am a semi-professional/amateur photographer, and I was a bit skeptical regarding quality when going digital. But I must say that I am very pleased with the results I've had; I've already done portraitures for two clients, going from 35mm to PhotoCD to Photo 1270, printing 8"x10"s. And both clients were extremely pleased with the final prints.

Are the inkjet prints better than the prints I do in my darkroom? I can say no; very very close, but still, no. Right now, even with the highest megapixel scanning technology, I don't think you can get close to the molecularly fine silver particles found in traditional film. Maybe in a few years, but not now. Now, which is more convenient and less expensive, printing in my darkroom, or printing from my computer? Definitely the computer. Now add that to the fact that the inkjet prints are very high quality, almost indistinguishable from lab prints to the untrained eye, and you have the makings of a great, low cost home darkroom solution.

If you are looking at a printer for your pictures, I recommend any of the Epson Stylus Photo series. As Paul S stated above, the Photo series uses 5 color inks (Cyan, light Cyan, Magenta, light Magenta, Yellow) and black instead of the typical 3 color (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow) and black. This makes a big difference in color photo prints.

The printer I have, Photo 1270, is now $399 (I paid $499 in December ) because they have the Photo 1280 coming out, which has twice the resolution. I believe all new Epson's have the 2880 x 1440 resolution now. The reason I got the 1270 is because I do a lot of 11" x 14" work, and the 1270 can take 13" wide paper. If you will not be printing that large, a lesser (i.e. cheaper) model would be more appropriate.
I believe there is no quality advantage between the 1270 and the model right below it, the Photo 780/870.

Also, I would recommend getting Photoshop to manipulate the pics that come off the Photo CD; the pics are 72 dpi, but remember that they are pretty high quality scans, so your pictures right off the disk will have a print document size of 22"x14"! But with Photoshop, it's easy to bump the resolution up, and change that print size. And you'll also be able color correct and adjust brightness/contrast. That's the beauty of this whole thing: you can be your own photofinisher. Let's face it, a lot of times the prints you get from labs suck. I should know, I used to work in a lab. Of course, when I worked there, I would always try to correct the prints manually from the printer; but when you have 15 people wanting their prints in under an hour, then a lot of times you let the computer do the correcting for you, and computers aren't that good at judging color and brightness.

Also as Paul S noted, paper makes a big difference. Although I do agree on the Kodak paper, I must defend the Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. I know that they did have a problem with fading, but I've been using their redesigned formula, and I believe they corrected the problem. Actually, I use both the Kodak paper and the Epson paper: I find the Kodak to be warmer, while the Epson is a bit cooler. If you want to have prints that feel like photo lab prints, regardless of paper brand, make sure the paper is premium photo paper that has a weight of 45 lb or greater.


Boy, I sure have said a lot. Blame it on my insomnia

good luck,

tr

[This message has been edited by tr (edited 03-07-2001).]

[suprz]

i have just purchased a epson 777i and i have used the epson photo quality paper and it is awesome. the quality of the picture is great. i shown it to alot of people and if i dont tell them that it was "printed" they would never guess. i had the chance to buy the new epson with the 5 color ink cartridge, but with the 777i at $99.00, i figured that even if i keep it for a few years and then upgrade, i havent lost anything. for my first ever printer, it works great and does all i ask of it, and it does it fast, and surprisingly quiet

------------------
" I think,
therefore....IMAC

[Thunderbird]

Last night I had the occasion to test out an Epson 740 printer by printing a photo that had been saved on a photo CD. On high quality photo paper, the printer did a very poor job of accurately reproducing the developed photo. The colors were just not the same as the original. I realize that the 740 is a couple of generations old, and that the technology has changed. The question is, how much has it changed?

After some research, the printer that I am considering buying now is the Epson Stylus Photo 780. Unfortunately, I have not seen any print samples from newer Epson printers. I think that the 780 is very similar to the recently discontinued 870. Is this printer really leaps and bounds ahead of the older 740? I'm not necessarily looking for professional quality prints, but I would like to make reprints that are suitable for framing or giving to friends and relatives.

[screamingFit]

Make sure you use ColorSync profiles for the monitor and the printer - this will usually give you pretty close results. Epson's out-of-box profiles are pretty good on the latest model printers.

You'll never get exact color-matching with technology as it is now. But, using calibrated devices will sure get you close!

-s'fit

[Thunderbird]

Regarding my last post... The printer that I used yesterday was the Epson Stylus 860, not the 740.

[Apple_John]

Paul S & tr,

I am also thinking to buy an Epson. Roughly how much it cost (ink & premium photo paper) to print a set of 24 4x6?

Thanks

John

ps. I am now using laser printer for text, the toner last forever!

[Paul S]

When I do my prints, I do 3.5 x 5.25, because that is what will fit my page margins and it keeps the same dimensions of my original digital camera photos. With that size, I get 4 pictures per sheet. I go through 40 sheets per color cartridge and 80 sheets per black cartridge. At about $19 per color cartridge it's about 12 cents per print for color ink (19/160 pictures) and about 6.5 cents for black ink at $21 per 320 pictures. A 50 pack of paper is about $20 or 40 cents per sheet/10 cents per picture. Total is about 28.5 cents per picture or $6.84 per 24 shots. When I get film developed, it comes to about $15 per roll of film.

If you were to increase to a full 4x6, you'd only get 2 photos per sheet so the numbers would go up a bit.

The other factor I use is I only print what I want. I bought a lot of this equipment right after we had our baby. In her first 6 months, we (mostly my wife) have taken about 800 pictures. A lot of them are trying to get a particular look on her face. With a baby, that can take a lot of shots (and patience). With a regular camera, we don't get to see it until it's developed and will develop all the shots, including the bad ones. Taking that into account makes the savings even greater for me. It will still take a lot of time to pay off the equipment that way, but I use the camera and printer for other things too.

[tr]

Boy, you really did your homework, Paul S

Apple_John, I can't really comment much on printing up 4x6, since I really only do 8x10 and larger. But Paul S has all the numbers worked out. And he brought up a good point: you only print up the pictures that you want. Remember, when you get a roll developed, they print up every picture that can be printed (since labs charge you per print), even if it's just a half shot of the floor while you were loading film. Printing at home, you can just skip those prints, and you can print reprints of your prized shots at your leisure. Photo labs make a lot of money on reprints. Sure, paper and ink cartridges do seem a bit pricey, but in the long run, printing at home is more economical.

tr

tr and paul s are making me feel bad. im probably the only professional photographer in existance not to have a digital printing solution set upand running well. if you guys could direct me to a forum or site i would be very greatfull. i have an a conoscan fs 2710 for scanning 35mm and output to an epson 1270 after using photoshop 6.0. my profiles and colorsync workflows are all set up but my result is not what i call photoquality and i have way too much noise and so-so shadow detail. i must be missing some tweak somwhere or missed something along the way .

[tr]

benk,

I'm sorry to hear that you are getting poor results. The Canoscan is more than adequate for what you are trying to do, and you probably get better output than with my Photo CD's. Maybe you can go through the steps you take when trying to get usable output i.e. first you scan, then you open in Photoshop, then you apply X filter...and so on. Because, I'm almost using the step up you are using: Photo CD (instead of film scanner), Photoshop 6.0, and Photo 1270. The only thing I can think of when you talk about noise and lack of shadow detail is maybe the printer settings...? You are using photo paper and the highest resolution when printing, right?

tr

thanks tr. mostly i scan in at 24-28mb in 24bit mode or 50-55mb in 36bit mode. tool around in p/shop resize making sure that output is around 300 dpi. i use kodak prophoto rgb , 1.8 gamma and what i am told is an industry standard of 5k kelvin (have used 6500 with similar results) and heidelberg cmm. most of the settings for profile were attained at a seminar by the centre for digital imaging. i use either epson photo paper or matte heavyweight and use these profiles to soft proof, sometimes tweaking the colors before printing. in the print dialog box i use all the max settings eg 1440 , high quality settings and use no color correction to ensure the printer is just printing and not reprofiling the image. i have the icc profiles for the scanner and printer and set up in the colorsync folders. either my scanner is bunk or i am missing something. does anyone know of a good site or forum as im sure others have travelled the road im on ..
cheers.

[Thunderbird]

OK, I finally purchased the Epson Stlyus Photo 780. I have printed about 50 pictures from it, and so far I am disappointed. Most prints look quite different from my developed pictures. Now I wasn't expecting a perfect match, but it would be nice if they looked at least as good as they look on my monitor.

I have experimented extensively with the color corrections and ColorSync, but all I am doing is experimenting. I have no idea what I should be changing to make it look right. Here is what I have done...

The photos are from a Photo CD. I reduce the size to 3 x 5 in Photoshop. The original screen is 72 lpi, and I change that to 300 lpi (is it lpi or ppi?)

I have used automatic color correction, no color correction, and also I have manually adjusted the color. I still can't get it to look like it looks on the screen. What do I need to do in the print dialog box to make it look right? What color correction method should I use? How do I adjust the Colorsync controls? What DPI should I print at?

HELP!!!

[Paul S]

I'm sorry to hear you're having so many problems with that setup. I have done all of my prints from a 2.1 Megapixel camera. I don't know the setting on a photo CD. I know it's 72dpi, but what is the resolution. Is it only 640x480, or is it a lot higher? That could make a huge difference.

Also, paper is more important than you know. I've used multiple different papers. I can't believe the difference from different brands. The Kodak Premium High Gloss Photo paper is the only choice if you ask me. The best color output over any other paper.

I made a template in Photoshop to print 4 pictures per page on. I resize the pictures to 300ddpi than copy and paste to the template. If you are using that method, did you set the template to 300 also?

[Thunderbird]

The resolution from the Photo CD is pretty high (I don't know exactly, and I'm at work, so I can't check it until I get home. I think it is higher than 640x480.) I have been printing to Epson Photo paper. Is there another brand that works better?

Paul, I used a similar technique for laying out the pictures in Photoshop. I pasted them into a page with a transparent background with a resolution of 300 dpi.

What settings do you use in the print dialog box? Do you print at 1440 or 2880 dpi? Do you use any color correction? I can't really tell the difference between the prints at 720 and the ones at 2880. Do the higher resolutions only matter if the source was scanned at a high dpi? Would I get a better result scanning the picture in on my scanner instead of going from a Photo CD?

Heres a good forum for printing:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/default.asp

That list all the forums, just go down to "Printing".

Someone mentioned two 4x6 per 8x10, but you can get 3 per sheet by turning one. Two photos side by side gives you 8x6, leaving 4x8 at the other end.

I print with a 1270. PhotoEnhance4, 720dpi, Tone set to Hard, Effect set to Sharpness - Medium. Space is set to sRGB and Printer Color Management checked. Thats giving me the best prints so far, but there not perfect.

On smaller prints I doubt you'll see any difference using the higher 1440dpi setting, but Epson will love ya for it! Ink useage is where they make their money. I've heard its something like $8000.00 per gallon profit for them.

Another paper source for Epson printers is:
http://www.redriverpaper.com

I highly recommend the Sample Pack at about $10. You get 2 shets of each, 50 sheets total. Lots of different surfaces, weights, ect..


RonB

[Paul S]

Thunderbird,

I print at 1440dpi (my Photo 870 was the last line before the 2880s). My friend has the 780 like yours and we couldn't tell a difference from 1440 and 2880. I tried some at 720. They were good, but I thought 1440 was better. I'm printing baby pictures so I want them as good as I can get. Don't want to waste those. I don't use any color correction. I also set high quality half-toning.

For paper, I exclusively use the Kodak Premium High Gloss Photo paper. $20 for a 50 pack and well worth it.

I'm really interested in the resolution from the photo CD, but for now, can't figure out why you're quality isn't so good. Let me know on the resolution and we'll see if that matters.

[Thunderbird]

The resolution from the Photo CD is 1488 x 992 at a resolution of 72 pixels/inch.

What does it mean to set high quality half toning? How do you do that, and what does it do?

[Paul S]

Well that resolution should be enough. 1488x992 equals a little higher than 1.4 megapixels. That might not cut it for an 8x10, but it certainly will for a 5x7 or smaller.

When I hit print and my Epson dialogue box opens up, I choose advanced settings. High Quality Half Toning is an option there. Basically it has to do with the way shading is handled. The graphic that's above the option on my screen will make it very obvious. Better than any way I can think of to explain it. When you set to higher resolutions and change the paper type to glossy photo paper, I think that defaults the High Quality Half Toning anyway, but you should still check.

I'd be happy to send you a couple copies of pictures I've printed on my Epson. I'd be interested to see how different you think your pictures look from mine. You can send your address to my e-mail if you're not comfortable posting it here. My home address is psteinbrenner@adelphia.net. After that, we should continue our dialogue here for the benefit of those watching these posts, instead of handling it all by personal e-mail if that's OK with you.

Paul