Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

zigzag · Sep 5, 2002, 11:59 AM

I notice that these are getting cheaper. Is anyone familiar with the technology, and if so, what are the relative merits of dye-sublimation vs. ink-jet photo printers? If I wanted to spend up to $400 on a photo printer, which type should I get and why?

daimoni · 12:32 PM

.

Todd Corzett · Sep 5, 2002, 12:20 PM

I'm also looking to get a dye-sub printer, but havn't been able to find anything that will print larger than 4x6 borderless. I'm looking for something with atleast 10" width (so I can print panaramas and fill larger mats). The most annoying thing I see with ink jets is running out of one color of ink and having to replace whole tanks... I know the newer ones come with 6 tanks or something, but is the quality as high as dye-sub? Thanx!

-Todd...

Camera God · Sep 5, 2002, 12:54 PM

The olympus P-400 almost fits what you guys need. It prints 8x10 sheets. I believe they are now $500. Quite a steal considering I remember selling them easily for $1k.

Back up 15 and punt · Sep 5, 2002, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Camera God:
The olympus P-400 almost fits what you guys need. It prints 8x10 sheets. I believe they are now $500. Quite a steal considering I remember selling them easily for $1k.

I think if you check it out you will find that the Olympus makes a print slightly smaller than an 8 X 10.

Emotionally Fragile Luke · Sep 5, 2002, 03:15 PM

As far as I know the consumer printers are not very good at all.

zigzag · Sep 5, 2002, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
. . . Also, what do you plan to use the printer for? Your own artwork? For clients?

Just personal use. I've read that dye-sublimation is superior to ink-jet, but I don't know if that's true of the consumer-level models. Now that they're approaching the $400 range, I was wondering if they were a better buy than ink-jet.

The cheaper dye printers seem to be limited to 4x6, but this isn't a problem for me. If I need a larger print, I can use my old HP or take it to a pro.

Todd Corzett · Sep 5, 2002, 07:21 PM

Reciently I've been getting into digital photography big time! Mostly automotive stuff... I have printed a few out (took them to Kinko's) and matted/framed them. I was thinking that I could eventually sell prints and stuff, but going to Kinko's takes time, and is relitivly expensive ($3-5 a 11x17 print on card stock, probably less for 8.5x11). Also, Kinko's uses a laser printer so you get lines in the colors, which can look bad - expecially if you're trying to sell something. The Olympus P-400 looks great, the print size is 7.64x10 - so not a fill page, but it's enough for me. I like the idea of dye-sub over inkjet, expecially the non-dithering thing! My only reason not to get the P-400 right now is that my camera is only 3.34 megapixels and the P-400 at 7.64x10 (2400x3200) is 7.78 megapixels

. Looks like I'm going to need to buy a new camera first

The price isn't too bad either, check around you can get it for like $499 or less. The consumables are a little pricey, but it comes out to about $2 a print... not bad when you think of the quality and comparative cost to Kinko's or an InkJet (ink is cheap, but paper is still $1 or so a print).

-Todd...

Does anyone know any stores that sell these printers? I would really like to check-out a test print before shelling out all the cash to get one. Thanx!

daimoni · 12:36 PM

.

Todd Corzett · Sep 6, 2002, 12:07 PM

Last night I checked out the Olympus P-400 at my local CompUSA, they had a few test prints, and I was very impressed... What was also really nice is that the prints also had the megapixles of the camera on it... so a 5MP camera took this picture, and a 4MP took this other one... From the way they had the pictures printed out (the 5MP was a full page, the 4MP was a 3/4 page, the 3MP was 1/2 page, etc...) it kinda confermed my hypothesis that the final print quality largely depends on the resolution of the camera and how large you want to print - and not the printer itself (ie. you want to print a 1MP picture full page it's going to look all pixelated/blury, because the image itself is that way, not the printer's limit of resoluton).

The print itself was very nice. The picture was continuous, and no matter how hard I squinted or close I looked could I see any dots or anything (I must have looked quite weird with my face pressed up against the sample print!). I also really liked how the paper had a smooth glossy surface... I actually had to double check that the sample was a real print and not part of the information book (it was on it's own page taped into a blank spot in the information book).

I think I'm going to pick myself up one of these in the near future, just need to get the $$$ for the printer, paper, and ribbon. Maybe in two weeks or so... Then I'm going to have to get a new camera to fill up the 7.7MP print surface!

(Canon D60

time for me to wakeup!

)

-Todd...

Emotionally Fragile Luke · Sep 6, 2002, 04:47 PM

Todd, cheap inkjets look just a good and print fast.

Camera God · Sep 6, 2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:
Todd, cheap inkjets look just a good and print fast.

Yes, and inkjets do look good. BUT, they'll last about 7 years in normal lighting condition. It is still putting ink on paper. A dye-sub print has about a 50 year life. How would you like to open your family photo album and see bank pieces of paper?

Todd Corzett · Sep 6, 2002, 06:39 PM

I'm not a fan of InkJet printers at all. I have an Epson 740i and have found, while the print quality is very good, the ink tanks are an expensive pain! First problem is that the tanks are all combined, making replacing one color expensive (yes, newer ink tanks have seperate tanks). Second (and biggest) problem is that I do not print images too often, only like once or twice a month... with my 740i I was repeatdly forced to buy new ink because of the tanks drying out or clogging. I went as far as taking my 740i appart and cleaning out the sponge thinggie... just was a lot of pain whenever I wanted to print.

If I was needing a printer for text as well as images I would definatly get an InkJet, but I have a laser for text, so the only things I will be printing on the P-400 will be full page color prints... and that's where the P-400 excells over the InkJets in my opinion.

I also really like the long life of the prints, but again... InkJets are getting better with this (color protecting paper/inks, etc.)

The only way I would buy a new InkJet would be to get the 13x?? print size available on some of the high end Epsoms... but I have no images at high enough resolution to print at this size

(I'm really likeing that

face)

-Todd...

Emotionally Fragile Luke · Sep 6, 2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Camera God:

Yes, and inkjets do look good. BUT, they'll last about 7 years in normal lighting condition. It is still putting ink on paper. A dye-sub print has about a 50 year life. How would you like to open your family photo album and see bank pieces of paper?

My $199 Epson prints pictures that last 100 years and has seperate carts for each colour, you can also wet the printout right after printing with no smuging. They also have models with borderless printing.

Todd Corzett · Sep 6, 2002, 08:20 PM

but then I wouldn't have the most techno-savy printer

Question for InkJet users:
1) What do replacement ink cartridges cost each, and what's the total cost to replace all of them (like 6 color and 1 black)?

2) How much does 8x10 photo paper sheets cost each?

3) How many full color 8x10 prints can you get out of one set of ink cartridges?

From what I can tell... the operational cost of an InkJet is similar to that of the P-400 if you're printing 8x10 full color photos only. Also, you don't have to worry about running out of ink/drying out of ink with the P-400. You only get 50 photos, but you will always get 50... which allows for knowing how much stuff you'll need (if I want to print 100 copies of something I need two ribbons and four packs of paper... $200) and I can get it all before I start.

Despite the initial cost... the "cool factor" and the high quality of prints add up to the printer I'm going to buy. Mailman just delivered my pay check

(there's that face again!)

-Todd...

Camera God · Sep 6, 2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:

My $199 Epson prints pictures that last 100 years and has seperate carts for each colour, you can also wet the printout right after printing with no smuging. They also have models with borderless printing.

So how long has inkjet printing been around? Certainly not 100 years. They are simulated tests. It's all marketing. Kodak markets a 4 million pixel that they say can make 20x30 prints. My powerbook battery is supposed to last 5 hours... the list goes on unfortunately

Todd Corzett · Sep 7, 2002, 02:37 AM

Well I splurged and got the Olympus P-400. I'll give everyone an update as I setup and stuff.

-Todd...

Camera God · Sep 7, 2002, 10:40 AM

Congrats on the purchase!

Todd Corzett · 08:03 PM

Thank you!

Well I couldn't sleep without playing with my printer, so I stayed up a little late last night...

here's my quick review:
http://homepage.mac.com/tcorzett/p400.html

-Todd...

nana4 · Sep 7, 2002, 11:57 PM

Just a quick question, how are you printing at 314 dpi at 8*10 with a 3.34MP image? Are you upsampling the image? Because the actual resolution at that image size is around 170 DPI IIRC.

In a couple of weeks I will ask you for those photos and print them on an Epson C80 and Epson 810 Photo for comparison.

Todd Corzett · Sep 8, 2002, 01:00 AM

I was only printing them at 3.34MP at 314dpi (so the images were half a page). I haven't tried blowing one of the 3.34MP to 7.78MP yet, but I'm guessing it's not going to be too bad. All of the comparisons from the P-400 to the Kinko's were relatively the same (the Kinko's prints were scaled to 600dpi in PhotoShop, but were printed at the same size as the P-400 images - so were really only 300"true"dpi).

dpi/size and stuff is weird, especially when related to digital cameras and megapixels. All the images that were printed were from the exact same file, so they were 2048x1536 (6.5"x4.9" @ 314dpi).

-Todd...

LeeG · Sep 8, 2002, 10:04 PM

At macworld, I saw the epson 960 and 785epx - both printed spectacular photos. As far as colorfastness, I feel like personal printers are not the way to produce professional archival stuff - not for less than $400 - those should be professionally printed on $$$ printers. But for printing photos at home (iPhoto for example) using a borderless roll of 4x6 on an epson 960 (with built in roll feeder and cutter) will make most amateur digital photographers VERY happy - the samples I have are really impressive,

Lee