Photo Printers

TinCool

After building up a large number of digital photo's over the years I think it's time to get myself a decent printer, specifically one that prints photograph quality prints on to those nice 4x6 glossy picture paper. In other words, ones that are comparable to those you get develoed from a normal photo print lab.

Having done a quick search on Amazon I see that there is a huge number of printers available. I know the basics in that there are inkjet varities and thermal ones, but that's pretty much it.

Does anyone have a photo printer and if so, what is it like ? I'm looking to just simply picking one up from PC World or the like and dont want to spend a fortune on it but at the same time don't want to skimp on quality. Any suggestions welcome.

Cheers,
TC

Gyck

Just a few months ago I've got an Epson Photo 1290, it produces excellent photos. Got it from Pixmania in the UK. It's not a cheap printer (333 euro) but it also prints up to A3, and it's quiet and fast. I'm sure if you don't need to print large images you could get something cheaper but if you have the money I'd recommend it.

johnnyrotten

Don't bother

Most Chemist shop have Photo labs now that do Digital prints cheaply

One near me does 50 7x5 " for €9.99
I got a 10 x 8 last week for €5.00 ( Cheaper for more)

Whats more th photos are proper photos that don't fade over time like those printed at home.

Gyck

Whats more th photos are proper photos that don't fade over time like those printed at home

Not completly true. If you use good quality paper and inks photos printed at home will last just as long as prints from chemists shops.

johnnyrotten

Take it from me , they fade eventually. Also you can't beat the quality of a lab printed pic. The Price now is making this option very desirable. I have given up home printing, I simply take my XD card down to the Chemist and Hey Presto 30 mins later I have a wallet of Pics.

Gyck

True, there is some difference, but I still think having your own printer has many advantages over bringing your files to a chemist. You can do much more preprocessing at home, cropping, red eye removal etc...

I also use the printer to print photos scanned from 35mm film, so I have additional reasons to have my own printer. Granted, not everyone would need to do this.

dalk

johnnyrotten wrote:

Take it from me , they fade eventually.

Yes they do indeed. I have an Epson r800. The Hi-Gloss UltraChrome Dye is rated for 80 years fade resistence (under glass, with proper paper, like any photo print). So yes they will fade eventually . But possibly not before i do.

And the prints are as good as wet chemistry prints.

But then again, you can't beat the convenience of paying a lab to do the work for you. And the prices are getting cheaper.

Good Inkjet inks are not cheap.

johnnyrotten

Gyck wrote:

True, there is some difference, but I still think having your own printer has many advantages over bringing your files to a chemist. You can do much more preprocessing at home, cropping, red eye removal etc...

I also use the printer to print photos scanned from 35mm film, so I have additional reasons to have my own printer. Granted, not everyone would need to do this.

Thers nothing stopping you from Scanning or editing the pic (Removing Red eye, cropping etc) then saving the file back onto the Memory card and then taking for processing

Gyck

Thers nothing stopping you from Scanning or editing the pic (Removing Red eye, cropping etc) then saving the file back onto the Memory card and then taking for processing

True, but I would still argue that for many people the versitility of having your own printer is very attractive. Obviously not everyone needs one, and I have no doubt that the service provided by most chemists is perfectly fine. However, for me having my own high quality printer is still important.

TinCool

Thanks for the pros and cons of using your own photo printer, but lets get back on topic here lads

Gyck

Apologies for hijacking the thread..!

Idleater

TinCool wrote:

Thanks for the pros and cons of using your own photo printer, but lets get back on topic here lads

A determining factor for me when chosing a printer for home use was seperate ink tanks. I didn't like the fact that with my old HP if I printed out a whole rake of sea pictures, and the blue ran out then I had to replace the 3 colour in one inktank.

My new printer is the canon pixma 4000 and I would have no problem recommending it. Quality is fantastic on both photo and normal paper, it is very quick which is nice for documents, it prints (compatable) cd's and it folds down compactly when not in use.


L.

TinCool

nereid wrote:

My new printer is the canon pixma 4000 and I would have no problem recommending it. Quality is fantastic on both photo and normal paper, it is very quick which is nice for documents, it prints (compatable) cd's and it folds down compactly when not in use.

L.

It looks like there is a newer model of that printer available now 4200. Looks just the ticket for my printing needs.

aaf

Have a look at the Canon Pixma or the Epson Stylus Photo range of printers. Then, it's up to your budget

axer

Got the Canon IP4000 which is supposed to work out cheaper than getting prints done at a photolab (read a test in PC Pro a long time ago). Never really tested it that way but the quality is excellent for photos. Definitely better quality than I have seen in photo developing shops.