Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 4, 2007, 8:32 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
Default

[align=left]Howdy,

Newbie...first post. BUT, I've been copying the mail here on and off for a couple of years, and need some input from you folks.
I had a Canon S520 printer for several years which performed well. I refilled the cartridges successfully many times. About a year ago, it croaked. I figured I'd get another Canon, and started the prerequisite research. Found out what everyone knows...all the newer printers use cartridges designed to not be refillable. The info was rather scarce at the time, so I blew it off, got an inexpensive Brother laser printer (works wonderfully) for my text needs and figured I'd give it awhile to see if the situation would be rectified through Yankee ingenuity, litigation, or whatever.
To my (and others, I imagine) great disappointment, no ironclad solution to refill cartridges has been found. There are ways to do so, CIS systems, etc., but all seem to have reliability concerns.
Sooooooo, here's my question. I wish to print photos, and do so at an economical rate. I have this Brother printer for text, so the photo printer would be dedicated to photos only. Should I purchase a photo printer and the requisite proprietary inks, and if so, what printer (Canon, Epson, Kodak? I've even looked at the Kodak dye sublimination printer, but the cost per print would be +/- 29 cents). Or, should I just upload them to Walgreens, have them printed at a cost of 24-29 cents per print (depending on how many and including postage back to me), and wait for some attorney to really get ticked at Canon/Epson/etc.?
Thanks in advance for all responses.
[/align]
3T/17A is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 5, 2007, 12:19 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,212
Default

It depends mostly on what you do with the prints, IMO. If you are taking mostly family snapshots, and do lots of pictures, you will likely be better off sending out your prints. I do this when I have a large number of 4x6" prints, especially with dark backgrounds, such as a fireworks show. That is a LOT of black ink.

When I want a larger print for framing and exhibition and/or sale, I print my own on my R1800 Epson. I have full control of the output that way, and don't have to go back and forth with an outside printer trying to get things right. Also have a smaller C86 that I use for photo note cards, as it gives better results on the matte paper.

Hope this helps you.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2007, 9:55 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
Default

[align=left]Hello VTphotog,

Thanks very much for the reply.
I am no professional, by any means; my photography fits your discription---family stuff, mostly.
From reading reviews, this site, etc., I know that Epsons are held in fairly high esteem for good prints and prints with longevity. I believe even Wilhelm Imaging Research favored/favors them for those reasons. Perhaps, though, at this time that is overkill for me and I should be content with uploading them to someone.
I am still interested in having a photo printer at some point, and will stay abreast of what's happening in that arena.
BYW, I note that a number of people have read this post and yours is the only reply. I take that to mean that the other readers agree with your opinion and position. Thanks for voicing it.
[/align]
3T/17A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2007, 1:13 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,212
Default

Aside from the cost of the printer, ink gets to be quite an expense. I tried using third party inks to save some money and ended up with print heads that could not be rescued from the clogs. Fortunately, it was an inexpensive printer. Now, I stick with OEM ink, but it ain't cheap. I recover the cost with print sales, and the aforementioned note cards.

The main reason it makes sense to me to do my own printing is that I can produce higher quality results on large prints. There isn't enough difference in 4x6 print quality to make it worthwhile.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2007, 8:50 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I've been refilling Canon and HP printers for over a dozen years and can say with a certainty that good quality aftermarket ink doesn't clog the heads on those brands. There are enough people using CIS on Epsons that I would guess there are inks that won't clog those either, but Epson is outside my experience since they went to chipped cartridges many years ago.

You can refill the current Canons. The chips are just a nuisance in that you lose your ink warnings. Otherwise the printers work fine with aftermarket ink. They don't stop printing like Epson when they calculate the cartridge is empty.

But you can have a lot of prints made for the price of a good photo printer. Walgrens seems pricey compared to other online places. Snapfish will do them for 12c each and if you pre-pay you can get them for 10c. If you do most of your prints 4 X 6 I don't think it makes economic sense to buy a photo printer.

I don't much like 4 X 6 prints. Using MIS ink and picking up Red River paper when they put it on sale I can generate 5 X 7 prints for about what I can have 4 X 6 prints made. And I have more control over my output. I have a wide format photo printer and like the occasional large print for the wall. Canon dye based prints do fade over time, butI'm usually ready for something new for theframe by the timeI notice fading.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2007, 6:14 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,347
Default

i agree with u slipe in its not worth buying a photo printer, i can get A4 prints for £1 each.........whats point of spending on printer/paper/ink???? but most of my prints are 20x30 and done buy pros....think i pay 3p..five cents for my 6x4s i give them away to promote my site..........just had 200 done for £6......:-)

Gary


Reanimator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2007, 9:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 195
Default

I have both, the Canon ip6700d and the Pro9000. I would agree in general that 4"x6" prints are slightly cheaper in the stores, but I honestly belive that my 4"x6" prints from the ip6700d look better, have more tonal range (for color), more saturated, even with the "standard" settings, not vivid photo, and overall, have a loot and feel of a "higher" contrast than what I get from the photolab at Wal-Mart. Many people when I have taken a CF card into Sams, printed out 5 pictures, then do the same on my Canon, 4 out of 5 people overall, like my Canon prints better. Also, with Canon's latest ink set, my prints are dry immediately when they pop out, I've even done the water test the minute they pop out and put a print under running water, and NOTHING! I've also noticed no fadness with prints that I've had out since the inkset came out. I also have some framed pics from the 6series inks and they're still fine.

Now with the Pro9000 I think it's again cheaper when you're doing the larger sizes. I've taken film negatives and even prints where I've said to the tech that I don't have a negative and through their whole process of scanning the pic (and or using the negative), in either case, then wanted several dollars, even for a 5"x7". I see the price going higher with the larger sizes and my price doing down with larger paper. Starting with a full set of CLI8 inks on the Pro9000, I can 22 13"x19" prints BEFORE only *ONE* ink showed empty! Now that was amazing huh?




iSAPS Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:03 AM.