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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 6, 2003, 7:24 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Just as there are debates about printers, so are there debates about digital versus 35mm film.
Just as I can't expect my 4mp Canon to produce photos that a 35mm SLR will produce, neither can I expect a $300. printer to match a photo lab's $xxxx.xx printer.:
I don't think this is in question anymore, just look at the photos produced by the DSLRs. 4 and 6MP that are better than 35mm. Sports Illustrated has converted 100% to digital and not because of cost or convenience, but for quality!

Even more surprising is the rapid decline in pricing, check this out:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113259,00.asp

Its not just the pixel count that makes the difference in quality, it is many other factors such as image sensor size/quality and superior lenses.
sportster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2003, 11:49 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportster
Quote:
Just as there are debates about printers, so are there debates about digital versus 35mm film.
Just as I can't expect my 4mp Canon to produce photos that a 35mm SLR will produce, neither can I expect a $300. printer to match a photo lab's $xxxx.xx printer.:
I don't think this is in question anymore, just look at the photos produced by the DSLRs. 4 and 6MP that are better than 35mm. Sports Illustrated has converted 100% to digital and not because of cost or convenience, but for quality!

Even more surprising is the rapid decline in pricing, check this out:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113259,00.asp

Its not just the pixel count that makes the difference in quality, it is many other factors such as image sensor size/quality and superior lenses.
good point and you don't even need 4 MP for good 4X6 pictures either.
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 6:09 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
good point and you don't even need 4 MP for good 4X6 pictures either.
this is true but I think there is real benefit in starting out with a high pixel count since I frequently crop my pictures. This leaves plenty of pixels, can often print as large as 8.5x11 with no significant loss in quality.
sportster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2003, 2:45 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

I print on HP deskjet 990 CSE on acid free paper (kodak and
HP paper) and put keeper photos in plastic, pvc free sleeves.

No fade, no nada after three plus years for some :d

Go HP!!!

Yes, very subjective answer!

digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2003, 5:18 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16
Default

I have to agree with 'tnj4uga'. Common sense will tell you that any picture is going to fade depending upon how exposed it is to light. Yes, 2 weeks is not acceptable, but this is the first I hear about that short of time. I just bought a Canon i960, so I will let you know how long my prints last using Canon paper. But if changing the paper will give you 2+ years before they fade then that's good enough. By then you will probably want to reprint most of your pictures anyway using the newer technology printers. Besides, 4x6 paper and ink isn't really that expensive. So as long as you keep the original on your computer (or the negatives), then fading shouldn't be an issue.

Just my opinion.
-Ryan
ryedizzel 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 11:00 PM.