Tom's Hardware Benchmarks Inkjet Printer Paper 160
An anonymous reader writes "We all know that the specs of your inkjet printer, driver settings, and ink cartridges can make a big difference in the quality of your prints. But the cheapest and simplest aspect of printing can also have a big impact on the final quality: the paper. This short article is an interesting read, the author actually found ways to 'benchmark' inkjet printer paper."
Why wouldn't someone find a way to benchmarkpaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
A benchmark is a fancy word to describe a process where a set of items are evaluated objectively based on pre-defined parameters and following a standardized set of procedures. To put it shortly, benchmarking is a process to determine the best option.
Knowing this, why is it so odd that someone found a way to test paper and determine what's best for a given application? Does timothy actually believe that only computer parts can be evaluated by potential buyers?
Re:Why wouldn't someone find a way to benchmarkpap (Score:5, Funny)
I'm really glad they did this. I've been getting terrible frame rates from my usual printer paper.
Re: (Score:3)
It's time to upgrade from your ASR-33, grandpa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your printer may work better if you plug the right kind of clock [stereophile.com] into the outlet next to it. Between that and the green rectangle trick, my printouts are so realistic they give me a giant Mpingo woodie [shunmook.com] every time I look at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares how they found a way!
I've already cracked my printer open and began rewinding the motors with more copper.
When I'm done it's going to have exhaust valves that release pressure like a turbo charged car.
Sure it might spray a fine cloud of ink each type I print, but at least it will be faster.
Get to the important stuff (Score:3)
All I really want to know is if it can print Crysis 2?!?!
Re:Get to the important stuff (Score:4, Funny)
Yep but the framerate sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
But to be fair, it depends on the skill of your thumb when flicking the book.
Get a shark (Score:2)
Inkjets went out with the Turbo switch on the IBM PC-RT.
If you want clean results, get a shark with a fricken' laser-printer on its head.
I am offended! (Score:2)
I am missing the joke here; IBM PC-RT never had a turbo button. But six quadzillion x86 PC clones (and their 286/386/486 children) all had it, and I loved it (if only for the silliness that it was.)
I am Impressed! (Score:2)
Searches for "IBM PC-RT turbo button" on Google are already turning up this thread.
Answer: Google is lurking on /.
Also, if the RT has no turbo button, what's it doing with a speed indicator?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773@N02/4468867321/in/set-72157623718669848 [flickr.com]
You got it all wrong... (Score:2)
That's no speed indicator. That's a POST code display, so if power up self test chokes somewhere, you can tell which test choked.
Re:Get a shark (Score:5, Informative)
"a toner grain is a lot larger than the smallest drop of ink that can be sprayed onto the paper"
Are you speaking from knowledge of the nozzle diameter of inkjet printers?
Toner powder is minuscule; tens of microns, maybe in diameter.
Pretty sure to keep from spending 100 years per page, inkjet nozzles are not that small.
Wikipedia says a 600 dpi printer should spec 8-10 micron toner powder. Various sources show inkjet nozzles down to 20 microns, but point out that they work by spitting out a bigger droplet than their nozzle, that then spreads before hitting the paper to make a flat disc of ink much wider than the droplet. Toner powder would spread, too, but the disc radius would be proportional to the 3/2 power of the radius of the droplet or toner grain, so that makes the droplet spread a lot more than the toner spread.
Laser resolution is limited more by the size of the laser (which draws the page in electric charge on the drum) than it is on the size of the grains. Which is one reason that laser print always looks sharper than inkjet print.
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly depends on the printers involved.
If you compare a 15 year old cheap-ass (at the time) laser printer to a cremé de la cremé inkjet printer of today, you'll find that the inkjet is sharper.
Re: (Score:2)
Pft. A 20 um nozzle is ancient. More like 10um at this point for color, and the paper runs far closer to the head than used to be the case. Mono runs larger but that's because people want their docs to print quickly.
It's about the toner. (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest expense is the most avoidable. The ink. Don't buy an overpriced spray-and-pray blotter printer. Get a real laser printer. I bought mine at a University Surplus auction for $10. Toner for it was expensive, I paid $90 for a cartridge. But that's enough toner to print on several cases of paper.
The ink sellers will love it if you keep on using their expensive ink in your spray-printer, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest expense is the most avoidable. The ink. Don't buy an overpriced spray-and-pray blotter printer. Get a real laser printer. I bought mine at a University Surplus auction for $10. Toner for it was expensive, I paid $90 for a cartridge. But that's enough toner to print on several cases of paper.
The ink sellers will love it if you keep on using their expensive ink in your spray-printer, though.
Exactly. I bought my Mac-compatible laser printer new for $135 last year (newegg offer). There are some below the $100 mark. I have an old PC-only laser printer from years ago that still works and hasn't gone through the OEM toner package after 1000+ pages. Most toner packages are generic now, you can get a knockoff for $30 and the real thing for 2x.
You don't need to get lucky to get a cheap, decent, long-lasting printer... they just don't do color (unless you pay much more).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not /really/ the ink vendors, either. When you buy official "ink", what you're really buying is a junk of hardware with a few mils of ink in it. If you want a cheap inkjet, get a continuous flow system [wikipedia.org]. You can buy ink in volume, and you don't have to pay the extortionate amounts for the redundant hardware they sell you with each refill.
Re: (Score:2)
"junk" should have been "chunk". Freudian slip there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the biggest expense is the ink, but getting a "real laser printer" is NOT the solution.
We've reached the point where the price you have to pay for re-fills, whether for laser printers or ink-jets, has nothing to do with the actual cost or with the efficiency of the print system. It is purely a question of what the seller can get away with.
Here is a review of a modern laser printer that is not recommended due to "horrendous running costs".
http://www.trustedreviews.com/HP-LaserJet-Pro-CP1025-Color_Print [trustedreviews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's a color. Most color lasers have horrible toner costs - replacing an entire set of 4 can often run easily $600+.
But a cheap laser printer that only does black and white can be had very cheaply, and for most of them, even the toner cartridges tend to last at least 1000 pages on the one packed in. 2500 seems to be around the st
Re: (Score:2)
It is indeed possible to buy a color laser for only $229.99 new [newegg.com] (or $309.99 [newegg.com] if you want reasonably priced consumables), but the colors are not as brilliant as an inkjet's. The brilliancy of color laser tonor works for almost all applications, but there are some applications where you want the extra oomph of brilliancy from an inkjet.
Dye sublimation is almost as brilliant as inkjet and of course much better resolution, but is e [eri-iowa.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't know why dye sub hasn't caught on enough for mass production after 20 years for 8.5"x11"
Because it's cheaper to have photos printed out at a store (e.g. CVS, Walgreens, etc) than buy the dye sub printer and the paper that goes with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Photoquality colour laser? (Score:2)
I don't think you can buy a laser printer that's as good as inkjet printers at printing colour photos... and is cheap enough to buy for sporadic home use.
I'd be happy if you tell me I'm wrong. Have I've just been sucked in by marketing?
Good to see that someone has made a benchmark test like this. It'd be interesting to see the results of testing the differences between printers too.
Re: (Score:2)
My friends keep buying inkjets because they want to print photos, and I keep telling them that it is cheaper and easier to just order the prints online or at the local print shop. You can get most of your prints for free by using all the introductory offers (hint: you can even re-use them by having someone else sign up with a new account).
I picked up a brand new colour Ricoh laser for £50 (with £20 email-in rebate) from Oyyy. New toners are more than the printer but the ones it comes
Re: (Score:2)
My Kodak inkjet MFU (with Wifi) was about £75. Equivalent colour laser MFU- about £300. Cartridge for my inkjet- £10 (last about 3 months each, separate carts for colour and B&W). Cost of colour toner- about £110. Lets pretend the toner cartridge will last 2 years (just a guess- I don't own one for comparative purposes, so it's tough to know how quickly my current use would burn through it).
That means the laser printer is only £25 cheaper in ink/toner every year, which mean
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I use a cheap (free!) black-and-white Laserjet 5 for my printing needs. It's perf
Interesting, but I really don't get it (Score:2)
Sure, I care about contrast and such when printing on regular paper so that I can see the lines and words and simple pictures or diagrams that I'm printing. But I don't and never will care about anything beyond mediocre color accuracy if I'm printing on plain paper. Even if the color is 100% accurate, anything beyond text and line art, it will still look like complete crap...it's regular paper!
If I want a pretty prints that I give even the slightest care about, I'll use photo paper (matte or gloss).
Re: (Score:2)
"Regular" coated paper, which is usually 108gr (vs 75-90gr), for inkjet it's much, much better than regular paper. It's whiter, feels softer, and doesn't suck ink like regular paper. You can print photos on it and they will look pretty good (not just a brown smudge). Ink will not go through so you can print both sides (but it usually is coated in only one side).
A pack of 100 sheets costs like $5. It's expensive, but if you need to print a nice report and don't have a color laser, it will give great results.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regular [wiktionary.org]
(...)
1. With constant frequency or pattern.
2. (mostly US) Normal; ordinary
(...)
why do I, a native Spanish speaker, have to teach an english speaker, his own language?
I'm fine with my inkjet (Score:3)
I have a Brother MFC-6490CW inkjet printer. At the time I bought it, it was on sale and Amazon.com shipped it to my front door for $190, total.
I chose this particular printer largely because of a novelty: It is a multi-function machine that can both scan and print at sizes up to 11x17" (aka Tabloid or Ledger, the ISO equivalent being A3). You won't find any laser printers that can do that for less than a couple thousand dollars.
My printing needs are best described as "light." I realized that 90 percent of what I print out I print for my own use. I carry it around for however long I need it, probably a few days, and then it ends up in the recycle bin. I never print photos on photo paper, because as many people have pointed out, that's a waste of ink (and hence money). I do often print things with photographs in them, though (Web pages, etc.) so I like those printouts to be in color. I also like my text to be in color -- it makes it easier to see things like hyperlinks, highlights, annotations, etc. But I really don't care if any of it is "presentation quality," because I'm likely to be the only one who sees it.
The printer came with a set of high-capacity ink cartridges. That set lasted me, I would guess, about a year and a half. Since then I've bought off-brand, generic cartridges, and I've been mostly happy with them. The genuine Brother black ink is more water-resistant than the generic ink, but for my purposes, it mostly serves.
I don't remember what I paid for them, but checking Amazon right now, I can order a set of four high-capacity black cartridges, plus two sets of all three colors, for $10.48. They get cheaper if you buy them in bulk.
So all in all, I'd say I don't feel ripped off. I get to scan big things from time to time and print them out on big paper in color from time to time, and the rest of the time I have an adequate ink jet office machine that costs me less per year than I'd usually spend on lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the cartridges region coded? After moving from Europe to Asia, I've discovered I can no longer buy cartridges for my printer, and the ones that are locally available, which differ in model number by one digit but are physically identical refuse to work unless I swap the chips from my old cartridges (which also require resetting due to the counter in them, supposedly to protect the printer from damage caused by running the cartridge completely dry, but we all know the real reason is to prevent them from
Re: (Score:2)
Are the cartridges region coded?
It massively varies by manufacturer and maybe also by printer model. I've got a Canon inkjet, and its ink cartridges just contain ink; each cartridge is also monochromatic, so they can be replaced on their own schedule. It cost a bit more than the equivalent HP at the time (quite a few years ago, to be fair) but it has worked out much cheaper overall since we can easily use cheap third-party replacement inks. Theoretically the expensive inks are better, but not enough to justify the extra cost. (Using bette
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. It only works for me because I print at home no more than couple times a year, so an ink cartridge set lasts for about 2 years before they dry up, and then it's only $10 to replace them.
color is a perception (Score:4, Interesting)
did this over 20 years ago (Score:2)
Benchmark ? No: calibrate (Score:2)
This isn't new, but nice (Score:2)
This isn't new, but I'm glad they've done this. People do this all day long where I work. They "benchmarked" all of our paper, inks, etc. to industry standards. After all, we run a professional high volume printing shop as part of what we do. This just brought some of the tools we use down to the consumer level and wrote it up for the casual user to understand and limited the paper significantly. The actual range of paper is nearly as great as the range of colors available, not to mention other printabl
Other sources for good paper data (Score:2)
If you're doing fine art inkjet prints on the higher end printers, you likely aren't using the papers referenced in the article :) There are, however, several good sites that collect hard data on the various paper options out there:
We used to benchmark printer paper at Adobe ;) (Score:2)
I had a chance for a week to work with a color scientist there. We used to create an ICC profiles for the printer by printing out a color pattern without using any color profiles or modifications to the output, then capture that color information using a spectrometer.
I found that I could create some pretty amazing prints when the printer was properly calibrated to the paper (even really cheap printers - sub $100 models) you were using, but that it took a $12,000 piece of hardware to do it (I which I could r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then get the color printed some place else. The drug store will do proper photo prints for $0.10/each. On real photo paper with real photo printing. Not some cheap inkjet smudgy mess.
Re: (Score:2)
My kids like to print out color stuff from the web. They don't care if it's photorealistic. For that matter I rarely print stuff at home (or at work) and I don't need it to look awesome either. So yeah, there's still a good reason for some people to have an inkjet printer.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to laser because the cost was far less then what an Inkjet ran us in ink. As an example, I've got an HP1600Color Laser that cost $400 when new, and I'm still operating on the original toner cartridges after 4 years. If I'd been using an Inkjet, I'd have replaced the cartridges every month simply from lack of use causing them to dry out at an avg cost of $40 per cart. That's 48 months worth for 300 or 1900+ for and inkjet.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right. Very few people ever mention the fact that you have to replace those inkjet cartridges every month whether you use them or not. The technology is utterly stupid, except for a few exceptional cases (like doing extremely high-volume printing with one of those continuous-flow ink systems).
You know there's something wrong when there's a store on every block that does inkjet cartridge refilling.
My wife is an ex-legal secretary, and has a bad habit of printing all kinds of stuff that doesn't need
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, for the price, it'd make sense to have a color laser just for color printing, and a dedicated B&W printer for regular printing, since lasers don't have to worry about ink drying out from disuse.
That's what we are doing in our network.... the colour laser is much higher end than the basic entry level, because it actually does get used to publish a quarterly newsletter for about 1500 members of a local charity (and for the cost of one of the quarterly prints we were able to buy the printer and all the toner for the print, and each subsequent print we have saved $600 over the print shop cost), but other than that, all the printing gets done on a b&w laser except the rare occasions that I want to
Re: (Score:2)
the colour laser is much higher end than the basic entry level, because it actually does get used to publish a quarterly newsletter for about 1500 members of a local charity (and for the cost of one of the quarterly prints we were able to buy the printer and all the toner for the print, and each subsequent print we have saved $600 over the print shop cost)
Yes, in general it seems that the higher-end and more expensive your laser printer, the lower (sometimes dramatically) your consumables cost is. The $200
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to laser because the cost was far less then what an Inkjet ran us in ink.
And I always thought that was the absolute rule too, so when I researched my most recent printer purchase I was surprised how much price-per-page varied within the two categories--some inkjet printers are reported as quite cheap to run, and some lasers quite expensive--and the printer I ended up with was an inkjet for which consumer reports claimed around $.02/page for black-and-white text (if I remember correctly--I tried to check that just now on their website and found they'd switched to using a monthly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a crap if it's photorealistic either. I give a crap when it works out to something like, what, $1.75-$3.50 a sheet? You get maybe 200 sheets of paper out of an inkjet cartridge, and they're usually $35 at the cheapest.
Re: (Score:2)
My color printer at home will, since it is properly calibrated and all my photos are RAW images, print images at significantly higher quality than the photo shop doing "real photo printing" - that is unless I engage one of the high-end shops that properly calibrate their printers. I am not quite certain when you last used an inkjet printer, but it's almost a decade since they printed "cheap smudgy mess".
Don't forget, the photo printer at your local store is calibrated to the lowest common denominator. Badly
Re: (Score:2)
There's a copy shop downstairs. No matter how "cheap" you could print with your inkjet, they're cheaper.
So unless you're printing pictures that you don't want anyone to see, this is the obvious better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually found it cheaper to run a colour laser printer. $350 3 years ago and it still has 80% toner. It's a network printer and installs quicker on OSX/Linux than Windows.
In contrast, my $80 Inkjet printer was costing me over $100 every time I went to use it because thinks had dried out from lack of use. A colour laser can be sitting there for months turned off and after a page or two to knock the dust and toner that's settled out, it's printing as good as the day you turned it off.
Inkjets are a scam, th
Re: (Score:2)
I actually found it cheaper to run a colour laser printer. $350 3 years ago and it still has 80% toner. It's a network printer and installs quicker on OSX/Linux than Windows.
Be careful of some particularly cheap colour laser printers if you are likely to print a lot though - the price per page (what-ever page you are talking about: b/w business text, colour charts or full-page photos, ...) is steadily rising at that part of the market especially when it come time to replace the drum(s) and such, and some of the inkjet tricks have crept in (the first set of carts that come with the machine being half full or less, for instance). Also I've seen really cheap models that produce no
Re: (Score:2)
For occasional printing, you are far better buying a color laser. Inkjets will dry out if they aren't used often enough, and toner never dries out.
I picked up a Brother color laser printer with wireless and wired network for $300 around the Christmas deals, so they really aren't that expensive anymore. Laser printers can also be refilled without the manufacturer giving you shit...
Razors? (Score:4, Insightful)
People are still taken in by this scheme?
I believe the Discworld character Samuel Vimes had something to say regarding this "scheme." Being poor, he had to buy cheap shoes that wore out quickly and ended up costing him more over the long run, but he simply could not afford the more economical option because of the higher up-front costs. So yes, people are still being 'taken in' by this scheme because, being poor, they don't have any other real options. Luckily, every poor person is to blame for their own poverty and so we can continue to look down are noses at those inferior folks whose lack of options are their own damn faults.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. To quote:
"A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
Emphasis his. See also: payday loans, rent-a-center, reasons why the so-called "fair tax" is anything but.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "prebate" do you not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
See also: payday loans, rent-a-center
Yeah, but you don't understand. I really *WANT* that new HDTV. And I want it NOW!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor people are to blame for their poverty in current society, as they are a voting block, which demands bread and circuses paid by others, and the others end up being those, who actually do provide society with businesses (jobs), products and services, that make the society wealthier.
The 19 century USA gained so much wealth because of high levels of innovation and production based on capitalism and mostly free market.
My point is that cheap and plentiful boots are not a function of government intervention i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ehh I've got karma to burn on OT. The problem with the idea of free market competition is today's market.
Fuck karma, fuck the mods. It's a hybrid economy. It hasn't been a free market since the New Deal.
The invisible hand doesn't work when you have huge corps that can use economics of scale and pure financial clout (I'll sell my shoes at a loss for years just to stop little guy X from getting a foothold (pun intended)) to kill competition.
Megacorps like Amazon? Got something to sell, they'll set you up with the same facilities that they have for virtually the entire process. Hell, you can rent a fucking supercomputer. Want to publish? Same deal, there are self publishing places galore, places that will help you sell your software, your music, other art, etc. And, yeah, if you're trying to set up a burger chain, you might be SOL, but damned near
Re: (Score:2)
You got it backwards. The huge corporations do not appear out of thin air, they appear from the government halls, printing money, giving out favors, regulations that kill other competition, laws, that force those companies to be the only providers, regulations that favor large companies in the first place, because those monopolies are preferable to the gov't officials, who want money to go their way for reelections etc., and since competing companies do not have extra money to burn, they are not interesting
Re: (Score:2)
The 19 century USA gained so much wealth because of high levels of innovation and production based on capitalism and mostly free market.
Yeah, the slaves and child laborers were very productive workers.
Re: (Score:2)
19 century USA didn't even have indentured servitude anymore, slavery wasn't the driving factor behind the factory innovation - Sir James Watt was.
As to children - children were put to good use at young age by their parents much before the factories even appeared on the horizon. The wealth created by the free market capitalism required a more educated work force and so the children lost their job opportunities over time to more automation and more educated work force. Sure, there was abuse, but you can't m
Re: (Score:2)
you'll get is less and less investment, because savings get wiped out
If there is deflation, then I can get a few percent a year just by stuffing my cash under a mattress. Why would that increase the incentive to invest my money?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about relative terms, you want to invest into something that will make you MORE money, it's called cost of opportunity, because if you don't provide products in competing economy, somebody else will. Sure, you'll have a fixed amount of money that will appreciate in value over time, but that's all you'll have.
In 19 century USA the value of US dollar was appreciating, the prices were falling due to HEAVY competition though.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this theory is that it completely neglects other options that poor people have. The biggest omission is the used market. If you can't afford a good new item, and the cheap new items are that bad, then you look at the used market.
While used shoes are a bit of a stretch, with many luxury and high-end goods, the rich people who buy them get tired of them early (earlier than their reasonable lifespan) and toss them so they can buy the newest, fancier model. That's why it's possible to get yo
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a stupid liberal. "It's not their fault", blah blah blah. Give me a fucking break. The only reason they're "disenfranchised" by society is because they listen to their stupid peers and parents and refuse to avail themselves of the opportunities available, and just sit around and blame society and "rich people" (which really means everyone with a job) for all their problems, and complain that they aren't given enough free money by the government.
They have free public education, and all kind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one. It makes poor quality prints and costs more than having good quality ones made. Go look what your local place that prints photos costs, it is amazingly cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should stop taking pictures of illegal acts.
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh, but in some countries (apparently, the UK), trying to print a photo of your 2-year-old playing in the bathtub can get you arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly yes, that's happened.
There are also perfectly legal photographs that would never lead to arrest that you may nonetheless not want printing in public,
Re: (Score:2)
Then I would refrain from printing those pictures either and keep them stored encrypted on a hard drive that you can easily bang against the next wall if the police kicks down your door.
Thermite. (Score:2)
Banging them against a wall is just not sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the explosive your walls are made of.
Re:Inkjet? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, I was just waiting for this comment. I have news for you: the "local placethat print photos" is just amazingly cheap. It's not always great.
Photo printing, done right, gives perfect results. 1) An incredible gamut (more than you can get out of your inkjet); 2) extremely long life photos 3) paper that won't turn yellow or degrade.
But in local, cheap photo shops, this is not the case.
1) The gamut comes because of the printing system. A properly calibrated minilab (that means once a week at least, though it can go for months with no calibration and still do acceptable output) has no issues *printing* the correct gamut. The problem is the chemicals needed to develop the paper. Remember, it's regular, chemical-based printing. After a certain amount of square meters developed, the chemicals *need* to be changed. Cheap photo shops get away with adding some chemicals (Replenisher) to the solution that extends its life a little - which is fine and acceptable. It's made by the manufacturer and under certain conditions it will work just as good. But often, these guys at photo labs keep adding the chemicals until all you have is a useless liquid that won't develop anything and we're back to 1980s colors, and only then, they will change the developer. Respectable shops can change the developer and other chemicals as needed - but they charge more than the 1-hour lab at the mall.
2) the long life of the photo comes from proper developing. Because of the destructive process used to develop photos ("ink" is removed from the paper, not added to it, like in the Kodachrome process, which lasts forever), if not done properly, the chemical reaction keeps going for years after the photo is developed (that's why photos fade). There are two steps: stopping and washing, that need to be properly done, in order to actually stop the reaction. If you remove the photo from the stopping bath (or if it's cold, old, contaminated, etc), or don't properly wash the print, the chemicals will continue affecting your print for years.
3) photo paper is not regular "wood fibre" paper, which would disintegrate in all the liquids it needs to be processed in. It's either resin-coated or polyester. Polyester won't turn yellow, and it's not food for bugs, among other benefits.
So, try to develop your photos at a respectable lab.
And for that one-off print you want to give grandma of the kids playing with her that day, the inkjet on photo paper (especially a 6-color epson - even better if 9-color) is much more practical than driving to the lab and having just 1 print developed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many errors in your post I hardly know where to begin
No photo process of any type that relies on broadband white light passing through or reflecting off the produced image can be "perfect": this is just the spectral limit of chemical compounds. Replenishers don't extend solution capacity a little. When used at manufacturer's recommendations, they extend it many times. Kodachrome is not forever, it is one of the worst processes for resistance to fading from exposure to light. The image in Kodach
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
who would want to print photographs on a inkjet when the print shop downstairs prints in better quality and at roughly the same cost/picture.
Re: (Score:2)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188752&cid=36257328 [slashdot.org]
Also, inkjet is always more expensive than the print shop downstairs, even after you print enough photos (a few hundred) to pay for the printer - unless you use a CISS but it's hard to find quality inks. Right now I use a german brand (OCP) in generic chinese paper (60cm wide roll) and I'm simply amazed at the results. But it takes just too much work:
1. Check if your printer driver lets you print in color managed (ICC) mode. Choose Adobe R
Re: (Score:2)
I have two printers. One is an A4 Epson Stylus Photo R220. I recommend epson because the ink is cheaper than HP's (Epson's print head is in the printer, not in the cartridge). The "Photo" in this case means two things: it's got 6 colors (CMYK + Light cyan + Light magenta. For some reason, light cyan goes away twice as fast as the other colors), and most important: the driver lets you use color profiles. This is a big thing - it's like owning a camera with M (full manual) mode vs a cheap "AUTO" camera. You n
Re: (Score:2)
I would say "amen" to all of the above and recommend making sure you get a printer so that your wife can hang some of the images on the wall. That makes a huge difference. Make sure she gets them framed properly. Also, if you get a printer capable of larger prints, that is better.
As to the list - if the $1500 for the 35mm 1.4 prime is a little on the high side, you can get very, very good results with a 50mm 1.4 too, at about 1/3 of the price. You just have to move a little further away. Heck, if you are a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, forgot to mention that. For some reason, the 50mm 1.4 is much cheaper than the 35mm. It's just that 50mm is a bit long for indoors. But you're right, a newbie shouldn't be shelling out $1500 for a lens.
No idea about Tamrons, Sigmas or anything. I only have the nikon cheap lenses (the 18-55 kit and a 55-200 that's $150 or so). Maybe there is a cheaper 50mm 1.4. I wouldn't go too crazy for quality as a normal prime lens is almost foolproof. Unless someone put plastic elements in it, any brand should work
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't. Prints from the print shop look like crap, and they charge out the wazoo for anything bigger than 4" x 6". Prints on the Canon Pro 9000 are great if expensive. Prints from mpix are also great and similarly priced, but the turnaround time is much greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... I cannot second that. The people who happen to have a print shop right in my apartment building (ground floors here usually house some kind of office, which happens to be a print shop for me) are quite good at their job, they make you feel like they enjoy working on your pictures and the quality is by some margin superior to anything I or any layman could produce. And comparing their cost to photo printers (trust me, I did), I ended up with the realization that it's cheaper, simply because if they fuc
Re: (Score:2)
Cause of this: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188752&cid=36257328 [slashdot.org]
betcha didn't know that.
Re:Be careful with laser printer's paper! (Score:4, Informative)
Did not look at it, but rest assured it is GOATSE.
Same link.
Can you not afford normal entertainment?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's a hipster and is posting goatse ironically.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never posted a link to that image. unlike you Anonymous Coward. Mod me funny to avoid karma boost.
Dah rules (Score:2)
If you can hit it its hardware
if you can't its software
if its software going to a device then its firmware
so the manual for your new program is hardware
the DVD/CD/FD your program is on is hardware
your download folder is full of software
Re: (Score:2)
Basically their data supports the Dynex paper as the best multipurpose paper, and given their focus on "value" in conclusion it's also the cheapest.
It was best in color gamut, but not text reproduction or bleed through.
I don't like accusing sites of being underhanded because I don't believe in unnecessary cynicism, but given the content of the article and the outright odd nature of suddenly reviewing printer paper, this thing reeks of payola from HP.
Toms is going to decide on someone, since these are all relatively good brands of paper. That someone will probably will be more likely to quote their review if it sounds spammy, and that will send more people back to their site.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy a $5 Mini LED flashlight [eff.org] from the EFF that makes the yellow dots much more visible. I like to keep it around for when people accuse me of being too paranoid when I'm ranting about privacy and such. Grab the nearest color printout, shine the blue light on it, and show there are hidden yellow dots that can be used to track you; that's a good way to make people really nervous as they consider what else I'm saying is true. More fashionable than tin foil, too.