Ultimate print quality, ink jet or dye sublimation?

[another view]

Just like inkjets, there are differences in print quality.

Sony's Print Station isn't bad for proofs but I'm not really that impressed with the quality of prints - just not something I'd really want to frame. A friend is a commercial shooter and got a great deal on one (the full size one they have at Kinko's) and it's really handy. Prints are waterproof too. He can download a c/f card, burn to CD, print an index and 4x6's all at the same time. It will also print 5x7 and 8x10 but dye sub uses roll paper and a roll ribbon so you have to change both of those to change print size.

Sebastian (also posts here, the digital cameras moderator) has an Olympus dye sub. I saw a b&w print he did on it and was very impressed - and he didn't spend much time on the image as I remember.

Jim Brandenburg's smaller prints (up to 8x10) are printed on a Fuji Pictography machine, their dye sub. Prints were so good I had to ask at his gallery how he did them. Fuji makes two of these machines - they're designed for high volume and expensive.

Not familiar with the new Kodak printer, but definately could be worth getting a sample print from it.

[Seb]

Just like inkjets, there are differences in print quality.

Sony's Print Station isn't bad for proofs but I'm not really that impressed with the quality of prints - just not something I'd really want to frame. A friend is a commercial shooter and got a great deal on one (the full size one they have at Kinko's) and it's really handy. Prints are waterproof too. He can download a c/f card, burn to CD, print an index and 4x6's all at the same time. It will also print 5x7 and 8x10 but dye sub uses roll paper and a roll ribbon so you have to change both of those to change print size.

Sebastian (also posts here, the digital cameras moderator) has an Olympus dye sub. I saw a b&w print he did on it and was very impressed - and he didn't spend much time on the image as I remember.

Jim Brandenburg's smaller prints (up to 8x10) are printed on a Fuji Pictography machine, their dye sub. Prints were so good I had to ask at his gallery how he did them. Fuji makes two of these machines - they're designed for high volume and expensive.

Not familiar with the new Kodak printer, but definately could be worth getting a sample print from it.

Hello,

Thank you for your imput,

My quick searchs on the Sony's lead me to think that they aren't so good as you are telling me.

I have been looking for the Fuji's. These seems amazing but they arguably are large, high volume machines. I just don't have the space for one of these, nor the need for it.

I will try to find a retailer who carry the Kodak Pro 1400 to see a sample for myself.
The more I think about that printer, the more I am interested.

Perhaps I am going parano, but I am now fearing banding and cloging print heads on ink jet printers. The thing is that I wont be printing on a regular basis. I may print 5 8x12's in one day and then spend 3 weeks without printing anything. According to the informations that I have gathered so far it seems that ink jet printers need to be used on a rather regular basis for the print head to stay clean...

regards

Seb

[another view]

Perhaps I am going parano, but I am now fearing banding and cloging print heads on ink jet printers. The thing is that I wont be printing on a regular basis. I may print 5 8x12's in one day and then spend 3 weeks without printing anything. According to the informations that I have gathered so far it seems that ink jet printers need to be used on a rather regular basis for the print head to stay clean...

This is why I don't own a printer. Actually I do have an Epson 820 which was pretty impressive for a $100 printer when it came out of the box. Even a couple of days with no use and I'd end up with clogged nozzles, inconsistent results and a mess inside the printer. Then the next print would be fine. Frustrating... Not sure if the 2200 is any different. Anyone?

I haven't heard of any problems with this with dye sub printers, but I don't know for sure. I've been doing small prints on a Fuji Frontier and large prints at a lab on an Epson 9600. I'm going to try Mpix.com next, they're the online division of a highly-respected pro lab and have been quick to send samples.

[Seb]

This is why I don't own a printer. Actually I do have an Epson 820 which was pretty impressive for a $100 printer when it came out of the box. Even a couple of days with no use and I'd end up with clogged nozzles, inconsistent results and a mess inside the printer. Then the next print would be fine. Frustrating... Not sure if the 2200 is any different. Anyone?

I haven't heard of any problems with this with dye sub printers, but I don't know for sure. I've been doing small prints on a Fuji Frontier and large prints at a lab on an Epson 9600. I'm going to try Mpix.com next, they're the online division of a highly-respected pro lab and have been quick to send samples.

I am not 100% sure about all the technology involved in dye sub but as I understand it, their "print head" actually are heating elements who heat wax without directly touching it. It appears that Kodak suggest to clean the heads every once in a while but it seems that they can't clog or cause the print quality to decrease over time.

Then again, anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding of dye sublimation printers.

Seb

[Trevor Ash]

Have I ever told anyone how much I dislike inkjets for home photo printing? Too much hassle and expense. I'll stand firmly by my opinion that for people like Seb and I It's much better to just order the prints online or locally and go through the couple rounds it takes to get the color right. It's still easier to do that than to ALSO deal with the ink running out, paper variation problems, color variations, banding, clogging, etc.

Home printing might be easier for some. For Seb and I who only do a few prints every few months it's just not worth the hassle or expenditure.

It's all personal preference and/or luck. Some people are more picky than others or get good prints with less effort, etc. If you're not complaining then consider yourself lucky and don't look for anything to complain about!!!

[mjs1973]

One thing I forgot to mention about the Fuji. This might not be important since it sounds like you're leaning towards an ink jet printer, but I thought I would throw this out there anyway. I was told by my instructor that the paper has to be calibrated every time you change rolls. I brinted some photos that came out great, then switched rolls not knowing that they needed to be recalibrated and they came out very red.

[Seb]

Have I ever told anyone how much I dislike inkjets for home photo printing? Too much hassle and expense. I'll stand firmly by my opinion that for people like Seb and I It's much better to just order the prints online or locally and go through the couple rounds it takes to get the color right. It's still easier to do that than to ALSO deal with the ink running out, paper variation problems, color variations, banding, clogging, etc.

Home printing might be easier for some. For Seb and I who only do a few prints every few months it's just not worth the hassle or expenditure.

It's all personal preference and/or luck. Some people are more picky than others or get good prints with less effort, etc. If you're not complaining then consider yourself lucky and don't look for anything to complain about!!!

Hello Trevor,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The reason why I am concerned about getting a printer (along with calibration tools/software) is to get an absolute control over the whole photographic process. I want my prints to be exactly as I meant them to be at the first place. Actually, all my prints are made by two pro labs I feel comfortable with. The print quality is there but the prints oftenly aren't quite like I would like them to be (a bit too bright or too dark, the colours don't "pop" enough or "pop" too much....).

Since I went digital last spring, I became much more conscious of all the steps involved in the photographic process and I became more and more picky about my prints (especially those for my portfolio). Thus my interest for a printer.

While I would appreciate the imput of dye sub printers owners here it seems that these are easier to use than ink jet printers in such a way that they are low maintenance devices and that the output is consistent.

Seb

[Trevor Ash]

I want my prints to be exactly as I meant them to be at the first place.

That's just it. The problem is that we all go into home printing assuming that we're going to get complete control. In reality, all we gain is more grief and frustration.

I bought an epson 1270 a while ago because I wanted compelte control over my prints. Well guess what happened? I never got a print to look how I wanted it to look. Granted, I never paid for a claibrated printer setup, but it just wasn't worth it to me.

Alcohol is setting in on new years eve, if there are typos I can comfortable blame it on that

[Seb]

I bought an epson 1270 a while ago because I wanted compelte control over my prints. Well guess what happened? I never got a print to look how I wanted it to look. Granted, I never paid for a claibrated printer setup, but it just wasn't worth it to me.

Trevor,

I probably shouldn't be the one to say this considering my lack of experience but it seems to me that for the demanding user as you or me, going for a calibrated setup is the only way to go. I mean, you can either decide not to make your own prints (which I fully respect) or fully invest to get your setup to perform as it should.

Compromises leads to trial and errors, hence frustrations.

just some thoughs

(I should start to shop seriously within a month or two, I'll let you know what I end up with later on).

Seb

[Trevor Ash]

Compromises leads to trial and errors, hence frustrations.

I won't disagree with that. But have you seen the prices for a GOOD QUALITY printer calibration setup and equipment for home use?!? They always required a scanner too, which I don't have and don't want to purchase. Maybe things have changed in the last couple years for the better. But that money adds up VERY quickly. And even when it's all said and done, there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll still even get good prints! In other words. it's like a big gamble with all that investment. It might not even pay off.

Now, if I needed to do prints from home again I'd use the mail services for remote profiling of my printer. You print out a test chart on the paper stock and send them the print with some cash. They email you a profile sometime later. They have decent guarantees it seems too so if you're not happy you can get your $50 back or whatever you spent. Have you considered this route instead of getting all the colorimeters and junk yourself?

[Seb]

Now, if I needed to do prints from home again I'd use the mail services for remote profiling of my printer. You print out a test chart on the paper stock and send them the print with some cash. They email you a profile sometime later. They have decent guarantees it seems too so if you're not happy you can get your $50 back or whatever you spent. Have you considered this route instead of getting all the colorimeters and junk yourself?

Actually, I might go that way. If I was to do so I would still need to calibrate my screen but this would avoid me to get a scanner (which still are required in most cases).

regards

Seb