Dye-Sub or Inkjet?

[Larry R Harrison Jr]

I am THIS close to getting a Kodak Easyshare 6000 printer dock, even though
I own a Coolpix 775, because I've read great things about its 4x6s. Up til
now, I use Kodak's Picture Maker machine or the Fuji machines at Walgreens
or Walmart. The former runs about 50c per 4x6 print, the latter 29c.

Thing is, I do realize the Kodak is only capable of 4x6s while other inkjet
printers (for one) can do 8x10s etc. However, what is more important to me
is longevity. As I hear it, inkjet printer photos fade very quickly. That
doesn't work for me at all; I want prints that approach conventional
film-prints for longevity. The Kodak would sure seem to do this, but what if
something else near the same price would also--thus giving me the ability to
make 5x7 or 8x10 photos also if I wish?

The $200 the Kodak costs is about as much as I can spend right now.

I'm remiss to get an inkjet due to the fading issues; I'm thinking the
dye-sub Kodak is the ticket. But maybe I'm not aware of a few inkjets which
have a reputation of being just as permanent and would be near the same
price.

Tips?

LRH

 

[Amishman35]

The advantage to having a Dye-Sub printer is that there is NO DITHERING. The
colors are solid even if you look under a microscope (though I have 403 DPI
vision and can see the limitations of a 4x6 print at 3.9 megapixels, which have
nothing to do with dithering). The colors on a Dye-Sub printer are very
accurate and linear. You are right on the button that inkjet photos fade. Many
inkjet printer photos can be damaged by water, but I think Epson's DuraBright
ones are water resistant. You don't have to worry about water, light, or
fingerprints ruining a Dye-Sub printout.

 

[Dave]

The Kodak 6000 printer dock is very good... I have had one for a few months
now and the print quality is very very good.
The two technologies dye sub vs inkjet are very different... and the one
thing to think of is that dye sub is as close to photographic
as you are going to get vs inkjet which is more prone to issues.

My 2 cents worth...

Dave

 

[Bob Headrick]

However, what is more important to me is longevity.
As I hear it, inkjet printer photos fade very quickly. That
doesn't work for me at all; I want prints that approach conventional
film-prints for longevity.

Most of the major printer manufacturers provided paper and ink combinations
that can beat traditional photo prints for lightfastness. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf for an
article by Henry Wilhelm, a leading researcher in this field. More information
can be found at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ .

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Joel]

Most of the major printer manufacturers provided paper and ink combinations
that can beat traditional photo prints for lightfastness. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf for an
article by Henry Wilhelm, a leading researcher in this field. More information
can be found at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ .

Haha they should leave this line "....We also tried refilling our own
HP cartridge ......What a mess! It dripped ink everywhere..." it shows
they can't even be able to handle refilling, so dunno if they can handle