WTD: Photo printer recomendations

[Stevie Boy]

I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand alone unit
that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye sublimation technology
and only allow 6x4 max prints.

I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other than it
looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display panel.

I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a max of
£200... less if poss.

I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo printers are
capable of showing up the differences between the two, more so if I went
further up the ladder.

Steve

 

[Jimbob]

I'm looking for a photo printer whether a PC one that uses ink jet
technology that will allow bigger than the 6x4 prints or a stand
alone unit that is specific for Digital cameras which use Dye
sublimation technology and only allow 6x4 max prints.

I've been looking at the Sony DPP-EX50 for no specific reason other
than it looks good uses Dye sub technology and has a image display
panel.

I do not want to spend the earth on the unit and was thinking of a
max of £200... less if poss.

I currently own a Canon 300D and A60 so I don't know if photo
printers are capable of showing up the differences between the two,
more so if I went further up the ladder.

I just got an Epson Stylus R300. It does excellent Photo prints @ 6*4. Havnt
tried Full size but can't see why not.

At £85 you can't complain.

Oh it also reads and prints digicam mem cards too, without the need for a
PC.

HTH

 

[Safetymom123]

You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.

 

[chaosfury]

I suggest the PIXMA iP4000. It would be perfect compliment to your
cameras and its print amazing photos edge to edge. It can print can
4x6, 5x7 and 8 1/2 x 11 or A4 in Europe. It is around $180 Cdn. Not
sure how much in Europe but it should be more than that.

 

[Hecate]

You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.

....and then walk away hurriedly in case you're tempted to buy the
dog...

 

[Safetymom123]

It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need to
walk away.

 

[Hecate]

It prints beautiful 4x6 photos that are water resistant and smudge proof.
If you need something larger then this wouldn't be the printer. No need to
walk away.

I haven't seen one review that gives it a good write up, and doesn't
prefer other printers of the same type to the Epson.

 

[Safetymom123]

Do you believe everything that you read? Some of these reviews I don't
think they ever read the manual.

I have one and it does great pictures. I know lots of satisfied Picture
Mate users.

 

[Caitlin]

I haven't seen one review that gives it a good write up, and doesn't
prefer other printers of the same type to the Epson.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

I know nothing at all about this model, but your post got me curious so I
googled reviews of this printer. They all seem to be very positive, so I
don't know where you've been reading!?

 

[Stevie Boy]

I know nothing at all about this model, but your post got me curious so I
googled reviews of this printer. They all seem to be very positive, so I
don't know where you've been reading!?

Likewise, given the mixed views on photo printers I have in various groups
it looks best if I do my own research.... Clearly nearly all photo printers
do a good job it's just a case of which is right for me and which I feel
prints more accurately.

Steve

 

[Richard]

You might want to take a look at the Epson Picture Mate.

If you are just looking for very good looking to great looking prints
then you can just go look at the output of the 4x6 printers and pick
by price. If you want to include the total cost of ownership, then the
least expensive printer will be the Epson Picture Mate.

According to a recent test report the Epson Picture Mate cost per
print was, by far, the least expensive of the test group class at 29
cents per picture. This price even makes printing at home reasonably
competitive with commercial printing. With the Epson, it is cost
competitive AND longevity competitive with commercial printing.

An extremely important aspect of printing that is often entirely
overlooked is longevity. If I take the time to print something for
myself or family, then it is something I want to last!

For longevity ratings of these 4x6 printers take a look at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/WIR_4x6_Prints_2004_12_07.pdf

Epson came in first place for color photos at 104 years with HP color
at 82 years (Black and white 115), Kodak Easyshare at 26 years and
Canon at 7 years.

Here is an excerpt from one of the Epson reviews:

"The PictureMate took 2 minutes and 22 seconds to print a photo from a
PC--noticeably longer than either of the other snapshot printers we
have tested. But the output was worth waiting for: Colors in the photo
looked bright and luminous, detail popped out in sharp focus, and
highlights and shadows looked natural."


Here are a couple of online test reports:
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=330

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/chart_test_report/0,chid,5911,prodid,21432,00.asp

 

[Richard]

I just got an Epson Stylus R300. It does excellent Photo prints @ 6*4. Havnt
tried Full size but can't see why not.

At £85 you can't complain.

Oh it also reads and prints digicam mem cards too, without the need for a
PC.

HTH

 

[Hecate]

Do you believe everything that you read? Some of these reviews I don't
think they ever read the manual.

NO, but I do believe it when there are several reviews all saying the
same thing from different sources, and giving examples of better
choices.

 

[Bob Headrick]

According to a recent test report the Epson Picture Mate cost per
print was, by far, the least expensive of the test group class at 29
cents per picture. This price even makes printing at home reasonably
competitive with commercial printing.

HP has similar offerings. The Photosmart 375 has several cartridge and paper
bundles, some offer less than 29 cents per print for ink and paper combined.
Search for "photo value pack" at http://www.hp.com.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Richard]

HP has similar offerings. The Photosmart 375 has several cartridge and paper
bundles, some offer less than 29 cents per print for ink and paper combined.
Search for "photo value pack" at http://www.hp.com.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Or Bob we can look at a favorable review of both printers on Cnet to
help us choose. The test pointed to the HP having a nagging little
problem for photo fans, print quality. The printers you refer to only
use 4 colors so grain or dots are noticeable whereas the Epson uses 6
colors and produces a much more realistic photo.

Cnet said:

"(HP)Print quality
Our test photos generally looked good, although we had a few
complaints. Some colors, particularly pastel shades and yellows,
looked washed out, while others, especially reds, seemed overly
saturated. There was also a slight reddish tinge in the white, gray,
and black areas, most likely because the tricolor ink cartridge uses
cyan, magenta, and black inks to simulate grays. Sharp-eyed viewers
could see individual ink dots with the naked eye. The printer was
prone to nozzle clogs when left idle for a few days, resulting in
pronounced horizontal banding, but that cleared up after a few prints
and printhead cleanings."

To sum up:
Editors' rating: 7.3 Good
User rating: 67% Thumbs up 33% Thumbs down from 12 users

The good: Connects directly to cameras, digital media, and
(optionally) Bluetooth devices; compact; easy to operate; Mac and
Windows compatible.

The bad: Color cast in light colors; photos look grainy.
What's it for: Printing 4x6-inch photos on the spot.
Who's it for: The snapshot-happy crowd.
Essential extras: USB cable; 4x6-inch paper.
The bottom line: This portable photo printer is economical and easy to
use, but we have a few complaints about its output.

Whereas of the Epson they said:

"The Epson PictureMate uses a single six-color ink cartridge to
produce borderless or bordered water-, fingerprint-, and
smudge-resistant prints that Epson claims will resist fading for 100
to 200 years. Our test prints were rich and brilliant, with solid
blacks, saturated colors, and smooth, seamless gradients. We needed a
10X magnifier to detect extremely faint horizontal banding caused by
the movement of the printhead. Images were adequately sharp and free
of jaggies. Black-and-white prints had a suitably wide dynamic range,
with dense blacks and pure whites without color casts."

Editors' rating: 7.3 Good
User rating: 90% 10% from 60 users

The good: Economical; excellent print quality; connects directly to
cameras, media cards, and external storage devices; compact; easy to
operate; Mac and Windows compatible.

The bad: No color LCD for previewing or cropping images; AC-only
operation; slow.
The bottom line: This portable photo printer produces quality output,
but we wish it ran on batteries. It could stand to be a lot faster,
too.

Not perfect but if quality is important then the choice is Epson.

Regards,
Richard, not speaking for my employer either but I _DO_ make printer
purchase recommendations based on multiple test results. ;^)

 

[Bob Headrick]

Or Bob we can look at a favorable review of both printers on Cnet to
help us choose.

It is easy enough to find competing reviews. Here are a couple where
the Photosmart 375 beat the Epson Picturemate:

In the November issue of Laptop magazine the Photosmart 375 won an Editors
Choice award, garnering the only 5 out of 5 stars rating and besting offerings
from Kodak, Epson, Canon, and Olympus. The reviewer, Louis Ramirez, calls the
PS 375, "a must-have for any digicam owner" and says the unit delivers the
"sharpest and brightest images" compared to the other printers.

Another great review of the PS 375 appears in the November issue of Mobile PC
Magazine, as the PS375 takes home the "Mobile Choice" award for portable photo
printers beating the Canon CP-330, Olympus P-10 and the Epson PictureMate.
Reviewer Mark McClusky awarded the unit 4 1/2 out of 5 stars. Mark liked
the outstanding image quality, color LCD screen, and manual editing functions
that are available within the unit. Key Quotes: "But most of all, we were
shocked that, in our testing, two ink-jet based printers left two
much-ballyhooed dye-sublimation printers in the dust." "Simply put, this
little machine churns out magnificent images, with plenty of rich shadow detail
and without any hint of jaggedness." "HP has also introduced a new line of
inks, and we're believers if this printer is any indication of their quality;
the color is beautifully saturated without seeming fake." "...the HP is an
exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich but
still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the HP."

The test pointed to the HP having a nagging little
problem for photo fans, print quality. The printers you refer to only
use 4 colors so grain or dots are noticeable whereas the Epson uses 6
colors and produces a much more realistic photo.

Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in the
past: email me a jpg to (e-mail address removed) and your postal address and I will
make a print and mail it to you. Perhaps you could do the same with the
Picturemate and they can compare the photo's side by side and see which they
prefer. The reality is that both printers are pretty good, and each has its
strengths and weaknesses. I happen to like the LCD display and the built-in
battery for portable operation the Photosmart 375 offers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Stevie Boy]

"...the HP is an

exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich
but
still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the
HP."

From the little snippet above it would seem that the reviewer has given
golden stars to both printers just put the words in different ways.

Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in
the
past: email me a jpg to (e-mail address removed) and your postal address and I
will
make a print and mail it to you.

IS there a site where jpg photo images from a range of printers can be
viewed?
I'd love some samples but being on the other side of the Atlantic it aint
gonna happen.

Steve

 

[Bob Headrick]

From the little snippet above it would seem that the reviewer has given
golden stars to both printers just put the words in different ways.

Yes, but with an edge given to the HP.

IS there a site where jpg photo images from a range of printers can be
viewed?
I'd love some samples but being on the other side of the Atlantic it aint
gonna happen.

It is really not practical to scan and post on a web site photos from various
printers. Your screen is typically 72-100ppi and cannot do a reasonable job of
showing differences between printers. I have seen some sites that show highly
magnified portions to compare printers, but this does not give any real ideas
of what the prints look like.

These days it is actually possible to send mail across the Atlantic . Send
me an email with your address and a good quality jpg and I will send you a
print from the PS 375. Perhaps you can get an Epson fan to do the same for the
Picturemate.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Richard]

It is easy enough to find competing reviews. Here are a couple where
the Photosmart 375 beat the Epson Picturemate:

In the November issue of Laptop magazine the Photosmart 375 won an Editors
Choice award, garnering the only 5 out of 5 stars rating and besting offerings
from Kodak, Epson, Canon, and Olympus. The reviewer, Louis Ramirez, calls the
PS 375, "a must-have for any digicam owner" and says the unit delivers the
"sharpest and brightest images" compared to the other printers.

Another great review of the PS 375 appears in the November issue of Mobile PC
Magazine, as the PS375 takes home the "Mobile Choice" award for portable photo
printers beating the Canon CP-330, Olympus P-10 and the Epson PictureMate.
Reviewer Mark McClusky awarded the unit 4 1/2 out of 5 stars. Mark liked
the outstanding image quality, color LCD screen, and manual editing functions
that are available within the unit. Key Quotes: "But most of all, we were
shocked that, in our testing, two ink-jet based printers left two
much-ballyhooed dye-sublimation printers in the dust." "Simply put, this
little machine churns out magnificent images, with plenty of rich shadow detail
and without any hint of jaggedness." "HP has also introduced a new line of
inks, and we're believers if this printer is any indication of their quality;
the color is beautifully saturated without seeming fake." "...the HP is an
exceptional printer, combining terrific ease of use with drop-dead photo
quality." Referring to the Picturemate: "It's colors are bright and rich but
still accurate to the source. It's just not quite at the same level as the HP."


Well, I will make an offer to the original poster I have made to others in the
past: email me a jpg to (e-mail address removed) and your postal address and I will
make a print and mail it to you. Perhaps you could do the same with the
Picturemate and they can compare the photo's side by side and see which they
prefer. The reality is that both printers are pretty good, and each has its
strengths and weaknesses. I happen to like the LCD display and the built-in
battery for portable operation the Photosmart 375 offers.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Actually Bob, I purposely quoted the Cnet test for a couple of
reasons:
1. I deemed the test fair because it actually gave BOTH printers the
same overall score of 7.3 out of 10 while pointing out their
individual strengths and weaknesses.
2. The test is available for anyone to read via the Internet so
quotes from the test may be checked to see if anything was taken out
of context.
3. I did not wish to appear to be a shill for any one company.

You on the other hand chose articles that cater to mobile printing
(Laptop magazine and Mobile PC) where the strength of the little HP
lies because it can operate from battery.

In any case, I have seen the prints from the HP too and I CAN see the
dots on this and other four color printers as can many here on usenet.
It is a fact that, whether or not someone has keen enough vision to
see these dots, the six and more color printers provide a more
realistic picture than those having fewer colors. This has been asked
and answered many times here on Usenet with sites listed where you can
go see for yourself. HP certainly are aware of this, otherwise they
would not bother with making printers with more ink colors. While
would agree that some 4 color printers have improved amazingly, they
still fall short for those with a more critical eye.

To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
from a range of printers can be viewed?

Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.

Go here to see printer types:
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

Then here for comparison:

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/E5000_comp8.html



There are, or at least, were others but I would have to search for
them. I believe David Chien had a site at one time with samples of
various printers.

Richard

 

[Bob Headrick]

To answer Steve's question "IS there a site where jpg photo images
from a range of printers can be viewed?

Yes, below is an older link that should give you an idea but again, to
be fair, these sites are for older printers and technology that uses
smaller ink droplets are improving on what four color can achieve.

Go here to see printer types:
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

Yes, there are sites that you can compare, but in today's world of small drops
and/or light dye loads a 17x magnification does not really give any indication
of what the user will perceive when actually looking at a print, hence my offer
to send Steve an actual print. Perhaps you could do the same and he could
compare?

- Bob Headrick