Which 4x6 color printer?
Hoyt Weathers
Epson PictureMate
HP PhotoSmart 145
I am not so much concerned about the delivered price as I am the long-term
reliability of the printer and the difference in quality of the prints if any. I am a
newbie amateur in digital and not a pro. My Nikon Coolpix 4100 has a 1 Gig SD card
installed. My Mac G4 computer is running Mac OS 9.2.2, for however that may be
pertinent. I have easy and free access to an 8x10 color printer, so that is not a
factor.
Of the two printers above, which one do you own, or plan to buy, and why?
Are other 4x6 printers worthy of consideration?
Thank you one and all.
Hoyt W.
Arthur Small
Robert
Go for the model 630 or 640 (newer ) but both produce a picture that beets
any ink jet , and I tried to tear one of the pictures for a test and I could
not do it. Water proof also.
"Arthur Small" <asm...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45bhd.59472$l07....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
The problem with dye-sub printers is their running cost.
Either of the printers you mention are good but there is another
alternative which will make 'faster' prints. Both Epson and HP make A4
photo printers with card slots. I have both a Picturemate and a r310
Epson printer. The r310 is by far the fastest of them.
The dye-sub is the best quality at the highest running cost. The picture
mate is fixed running cost at fairly cheap price and the hp? I love my
24" HP printer but I have no knowledge of the smaller ones.
Michael Meissner
> At this time I am considering the following two printers:
>
> Epson PictureMate
> HP PhotoSmart 145
>
> I am not so much concerned about the delivered price as I am the long-term
> reliability of the printer and the difference in quality of the prints if any. I am a
> newbie amateur in digital and not a pro. My Nikon Coolpix 4100 has a 1 Gig SD card
> installed. My Mac G4 computer is running Mac OS 9.2.2, for however that may be
> pertinent. I have easy and free access to an 8x10 color printer, so that is not a
> factor.
Note, if you have an inkjet 8x10 printer (or more likely 8.5x11 in the US, A4
in Europe), most such printers can print 4x6's as well as 8x10's. However, the
8x10 dye-subs (Olympus 440, Kodak 8500, etc.) will only print on a single size
of paper. However, it is more convenient to have a dedicated 4x6 printer with
the paper loaded and ready to go.
> Of the two printers above, which one do you own, or plan to buy, and why?
I own the 145's big brother (375B), which I specifically got because it has a
battery so it can do 75 or so prints when not plugged in. It has a screen so
you can select the print from the card if you are printing without a computer
(my camera was made before PictBridge became common, so if I was wanting to
print without a computer, I would need to use the card reader). The 145 only
has a text screen, and presumably would be harder to use in the case. However,
generally you want to print from the computer and if not, newer cameras support
PictBridge. The only other printer with a battery was the Canon 330, but it
doesn't have a card reader.
> Are other 4x6 printers worthy of consideration?
There are 3 different print technologies: dye-based ink jet, pigment-based ink
jet, and dye-sub. The HP is a dye-based ink jet, the Epson is a pigment-based
ink jet, and the HiTi/Canon/Olympus 4x6 printers are dye-subs.
As a general rule, pigment-based ink jets will last the longest (the claim is
100 years if kept in an album), and tend to be splash proof (only some Epson
printers are pigment based). The downsides are typically the colors aren't as
vibrant, and there are a few papers (swellable) that aren't compatible with the
pigment process. Users of Epson printers haved tended to complain that the
printers are subject to clogs in the past, particularly if they don't use the
printer all that often. I don't know if the Picturemate has fixed these
problems or not.
For dye-based ink jet printers, the HP ink is next in print longevity (80 years
if kept in an album), providing you use the HP premium papers (or presumably
Ilford Classic or Kodak Ultima papers which have similar characteristics). The
usual downsides of the HP printers tend to be the papers that last the longest
(called swellable papers) can be ruined by a drop of water (unless you use a
spray preserative), and the ink costs is usually the highest of the major
printer vendors. The more common papers are called nanoporous, and they are
instant dry, and relatively water resistant, but the lifetime of the print is
expected to be only a decade or so. A lot of people swear by HP reliability
(my wife for example in her work only uses HP printers). One feature I like in
HP printers is they have a little sensor that determines the paper type, so you
don't have to specify the type of paper when printing. You can use most
papers. My current favorite is the swellable papers: Ilford Classic Pearl (you
have to buy 8.5x11 sheets and cut them down), with the Kodak Ultima Satin being
the second favorite. If I want a picture that will be passed around, I
currently use Pictorio, which is high gloss.
The dye-subs require you to use special paper in addition to the inks. Unlike
the inkjets, the costs per print are fixed, since it uses a printer ribbon per
picture, instead of ink which can vary depending on the color of the shot. The
lifetime of dye-subs is only about a decade or so, but they are quick to
output, and have a gloss layer that makes it waterproof. People doing event
photography tend to like dye-subs, because some of the models are made for
doing print after print all day long, and the costs per print are fixed.
However, you might have to order paper/inks from photo stores (I suspect the
Canon dye-sub ink/paper is available at Staples).
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrm...@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Hoyt Weathers
TKX Michael.
You gave me a lot of information and comparisons to think about which I consider well
informed and I appreciate that very much.
Hoyt W.
bob
news:418537FA...@hiwaay.net:
> Of the two printers above, which one do you own, or plan to buy,
> and why?
>
> Are other 4x6 printers worthy of consideration?
>
>
My 4x6 printer is Wal-Mart. The quality is superior to any inkjet I
have
compared it to, and the price and speed are hard to beat. I would
only
consider buying a color printer if I had a frequent need for larger
than
8x10.
Bob
--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Michael Meissner
> TKX Michael.
>
> You gave me a lot of information and comparisons to think about which I consider well
> informed and I appreciate that very much.
You are welcome.
Michael Meissner
On the other hand, they recently changed papers from Fuji Crystal archive to
Kodak and all of the colors are now messed up, so both of my HP's both print
much better colors now. Yeah, I could go through all of the hassle of
profiling to get the colors right, assuming they won't change the process once
again.
In terms of speed, it takes ~ 5-10 minutes for me to print on my home printers,
and it takes me 20-30 minutes to drive to Walmart, plus an hour of waiting
around for the prints to come out, and 20-30 minutes to drive home, and at
today's gas prices it costs ~ $8 of gas to get my van there and back. If I am
giving/selling prints, I will use mpix.com (or ezprints.com or shutterfly.com)
to print them.
Now that I'm printing elsewhere, I finally have no reason ever to set foot in
Walmart again. The place depresses me.
bob
news:m3r7ncv...@glinda.the-meissners.org:
>> My 4x6 printer is Wal-Mart. The quality is superior to any inkjet I
>> have compared it to, and the price and speed are hard to beat. I
>> would only consider buying a color printer if I had a frequent need
>> for larger than 8x10.
>
> On the other hand, they recently changed papers from Fuji Crystal
> archive to Kodak and all of the colors are now messed up, so both of
> my HP's both print much better colors now. Yeah, I could go through
> all of the hassle of profiling to get the colors right, assuming they
> won't change the process once again.
I think that paper change must be just your local store. I would think
that Fuji would have made a deal with Wal-Mart when they placed the
machines that would make it difficult to change papers. Kind of like when
Coca-cola places it's product in a store. My local Wal-Marts still have
Fuji paper in their Fuji equipment, and I think WalMart.com says they are
still using it. I have an easy profiling process for my own uses. I get a
couple prints made and change the color balance on my monitor to match.
Takes all of 5 minutes.
> In terms of speed, it takes ~ 5-10 minutes for me to print on my home
> printers, and it takes me 20-30 minutes to drive to Walmart, plus an
According to your numbers, the breakeven point is 6 to 8 pictures. If you
only print one picture a month, the time equation favors the printer. If
you print 100 a day it clearly favors a local store. I'm sure most of us
are somewhere in between.
> hour of waiting around for the prints to come out, and 20-30 minutes
> to drive home, and at today's gas prices it costs ~ $8 of gas to get
> my van there and back. If I am giving/selling prints, I will use
> mpix.com (or ezprints.com or shutterfly.com) to print them.
Ummm. Unless you're paying $4 a gallon for gas, you're going to have a
hard time getting to $8 in 40 minutes.
You can upload the pictures, in which case you don't need to wait to pick
them up. I usually drop mine off in the morning and pick them up after
work. Since Wal-Mart is only a 2 minute detour from my commute, it
doesn't really add up to anything.
> Now that I'm printing elsewhere, I finally have no reason ever to set
> foot in Walmart again. The place depresses me.
So are you printing at home or at a different store? There are other
stores than also have photo printers, with similar price points. From
both a quality and economy standpoint, it's hard to beat outsourcing