Picture Printers

pyowomaniac · 12-09-2005, 02:55 PM

Is it a good idea to buy printers that are developed to print photos? It seems like a regular laser printer could be set to print out pictures and it's not necessary to have that extra picture printer. I think Kodak has one.

JBN-Rob · 12-09-2005, 03:39 PM

There's a MAJOR difference between a laser printer and a photo printer

Photo printers print out extremely high quality and resolution graphics while laser printers are designed for text and general graphics - not photo quality prints.

Canon make an awesome range of photo printers, and photo printing enabled printers including multifunctions. The MP450 and MP500 multifunction printers are my personal favourites in the canon lineup, with 55second print for a 4x6" photo, direct to CD/DVD printing, 20-something pages per minute black printing, scanning, stand-alone copying and a very nice colour LCD screen on the front of the printer. We have one in store on display, and it always gets alot of attention! Very nice looking machines

H Brando · 12-09-2005, 04:33 PM

The days of printing photos on a regular printer should be long gone. You can get a dedicated photo printer for a reasonable price these days and you will be able to print out real printers without trying to force your regular printer to do things it is not intended to do. I also have a photo quality laserjet and another inkjet, but there is no comparison.

If you do any amount of picture printing, get one just for picture printing. Most of them allow you to dump right from your camera to the printer, and even have editing features. So I would definately recommend one of those.

n3rdych1ck · 12-09-2005, 10:47 PM

Photo specialized printers are better for getting that photo quality you expect from original pictures. The right kind of paper does wonders as well. The glossy finish kind is what my parents use for theirs.

kelp · 12-10-2005, 01:04 PM

You can also use online galleries that will send you some photos in the mail. I have tried snapfish, and they have pretty good image quality. I don't have a photo printer because I use snapfish. Snapfish is a pretty decent service. I got hooked onto it because someone sent me a coupon with 15 free prints on it. I tried it out and a couple of days later I got some pictures in the mail.

brenda003 · 12-10-2005, 05:03 PM

Yeah, online photo printing places can be cheap for good quality prints. I think Clarks color lab is 15 cents a print. I personally don't know what the purpose of paper pictures is anymore.

pyowomaniac · 12-10-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelp

You can also use online galleries that will send you some photos in the mail. I have tried snapfish, and they have pretty good image quality. I don't have a photo printer because I use snapfish. Snapfish is a pretty decent service. I got hooked onto it because someone sent me a coupon with 15 free prints on it. I tried it out and a couple of days later I got some pictures in the mail.

I've noticed that with yahoo.com, and I think photobucket.com has the same offer - to send prints. But, is that more expensive than just taking pictures and getting them developed at a local CVS?

H Brando · 12-11-2005, 11:28 AM

Photo printers are so cheap.. Sure the ink and paper is a bit pricey, but you have total control over the entire process. I think in the long run that is the best way to go.

Bender · 12-11-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H Brando

Photo printers are so cheap.. Sure the ink and paper is a bit pricey, but you have total control over the entire process. I think in the long run that is the best way to go.

I would rather take it somewhere to be printed.
Ink isnt cheap, you end up paying hundreds of dollars in the long run just to print a few photos.
Better off paying 15c/photo in a lab.

brenda003 · 12-11-2005, 08:07 PM

Just give it a few more months or so and photo printers will be so cheap there'd be no reason not to own one.

Will.Spencer · 12-12-2005, 12:50 AM

It seems to me that the right choice depends upon how many photos you print.

If you print only a few photos, then a photo printing service is probably less expensive.

If you print a lot of photos, then the photo printer will most likely pay for itself.

deuce · 12-12-2005, 09:05 AM

Are the new printers with screens actually useful? Honestly, a serious photographer isn't going to use a tiny screen to preview a photo and use the built-in filters to get rid of red-eye, they would use Photoshop. Is this a gimmick or is it actually useful?

pyowomaniac · 12-12-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender

Quote:

Originally Posted by H Brando

Photo printers are so cheap.. Sure the ink and paper is a bit pricey, but you have total control over the entire process. I think in the long run that is the best way to go.

I would rather take it somewhere to be printed.
Ink isnt cheap, you end up paying hundreds of dollars in the long run just to print a few photos.
Better off paying 15c/photo in a lab.

Exactly! The photo paper costs about $13.00 and that alone costs more than it would cost to take the pictures somewhere to be developed. Then, you would have to pay for the ink that you're using. It probably totals up to $50.00 for pictures that you can look at and tell that they were printed from a computer.

kelp · 12-12-2005, 07:53 PM

Yes, like above, the maintenance of a photo printer is very high. What I do is upload pictures to my computer, edit, crop, etc. the pictures in a photo editing program, and then upload them to shutterfly, ofoto, or anything of your favor. The prints are very cheap, like .05 for a print. The only disadvantage I can think of is it's not instant. For shutterfly, I had to wait 2 days to receive my photos, but I didn't mind.

pyowomaniac · 12-13-2005, 05:48 PM

That's not a bad wait at all. At the end of the day, does it really matter when we get our pictures? I can understand the excitement at first but if waiting a few days will save me money then i'm cool with it.

bear · 12-13-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyowomaniac

That's not a bad wait at all. At the end of the day, does it really matter when we get our pictures? I can understand the excitement at first but if waiting a few days will save me money then i'm cool with it.

Thats my attitude too, there is no rush.
I used to wait a week to get normal photos back in the day, so waiting a few days doesnt hurt

pyowomaniac · 12-14-2005, 07:15 PM

At one point, I couldn't wait. I had to have them developed within one hour of taking them. It is not that serious anymore

bear · 12-15-2005, 08:48 PM

hehehe sounds like an addiction :P

I would rather look at photos on my computer these days.
Im always dissappointed with the color when I get them printed - they look much better on the computer screen

pyowomaniac · 12-16-2005, 08:54 PM

Yes, it's an addiction or a habit. But, I don't have it anymore. I still have photos that have not been developed from 2-3 years ago.

jess · 12-18-2005, 12:53 AM

Speaking of photos - I have been wanting to scan old family photos for ages.
Photos from 20 years ago and more - so that way I can have them all on disc in case of fire etc.. good for backup.

Has anyone ever done this, and is there a quick way of doing it?

pyowomaniac · 12-18-2005, 06:05 PM

I've done that recently. The best thing to do is place several pictures on the bed of the scanner at one time. Then, copy and save the pictures 1 at a time from that point. It should save a little time. Also, you could make your older pictures look good by using Photoshop.

Fry · 12-18-2005, 06:52 PM

Yes, photoshop is great for older photos.
Generally you can use the Auto Contract/Color options to restore color on scanned photos.

There is no quick way to do it, as said above, just do several photos at once on the scanner. Still you have to chop them up though.
Its a long process, but worth the time and effort.

pyowomaniac · 12-19-2005, 03:52 PM

You'll still have to chop them using photoshop, but at least you don't have to keep walking across the room to put new pictures into the scanner. Photoshop may also be used to get rid of torn looking areas on your photos.

dave7 · 03-15-2006, 04:13 AM

You can get a scanner and scan all the photo you wish to store to your computer, and edit them with photoshop.

zemus · 03-23-2006, 07:53 PM

Yeah, photoshop is great for editing your pictures that you scan