Inkjet vs Dye-Sublimation
 

I am not very impressed with my current photo printer, which is an Epson Stylus Photo R285. I am considering either a suitable, highly recomended inkjet printer or a dye-sub printer. I have seen such conflicting views on inkjet vs dye-sub that I want to canvas the opinion of those who should know best, your good selves.

Which do you consider to be the best technology and why. And if you have a preference for a particular technology, which mke or model would you go for, and why.

Help me please.

Michael

Hi there.
In my view the best method is to send them through a kiosk and have them chemical 'wet' printed, at your favourite lab.
However, for home printing of photos you want to last, I think Dye-sub method prints seem to be less prone to fade over time.
Lots of new ink-jet technology now exists to replicate some of the archive qualities. Most major paper manufacturers have archive paper listed. I'm yet to be convinced though.

Joe is absolutely right.

When considering cost per print sending photos to a lab wins hands down. With whatever technology could you produce print for 10p each at the quality of 'real' photographs?
Notwithstanding the hassle of producing your own photos.

I am selling more and more prints online and I find people do not want homemade prints whatever the technology and how good. When parting with £15-20 per print I believe my customers take comfort in me explaining I use a print lab and can guarantee quality.

Purely out of interest are there any large format Dye-Sublimation printers ?
The only ones I have come across are postcard size format.

Sending off to a photo lab also gets my vote. Ink Jets can be such a hassle when the printheads clog due to infrequent use.

Dye-Sub Printer sizes
 

You can certainly get a desktop A4 Dye-Sub printer from Olympus, the P-440 at approaching £400. Commercially you can get Dye-Sub printers in wide format styles probably up to A0!

I am going to give the photo lab a try but the turn-around could be a concern.

Michael

Professional photo labs that charge the earth can be slower than a more consumer lab. I use Photobox who are very quick. I remember having to do a 10 x 8 print for someone before we had a weekend away. It was uploaded on a Friday and was the print was through the letterbox before we came back on Monday lunch!

Whatever you do DO NOT use the supermarkets. I have had issues with blown highlights and others colour balance.

As I only spent about £30 on photo lab prints last year it will be a long time before this printer starts paying for itself.

I second what Foxy says avoid the Supermarket and places like photobox normally turn around in a few days.
A lot of on-line places will do a single 8 x 10 for less than a £1. Also many post free offers at the moment.

Have you tried the local Jessops in Tonbridge ?

Normally Jessops are OK but I have noticed their low volume prices are a bit rich.

choose method for the currect type of printer

Which is the best inkjet printer available - HP, Canon, Epson or Lexmark? How do they compare price wise? Also how soon do they start giving errors or stop working properly

I guess it depends on what your output is. I produce 18"X12" prints on archival and art papers, which would cost an awful lot more to get done commercially than on my epson 2100. Plus, I have full control of how the print looks, use my own print profiles etc to get consistent and predictable results that I like etc.
For 6"X4", I agree - a lab would be cheaper for me.
For photoprinting, I have always used epson printers. My 2100 is now 5yrs or so old, still giving good service. The only problem I have had is occasional clogging, but so long as I use it every two or three weeks it's fine.