Inkjet vs Dye-Sublimation

[Goldie]

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

[Joe]

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.

[Canis Vulpes]

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.

[robski]

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.

[Goldie]

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

[Canis Vulpes]

Originally Posted by Goldie

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

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.

[robski]

Originally Posted by Goldie

desktop A4 Dye-Sub printer from Olympus, the P-440 at approaching £400.Michael

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.

[acbus]

choose method for the currect type of printer

[stevlena]

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

[gordon g]

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.