4x6 printer...

"CNT" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the reply... Maybe it is a sales gadget. My wife insists, so
maybe I better explain to her that cons looks heavier than pros.
If I was in the same boat, I'd ask her for something like a
lens/flashgun/mem card etc instead. 6x4 printers have one benefit, and one
benefit alone, and that is convenience. I'm not sure how Walmart do their
prints, but here in Australia, most Fuji, Konica and Kodak labs are printing
digital prints through their lab machines. ie, the prints are produced on
photographic paper, processed through wet chemicals etc, just like your film
prints have been for years. This system will give far better print quality,
and longer print permanence than any of the home based technologies, plus it
is cheaper. The going rate here in Australia for prints is under 50c. Of the
6x4 printers, the epson picturemate is the cheapest at around 50c, the
Canon/Kodak/Olympus dye subs come in next at about $1, then the HP at about
$1.60. Of course these figures are in AUS $, in the US I would expect that
the ratio of costs would be pretty similar. Additionally, lets say you have
100 prints to do, most labs can run them off within an hour easy. You'd be
waiting a good 4 or 5 hours out of any of the home printers.

Chuck

IMHO... Purely a sales gadget..

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...

"CNT" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the reply... Maybe it is a sales gadget. My wife insists, so
maybe I better explain to her that cons looks heavier than pros.
If I was in the same boat, I'd ask her for something like a
lens/flashgun/mem card etc instead. 6x4 printers have one benefit, and one
benefit alone, and that is convenience. I'm not sure how Walmart do their
prints, but here in Australia, most Fuji, Konica and Kodak labs are
printing digital prints through their lab machines. ie, the prints are
produced on photographic paper, processed through wet chemicals etc, just
like your film prints have been for years. This system will give far
better print quality, and longer print permanence than any of the home
based technologies, plus it is cheaper. The going rate here in Australia
for prints is under 50c. Of the 6x4 printers, the epson picturemate is the
cheapest at around 50c, the Canon/Kodak/Olympus dye subs come in next at
about $1, then the HP at about $1.60. Of course these figures are in AUS
$, in the US I would expect that the ratio of costs would be pretty
similar. Additionally, lets say you have 100 prints to do, most labs can
run them off within an hour easy. You'd be waiting a good 4 or 5 hours out
of any of the home printers.

Chuck

IMHO... Purely a sales gadget..


Most big box stores use Fuji's Frontier or Noritsu printers. They use laser
to develop the photo paper. The color, however, is not as vibrant as
dye-based ink-jet on glossy paper. Using commercial printers is quite
affordable though, 19 cents for 4x6 and $2.99 for 12x18 at Costco. I am
mostly satisfied with the result. For instant gratification and really
vibrant prints, I use Epson R200 with Premium Glossy paper. It's a great
little machine. I have heard LightJet printer has the best quality and can
make very large printers but I have never tried it. It seems to be quite
expensive.

On 9 Nov 2004 11:05:47 -0800
(Dave) wrote:

If you are still going to get one... go for a dye-sub unit so
you don't have to deal with ink clogs, etc.

The Dye-subs I've seen about the place don't print true 6x4...
They print a 7x4, and you tear off a half inch each side on the
perforated line, leaving a fuzzy edge. Are there any that do
TRUE 6x4, like the Epson does? I'd like to try a dye-sub, but I
don't want the fuzzy edges.

We sell epsons in the computer store I work in, so I'm probably
biased, but they are a great little printer! I'm on side with
Dave though, it is a bit of a Gadget, so I Haven't bought one
yet. An Epson R310 is about the same price, and does up to A4
or Letter size prints, but running costs are generally higher.
I Don't think you'll beat the little photomate for running cost.

There's two good things that the 4x6 printers could be good for
- Scrapbooking, when prints are rarely above 6x4, and generally
trimmed down from 6x4, or when I go visit Mother-in-law (Or
other rellies), take photos, they pick what they want, I print
them on the spot before I leave. (I'm in Country Australia, we
don't have handy little WalMarts that we can nip into, pity,
because it sounds like a great service! )

-Chris D

"CNT" wrote in :


Question, does Walmart print their photo just like as if I had one of
those small photo printer? Same photo paper, same printing concept
prints?

Wal-Mart prints on chemical paper, just like if you took negatives to a 1
hour store 10 years ago. Same paper. They use color lasers to paint on
the paper. I'd suggest taking a print you like with you into the store
when you compare them. Many printers can't print a deep rich black like
you get on real photo paper.

Question, since those small printer (meaning 4x6 only) are in $150+
range, the bigger photo printer are also in the $150+ range, should I
go for the bigger one?

If I was going to get a printer, it would be one that could make large
prints. Make that LARGE.


Question, if I better off with the bigger one, in spite of the nice
small size, should I only use those printer only when printing photos
and keep using the DeskJet as regular main printer. In other words,
use photo printer with USB and leave the DeskJet in parallel port
(since USB is hot-swap)?

Unless it's cheaper to run I don't see any reason to keep two inkjet
printers.

If you wan't something useful for photography in the same price range, a
Wacom Graphire tablet is about $100, and if you do any retouching it's
worth twice that.

Bob


--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

"CNT" wrote in :


Question, does Walmart print their photo just like as if I had one of
those small photo printer? Same photo paper, same printing concept
prints?

Wal-Mart prints on chemical paper, just like if you took negatives to a 1
hour store 10 years ago. Same paper. They use color lasers to paint on
the paper. I'd suggest taking a print you like with you into the store
when you compare them. Many printers can't print a deep rich black like
you get on real photo paper.

Question, since those small printer (meaning 4x6 only) are in $150+
range, the bigger photo printer are also in the $150+ range, should I
go for the bigger one?

If I was going to get a printer, it would be one that could make large
prints. Make that LARGE.


Question, if I better off with the bigger one, in spite of the nice
small size, should I only use those printer only when printing photos
and keep using the DeskJet as regular main printer. In other words,
use photo printer with USB and leave the DeskJet in parallel port
(since USB is hot-swap)?

Unless it's cheaper to run I don't see any reason to keep two inkjet
printers.

If you wan't something useful for photography in the same price range, a
Wacom Graphire tablet is about $100, and if you do any retouching it's
worth twice that.

Bob


--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Chris D wrote in
:

(I'm in Country Australia, we
don't have handy little WalMarts that we can nip into, pity,
because it sounds like a great service! )



You forgot the "yet" after "into."

Bob :-)



--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:11:46 -0600
bob wrote:

You forgot the "yet" after "into."

Bob :-)

You're right... We'll get one about a week after I bite the
bullet and shell out for a printer.

We do have a local Kodak shop, but (a) They are generally crap,
and (b) expensive....

Still, for now, I pay $38 (Australian) for the pack of paper,
and ink cartridge, give work the ink, and print my shots through
our demo PictureMate

-Chris D

"James Akiyama" writes:

Well, I have direct experience with five of the 4x6 printers; they a

1. HP's
2. Epsons Picturemate
3. Sony's
4. Kodak
6. Canon's CP-330

The first two are ink-jet technology while the last three are dye-sub. All
do a fairly good job, although I've found the Canon printers seem to print a
little green. Part of the answer to your question will probably depend on
your requirements. The smallest printer (and only one that runs on
batteries) is the Canon CP-330 (they also make the CP-200/220 which is the
same size, but doesn't have the battery option). The lowest operating cost
is the Epson (about $0.29 per print list and $0.26 if you shop around for
the supplies).

The HP 375B (the B stands for battery) also runs on a battery. I believe you
can get the HP 375 and add a battery later.

The cons for the printers a

1. The HP will smudge if the print gets wet. This is true with most HP
ink-jet printers. Their operating cost are also somewhat high since the
cartridge life isn't very good.

For inkjets like the HP there are two different types of paper. Swellable
papers (such as HP premium plus and more recently HP premium) are long lasting,
but as you mention any water drops will ruin the print, and nanoporous or
instant dry papers that are more water resistant, but in theory won't last as
long (something like 10 years vs. 80 under ideal conditions). If you want long
lasting, go with the Epson (Canon is fairly short -- something like 6 years).

In terms of Walmart, the ones I've been too have two different printers. There
is the Kodak dye-sub printer that prints while you wait (and tends to be more
expensive), and the Fuji mini-lab in the back that offers 1 hour photo service.
The mini-labs will print using the same paper and chemicals that the film
processing uses. I've recently gotten turned off of Walmart, because the local
one near me started auto-correcting the colors, and they came out way too
saturated.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

(Dave) writes:

IMHO... Purely a sales gadget..

The 4x6 printers are generally not worth the high cost of consumables.
Print quality will be no better than WalMart. In fact, you can
typically get the same quality from your existing inkjet printer as
you can from your "super-doooper" 4x6 printer.

The only reason to get one of these is if you have a real need to get
instant prints (as you watch them slooowly come out)... otherwise the
coolness of a 4x6 printer will quickly wear off and you'll have an
expensive paperwieght on your desk.

I dunno, the instant nature is very appealing, even if it is more expensive
than Walmart. Friends of ours came over a few weeks ago with their new baby,
and our daughter was holding him. I took a few snapshots, and printed them up,
and I was able to hand them the prints before they left. Also, since I don't
normally shop at Walmart, and I figure with today's gas prices, it costs me $8
or so to drive up there, wait around for an hour, and drive back (not counting
my time). If I'm spooking around at 3am, I can make prints for my album...

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

(Dave) writes:

IMHO... Purely a sales gadget..

The 4x6 printers are generally not worth the high cost of consumables.
Print quality will be no better than WalMart. In fact, you can
typically get the same quality from your existing inkjet printer as
you can from your "super-doooper" 4x6 printer.

The only reason to get one of these is if you have a real need to get
instant prints (as you watch them slooowly come out)... otherwise the
coolness of a 4x6 printer will quickly wear off and you'll have an
expensive paperwieght on your desk.

I dunno, the instant nature is very appealing, even if it is more expensive
than Walmart. Friends of ours came over a few weeks ago with their new baby,
and our daughter was holding him. I took a few snapshots, and printed them up,
and I was able to hand them the prints before they left. Also, since I don't
normally shop at Walmart, and I figure with today's gas prices, it costs me $8
or so to drive up there, wait around for an hour, and drive back (not counting
my time). If I'm spooking around at 3am, I can make prints for my album...

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org