Photo Paper

  • Dangles
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Dangles
  • Posts: 299
  • Loc: Brooklyn Transplanted into NJ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Got a question for all the digital photographers out there.

I just got my Canon PIXMA IP8500 http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/contro ... elid=10440 today, so I went out to get some photo paper to use to print the photos of my newborn son.

There seems to be a plethora of types out there. I read that paper made by the same manufacturer as the printer would yield the best results. I checked out the Canon website and saw that there was a few different choices.

After perusing the web a little I found a brand Ilford which is suppose to make a quality paper.

Well....

I went over to J&R which is by my office. They seem to have a decent selection of paper.

Questions:

1) How do I know which finish is the best to use?

2) Canon basically sells glossy paper in different qualities and sizes, but the Ilford seems to have a bunch of different finishes. Does anyone know the difference? I checked their website but it doesn't shed any light.

I ended up buying a ton of paper.

I bought:
1 pack of 15 pieces of Canon Photo Paper Pro in 8.5 x 11
1 pack of 50 pieces of Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy in 4 x 6

Then I bought the following Ilford, if anyone could shed some light on the differences, I would appreciate it. I ended up buying a bunch of different types to see which I like the best, but this is an expensive way of finding out.

I bought Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo Range (all 8.5 x 11):
1 pack of 50 sheets of Smooth Heavyweight Matte Paper (Double sided)
1 pack of 10 sheets of Smooth Fine Art Paper
1 pack of 25 sheets of Smooth Pearl Paper
1 pack of 25 sheets of Smooth High Gloss

Now granted I am new to digital photography, and I am on my first Dig Camera. Originally I was going to go with a Dig SLR but for now opted for a little cheaper until I get the hang of different settings. I purchased the Sony DSC-H1 http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSH ... talCameras

Sorry for the long winded post, just a little dizzy at the moment.

Thanks in Advance!
Dangles
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • Belk Media Group
  • Graphic Monk
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 778
  • Loc: In the heart of California, Fresno.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Wow, thats a lot of paper. But, since you bought all of that already, why don't you test them out and see which one you like the best. Then you can tell all of us which one is the best. Looking forward to your consumer report on Photo Paper. :)
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

OriginNO_II I agree with you on this one. lol I have yet to even print a single picture and looking to get a lab due to the type of photos that I have for some of which could not be developed at the store. :oops: lol

mtg
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

In theory I agree too, however different paper produces different results depending on the printer that's used. What may be beautiful on a particular model of Canon printer may be ugly on the equivalent HP or Epson model printer.

Also, the inks you use (in inkjets) can have a great degree of difference in quality. Using ink cartridges made by the same manufacturer as the printer is generally going to give you better quality than 3rd party cartridges or refill kits, and even amongst the 3rd party carts, some are better than others.

mtg: if you want good quality prints at home, look into a HiTi dye-sub printer. I've got a HiTi 630pl (which was released a couple of years ago), and it works great for printing 6x4's - and probably the cheapest of the bunch for 6x4 dye-sub. For 8x10, I use Olympus P-400 and P-440 dye-sub printers.
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks AXE

I will look into it right now I have a HP business 1200wt ink jet right now I have not used any good photo paper in it yet but the quality of the normal everyday printing on it is really good. and besides that I love it being wireless and it works great in the classroom. " hay you go get your print of yesterday's notes that you missed." and I never miss a beat in the classroom.

mtg
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Inkjets have come a LONG LONG way in the last 10 years or so. I've seen some of the wide format inkjets (for printing up to like 30"x40" prints), and the quality is just amazing.

Having wireless is definitely handy :)
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

what would the difference between an ink jet and a photo lab? any in quality?

mtg
  • ScienceOfSpock
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1893
  • Loc: Las Vegas

Post 3+ Months Ago

I currently have an HP Photosmart 7350, and I have tried 3 types of paper with it: The HP brand photo paper, Ofice Depot photo paper, and Kodak Inkjet photo paper. All three are virtually identical in terms of final image results, the only difference I can see is the logo on the back of the paper (for HP and Office Depot). I currently use, and will continue to use the Kodak paper, for one simple reason: It's Double sided.
This may not seem like a big deal to some, but it is if you have people in your household who are not printer savvy.
The image quality is as good as the other 2 papers, but it doesn't matter WHICH side you print on. Anyone who has tried to print a photo with the paper in upside down knows what a mess that is to clean up.
If you have kids, or a wife or husband that doesn't know any better, the double sided Kodak paper just means one less hassle to deal with, and if you DO know which side is which, you can print on both sides :)

As for cost, I don't remember specifics (Haven't purchased in about 2 months) but the HP and Kodak papers were the same price, and the Office Depot paper was about 25% cheaper.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

inkjet prints are made up of lots of tiny lil dots - they're on-or-off printing. With the good quality paper, and colour photo cartridges, the dots are so tiny, you can barely notice them unless you get real close.

dye-sublimation printers actually print gradients (shades) of colour and layer it on top. If you want something in shades of red on an inkjet, it's solid red dots combined with the white of the paper underneath to give the illusion of shades of red. A dye-sub actually prints different levels of pure colour.

To make purple on an inkjet, there's lots of solid red and solid blue dots to give the impression of purple at an appropriate viewing distance. On a dye-sub, it actually puts red on the paper, then puts blue right on top of it, so you actually get a true purple colour. No matter how close you get to it, no dots.

I've tried the Walgreens, CVS and Target digital print labs, and walgreens use dye-sub technology that looks just like my HiTi prints at home.

Walgreens use Fuji Frontier machines to make their digital prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper - you input your images, then come back in an hour or so. Target & CVS (at least here), have the while-you-wait Kodak machines, and you get your prints within a couple of minutes, but they're not as good quality, imho. The Kodak machines at Target & CVS seem to want to emulate film noise, so you end up with dots on the images to simulate various shades of colour & darkness.
  • t3chl33t
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 25

Post 3+ Months Ago

This is very useful information. I have a question however, or more so a request. Axe, you seem to know a lot about this topic and I was wondering if you, or maybe someone else, would be willing to make two prints from the same exact file but do one print on a dye-sublimation printer and the other on an inkjet photo printer and then take a good photo/scan of each and post them here so we can see the difference ourselves? That would be awesome, I'm very interested in viewing the results because this is news to me that such a printer exists, well at least on the consumer end. Maybe it is time for an upgrade :P
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

I actually don't have any inkjet printers here, heh. I use two dye-subs (the HiTi 630PL and Olympus P-400) for photos, and everything else gets run through the laser printer.

For a good comparison though, just head down to your local Walgreens with a photo on CD, and get them to print it out (for just a single image it's like $0.29). Then print it out max quality on your inkjet at home, and you'll be able to see the difference.

If I can get to an inkjet with photo cartridges in it this week though, I'll be sure to try to print something out so I can do a comparison.

Dye-sub printers actually end up working out a lot cheaper than inkjet too. There's an initial up-front expense (the printers themselves are usually at least 2-3x as much as the equivalent size inkjet), but the running costs are much cheaper ($1.83 for an 8x10 on the P-400 or P-440 vs. around $3.60 for an 8x10 on a HP inkjet with photo cartridges). If you're printing a lot of photos, it's a much cheaper option, and a lot better quality :)
  • Dangles
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Dangles
  • Posts: 299
  • Loc: Brooklyn Transplanted into NJ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well I see alot has gone on over the weekend.

We seem to have veered off paper for the most part and went into printer technology.

Although I am not an authority I will say this, in reference to inkjet printers the dots you are referring to are in the vacinity of 50 microns in size. The Canon uses a 2 picoliter drop size, Here is how small the droplet is - http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... 61,00.html You cannot see them even up close with out large magnification. Dye sub does make a great print but the technology today has it so that inkjets are passing it in quality. Dye subs use a four color system, so to achieve certain colors its a mixing act(as it is with inkjet) though the Canon printer I bought uses an 8 color system of dye based inks which means a wider gamut of color can be obtained. So far from my test prints trying out the various papers the quality has surpassed what you may expect from a inkjet. Even when printing at full 8.5 x 11 borderless the print is perfect. I was unable to see any dots using the magnifying glass I had in the house(no idea what lvl of mag).

As far as the paper goes, I am liking the Canon photo paper pro the best so far for the glossy pictures. The Ilford High Gloss is glossier but the paper stock on the ilford is thiner. One thing the Ilford Fine art paper is a cloth based paper which just has a great look and feel, though it was very expensive.

I will do a better review of the paper after I have exhausted most of it, to see what I really think.

Dangles
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

some time this week, when the grant check comes in i will be buying a photo printer. I just happen to have a digital microscope here at the house as well and when I get the photo lab I will be glad to take a picture of the photos for everyone to see the quality of the prints. besides I am very interested myself. wait aminute I might beable to do it tomorrow my friend has a photolab maybe I can get over there tonight I will see.

mtg
  • Belk Media Group
  • Graphic Monk
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 778
  • Loc: In the heart of California, Fresno.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yeh, without seeing to believe, I think you guys may have sold me on buying a photolab. About how much do they cost?

Axe, I believe you said there is one that can print wide formats 30" x 40", can they print on vinyl as well?
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

Okay guys I have the first photo from a Kodak easy share 6000 photo lab that was printed on kodak picture maker paper. I will take an extra piece of it home for the inkjet later tonight and will take microscopic photos of it later tonight and have them posted as soon as i can get back online from the house. I am changing over to a static ip and they have to program the modem still.

mtg
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

OriginNO_II wrote:
Axe, I believe you said there is one that can print wide formats 30" x 40", can they print on vinyl as well?

I've no idea, the ones I saw were printing glossies. Just check HP & Epson's websites :)
  • Belk Media Group
  • Graphic Monk
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 778
  • Loc: In the heart of California, Fresno.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Will do, thanx.
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

Okay guys I have the pics of the differences between the hp business inkjet 1200wn and Kodak easy share 6000 photo lab. Now for a true comparison we can not do due the hp when printed on the photo paper it did not like the finish that was on the paper and the ink pooled together. to just give you an idea of what we wanted to look at was the difference beteween the graient printing and pixel printing. To take these photos I used a digital microscope at 50 X power. If I used the other lens it would have been picking up the fibers of the paper and not the ink printing that we wanted. The first photo is of the hp business inkjet 1200wn that had to be printed on regular paper due to the pooling problem.

Image

the second image is of the Kodak easy share 6000 photo lab on kodak picture maker paper.

Image

mtg
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks mtg.

As you guys can see from this, there's a big difference between inkjet and dye-sub printing.

Inkjets CAN be pretty good (with the right ink & paper), but for me, it's dye-sub all the way. Inkjet just gets far too expensive per print.
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

hey AXE

I looking for a dye-sub lab that prints 8x10 and good ones you know of? the only one I have found is the koidak professional 1400.

mtg
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

a dye-sub printer? The Olympus P-400 or P-440. The P-440 does true 8x10 and works out to $1.83/sheet, the P-400 does slightly less than 8x10 (it's actually about 7.6x10), but is great if you're doing 5x7 (2 per sheet) and 6x9. The P-400 also works out to $1.83/sheet.
  • Dangles
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Dangles
  • Posts: 299
  • Loc: Brooklyn Transplanted into NJ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Mtg,

Thanks for the work done. But guys I am not sure that this is so conclusive. You guys are compaing a Business Inkjet with a photolab. The HP isnt even one of the printers from their photo line. This comparison is like comparing 0-60 time trials with a family car and a sports car.

Yeah a Nissan Altima can go 0-60 but its definately not going to do it like a Corvette can.

I guess its just a matter of perception. I do not believe that the dye-sub makes a better print. To even notice anything the prints had to be put under a 50x digital magnification. This is not percivable to the human eye.

I think the bottom line is , whether you buy a photo inkjet or a dye-sub as long as you use good paper and ink, you will get a print worthy of framing.

Dangles
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

The images were to demonstrate the difference between ANY inkjet and dye-sub. The Kodak "photo lab" is merely a brand name. It's a dye-sub printer that you use at home. Inkjet uses dots to fake colours & shades; that was the point of this exercise.

Dye-sub produces real colours to achieve the final print - exactly the same as traditional 35mm (or medium format, or other film) photography.

Inkjet does not.

If you don't believe dye-sub makes a better print, then that's fine, you don't have to. Everybody else knows it's true :D

And it's not that they "had to be put under a 50x digital magnification" it's that the (relatively) monstrously huge pixels on a computer screen cannot show the detail.

Yes, the difference IS visible to the human eye. If your eyes are failing somewhat, then maybe you don't notice the difference, but I certainly do, as do many of my clients.
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

yes I know this is like comparing apples and orages in this partiulare demo. what I was trying to show was just like AXE said that the inkjet no matter if it was a photolab inkjet or my business inkjet the true difference is in the process that they use to acheive the final product. now will I trade in my business inkjet due to this result I dont think so but I will buy a sub-lab tho due to the better quality that it produces as the final result. even with a picoliter drops as most photolabs inkjet produce it still produces a grain to the picture and true color is a blending effect.


I should know this is due that I teach science and you see color due to the color cones that are concentrated near the back of the retina. and it is the mixture of these cones that send a signal to the brain that then it tells us that we see blue red or green. this is how the phto sub labs produce a picture.

mtg

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 24 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.