digi photo printing

[rans6andrew]

what do the "David Bailey's" amongst you use to print out your digital photography masterpieces?

What printers, paper grades and finishes give results as good as the processing companies used to do in the days of films and slides? We probably only want to do A4 sized prints unless the equipment is fairly affordable.

We have a Samsung CLP300, which was sold to us as being capable of printing on heavy gauge paper/photographic quality paper/light grade card. It can't. It fails to feed through anything stiffer than ordinary photocopy paper.

We also have acquired a second hand Lexmark C522 printer, with all of the cartridges running on empty. Is it capable of taking nice quality paper and giving prints we could enter into competition?

Our cameras can take pictures up to 15 Megapixels, how big might we print without the picture sharpness suffering? Is A3 possible?

Thanks for your interest,

Rans6........

[dazdaz1]

"Our cameras can take pictures up to 15 Megapixels, how big might we print without the picture sharpness suffering? Is A3 possible?"

No, 20 would be better. 15 stay with A4

Having said that, should have been posted on the computer forum.

[alisoncc]

The quality of the glass on the front has far more relevance than the megapixels.

[beaufort1]

I've found it cheaper to use one of the online companies, you can do it all online, decide on gloss or matt and any size. They will advise automatically on the quality of your photographs. I've ordered everything from 6"x4" up to poster and canvas. Generally very pleased with the results.:ok:

[dazdaz1]

True, I miss the 35mm film, having said that, the digital format has much to be desired in instant sending on the net.

I'm off to dinner now.

[G0ULI]

In my personal experience, Epson printers with six colour cartridges are the ones to beat in terms of resolution, colour rendition and quality of printing. Naturally they work best with genuine Epson cartridges and paper and it is not cheap running off prints at the highest quality. The printed images are reckoned to be good to last up to a 100 years though.

For day to day colour prints I use HP printers. The specifications are rubbish compared to Epson, but they do the job relatively cheaply, with okay quality.

A3 sized prints should be fine with 15 megapixels. It is possible to use computer software to increase the number of pixels and colour them with interpolation so that the image appears softer but without any obvious pixelation for even larger images.

[ChrisVJ]

Once you get up past 12M, even these days, it is far more about the picture. One with good light can easily be blown up past A3. Also it is about how it is viewed. The point of an A3 or A2 is that it is meant to be viewed from a distance where it 'fits.'

Sure, go up close and you can see the blur or pixilation, but it is not meant to be seen from twelve inches away.

I knew photographers who took pictures of cruise ships for billboards with 35mm and others who would shoot a glass of beer hand shot on 10 x 8" plate camera.

Unless you are going to print pretty well every day I'd avoid ink jet (though their quality can be amazing,) possible problems with drying ink and blocked nozzles. If you are going to print a LOT then get one with big reservoirs.

For irregular use I'd send it out unless you absolutely need to have total control over the printing.

[P.Pilcher]

Well, I'm a great fan of the Canon PIXMA range of printers. The quality is superb, the only snag is of course the fact that like every other printer manufacturer, Canon sell their printers at or below cost and make their money by charging a fortune for their ink cartridges. The solution to this is to acquire refillable cartridges and bottles of B.S. standard ink jet ink. I have been doing this for years now and have been getting excellent results. On very rare occasions I need to do a nozzle clean operation but I have never yet any other problems.

P.P.

[chrissw]

I agree with P. Pilcher. My brother has been using a Canon Pixma for some years, albeit a fairly expensive one; regrettably I can't remember the model number right now. His printed pictures are always really good quality when printed on suitable photo paper. He also uses a rather good Canon digital camera. Having said that I also have a rather old Canon digital (EOS300D) which gives good results as well, despite its having less than 10 megapixels.

So there are several variables here. Your results probably depend on finding a combination of camera, printer, paper and ink which work well together.

I also once sent a few digital picture _files_ to a commercial digital printer over the Internet (you should check whether such services are still available nowadays, since this was perhaps as much as 10 years ago) and they were superb quality.

[rans6andrew]

I don't think I am ready to face another inkjet printer, having had a few in the past.

We don't need to print stuff every week and have found that inkjets seem to be a bit temperamental, especially if not used for a while. Perhaps that is why the original cartridges are small, people use their "new toys" a lot when they first get them and get through the first cartridges quickly, before there is time for the ink to start to get sticky around the nozzles. Then the cost of new cartridges kicks in, alternatives are sought and it is downhill from there. The good old laser doesn't seem bothered if it isn't used for a couple of months, it just warms up and works. Shame the picture quality is down on the inkjets.

Perhaps I'll try sending out for printing when I have tweaked the "raw" files from the camera.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Rans6......

[henry_crun]

Digital pics look best on-screen. I edit mine and upload to my website. Much quicker than printing and costs one heck of a lot less. :)