Printer preferences

[debonair]

Hi,

I'm curious of which printers people use. I'm looking at getting an Epson 1280.
Opinions? Recommendations?

[dn7elson]

debonair wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious of which printers people use. I'm looking at getting an Epson 1280.
Opinions? Recommendations?

Assuming you mean for photo printing. I have a Canon S9000 for this purpose and am extremely happy with it. I particularly like the ability to print 13"x19" prints and borderless 8-1/2"x11" prints. Output is extremely fast and quality is excellent. If output speed is a consideration, check the ones you are considering as speeds vary considerably.

I use the printer also to print 11"x17" output from AutoCAD and CPM scheduling software and it works well for both.

I find that the Canon PhotoPro, Canon Photo Plus and Kodak papers work very well. Which I use is dependent upon the output needs.

[mapdealer]

Canon i9100. WONDERFUL prints up to 13x19. However, Canon ink cartridges will eat you up if you print many pictures. I have gone with a bulk ink system from inkjetgoodies.com and have had great results.

[robertwgross]

I believe that the inkjet printer brands of choice boil down to Epson versus Canon. There are a few other good brands, but you don't hear so much about them.

Normally, at this stage, a religious war breaks out between Epson fans versus Canon fans.

I happen to have the Epson 1270, and it still does fine by me.

One thing I will suggest, though, is not to make your decision based on the initial cost of the printer. If you are anything like a normal photographer, then you will use up lots of consumables (paper and ink cartriges), and over the lifetime of the printer, the consumables will cost you a lot more than the initial printer cost. If you were printing a hell of a lot, then a continuous ink system could do nicely. Many of us can't quite rationalize that, so we buy ink cartridges. Real early on, I found the cartridge retail cost to be very high in the computer stores, so I started buying them in quantity from the online stores. Before you jump into any brand or model, I recommend that you investigate ink cost.

Paper is the other decision. There are many brands and types of good paper. Not every printer does perfectly with every type of good paper. There is a slight tendency for an Epson printer to work easiest with Epson papers, and Canon with Canon. However, if you buy some unusual paper purely because of price, you might have to work at it to get it profiled into giving you consistently good results.

I print mostly on Epson Premium paper, either Glossy, Semiglossy, or Luster. For very rough numbers, I estimate my cost at $1 per square foot for paper and $1 per square foot for ink. YMMV.

---Bob Gross---

[brettwmd]

robertwgross wrote:
...Paper is the other decision. There are many brands and types of good paper. Not every printer does perfectly with every type of good paper. ---Bob Gross---

I wonder if anyone has used the Ilford Smooth Glosy paper with the I9100. I have found a great deal on it at a local warehouse club store and it works wonderfully in my old Epson Photo 780 printer, but I too am on the verge of purchasing a new photo printer.

- Brett W.

[scottbergerphoto]

I've been using the Epson 2200 for about a year now. I love the results. I finally got my system fully color managed two months ago with the help of people on this board and the software board. Epson is nice enough to provide ICC profiles for their premium papers on the install CD. My 8x10's look identical to my monitor less the luminence of the monitor. It's big, heavy, and expensive, but if you are a fuss a-- for color like I am, it's worth it.
Scott

[debonair]

thanks for all the replies. I was particularly interested in the Epson because of the continuous ink. Do both brands feature this?

[defordphoto]

Heheh...Printers, yeah. I have a few.

Epson 2200, Canon i850, HP970Cxi (2 each), HP1218, HP 995c, HP7550 and I have an HP8xx series in the garage. All but the HP8xx and one HP970Cxi are active on the network.

The Epson is my prime photo printer.

[Motorsports Photo]

Ahh the Epson vs HP vs Canon vs anyone else wars!

My 2 cents:

I have 2 Epson 2000P printers. Why? Because they are the only ones with any amount of archival life in the prints. The naysayers wil bring up that big vocabulary word of "metatmerism," but none of my customers know that word and they and their friends ohhh and ahh that they can't believe its digital.

BUT EPSON SUCKS.... in customer service! Only Dell beats them out in my long list of weenies.

My two HP printers have chugged along for YEARS with no problems, while the Epson printers need replacement every few months.....which is great until your year is up!

I've read on the boards of a few people noticing Canon prints not being lightfast, and when I DID find one for HP it was the same as the Epson 1280 (25 years) you asked about. I havent seen any lightfast ratings for any other companies.

Epson also seems to have VERY quirky drivers that require lots of time on the boards to figure out since the Epson support is so bad.

If anyone knows of a printer with some archival life that isnt labeled "Epson" please tell me!

-Pete

[maderito]

Motorsports Photo wrote:
Ahh the Epson vs HP vs Canon vs anyone else wars!


Yes ... lotsa opinions on archival quality of printer inks. I found this article in the November 2003 Shutterbug issues to be interesting. It is based on an interview with Henry Wilhelm who has devoted his life to photographic preservation:

http://www.shutterbug.net/features/1103sb_thearchival/index.html - "The Archival Quality Of Digital Print Media
A Conversation With Henry Wilhelm"

[Jon Borcik]

I have prints from my HP Photo printers that have not shown any degredation in color for over three years that are in a constant flourecent lighting. :)

I can't say that about the prints from a Canon printer. I have some that faded within 3 months. :(

[Motorsports Photo]

Hey Woody,

Thanks for that URL. It was interesting. Good to hear HP is making progress in image permanence. Maybe I can be freed from Epson Hell someday! (-:

-Pete

[mapdealer]

robertwgross wrote:
For very rough numbers, I estimate my cost at $1 per square foot for paper and $1 per square foot for ink. YMMV.

---Bob Gross---

In my i9100, using Canon Photo Matte paper at $9.00 for 50 sheets and bulk ink (more about that in a sec), I guesstimate my total cost per 8.5x11 print to be about 40-50 cents each, tops. This is a low end print, BUT, it still looks great! Using high end paper such as Epson Premium Luster, I get wonderful prints for maybe 80-90 cents per 8.5x11 sheet, total.

The bulk ink I use comes from inkjetgoodies.com (no, I have no affiliation with them, I just love their ink and customer service) and after literally over 300 8.5x11 prints and 400 4x6 prints I have had nothing but great results. Inkjetgoodies ink is $22.50 for a 500ml bottle, Canon BCI cartridges are, at best, $9.00 for a 13ml cartridge. As I have said before on this forum, do the math!

[Longwatcher]

I have done way too much research (versus my usage) on inkjet printers and the life expectancy of the print.

My research says, why yes Epson 2200 will produce longer lasting prints....If you use ARCHIVAL inks and ARCHIVAL paper. Otherwise the test results from the lab have not matched people's responses from the real world. I have read a fair number of articles chopping Canon, Epson and HP equally (actually until recently HP apparently was really bad). The exceptions are those that refer back to Wilhem's research which has its own results not necessarily matching the real world. He has only done a full up test on a couple of Epson and HP printers and apparently only limited tests on the Canon series so far.

The results of my research are that except for the Archival Epson inks and paper, there is no real world difference between papers and inks. Basically if you want them to last 25 years, spray coat them and then put them behind UV glass or in a picture book. If you want them to survive 100+ years, quick freeze store them in a vault in New York?

Given the cost of Archival inks and paper, it is probably cheaper to just send them out for printing when you need that longevity.

On a personal side: I use the Canon S9000 with BCI-6 Canon inks. I use Kodak, Epson, Ilford, and Canon paper on a regular basis, but which I use is dependent on what the print will be used for or where it is going. When I use Canon paper, I always spray coat it after it has had 24 hours to dry. If I don't spray the print it fade in my office in under 6 weeks, if I spray it, I have seen no fading in over a year so far.

After having done all the research I am keeping my S9000 (or maybe upgrading to the S91000) for the following reasons.
1. It prints really fast, which is handy if you want to print on-site.
2. I have spend a lot of effort figuring out what works best for me and don't want to go through that again until I have to.

If I had to do it again I would get the Canon for the same reasons. If I want the print to last more then 25 years then I will send it off to be printed.

Just ranting, because I almost spent $500 on an Epson to replace my Canon earlier this year due to the hype; only to find out after research that there were a lot of facts missing in the hype of print life.

Lab tests rarely equal the findings in reality.

Just my opinion and research,

Now back to taking pictures :)

[horqua]

This is a great discussion! My Epson Photo Stylus 1200 crapped out yesterday and I'm not going to spend another dime trying to nurse it along. Unfortunately, I still have 6 color and B&W ink cartridges in stock and they only fit the 1200 printer. I'm leaning toward the 1280 as a replacement but I plan to check the price of consummables after the recommendations I learned on this forum.

Four years ago, I had a Canon bubblejet that I pitched because it was so crappy. I swore off Canon printers, but may have to take another look.

I have an HP DJ 1220 and it's a great workhorse but the photo quality is weak.

This year, I added a Sony DPP-SV77 and it makes 4x6 Dye Sub prints that are pretty good, although they have a propensity for red. I'm using this printer to make 2-up wallet size prints for school yearbooks and B&W and color glossys for reproduction. The price per 4x6 print works out to a little over 50 cents each.

Has anyone tried the Olympus 8x10 dye sub? I'd like to hear about that one.

Thanks again for all your great input!

[scottbergerphoto]

Why do I like my Epson 2200 so much? Drop dead beautiful color rendition.
Scott

[sp00g3]

I have an HP Photo 7960. It has a light fastness supposedly of 75 years. However, I'm not sure how true that is. I do know this. Unbelievable Borderless Black and Whites come out of this mother! It has a tri-color black cartridge for performing grayscales. It has the most impressive black and white output I have ever seen.

My Two Cents

[debonair]

Yes, this is very much what I was looking for. However, I'm most curious which printers are able to do "countinous ink". (Ink cartridges are expensive, and I would prefer to have such a system to save money in the long term).

[cjtinkle]

Oooh... I have a dumb question. When someone above mentioned "spraying" the prints, what do you spray them with?

[scottbergerphoto]

debonair wrote:
Yes, this is very much what I was looking for. However, I'm most curious which printers are able to do "countinous ink". (Ink cartridges are expensive, and I would prefer to have such a system to save money in the long term).
Lyson makes bulk ink systems for Epson printers:
http://www.marrutt.com/con-ink-products.php I don't have any experience with it.
Scott

[mapdealer]

debonair wrote:
Yes, this is very much what I was looking for. However, I'm most curious which printers are able to do "countinous ink". (Ink cartridges are expensive, and I would prefer to have such a system to save money in the long term).

OK, as I understand, (and I may very well be wrong) you can get continuous ink (i.e. a tube of ink going directly from the ink bottle to the print head) with some Epson printers. With the Canon BCI-6 cartridges (and in my case using the wonderful Canon i9100), you use re-usable cartridges with a little rubber plug on the top. When the cartridge is empty you pull it out, pop out the rubber plug, use a large syringe to re-fill it with ink, put the plug back in, wipe it off, and put it back into the printer, (put the lid back onto ink jar too!).
The whole process takes just a little longer than unwrapping and unboxing a new BCI cartridge, including thouroughly washing and drying the syringe.

You are correct to worry about ink costs. They were killing me until I got equipped with bulk ink.

Check with the folks at inkjetgoodies.com to find out what printers they can equip with a bulk ink system.

[robertwgross]

mapdealer wrote:
You are correct to worry about ink costs. They were killing me until I got equipped with bulk ink.


Can you estimate how many ink cartridges you used to use, or how your previous cartridge costs compared to your costs with refills? Do you think that there was any impact on print color quality? How about life expectancy of the print?

I had a good HP inkjet one time that died a horrible death when one refilled color cartridge leaked. Ruined the whole works.

---Bob Gross---

[mapdealer]

Hi Bob

The only time I really kept track is when I made an album of 4x6's I shot of a homecoming dance at our high school. This was before I started using bulk ink and the ink costs were a concern. I wanted to have an idea of the 'cost' of the album so I kept track of total ink, paper and hours. I printed 150 4x6 sheets on Canon Glossy pro paper and used 2 yellow, 3 photo cyan and 3 photo magenta for 8 cartridges total. Printed on the Canon i9100. This might give you a rough idea of how many x cartridges it takes to make y number of prints.

In terms of cost, well, lets do the math. A 500ml bottle of ink costs $22.50. A cartride hold 13ml but let's say it is 15ml to account for spillage and waste when refilling (which will happen). That comes to 33 refills per bottle or around 70 cents per refill for ink. Add to that the cost of the refillable ink cartridges which are $3.85 empty. The inkjetgoodies.com people say you should use a new cartridge for every eight refills, but I have found that you can go quite a bit more than that so let's say 10 for an average refill cost around 40 cents. In terms of time cost, I have found that, now that I know what I am doing, the time cost of using a new Canon cartridge versus refilling one is negligable. Maybe a minute longer, maybe. At 30 bucks an hour that would be 50 cents more. And let's not forget about the waste, or lack thereof. I'm not a real tree hugger but when I made that album I filled a trash container half full of packaging and cartridges, which go directly into a land fill (and Canon's wallet). So there you are, around $1.50 per refill. Now that is a bleeping eye opener!

Print quality - Canon vs. refill. When I shot that homecoming dance I got some wonderful shots using a tripod mounted 10D w/ a Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX and 550 EX flash. I printed a few of the group photos at 13x19 (again, back when I was still using Canon BCI-6). BTW I still have people dropping their jaw when I show them these prints and tell them they are inkjet prints from a digital camera (I love my 10D). Anyway, later after I started refilling and got all six bulk ink colors cycled into the printer I decided to do a comparison and print a duplicate 13x19 (on Epson Premium Luster for both) and I put them side by side and I could not tell the difference, nor could a photographer friend of mine.

Finally, life expectancy. I dunno. The stack of prints next to my printer seem fine after months but that is like looking in a mirror every day to see if you are losing (or gaining) weight.

Hope this helps. Let me know what you think.

Tom

[ashforth]

Hi-

I've owned both Epson and HP printers and much prefer HP's. The Epsons require a warm up time, are annoyingly noisy and must be turned off when not in use (I believe Canon also requires shut down when not in use).

HP's can be left on all the time, are virtuously noiseless and will operate forever. Also, the printhead is built into the cartridge on most HP's, so evertime you change ink, you're also replacing the printhead. Until now, the only drawback against HP was print longivity; however, they recently introduced a new line of printers that claim to produce prints that will last 75 years.

Herb

[khenn]

Longwatcher wrote:
On a personal side: I use the Canon S9000 with BCI-6 Canon inks. I use Kodak, Epson, Ilford, and Canon paper on a regular basis, but which I use is dependent on what the print will be used for or where it is going. When I use Canon paper, I always spray coat it after it has had 24 hours to dry. If I don't spray the print it fade in my office in under 6 weeks, if I spray it, I have seen no fading in over a year so far.


I would also like to know what spray is used to protect the prints. Do you spray only the Canon paper, or do you spray all of the papers? Should Ilford Galarie Smooth Pearl be sprayed?

[Jesper]

I have an Epson Stylus Photo 950 (I think it's called 960 in the USA but I'm not sure). I like it very much and the prints I make with it match my monitor reasonably well (monitor is calibrated with a Spyder and I'm using an ICC profile for the Epson 950 + Premium Glossy Photo Paper).

If I'd buy a printer now, I would buy the Epson 2200, because it can print up to A3 size (16.5 x 11.7 inches). The 950 doesn't go larger than A4 (about 11.7 x 8.3 inches).

Here in Europe one A4 sheet of Premium Glossy Photo Paper costs about € 0.90 (US$ 1.08 with today's exchange rate) and an ink cartridge costs about € 15 (US$ 18) - the printer has 7 cartridges (2 x black, cyan, light cyan, magenta, light magenta and yellow).

[robertwgross]

mapdealer wrote:
... Hope this helps. Let me know what you think.

It is helpful, but I still have some gnawing concerns about print life.

---Bob Gross---

[Longwatcher]

khenn wrote:
Longwatcher wrote:
On a personal side: I use the Canon S9000 with BCI-6 Canon inks. I use Kodak, Epson, Ilford, and Canon paper on a regular basis, but which I use is dependent on what the print will be used for or where it is going. When I use Canon paper, I always spray coat it after it has had 24 hours to dry. If I don't spray the print it fade in my office in under 6 weeks, if I spray it, I have seen no fading in over a year so far.


I would also like to know what spray is used to protect the prints. Do you spray only the Canon paper, or do you spray all of the papers? Should Ilford Galarie Smooth Pearl be sprayed?

I use Lumijet print spray for inkjets. There are other brands that work similiarly. When I tested I sprayed 1/3 of each 8x10 with one coat and then half that (1/6th) with three coats. However, I routinely only spray Canon paper as that is the only one I have noticed will turn in less then 6-weeks. I occasionally spray other prints if I believe the print is likely to be displayed for long periods. Make sure if possible to let dry for 24 hours before coating. You can usually coat within 5 minutes, but 24 yours would be better.

Note though that I am usually doing model portfolio prints and photos for adverts which are printed for example work and once they are published have no real use any more. In the case of model portfolio's they need to update their portfolio's at least once per 2-3 years, perferably once per 6 months. So the photos only need to last 3 years at most. Since they are kept in a book, that by itself offers sufficient protection. Plus they have the digital copy and most of the models (I work with) are moving to on-line portfolios for most of their business.

The rare "art" print I have done was done by a professional printer and then framed under UV glass.

As to Ilford, my experience is it is coated similiarly to Kodak paper (although it lasts way longer in harsh conditions). If you want it to last the longest period possible, then I would give it one even coat and put it behind glass.

Just my experience and opinion,
Hope it helps,

[Longwatcher]

robertwgross wrote:
mapdealer wrote:
... Hope this helps. Let me know what you think.

It is helpful, but I still have some gnawing concerns about print life.

---Bob Gross---


My concerns are more along the printer clogging lines, but sounds like mapdealer is not having these problems which is a good thing.

The fastest way to do a light fastness test (without expensive lab equipment) would be to print a print with Canon Inks and then with Ink Jet goodies Ink on the same paper of the same image. Within a day of each other. Then put them in the non-tinted back window of a car (or under other glass that will get lots of sunlight) at the same time. Wait 4-8 weeks in Summer 6-10 weeks in Winter ( less if closer to tropics then Virginia, longer if closer to poles then Virginia) and then compare the two prints. Unless you have two printers then the Ink set would probably have to be changed out first and then as soon as all cartridges have been refilled twice then print the second print. It would take me about 80 8x10 prints between the two to make this work. Which is more then the maximum I have ever printed in a weekend of heavy printing. I suppose you could swap cartridge sets run a few prints to clear the print head and then print the other, but you would have open cartidges which would be likely to dry out, but that would be quicker. If I ever start doing on-location printing for pet pictures as I have planned for backup job, I would probably run the test to see if I can lower costs.

Hope that helps,

[robertwgross]

My theory (which I cannot prove) is that a lot of clogging is caused by either paper fibers getting into the print head, or else air getting into the ink reservoir.

I avoid most of the former by using primarily glossy papers, and I avoid all of the latter by using only factory-fresh cartridges and not refills. As a result, I haven't had my Epson clog in years, and I think that one time was when it had been sitting for three months.

Normally I burn up one color ink cartridge every couple of weeks, so nothing gets a chance to clog.

---Bob Gross---

[ijohnson]

robertwgross wrote:


Normally, at this stage, a religious war breaks out between Epson fans versus Canon fans.



---Bob Gross---

CANON GIHAD!!!!

Seriously, don't tarnish good Canon pictures with an Epson. It is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in heavy traffic.

Do something with your life, before its too late.

[robertwgross]

ijohnson wrote:
Do something with your life, before its too late.

You mean something constructive?

Too late. I became a photographer.

But I'll still wondering what I will be when I grow up.

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

robertwgross wrote:But I'm still wondering what I will be when I grow up.

---Bob Gross---



Old?

[arthurb]

debonair wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious of which printers people use. I'm looking at getting an Epson 1280.
Opinions? Recommendations?

Wal-Mart :-)

I have yet to find a printer that doesn't clog or use ink cartridges like water. (At a purchase price I can afford.)

When I compared the costs of paper, and ink cartridges I found it cheaper to burn the pictures to cdrom and have the fine folks at Wal-Mart hand me back professional (ok not archival but good) quality prints.

If I am doing it for a customer, I can give them the photos and the cdrom (If that was part of the agreement.)

[u02bnpx]

Longwatcher wrote:
I have done way too much research (versus my usage) on inkjet printers and the life expectancy of the print.

My research says, why yes Epson 2200 will produce longer lasting prints....If you use ARCHIVAL inks and ARCHIVAL paper. Otherwise the test results from the lab have not matched people's responses from the real world. I have read a fair number of articles chopping Canon, Epson and HP equally (actually until recently HP apparently was really bad). The exceptions are those that refer back to Wilhem's research which has its own results not necessarily matching the real world. He has only done a full up test on a couple of Epson and HP printers and apparently only limited tests on the Canon series so far.

The results of my research are that except for the Archival Epson inks and paper, there is no real world difference between papers and inks. Basically if you want them to last 25 years, spray coat them and then put them behind UV glass or in a picture book. If you want them to survive 100+ years, quick freeze store them in a vault in New York?

Given the cost of Archival inks and paper, it is probably cheaper to just send them out for printing when you need that longevity.

On a personal side: I use the Canon S9000 with BCI-6 Canon inks. I use Kodak, Epson, Ilford, and Canon paper on a regular basis, but which I use is dependent on what the print will be used for or where it is going. When I use Canon paper, I always spray coat it after it has had 24 hours to dry. If I don't spray the print it fade in my office in under 6 weeks, if I spray it, I have seen no fading in over a year so far.

After having done all the research I am keeping my S9000 (or maybe upgrading to the S91000) for the following reasons.
1. It prints really fast, which is handy if you want to print on-site.
2. I have spend a lot of effort figuring out what works best for me and don't want to go through that again until I have to.

If I had to do it again I would get the Canon for the same reasons. If I want the print to last more then 25 years then I will send it off to be printed.

Just ranting, because I almost spent $500 on an Epson to replace my Canon earlier this year due to the hype; only to find out after research that there were a lot of facts missing in the hype of print life.

Lab tests rarely equal the findings in reality.

Just my opinion and research,

Now back to taking pictures :)


I'm soon moving from a two-year-old Epson 1270 to a new Canon i960--primarily because I can buy color inks as I need them, rather than all colors every time. Question: what is it that you spray your dry prints with? If that sounds rather stupid, it's only because I've never run across this recommendation before. Guess I need to spend more time on forums.

Incidentally, I'm keeping the 1270 for prints beyond 8.5x11. Eg., I've been printing 8x12 since I discovered how easy it is to buy 13x19 paper, cut it in half, set up a 9.5 x 13 paper size, and get an 8x12 for about a buck, plus ink.

Floyd

[bill_wasp]

I'm shooting the 10D and the 1Ds, and both the S9000 and i950 provide great results. the 13x19 is a beautiful output size; 6 ink selection is very good. i would like to see a set for various black tones some time.

bill

[debonair]

arthurb wrote:
debonair wrote:
Hi,

I'm curious of which printers people use. I'm looking at getting an Epson 1280.
Opinions? Recommendations?

Wal-Mart :-)

I have yet to find a printer that doesn't clog or use ink cartridges like water. (At a purchase price I can afford.)

When I compared the costs of paper, and ink cartridges I found it cheaper to burn the pictures to cdrom and have the fine folks at Wal-Mart hand me back professional (ok not archival but good) quality prints.

If I am doing it for a customer, I can give them the photos and the cdrom (If that was part of the agreement.)


how much do you pay for this service then?

[iwatkins]

Bill_Wasp wrote:
i would like to see a set for various black tones some time.
bill

Hi Bill,

See here (http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html). Got to the third product down listed as "Quad Black Inks". Neutral tone multi catridge kit for some Canon printers here.

I've not tried them yet, but by all accounts they do give excellent B&W reproduction. Only thing to note is that you won't want to swap between B&W and colour cartridges as you will waste a lot of ink flushing the print head.

Ideal solution is to buy a new print head for the printer and then buy the Quad inks and just swap heads over including the cartridges. I plan to do try this in a few months once my B&W collection is complete.

Cheers

Ian

[arthurb]

debonair wrote:
how much do you pay for this service then?


Wal-Mart charges 29 cents for a 4x6 print. I figured that with ink and paper it cost me at least 50 cents a print.

The savings gives me a few bucks to spend on clearance items. :-)

[ijohnson]

robertwgross wrote:
ijohnson wrote:
Do something with your life, before its too late.

You mean something constructive?

Too late. I became a photographer.

But I'll still wondering what I will be when I grow up.

---Bob Gross---


Sorry Bob. I was really addressing the original poster. If that was you, I am no longer sorry.

Canon RULES!!!

[debonair]

arthurb wrote:


Wal-Mart charges 29 cents for a 4x6 print. I figured that with ink and paper it cost me at least 50 cents a print.

The savings gives me a few bucks to spend on clearance items. :-)



so are they doing the proper resizing of the picture after you've cropped it to your liking, or?