Wide Format.. $500.00 then $2K ? Nothing in between?

I would love to see an inkjet print that beats a continuous tone image. I'll have to take a look.

If you are talking the "loupe test" I'll agree with ya

Yeah, I'm talking about a loupe test, though since I'm very nearsighted I simply close one eye and place the print 3 inches from the other. It's always been good enough so far.

Agreed for sure, I love my Epson R800!

I want to get a larger format but the R1800 or R2400 will suit me. I don't need the real big one.

Just a side note though: I have had my Epson R800 for over a year and the quality of the prints is just stunning.

We recently got a R2400 at work too, and is of course a nice 13x19 @ $750 (after $100 rebate for buying a Mac). I tried to convince them on the HP 130 since we already have a 11x17 Xerox. I was able to try a 130 for a month and was pleased with the results. For the price, you can't go wrong for a 24" printer.

>>I really want a 13x19 dye-sub. Until then I may never bother printing at home.<<

I wonder if the problem about antagonistic chemicals ruining dye sub prints has ever been solved! In the 1980's there were dye sub printers for medical imaging applications, and you had to be careful about the plastic sleeves that images might be put into (like in a binder). If you could put a photocopy into the sleeve and find that the photocopy had 'stuck to' the sleeve, transferring an image of the page to the sleeve, that was a sleeve that you also never wanted around dye prints. Also, dye sub prints seemed to fade noticable just under office lighting!

A white paper published by Epson, December 2005

" Dye Diffusion Thermal Transfer Prints (Dye-Sub Prints)
In this process files generated from digital cameras or scanned negatives, transparencies or traditional prints are sent to a printer where heat transfers colorants from a donor ribbon to the final print. Today most dye diffusion thermal transfer printers apply a clear protective layer to the print during the transfer process to ensure water resistance and to prevent smearing and staining when rubbed or handled. This protective layer provides relatively little protection against the effects of light. When exposed to well-lit display conditions suitable for the enjoyment of photographs, the permanence of these prints is generally not very good. [3] Usually claims of exceptional lightfastness for dyesub prints assume dark storage or such very low light conditions that most people would consider the illumination inadequate for viewing prints.""

And from Copyright - Martin Evening 1996

" Dye-sub prints can't match the archival permanence of a conventional colour print and are known to be unstable. The print dyes may react when they come in contact with soft plastics such as transparent portfolio sleeves or are heat sealed. Kodak have addressed this problem by introducing a special 'Extra-Life' printer ribbon which will coat the print surface with a transparent protective layer."

Good info Wilt. Bummer for me.


Then again, what is the cost of consumables per 8x10 printed on a 2400 or 9900? Next, add $1.50 per print for the cost of the printer itself. I figure I might print the equivalent of 500-600 8x10s over the course of 2 years, which would probably be the expected lifetime of it being the primary photo printer in my house.

Lastly, how do people feel these printers compare to a service like MPix, if you've ever compared them? And how about compared to a place like WHCC or West Coast Imaging?

My wife belongs to a membership warehouse center (name deliberately omitted to not commercialize this forum). They print on Fuji Crystal paper. 4x6 prints are about the same price as printing your own but with none of the bother of clogged inkjets. 8x10 are spectacular in appearance, low in cost, and I don't print enough to amortize the cost of a photoprinter across hundreds of 8x10's. My decision...foolish to spend money on a special 6- or 8-color photo printer, keep using my desktop 4 color printer to print web pages and send the photos out (e-file the photos and they mail them back so I don't even have to go to the store!).

Yeah, that's been my decision, too, and has served me well for the most part. I try to get better quality than the local no-name lab-in-a-box printers, so it's costing me some extra money to compare labs for now.

The one - and only - thing that bothers me is the wait, which *really* bothers me when I'm trying to get sharpening correct. With a home printer I could select a cropped area and quickly print and adjust and print and adjust... With a remote print lab all I can do is send some test prints to get ideas about sharpening levels and then send the prints themselves. Total time is about 2-3 weeks before I get the final prints. Granted, after I get used to a printer I can skip the test prints.

>>The one - and only - thing that bothers me is the wait, which *really* bothers me when I'm trying to get sharpening correct....Total time is about 2-3 weeks before I get the final prints<<

The place I use allows me to pick up the photos the next morning at 11am!

And one can save some money by using the photoprinter at home to print a section of the photo to make adjustments in Sharpening, etc. and the use to commercial place for the final product.

I guess I could look for a local place that does cheap and easy pickup, but I have a feeling that I won't be happy with the quality. I know that a lot of people are happy with those places, but I've tried the next step up, the local "semi-pro" labs, and have not been happy. The local "pro" labs are the next notch up, and they're not cheap.

Oh well, while not perfect I can't complain about the route I've been taking lately, so I'll continue it while looking around at the same time.