Chuck wrote:
"Clyde" wrote in message
Chuck wrote:
For photographs . . .
Go to a photo lab . . .
Why waste money on a printer, ink, and paper when the final product is
never
going to last as long as a photo and the quality isn’t as nice as a
photo
lab print?
I merely go to a photo kiosk, upload my images from a CD I burned and
tell
them what to print (type of paper, size, etc). Is it expensive? Not
when
you factor quality, time consumed, and ink and paper cost . . .
But . . . don’t listen to me. Get a printer . . . waste money and be dissatisfied with your photo prints.
Both Epson and HP will make prints that last far longer than color prints on photographic paper. (Depending on the printer and the paper.) These will now last 50 to 100 years.
The prints you are doing are probably good for 25, but may start showing fading in 10.
I regularly print inkjet that looks as good or better than anything on photo paper. You must be doing something wrong.
Clyde
I’m NOT talking about one of those "ink printers" at a photo lab . . . I’m talking about regular photo lab processing. It’s only been around for about a year. If you’ve done it prior to that they used an ink ribbon. Now they use chemical processing just like regular photograph printing from 35mm negatives.
You tweak, you burn, you bring and they photo process on photo paper real photos not ink-crap with poor blends, running ink and jamming paper.
Lazy? Maybe . . . but it’s smart, economical AND professional.
The best answer, again – to the original question, is bring your photo to a photo lab for processing.
I know what you are talking about. This isn’t new technology. It’s pretty standard color printing by machine. It’s pretty much what the 1-Hour photo shop has been doing for years. BTW, it wasn’t a "ink" ribbon, it was a dye-sub ribbon. They are still available. And laser and LED printing to photo paper has been around longer than a year too. Still it’s pretty much the same photo paper that been used for a very long time.
Yes, there have been incremental improvements in color processing and paper over the years. No, there haven’t been any great leaps in the technology – well for awhile.
I’ve been doing photography for 30 years and have taken many photos to the lab. I’ve also done plenty of my own darkroom work. There are color technologies that will last longer than the top current inkjet prints. Dye Transfer is/was one of them. Good luck finding anyone that will do one for you.
IlfoChrome is another pretty long lasting color process, but it takes a real artist (and money) to get that done right. Alas, there never were too many of those around and they are getting fewer. Fuji also makes a process that lasts about as long as the top inkjet prints now. You can get that at the best pro photo labs. Of course, you’ll pay for it.
Now you can certainly get some nice prints from regular "C" prints, but their longevity isn’t near the top inkjets right now. Kodak, Fuji, Whihelm, and others put that at about 25 years. Since I can get over 100 years with Epson’s UltraChrome, that pretty well beats "C" prints.
More importantly, I get better prints at lower cost and way faster by printing from Photoshop. I know there is a difference in the "look" on photo paper vs. inkjet, but I and my customers like the look of the inkjet better.
You may like the look of the photo paper better and that’s fine. Just don’t say it’s more archival than inkjet; at least until you’ve actually done some research.
Clyde