 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / June 2007Home printing of photos - ink
I hope this is not considered OT on this newsgroup. I do a fair amount of family photos - simply because I like it, and the rellies have come to rely on me for same. As a result, I end up printing out quite a few photos for distribution to the non-techies like grandparents and such. I can easily find good quality photo paper which doesn't break the bank, but I find that ink cartridges have to be original and new to be any good (I use a HP photosmart printer, with HP cartridges). I have bought recycled cartridges and been rarely satisfied with the results - with some of them simply not functioning at all. Hence buying them has proven a fool's economy for me - and I am frankly quite disgusted about it. What is the experience of posters here? Are there certain "brands" of recycled cartridges to avoid? Are there some you would recommend? TIA. Cat(h) >I hope this is not considered OT on this newsgroup. > I do a fair amount of family photos - simply because I like it, and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > TIA. > Cat(h) I gave up on Recycled Carts because I think its one of those "Earn Lots of money working from home" Things. Whilst faulty one are replaced It takes time and you finish buying a new cart just to keep going. I have been filling my own HP carts using Jetec ink. I have even been buying enough for Three refills of the black for £2.95 colours is around 6 refills for the same money. At least I know the carts are working and not dried up or burnt out jets. Use a cart no more then 3 times and then add a New cart to my stock. The new ones are bought at the time of good deals. A few months back Amazon had a offer on the HP 57, I bought 2 carts to get free postage total cost £22. The cost difference at many online Cartridges sellers is only a few pound between HP and Recycled. I now use a laser printer for all my web page printouts ect and just use the ink jet For Photos or something where I need Colour printing So once I run out of Ink for refilling I may just but new carts As I will not notice the cost as much. > >I hope this is not considered OT on this newsgroup. > > I do a fair amount of family photos - simply because I like it, and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > out of Ink for refilling I may just but new carts As I will not notice the > cost as much. SVP have started a new line in ink carts for the HP photo printers. The new carts are available with a split design which separates the ink tank from the heads. The heads are supposed to be good for 30 or more refills so to change the ink it's just a case of clipping a new tank on, which costs much less than a full cartridge. May be worth investigating. www.svp.co.uk FR > I hope this is not considered OT on this newsgroup. > I do a fair amount of family photos - simply because I like it, and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > TIA. > Cat(h) Like you I too gave up on recycled cartridges some while ago. They are OK for general printing, colour documents and such like, but for photos I found most of them pretty useless. I certainly wouldn't recommend using them in a printer with fixed heads either, like the Epsons. Even when they do work well, you often find the colour match a bit off, which also makes them difficult for use with photos, or things that are more colour critical. I have a Canon IP4200 here, and with genuine inks it produces great results (for the price). Mind you, the genuine cartridges are bank breaking either, and last well.  SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >I have a Canon IP4200 here, and with genuine inks it produces great >results (for the price). Mind you, the genuine cartridges are bank >breaking either, and last well. I've got an IP4200 also. It produces fantastic prints and the only upgrade I'd want would be an A3 printer which had the same quality. As you say, the genuine Canon inks are best and not too costly given that there are five carts. About four or five months after buying my IP4200 for about £100, Marks & Spencer online were selling them for only £35. I bought another one from them as it worked out a little cheaper than a new set of carts. Canon ship their printers with full carts unlike some other manufacturers. So I used the carts and bunged the printer in the attic to be used as a spare in the event that the original one goes tits up. SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk >>I have a Canon IP4200 here, and with genuine inks it produces great >>results (for the price). Mind you, the genuine cartridges are bank [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > attic to be used as a spare in the event that the original one goes tits > up. One of the major problems I find (i'm using the IP5200) is if you don't use the printer very often, the ink will evaporate out of the catridges in a few months. Graham > >>I have a Canon IP4200 here, and with genuine inks it produces great > >>results (for the price). Mind you, the genuine cartridges are bank [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the printer very often, the ink will evaporate out of the catridges in a few > months. Been OK here. I've actually ended up using mine rather little since I got it, and I still have one or two of the originals in there since last July, and working OK still. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >One of the major problems I find (i'm using the IP5200) is if you >don't use the printer very often, the ink will evaporate out of the >catridges in a few months. How archival are prints from IP series printers? I've found the colour balance of the S/R series excellent but the prints don't last long in bright daylight. SignatureHil >>One of the major problems I find (i'm using the IP5200) is if you >>don't use the printer very often, the ink will evaporate out of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >balance of the S/R series excellent but the prints don't last long in >bright daylight. Canon reckon 100 years. http://www.canon-europe.com/pixma_/quality/chromalife100.asp SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk > In message <9b3PhlLJKubGF...@newearth.demon.co.uk>, Hils > <hilsn...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes>Grey wrote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Canon reckon 100 years. All the large printer manufacturers seem to claim a century or so, but only as long as you use archival paper and store the prints in an archival storage system. Heaven forbid that you actually *look* at your prints, or even worse, display the darn things. On display, the claims of longevity evaporate and you will be lucky if they last more than a couple of years. Oh for a digital equivalent of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome! The Good Doctor <docnews2011@googlemail.com> observed >> In message <9b3PhlLJKubGF...@newearth.demon.co.uk>, Hils >> <hilsn...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes>Grey wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >evaporate and you will be lucky if they last more than a couple of >years. LOL! it's the opposite of the Medusa look - they don't turn into stone! >Oh for a digital equivalent of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome! Indeed. Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< > The Good Doctor <docnews2...@googlemail.com> observed > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > LOL! it's the opposite of the Medusa look - they don't turn into stone! Alternatively, it might be termed "Lot's Wife Syndrome". <g> >I can easily find good quality photo paper which doesn't break the >bank, but I find that ink cartridges have to be original and new to be >any good (I use a HP photosmart printer, with HP cartridges). My experiences are similar. I've never tried third-party budget inks (the printer I outsource to uses Lyson inks, but these are far from "budget") because I was able to see their effects in an office where they were considered a worthwhile economy. Unless you make enough prints to justify a continuous feed system, manufacturers' inks are the best bet IMO. SignatureHil Hence buying them > has proven a fool's economy for me - and I am frankly quite disgusted > about it. > What is the experience of posters here? > Cat(h) According to our [that is FotoInsight.co.uk] calculations the only advantage of home printing when compared to a professional photo lab is that it is faster. Most photo labs should do the job cheaper and better. What is your experience? Klaas > Hence buying them >> has proven a fool's economy for me - and I am frankly quite disgusted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is that it is faster. Most photo labs should do the job cheaper and > better. What is your experience? I print my own for the same reason I built my own darkroom 30 years ago - I enjoy being in control of the whole process, and being able to experiment as I go. Mind you, I also cook all my own food from fresh ingredients rather than buy convenience meals, so I guess I'm a sucker for punishment. I haven't had my Epson R1800 for long enough to need replacement inks but I was planning to buy Epson when the time comes and not risk anything else. I can't imagine that a lab can give me significantly better than I'm getting now. Alan SignatureRISC OS - you know it makes cents On Jun 11, 5:47 pm, Alan Wrigley <spamha...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1181562725.409720.280...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Alan I guess I'm in the same boat - and with the food, too. Any recent experience I have had with photo labs have tended to be poor. Those chains that practice low prices tend to print out their pics industrially. I only use them if I have had to use a film camera (the odd time, I get stuck with disposable film-based point-and- clicks, which can give surprisingly good photos, but which I am not in a position to print at home for obvious reasons). I have had poor enough results, and the format (size of printed photo) is non- negotiable, unless I am prepared to pay very substantially more for larger prints - at which point I am wondering whether the fotoinsight cost analysis still favours the pro printer? I have had (many, many years ago, before digicams were invented) photos printed by quality small-scale pros. The cost was truly hideous, though the result generally very, very good. All told, I think I'll continue printing at home (I note the Canon printer tip), and grumble about the cost of ink cartridges. And home cooking all my meals from scratch. Thanks to all for your helpful comments. Cat(h) >I hope this is not considered OT on this newsgroup. > I do a fair amount of family photos - simply because I like it, and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > TIA. > Cat(h) I gave up with inkjets altogether last year. Reasons were too expensive to run and too unreliable. I generally do a LOT of photo printing for a short period in the year, then virtually nothing for months. Inkjets dry up when left. I'm now using a HP colour laser for documents and a Kodak 1400 Dye-Sub printer for photos. Result is excellent results every time and equipment that works every time. Alan. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.