Originally posted by Zerstorer
Jed & Excentrique thanks for your input.
I eager to find out from both of you how well do dye-sub printers perform as compared to premium inkjets like my previous Epson and the photos from developing labs.
Also, are there problems with light fastness? Are the prints significantly more water resistant than those from inkjets/dev labs?
Originally posted by excentrique
the print have a nice glossy surface and i'm pretty sure it's waterproof. I do have some copies of sample which I can show you someday if we could meet up. Permanence wise, i think they keep very well. Till now (for almost 3 years) I have not notice any slight change of colour. They feel plastiky and they don't turn moldy like photographic prints even I scatter them around. In comparison with inkjet, dye sublimation is far more superior in terms of permanence and crispness.
Originally posted by excentrique
with that kind of budget, I would rather get an A3 inkjet photo printer by epson. Well it depends on what you want. Inkjet is also very permanent nowadays. With big traditional photographic paper producers like illford moving into the digital age now. There are high grade papers which are available easily and can print very realistic photographic quality image. Comparing with the small picture you get from a dye-sub print, I think it's a better investment spending on a inkjet. Well, dye-sub is really tempting to get but you must also consider what is your objective in getting the equipment. If you are seriously into making money from your photographic prints, 4x6 really sounds too small.
If you notice, wedding photography also uses inkjets to print portfolio for couples. It's only thorough good packaging like cold lamination which give the impression that it's an authentic photographic print. And if only the clients know that they are getting are inkjet prints... See, people can't even really tell the difference nowadays between a inkjet or a traditional photographic print. So I think investing on a good injet is a value for money. With your kind of budget, you can get a decent larger printer than an A4. So why not?
Originally posted by Zerstorer
Thanks for the overview! I'm not into making money from my shots...just a dabbler who wants some control/experimentation with my own prints.;p Basically I'm curious about alternative printing technologies now that they've come down to consumer price levels. The HiTi has lost its appeal to me now that the consumable cost is so high.
Will probably wait for the new affordable Epson models like the 960 to appear before making a decision.
Keeping my options open. Thanks for your valuable comments.
Originally posted by excentrique
No problem pal. Well, actually the way to controlling your print is to understand calibration of your monitor, printer and scanner. You should buy some reference book in regards to this. Apart from this, photoshop is a very good applications to adjust your print tone. Well, to get a good print will sometime needs to print several rounds to get it right. Just like in the darkroom. It's doesn't mean that by using a dye sub will make any difference. You will still need to calibrate it and you will still do a few rounds of test before you get a satified piece of print.
You're referring to the Epson 2200? So Ruby Photo's the place to go for this? Thanks I'll check it out.BTW, Espon should be introducing it new 7 colour printer soon. The new color is actually grey to tackle B/W photography color shifting problem. Apart from this, Ruby have wonderful test prints/samples and information regarding their illford inkjet printing papers.
You should make a visit down there and ask them more about the archiving properties and see the results for yourself. You will know why I suggest you to get an A3 inkjet.