# Home Photo Printer



## manu1959 (Jul 24, 2006)

Anyone have any recomendations?

thinking of buying a photo printer for my home?

d? blue?


----------



## dmp (Jul 24, 2006)

I'd suggest you didn't, honestly.  If you have a costco around your area, you can get 4x6's for less than $.20 each.  No idea how much toner would cost, but with Costco one gets a 'real' picture.  Try running water over one printed at home vs one printed at a place like costco.


----------



## misterblu (Jul 24, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> Anyone have any recomendations?
> 
> thinking of buying a photo printer for my home?
> 
> d? blue?




The cheapest per print price I've seen advertised is around $0.27/print, using an Epson photo printer, for 4X6 IIRC.  That's pro'lly optimistically the best you can do with a home printer.

As D said, you can get your digital photos printed onto real photo paper for less than that.  Much, much less if you have a Costco or Sam's Club nearby.

Ink jet cartridges and photo paper get expensive very quickly.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jul 24, 2006)

Do what we did- ask for one for Christmas from your in-laws or other generous relative. :halo:


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> Anyone have any recomendations?
> 
> thinking of buying a photo printer for my home?
> 
> d? blue?




I know this wasn't addressed to me but i do know a little about photography and dealing with labs.

I have always used Epson. The newer ones are available with archival ink but besides using the inks made by Epson be sure to get the best paper Epson makes. Their inks are formulated to work with the coatings that are on their paper. I use the Premium Glossy Photo Paper and I am still using my old Epson 820. It was less than 80 dollars and puts out lab quality prints if the best paper is used along with Photoshop color correction and sharpening.

If you find a lab that will actually print each shot rather than run the batch through an all in one unit you will get much better prints obviously than the minimum wage pimple face who is talking on the cell phone while the machine is pumping out your prints will give you. 

All depends on what you want. Photographs are moments in time captured by you and can easily be priceless down the road. The same is true with motion pictures. My brother made my Father sit down and talk about his life, his recollections of WWII, some of his flying memories with the Air Force and later my Mother joined him and they spoke about the 57 years they had spent together. My dad was gone 6 months later, that film is priceless stuff. If you still have your parents around I can't recommend it enough to do the same. 

I wouldn't get the printers that you just put a card in unless you don't have  a program like Photoshop(seems to me my printer came with a version of Photoshop Elements). Those printers will make all the decisions you would make, for you, like the quick print photo labs. If you want to print 8x10s I think you will find that the cost is a lot closer to the regular lab cost. At any rate, you will learn a lot more about photography by printing them yourself even on a cheap desktop printer like my Epson.

Another option is available, I'm not sure where you need to go for a PC but with iphoto that comes with OSX on MACs you can get a variety of photo books custom made for relatively cheap. With Apple you have numerous templates available to insert your photos into, you add whatever text to each page, choose the size and cover material and send it to their sight. They have a deal with Kodak. For 30 dollars they print 10 pages both sides and put it in a 9x12 hard backed book, extra pages are .99 each. I would guess there would be something like it for PCs maybe through Kodak. They are very nice and make a great personalized gift to grandparents, parents, a potfolio with some class, etc. There are smaller books available including some with soft covers. Go into an Apple store and ask to see one, they usually have samples of the sizes available.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

Are you going to use it to print pics of the new porsche that you've been holding out on us?


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> I know this wasn't addressed to me but i do know a little about photography and dealing with labs.
> 
> I have always used Epson. The newer ones are available with archival ink but besides using the inks made by Epson be sure to get the best paper Epson makes. Their inks are formulated to work with the coatings that are on their paper. I use the Premium Glossy Photo Paper and I am still using my old Epson 820. It was less than 80 dollars and puts out lab quality prints if the best paper is used along with Photoshop color correction and sharpening.
> 
> ...



I dunno...
Sounds automatic to me.:teeth:


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> Another option is available, I'm not sure where you need to go for a PC but with iphoto that comes with OSX on MACs you can get a variety of photo books custom made for relatively cheap. With Apple you have numerous templates available to insert your photos into, you add whatever text to each page, choose the size and cover material and send it to their sight. They have a deal with Kodak. For 30 dollars they print 10 pages both sides and put it in a 9x12 hard backed book, extra pages are .99 each. I would guess there would be something like it for PCs maybe through Kodak. They are very nice and make a great personalized gift to grandparents, parents, a potfolio with some class, etc. There are smaller books available including some with soft covers. Go into an Apple store and ask to see one, they usually have samples of the sizes available.


OH THE POOR SCRAPBOOKER! YOU ASSHOLE!


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> OH THE POOR SCRAPBOOKER! YOU ASSHOLE!



Ebonics wasn't around when I was in school, could you translate what the fuck this is suppose to mean... please?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> Ebonics wasn't around when I was in school, could you translate what the fuck this is suppose to mean... please?


Ebonics?

There was no ebonics in that post. Would you like a dictionary recommendation?


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Ebonics?
> 
> There was no ebonics in that post. Would you like a dictionary recommendation?



 A quality printed hard bound book filled with photography that means something to someone would hardly qualify as a scrapbook.


----------



## Mr. P (Jul 25, 2006)

Since the first digital we purchased a few years ago, Ive been pretty much paperless. I have a cheap Canon inkjet with a photo cartridge, seldom used. I do copy all photos to CD so they could be printed at some outside source if wanted. A CD in the DVD lets everyone see the same pic at the same time too, instead of passing it around.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> A quality printed hard bound book filled with photography that means something to someone would hardly qualify as a scrapbook.


It's amusing how in two threads at almost the the same time you contradict yourself so drastically. Just think of all the photographers who would have put together a quality printed hard bound book FOR you are now being kicked to the streets because you're able to do it for yourself! They've already lost their ability to make a living taking pics, don't take away the books from them too! What's next? Cheap, cheesy office supplies like mousepads and coffee mugs? IS THERE NO SHAME?


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> It's amusing how in two threads at almost the the same time you contradict yourself so drastically. Just think of all the photographers who would have put together a quality printed hard bound book FOR you are now being kicked to the streets because you're able to do it for yourself! They've already lost their ability to make a living taking pics, don't take away the books from them too! What's next? Cheap, cheesy office supplies like mousepads and coffee mugs? IS THERE NO SHAME?



Your lack of understanding even the most simplistic thought is only outdone by your arrogant flaunting of that very lack of brainpower you possess, go take some snapshots of that homely ass car of yours and pretend you have accomplished something by adding clear lenses to your turn signals. You are just the type of talentless hack that I am talking about....you buy a do it all camera, shoot a snapshot out of the window of your car, pat yourself on the back and demand that everyone be impressed that you are now a photographer. Be sure to document in snapshots the installation of the giant wing on the back of your rice fart. Don't forget to check the mailbox for your subscriptions to Maxxim and FHM, they might be in and you can get a few cheap thrills from staring at poorly designed page layout. :fu2:


----------



## dmp (Jul 25, 2006)

Why are you insulting ME, sitarro?  What the HELL has crawled up your ass lately?  First, you accuse me, indirectly, of being a 'fully-auto-camera-snapshot-hack', then you insult my car?  Relax dude.


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Why are you insulting ME, sitarro?  What the HELL has crawled up your ass lately?  First, you accuse me, indirectly, of being a 'fully-auto-camera-snapshot-hack', then you insult my car?  Relax dude.



I was responding to Clay and his little jabs at me. It was not directed at you or your car, yours is silver, not as faggy as pearly white.  

I like most of the photographs you, Blue and even Clay have displayed on this site....that wasn't the point of the original post. I understand advances in technology and sometimes it isn't for the best. It saddens me to see so many things that in the wrong hands just make for more mediocrity in print and sport. I have had to put up with a golf pro that could barely figure out how to start his car tell me he would go ahead and use my shots since they were already taken even though he could go out and shoot the same thing himself....The shots he was looking at were medium format transparencies taken with a Pentax 6x7 on Fuji Velvia 100, no photoshop needed. He honestly felt he could grab his point and shoot camera and copy what I had spent a couple of hours waiting up a 12 foot ladder for just the right light and no players. He didn't know or get the difference. That is getting more prevalent the easier technology makes it to get decent, "good enough" results without any knowledge or practice. Those easy results only act to make people who have little interest or talent think they are better than they are.


----------



## dmp (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> I was responding to Clay and his little jabs at me. It was not directed at you or your car, yours is silver, not as faggy as pearly white.



But my car is the same car, and also has clear-corner markers. 



> I like most of the photographs you, Blue and even Clay have displayed on this site....that wasn't the point of the original post. I understand advances in technology and sometimes it isn't for the best. It saddens me to see so many things that in the wrong hands just make for more mediocrity in print and sport. I have had to put up with a golf pro that could barely figure out how to start his car tell me he would go ahead and use my shots since they were already taken even though he could go out and shoot the same thing himself....The shots he was looking at were medium format transparencies taken with a Pentax 6x7 on Fuji Velvia 100, no photoshop needed. He honestly felt he could grab his point and shoot camera and copy what I had spent a couple of hours waiting up a 12 foot ladder for just the right light and no players. He didn't know or get the difference. That is getting more prevalent the easier technology makes it to get decent, "good enough" results without any knowledge or practice. Those easy results only act to make people who have little interest or talent think they are better than they are.



I suppose that's well-and-dandy, but I don't get why the sudden outbursts?  If you have a general rant about photography, why'd you include it in MY thread about the pictures I shared?  It's enough to get a brother feeling self-conscious, ya know?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> Your lack of understanding even the most simplistic thought is only outdone by your arrogant flaunting of that very lack of brainpower you possess:


Simplistic thought is a good way to describe all that you post. You derailed another thread ranting about how the photography world has passed you by, yet in this thread you promote the very result of the advancement of photography.





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> go take some snapshots of that homely ass car of yours and pretend you have accomplished something by adding clear lenses to your turn signals.


You REAAAAAAAALLY hate my car. It's borderline comical.





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> You are just the type of talentless hack that I am talking about.....


Really? Let's find out:





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> you buy a do it all camera, :


Actually it was purchased for me, and if I had my choice I'd have a nice DSLR. I'll give you half a point for at least getting right that I have a do-it-all camera.


			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> shoot a snapshot out of the window of your car, :


Not very often, if ever, actually.





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> pat yourself on the back :


Sometimes. Even if it's grainy as hell, I can still like the composition of a photo. Right? 





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> and demand that everyone be impressed that you are now a photographer. :


Horseshit. If anything you're demanding we respect you and your old school talent. I'm sure you're great at whatever the fuck formats you do. There's just no reason to get all crotchity about some guy who would be ok settling for a mediocre-sub par shot compared to yours. If he can't tell the difference, why the fuck would he care anyways? Stop and think about it for a second.





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> Be sure to document in snapshots the installation of the giant wing on the back of your rice fart.:


I'll put some spinners on it too. I'll drop 20 grand on 'em just cuz I know it'll piss you off.





			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> Don't forget to check the mailbox for your subscriptions to Maxxim and FHM, they might be in and you can get a few cheap thrills from staring at poorly designed page layout. :fu2:


Aww look at who sounds bitter again cuz they just don't make magazines the way they used to.

Jesus grandpa, take a nap.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 25, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> I was responding to Clay and his little jabs at me. It was not directed at you or your car, yours is silver, not as faggy as pearly white.


Faggy? That's the best you can come up with? What the fuck are you driving anyways? Still that totally sweet Montana? Easy to talk shit when you don't even admit what your ride is.


----------



## 007 (Jul 27, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> I know this wasn't addressed to me but i do know a little about photography and dealing with labs.
> 
> I have always used Epson. The newer ones are available with archival ink but besides using the inks made by Epson be sure to get the best paper Epson makes. Their inks are formulated to work with the coatings that are on their paper. I use the Premium Glossy Photo Paper and I am still using my old Epson 820. It was less than 80 dollars and puts out lab quality prints if the best paper is used along with Photoshop color correction and sharpening.



I'm going to try and gently side step in here... ahem, and agree with sitarro. I also have an Epson printer. It's a newer one and it prints in the highest resolution of any sold, which is 5,740 X 1970 dpi. The ink is Epsons own, and it won't run when used with Epson photo paper if water is spilled on it. It's print borderless, poster, banner, two sided, on and on. I love it.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 27, 2006)

holy shit guys put it back in your pants....i just want to print some pictures


----------



## misterblu (Jul 27, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I'm going to try and gently side step in here... ahem, and agree with sitarro. I also have an Epson printer. It's a newer one and it prints in the highest resolution of any sold, which is 5,740 X 1970 dpi. The ink is Epsons own, and it won't run when used with Epson photo paper if water is spilled on it. It's print borderless, poster, banner, two sided, on and on. I love it.




That's all fine and good, but it's still cheaper in the long run to have them printed at a lab once you buy the printer and all the consumables.


----------



## 007 (Jul 27, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> That's all fine and good, but it's still cheaper in the long run to have them printed at a lab once you buy the printer and all the consumables.



Probably is, but I like the convience of printing at home, what I want, when I want, how big I want, etc..


----------



## misterblu (Jul 27, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Probably is, but I like the convience of printing at home, what I want, when I want, how big I want, etc..




You can do all of that, minus the at home part, at a lab.


----------



## dmp (Jul 27, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> ...but I like the convience of printing at home, what I want, ...how big I want, etc..



...up to about 8x10, generally. 

Don't forget - walking your photos to the car, and a drop of rain lands on a print, you'll lose part of your image.


----------



## misterblu (Jul 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> ...up to about 8x10, generally.
> 
> Don't forget - walking your photos to the car, and a drop of rain lands on a print, you'll lose part of your image.



That may not be true.  I've not bothered verifying it, but it's been suggested that certain Epson inks are waterproof?


----------



## 007 (Jul 27, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> That may not be true.  I've not bothered verifying it, but it's been suggested that certain Epson inks are waterproof?



They are. I spilled BEER on one, and it didn't run. They also had several prints in Best Buy when I bought mine that they demonstrated the 'no run' on.

I can print posters with my Epson, but as you probably know, they'd be in sections of borderless 8 X 10.

My Epson is a scanner, printer, copier, model CX6600.

http://www.epson.co.uk/products/all_in_one_products/Stylus_CX6600.htm


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 27, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> They are. I spilled BEER on one, and it didn't run. They also had several prints in Best Buy when I bought mine that they demonstrated the 'no run' on.
> 
> I can print posters with my Epson, but as you probably know, they'd be in sections of borderless 8 X 10.
> 
> ...



same as pale i want control.....then if i want something super high end i will outsource it....when it comes to pics, with me it is about control of results not cost.....anyone know if HPs are any good?


----------



## 007 (Jul 27, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> same as pale i want control.....then if i want something super high end i will outsource it....when it comes to pics, with me it is about control of results not cost.....anyone know if HPs are any good?



I had two HP's before I bought my Epson manu. The last one was a 'something 932'. The ink was expensive, and it ran if 'water' hit it. It would also smudge, and the new HP's, you have take out the regular ink cartridges and put in a 'photo' cartridge to print photos. What a hassle. The ink cartridges for my Epson are $13 apiece, and you don't have to take them out and put something else in to print photo. Can't beat that. And not sure without researching, but I think the highest resolution of an HP is 4,800 X 1,200. The Epson has that beat.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 27, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I had two HP's before I bought my Epson manu. The last one was a 'something 932'. The ink was expensive, and it ran if 'water' hit it. It would also smudge, and the new HP's, you have take out the regular ink cartridges and put in a 'photo' cartridge to print photos. What a hassle. The ink cartridges for my Epson are $13 apiece, and you don't have to take them out and put something else in to print photo. Can't beat that. And not sure without researching, but I think the highest resolution of an HP is 4,800 X 1,200. The Epson has that beat.




looking like an epson....which model do you recomend?


----------



## 007 (Jul 28, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> looking like an epson....which model do you recomend?



Whatever your wallet can afford...  

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/index.jsp?ref=haa

Myself, I rarely have anything to scan anymore, but I really like having it if I ever need to, and Epson scanners can scan in incredible depth. My CX6600 will also copy. Also nice to have. So you might want to look at 'all in one' models.


----------



## misterblu (Jul 28, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> same as pale i want control.....then if i want something super high end i will outsource it....when it comes to pics, with me it is about control of results not cost.....anyone know if HPs are any good?




Control over what, exactly?


----------



## sitarro (Jul 28, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Control over what, exactly?



Is this a real question or are you pretending ignorance?
How about control over sizes you may want to print rather than the standard bullshit from a Costco lab. 

Let say for instance manu has created a cd of some of his favorite photographs, maybe he may want to layout a cover insert for the cd that would measure 4.6"x9.5''. Or he may want to experiment with different papers. He might even want to do a wall of photographs of various sizes with custom cut mats and framing.

The big question would be why are you guys pushing cheap, crappy ass auto lab work. Why are you guys assuming that manu doesn't have his own reasons for a desktop printer? You and D have spent over 5 grand on camera equipment and you are suggesting someone else needs to save a few pennies on lousy prints from Costco? Why? I assume that manu is smart enough to know that cheap labs are available and is only asking advice of others that might have been screwed by a company like Lexmark that truly overcharges for their tiny cartridges of ink. He is asking for experiences with numerous printers that the people on this board have used, why assume that his photography isn't worthy of quality lab work at any price. He didn't ask what was the cheapest way to get prints done.

The ink cartridges for my Epson cost right around 45 dollars for the color and black. Epson's premium Glossy paper cost 15 dollars for 20 sheets less if you buy it in 50 sheet packs. Assuming you will only print the 20 sheets with the cartridges of ink(You can usually get twice as many 8.5x11 with the black and almost twice with the color, depends on the sizes of the actual images)it would be around $3.25 per 8.5"x11", where are you going to get a better price than that. Also, I have to ask why the big concern about waterproofing of prints, are you guys swimming with them? What lab prints would you walk around in the rain with? 

Besides the convenience of having a printer at home is the fun it can be for teaching lessons to kids, getting them interested in photography, printing up their homework, or even printing articles or a map off of the internet.....Are you and D telling us that you don't use a printer at home? Again I have to ask why?


----------



## misterblu (Jul 28, 2006)

You really come off like a jerk most of the time.  Was all that really necessary?

First of all, there are pros out there using Costco's lab, as well as other 'auto' labs.  They use a  Noritsu model 3111, and Fuji Crystal Archive Paper at my local Costco photo labs.  They supply enhanced color profiles for their printers, and if you're serious about making sure your images look correct, you'll have configured for proper color managment for your monitor.  That way, what you see is what you get.  You're just ASSuming that it's 'crappy ass auto lab work'.  I can assure you, the prints are beautiful.  You're just being an elitist again.

Second, he was asking for a PHOTO printer.  The one special case you're speaking of is not a PHOTO, it's a CD cover.  I would argue that any standard photo size can be printed at a lab, many of which can't be produced on a home printer. 2X3 uncut wallet sheets, 4X6, 5X7, 8X10, 8X12, 11X14, 12X18 are all available within an hour. 16X20 and 20X30 take a bit longer.  Can you print a 12 X 18" print at home for $3 a pop?  Can you even PRINT a 16X20 or 20X30 on your average home photo printer?  Didn't think so.  Yes, you read that right.  You can get a focking 12X18 printed as a real photo (not inkjet) for $2.99.  An 8X10 costs $1.49. A 16X20 print or 20X30 poster is $9.99. You can get your prints in glossy or lustre paper. You can even order those pretty little photo books you are so fond of.

If a person is capable of cutting their own mats, and framing their own pictures, they are certainly capable of cutting the unprinted white space off of a standard print if they want an odd size.

Basically, the only 'benefit' you get from having a photo printer at home is convenience.  I don't consider being able to print out documents a plus.  If I want to print a map, or my kid's homework I'll use a printer that is meant for that, a b&w or color laser.  

The downside to using a home photo printer is that the prints are inferior, they cost more, and you're limited in the sizes that you can print.

I'm guessing D mentioned it for the same reason I do.  I tell EVERYONE I know that photo printers are a waste for the myriad of reasons I've already mentioned. 

I have no idea why you're so fixated on how much money either of us spent on our camera gear.  Frankly, it's none of your business and you just make yourself look jealous and petty by continuously bringing it up.  Seriously, WTF does it matter what either of us spent on our camera gear? 

In summary, :finger: 




			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> Is this a real question or are you pretending ignorance?
> How about control over sizes you may want to print rather than the standard bullshit from a Costco lab.
> 
> Let say for instance manu has created a cd of some of his favorite photographs, maybe he may want to layout a cover insert for the cd that would measure 4.6"x9.5''. Or he may want to experiment with different papers. He might even want to do a wall of photographs of various sizes with custom cut mats and framing.
> ...


----------



## dmp (Jul 28, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> it would be around $3.25 per 8.5"x11", where are you going to get a better price than that?



For $3.25 I can get *TWO* 8x12s at costco, and have $.01 left over, after tax.



> Besides the convenience of having a printer at home is the fun it can be for teaching lessons to kids, getting them interested in photography, printing up their homework, or even printing articles or a map off of the internet.....Are you and D telling us that you don't use a printer at home? Again I have to ask why?



D is telling you for things which matter - things which are important enough to care (Photos, kids' projects, whatever) I cough up a few bux worth of time and Gas, and get shit printed the RIGHT way.   

What has turned you into such a jaded, bitter man?


----------



## Said1 (Jul 28, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Control over what, exactly?



My brother-in-law has a photo printer, but doesn't use it often due to costs. When he does use it, it's mainly for special occasions when photos are taken and family is around. He prints the photos and gives them out to whomever wants a copy. Sometimes he uses it to print one or two photos he wants right away - I guess that's control too.  Other than that, he said it was a novelty that wore off fast and usually goes to the drug store to when he has a lot of photos.


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2006)

Hmmm... I'm not passionate enough about this to get all worked up about it, but...

I will say though, I've been more than happy with the quality of prints I get off my Epson. I've compared them to 'store' prints from prior when I used a 35mm Canon AE-1 single action reflex. I don't see a whole lot of difference. I guess to the 'critical' eye there is one, but I'm just not in that catagory when it comes to photography.

For me, the convience of being able to take a picture with my digital camera, then come home and instantly edit and print it is a nice thing. 

I won't argue if a home printer is as good as store prints because I don't know. If I'm wrong, then I am. But while you're in your car fighting traffic, I'm sitting at home in my comfortable chair with a cold one, listening to 'chill out' on my LaunchCast Radio leisurely printing out a picture. 

Isn't that worth something? Especially to someone who's not a total photo buff that expects ultimate results?

That's the whole idea behind a 'home printer' anyway... convience.


----------



## misterblu (Jul 29, 2006)

I don't generally get worked up about something so trivial either, and I'm not.

I'm just quickly becoming tired of sitarro and his condescending tone.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I'm not passionate enough about this to get all worked up about it, but...
> 
> I will say though, I've been more than happy with the quality of prints I get off my Epson. I've compared them to 'store' prints from prior when I used a 35mm Canon AE-1 single action reflex. I don't see a whole lot of difference. I guess to the 'critical' eye there is one, but I'm just not in that catagory when it comes to photography.
> 
> ...


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 29, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Control over what, exactly?



run test prints after i mess with photo shop....hand out pictures on the spot at family outings / parties...make my own picture...same reason i had a dark room in the old days.....


----------



## sitarro (Jul 30, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I'm just quickly becoming tired of sitarro and his condescending tone.



DMP and Mister Blue,

I stand corrected, I will never, ever,EVER dispute either of you because it is obvious you both know everything, can do no wrong and are easily the most talented individuals on the planet. Please accept my very real and sincerest apologies for even thinking for a second that I had the right to voice my opinion much less talk back to you guys. In the future I will be sure to keep my bitter, old fart opinions about computers, cars, driving fast, and photography to myself. Please forgive me, I just didn't realize what I was doing or who, in reality, I was addressing in my feeble rants.

Can I still have permission to check into these threads with the hope of learning just a tiny bit of what you guys know, that is if an idiot like myself could possibly hope to understand the very deep and technically complex words of wisdom that you are so willing to share with the great unwashed..... praise be to Allah and of course Mr.Blue and DMP.   

Oh and yes, of course I am jealous, I am an old man whose time has past and I get to watch two very young guys with the whole world ahead of them that, at such a tender age, know everything that is worth knowing, and have superior technology to utilize that we old shits could only have dreamed of(I remember 4 track tapes and Instamatic cameras). While we were stuck with having to study and practice for years to get to a level you guys passed while still in diapers, you men have advanced to a God like state. To only have a wee bit of the looks, talent and knowledge you guys possess would be glorious but alas I could never hope to be so fortunate. I can only pray that the good Lord will get me through the rage and heartache that is my pathetic existence.

Oh, one other thing, if either of you could spare the time could you please grant me a heart and a brain.....please???









One thing I have noticed about people stricken with an Oz complex, they lose their sense of humor, it's kinda sad really. Was this post a little too over the top?:happy2:


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2006)

sitarro said:
			
		

> DMP and Mister Blue,
> 
> I stand corrected, I will never, ever,EVER dispute either of you because it is obvious you both know everything, can do no wrong and are easily the most talented individuals on the planet. Please accept my very real and sincerest apologies for even thinking for a second that I had the right to voice my opinion much less talk back to you guys. In the future I will be sure to keep my bitter, old fart opinions about computers, cars, driving fast, and photography to myself. Please forgive me, I just didn't realize what I was doing or who, in reality, I was addressing in my feeble rants.
> 
> ...



Oh maybe  a little bit it was a good read.


----------



## misterblu (Jul 30, 2006)

Look.  I don't have a problem with you voicing your opinion.  On the contrary.  I'd sincerely like to have you give a bit of constructive criticism, given your experience.  I've already stated that, and I meant it.  Unfortunately, I've never seen you do so.

Mostly, what I object to is your condescending, "I'm older so I know better", elitist, ranting, technophobe, bitter old man complex.

If that much wasn't clear, I apologize.

Frankly, your knowledge of current photo printing technology seems to be somewhat lacking.  At least given the 'information' you've spouted in this thread.  If we were talking about having film printed, I'd agree with you.  A specialized lab will always produce better prints than an auto lab if you're having enlargements made from negatives.  However, since we're talking about printing from a computer, the  'rules' change.  In this case, the only benefit you're getting from a home photo printer is convenience.

It sounds like manu has a need for that convenience.     If he didn't, then printing at a lab would be a better choice.









			
				sitarro said:
			
		

> DMP and Mister Blue,
> 
> I stand corrected, I will never, ever,EVER dispute either of you because it is obvious you both know everything, can do no wrong and are easily the most talented individuals on the planet. Please accept my very real and sincerest apologies for even thinking for a second that I had the right to voice my opinion much less talk back to you guys. In the future I will be sure to keep my bitter, old fart opinions about computers, cars, driving fast, and photography to myself. Please forgive me, I just didn't realize what I was doing or who, in reality, I was addressing in my feeble rants.
> 
> ...


----------



## dmp (Jul 31, 2006)

Sitarro is doing to 'us' what Hezbolah is doing to Israel:

Sitarro/Hezbolah: Attack-Attack!
dmp/misterblu: Defend-Defend!
Sitarro/Hezbolah: I'm the VICTIM! I'm the VICTIM!!


----------



## sitarro (Jul 31, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Sitarro is doing to 'us' what Hezbolah is doing to Israel:
> 
> Sitarro/Hezbolah: Attack-Attack!
> dmp/misterblu: Defend-Defend!
> Sitarro/Hezbolah: I'm the VICTIM! I'm the VICTIM!!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jul 31, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Sitarro is doing to 'us' what Hezbolah is doing to Israel:
> 
> Sitarro/Hezbolah: Attack-Attack!
> dmp/misterblu: Defend-Defend!
> Sitarro/Hezbolah: I'm the VICTIM! I'm the VICTIM!!


Can I be the United States?


----------

