Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
I would definitely recommend to anyone with a digicam (or real camera ) for that matter to get a photo-printer. The top of the line A4 Epsons and HPs are very good and remarkably affordable - yes, the consumables are an extra cost, but still much cheaper than prints form the lab.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
I recently bought an Epson 890, on the recommendation of this forum in fact. The quality of an A4 print (approx 12"x8") on the special heavy glossy photo paper, produced from a home-scanned (2880dpi) 35mm transparency, is absolutely amazing, and I'd challenge people to notice the difference between my print and a lab print. In fact, the results are so good that after I showed them around, at least one other photographer I know has gone out and bought the same printer himself. As far as I am concerned, as far as printing from digital is concerned (or indeed from slides), this is the way to go for up to A4 size.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Andy my man.....
I've recently got an Epson 890 too. Haven't used it much yet but the odd times I've tried, I can't print the full picture when setting it to 'Fit to size' on A4 photographic paper. The right hand side of the picture is getting chopped off by at least an inch... Have you experienced this? Know what am I doing wrong?
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Yes, I've encountered your problem. Thing is, an A4 page hasn't got the same height to width ratio as the original image - A4 is approximately 8.3" by 11.7", which means the ratio of height to width is something like 1:1.4. Certainly with a 35mm full frame image (and I presume digital is the same), the height to width ratio is 1:1.5. This difference means that printing fit to size, 0.8" or 6% is lost from the original off the edge of the printed page, which is enough in some cases to chop off a nose or tail. So even though the Epson software says "fit to size", what it really appears to be doing is scaling the print image to full height, and cropping the width indiscriminately. Mind you, a lot of commercial labs do the same sort of thing unless you pick the right size of paper - popular print sizes like 5"x7" aren't full frame 35mm either.
The work arounds that I have used so far are:
1. Some images I have been able to crop in Photoshop (or whatever) so that the height to width ratio is correct for A4. Given that I keep all my images as TIFs but resave them as JPGs for printing, I can do this crop when I prepare the image for print. I have learned already to preview every image before I print it (there's a large preview option somewhere), so as to make sure I'm not going to loose anything. However, as you'll appreciate, it isn't always possible to crop the image if both the nose and tail are close to the edges of the frame.
2. The other "solution" I have used is to print using the other option (can't remember what its called at the moment because I'm not at home, but in the Epson software its not the fit to size option, its the bottom option in the same little panel). This results in the print being full width, but there being a narrow white band at the top and bottom of the print (because at full width there isn't enough height on the image to cover the whole page). I've then lopped this narrow white band off the print using a desk top guillotine at work.
So, sorry I can't offer any easy solutions. Maybe Colin can chip in more as he's used the printer for longer than I have...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1800 times:
Personally, I've always avoided using "fit to size" as this could result in some additional manipultation of the image outside my control, so I would always size/crop my image in Corel/Adobe - and as Andy says - preview before printing.
I should also say I tend NOT to print borderless as I found on some occassions ink can get trapped at the edge of the paper and then smeared - I should say that I don't think this is a fault of the printer, but rather due to minor damage to the edge of the paper so that it's not lying perfectly flat.
For those contemplating buying one of these wonderous machines, it might be worth hanging on a little while and checking out the new Canon S900 - the spec sounds really good - higher resolution and much faster than the current Epson plus the advantage of having separate tanks for each of the 6 inks.
With the rapid advances in ink jet technology, I tend not to hang on to a printer very long, and tend to upgrade while my current model still has a decent resale value - I'll certainly be looking hard at the Canon this spring, though it will have to be good to tempt me away from Epson.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1789 times:
I've not had problems with borderless prints on Epson's own Glossy Photo Paper - can't remember the exact name, but its the expensive stuff. Using this paper, all my borderless prints have been immaculate so far. Having said that, I have had smudging on the cheaper lower weight photo paper.
I just saw a pre-review of the new Canon and yes it does sound interesting. However, it wasn't around when I bough the Epson, and with the Epson being knocked out at £150 in the sales it was too difficult to resist spending.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1788 times:
Oh I've no doubt the Epson is the best buy of the moment - I was thinking of people who might be reading this and thinking of buying. As to the page edges, you're right, the heavy Epson Premium should normally give no trouble - I had one batch where the corners had become very slightly bent due to mishandling in the post. I wouldn't have noticed until the printer misbehaved. Just something to watch out for - unless the paper is in perfect condition, don't risk printing to the edge.
Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
I use an Epson 895, and sometimes also get photos professionally printed. While the Epson is very good, I do think that professional prints have a slight edge. However, one thing I've noticed is that using the 'sharpen' function in Photoshop makes pics look a bit fake when printed out. The titles of the planes just seem to pop out of the photo. So now I always do two versions of good photos I take. One sharpened one for a.net, and one 'normal' one for printing.
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
For printing, especially for enlargments, you're going to need two versions anyway. airliners.net wants an image about 1024 pixels across, but for reasonable printing you need 250dpi or so which means an airliner.net sized picture isn't going to print that well at anything much above 4 inches across. For printing larger sizes, I would recommend using a digital image of the very highest resolution you can get - a 2880 pixel image is OK for me on an A4 print, but 1024 looked very grainy and jaggy.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1759 times:
I think 240 dpi is the optimum res. for the Epson - to do with making the dpi an exact fraction of the printer res, making life easy for the printer driver. Going any higher doesn't seem to improve matters, and just makes the file bigger.
As to sharpening - unsharpmask will give much better results. Im Photoshop I use values of 100% radius between .5 & 1, threshold 0 for A.net and values of 100% radius between 2 and 5, threshold 1 -2 for print. Depends a bit on the image.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1718 times:
In the UK, Kodak, Fuji, Jessop (the largest specialist photo retailer here), and probably others, all have internet print-from-digital services. I'm sure that there must be equivalents in your neck of the woods.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
Sorry Luis - forgot to check back on this thread.
It's best not to try and directly translate scan reolutions directly to print resolution. The scan is the amount of data you can extract from the neg. This can be translated to various print sizes depending on the selected dpi. Remeber, you can always resample down to reduce the pixel count (hence image size) - and this may even improve the image. So I would always scan at the highest possible optical resolution regardless of intended output size.
I beleive 240 dpi to be the optimum print resolution on the 890, BUT, it really requires close scrutiny to see any difference from a 200dpi print - at normal viewing distance 200 dpi is very acceptable, and allows a larger print from the same scan.