 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Photos / February 2005Photo printer - good quality?
Hi! I have been using a Canon PowerShot A60 digital camera (2.0 megapixels), and I love it. I take a lot of pictures, but just for personal use (vacations, parties, etc.). I just purchased an HP Photosmart 245 photo printer and tested out a few sample pictures, printing directly from my camera's memory card. The pictures came out ok, but there is definitely a loss in quality compared to the same picture that I had devloped from an online service. My question is: Should this printer give me pictures that are indistinguishable from regularly depeloped pictures, and if not, are there any reasonably-priced printers (under $150) that do? Thanks! Ilan Ilan The HP245 is a fine printer for printing photos. Keep in mind that a good phot depends on alot of factors, including: 1. Resolution of image - the higher the better - rule of thumb is 300 pixels per printed inch, i.e. to print a good 8 x 10, you would want a file at least 3000 x 2400 pixels. You can 'get by' with 200 pixels per inch if your camera is low res / megapixels, i.e. a good 4 x 6 should be at least 800 x 1200 pixels. 2. The format the file is in - tif's print better because they have more pixels, jpegs 'lose' pixels/quality 3. type of printer paper - use a good quality 'photo' paper, not standard paper 4. printer settings - read your manual, make sure you select the right paper, quality ( photo vs draft, etc), and size settings. hope this helps >-----Original Message----- >Hi! I have been using a Canon PowerShot A60 digital camera (2.0 megapixels), [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Ilan >. Hi Len, Thanks for the advice. When I tested out my printer, I was printing 4x6s, printing straight off of my memory card, using "premium" photo paper, and on the "best" quality setting. Yet the picture still came out slightly granier than it had with regular development. There's no point on spending a couple of hundred dollars just to be unhappy with quality, so I decided to return it and will look for something else (or just continue having them developed for me). Sincerely, Ilan > Ilan > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >Ilan > >. The 2MP camera is a bit low in resolution for high quality pictures of any size. 3.2MP or more is better. Next the basic resolution of the printer is enough to get a very good quality print. It may be that the commercial photoprinting you use runs the image thru some sort of optimizer program prior to making the print. Next as you mentioned, you are using different paper than the commercial operation. I believ you can do a bit better for the price on a differnt model printer. There are several that will allow you to plug in the memory card, and print from it. In high quality printing modes, it's difficult to find individual dots on a photo quality printer. I'd print a few pictures and have the commercially printed ones, as well as the memory card, and then go to my local printer store. Also bring a few sheets of the photo paper of your choice. My 4 color printers currently in service HP 512C (Poor photo quality, slow) Canon S760 very good photo quality, tanks can be refilled. Epson R300 very good photo quality, Tanks are not easily refillable (chipped) Brother MFC 420cn Good to very good photo quality, a bit slow, don't know if tanks are refillable. > Hi Len, > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> >Ilan >> >. Hi Chuck, I've had pix taken by my 2MP camera developed by an online photo service, and the quality is excellent, so if the printer is good, I would hope to acheive the same results. Are you saying that I should take the sample pictures I printed, the picture I had previously developed, my memory card, and photo paper, and bring them to the store to test their printers there, before I buy? Will they allow that? If so, that's certainly not a bad idea - thanks! Ilan > The 2MP camera is a bit low in resolution for high quality pictures of any > size. 3.2MP or more is better. Next the basic resolution of the printer is [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 In short, yes they should allow you to test printers. After all, what are the display demo printers for? For years, National Geographic's pictures were thought to be some of the highest quality pictures. Actually, the printed resolution of those impressive pictures is less than what a good current model photo quality printer is capable of. Besides the resolution, paper and ink can play a big part in the visual quality of a printers photo quality. The ink droplet size can also make a visible difference. If I watch the printing process on my R300, one of the big differences between it and my other printers has to do with the width of the printing band. It's quite wide in high quality modes, with plenty of overlap between each pass of the printing head. This seems to allow much finer control of color shade and ink bleed. (needed to reduce or prevent individual dots from showing in very light color shades.) Interestingly enough, my S750 can produce a print that will be of compareable quality using two less ink colors. Another curious fact is that optimizing a printers output on a given paper type, using a test target that has color shades and densities from about 10% to 100% may not be optimum for photo printing. It seems that lighting, ink and paper effects, plus the subjective eye & brain opinion have a great influnce on what is considered to be correct for a given picture. Technically correct settings may produce a somewhat washed out photo, or an overly dark photo. > Hi Chuck, > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 Ilan.... A 2 MP camera is usually only adequate for photos you want to send via email. If you plan on printing photos of any size, then you'll need a camera with higher resolution. I now use a 4.0 MP camera and I've found that to be inadequate for printing larger photos. I'm in the market for a 6.0 MP or higher. If you are serious about printing photos, think about going to a higher MP camera. If you got "excellent quality" when having prints made from you 2 MP camera, then you must be printing smaller photos. Enlargements would be impossible. The other advantage to a higher MP camera is that you can crop and enlarge if you want to and still have a high quality print. Barry > Hi Chuck, > [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 Barry, Thanks for the reply. I'm really only interested in 4x6 pix, and the online quality was great for those. I went out and purchased a Canon Pixmar 5000 - if I'm not mistaken, it had 9600 x 2400 dpi, which may have been enough to get excellent 4x6 prints, even with my 2 MP camera. Plus, you only need to change the ink for the specific colors that run out, saving on ink costs. Only, I retruned it before I even opened the box, because I did some calculations, and between the high quality paper and all the ink, it worked out to cost about 35 cents/print vs about 25 cents/professionally developed pic. So, the more pictures I printed, the more costly it would be! I'll continue to have my pix developed by someone else until the technology is cheap enough to do it myself and get the same results. Thanks, Ilan > Ilan.... > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 i have a picture that has a water mark on it does anyone have any suggestion's of how i can fix it with out cropping that part. thank's, missy > Hi! I have been using a Canon PowerShot A60 digital camera (2.0 megapixels), > and I love it. I take a lot of pictures, but just for personal use [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thanks! > Ilan You might be able to fix it with an image editor but it will depend on the program. I wouldn't guarantee a fix but some of the latest versions of image editors can do some great things with damage photos. What image editor do you have such as Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Digital Image Pro, or Photoplus?  SignaturePaul Ballou MVP Office http://office.microsoft.com/clipart/default.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/templates http://office.microsoft.com/home Control the things you can and Don't Worry about the things you can't control. >i have a picture that has a water mark on it does anyone have any > suggestion's of how i can fix it with out cropping that part. thank's, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> Thanks! >> Ilan |
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.