Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: a dye sub printer for home use  (Read 3204 times)
Phuong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« on: February 11, 2006, 08:20:47 AM »
ReplyReply

i shoot for hobby therefore i dont print that much. plus, i dont trust the local labs to put my photos in their hands.
a few years ago i bought an Epson Photo printer which was a nice one. however since i dont print photos regularly (just once in a while, about 10 each time, totals 30 to 50 per year), so the inks just dry on themselves. it's really wasting.

so i'm looking for an alternative. i know that now Kodak has made a few dye-sub printers in the ~400usd range, which i can afford. but before going out & buy one, i'd like to know if this is the way to go? or is there is any other alternatives?
Logged
ricwis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2006, 09:11:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I have two dye sub printers.  The Kodak 1400 and the HiTi Photo Shuttle. I am pleased with the results and am a big dye sub fan.  I use the Kodak much more that the HiTi.  For larger prints, I use my trusty old Canon S9000.  Sometimes the Canon will sit for six weeks and not be used.  Then I need to do a print and it works fine.  Since the dye subs use a dry ink ribbon, there is no worry about drying out or ink mess.  The consumables come in a matching kit of ribbon and paper.  I prefer and use the glossy only.  You must use the manufacturer kits so are limited in paper choice.

Each printer technology has its pluses and minuses.  If you go with a dye sub, you must be careful about dust.  A spec of dust on the paper can ruin a print in that it will not allow the colors to be laid down properly.  It is especially noticeable in areas such as sky or skin where the dust spot will show up.  To help prevent this, I keep the printers covered when not in use.

I prefer the "look and feel" of the dye sub over the ink jet.  Others may disagree but for my work, the Kodak is the printer of choice for me.
Logged

Rich Wisler
Wildlife and Scenic Photography
http://www.ricwis.com
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2006, 09:23:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Rich, I'm also using the Kodak 1400 printer and I must say I'm very happy with it. It's fast, the prints are gorgeous and I don't worry about it like I've worried about inkjets in the past. I'm particularly not happy with the Epson printers I've used where the print head is built into the printer, for once that gets blocked, as for me, they inevitbly seem to do, the whole printer really is as good as dead. You just have to have that happen on one expensive printer to be a bit unhappy, and I feel so much happier spending lots of money on paper and ribbon for a dye sub than for ink in a little cartridge that costs many times the price of decent single malt scotch whisky.

Yes, dust can be an issue, but I've only had it happen once or twice. The only thing I really wish for in the dye sub would be larger print size, say up to A3, but I doubt that would be affordable.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
sgwrx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2006, 09:34:10 PM »
ReplyReply

would this be a good choice for printing fall color or landscape photographs? i guess i'm wondering about whether or not this can produce fine detail and rich colors.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad