Reading mode: Light Dark

Inkjet or Dye-Sub

Go to last post
Y

yuriy156159

Well-known member
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Do you guys really think that no matter how good today's inkjets are improving dye-sub are still the way to go for profesinal look and quality of photographs. I have owned many inkjets and still have Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and just bought Olympus P-440 and me and my clients do prefer the look and feel of Olympus P-440.

At ferst The P-440 photo paper felt a little thin but later I realized it was just becouse I got so much used to Inkjet prints. I have some prints from pro photo lab and they are just as exactly as my Olympus P-440 prints which I do admire alot. It may not have a big color gamut as inkjets do but it is so true to a REAL PHOTO, the tonality and gradation are so smooth and color fadelity is just something Inkjets can not produce which is realy awesome!
So can you tell me what you think?
 
I agree to a point. I have a Kodak 8500 and with current technology, it is more 'photo-like' than any inkjet I've seen. The 8500 paper is also very thick (thicker than the p-440 as far as what I've heard) and 'professional' looking. I think that as inkjet dots get smaller, the differences between inkjets and dye-subs will shrink to a point as being indistinguishable. Some people feel that point as already been achieved... I disagree. Even though you might not be able to 'see' the inkjet dots without a loupe, I think that it still contributes to the 'inkjet look' which in my opinion, is definitely less wet print photo-like than the dye-subs.
  • Stew
yvn said:
Do you guys really think that no matter how good today's inkjets
are improving dye-sub are still the way to go for profesinal look
and quality of photographs. I have owned many inkjets and still
have Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and just bought Olympus P-440 and me
and my clients do prefer the look and feel of Olympus P-440.
At ferst The P-440 photo paper felt a little thin but later I
realized it was just becouse I got so much used to Inkjet prints. I
have some prints from pro photo lab and they are just as exactly as
my Olympus P-440 prints which I do admire alot. It may not have a
big color gamut as inkjets do but it is so true to a REAL PHOTO,
the tonality and gradation are so smooth and color fadelity is just
something Inkjets can not produce which is realy awesome!
So can you tell me what you think?
Click to expand...
 
yvn said:
Do you guys really think that no matter how good today's inkjets
are improving dye-sub are still the way to go for profesinal look
and quality of photographs. I have owned many inkjets and still
have Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and just bought Olympus P-440 and me
and my clients do prefer the look and feel of Olympus P-440.
At ferst The P-440 photo paper felt a little thin but later I
realized it was just becouse I got so much used to Inkjet prints. I
have some prints from pro photo lab and they are just as exactly as
my Olympus P-440 prints which I do admire alot. It may not have a
big color gamut as inkjets do but it is so true to a REAL PHOTO,
the tonality and gradation are so smooth and color fadelity is just
something Inkjets can not produce which is realy awesome!
So can you tell me what you think?
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As such dye-sub is my preference.

Al M
 
If you have used the matte ribbon, how would you describe the appearance of photos using this ribbon compared to lab matte/lustre prints?

Nate
yvn said:
Do you guys really think that no matter how good today's inkjets
are improving dye-sub are still the way to go for profesinal look
and quality of photographs. I have owned many inkjets and still
have Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and just bought Olympus P-440 and me
and my clients do prefer the look and feel of Olympus P-440.
At ferst The P-440 photo paper felt a little thin but later I
realized it was just becouse I got so much used to Inkjet prints. I
have some prints from pro photo lab and they are just as exactly as
my Olympus P-440 prints which I do admire alot. It may not have a
big color gamut as inkjets do but it is so true to a REAL PHOTO,
the tonality and gradation are so smooth and color fadelity is just
something Inkjets can not produce which is realy awesome!
So can you tell me what you think?
Click to expand...
 
So YVN:

How do you like the P-440? I have been thinking about getting one. What are your overall impressions. It is a lot cheaper then the 8500. As far as your question about inkjet versus dye sub, there is still the speed difference with the Dye subs being a lot faster especially compared to the epsons inkjets.

Thanks,
John
 
I do like it alot, when I compare my inkjet prints to p-440 it really shines!

Like the other guy said no matter how good inkjets are there are something in them that tells me they are not real photos. Now dont get me wrong for most peaple they are the way to go but when you put them side be side to my Olympus that is where decerning eye sees a differance. I can not wait to get my costum profiles and when I do get them i bet I will be even more impressed. As far as the paper feel goes between 8500 and 440 I dont see much deferance they are both awsome! So if you serious about photos get P-440 or 8500 you can not go wrong with either one.
John Walsh said:
So YVN:

How do you like the P-440? I have been thinking about getting one.
What are your overall impressions. It is a lot cheaper then the
8500. As far as your question about inkjet versus dye sub, there
is still the speed difference with the Dye subs being a lot faster
especially compared to the epsons inkjets.

Thanks,
John
Click to expand...
 
I'm extremely happy with my Kodak 8500 output and to my eye, the picture color, sharpness and quality is indistinguishable from that of a high-end photo lab. The inkjet technology has come a long way since my first photo printer (the venerable HP Photosmart) and the colors are, at times, quite vivid, but still IMO inkjet prints have a "home made", layered quality to them that the dyesub prints lack--they (dyesub) just look more "finished" and professional.
 
snapshotdoc said:
I'm extremely happy with my Kodak 8500 output and to my eye, the
picture color, sharpness and quality is indistinguishable from that
of a high-end photo lab. The inkjet technology has come a long way
since my first photo printer (the venerable HP Photosmart) and the
colors are, at times, quite vivid, but still IMO inkjet prints have
a "home made", layered quality to them that the dyesub prints
lack--they (dyesub) just look more "finished" and professional.
Click to expand...
--I am a total amateur and I am enjoying this thread.....I just went out and bought an Epson Ink jet that touted the great pictures it would make with pigment ink. Yes, the pictures are nice, but nothing like I get in the lab. When you hold it up to the light, you can see where the colors change....it doesn't have that smooth, wet look from a lab. I don't think I can hope for any better and I kind of wish printer manufacturers had some standard for advertising so us layman would understand the levels of printers and the different quality. In the store, they will print you a sample on a piece of paper that looks great, but it isn't the same as photo paper. I am thinking that maybe matte papaer might look a little better for me.
Jeaco
 
I think dye subs produce photos more like what people are used to getting from the lab. I also find my HiTi to be very reliable. No clogged jets or other such nonsense. I have a screwup of at worst 1 every 100 pictures(if that even). OTOH, I think my pics come out looking just a little bit soft. Anyone notice this with the 8x10 dye subs?

I think the question of which is better really is subjective to an extent. Dye sub fans praise the "smoothness" of the pictures while ink-jeters cry foul and say the dots are too small to notice and point to the "pop" of ink jet prints.

Some have questioned the longevity of dye sub prints. I have had my HiTi a year or so and have had no noticeable problems with fading yet. I think it is an important factor to consider in the inkjet vs dyesub debate. Some ppl feel it no big deal because you can just reprint it. Who wants to spend the time and $$$ reprinting photos after a few months though?
 
I think it depends on what you like. I prefer matte and art papers, and like to manipulate photos,sometimes even into a black and white pencil drawing or a watercolor - so for me the obvious choice is inkjet. You prefer glossy and want your photo to look like a photo, so for you the obvious choice is dye-sub.

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, Qimage
 
I just got costum made profile for Olympus P-440 and like I expected the results are superb!!
yvn said:
John Walsh said:
So YVN:

How do you like the P-440? I have been thinking about getting one.
What are your overall impressions. It is a lot cheaper then the
8500. As far as your question about inkjet versus dye sub, there
is still the speed difference with the Dye subs being a lot faster
especially compared to the epsons inkjets.

Thanks,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

What kind of printer are you using? If you post with exactly how you're doing your printing...(what program, type and brand of paper, what steps, resizing, etc.) Someone would probably be more than willing to help you get better prints. Not me....I'm a newbie to this too...LOL...but someone will! (Aren't I nice to volunteer everyones services?) :o)

Lorraine

Jeaco wrote:
.
Jeaco said:
--I am a total amateur and I am enjoying this thread.....I just
went out and bought an Epson Ink jet that touted the great pictures
it would make with pigment ink. Yes, the pictures are nice, but
nothing like I get in the lab. When you hold it up to the light,
you can see where the colors change....it doesn't have that smooth,
wet look from a lab. I don't think I can hope for any better and I
kind of wish printer manufacturers had some standard for
advertising so us layman would understand the levels of printers
and the different quality. In the store, they will print you a
sample on a piece of paper that looks great, but it isn't the same
as photo paper. I am thinking that maybe matte papaer might look a
little better for me.
Jeaco
Click to expand...
 
According to the latest MacWorld the P440 didn't do too well vs the latest inkjets. The i960 and R300 produced, better and cheaper prints while the i960 also produced prints faster.

It's worth reading if you are trying to decide.
 
I've had my HiTi a month and enjoy printing identification labels that I believe will be very durable. They seem to be on a fairly thick plastic (i.e. no paper deterioration) and with the color dyes transfered into the surface with heat I have high hopes for long life.
 
MacWorld peaple must be blind or their system is not set up right.

And I do read alot! Printing right is not so easy. You need to invest money into it to get professional results. I own Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and I think they are the best right now amoung other inkjets. I say what I know and see and with what I have experiance, and I am not trying to talk anybody into anything. When you read reviews like that of MacWorld you need to be careful and do not make a decission based on just one review. Read other reviews check the forums like this one and better yet buy and see for yourself.
Thanks for your input, good luck!
NicholasX said:
According to the latest MacWorld the P440 didn't do too well vs the
latest inkjets. The i960 and R300 produced, better and cheaper
prints while the i960 also produced prints faster.

It's worth reading if you are trying to decide.
Click to expand...
 
Lorraine said:
What kind of printer are you using? If you post with exactly how
you're doing your printing...(what program, type and brand of
paper, what steps, resizing, etc.) Someone would probably be more
than willing to help you get better prints. Not me....I'm a newbie
to this too...LOL...but someone will! (Aren't I nice to volunteer
everyones services?) :o)

Lorraine

Jeaco wrote:
.
Lorraine said:
--I am a total amateur and I am enjoying this thread.....I just
went out and bought an Epson Ink jet that touted the great pictures
it would make with pigment ink. Yes, the pictures are nice, but
nothing like I get in the lab. When you hold it up to the light,
you can see where the colors change....it doesn't have that smooth,
wet look from a lab. I don't think I can hope for any better and I
kind of wish printer manufacturers had some standard for
advertising so us layman would understand the levels of printers
and the different quality. In the store, they will print you a
sample on a piece of paper that looks great, but it isn't the same
as photo paper. I am thinking that maybe matte papaer might look a
little better for me.
Jeaco
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--I'm kind of embarrassed because I know I don't know what I am doing....

Printer is Epson CX5400, I have been using ACDC 5.0. I have tried using Epson photo paper glossy as well as Kodak and other brands. They seem to all look the same. I pretty much print as ACDC says...I set it for the paper I am using, put best quality photo, .....I knnow I should be doing other things, but don't know what. The prints come out ok, but they don't have that smooth look...they look kind of layered on the paper and I think maybe that is the best I can do with this printer. Any suggestions?
Jeaco
 
I definitely wasn't saying that you should base youre entire purchasing decision based on this review. Just that it's worth reading.

That being said, I think that some of today's Inkjets are photo quality. I print (for a living) to a true photo printer (Lambda) and many of the prints I've seen from consumer inkjets come quite close and in some ways beat our $150K machine. Not always, but sometimes.
 
Newby Alert!

I use a Xerox Phaser 7700 on Domtar Ultra Smooth 94 brightness 28 lb. paper at $0.02 a sheet (8.5 x 11). When framed it looks very good, I can't really tell the difference from Long's photo prints on Fujicolor Photo Archive stock. I realize the paper I am using is very light, but I don't mind since I am framing the prints.

Why don't more photographers consider photo lasers? I do a far amount of med/high volume printing of color/photo legal/trial exhibits and I went with the Phaser because the cost per copy was significantly lower that Inkjet and Dye-Sub alternatives.

Does Xerox Phaser toner fade? I haven't had mine that long and haven't ever tested for fading.

--
Solus Veritas,
Darin

10D w/550EX, 17-40 f/4L USM, 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, Xerox Phaser 7700
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top