Re: Epson Stylus 700/750 vs Dye-Subs!

Mr. Li certainly performed and reported a detail comparison of print quality between a very popular inkjet, Epson & a dye sub, Alps MD5000.

However, my feeling regarding print quality tests should end at the point of eye contact with the printed media. We have to actually see and feel the media to draw our conclusions. The scanning of printed images, to me, has no significance. Why bother? As it transmits to your monitor, its not a print.

Besides, I would suggest additional sample images of people besides scenery. The skin tone and other detail on a person's face tells you much more of a printer's quality than scenery.

I printed photo of a beautiful little girl taken with CP950 at highest resolution. She has light skin color and black shinny hair. The same image was printed by Epson 1200, New Photosmart HP P1000 & Canon CD-300. First 2 are inkjets and the last one a new dye sub printer. The result? At all 4X6 prints, CD-300 wins by big margin.

Epson 1200: Color is off. Close inspection shows all the dots specially on skin tone. The shine of black hair becomes a light brown solid color. This is not noticeable at first glance but you don't need a loupe put on your reading glasses if you are over 40. A close inspection will let you see all the dots!

HP P1000: Color is also off but better than Epson. Very grainy, worse than Epson but skin tone and hair shine handledl better than Epson.

Canon cd-300: See a sample, you will be impressed how the continuous tone prints excel the inkjets. No dots you can find. The skin tone and hair shine are so real and subtle. Believe me and you should see for yourself. Inkjet is no comparison at all. The only drawback is its limitation of print size. Its not an all purpose color printer but it gives you real photo satisfaction for under $500.

One more thing about the favorite color fast topic in this website, whether the prints of CD-300 (or anyl other printers) are color fast or not, I don't care. Why would you care at this stage of technology. The image file I stores on my computer or CD will always reflect the true color taken by pixels. As printer technology advances, you can always recall a true color print of the original image.

I am offering free print sample of CD-300. If you are interested, e-mail me your mailing address.
Amy

Appreciate your comparison. I would ask about what you did to calibrate the printers to get them performing up to snuff. My expectation is that all these printers will do very well if properly calibrated. I agree whole heartedly with your comments about comparing prints on monitors. Very few folks calibrate their monitors so such comparisons are suspect. Regarding the color fast issue, I respectfully disagree. I got interested in colorfast properties when I saw a shot of myself that I sent to my mother fading away because she had displayed it in her kitchen which has rather bright lighting. I would prefer not to fade away before my mother's eyes. For personal use, I tend to agree with you as shots never fade in the computer but for giving gift shots to others, I would like as much longevity as I can get. I have tried "lab" prints on good Kodak paper and they work pretty well but I can generally get somewhat better results printing shots myself.

Leon,
I got your point. True enough to want your gift picture last.
Still, don't forget an aged picture has it very own attraction.
Amy

Leon Wittwer said:

Appreciate your comparison. I would ask about what you did to calibrate
the printers to get them performing up to snuff. My expectation is that
all these printers will do very well if properly calibrated. I agree
whole heartedly with your comments about comparing prints on monitors.
Very few folks calibrate their monitors so such comparisons are suspect.
Regarding the color fast issue, I respectfully disagree. I got
interested in colorfast properties when I saw a shot of myself that I
sent to my mother fading away because she had displayed it in her kitchen
which has rather bright lighting. I would prefer not to fade away before
my mother's eyes. For personal use, I tend to agree with you as shots
never fade in the computer but for giving gift shots to others, I would
like as much longevity as I can get. I have tried "lab" prints on good
Kodak paper and they work pretty well but I can generally get somewhat
better results printing shots myself.

Click to expand...

Amy Lee said:

Leon Wittwer said:

Appreciate your comparison. I would ask about what you did to calibrate
the printers to get them performing up to snuff. My expectation is that
all these printers will do very well if properly calibrated. I agree
whole heartedly with your comments about comparing prints on monitors.
Very few folks calibrate their monitors so such comparisons are suspect.
Regarding the color fast issue, I respectfully disagree. I got
interested in colorfast properties when I saw a shot of myself that I
sent to my mother fading away because she had displayed it in her kitchen
which has rather bright lighting. I would prefer not to fade away before
my mother's eyes. For personal use, I tend to agree with you as shots
never fade in the computer but for giving gift shots to others, I would
like as much longevity as I can get. I have tried "lab" prints on good
Kodak paper and they work pretty well but I can generally get somewhat
better results printing shots myself.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A faded traditional B&W print have sepia look which recall past memories, but my faded injet colour print is no way attracting to me and others, most details are gone.

An aged photograph of an aged person... I don't know about that. One of us aging is enough. Appreciate your insight.

Yes, that old B&W stuff has something that the color lacks. Maybe that is why Ansel Adams is still my favorite photographer.