Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are not dye sub printers considered for longevity?

Go to last post
gary stepic

gary stepic

Veteran Member
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
373
Location
Albuquerque USA, US
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally ruled out dye sub (looked at the Oly 440) because I thought the cost per page would be much higher than inkject printers but I looked through an article on the web that said with ink and paper the cost per page would be about $2.50 for a Canon printer. Steves Digicam review of the Oly brings the cost at less than $2 per page. His review states this printer has the same archival quality as film prints.

It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated monitor.

I would mainly use this printer for sports photos and I guess my next step would be to go to a retailer and get sample prints from a couple of my favorite images to see for myself the quaility difference in a Canon, Epson, and Olympus. For selling sports prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but this printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this forum and I just wonder why.
 
gary stepic said:
gary stepic wrote:
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally
It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve
states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated
monitor.
Click to expand...
Who wants accurate colors? When you can have exagerated or muted?
gary stepic said:
For selling sports prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but > this printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this
forum and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
There is nothing much to tinker with so nothing to talk about here. No other papers or inks try out etc. And there is a smaller intalled base or they may just be happy taking and printing pictures.

John
 
the fact of the matter is that dye sub printers only account for a small number of the printers sold. They have their pluses and minuses and depending on your needs and demands they may or may not fulfill your needs.

The biggest problem with dye subs is their lack of versatility. They cannot be used as text printers and generally speaking they can only print on 1 size of paper. For example, the P-440 you mention does 8x10 ONLY. Yes, you can print 3 4x6s on it but what if you wanted only 1? Also, you would have to cut the sheet which can be a hassle. Plus, it is not as economical to use an 8x10 sheet to print 4x6s.

Furthermore, you are limited to buying paper from that manufacturer and glossy is pretty much your only option. The matte prints from dye subs that can do it usually arent that great I hear.

Costs are generally higher. I am not sure where that $2.50 came from but that sounds WAY high. The cost of hardware is higher. For the cost of a P-440 you can get a 13x19 Canon printer(good luck, finding a dye sub bigger than 8x10).

On longevity, dye subs probably fall somewhere between dye inkjets and pigment inkjets. In other words, pretty good. Color gamut on dye subs is generally more limited than inkjets. The Olympus in particular has the most limited gamut of dye subs. There was a recent post on this by Ethan Hansen of Dry Creek Photo comparing the gamut of various dye subs.

One of the big advantages of dye subs is reliability. No clogs to worry about. I am sure some will argue over this. To be sure inkjets have improved in this regard but I still give the edge to dye subs. No cleaning cycles or alignments to worry about. This is a big plus for the occasional printer. Only problem usaully is dust.

Print quality is another source of argument. Some people prefer the continuous tone of dye subs which give them a very lab-like look. Others prefer the pop of inkjets and claim that inkjet prints are sharper.

Dye subs still seem to be quite popular w/ event photographers. Most dont trust dye based inkjets in terms of longevity. Too many reported problems w/ fading and concerns of customers complaints. Also, there is the reliability issue. If you are selling your prints you should consider the Kodak 8500. The Kodak logo is always a good selling point and it is an excellent printer with great support. By all means though compare sample prints.
gary stepic said:
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally
ruled out dye sub (looked at the Oly 440) because I thought the
cost per page would be much higher than inkject printers but I
looked through an article on the web that said with ink and paper
the cost per page would be about $2.50 for a Canon printer. Steves
Digicam review of the Oly brings the cost at less than $2 per page.
His review states this printer has the same archival quality as
film prints.

It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve
states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated
monitor.

I would mainly use this printer for sports photos and I guess my
next step would be to go to a retailer and get sample prints from a
couple of my favorite images to see for myself the quaility
difference in a Canon, Epson, and Olympus. For selling sports
prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but this
printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this
forum and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
 
One nice thing about dye subs is that the paper and ribbon are matched so you know precisely what your printing costs are. With inkjets, it is far more difficult with cartridges being swapped out asnd ink being used for cleaning, etc. Also, you know exactly how many prints you can make with a dye sub(excluding the occasional mess-ups but when it happens your remaining print count is easily determined). Not a big deal for the average user but still thought I'd mention it.
 
John,

Maybe you hit the nail on the head. What drives me crazy with the inkjet printers is trying to get a handle on my costs. The only way I can get an accurate idea is to keep a log of all my prints for a period of time after I have all full ink tanks at the same time (does that ever happen?) and then I can do some calculations. It also appears maintenence costs may have to be factored in as well for clogged heads. It seems all so simple with the Oly - about 50 prints for 45 bucks with a ribbon. Even a goverenment accountant like myself can figure out the costs!

I am still considering the Canon 9100i along witht the Lyson ink loading system for bulk inks but at this point my volumn is probably too low to justify the purchase. But $300 seems like a great price for a decent large format printer so it would not take that many prints to justify the cost. Just don't know if I want to deal with potential maintenence problems and having to run to a retailer constantly for ink tanks. I guess with the 440 could have just one spare ribbon and replace when ribbon I am using runs out.

Is the Oly mainly just a photo printer? Probably should still keep my Canon 560i for reports and normal printing while using the 440 for sellable photos and photos I want to display or show off.
John DeSantis said:
Member said:
gary stepic wrote:
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally
It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve
states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated
monitor.
Click to expand...
Who wants accurate colors? When you can have exagerated or muted?
Member said:
For selling sports prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but > this printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this
forum and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
There is nothing much to tinker with so nothing to talk about here.
No other papers or inks try out etc. And there is a smaller
intalled base or they may just be happy taking and printing
pictures.

John
Click to expand...
 
Thank you, your post was very helpful. Yes, I will compare prints from one of my photos and will probably look at the Kodak printer. I imagine I can still use my Canon 560i as my nomral printing workhorse and for smaller prints.

I have the Sony 828 and Nikon D70 and I value both these cameras because they each do certain things well and I feel they compliment each other more than they duplicate what they do. I have a feeling I may do the same with my printing, use two different printers that compliment each other and I think for my sports photography aspirations the 440 or Kodak will work well along with my Canon or the 9100i. It seems like with the advances in technology, and getting more for less money is part of that, we don't have to choose between two options like we used to, we can actually have the best of both worlds without going bankrupt to do that!

Thanks again for your detailed response - Gary
danielsan said:
The biggest problem with dye subs is their lack of versatility.
They cannot be used as text printers and generally speaking they
can only print on 1 size of paper. For example, the P-440 you
mention does 8x10 ONLY. Yes, you can print 3 4x6s on it but what if
you wanted only 1? Also, you would have to cut the sheet which can
be a hassle. Plus, it is not as economical to use an 8x10 sheet to
print 4x6s.

Furthermore, you are limited to buying paper from that manufacturer
and glossy is pretty much your only option. The matte prints from
dye subs that can do it usually arent that great I hear.

Costs are generally higher. I am not sure where that $2.50 came
from but that sounds WAY high. The cost of hardware is higher. For
the cost of a P-440 you can get a 13x19 Canon printer(good luck,
finding a dye sub bigger than 8x10).

On longevity, dye subs probably fall somewhere between dye inkjets
and pigment inkjets. In other words, pretty good. Color gamut on
dye subs is generally more limited than inkjets. The Olympus in
particular has the most limited gamut of dye subs. There was a
recent post on this by Ethan Hansen of Dry Creek Photo comparing
the gamut of various dye subs.

One of the big advantages of dye subs is reliability. No clogs to
worry about. I am sure some will argue over this. To be sure
inkjets have improved in this regard but I still give the edge to
dye subs. No cleaning cycles or alignments to worry about. This is
a big plus for the occasional printer. Only problem usaully is dust.

Print quality is another source of argument. Some people prefer the
continuous tone of dye subs which give them a very lab-like look.
Others prefer the pop of inkjets and claim that inkjet prints are
sharper.

Dye subs still seem to be quite popular w/ event photographers.
Most dont trust dye based inkjets in terms of longevity. Too many
reported problems w/ fading and concerns of customers complaints.
Also, there is the reliability issue. If you are selling your
prints you should consider the Kodak 8500. The Kodak logo is always
a good selling point and it is an excellent printer with great
support. By all means though compare sample prints.
gary stepic said:
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally
ruled out dye sub (looked at the Oly 440) because I thought the
cost per page would be much higher than inkject printers but I
looked through an article on the web that said with ink and paper
the cost per page would be about $2.50 for a Canon printer. Steves
Digicam review of the Oly brings the cost at less than $2 per page.
His review states this printer has the same archival quality as
film prints.

It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve
states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated
monitor.

I would mainly use this printer for sports photos and I guess my
next step would be to go to a retailer and get sample prints from a
couple of my favorite images to see for myself the quaility
difference in a Canon, Epson, and Olympus. For selling sports
prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but this
printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this
forum and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I use a dye sub for my 4x6s and the Epson R800 for anything larger. I would have like to have gotten a larger format version of the R800 but my lack of patience got the better of me.
gary stepic said:
Thank you, your post was very helpful. Yes, I will compare prints
from one of my photos and will probably look at the Kodak printer.
I imagine I can still use my Canon 560i as my nomral printing
workhorse and for smaller prints.

I have the Sony 828 and Nikon D70 and I value both these cameras
because they each do certain things well and I feel they compliment
each other more than they duplicate what they do. I have a feeling
I may do the same with my printing, use two different printers that
compliment each other and I think for my sports photography
aspirations the 440 or Kodak will work well along with my Canon or
the 9100i. It seems like with the advances in technology, and
getting more for less money is part of that, we don't have to
choose between two options like we used to, we can actually have
the best of both worlds without going bankrupt to do that!

Thanks again for your detailed response - Gary
Click to expand...
 
One thing I would add about dye sub prints is that they are durable. I had a friend over and was showing samples from the printer. I put my drink on it and of course ended up with a ring of moisture on it. He was impressed when I wiped it off with my hand. He was even more impressed when I put the picture under the faucet and ran water all over it...then wiped the water off with a paper towel!
 
Gary

reason that dye subs are a smaller segment are

1) higher cost for printer
2) less options for paper

The good things about them

fixed print cost generally lower than ink jets
longevity
prints can take more abuse
printing speed
no clogging
no smearing
dont have problems being transported a lot

For event type photography most people use dye subs. You will sometimes see some inkjets but mostly from people that cant afford buying the dye subs.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
Gary,

I recently replaced a shared interest in a P400 with my own P440. In my mind, this printer gives the best of both worlds -- the ability to print clear 8 by 10 or smaller images either in the field or from a computer. I considered the Kodak 8500 but decided to stay with the Olympus because I can print directly (after reviewing and cropping with the built-in LCD panel if desired) from compact flash card large quality JPEGs. The images are taken with a Pentax *istD but I used the P400 with an Olympus E20n and never had a problem with that combination either. On the computer side, with Windows XP and the P440 driver, I can use the print feature of XP and print quality 12 JPEG after editing Raw files into TIFF and JPEG with Photoshop CS.

In addition to the P440 and P400 experience, I also have been using a P200 for client samples for 6 years and have never had a problem getting accurate colors from it either.

All in all, I think you will be very happy with the P440. Depending on the JPEG quality of your camera, you may even be able to use it in the field to direct print from the media card (need A/C power for this)

Last, but not least, you should know that if go this route, take a look at the supply prices on Amazon.com in the USA. They have a 50 print glossy ribbon for $38 and 100 sheets of A4 paper from Office Depot/Tech Depot for $75. That combination puts your cost at $1.51 per 8 by 10 A4 sheet. Tech Depot also carries the shorter A5 Album Paper used for one 5 by 7 print ( you use less ribbon at the same time ). An A5 package of 25 sheets is $17. Of course, with Windows XP, you can use the Microsoft print function to print Two 5 by 7 images on One A4 sheet.

Howard
Photographer, ShipPax Information
gary stepic said:
Sometimes the more I read the more confused I get. I originally
ruled out dye sub (looked at the Oly 440) because I thought the
cost per page would be much higher than inkject printers but I
looked through an article on the web that said with ink and paper
the cost per page would be about $2.50 for a Canon printer. Steves
Digicam review of the Oly brings the cost at less than $2 per page.
His review states this printer has the same archival quality as
film prints.

It also appears there would be no clogging problems and Steve
states it is easier to get colors that match a well calibrated
monitor.

I would mainly use this printer for sports photos and I guess my
next step would be to go to a retailer and get sample prints from a
couple of my favorite images to see for myself the quaility
difference in a Canon, Epson, and Olympus. For selling sports
prints the 440 seems like it would be a good option but this
printer does not seem to get much serious consideration on this
forum and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
 
danielsan said:
Print quality is another source of argument. Some people prefer the
continuous tone of dye subs which give them a very lab-like look.
Others prefer the pop of inkjets and claim that inkjet prints are
sharper.
Click to expand...
This is slightly off topic for this thread but I am interested your opinion about how home inkjet compares with good lab prints.

I have been getting professional grade lab prints for a while and have been very happy with them but that they are expensive in small quantities. A few days ago I got an Epson R800 and some Priemium Glossy paper.

I have followed threads on this forum about monitor calibration and using the correct (Epson) .icc profile for the Priemium Glossy paper. So far the lab prints still look better - quite a lot better actually. For example, I have a shot which contains grass partly in the sun and partly in the shade. Although the overall contrast of both prints is similar, in the lab print the grass in the sun is a nice bright green and the grass in the shade is a nice dark green. In the R800 print there is less difference between the two greens. The lab prints just have a jewel-like quality that I am not getting so far from the R800.

My big question is, do I need to try and find better profiles for the R800 or will the lab prints always outshine (literally) the inkjet? As far as I know I am doing everything right, Colour management in the printer driver off, Photo RPM, gloss full, not high speed.

--
Steve Horn
Gallery http://www.pbase.com/stevehorn/selected
 
the epson r800 has problems with the dark green.
I have tried to profile one and I know that there is problems with that part.

what you can try is to print with color controlls and no profile to see if it gets better and if it gets better then make a custom profile with color controll settings.

but that meens to buy a custom profile from http://www.drycreekphoto.com or http://www.cathysprofiles.com .

I personally own a epson 2100 and that one does not have the same problems as the r800 so the custom profiles 2100 outshines all the labs that I have tried here in Sweden.

but I get what your saying with the r800 because thats exactly how it was when I made a custom profile for a customer here in sweden.

Best regards
Amin
 
I was really referring to the process by which the prints are made. Dye subs lay the colors on top of each other to make a new color whereas inkjets just squeeze different color dots clsoe together(but not on top each other) to give the appearance of a certain color. If you take a loupe and you examine an inkjet print you will see what I mean.

As time goes by and the dot pitch gets smaller and smaller the difference keeps shrinking. I have to admit that I have been out of the inkjet game for a while(last one was an Epson 780 - got sick of clogging heads) but I still hear comments that in some areas of some prints(shadow areas mostly it seems) that some of the inkjet printers do struggle a bit.

I just got my Epson R800 so I really havent had a chance to really evaluate it but so far I must admit I am impressed with the quality of the prints.

Your problem sounds like it could be a profile issue. You could try to use the Photoshop(if you have it) soft proof function and check for out of gamut colors. In general, the Epson R800 should have a wider gamut than your lab's printer and IMO you should be able to outperform or equal your lab in termso fo colors. Remember that the lab may do its own processing to your photos(like turn up the contrast) which is partly why I like to print at home so I can have end to end control over the process.

If you go to http://www.drycreekphoto.com , Ethan Hnasen has thrown up a bunch of 3D gamuts maps of a whole range of printers including inkjets, dye subs and the big lab printers like Fuji Frontier. Unfortunately, you cant(yet) overlay them to get a clear picture of the differences.
Steve_Horn said:
danielsan said:
Print quality is another source of argument. Some people prefer the
continuous tone of dye subs which give them a very lab-like look.
Others prefer the pop of inkjets and claim that inkjet prints are
sharper.
Click to expand...
This is slightly off topic for this thread but I am interested your
opinion about how home inkjet compares with good lab prints.

I have been getting professional grade lab prints for a while and
have been very happy with them but that they are expensive in small
quantities. A few days ago I got an Epson R800 and some Priemium
Glossy paper.
Click to expand...
 
Howard and others,

Thanks for the replies and info. I will try and find a retailer that carries the 440 to view prints and then if I like what I see after comparing printers I will probably order online. Getting good prices on the consumables is important so again thanks for the info.

Every choice has pros and cons but it seems like for my sports photography I can't go wrong with the 440. I can still use my Canon 560 for my normal printing and even for proofs (I will put 9 shots on an 8x10 of all the good game pics and I have the parents put their name and number on the back of the pictures they like - no need for good paper for this task). I have not had the opportunity to actually sell in the field since I have just started my business but it sounds like eventually the 440 will be a gem for this purpose.

I am starting to use Desktop Digital Lab for specialty prints and I may compare my output with theirs. They charge $1.75 for an 8x10 so if their pictures provide more "pop" then I can use them if the customer prefers their output. I probably am making things too complicated though because just getting a good action shot will be what matters and I think the durability will be the next most important factor (I can use it as a selling point). I really don't think I will lose a sale if the grass is a little greener in someone elses shot. especially since I am specializing in action photos.

Down the road I may get a large format printer but it seems to make more sense to use the lab until a get a good demand (or create one) for larger prints. What really is swinging me over to the 440 is my last expierence trying to print a team photo for a client (I don't solicit this business but it falls into my lap at times). There was an ink smudge that took several prints to get rid of and that was extrememly annoying, not too mention wasteful. There seems to be some debate as to what costs less as far as ink and paper between dye subs and ink jets but my instinks (yeah, I know, not very reliable) tell be ink jet printing is more costly than sometimes reported. If it costs $60 bucks for ink tanks I really don't believe you get get 60 quality 8x10s from that (yes I know some inks will run out much sooner than others). It seems like quality paper will run close to 80 cents a sheet so I think there is no savings in ink jets. A bulk feeder may change that but I am hoping by the time I get a good cash flow in my business the technology will continue to provide more for less.

Probably another important reason I will get the 440 is my competitive nature. I don't ever want to lose a sale to a competitor because they make an issue of print fading. Forgive me for this unrelated statement, but that competitive nature is what made me buy the D70 and probably a better camera will follow down the road. I have been using a Sony 828 for my Lobo basketball games and have had some nice shots but I know a dslr would produce better ones and I didn't want anyone to "show me up" with sharper prints. Then my wife had a cow when she saw what I spent (she was still mad for me getting the Sony!) so I promised her I would make enough with the D70 to pay for it. So my sports business was born!

Again thanks for your help and putting up with my unrelated ramblings- Gary
Howard said:
Gary,

I recently replaced a shared interest in a P400 with my own P440.
In my mind, this printer gives the best of both worlds -- the
ability to print clear 8 by 10 or smaller images either in the
field or from a computer. I considered the Kodak 8500 but decided
to stay with the Olympus because I can print directly (after
reviewing and cropping with the built-in LCD panel if desired) from
compact flash card large quality JPEGs. The images are taken with
a Pentax *istD but I used the P400 with an Olympus E20n and never
had a problem with that combination either. On the computer side,
with Windows XP and the P440 driver, I can use the print feature of
XP and print quality 12 JPEG after editing Raw files into TIFF and
JPEG with Photoshop CS.

In addition to the P440 and P400 experience, I also have been using
a P200 for client samples for 6 years and have never had a problem
getting accurate colors from it either.

All in all, I think you will be very happy with the P440.
Depending on the JPEG quality of your camera, you may even be able
to use it in the field to direct print from the media card (need
A/C power for this)

Last, but not least, you should know that if go this route, take a
look at the supply prices on Amazon.com in the USA. They have a 50
print glossy ribbon for $38 and 100 sheets of A4 paper from Office
Depot/Tech Depot for $75. That combination puts your cost at $1.51
per 8 by 10 A4 sheet. Tech Depot also carries the shorter A5 Album
Paper used for one 5 by 7 print ( you use less ribbon at the same
time ). An A5 package of 25 sheets is $17. Of course, with
Windows XP, you can use the Microsoft print function to print Two 5
by 7 images on One A4 sheet.

Howard
Photographer, ShipPax Information
Click to expand...
 
gary stepic said:
Then my wife had a cow when she saw what I spent (she was still mad
for me getting the Sony!) so I promised her I would make enough
with the D70 to pay for it. So my sports business was born!
Click to expand...
I was lucky...my wife wanted the printer too. Our wedding photographer supplied negatives and a friend with a Canon 10D snapped about 400 pictures. We wanted to be able to crop pictures, etc. to make our wedding album.

Maybe another time I'll tell the story of how she called me at work and said "You should order that camera before summer!" (referring to my 10D).

Of course, it's not a one-way street. She got a Photoshop class, down comforter, duvet, and some artwork out of the deal. :)
 
Consider yourself blessed that your wife shares an interest in photography!! I am working on my wife in that regard. The cropping feature of the 440 can be useful and caught my attention. Don't know how often I would use this though because it seems to be little trouble taking my laptop and then cropping with ps. Viewing outdoors is nearly impossible though with the laptop. I will probably get a nice LCD monitor so between my laptop, a somewhat portable monitor, and the 440 I will be all set up to sell on location. Maybe will need a portable generator though but I think there is something that may allow me to run this stuff off of a car battery (my wife doesn't know that the camera is only the beginning of many more NEEDED expenses!

Gary
FatNoah said:
FatNoah said:
Then my wife had a cow when she saw what I spent (she was still mad
for me getting the Sony!) so I promised her I would make enough
with the D70 to pay for it. So my sports business was born!
Click to expand...
I was lucky...my wife wanted the printer too. Our wedding
photographer supplied negatives and a friend with a Canon 10D
snapped about 400 pictures. We wanted to be able to crop pictures,
etc. to make our wedding album.

Maybe another time I'll tell the story of how she called me at work
and said "You should order that camera before summer!" (referring
to my 10D).

Of course, it's not a one-way street. She got a Photoshop class,
down comforter, duvet, and some artwork out of the deal. :)
Click to expand...
 
Gary,

If you want to run off the car battery, you want a power inverter. They provide AC voltage from a DC source, such as the cigarette lighter of the car. Naturally, this will drain your battery...

You also might want to refer to posts in the Pro Forum (if you haven't already) that deal with event photography. Many people have stated that more than one monitor is needed so multiple people can review the photos at the same time. One poster also recommended against mentioning that that photos would also be availalble on the web.

Good luck!
gary stepic said:
Consider yourself blessed that your wife shares an interest in
photography!! I am working on my wife in that regard. The cropping
feature of the 440 can be useful and caught my attention. Don't
know how often I would use this though because it seems to be
little trouble taking my laptop and then cropping with ps. Viewing
outdoors is nearly impossible though with the laptop. I will
probably get a nice LCD monitor so between my laptop, a somewhat
portable monitor, and the 440 I will be all set up to sell on
location. Maybe will need a portable generator though but I think
there is something that may allow me to run this stuff off of a car
battery (my wife doesn't know that the camera is only the beginning
of many more NEEDED expenses!

Gary
Click to expand...
 
FatNoah said:
If you want to run off the car battery, you want a power inverter.
They provide AC voltage from a DC source, such as the cigarette
lighter of the car. Naturally, this will drain your battery...

You also might want to refer to posts in the Pro Forum (if you
haven't already) that deal with event photography. Many people
have stated that more than one monitor is needed so multiple people
can review the photos at the same time. One poster also
recommended against mentioning that that photos would also be
availalble on the web.

Good luck!
gary stepic said:
Consider yourself blessed that your wife shares an interest in
photography!! I am working on my wife in that regard. The cropping
feature of the 440 can be useful and caught my attention. Don't
know how often I would use this though because it seems to be
little trouble taking my laptop and then cropping with ps. Viewing
outdoors is nearly impossible though with the laptop. I will
probably get a nice LCD monitor so between my laptop, a somewhat
portable monitor, and the 440 I will be all set up to sell on
location. Maybe will need a portable generator though but I think
there is something that may allow me to run this stuff off of a car
battery (my wife doesn't know that the camera is only the beginning
of many more NEEDED expenses!

Gary

Can any of you folks who have an Olympus dye sub tell me how well these printers handle black and white images, Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I was completely blown away by the black and white performance. My source images were scanned medium format B&W negatives. One thing this printer excels at is shadow detail. The B&W pictures I've printed have been absolutely amazing. Sharpness, detail, and color (or more importantly, the lack thereof) are right-on.

I've read some posts about others seeing a slight color cast to their B&W prints, but I haven't seen it.
ewhitney said:
FatNoah said:
If you want to run off the car battery, you want a power inverter.
They provide AC voltage from a DC source, such as the cigarette
lighter of the car. Naturally, this will drain your battery...

You also might want to refer to posts in the Pro Forum (if you
haven't already) that deal with event photography. Many people
have stated that more than one monitor is needed so multiple people
can review the photos at the same time. One poster also
recommended against mentioning that that photos would also be
availalble on the web.

Good luck!
gary stepic said:
Consider yourself blessed that your wife shares an interest in
photography!! I am working on my wife in that regard. The cropping
feature of the 440 can be useful and caught my attention. Don't
know how often I would use this though because it seems to be
little trouble taking my laptop and then cropping with ps. Viewing
outdoors is nearly impossible though with the laptop. I will
probably get a nice LCD monitor so between my laptop, a somewhat
portable monitor, and the 440 I will be all set up to sell on
location. Maybe will need a portable generator though but I think
there is something that may allow me to run this stuff off of a car
battery (my wife doesn't know that the camera is only the beginning
of many more NEEDED expenses!

Gary

Can any of you folks who have an Olympus dye sub tell me how well these printers handle black and white images, Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'll try a few more things with the R800. I suppose you would not expect to get perfect prints with an enlarger and darkroom in the first couple of days so I should be patient.

I cannot understand why Epson cannot provide an excellent profile of thier own given that I am using their ink and paper. In fact they did not provide any profiles at all on the CD, I had to find them for myself on the Internet! Not great customer service.

--
Steve Horn
Gallery http://www.pbase.com/stevehorn/selected
 
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