• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Photography: What do you see in the future for digital printing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm studying imaging at university.

For now, it's a matter of cost why we students can not yet explore any other printing process besides ink jet for our digital content. There is something of an image-setter process called dye sublimation which produces great continuous tones, but it is three to five dollars per print for ink and substrate. Our prof’s not going to let us use that thing, nor does it do the size we need. The chemical room is right over in the next lab, but there’s not the funding to run it, especially for experimenting students. There’s a seven-cartridge printer in one of the prof’s offices that we can use for special projects, but what else is there? I don’t know if I’m getting the exposure to varied printing methods that I need. Acquiring new technology to work with in our department shouldn’t be a problem, but I guess the lack of funding is not a new one to many a university.

Printing people, do you know that our digital prints may not last very long? For archive purposes, you’re just going to have the final version archived to retrieve and print at a later time for replacement. I guess, then, that output will consist of these things: digital prints that will not last years upon years, archiving data of the print, and having a computing and printing system that can read and then output the archived image. If that is the case, then if my children are not computer literate enough to move around, manipulate, archive, and output data, then what I produce will not last generations like traditional emulsion-based photos.


-Ray
 

tetsuoxb

Member
Either you or your professor are severely miseducated about printing digital content. Specifically digital photography. If you think ink-jet/laser/dyesub is the only way to go, you are just plain misinformed?

Have a drug store with a 1 hour photo lab? Or a favorite mom and pop store with one? Ever use ofoto.com? These nicer labs have digital minilabs. A digital minilab is basically a computer with gobs of RAM connected to something called a laser exposure printer.

What it does is laser expose real photo paper (archival quality available at nicer labs) at an incredibly high resolution (much higher than dyesub/inkjet/laser) and then process the paper in a regular manner. Nicer mom and pop labs/ofoto.com/even some costco stores have published ICC profiles on the internet at a site called www.drycreekphoto.com. Edit your photo in photoshop on a properly calibrated monitor and save using their ICC profile and you should get near pixel perfect color results. Dyesub is SHIT compared to laser exposure.

Machines you should look for are the Noritsu QSS-3xxx series machine. Take a few test prints, tell them no digital correction on the prints, and see what you like. If they dont understand no digital correction (drug store photo lab employees can be complete idiots, i know I managed them) go to another lab. I personally prefer Noritsu prints because the machines are made to work well with Kodak paper and chemicals, which I really stand behind. However, if you find a lab with a Fuji Frontier 570/375/390 series printer, using fuji paper and chemicals, then that would be a good place to give it a shot as well. DO NOT USE self serve kiosks, as you may be tempted to try and digitally correct the photos yourself. If you can avoid sitting there and playing, then just load up the photos on a self serve and let them fly.

http://www.noritsu.com
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=2&parent=233848

Dont let the specs of a 300dpi print resolution fool you into thinking that inkjet is better. Compare a photo printed off a high end Canon PRIUS inkjet photo printer versus a digital minilab. Even try a nicer dyesub. There is no comparison in quality if you know what you are looking at.

Disclosure: I used to work at a lab with a Noritsu QSS-3101 when I was in college.
 

SickBoy

Member
Yeah, I spent $50CDN on an inkjet printer last year... and I'll be damned if it was to print photos :) Since I got my digital camera, I've been sending out pics that I want printed. I personally believe that unless you're printing 8x10s like crazy, it's a lot cheaper... and even if you are printing 8x10's I'd rather print ones that would last.

My printer also came with a disposable-quality digital camera. I might print photos from that on my printer if the camera ever manages a half-decent pic :) Otherwise, I'll pay someone else to do it for me...
 

GXAlan

Member
http://www.pfucata.com/printer.php

You should read my article on photo printing. Long story short, most people are better off getting prints made on real photo paper at Walmart/Costco/your-local-drugstore/warehouse store/photo lab. On the other hand, the best inkjet printers can outperform the output produced by your local lab (on Noritsu and Fuji Frontiers).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom