Inkjet or Dye Sublimation for Sports

[lukas_jenkins]

I have gotten into sports photography in the last year. Frequently I run into these situations... 1. I get a

order that is to small to justify driving to Ritz to pick up 2-3 4x6's or something. 2. It is a rush order and I

do not have the time to drive to Ritz. I actually rarely get my prints printed at Ritz, I've been using

winkflash.com and have been very happy. Since it is an online gig one has to wait for the prints to be

shipped which is not always convenient. I currently have a Epson R1800. Tonight was one of those nights

where I had a client in need of 9 5x7's by tomorrow. So I obviously did not have time to get the

photographs ready for print and send them to Ritz and definitely not wink flash. I also had another order

to print, 2 4x6's and an 8x10. I find the R1800 to be great for printing at its highest resolution and quality

on Kodak Professional Glossy Photo Paper that I had profiled for like art shows and stuff. I just entered an

art show and used the Epson R1800 and won 2 1st place awards. Anyway, I seem to think that the R1800's

place is not high volume fast output prints for say sports photography. So I thought about this Kodak dye

sub printer I had looked at in the past that prints up to 8x12. What do you think about the quality of dye

subs vs. inkjet now adays? I like how dye sub's have a fixed print cost, it seems like I go through ink like

water in my R1800! So I was thinking using the dye sub for all my sports work up to 8x10 and print

11x14's on the R1800 and anything larger send out. I appreciate your help.

 

Lukas

[daniel_taylor]

Be aware that by using a 3rd party paper you may be compromising print permanence dramatically. Since you're *selling* these prints, this is an issue. I wouldn't trust a 3rd party paper not tested by Wilhelm *with* the Epson ink set, and even then I might be iffy about it. (Kodak, ironically, does not have the best reputation when it comes to ink jet inks or papers in terms of permanence.)

 

As to print speed and ink use, use the 2nd best setting, "Photo". There is generally no difference to the naked eye between "Photo" and "Best Photo", yet the former prints faster using less ink. It's also hard to say what your paper settings/profile are doing to ink use. I know that different papers require different coverage. Epson Heavy Weight Matte uses considerably less ink than Premium Glossy, for example.

 

I've filled much larger orders than that on short notice with my R800 and it was fast enough. If somebody asked me for 9 5x7, 2 4x6, and 1 8x10 I wouldn't hesitate to turn on the R800.

 

At a certain point though it is better to drive to a photo lab time wise. Walgreens is typically open 24 hours with a photo lab kiosk. I once had to have several hundred 8x10's printed at a Walgreens at midnight. (Last minute job for an attorney...don't ask.) They were done in a couple hours, though I will note that I had to call 3 Walgreens to find one that had so few jobs running they would commit to that time frame.

 

As to dye sub vs. ink jet...I don't know, unless the dye sub model were very fast and lower or equal cost per print, I think I would just add another R800 or R1800 to the mix to run two printers at once.

 

Or find a Walgreens.

[daniel_fortier]

I presume you do not want to carry around your printer to events, but keep it home, in this case the Kodak 1400 will be fine.

 

I have one and recommend to use the Qimage software with it, fantastic for multiple prints of different sizes per sheet.

 

The best cost for papers/ribbon in the US is buy.com always buy the 14" paper, it's the same price as the 12" that only print up to 8X10.

 

regards

[lukas_jenkins]

I will definitely try the "photo" setting. I don't use the "standard" Kodak ink jet paper that

you buy from target or something. It is the Professional version. All I know is that I get

accurate screen to print matching with the profile I had made. Please let me know more

about testing by Wilhelm, I'm not familiar. There is actually one event on June 2, 2006

where I will need to bring my whole mobile edit/print studio along. It is the local high

school post prom party at The United Sports Training Center. It is a large indoor sports

complex near my house with indoor soccer, hockey, basketball etc. So myself and another

photographer will be shooting against a backdrop and selling prints on the spot possibly...

So I was thinking I would end up bringing the R1800 since my Epson Stylus Photo 900

does not make the best prints in the world. I do have a Epson Picture Mate that is primarily

used for "family" pictures but that might work decently for 4x6's printed from Photoshop.

It is very difficult for me to determine how much a print costs on average with my R1800,

the inks go at different times. I could change one color twice before another etc. Dye sub

has a fixed price of about .86 for 5x7's, .43 for 4x6 and $1.72 for 8x10 based on B&H

pricing of $86 (with shipping) for the media kit.

 

As far as quality goes I have read people claim that their dye sub dominates any inkjet

they ever had. Is this still true with the newer ink jets like the Epson R1800?

 

Lukas

[Ed_Ingold]

Dye-sub prints are fast (really fast), look like prints on Crystal C, and are very durable. Unlike inkjet prints, they are not affected by water and highly restant to scratching. The material cost is about the same as an inkjet for a letter-sized print - $1.50.

 

If you make one-off prints for events or groups for sale, 8x10 or smaller, then the dye-sub wins hands down. Likewise if you intend to print on site. Just the time saved alone is worth the purchase price of the printer. I have a Kodak 1400, and can toss off 20 prints in little more than half an hour. It would take at least two hours with an inkjet.

 

It's good to have a 4x6 printer on hand too - the material only costs $0.20 to S0.40 per print. I have an Hi-Touch 630P. The Canon Selphy would be attactive, and has the lowest material cost of any 4x6 dye-sub.

 

If you make art prints that will be matted and framed, especially large prints, then the inkjet wins. You do have to handle them carefully to avoid damage, but once matted and under glass, the danger is past. The resistance of pigment inks to fading knocks dye-based inks out of the running, even though they may look better at first.

[daniel_taylor]

Posted this to the wrong thread initially...

 

"I will definitely try the "photo" setting. I don't use the "standard" Kodak ink jet paper that you buy from target or something. It is the Professional version."

 

Fair enough, but these companies design their inks and papers together for permanence. You could, in theory, mix a 100 year ink set with a 100 year paper from another company and get a couple years.

 

"Please let me know more about testing by Wilhelm, I'm not familiar."

 

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

"So I was thinking I would end up bringing the R1800 since my Epson Stylus Photo 900 does not make the best prints in the world."

 

Don't even get me started on the permanence and stability issues with Epson's dye ink set printers. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GaZe

 

Needless to say, I would not sell Photo 900 prints.

 

"I do have a Epson Picture Mate that is primarily used for "family" pictures but that might work decently for 4x6's printed from Photoshop. It is very difficult for me to determine how much a print costs on average with my R1800, the inks go at different times."

 

I don't have exact figures, but I've run some pretty large jobs where I purchased all fresh carts and then checked the ink when finished. Cyan and Magenta go the fastest, while blue and red can last a pretty long time. Based on those larger jobs I figure a PGPP 8x10 costs me roughly $2 and HWM costs considerably less, perhaps <$1. Of course prints with certain dominant colors can end up costing a lot more. I have some fireworks photos I will only print at the local photo lab because they suck the black ink.

 

"As far as quality goes I have read people claim that their dye sub dominates any inkjet they ever had. Is this still true with the newer ink jets like the Epson R1800?"

 

I doubt it. That would be the same as saying that a dye sub dominates photo lab printers like the Fuji Frontier. For the most part my R800 8x10's on Premium Luster are identical to Frontier 8x10's I order, and pretty darn close for PGPP. Frontier prints tend to be more saturated, but I can compensate either way in Photoshop.

[jason_b6]

I looked at getting a dye sub printer for the sports work that I do. I literally make prints out of the back of my car with a laptop, a card reader and a printer running off inverter power from the car battery. I, personally, felt more comfortable with a dye sub printer but in the end I went inkjet. I give the customer a clear choice. Inkjet on recommended papers, and several years life now, hot off the press, and a two minute wait; or they can wait longer and for a few of dollars more (depending upon print size), receive a "real" photo postage paid in the mail a couple of days later. Probably 85% of customers go for the instant print.

[Ed_Ingold]

Depending on who is talking, Kodak 1400 prints are good for 15 to 25 years without fading - as good or better than Fuji Frontier prints. Wilhelm Research is more conservative than Kodak - big surprise, eh.

 

IMO, this is good enough for snapshots and scrapbooks, but perhaps not good enough something hanging on the wall. My dye-sub prints seem to be holding up much better than my Epson 1270 prints, which lose their snap in a couple of years in room light.

[daniel_taylor]

If the speed of the dye sub is as claimed above, that would probably answer your question.

 

I wanted to make one other note regarding ink use: do not change cartridges when the printer starts telling you one is low. Wait until it forces you to swap it out. I get a lot more prints while that red light is blinking. (You probably know this already, but just checking.)

[lukas_jenkins]

Ok well I think I decided to stay with inkjet because the prints will last longer than dye

sub. This is only true using Epson inks and paper. The Kodak paper has not been tested to

the best of my knowledge so it is really unknown. So would you suggest I get the Epson

paper profiled? Another question regarding Epson print media. Do Epson's Glossy and

Luster surfaces print with the same colors? For example the professional Kodak Glossy and

Luster paper I am currently using prints exactly the same color wise from my custom

profile I had made.

 

Lukas