Digital Prints vs. Inkjets (Cost, Quality, Longevity, Convenience...)

[adrian_byng_clarke]

For several months I have been having digital prints made of my

scanned and digital photos. I finally settled on a shop that I am

happy with in terms of cost, color calibration, quality, control etc..

 

I switched over to the digital print labs after my epson 820 drank

and entire set up of black and color cartriges trying to get the

heads clean. At that momement I decided I was through with inkjet and

that there had to be a better way.

 

I'd like to know about how others in photo.net feel about the choice

between digital prints done with traditional chemistry and inkjet

prints. I'm especially interested in the following parameters:

 

Cost: Which is really more expensive? I believe that inkjets are more

expensive given the cost of the printer itself, the skyrocketing

price of ink catriges, papers, etc... But I don't have any firm

figures to point to... (please post any relevent resources, thanks).

I pay 19 cents for a 4x6 and $2 for an 8x10.

 

Quality: How to the prints compare from a technical perpective?

resolution, tonal range, color consistancy.

 

Longevity: I'm pretty sure that digital prints last longer but what

about all of these new archival inks and papers. How do they affect

cost? (above)

 

Convenience: Although I am a 5 minute drive from the lab and they can

crank out a single image within a few minutes as long as things

aren't too busy, this isn't quite the same as just printing something

on the desktop.

 

I realize that many of these items are discussed individually accross

the forum. I'm trying to get to a comprehive comparison of the two

print options. I you aren't happy with either of these options, I'd

like to hear what you ARE using and why?

 

Thanks,

 

Adrian

[swenson]

I've got a 870 and my 8x10's average out at about $1 a print.

 

On four different occasions I've printed an image that I've

had enlarged and had other photographers compare them blind.

The inkjet always win. I suspect becuase of the minor adjustments

that I make to color, contrast, cropping.

 

Longevity have have inkjet that have been on the wall for

over three years and look as good as ones stored away or recent

re-prints. Now, I'm sure that they will not last as long as

enlargements, but I expect them to last for 10+ years.

 

Convenience at sereval shopds the wait for prints was from 15

to several hours depending how backlog, lunch schedules and

other factors. Usally I had to drop them off and return latter

and pick them up.

 

Bottom line is that almost all of my 8x10's are from the inkjet.

When I want larger prints I go to a pro lab where it takes several

days. If you want same day there's 100% surcharge so It gets

expensive, but I've had more than one client more than willing to

foot the bill.

 

I generally don't waste the time and effort to print anything smaller

than 8x10.

[marshall]

If you're really interested in the answers to your questions, at least as much as they are answered on photo.net, you probably do need to read through the threads in the archives. You've asked for a pretty extensive project. I'll provide what info/opinions I have.

 

I don't really print 4x6's much, so I haven't paid any attention to costs there. I strongly suspect that inkjets can't compare on cost in that size, certainly not with getting normal lab prints made off neg films.

 

Inkjet prints at 8x10 to 12x18 cost, on the margin, anywhere from $1 to $5-6, or more if you are using fairly expensive paper. [The ink costs don't change hugely with paper choices, but some of the papers are significantly more expensive.] That said, even the 13x19 Epson Premium Lustre (my current paper of choice) is only a couple bucks per sheet if you buy 50. So, vs. most enlargement prices, inkjet printing is cheaper on the margin. Some places do inexpensive enlargements, so your mileage may vary. Whether the average cost (including equipment, etc.) compares depends too much on how many prints you make for me to make an asessment. If the difference in cost between the lab print and your inkjet print * the number of prints you make = less than the printer cost, it changes the equation. But this is all math you can do yourself.

 

There is a lot of information out there comparing color, tonal range, etc., with "normal" printing. Per Ethan Hansen, typically inkjet gamuts include more saturated blues and greens than traditional prints and, conversely, traditional prints can reach further into saturated reds and yellows. Can't help you much more there. Color is definitely "made" differently in different processes, and despite the miniscule droplet size of current leading inkjets, laying color down in a dither pattern to create the perception of a single color isn't the same as creating a "continuous tone". Whether that's a real, perceived difference to you I don't know.

 

Go to Wilhelm Research's site to look at longevity numbers. The archival ink printers (2200, 4000, 7600, 9600) last a really long time. Lightjet prints supposedly last 60+ years. To my knowledge, no dye-based inkjet is in the same ballpark.

 

Convenience is up to you. I like being able to make prints quickly here. But I really do it because a) I enjoy it, and 2) I believe I get a benefit in final print quality because of the adjustments that I can make before outputting to print.

 

Hope that helps some.

[beepy]

Epson 7600 costs:

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/cost_page.html">Ink and media

costs Epson large format</a>

</blockquote>

That is ink and media costs - when you get a lab to do your print you are saving your

time. You have to figure that.

<p>

On another topic, my Epson 7600 and 2200's have been fairly reliable requiring few

cleaning cycles and never anything bad. (cross my fingers).

[ted_davis1]

We've found that clients respond more to inkjet 8x10s than lab prints. Colors of the inkjets are more vibrant, and overall details 'appear' to be sharper. As to longevity, unprotected lab prints (Crystal Archive) will last years longer than unprotected inkjets. Some unprotected inkjets have faded in a matter of months, however when stored, or framed behind glass and displayed in a bright sunny room, the inkjets remained vibrant and stable as when first printed. For now the inkjets have been more convenient and cheaper, but we still use photolabs for output of 11x14 and above. But one day soon...

 

Ted Davis Photography

[scott_eaton]

My local Frontier lab does superb printing from digital files. $.50 per 4x6, and they easily match my Epson 820 in terms of sharpness. Fuji Crystal Archive paper surpasses any dye based printer in terms of stability I'm aware of.

 

For 8x10's, it's a different issue. $8-10 at my lab, but a whole lot cheaper on my 820.

 

My Epson 820 can't approach the saturation and intensity of the glossy RA-4 papers like Fuji Crystal Archive or Kodak Metallic. Not even close. For printing on lustre papers it's more of a dead heat, while printing to matte cleary gives a nod to the Epson.

 

I have more control with my Epson, but the lack of gamut range can cause problems with certain tones.

[deplin]

I have always used HP Inkjet Printers. With the advance in photo quality over the years they are remarkably sharp, I use the HP 7350 right now, but only for proofs and if the person wants an 8x10 or smaller. For convinence I use OFOTO which is owned by Kodak. I have had 4x6 up to the 20x30 and the resolution is the same, but of course I am uploading pictures that are over 2.5megs each. I think the prices are reasonable, if you want to check the website out it is.. http://www.ofoto.com

regards,

Dave

[adrian_byng_clarke]

Thanks. Do any of you have good references on the price comparison?

[deplin]

Adrian:

Sorry but I have never kept track of ink, I use this strictly for photos so next time I put in cartridges I will record the number of prints,besides now I would like to know how much I am spending on phtots. I have found the IBM Photo paper is excellent after using about every brand out there, it is dry as soon as it is finished, no smearing.

Dave