- Become a better photographer today!
remember me:     

Photography QnA: Printing Digital Pictures

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography : Digital Photographic Discussions - Imaging Basics : Printing Digital Pictures

Find the best rated printer for printing digital pictures or find tips for making your digital pictures print out better in this Q&A.

Page 8 : 71 -80 of 94 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...10
Next 10  >>
Photography Question 
Charlyce Altom

member since: 8/21/2003
  71 .  Photo Printers
I'd love to have a photo printer, but don't know where to start, so I thought I'd go to my new-found friends at BetterPhoto and ask for your advice.

My daughter and I have a very enjoyable small business doing outdoor family pix, children's candids, family reunions, a few weddings, etc. We let the photo lab do the printing and enlargements that people request, but I'd like to dip my toe into some of the editing for photos of my family, landscapes, etc.

I'm not happy with most of the prints I get from my HP all-in-one. I'd like the prints to last, so do I need to have a printer that uses special archival inks and papers? Thanks for your help.

Here is what I have to work with: a 3 megapixel Olympus digital, a nice Minolta SLR--I order the prints on CD when I have my film processed, and Photoshop Elements 2--having fun learning this!

If you have suggestions, please include the brand, model number and price. Thanks.

10/6/2003 9:00:23 AM

  Hi Charlyce:

Hands down! My recommendation is the Epson 2200 for about $700. It may sound like a good piece of change, but if it's your business, no matter how small, quality, speed, ease of use, and maintenace should be of paramount importance. This printer has it all. Every pro I know has one.

Good luck!

10/6/2003 10:41:58 AM

Piper Lehman
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/20/2001
  Tony, for those of us who can't afford to spend $700 on a printer right now, what Epson or other brand do you recommend? How about a list of printers in order of their 'greatness'!

Would you stick with Epson all the way, or do you think HP has one in there somewhere? I like the roll-paper feature of the 2200, but it's not my number one priority. Getting a professional color print is #1.

10/7/2003 9:21:42 AM

  Hi Piper,

A professional level printer, although quite inexpensive by conventional standards, costs some bucks to most people. The 2200 is what every pro, that I know of, uses.

You can also look for refurbished 1270 and 1280 Epson printers, which are outstanding. Try calling Epson to find out where refurbs are available.

Good luck!

10/7/2003 11:38:28 AM

Mary Binford
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/11/2003
  I have been using an Epson 890 for about 3 years. I think that the price has come down to about $300. It does beautiful borderless photos. It is the same as an Epson 1280 except that the max width is 8 1/2. It can accomodate roll paper, though I have not found a good way to uncurl this paper after printing. I buy 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 premium glossy photo paper from Epson online. There shipping is a flat $1.50 and there is no state sales tax to my area. Sorry if this sounds like a commercial, but I print many photos and like this printer. Another thought is that the key to good prints is the right paper that matches one of your driver settings. Hope this helps.

10/16/2003 6:41:04 AM

Holly Higbee-Jansen
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/10/2003
  I noticed the Epson 2200 only makes prints 13" x 44". What if you want to go bigger than the 13" size? Do you send out the work then? What lab do you recommend?

10/16/2003 6:55:46 AM

  I agree with Tony. If you can swing it at all, go with the Epson 2200. I'm so glad I did. The inks are lightfast up to 100 years, and you can purchase papers other than Epson, that work beautifully with this printer, and I've found the Epson ink cartridges at a great price online at I do a lot of fine art photography which is shown in galleries... this printer is fantastic.

10/16/2003 1:36:20 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  Ink Jet lays on the surface of a piece of paper. Burn your images to a CD and go to a local lab, Target, or a pro lab and use emulsion paper that goes thru regular developing chemistry.

Protect your images with Shurgard lacquer spray by McDonalds. Ink is expensive on ink jet printers and the makers know that. You'll never re-coupe your investment in an expensive ink jet. Should you insist on a printer for your home use, consider the Kodak 8500. It uses a subligmation process that make a print that is virtually impossible to tear in half and the detail and color is fantastic ($1,000 and $1.75 average cost per 8X10 sheet).

Good Luck!

10/16/2003 3:00:14 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  Ink Jet lays on the surface of a piece of paper. Burn your images to a CD and go to a local lab, Target, or a pro lab and use emulsion paper that goes thru regular developing chemistry.
Protect your images with Shurgard lacquer spray by McDonalds. Ink is expensive on ink jet printers and the makers know that. You'll never re-coupe your investment in an expensive ink jet. Should you insist on a printer for your home use, consider the Kodak 8500. It uses a subligmation process that make a print that is virtually impossible to tear in half and the detail and color is fantastic. ($1,000 and $1.75 average cost per 8X10 sheet)

Good Luck

10/16/2003 3:00:20 PM

Alan Kirkpatrick

member since: 1/7/2003
  Without trying to plug a specific seller: There are some mailorder outfits like that sell the Epson 2200 for $589, and Epson 1280 for $380.

10/16/2003 4:28:20 PM

Peter A. Gonzalez

member since: 7/1/2003

Hopefully this information is found useful. I discussed questions and concerns about prints and printers with an Epson representative. I was told, that, the Epson inkjet 820 and the older 1270 have the same "guts" inside.

The down side is this printer can only print 8x10 size. However, it sells for approximately 80 dollars.

While I don't have the experience others have that have addressed this question, I've had nothing but great pics and results.

10/16/2003 5:32:48 PM

Betty Fleet

member since: 12/5/2001
  For those looking for "low-end" quality, I have been delighted with the performance of my Epson C82, especially using Epson double-sided Matte paper. It's far ahead of any other inkjet that I have owned. I am strictly an amateur, printing 8x10's, and smaller,ranging from closeups to landscapes. All print beautifully. I use a Pentax 330GS camera - nothing fancy.

10/21/2003 5:33:30 AM

Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  Canon has a new model the 950 that looks good by the review I read in Shutterbug magazine also its quite resonable!!!

10/21/2003 9:15:40 AM

Charlyce Altom

member since: 8/21/2003
  Thanks, friends! It's great to know I have such a resource. I'm looking into all the printers mentioned, as well as the great suggestion to learn how to save to CD and have a lab do the printing. I'll keep you updated on my progress--maybe someone else can learn from my experiences. I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question.

10/22/2003 9:35:43 AM

Ron DenHollander

member since: 8/27/2000
  I have an Epson 825 Stylus Photo paid $119.00 Canadian, has a 5780 X 720 resolution, makes excellent prints, has slot for all types (includes adaptor) of cards so you can use it without a computer, has slot for 2" LCD monitor, have printed off lots of pictures and amazed by quality. Also have a Canon unit that cost $400.00, the epson beats it hands down.

11/21/2003 6:42:10 PM

James Gregus

member since: 4/1/2003
  I have been looking at the new Canon printers. Canon has a new printer called i9100 that does a great job of printing 13x44" photo's. I talked to the factory rep yesterday and he said that thier paper last as long as the Epson. This printer cost around $500.00. It also prints alot faster than the others. And the ink is less money. So this is one to think about.

11/21/2003 10:35:38 PM

Ron DenHollander

member since: 8/27/2000
  I have the canon that takes the individual tanks, 6, and the epson 2 tank 6 colour system, each canon tank is 21.95, and the epson is 29.95 for the colour, 36.95 for black and white, even though I can change the tanks in the canon individually the cost is much cheaper for the epson 66.00 vs 120.00+

11/22/2003 5:41:28 AM


member since: 2/17/2002
  I totally agree with Gregg's anwser....Go to a pro lab and save yourself all the hassles of Color managment. I use a Pro Lab TPIPHOTO.COM
Download there FREE software, you just upload the images you want printed to there server you can crop and rotate and they ship back within 24 hrs.
PS the cost of an inkjet printer is nothing compaired to the cost of the inks and borderless 8x 10s use a ton of ink.Hope this helps Gene

11/23/2003 10:20:43 AM

  There is nothing like being in control of your own prints...unlike having a lab do them. Also, the Epson 2200 does prints up to borderless 13X44 inches. I get my inks thru for $10.70 each cartridge. Yes, they're expensive, but no as much as buying thru Epson. They also sell the wonderful Legion photo papers for a great price.

11/23/2003 3:14:35 PM

  You may do better using for ink carts.

11/23/2003 4:16:03 PM

  Thank you, Tony. That's the best price I've seen on the Epson ink cartridges.

11/24/2003 12:54:15 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  It ain't the printer - it ain't the paper. If you read the reviews in various photo magazines, several things become apparent. Manufacturers are making their profits from the ink and paper, primarily, and all of them have a variety of units [albeit at various prices] that could "fill your bill."

But - it's really the paper that tells the tale in my experience. I have a Canon S800 [obsolete, immediately, after it's first use - as you'd expect from a computer or peripheral] but - it's great with Canon paper. But, I've recently found Ilford as an option, in various forms, primarily as a response to a question to this column.

Remember, however, it ain't the printer or the paper. It's the image and the photographer. Digital is a format, not a panacea!!! And, Photoshop can't salvage a bad picture!

11/25/2003 3:57:09 PM

Reid S. Mason

member since: 1/6/2004
  Hey, I don't know if you've already purchased a printer, but has the Epson 2200 for $579! That's a screamin' deal!

1/9/2004 8:29:22 PM

Sheldon Lazovsky

member since: 2/15/2004
  I have the Epson 2200 as well, and I love it. But I would agree with John S. the the paper makes a world of difference. I use Ilford's Gallerie Smooth Pearl paper. It has a great weight and feel, and it absorbs the ink, rather than letting the ink sit on the paper. I can hold a just printed photo under running water, and the ink won't run or smear. You will get these results with any printe, too. ( I also print with an HP 'all in one' printer). People just ca't believe I'm showing them a digital print. Try it, you'll like it!

2/15/2004 7:22:27 PM


member since: 2/23/2004
  I recently bought a Canon i865 photo printer and have been *extremely* impressed with the results.
The printer was $330 Australian, so about $200 US, cheap ink costs, and full page borderless colour printing.
With a good source image and quality photo paper, it takes a better eye than mine to distinguish this printers prints from developed prints.

I *highly* recommend it.

2/23/2004 8:09:05 PM

Loren Roque

member since: 2/3/2004
  I have an Epson R300 printer, which is certainly smaller than what you would be using for your business. But Epson has their printing technology DOWN, and I am certain an Epson 2200 or 4000 would be a good investment. One option though.....Costco does a booming business with professional photographers. I have TIFF files printed on their Noritsu QSS2901 printer (on FujiColor Crystal Archive paper) and they are beautiful......real photographs in every respect! And a 12"x18" or 11"x14" is $2.99 each, 8"x12" is $1.99.
Put a decent mark up on those prices and you should be doing well.
You can get the digital printer profiles at, and what you see (on a properly calibrated moniter) is what the Noritsu will print.

Loren Roque

3/9/2004 12:51:32 PM

RoxAnne E. Franklin

member since: 6/26/2002
  I just ordered Ilford Pearl paper, sizes 11 x 17 and 8 1/2 x11. What paper settings do you all use on the Epson 2200 when using this paper? Premium Luster, Enhanced Matte? I thought I better ask so I dont waste any paper experimenting.
Thanks for your help

3/11/2004 10:07:48 AM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  The paper will arrive in a box that includes Ilford's recommendations. This is a starting point, you'll have top experiment. So what, it's not the cost of the paper, it's the cost of the ink!

3/11/2004 10:56:09 AM

Andy Middleton

member since: 1/11/2004
  Hi I was facing the same dilemma..which printer to buy.Looked around and could not find a printer that delivered better quality than the epson stylus 950.Not A3 but covers 90% of what I need for 300$.
Got it home , started it up and bingo..beautiful color,amazing reproduction of tones on epson photo glossy paper.
I have not seen anyone mention this printer but maybe you want to check it

3/11/2004 1:40:14 PM

BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  I gotta totally disagree with Gregg V.

I have an Epson 2200 and I am happy to pay for the ink and paper. Do you know that I have saved thousands already by not having to go to my pro lab.

As an example, my pro lab charges $6.50 for a nice hand-made 5x7 color print.

Guess how much I can do it for...less than $1. And guess how many I had to do last week to show a client coming over the next day to view some stuff. I had to print about 30 images. All different sizes and shapes.

Had I had to go to a lab, not only would I be limited to 4x6, 4x5, or 5x7, or 8x10, but I would have had to pay alot of costs. And, I would have had to tell my client to schedule for later on that week. With my Epson 2200, I just printed out everything that night and was ready in the morning to present some fresh images.

Lets say I take those same 30 to a lab, that would have cost me 30x$6.50=$195.

I did it for about $20. And the client was very impressed with my work and although I don't know if I got the job yet, they have called to confirm other details and information.

Also, with the printer, I can print a list of thumbnails on a 8 1/2 x 11 several sheets of Semi-Gloss photo paper. The thumbs are small photos from the portfolio they saw. I always do this to give them something to walk away with. It seems to work pretty well.

Anyway, I can't disagree with you more about the cost. I save tons using this printer and I have freedom to crop, change color, etc. at will.

I agree that the final final product I produce will be from the lab and that that is the product that is ultimately for the client. But, the printer is a fantastic money saver on many levels.

I even gave a client some prints from it because I knew they didn't want to buy reprints from me. So, I did some sepia tones, etc (about 10) and really impressed them. They wound up placing a $600 reprint order with me because of what I showed them could be done with the regular old proofs they were holding.

Some times clients can't see past what they are looking at. So, it can be used to show them what a proof can turn into.

This printer produces fantastic results and hands-down is the ultimate.

It is worth every last penny I spend on it. And is not a waste.

I also plan to use it soon as a guide to show to my lab for certain situations.


3/11/2004 4:43:08 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  Jerry -
In the grand scheme of this discussion, what have you said? I'm glad you saved money, but someone asked for advice about printers and paper.

3/11/2004 5:37:41 PM


member since: 2/17/2002
  Jerry: I don't know what lab your using@6.50 for a 5x7...BUT my lab only charges me $1.65 and the prints coming back are Drop Dead Georgious.. Guaranteed 200 yrs by Kodak, Your ink supplier guarantee that??? They might be out of business in 200 days..I don't know HOW MUCH TIME you had in producing those prints...But I upload the images to my lab (takes about 5 MIN.)and I'm off making money doing other things. I let the lab worry about making sure the color and density are correct. There the ones with $100K invested in the equiptment. and 99% of the time they ship back within 24hrs...Why even bother trying to produce you own...Gene

3/11/2004 6:00:02 PM

BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Thanks John. I think I got caught up.

Gene, I can get 5x7 prints for .99, but they are machine prints and not suitable for my clients.


3/11/2004 7:31:30 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  Let's take a deep breath here everyone.

Ink jet will look different 12 months down the road. Fading will happen. A Pro lab, (not an one hour) will look the same for many years to come. Pro labs are printing on equipment that cost $250,000+. How does a $200 ink jet compare to this? Pro labs charge on average of $.50 for a 4x5 or 4x6, $1.10 for a 5x7 and $2.20 for a 8x10 and $5.50 for a 11x14. There equipment is fully color corrected daily for quality. Spray a McDonald lacquer spray on the print and you can run the print under water with no damage. Someone tell me how to beat this with ink jet.

3/11/2004 7:54:30 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  Hey, why are you giving clients anything to view but a CD slideshow which can not be stopped to copy. CD's are about $.20 at Office Max and clients can open them up and see a big image on their monitor. Go to and get a great software program for under $

3/11/2004 8:03:37 PM

BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Gregg V.,

I'm very slowly moving to that. But, I just haven't yet. You're right about the lab. I'm not suggesting the printer is a replacement for the lab. It just helps me get proofs and presentations together at a small fraction of the cost of using a lab. And, I can be more flexible and change things around on my own.

My friends have a point, that if I'd just get my marketing right the first time with a great portfolio that will last for years, I shouldn't need to change things constantly. But, I think I'm just too hyper for that. I always have new ideas and I like change.

I'm not at the CD slide show level yet, although I am looking into it.


3/11/2004 9:00:39 PM

  Gregg, you must not be familiar with the Epson 2200. The inks will not fade for 75-100 years, not in 12 months. I make beautiful gallery-quality prints with mine, which I sell on a regular basis.

3/11/2004 9:16:19 PM


member since: 2/17/2002
  Jerry: I don't understand where your coming from...YOU STATED, (I can get 5x7 prints for .99, but they are machine prints and not suitable for my clients.)
But in your previous post you said you had to pay $6.50 for your 5x7's ?? I said my lab produces Digital prints for $1.65 they also produce 5x7 proofs for $.75 ..There is no such thing as machine print quality or custom quality in the Digital Arena today, thats gone bye the way of optical printing. The only difference in todays world is the amount of time your lab spends correcting your files. There all produced on $200K dollar laser printers and color correcting software that costs $8000.00 per computer. How can you say inkjet prints produced on a $400.00 inkjet printer and a $600.00 photoshop program can even come close in comparison.
Sorry, I used some of Gregg's post but he's 100% correct.
You also never said how much TIME you invested in producing those prints on you inkjet??
I just find it hard to believe, if your clients are that fussy about quality that they would accept prints produced on a $400.00 inkjet over a $200K laser printer! I can see the quality difference between the two a mile away ( I also have very good vision ha,ha)
But seriously go on some wedding or senior forums and you'll see that 99% of the very successful photographers don't give their clients inkjet prints there always talking about there pro labs...Maybe thats why there so successful Gene

3/12/2004 5:40:11 PM

BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Gene, you have totally and completely taken everything I have said 100% the wrong way. I've already said it, so I'll try hard to to repeat it.
I use my Epson 2200 prints for showing clients, as an example, what could be done. I do not sell my clients those ink jet prints, although I don't see anything wrong with doing so.

I think you may be mistaken about lab work. I do virtually no digital work. I am almost 100% a film photographer. Maybe we are talking apples and oranges. I get all my film scanned by the lab. I go into photoshop, make adjustments, then along with proofs from the lab, show them some photoshopped, Epson printed results, cropped, color corrected, and ready to go. This is a sales tactic I use. They are usually so impressed that they purchase reprints from the lab, not from my printer. Again, my printer is used to show examples of my work, but it is not my work. All my work IS hand done at the lab.

I know this because I talk to the guy. For my black and white he goes into a dark room and physically makes a print the old fashioned way.

Maybe where you are they don't do this anymore. But, where I am there are labs that better well damn do that. They say they do, and I believe them because they talk about how hard it is do dodge or burn or both on some of my prints. Dodging and burning, in my mind, refer to standing, or sitting, at an enlarger and actually doing the work. I know because I used to do this. No computers. Maybe I'm wrong and the terms are used on the computer...I don't know.

But, there are also many labs around that say they do great work, and the work is total crap. And they are all in the $1 for a 5x7 category. I'm not saying that is your case. I don't know what to tell you, but here, in Los Angeles, $6.50 for a hand-made 5x7 is competitive. I can, as I said, get a machine produced print from a color negative for $.99, but they do not look all that great. Sure, they look nice, but not great. I trust you are correct for your area. I hope you can trust that I am correct about my area.


3/12/2004 6:01:08 PM


member since: 2/17/2002
  Shirley: I would like to know how long you have been producing Beautiful Gallery Prints on your inkjet...1 month ?? 6 Months ??? 1 Year ???

3 years ago I printed a Inkjet,a dyesub,a silver halide from the same file and put them in a binder & put them on the shelf..Your welcome to come to my place and see for your self the noticable differences on how the inkjet and dyesub prints ard changing and the Good OLE silver halide is still the same as the day it was printed.
Call your ink manufacturer and tell them your prints are changing and watch the runaround you get from them, I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU if will be every one or thing imagenable will be falt but not theres.

What do you expect them to say, there inks may not last as long as silver halide, there marketing dept. would be in the unemployment line the next day.

It's a known fact if you buy enough ink to fill a gallon container you will have to invest $6000-$8000 dollars depending on the Mfg.

Silver halide printing has been around for approx, 100 Years and has been refined to make it better and better.
Inkjet technology has been popular under a decade...You do the math

Go visit some techi forums on the web and you'll find out that the verdict is still out on the longevity of inks.

If your still in business 5-10 years from now you may want to have some anwsers when your clients come calling and wanting to know what happened to there Gallery Prints..Hope you have some type of disclamer clause.

For your sake I hope I'm wrong...
we'll see

3/12/2004 6:25:01 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  Hi Gene,

What lab do you use? Thanks.


3/12/2004 6:28:03 PM


member since: 2/17/2002
  Hi Del: Its TPI,
I've been with them about 5 years now I'm not there biggest account but they sure treat me that way....Customer service is GREAT . Turnaround time is about this best I've found and I've tried a few. They also have this great Remote order entry system to FTP orders to them 24/7
You can go to their website I tried to give a link but I guess this form won't let you....Or maybe its me..
Hope this helps.................Gene

3/12/2004 7:59:48 PM

  Sorry, Gene, but I've been printing with my 2200's ultrachrome inks for over a year. I have framed prints all over my home, and in several galleries. They are still as beautiful as when they came out of the printer. There is a big difference in inkjet printers and their inks. My old Epson Stylus 3000 makes beautiful prints, but they do fade or change colors after a time. The length of time depends greatly on how they are stored or displayed. By the way, was the storage sleeve in your binder archival? If not, that also effects the life of your prints. Even with the cost of ink, which I get very reasonably from, I produce my own prints at a great savings from any lab I've ever tried.


3/12/2004 8:21:30 PM

Loren Roque

member since: 2/3/2004

Clearly we are blessed with a very wide variety of options. A quality inkjet such as an Epson 2200 or 4000 makes for an excellent proof printer, although some may choose dye sub printers for proofing. Inkjet printing onto canvas media is a specialty option for some clients, despite ink longevity issues! And while automated equipment exists for image files processed on archival quality photographic paper, the key to exceptional print quality lies in the hands of a skilled craftsman in the darkroom of a color print processing lab.

Loren Roque

3/12/2004 8:27:02 PM

Loren Roque

member since: 2/3/2004

Clearly we are blessed with a very wide variety of options. A quality inkjet such as an Epson 2200 or 4000 makes for an excellent proof printer, although some may choose dye sub printers for proofing. Inkjet printing onto canvas media is a specialty option for some clients, despite ink longevity issues! And while automated equipment exists for image files processed on archival quality photographic paper, the key to exceptional print quality lies in the hands of a skilled craftsman in the darkroom of a color print processing lab.

Loren Roque

3/12/2004 8:33:14 PM


member since: 3/25/2004
  Yes, the Epson 2200 is great. I need to be able to print to CDs, so I have the Epson R800 ($380). It's limited to 8.5x11. I know people who have the cheaper R300 and they are happy with the quality.

3/25/2004 7:55:49 PM

Marie Anti

member since: 4/23/2003
  Your own photo printer vs pro lab.............I have worked in Pro photo labs since I was 16 and retired at 40 (I'm now in my 50s). When using a lab you have to rely on the quality control and the "color corrector", etc. Not bad if the staff know what they are doing. I have seen more photos that would make your hair stand up (horrible quality) that was done at a pro lab.
I feel you have much better control of what "you" like personally and professionally when you do your own quality control through Photoshop and your own printing on a personal printer.
My own humble opinion. Now I'm in the market, as my previous question states, for a new printer. I was told the latest HP is very good at about $400.00 but I think I may be sold on the Epson 2200. I will probably never make photos larger than 8X12 though. May be a waste???
Oh, I appreciate all the knowlege on this site.

4/1/2004 1:38:24 PM


member since: 3/25/2004
  Maybe a waste, though after I purchased the R800 with the 8.5" width limit I started wishing I could do bigger prints! :) However, I really like the R800's capability of direct CD/DVD printing, and the technology is newer. So, I'll never trade it for the 2200. If I need big prints, I guess I have to do Shutterfly.

4/1/2004 11:52:04 PM

Loren Roque

member since: 2/3/2004
  The Epson R300 is an excellent printer for $179.00. The print quality on Epson media is superb, and having CD/DVD media print capability is a MAJOR BONUS. I do not print on CD/DVD media yet, but when I start using printable disks I will do so. I think it is a fair trade-off to outsource the printing for 11"x14" and bigger to have CD/DVD printing capability.

4/3/2004 9:16:52 AM


member since: 3/25/2004
  Marie, get the low-end R300 or high-end R800 but do not get the HP for photos. I have an HP inkjet a home and we use HP exclusive at work for all our color stuff except photos. They do great inkjet paper, but if you would like to do photos go with a company that has lots of photo paper and a printer with the smallest nozzle and highest ink tank count.

4/3/2004 11:38:39 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Benjamin T. Kottke

member since: 9/27/2003
  72 .  Canon 10D Red Tint White Balance to Print
I recently purchased a Canon 10D and while I am happy with its performance and the the way the images look on screen in photoshop, but when I print them (or print preview) they have a reddish tint, they do not have a tint when viewed on screen. I am shooting in sunny outdoor conditions with auto white balance on. How can I stop this from happening again, and how can I correct the images I have already taken. I have tried adjusting the images in photoshop but still am not happy with the results.

9/27/2003 3:04:27 PM

  It sounds like a printer profiling problem to me. When you use print preview what are you previewing? (ie. what profile). If you are not going to change your profile you have to make an adjustment layer that will remove red (pull down on the red channel in curves) and apply it to all images before printing. They willl look too cyan on screen but should print ok. You have to experiment to determine how much red to remove.

Or you could get an accurate profile for your paper and ink combo and never worry about it again!

9/29/2003 10:07:06 PM

Andrea Hillis

member since: 7/29/2004
  I'm looking for a good mail in order photo lab. Anyone use any, that's any good?


8/5/2004 6:47:25 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Charlyce Altom

member since: 8/21/2003
  73 .  How to Convert Film Images to Digital
When I have my film processed, I also have the images scanned to a CD. I have been practicing enhancing those images on the CD with Photoshop Elements 2, with varying degrees of success. After I finish with an image, I save it to another CD, then I take it back to the shop to have those images printed. I have been mostly disappointed with the results. Before I started this learning project, I asked the technicians what I needed to do to make sure I didn't lesson the quality of the print. They said to make sure I saved with a resolution of 256-300 dpi. This is actually the resolutions showing on the orignal disc from the photo lab. I did this, but the images still look flat and somtimes grainy. I have had the images printed at 3 different locations and I don't see much difference, except in expense. Am I beating my head against a wall that isn't going to move? I'd love to be able to work with Photoshop in this way, but maybe it isn't designed to work with this format. Any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.

9/10/2003 1:48:48 PM

Joan Bellinger

member since: 9/6/2001
  Have you considered printing the photos at home? Currently, I use HP Deskjets to print my photos from the CD. I use glossy or matte photo paper, either Kodak, HP or Great White. I always print 8x10 images and have been happy with the results.

9/10/2003 2:31:02 PM

  It sounds as if you are doing the correct procedure as far as maintaining the proper file size for a good print. The problems you are facing with flat and grainy images is probably due to a lack of good calibration and profiling by you and the printers.

If your images are flat on all 3 different printers than your monitor is probably not calibrated correctly and what you are seeing on the screen is not accurate. The grain problem can be from doing too much to the file in Elements, bad scans, or bad proflies for output.

I would say you first need to calibrate your monitor to even begin to have predictable results!

9/15/2003 8:49:58 AM

Sreedevi Swaminathan

member since: 3/14/2002
  I agree that calibrating is a good idea, but even if it's completely uncalibrated, and hasn't been previously calibrated for something else, your images should still turn out well. You mentioned resolution, but you never mentioned anything about file type. Are you making sure they're all uncompressed tif files? That's important, because with jpegs, the image gets worse and worse each time you resave it. But in any case, you want them to do at least 300 dpi scans from your neg., and save them as tifs. and you shouldn't have to change this at all when editing.

But more importantly, where exactly are you having this done? I know my brother goes to wal-mart and gets his pictures put on a picture cd too, and he'll email me images, or try to send me printouts, and it makes me feel very sick. Those scans are typically worse than what I get from my Epson scanner. If you can't afford a scanner yourself, it would help to go to a place that does higher end scans. You don't need a drum scanner unless you're going to print up professional 16x20 photos- and this can get quite expensive. Maybe try going to a private photo lab and ask them if they have high quality film scanners.

You can get a good photo printer for under $100- the ink is expensive however. And your prints should come out pretty good. I think the Epson Stylus 820 and Stylus C82 are pretty good quality. I'd go for the C82, however, because it has separate ink cartridges for each color, and the 820 drives me crazy since there's just a color and a black cartridge. And if one color of ink is out, then the whole cartridge will be rendered useless. And experiment with the papers.

While calibrating your monitor is a great idea, as long as it hasn't been calibrated, I'd leave it alone for a while, until you have a better understanding what exactly is wrong with your images consistently, and can see what it is that needs fixing on your monitor. Also, I have PS, so I don't know if elements comes with the Adobe Gamma- check and see if Adobe Gamma is in your control panel. But if it doesn't, then you'll have to buy some sort of monitor calibration tool. If it does, just make sure you save your current uncalibrated profile under some other name, just so you don't end up screwing up your monitor settings too much- just go through the gamma wizard without changing any settings, and save the profile at the end.

Hope this helps you out.

9/17/2003 2:02:13 AM

  Unless you pay a lot for the scan, your lab is probably not going to do high enough resolution scans for the manipulations you wish to do later. You may want to invest in your own film scanner, if you plan to do a lot of prints from digital files. Then you can scan at a high resolution and make many adjustments at the time of the scan.

Also, do not save your files to jpeg, since this compresses the file automatically, and could be causing the 'flat' grainy look. Save to TIFF, which will maintain the full-size file.

Shirley Cross

9/17/2003 5:30:37 PM

  Just to add my 2 cents, when you get your images scanned to a CD at the time of processing, I think most places do them at 72dpi, because they assume you just want to be able to post them to the web. I know I had some scanned to CD at Target and they were the worst images I have ever seen (and they had been taken by a pro photographer so I don't think it was his fault!). But, if yours really are scanned at the resolution you say they are, the scan shouldn't be a problem. You don't say what enhancements you are doing but the jpeg compression issue could be a major part of your problem as could several other things you could be doing to enhance the images.

If you can afford the equipment, I agree that you are much better off getting your own scanner (the Epson 3200 flatbed is a great scanner and you can get it with upgraded scanning software (for a price) that is definitely worth it if you plan to do a lot of scanning) and printer. You can get reasonably priced, very good printers, especially if you don't want to print anything beyond an 8x10. As for ink, you just have to be careful about what you print.

9/18/2003 4:46:33 AM

Charlyce Altom

member since: 8/21/2003
  Thanks so much for all of you help and comments. I am in the process of making a new CD with TIFF images. I'll let you know how things turn out with this project. Thanks again.

9/18/2003 9:22:18 AM

Kip T. Berger
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/20/2002
  Just wondering: was my understanding that opening and closing a jpeg will not result in any lossy info. Only if you open and actually do any type of adjustment to the image before closing will it lose any pixel info. Also will help to use the same color profile for your photo program, and printer.

9/20/2004 8:21:06 PM

  You're right, Kip. Opening and closing will not change it, but if you re-save, it compresses it further.

9/21/2004 2:43:55 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Ronnie G. Rutledge

member since: 8/18/2002
  74 .  Photo Pages from Large Picture Files
Can I print small photos such as wallet size from a 1 or 2 megapixel picture without having them look scruched up?

9/9/2003 6:29:35 PM

Jeff S. Kennedy

member since: 3/4/2002
  Yes. What photo editing program are you using?

9/10/2003 8:09:21 PM

Ronnie G. Rutledge

member since: 8/18/2002
  I have Adobe Photoshop elements that came with my Epson 1280 printer but I haven't used it yet. I just tried printing photo sheets with Hotshots and they don't turn out crisp enough.

9/11/2003 6:56:52 PM

Jeff S. Kennedy

member since: 3/4/2002
  I haven't used Elements for a long time and when I did it wasn't extensively. In Photoshop under File/Automate there is an option called Picture Package where you can have Photoshop assemble an 8x10 sheet with wallets. You just set the Page Size to 8x10. Set the Layout to 2.5x3.5. Set the resolution to 250 or 300 depending on what works best for you printer or lab. Leave the mode RGB and click OK. Photoshop does the rest. Once it's done then you need to make the image view 100% and sharpen it.

9/11/2003 8:48:25 PM

Ronnie G. Rutledge

member since: 8/18/2002
  Thanks Jeff, I'll try that.

9/12/2003 3:47:16 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Cindy L. LaJoy

member since: 7/18/2002
  75 .  Medium JPEG's For Printing
We are getting ready to take a 30 day trip to Kazakhstan to adopt our second child and I am taking along my Canon D60. I have 4 256 mg cards and plan to shoot and shoot and shoot this one time experience! I was thinking about shooting in medium JPEG format to maximize the number of photos I can take on each card (it almost doubles!) but I wondered how much quality would be lost. I doubt I'd print anything larger than an 8 x10 and even that is big for my uses. For the most part I only use the photos to view on screen, email and print 5x7 or smaller. Can anyone share with me how bad the quality will be if I do this? I simply can't afford to buy any more compact flash cards for this trip!

9/9/2003 1:12:05 PM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  Cindy, since you are lucky enough to have the Canon D60, shoot one at the best res the D60 can do, in RAW or TIF mode. Open it in your imaging program.
Shoot the same scene at a few different levels of compression and put them in your imaging program. Blow them up in Elements or PS until you just begin to see the image break up into pixels.

The digital capture device in a camera of this grade is so good that you may well find a degree of JPEG compression that doesn't compromise image integrity or color too badly. With my less capable digicam, I see fuzziness and color shifts in faces, but, then, your CCD or CMOS device is of far better quality. We'd be interested in what you find.

9/10/2003 7:11:41 AM

Piper Lehman
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/20/2001
  Cindy, you should be fine with JPG medium. I shoot in JPG Med on my D100 for family stuff all the time. You'll still get about a 1MB+ file to work with and at 300 dpi, you'll be able to print these up to 8x10 just fine. Just make sure you test your white balance settings for optimal color representation. Cloudy -3 seems to be the most popular default, but it might help to learn to set a preset/custom on your camera. Check the manual and use a gray (not white) card. There are a few sites on the web that help you do this. Check out Moose Peterson's site
for starters.

Congratulations on your impending addition! How exciting! Wishing you all the best (and all the best shots)!

p.s. Forgot to add that JPG MED FINE is what I shoot to get a 1+ mb image file.

9/15/2003 6:05:27 PM

Piper Lehman
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/20/2001
  Forgot to add that JPG MED FINE is what I shoot to get a 1+ mb image file.

9/15/2003 6:06:33 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Rebecca M. Gold

member since: 12/22/2002
  76 .  Digital to 35mm Slide?
I have and use a Canon EOS 10D but that is beside the point. I only own digital cameras and up until now I have said they can do it all just as well as film. Here is the problem, my daughter is modeling and I did her portfolio. They have an upcoming showcase and they need a 35mm slide of her headshot. It needs to be as good as the original photo. How would I go about doing this? I have been searching for answers on this for a while now. Are my only options just a photo of a photograph?

9/5/2003 7:52:05 AM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  If the image was shot full resolution in the Canon 10D, you should have enough of a file size to pull this off. Call IQ imaging at 1-800-296-1885 and see if they can work with your digital image. Businesses come and go these days; if they're not there, go to and enter a search for something like digital images convert to film.

9/5/2003 8:16:44 AM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  Number doesn't work?
Try 1-800-296-1885. Sorry.

9/5/2003 8:33:01 AM

Sreedevi Swaminathan

member since: 3/14/2002
  I don't know if you've already gone through with IQ, but I'm also an actor as well as a photographer, and I know when getting headshots done, to do reprints with the name on the picture, they'll usually shoot your original headshot with your name under it to get a new neg. And from shooting my own transparencies of my work, I can tell you, if you can hang up the picture on a wall, and get good lighting that won't glare, and focus well, you'll get an image that looks just as good. I find this more economical as well. Good luck.

9/9/2003 3:08:45 AM

Kathleen L. Nelson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/1/2001
  IQ Imaging has a website: (I think I am going to try having a digital file made into a slide myself).

9/9/2003 4:16:49 AM

Rebecca M. Gold

member since: 12/22/2002
  I called around locally and just asked questions. My favorite camera store will do it for me for 2.50 a slide minimum of 10 slides which is fairly cheap. They gave me a good amount of options. The only thing that is an issue is time. You have to do it at least 2 weeks in advance.

9/9/2003 5:59:15 AM


member since: 10/14/2002
  I don't know about overseas but in Australia Kodak shops will do a slide from a file and you can't tell the difference between it and a film based slide


9/9/2003 1:43:54 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Angela Majerus

member since: 7/15/2003
  77 .  Steps for Best Photo Printing with a Canon 10D
I just got a 10D (and I am totally green to digital photography), so I am sure I am about to ask a question that has been asked before, but...

When I load my photos from my camera to my computer what steps should I take to ensure a good photo quality in the developed print? I am shooting in the large/fine mode so I should have a pretty good captured resolution. Is it common to have to make adjustments to ALL your photos prior to burning them to a CD for printing (such as unsharp/mask, or color adjustments)?

I know there are vast possibilities for alterations in Photoshop... I just need the basic steps that one might follow prior to burning their photos on a disc that they are going to take to a local chain type place for developing, and what instructions you might give the retailer for printing.

Thanks in advance for your help. I am at the beginning of what appears to be a long learning curve!

8/23/2003 12:05:33 PM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  All digital pictures need some USM before printing to get the best quality out of it unless the picture looks better not sharpened like a portrait where you may want it a bit soft. I personally use CP Pro action from Fred Miranda but you can use USM in photoshop. I also do if needed a bit of curves and/or levels, color, whatever depending on the picture. I then crop if needed, resize and print. I do my own printing but it would be the same for sending to a lab. Check which them what the best parameters are and file format and then do the upsizing yourself if needed.

8/23/2003 5:32:15 PM

Angela Majerus

member since: 7/15/2003
  Thanks for the input. I guess I didn't realize that I would have to do anything to the prints prior to burning them to a CD for printing. Like I said, I am totally green to the digital thing. But, I have been reading all the great posts here and going through my software tutorials.

Thanks for the help!

8/24/2003 7:22:02 AM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  I should have said BTW that you don't HAVE to do anything and many people don't do anything and are perfectly happy with their prints. I would suggest you do a trial and error thing. Maybe take 1 print you like and send in 1 image untouched and play around with another and see which you like printed the best. It has been said that you need greater sharpening for prints than for screen so you can try a few variations. Also 4x6 might not show the differences the way an 8x10 or larger shot will. For the cost of prints now a days, experiment a little and see what YOU like best.

Also I said I use Cp Pro. It should have read CSPro by Fred Miranda.

8/24/2003 7:35:13 AM

Frank Gilbert

member since: 5/27/2003
  If you really want to burn photos straight from your 10D, you can also set sharpening and color intensity in the camera (use the custom functions). The result is not quite as good as doing it in photoshop, but OTOH you then don't need to post process your images.

Another point, photo quality inkjet printers from epson, Canon and HP are so cheap, you will probably recover their initial cost over your first hundred retail prints.

8/25/2003 10:55:39 PM

Jeff Grove

member since: 12/24/2001
  This is not an answer but an inquiry to Michael K. or anyone who can tell me what "USM" refers to in regard to enhancing digital images, since I'm new to digital terminology.

8/26/2003 9:03:12 AM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  USM (UnSharp Mask) is actually a sharpening tool, not an unsharpening tool like the name signifies. Some different photo programs like Photoshop and others have this (under filters) as a way to add some line sharpening. This acts differently than the Sharpen tool.

Applying sharpness can be done at various stages of the scanning or image reproduction process and is usually necessary
after capturing an image with a scanner or a digital camera. This adds back sharpness lost during the original capture
process. It is best to apply USM to the image at its final size it is going to be reproduced at.

A digital camera has a Descreening filter to remove moire. That filter causes some lack od sharpness that needs to be put back thru USM or similar method for the best quality pictures.

8/26/2003 3:12:59 PM

Jody Grigg

member since: 11/12/2000
  First thing you should do is copy your images to your computer then before doing any adjustments make a CD-Rom copy of them. That way you always have a raw form.

Just curious why arent you using the RAW format on the camera. This allows for the most editing of the image.

Next step would be to convert images using the program that came with the camera or something like Breeze Browser (Cost about $40 approx.). In the conversion stage you can adjust color, saturation, highlights etc.

After conversion and color fixtures make another copy of your images before you resize them. That way in the future you dont have to go and redo the above steps and the only you would have to do is resize and sharpen them. I would not recommend USM or sharpening then saving reason being is that an 5x7 and 16x20 need different levels of sharpening etc.

Check with your local lab about what format they need computer files most are in 8-Bit Tiff RGB format at around 300dpi.

8/28/2003 12:00:04 PM

George E. Friend

member since: 9/3/2003
  For weekend-warrior type stuff, I've had great results with Auto-Levels and the occaisonal unsharp mask. I order prints through and they will do digital touch-up by default unless you request they don't - makes it easy to take it straight from the camera.

As for the question on why you don't use raw format, I'm not played with raw mode yet to see the difference, but I'm sure space is the reason. I can fit 120 or so pictures on a 256MB card using JPG, but that would only be around 40 pics in RAW mode. When you're a newbie and trying to see what the camera is capable of, you can really buzz through alot of shots (isn't digital great) with a lot of different settings, etc. to see what effect it's having.

9/3/2003 7:24:23 PM

Brian  Donaldson

member since: 1/5/2003
  Angela, I usually have 3 cd's. The first cd is for my original(untouched) photos. I send my digital and scanned images right to this one. This way I can go back to the original if I mess something up or delete the image from the work in progress cd.
The 2nd cd is for work in progress images. This way I can save any image as it is and come back to it when I like.
And the 3rd is for my final images. I realize this may seem to be a cumbersome process. But I learned the hard way that it's not a good idea to keep the images on the same disk. I hope this helps

9/11/2003 7:38:54 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Vikki Grant

member since: 8/4/2003
  78 .  Why are My Pictures Blue?
I don't have any model information about my Sony digital camera, but wanted to ask if anyone might be able to provide some insight. When I attempt to take pictures outdoors (in sunlight, snow, etc.) my pictures develop with a blue overcast. When I use the same camera for indoor shots, they turn out fine. What would possibly cause this? Is this an indication that something mechanical might be wrong with the camera or with the user - me?

8/4/2003 12:35:41 PM

Judith A. Clark

member since: 9/14/2002
  Look in your maual under white balance. This should give you the answer you need. White balance is basicly the way your camera responds to the color temperature of the light conditions your shooting under.

8/4/2003 3:44:48 PM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  Judith is right. You probably either have the camera set for the wrong white balance. Even film has to be balanced for the conditions you are shooting in. If indoor WB is used outdoors, you get a bluish tint. If outdoor used indoors, you get yellow/orangey tint and under florescent bulbs you get a greenish tint.

Check your manual under white balance to know how to change it. Most people just leave it under Auto which usually gives a sufficient exposure but may still be off. Do not despair though as you can make changes for existing pictures in programs like Photoshop, Elements, Paint Shop Pro or many others that let you correct the colour of a photo. It will fix it to a more natural color.

The ideal of course is to either do a manual WB (if your camera allows it) or use any preset WB but if you do not want to bother or keep forgetting to change it, Auto WB will still usually be good enough.

8/12/2003 8:14:42 AM

Buddy Purugganan

member since: 8/31/2002
  Its best you use CORRECTION filters such as TIFFEN, HOLLYWOOD/FX or B+W FOR DETAILS check out and also e-mail them about your they have a COMPLETE line of excellent filters for any video enthusiast.

8/25/2003 6:52:24 PM

Ms. Shan Canfield

member since: 3/9/2002
  One of the cool things about a digital camera is you really don't need correction filters if you are setting a custom white balance or using one of the presets appropriate for the condition, sunny, cloudy, ambient, etc. I've often created my own digital filters to produce a certain effect by creating a "faux" white balance, for example if I wanted my pics to have a funky greenish appearance in a daylight situation, I simply put a pink/magenta card in front of my lens when setting the white balance. The rule of complements applies when setting the white balance. Whatever color cast you "want" to introduce can be created by shooting at the oppisite color for the WB. The WB is attempting to compensate or neutralize the conditional color of the card by introducing its complementary color, so it basically produces a "filter" Just like in Photoshop if you have a "magenta" color cast in the mids & highlights, you can rid that cast by targeting the mids & highs using a Color Balance Adjustment layer and move the Magenta/Green slider bar more towards the green; to the point where it "neutralizes" the cast....or if you want to get crazy..move it all the way to green and the green takes over.

9/8/2003 7:04:41 AM

Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  Outdoor light will often reflect blue under certain conditions eg.a snowscape under a bright blue sky,it is the reflected blue sky which causesz this.
,with a film camera I use a filter,to lesson this blue effect.
, with digital I really have know idea but I'm sure thre is a way to correct the image in camera!!!!

9/9/2003 9:24:34 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/11/2003
  you don't need a filter, it's your white balance setting. Look for something that have a little symbol of a sun, a light bulb, a cloud, a flourescent light looking thing, and a bent arrow which stands for flash. Or look for awb(auto white balance) Set that right you fix your problem.

11/16/2003 1:15:57 AM

Elissa Kadell-Haden
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/14/2003
  I always had color problems with my Sony Mavica FD-83 no matter what settings I had the camera at. I always had ro adjust with an editing program.
I finally gave up on the Sony and bought and HP 850... No more problems now.

11/16/2003 11:30:34 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Sara L.

member since: 2/22/2003
  79 .  Digital Prints
Hi. I am sorry already, I know this will be a stupid question. I am very new to digital photography. I want to know how to develop my digital images as prints. I enjoy bringing in my 35mm film to get developed into 4x6's, but don't know how to get my digitals developed other then sending them over the internet. Can I put the images on a floppy disk or a CD? Once again I know this is a basic questions, but I am REALLY new at this. Thanks!

7/29/2003 7:29:54 PM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  This is not a stupid question. When my office was ordered to go digital, five middle aged men struggled with this issue for months. Or maybe we're all stupid.
A digital image can come from shooting digital pictures with a digital camera, or from scanning your 4 x 6 (or any size) prints with a flatbed scanner. It's also possible to scan film with a specialized type of scanner.

You can transfer your digital images from your camera directly into your computer, into a file you make for this purpose. The software that came with your camera should be able to walk you through this.

You can also scan your prints on an office flatbed scanner into an imaging program like Elements or Paint Shop Pro (or into the software that came with your digital camera) and put them into a file on your hard drive.

Either way, you can put these files onto a CD or a floppy. Just set aside a file for your pictures and follow the instructions in a thread given earlier in this Q and A on "burning" CD's. Don't worry if your computer tells you that a floppy does not have anough space to hold even one of your digital images. A CD will hold quite a few.
Here's the kicker: Digital images that look OK on screen are sometimes not high enough resolution to print. A provider of services who takes your digital images (or your 35-mm film), and gives you back a CD may or may not give you print resolution.
Whether he can depends on a few factors. Was your digital camera set at its best possible resolution, or highest quality? If you scanned, did you scan at 200-300 pixels per inch for a print the same size as your original?

If you covered the bases at your end, is this processor compressing your images into JPEGs and into small image dimensions? A Wal-Mart provider gave my daughter back image 400 pixels wide. They even look terrible on screen.
If you are not satisfied with what these providers are giving you, consider doing your own printing.
Shoot at your best image quality for shots you know you'll want to print. Transfer them to your computer and go into the imaging software and crop them, take out the tree limb growing out of your boyfriend's head, fix the brightness or contrast, and make the image the size you wan to print. For that last step, be sure you don't throw out any pixels when you do that. After you click OK, the file size (total number of pixels in the image expressed as megabytes) should remain the same. If it has changed, Undo it, and try it again. If there's a block to UNcheck Resample, uncheck it.

If you are connected to one of the dandy little $80-150 printers Epson or HP makes, you're on your way to doing your own prints better than the shop gives you. Get back with us if you run into problems.

7/30/2003 6:00:38 AM

Beverly Gustafson

member since: 10/25/2001
  Hello Sara – Since I print all my own digital images, from 4x6 up to 13x19, I needed to find the best way to accomplish that. The very first thing I do is save a copy of my original file as a .tiff and put away the original .jpg – this preserves your original as a digital negative. Tiff files are loss less, meaning that whatever you do to your image it will not affect the quality of that image.
(I usually add a T to the file name when I save to ID it as my working tiff file )

After you have done all the adjustments (levels, constrast, unsharp mask) on your photo, go to image/mode/assign profile; change the color profile from sRGB to Adobe RGB(1998). The adobe profile is setup for truer color when you output your file to print, whether inkjet or photolab.

The last thing I do is resize my file for print: go to image/image size; from there uncheck the resample image box at the bottom of the window and then change the dimensions of the file to the finished size you want to print. You will notice that your sizes will not be exactly 4x6, 5x7 etc. however you can crop to the desired size after you resize. If I plan to crop the original anyway, I usually do that before I resize. Save your finished photos as. tiff (here I add a lowercase e to the file name to ID it as my finished file ready for printing)

If you then want to take your digital photos to a photolab for printing, like Walmart, burn your adjusted and resized files onto a CD and let the lab use those to print from, just be sure to tell them NOT to crop. The image size file you give them to print is the print size you will get back, so if you want 4x6’s and 5x7’s be sure you have finished files in those sizes on your CD. I hope I haven’t confused you totally; you can email me if you want with any questions, and maybe I can help. Happy shooting! Beverly :-) (

8/13/2003 5:24:47 AM

Brinn MacDougall
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/2/2002
  Just another tip. When saving as, make sure you have selected the least compression. That way you won't loose kb or mb when saving...look under file for this option.

8/13/2003 11:31:58 AM


member since: 8/28/2003
  and please remeber what a most printers do not resize image within firmware part. Resizing is your work and better test a different kind of resizing, cause image details is so different. For example printout is 8*11 inches and image for printing is must be at least 4*5.5 inches. Resizing always before processing with colours. Just may be denoise is a first operation. NeatImage is the best what I saw. Working with YCbCr color space.

8/28/2003 5:58:09 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
Photography Question 
Lisamarie Busch

member since: 6/30/2003
  80 .  Matte or Glossy Paper
I want to print my photographs from my computer on to my ink jet printer but which paper should I use? Matte or glossy and why?

7/2/2003 8:14:27 AM

doug Nelson

member since: 6/14/2001
  Use only your printer manufacturer's paper to begin. There may be some off brand that will work, but you'll burn up a lot of time and money trying to find one. The glossy is best for some subjects, while the matte is best for others. Keep a package of both handy. I use matte for old retouch portraits when I give the customer an inkjet print. I use glossy for family snapshots and some landscapes. For me, the glossy renders fine detail better.

7/3/2003 5:53:47 AM

Lisamarie Busch

member since: 6/30/2003
  Thank you so much Doug. That was very helpful.

7/3/2003 10:29:01 AM

Bonita A. Dubil

member since: 6/24/2003
  I use a Lexmark 5150, which is ink jet. After trying a number of brands, I have found the HP premium glossy to be the best for sharpness and color. I am sure there are others that also work well, but I have not come across any. I have not used the matte finish as yet, but the weight and quality of the hp premium is just like enlargements I have ordered in the past from photo shops. I agree with Doug about the glossy rendering fine detail.

7/13/2003 7:45:38 PM

Lisamarie Busch

member since: 6/30/2003
  Thanks Bonnie.
I was originally going to have someone print out my pics for me so I needed to know what kind of paper to use but I don't have a cd burner to give them a cd for their computer. So now I'm looking into a printer for myself. Thanks for the advice.

7/14/2003 2:53:58 PM

Bonita A. Dubil

member since: 6/24/2003
  Lisamaria, If you are looking at getting a photo printer, I would highly suggest the Lexmark 5150. It gives you studio like prints, and is also a scanner, and fax machine. All this for about $149 at Office Max. Sometimes they have sales, or rebates. I got mine for $20 off. I looked around before it bought it, and found out that this particular model has won a number of awards for it's performance. Good luck

7/14/2003 4:25:13 PM


member since: 7/9/2003
  Before I switched to digital, I had a complete darkroom set up in a spare bedroom that I did up to 16 x 24 inch B & W and color prints in. Now I use a Canon S900 printer and produce prints that in quality, I can't tell from those done in my darkroom. I'm soon getting the S9000 to be able to do larger prints.

7/15/2003 7:21:17 AM

Bonita A. Dubil

member since: 6/24/2003
  If my sales go well this year, I will be looking for a printer that does large prints 11X14 and up. Do you have any suggestions? Will the Cannon S9000 do these, and if so, about how much do they go for? Thanks so much Bonnie

7/15/2003 7:36:28 AM


member since: 7/9/2003
  Bonnie, The S9000 (and S9100) will do up to 13 x 19 inch prints. Check these links:§ion=10214 and§ion=10214
The street price is lower. In fact, my S900 list for $299.00 I believe, but I got it from Best Buy as an open box item for $70.00. I also use Atlascopy bulk ink for refiling my cartriges and it works great on all the papers I use.

7/15/2003 8:04:20 AM

Judith A. Clark

member since: 9/14/2002
  No one prints photos like epson, I have the epson 1280 (I'm going to update soon), it does 11x14 beautifuly. I personly don't like glossy for portrait work. I use Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl. It has a soft gloss, but not too bright. It is also instant dry with the epson printer. On some of my printers and paper combos (even when using the manufacter paper) my blacks would never dry. This is the combo I have come up with after alot of trial and error.

7/15/2003 8:22:19 AM

Hank Greenfield

member since: 10/30/2002
There are some excelent papers out there but you have to experiment. Many manufacturers will sell you a trial pack at a good price.
There is no reason to stick with the manufacturers product if you are willing to do the work to find a better one.
Point two - if you are serious about printing color photos, get a six color printer. Epson, Canon and even HP have one.
If you are more interested in saving money, go to COSCO or any mass retail warehouse store and see what kind of cartritges are on sale. Buying them here will save you more money then you can believe and the results are all good and very much the same.
If you are really serious, there are ink systems out there that are more color true, much more long lasting and far more cost effective (when baught in quantity) then the manufacturers offer (its the old give away the printer, and Xerox does this literaly, and sell the ink for ever).
I have had really bad experiences with the cartritges that are sold over the web via EMail that just shows up everyday.

There is no short cut for doing your homework, and this is a good start.

Hank Greenfield

7/16/2003 7:55:19 AM

Lisamarie Busch

member since: 6/30/2003
  thanks everyone for all ur help! im now insearch of a printer! :)
someday i'll ask u guys to critique my work but right now im too afraid to. lol. ive seen the work on here its beyond my wildest dream to shoot pictures like these.
thanks again for the answers

7/17/2003 7:57:38 PM

Sharon Landers

member since: 3/4/2003
  I recently purchased a hp2200 (i think off the top of my head lol it's late)it is a fax, scanner, copier, printer. I like the prints alot. If your using a digital camera this printer is awesome! You insert your camera card and it will print out an index, on the index you can pencil in the photo, size, quanity and if you want a border around it; you then place this on the scanner and it will print out your pics! I use hp glossy or kodak paper and they both have worked well for me. Someone in an above post mentioned staples which is the route I took. First call and order their catalog and you will get a few good coupons along with free shipping. If you have apply for a rewards card you will get a few staples bucks, great for some paper. Also hp usually offers some type of rebate. I did really well this way. I must admit I still get some printed when I take alot of shots and get lazy. I am wondering how many prints you get on average out of the cartridges and the cost of paper which is cheaper??

7/20/2003 10:11:05 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...10
Next 10  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.