SleeperMan said:
Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab one.
If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most expensive
paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from low quality
and quick fading.
Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need a
couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks (that
is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the people who is
using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase the accuracy of
the colors and uses an expensive, very precise colorimeter to analyze the
ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks and OEM inks prints almost
identically and side-by-side evaluation of the Kirkland paper vs. Canon
photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper, both good papers, show
virtually comparable results. I've done a very large sampling of OEM and
MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of matte surface papers and
compared them in various lighting situations.
Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as good
as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well. The
best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film camera -
the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the lowest ISO
film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but they both
provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will deliver
which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe, however, the
best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink that make up a
picture that can look great to the naked eye.
After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it is
simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do this
for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked out a
way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
