I had answered Shawn privately recommending to him the Epson 880/1280
printers for photo output.  I have been using the 875DC for about a year
and I have been very impressed with the results.  The pictures cannot be
told from high-quality 35mm enlargements without using a loupe of at least
5X power.  This is definitely not an instrument that everyone has at their
disposal nor is it how the pictures are meant to be viewed and enjoyed in
the first place.

If digital photography is not a subject you care about, or if you think
printing photos is definitely something better left to someone else, I urge
you to stop reading here and delete this longish message.

Shawn's camera provides a resolution of 2.1 megapixels @ 24 bit color,
which means a full uncompressed file would be 6 megabytes.  The camera
records a 1600X1200 pixel image in 3 channels, Red, Green and Blue (RGB,
the additive colors), in which each pixel has a value of 0 to 255 (8 bits
or 1 byte) in that channel.  (BTW, if each pixel were a square inch, the
photo cell would be over 133 feet wide and 100 feet high.  As it is, the
sensor is 8mm in diagonal.)

Using the native resolution images from such a camera, Shawn can print 4X6
pictures @ 266.67 PPI on an Inkjet that can print at 1440 or 2880 DPI and
the results will be indistinguishable from regular 35mm prints of the same
size.  He can also print 5X7 pictures @ 228 PPI on the same printer which
will give him excellent results.  Beyond this size, the quality of the
picture will start to degrade.  An 8X10 would be printed at 150 PPI, an
11X14 @ 109.1 PPI and a 13X19 would be at 84.2 PPI, which would produce a
print, which from less than 5-7 feet away would definitely reveal its
digital as opposed to silver halide roots.

Affordable color LaserJets (currently an oxymoron,) whilst being excellent
albeit pricey for graphics, have several issues preventing them from doing
proper photo work.

The first one is they do not have the resolution needed to produce
photo-realistic output. The HP Color LaserJet, the 8550 (staring at $5,000)
and the 4550 (starting at $2,000) have a color resolution of 600 DPI.  The
latest Epson Inkjet boasts 2880 DPI (starting at $400.)  This means the
Inkjet will place 2,880 little dots of dye per inch.  Depending on the
paper each of these dots will bleed to some degree and merge together
nicely.  Currently, the size of a single dot is about 4-6 picoliter.  This
will probably decrease in the future.  Affordable home color LaserJets (if
they exist and depending on the home,) do not even begin to approach the
resolution of these inkjets.

The second issue is color gamut.  Whilst pictures are captured in RGB,
prints are made using CYMK, (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and Black, the
subtractive colors.)  Some inkjets have 3 colors (CYM) and simulate a good
enough black to forego a black cartridge.  Most photo inkjets have 4 colors
usually two (CYM and K) or 4 cartridges, one for each color.  The high-end
photo inkjets have 6 colors, adding a light Cyan and a light Magenta to the
palette (CcYMmK) for increased range of color.

The third issue is durability.  An earlier post on the subject alluded to
the fact ink fades.  That is indeed correct.  But it is a blanket
statement, which (once again) can leave one uncovered.  There are two types
of "ink" in use by inkjets.  The more common one is dye, the other is
pigment.  Dyes will fade, however, some vendors, notably Epson, have come
up with a paper and dye formulation that resist fading for up to 25 years.
 Ironically, the archival properties of Epson printer output was called
into question when it was discovered that some people experienced what is
commonly referred to as "orange shift" within a few days or hours of
printing a photo.  The problem was traced to a high level of ground level
ozone and other pollutants in the air.  This problem also only occurred
with one type of Epson paper.  The paper was reformulated in mid-2000 to
cure the problem,  There was another problem with initial batches of the
reformulated paper, which further compounded the issue.  Finally in
December of 2000, Epson got it right.  I have been using that exact
combination of paper and ink for a year and I have never experienced the
orange shift, nor do I personally know of anyone who has seen it.  I guess
it depends on where you live.  I live in Houston.  The problems seem to
have been reported by people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver and some
places on the East Coast.  Makes you wonder doesn't it?  Anyway, you should
take care of your prints, as UV is what causes fading in the first place.
 If you place your portraits under glass, as I do for the ones that are
displayed around the house, they will last a very long time.  If you use
Epson Premium Photo Paper, which is very glossy, your prints should last
10-15 years.  If you use Epson Matte Photo Paper, one of my current
favorites, they can last up to 25 years.  The Matte finish does reduce
slightly the overall glory of the photo, but it is very durable and has a
cachet all its own.

Interestingly, I visited my parents house last year, (they live very far
away) and they still had on the wall, some pictures that I took 25-30 years
ago.  One of them is a glossy, that I had placed under glass immediately
and it had not faded.  Another was a black & white print I had developed
and printed myself.  It was not under glass, but I had used matte paper and
it still looked as fresh as the day I had printed it.  Others were color
prints, not under glass, and they had faded.  Regular photos fade also.

Epson also makes a pigment printer and this type of ink, on the proper
archival paper is said to last 200+ years without fading.  The results are
excellent, but somewhat muted compared to dyes.  The color gamut is not
quite the same as with dyes.  Given the proper printer, paper and ink, your
digital photos can last as long or longer than regular pictures.

As for color LaserJets, well how many of us have had page printed on a
LaserJet happily transferring their toner images in reverse on the plastic
binder?  I have these toner imprints all over my manuals and other places.

The fourth issue is paper selection.  In an inkjet printer, you can use all
sorts of different paper and media.  You can have 60# paper, virtually
cardboard stock, indistinguishable from regular photo print paper, you can
have different finishes, glossy, matte, satin, metallic, etc, and you can
have iron-on transfer, plastic, artistic paper, and what not.  If the
printer is a straight through feed, it takes up more room but has a wider
capacity for problem-free feeding of non-common paper.  Outfits such as
Ilford (of photographic supplies fame,) Pictorico and my current favorite,
Red River Paper, have wide varieties of papers for use with Inkjets.  They
can help you select papers that will work well with your printer.
 LaserJets do not have anywhere near the flexibility.

Sharing your pictures on the web is an excellent way of reaching the
maximum number of people, however, there is still something, actually a
lot, to be said about having larger prints on the walls, the piano, a
credenza or in an album.  I am as digital as they come, I even bought an
eBook called "Mastering Nikon Compact Digital Cameras."  It came on a CD.
 The first thing I did was to print it.  I am old fashioned on some
respects, I like to have a book with pages.  Just like I enjoy printing my
pictures.

Anyway, now that I have explained why one would want to print one's
pictures and how to do so, let me add a few more thoughts.

Shaw would be well served by the Inkjet I mentioned earlier, and in the
native resolution of his camera, he can expect excellent 4X6 and  5X7
results.  Anything larger will become increasingly problematic, unless he
uses a little bit more technology.  There is a product on the market,
called Genuine Fractals, which is nothing short of magical.  This product,
from AltaMira Group http://204.29.20.136/, is a Photoshop Plugin enabling
digital pictures to be blown up without artifacting, loss of resolution or
color shifting.  Shawn could take his pictures and print them in 13X19 size
and bigger.  A limited version of this product is bundled with the Nikon
cameras and some Epson printers.

Finally, some of you might remember my travails with Photoshop and why is
use PaintShopPro.  Well, a quick update.  Thanks to the eBook I mentioned
earlier, I have indeed found there are some things that PS does better and
easier than PSP, so I am back to doing preliminary work in PS and then
using PSP to finish the work and print the images.  PS steadfastly refuses
to cooperate when it comes to printing.  Maybe I should get a Mac to do
this work.  Just kidding.

Kind regards,

Denys. . .

Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP
(800) 323-8863  (281) 288-7438         Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com                             www.hicomp.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *