christmascracker Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 My daughter got married yesterday and as you would expect I took tons of photos.On the PC they look brilliant but once printed out they don't look half as good :( I've tried various settings and changed the contrast brightness etc but still the same.The printer I've got is an HP Deskjet 5550.Anyway, my question is..........would a dedicated photo printer do any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expertec Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 I have the same printer, do you have the photo cartridge? (Number 58).And are you using photo paper or standard paper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christmascracker Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 I have the same printer, do you have the photo cartridge? (Number 58).And are you using photo paper or standard paper?I never thought of getting the photo cartridge, have you used it? If you have does it make a difference?I'm using photo paper by the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expertec Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Have printed photos on photo paper with standard cartridge, and they turned out pretty good. Never used a photo cartridge, but that should make them even better. :huh:What quality are you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christmascracker Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Have printed photos on photo paper with standard cartridge, and they turned out pretty good. Never used a photo cartridge, but that should make them even better. :huh:What quality are you using?The highest of everything :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Have you got it set on 'best' printing - makes a huge difference with photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christmascracker Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Have you got it set on 'best' printing - makes a huge difference with photos.Yep tried that too :( It is a year and a half old..........maybe I'll have to persuade hubby to buy me a new one :rolleyes: Thanks for trying :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Can I ask the specification of the camera that took the pictures and at what resolution are the images on your computer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christmascracker Posted October 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Thanks all.....got a new printer today...the Epson stylus Photo R200.It's absolutely brilliant, perfect results and I'm well chuffed with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Enjoy it and get good price guaranteed compatible inks herePrinter inks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expertec Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Personally I prefer 7DayShop. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Personally I prefer 7DayShop. :)I have also used them, and MX2 too, but found that Choice had better prices for ink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Just received this e-mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Inkcycle is cheaper for HP 950 series :rolleyes: :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Not always wise to go for the cheapest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Not always wise to go for the cheapest.No - but in this instance they are good for me. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Not always wise to go for the cheapest.Choice guarantee to repair or replace a printer damaged by their cartridges. Also as several on here have testified their response to a reported bad cartridge is immediate and positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Not always wise to go for the cheapest.Choice guarantee to repair or replace a printer damaged by their cartridges. Also as several on here have testified their response to a reported bad cartridge is immediate and positive.My comment was directed more to the quality of the finished print, especially the long term and light stability of the inks. This, of course, will only become apparent after a period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Not always wise to go for the cheapest.Choice guarantee to repair or replace a printer damaged by their cartridges. Also as several on here have testified their response to a reported bad cartridge is immediate and positive.My comment was directed more to the quality of the finished print, especially the long term and light stability of the inks. This, of course, will only become apparent after a period of time.Point taken, but we have NO way of knowing this until problems occur several years down the line. Conversely, the dearest isn't always the best, some company's just have the public on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Yes, I agree with your last point, andsome :) The makers of originals do seem to take their customers for a ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Yes, I agree with your last point, andsome :) The makers of originals do seem to take their customers for a ride.It's a pity that someone who knows how, doesn't do a test on all makes of cartridge. Fading could be speeded up by using extra strong UV light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 My comment was directed more to the quality of the finished print, especially the long term and light stability of the inks. This, of course, will only become apparent after a period of time.By the time they fade , I'll probably be dead! :lol: :lol: Must say though, I collect very old photos and some of them look very fresh - dated around 1900, and in sepia. Looking at some photos taken in the 50's - they've faded already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 The early photographers, using silver based "real" photography were extremely careful about processing and washing their negatives and prints free from all traces of fixer (hypo) which could, over time, bleach the silver image.With sepia pictures, the sepia tone wasn't just an effect. First, it was due to the rather crude processing conditions which left a silver sulphide, as opposed to a metallic silver, image. It was this silver sulphide that gave the sepia or dark brown appearance. This was later imitated by deliberately treating black and white prints with a sulphide donor such as sodium sulphide or thiourea. Other early special effects were done by treating prints with gold salts (gold toning) which gave red to blue effects, depending on conditions; platinum toning which gave extremely stable images, copper toning and so on.Later, in the days of mass photography, not so much care was taken in the sort of chemist's shop D&P processing so the post-process washing wasn't so carefully carried out, hence the poor stability of a print. The popularity of colour photography using organic dyes developed during the more or less traditional silver processing spelled the end of the silver photograph image, the silver having been removing entirely during the processing. This left a (relatively) very unstable colour image.I doubt that many, if any, of the present day colour photographs will be extant at the end of this cerntury in the same way as some of the photographs taken by the pioneers of photography lasted through the previous century - and before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artist Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Interesting, that. Thanks. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Artist, if you have some faded silver photographs, it should be possible to re-develop them to get the image back. The treatment consists of immersing them in an ordinary metol/HQ developer for a time to reduce the faded image back to silver. It isn't necessary to fix but it is necessary to give a very thorough wash afterwards - the first wash with dilute acid (stop bath or diluted vinegar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.