Many users of this forum tend toward excellence. Regarding digital printing, does anyone have practical working experience with dye sublimation printers, specificly the Olympus P-400. Is the quality better than the high end inkjet printers? Thank you.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), March 22, 2002

Answers

Richard,

I know where you are coming from with this question. I am currently in the same boat of deciding how best to proceed with the printing aspect of my photography.

Here is what I am doing:

I already have an Epson inkjet printer, and I just yesterday ordered a Quadtone (actually hextone) archival inkset from MIS (www.inksupply.com) and some of their recommended paper. It replaces the Epson color inkset with varied tones of grey. This, along with special workflows designed to maximize B/W digital printing are supposed to produce excellent results.

I have seen some of the output from this and it looks good. Better, in fact, than most labs I have been to. I don't do my own printing right now, and do not have a darkroom or the means to set one up, so for me this was the best option.

This may be something you would like to check into.

If you do decide on dyesub, please let us know how it works out.

Cheers

-- Rich Green (kamurah@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

Richard, I am working with Epson 1270 and am very happy with the results for most purposes. One thing against the Olimpus, is that you must use their shiny paper, which from the samples I saw make it look like a chip magazine.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 22, 2002.

Just some general comments. I remember the first inkjets about seven years ago. Nothing to write home about. Now Epson offers six color photo quality inkjet printers from under $100 to over $10,000. Canon has even joined the fray with their own six color photo printers. It's obvious to me that the future belongs to the inkjet. Epson is now in the process of offering a new seven color inkjet, suppose to hit US shores early summer. I thought about dye sublimation and laser about six or seven years ago. Those thoughts no longer enter my mind- set. Not only are there a tremendous number of high quality photo inkjets out there (and some Epson's offer 100 year + colorfastnest), but the quality, with the proper file, is breathtaking. Personally, I scan slides into a 4000 dpi film scanner, and output to an Epson 890 six color photo printer, with results that knock my socks off. But this is a personal thing, and if you decide that the Olympus P-400 is the way to go, then you probably won't be disappointed. Let us know what you decide, and how you like it. Maybe us old dogs can learn new tricks.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

FWIW - when I first started inkjet printing in '95 I took one of my shots and printed it also on the Kodak 8 x 10 dye-sub printer at work.

The dye-sub print was showing artifacts and color shift within 3 months - I still have inkjet prints from that time and they show very little change even after 7 years.

Once I saw those changes starting, I never gave dye-sub another thought - even though, yes, the dye-sub SHOULD give better quality since it isn't restricted to scattering solid dots of ink in the highlights, but can lay down a very pale continuous tone of dye.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 23, 2002.

Richard, I'm currently using Olympus P-400 and Epson 2000P Inkjet printers. The P-400 is limited in size (approx 7X10 image size). It produces very vivid colors. It is suppose to give a 70 year print when properly (and quickly ) mounted and framed or protected from direct light and the environment. I've found that it gains in contrast a bit, so I adjust it back a tad in PhotoShop before printing. The result is always a glossy finish due to the protective laminate applied as the final pass. Occasionally I've noticed some small "bubbles " in this laminate. If you go this route wait! Olympus is suppose to come out with a full 8"X10" image area. The Epson 2000p on the other hand is not limited to 7"X10". providing up to a 17+" image on their 13"X19" paper. I prefer the Luster finish, although it's the matte finish that gives them bragging rights to a 200 year life span ( which I don't quite believe.) Viewing inkjet prints from an angle reveals a matte verses luster difference from inked areas to white hightlights and minimum tone areas. A pal of mine asked me the same question you asked. My advice, for what it's worth, was to get the Epson 2000P because it gives you more sizes and choices, including pure untainted B&W. Nothing yet equals a beautiful silver print, but they're getting closer. Sincerely, Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 25, 2002.