Dye Subs anyone?

[Capmaster]

What have your experiences been? Have you ever tried a dye sub?

I have a Kodak 8670 at work. It's hard to imagine a nicer output. Just wondering that since we have quite a few pros here, how many use this sort of printer?

[Conquest10]

I got one. A Canon CP-200. Its great. Its real fun watching it print. I use it for sending photos to relatives.

[lordsmurf]

Dye sub for photo work? Shit doesn't last. Maybe the tech has changed in the past 5 years or so, but my stuff from a couple years back looks as bad as my inkjet, in terms of fading, etc.

The paper is always "sticky" too (no jokes dammit, trying to be serious here). I hate sticky photo paper. Some of that is the paper, but the printer required that crappy paper.

I sometimes just assume go back to chemicals and take my chances with breathing toxic fumes. At least the art lasted longer. Digital is cool and all. Fast, easy to store, digital does not degrade in perfect conditions. But transferring to "old style" mediums (paper) just doesn't work that well.

As far as I'm concerned, digital is ONLY... ONLY... good for print (magazines, newspaper, etc ... though watch your MP/glass). I still shoot as much film and slide as I used too, when it comes to non-print stuff (personal photos, modeling photography, etc).

[Capmaster]

I got one. A Canon CP-200. Its great. Its real fun watching it print. I use it for sending photos to relatives.

What are the media costs (ribbon, paper/transparency)?

The Kodak ribbon is about $170/100 pages, the paper is $140/100 pages and transparency runs about $160/100 if memory serves.

No beating a dye sub for photo printing ...unless you have one of those slick digital-to-silver halide printers. Those even edge out a dye-sub, but they use regular photo paper.

[Conquest10]

Sticky? Which one are you using? My prints come out dry to the touch.
For digital, I just take the files down to the Wolf Camera and have them make prints on the Frontier. I have no complaints.

[Capmaster]

Dye sub for photo work? Shit doesn't last. Maybe the tech has changed in the past 5 years or so, but my stuff from a couple years back looks as bad as my inkjet, in terms of fading, etc.

The paper is always "sticky" too (no jokes dammit, trying to be serious here). I hate sticky photo paper. Some of that is the paper, but the printer required that crappy paper.

I sometimes just assume go back to chemicals and take my chances with breathing toxic fumes. At least the art lasted longer. Digital is cool and all. Fast, easy to store, digital does not degrade in perfect conditions. But transferring to "old style" mediums (paper) just doesn't work that well.

As far as I'm concerned, digital is ONLY... ONLY... good for print (magazines, newspaper, etc ... though watch your MP/glass). I still shoot as much film and slide as I used too, when it comes to non-print stuff (personal photos, modeling photography, etc).

I have to agree that digital printing of photos is "kludgey" because you're taking an analog process and trying to translate, while retaining the quality. Dicey.

But I haven't seen that deterioration you mentioned with the Kodak. The ribbon has a clear-coat panel for the paper media and it seals it pretty well.

[lordsmurf]

One more thing to add:

I've noticed some of my prints (from CLEAR, SHARP digital files) are now soft-focus! WTF? The print was sharp when I got it. But now? Soft. Something "melted" or something, degraded over time. I really don't know. I just know I don't like it.

It's a real shame laser doesn't look so perfect for photography.

I've never quite found a medium that I'm happy with, when it comes to printing digital images. Aside from actual printing done from the submitted source files for press.

[Capmaster]

One more thing to add:

I've noticed some of my prints (from CLEAR, SHARP digital files) are now soft-focus! WTF? The print was sharp when I got it. But now? Soft. Something "melted" or something, degraded over time. I really don't know. I just know I don't like it.

It's a real shame laser doesn't look so perfect for photography.

I've never quite found a medium that I'm happy with, when it comes to printing digital images. Aside from actual printing done from the submitted source files for press.

I've used the online silver halide printers for my photos and they're very good.

BTW, I got some perfect-looking 16x20 posters ......from a 2MP digicam. No artifacts, no pixelating, nothing. Perfect. Canon has some killer algorithms in their Powershots. You wouldn't believe how well they turned out on that silver paper

[Conquest10]

What are the media costs (ribbon, paper/transparency)?

Its about $14. They come in packs of 36.

[Capmaster]

What are the media costs (ribbon, paper/transparency)?

Its about $14. They come in packs of 36.

$14 for $36? What's the media size? Full 8 x 11?

[lordsmurf]

I'll have to look into that. We used to call that the "Fuji copier" in the early days. It was not very good, lost a lot of detail (soft images right away). Expensive as hell too. Maybe it's changed.

I've not really needed/wanted to print my own photos in the past few years. I have a really nice Canon inkjet for 8x10 images, though I only use it a couple times per year. It's cheap and not much better or worse than anything else I've come across in years past. Plus I can do my own colormatch here.

[Conquest10]

4x6. Its the printer that comes on in the commercials. The 30-second photo lab or whatever the phrase is.

[Capmaster]

4x6. Its the printer that comes on in the commercials. The 30-second photo lab or whatever the phrase is.

Oh yeah. Right. That's not a bad price if it's used for the occasional print.

The prices I quoted for the Kodak were for 8x11 and a special 8x12 paper that has extra length because of the long top and bottom margins most dye subs have. It's expensive by the page, but not conpletely out of line when you look at what an 8x10 enlargement would cost you at a photofinisher

[DVD_Ripper]

I had a Fargo Dyesub Printer a few years back... smoldered after about 2 years (heating element just burnt out).... consumables very expensive, not to mention that you need to have the printer in a 'clean room' or a spec of dust or a small hair would ruin the print . With qlty of new photo printers I would not look back to a dyesub

[The village idiot]

BTW, I got some perfect-looking 16x20 posters ......from a 2MP digicam. No artifacts, no pixelating, nothing. Perfect. Canon has some killer algorithms in their Powershots. You wouldn't believe how well they turned out on that silver paper

Has much less to do with the camera, and much more to do with the front end RIP for the printer. Or use Qimage or Genuine Fractals to upsample before printing.

100 year inkjet prints can be had from the current line of Epson Ultrachrome printers, 75 for select HP papers with their model 30 and 130. Lightjet (silver halide) only in the range of 25 to maybe 50 (behind glass), Canon inkjets on special papers might get you 10 years. 100 years on several third party pigment inks and select papers. Most dye-sub in the 10+ years. All of these have been tested with accelerated age testing by the Wilhelm lab, so in the real world your mileage may vary.

I have many inkjet prints made using third pigment inks on cheap paper that show no signs of fading, hung in open air, no glass with office light levels and occasional sunshine. This after many years of display, printed around 1997. I feel comfortable enough with these inks that I will print for hire for the fine art market, including canvas up to 40 inches wide.

[offline]

But Village, won't the "cheap paper" be too acidic and go brown?

[The village idiot]

Depends on what cheap paper, and cheap to me means not the 309gsm weight matte that I use. But you are correct, many cheap papers use an acid base to brighten the colors, that and UV enhancers to make the paper look like a brighter white.

edit: typing with gloves on today

[rallynavvie]

Check out the Sony DDP-EX50 for 5x7 or smaller dye prints. It has a load of built-in features for the price around $150. We have Sony dye-subs at work but roll-feed versions, except the 8x10 printer is sheet fed. We've got two UPD-R100s and one UP-D70A. Both do very well printing from a good source.

I also have an HP 5000 oversize color inkjet with UV dye that prints on a whole hoard of different media types from studio canvas to photo paper to reflective adhesive vinyls. The laser printers we use (Xerox 6060s and Doc12s) get pretty good results but I abhor "glossy" papers in them. Toners tend to sit on top of gloss papers so they look funny up close. Of course it's still better print quality than web offset but a lot more expensive.

[flaninacupboard]

I'm trying to remember the name of the machine we used at my old job....

It was a Kodak machine, did up to 20x24. images were nice, but the company used cheap cameras, well, cameras without a raw mode at any rate. the jpeg artifacting was horrible - i'd never use them. what i found amusing is their most expensive print (30x40) was also the crappest, they used a big inkjet printer for them.... nasty.

[Capmaster]

Like Lordsmurf said, it's a shame that color laser printers look worse than good inkjets. We have a nice floor-standing HP color laser at work that'll print on anything from toilet paper to plywood. Too bad the quality sucks :P

I've seen ads for an interesting "printer". It uses a laser instead of ink and actually carves out a 3-D rendering of whatever you create in Pro-E or anything eles. It isn't limited to layering thermoplastic like the early "prototyping" printers. This one takes wood, plastic, metal, you name it, and carves it out. Cool, huh?

And it interfaces to your PC via the normal SCSI port and maybe LPT1 - I don't recall. Oh, the possibilities ...

[flaninacupboard]

I can see the horrific images now of a street artist gone bad, branding his "tag" six inches deep on his victims.

No more horror films for me

[Capmaster]

I can see the horrific images now of a street artist gone bad, branding his "tag" six inches deep on his victims.

No more horror films for me

I've seen some hi-res pics of plaques with brass plates mounted to walnut, and the brass engraved by this "printer". Beautiful. If I can find the link I'll post it here

[flaninacupboard]

Housemate works for Cummins and they use lasers to mark components. pretty cool, i thought.