Is the printer good enough for the camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?

    Hoping for some guidance

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Apr 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian

    Scott W Guest

    You will actually need a printer with much more resolution. I is
    important to realize that the camera deal with pixels and the printer
    deals with dots. The dots are either there or not, no level of
    brightness. It takes many dots for each pixel if the photo is to print
    with smooth looking colors and not either look grainy or have banding.
    The good news is that photo quality printer are very cheap, the bad
    news is that the cheap ones don't produce prints that last very long
    (they fade). Most of the time I don't care if a print fades, I can
    reprint it. If I am giving a print to someone else it is a different
    matter, in that case I take my photos to Costco and have them print it,
    the printer they use uses laser to expose photographic paper, the end
    print is in fact a photograph and will last as long as other color
    photos.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    Brian wrote:

    > I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    > photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    > print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
    >


    You're confused..


    You need 300DPI to make a really good print so....at 300DPI you can print
    10.24 X 6.83 with no upsampling. Most people will say you can make very
    nice 8X10's with no upsampling from this camera (~250DPI) and with some
    post processing and upsampling 11X14's that look good.

    The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
    resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
    going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
    should get a good printer if you want good home prints.

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Apr 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Brian

    Vic Dura Guest

    On 26 Apr 2005 23:53:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Is the
    printer good enough for the camera? "Scott W" <>
    wrote:

    >If I am giving a print to someone else it is a different
    >matter, in that case I take my photos to Costco and have them print it,
    >the printer they use uses laser to expose photographic paper, the end
    >print is in fact a photograph and will last as long as other color
    >photos.


    Or you can use one of the on-line photo printers such as DotPhoto.com
    (good value) or Ofoto.com (better b&w).

    --
    To reply to me directly, remove the XXX characters from my email address.
     
    Vic Dura, Apr 27, 2005
    #4
  5. Stacey wrote:

    If you are the same Stacey who accused me of not reading your link,
    would you please have the courtesy to at least revisit the thread
    (Eureka on Color Management) and answer me.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 27, 2005
    #5
  6. "Brian" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    > photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    > print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
    >
    > Hoping for some guidance
    >
    > Regards Brian


    Two different things. You printer will determine the max quality it can
    print. The size of the print is not material here as the quality from the
    printer point of view is the same for a small print as a large print. If
    you are happy with the prints you now get from your printer you have no need
    to change.

    The camera resolution determines how large the print can be without
    loosing quality. So assuming you are moving up from a camera with less
    resolution, you now can make larger prints that look every bit as good as
    the old camera did making smaller prints.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Apr 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Brian

    measekite Guest

    If you want to print real large than go with a Canon i9900. If you want
    to print up to 8.5x11 and also use the printer to do business documents
    than go with the Canon IP4000. If your business printing is very light
    and you want to match the quality of the i9900 than consider the Canon
    IP8500.

    After editing in Photo Shop you will be sending under 1200 PPI to the
    printer. Somehow, and I do not understand exactly how, the printer
    converts the pixels to DPI.

    I have seen 13x19 prints done on a Canon i9900 that were shot with a
    Canon 10D. They were stunning. Really Fantastic.

    Now if you plan on selling your prints and longevity is primary, you
    might want to consider a lesser result and look at the Epson R800/1800
    Pigmented Ink Printers.

    Brian wrote:

    >I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    >photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    >print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
    >
    >Hoping for some guidance
    >
    >Regards Brian
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Apr 27, 2005
    #7
  8. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:01 +1200, in rec.photo.digital , Brian
    <> in <>
    wrote:

    >I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    >photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    >print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?


    3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution. Resolution tells you how much
    many things (dots of ink in the case of printers) you can get in a
    row. You want lots of those dots for each camera pixel.





    --
    Matt Silberstein

    All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
    a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
    there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
    end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
    or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
     
    Matt Silberstein, Apr 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Matt Silberstein wrote:

    > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:01 +1200, in rec.photo.digital , Brian
    > <> in <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    >>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    >>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?

    >
    >
    > 3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution. Resolution tells you how much
    > many things (dots of ink in the case of printers) you can get in a
    > row. You want lots of those dots for each camera pixel.


    Agreed. Any printer can print at 200 to 300 ppi (pixels per inch). At
    200 ppi, for example, your camera would make a 10 x 15 inch print. A
    printer's dpi (dots per inch) is a totally separate subject and has
    nothing to do with the resolution of your camera.

    See Wayne Fulton's book at http://www.scantips.com/

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 27, 2005
    #9
  10. Brian

    Confused Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:48:57 GMT
    In message <>
    Matt Silberstein <> wrote:

    > 3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution.


    According to Merriam-Webster that *is* resolution.
    Size comes into play when using a DPI number to
    determine dimensions for rendering on a specific device.

    Jeff (was confused, looked it up, then remembered)
     
    Confused, Apr 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Brian

    Arthur Small Guest

    First use Qimage to make your prints and you are the judge of quality.

    Purchase a dye sub printer and not worry about printer resolution.
     
    Arthur Small, Apr 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Brian

    james Guest

    In article <OSLbe.1333$>,
    measekite <> wrote:

    >If you want to print real large than go with a Canon i9900. If you want
    >to print up to 8.5x11 and also use the printer to do business documents
    >than go with the Canon IP4000. If your business printing is very light
    >and you want to match the quality of the i9900 than consider the Canon
    >IP8500.


    I'm thinking about the i9900. The printer itself is lower in actual
    dollars than my first Epson line printer, in the 1970s, when I was
    upgrading from a teletype.

    Anyway, how's the ink economy on this?

    Right now I have a HP All-in-One which is pretty good for word
    processing and so forth, but I've been quite disappointed with it for
    photo, even with 6-ink. I want something dedicated to photo that will
    be cost-effective even with intermittent use (I don't want ink that
    starts drying out just because I've loaded it in the printer. I can
    understand this a little bit, such as sitting for months or whatever,
    but I really don't want ink that dries out quickly just by being loaded
    in the printer).

    Also, one motivation is that as soon as I return from a location in May,
    I expect to have some pretty good stitched panorams. So I want to try
    to print and mount mosaic prints, and 13x19 sounds like a hell of a good
    paper size for this. But if it requires $200 worth of ink to do that,
    I wouldn't really be saving much compared to having a single large print
    made by a pro, at least I don't think so.

    So I'm wondering about ink economy and any other maintenance issues with
    the i9900. My cameras are both Canons; I have a 20D and an A85, and I
    also plan to do some film (to digital prints.)
     
    james, Apr 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Brian

    measekite Guest

    Stacey wrote:

    >Brian wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    >>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    >>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You're confused..
    >
    >
    >You need 300DPI
    >


    Isn't that PPI. In Photoshop I took a scanned in 35mm image scanned at
    3200 PPI. I then used the cropping tool for an 8.5x11. After changing
    the Image size the resolution was about 300PPI. It did not say DPI.

    >to make a really good print so....at 300DPI you can print
    >10.24 X 6.83 with no upsampling. Most people will say you can make very
    >nice 8X10's with no upsampling from this camera (~250DPI) and with some
    >post processing and upsampling 11X14's that look good.
    >
    >The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
    >resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
    >going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
    >should get a good printer if you want good home prints.
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Apr 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Brian

    Confused Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
    In message <BoTbe.8679$>
    Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
    measekite <> wrote:

    > Isn't that PPI.
    > ...
    > It did not say DPI.
    > ...


    DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
    acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
    of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
    equivalence of an original pixel".

    Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
    very often... <vbg>

    Jeff
     
    Confused, Apr 27, 2005
    #14
  15. "Brian" <> wrote:

    > I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    > photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    > print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?


    Any of the current photo-quality printers can make better 8x10 or A4 prints
    than the Canon 300D can create. You can see this by downloading and printing
    the review samples for cameras like the Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14/n.

    If you want small prints (4x6 or 5x7) that render all the detail captured by
    the camera, that's somewhat harder. IMHO, wet chemistry projection printing
    papers can provide more resolution than inkjet (or most other digital)
    printing.

    On the other hand, my experience with the Epson R800 is that it really does
    render a _lot_ of detail, and Roger Clark reports that certain of the HP
    printers do very well on rendering detail as well. That Canon isn't
    mentioned in the above is probably more due to none of the detail freaks
    here happening to own a Canon printer than anything being wrong with Canon.

    I'll second the recommendation for Qimage. Great program.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Brian

    measekite Guest

    Are you saying that 1 PPI on screen translates to 1 DPI at the printer?
    So an Image in PS/Image Size that is 266 willprint at 266 DPI when the
    printer is capable of printing at 1200 DPI?

    Confused wrote:

    >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
    >In message <BoTbe.8679$>
    >Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
    >measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Isn't that PPI.
    >>...
    >>It did not say DPI.
    >>...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
    >acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
    >of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
    >equivalence of an original pixel".
    >
    >Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
    >very often... <vbg>
    >
    >Jeff
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Apr 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Brian

    Confused Guest

    No, that's not what I wrote. Perhaps if you didn't
    top post and write about something specific...

    Jeff

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:21:27 GMT
    In message <HMXbe.8785$>
    Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
    measekite <> wrote:

    > Are you saying that 1 PPI on screen translates to 1 DPI at the printer?
    > So an Image in PS/Image Size that is 266 willprint at 266 DPI when the
    > printer is capable of printing at 1200 DPI?
    >
    > Confused wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
    > >In message <BoTbe.8679$>
    > >Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
    > >measekite <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Isn't that PPI.
    > >>...
    > >>It did not say DPI.
    > >>...
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
    > >acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
    > >of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
    > >equivalence of an original pixel".
    > >
    > >Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
    > >very often... <vbg>
    > >
    > >Jeff
    > >
    > >
     
    Confused, Apr 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    measekite wrote:

    >
    >
    > Stacey wrote:
    >
    >>Brian wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
    >>>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
    >>>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>You're confused..
    >>
    >>
    >>You need 300DPI
    >>

    >
    > Isn't that PPI.


    People use these two interchangeably even if they aren't precisely the same
    thing, yes PPI is probably the correct term but I bet the manual for the
    printer would call it DPI..

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Apr 28, 2005
    #18
  19. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:

    >
    >
    > Stacey wrote:
    >
    > If you are the same Stacey who accused me of not reading your link,
    > would you please have the courtesy to at least revisit the thread
    > (Eureka on Color Management) and answer me.
    >



    Why, you can be lazy and I can't? I posted a link that explained ALL the
    questions you kept ansking yet YOU were too lazy to click on the link I
    spent time searching FOR YOU!!!! Sorry I'm done...
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Apr 28, 2005
    #19
  20. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    james wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm thinking about the i9900.


    I'm happy with mine once I bought a custom printer profile for it..
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Apr 28, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. VT
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,670
  2. ajacobs2

    Enough is enough....

    ajacobs2, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,031
  3. Imhotep

    Enough is enough...

    Imhotep, Sep 24, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    828
    John Hyde
    Sep 28, 2005
  4. richard

    L A county says enough is enough

    richard, Feb 23, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    481
    Plato
    Feb 26, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,011
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page