TCPglobal - news, views and issues on total cost of printing

Issue #0419/1 - Close comparison of 10×15 prints reveals that dye sublimation provides the highest photo quality but that proprietary inkjet media is most likely to produce best results.

Prints from the Kodak Printer Dock, with its dye sublimation (thermal dye) technology are sharper than prints from ink jet printers. Images are also less grainy and with smoother tonal gradation – but are relatively expensive.

An unexpected, and sudden, opportunity to obtain a couple of prints from a Kodak Printer Dock 6000 came recently when visiting a couple of high street stores to experiment with several ultra-zoom digital cameras.

As an aside, it was ironic that the specialist photo store was less able to answer questions and provide hands on experience with the cameras than the general consumer electronics store. They did not have camera batteries charged and the sales assistant (probably the manager!) clearly was not familiar with the hardware whereas, in the general consumer electronics store, the sales assistant had a fair understanding of the product and all cameras were available for experimentation.

This aside is relevant in that it was in the consumer electronics store that the assistant placed the Kodak camera on the demonstration Printer Dock 6000 and hit ‘print’, without even asking if I’d like to see any photos printed!

As I had taken a Secure Digital memory card with me for the purpose of comparing the cameras, I was able to print the same images on the only photo inkjet printer available at the time (Hewlett-Packard PhotoSmart 7960) after returning to the labs. They were each printed on Kodak Picture Paper and on Hewlett-Packard glossy Premium Photo Paper using the 6-ink PhotoRET IV option.

Kodak’s Printer Dock 6000 is a due sublimation printer, meaning that the colour is in the form of a dye coating on a film backing sheet. The dye is effectively vaporised onto the photo media, one colour at a time, in a thermal process. Because the dye is vaporised, there are no specific droplets, grains or impact points on the media and the result is a continuous tone image equivalent to the Silver Halide photographic process.

For protection of the print, the Printer Dock 6000 applies a lamination layer during a fourth pass of the media through the printer after application of the three primary colours – Cyan, Magenta and Yellow – that are used to create the image.

Printer Dock 6000 also has the advantage of doubling as a download station; a camera battery charging station; will print index prints as well as full frame 10×15 prints; and provides TV viewing capability. As a standalone device, it is a fully portable travel-photo solution – stunning value for money at £149.99 including tax. It is even better value in the US at $149.95!!

So, how does the device stack up in terms of print quality and cost?

First impression, when the print emerges from the demonstration unit in the store, is that the image is incredibly sharp. As a second impression, colour saturation is just a shade on the weak side and the media is thin – it doesn’t ‘feel’ quite up to the standards of a silver halide print and the slight lack of colour saturation could be criticised as offering a print that does not ‘look’ as good as a silver halide print.

That said, in reality, there is absolutely no problem with any of the prints, which are every bit as good as silver halide. In fact, silver halide can frequently be criticised for lack of consistency and for often producing results that are over-saturated and with excessive contrast, such that detail can be lost.

No one would reject any of the prints in question as being unsuitable for viewing and sharing. The differences we are talking about are miniscule, only discernable in direct comparison and mostly reliant on high magnification to prove.

To expand on the quality issues observed with these prints, the most obvious of the differences is that prints from the Kodak device are sharper than inkjet prints. Straight lines and contrast edges leap out as being precise and minutely defined – building detail, signage and foliage.

Also, viewing the enlargements of the shopping centre front shows that the edges of the signage are smother and more clearly defined and the anti-pigeon measures have resolved better than either of the inkjet prints (especially the Kodak paper).

Apart from the edge sharpness, the other feature that is very distinct in the enlargements from the Kodak Printer Dock is that the image is altogether smoother. The inkjet prints are grainy by comparison (as with high enlargement factors from Silver Halide negatives). For instance the delicacy of the tonal variation in the ladies blouse in the shop window is almost as distinct as if you were standing right in front of the window, whereas the inkjet prints have lost that detail almost completely.

Finally, the superiority of the Hewlett-Packard inkjet media over both Kodak dye sublimation and Kodak inkjet media for producing colour saturation is most noticeable on the shopping centre prints where the red of the letter is distinctly better, despite the effects of ink droplet grain. In the enlargement, the Kodak Picture Paper print is clearly the weakest, with lower contrast and colour saturation.

Viewing the original prints at original size, the final impression is that the prints from the Kodak Printer Dock are a fraction more silver halide-like than the inkjet prints – largely due to a higher level of contrast. Lowlights are darker and highlights are lighter but without losing detail.

To switch attention to the inkjet prints, we can conclude that …

…Proprietary inkjet paper from inkjet manufacturers is better than third party inkjet paper.

Although it requires very close scrutiny to discern any real difference between the prints made on the inkjet printer, it is clear that the proprietary paper does provide a better result.

This is, as you would expect, the contention of the printer manufacturers. Although we’ve only been able to use one inkjet printer with one proprietary paper and one third party paper, we would expect the generalisation to follow for the majority of printer/media combinations. After all, the printer manufacturer is looking for the highest print quality possible and is required to put time and money into ensuring that all the ingredients are as perfectly matched as possible.

For those cynics who say that it is the printer that produces the quality and that there is a great deal of latitude in the media types used – think again! These examples prove conclusively that the same printer, using the same ink but on different paper produces different results.

Prints on proprietary Hewlett-Packard paper are better than on the Kodak Picture Paper - contrast is greater even though lowlights are not as dark on the Hewlett-Packard paper as they are on the dye sublimation prints from the Kodak Printer Dock 6000. Colour saturation is also significantly better on the Hewlett-Packard paper than on the Kodak inkjet paper, giving an altogether more pleasing result. Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, colour saturation is actually better on the Hewlett-Packard inkjet paper than using the dye sublimation process.

In many situations the user may end up saying, ‘so what?’, and buy the third party media anyway in the expectation that any third party product will be cheaper. However, they would be wrong! Although a pack of 60 sheets of the Hewlett-Packard Q1992A glossy Premium Photo Paper can be bought in an on-line retailer in the UK for £15.26 including tax (25.4 pence each), the cost of the Kodak Picture Paper is £9.98 for 40 sheets (24.95 pence each). For me, a half penny more (1.8 %) for the heavier paper and better quality obtained from the proprietary media is insignificant and more than worth the extra cost.

Kodak does, however, have an interesting advantage with its Picture Paper in that it is double sided, meaning that users creating flip-albums, where pockets are viewable from both sides, can print two images on the one piece of paper – hence saving 50% on media costs. This is a saving well worth making, particularly bearing in mind that the images are viewed through less-than-perfect plastic.

It might be considered ironic that the Kodak paper is actually from a printer manufacturer and not from an unconnected third party – but it should be remembered that Kodak’s expertise is in dye sublimation printing and not in inkjet printing.

Costing on the Kodak Printer Dock 6000, as indicated is on the high side. The accompanying table shows the information published in Issue #0413 "Breakthrough marketing from Epson reduces cost of inkjet photo printing with new PictureMate portable printer" of TCPglobal with the Kodak Printer Dock 6000 and the PhotoSmart 7960 inserted. Although the PhotoSmart 145 and 245 print only in 3-colour PhotoRET III mode, they have been left in for comparison.

Notes:

Prints of the images obtained this week were also made using PhotoRET III on the PhotoSmart 7960, with results that were just discernibly inferior to the 6-colour prints but, again, not unacceptably so bearing in mind that there is a 21% cost advantage.

Like the Canon models, Kodak’s dye sublimation technology means that a precise number of prints are obtained from each refill pack. Unlike inkjet there is no cost variation according to print density.

Sadly Kodak’s Printer Dock is the most expensive to run of the 10×15 format models – 28% higher than Canon’s dye sublimation offering - but does still fall well below the cost per print from the Hewlett-Packard 6-colour print option (19%).

Like the Printer Dock itself, pricing in the US is very competitive in comparison to the UK. A colour cartridge/media pack costs only $24.99, making the CPP just 62.5 cents (equivalent to about 35 pence per photo in the UK)!

Clearly, the PhotoSmart 7960 does not fit with the other models in that it is a top of the range A4 format photo printer, whereas the others are only capable of printing at 10×15 size. It is included largely because it is the printer that was used to produce the prints used in the comparison and because it offers the higher quality 6-colour printing. There are PhotoSmart printers from Hewlett-Packard that offer 6-colour printing at a lower purchase cost.

Purely for purposes of interest, the shopping centre photograph was taken using the full 10x (380mm focal length equivalent) optical zoom on a Konica Minolta Z2 digital camera and the rainbow photograph was the equivalent of 140mm focal length on the Kodak EasyShare DX6490 digital camera. The prints were all 10×15 size and the enlargements were scanned at 1200dpi using a Hewlett-Packard ScanJet 6300C.

~End~

This entry was posted on Friday, May 28th, 2004 at 12:04 am and is filed under Print Technology, Hardware, New Products. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.