h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I did read an article a few years back suggesting that even the most expensive home printers didn't really have acceptable colour fixing compared to professional printers. Things may have changed since then.

I don't know about waterproofing. Do professional printers maybe put down some sort of protective glossy layer after the ink?

It is really strange, a print from a pro printing lab (from film) is ok if you drop water on it, you may get a slight raising of surface but if careful it generally dries ok, but these are so delicate as not really handleable long term and may have to re think about it unless another paper is better as have damaged around 5 A4 prints out of only around 30-40. Which gets expensive after a while!

However, there is one suprisingly good point, I tried to scratch an already water damaged print and it is really difficult to scratch! I tried a key, sharp plastic and assorted things and it wouldn't scratch, drop water on it and it melts but won't scratch!

Interesting, I tried the one remaining photo left from Kodak home printing paper and touched the corner with a damp finger and the ink comes off that too!
I am wondering several things here, is HP ink a really terrible ink that is far worse than all other inks and has this fault in built into it, well it seems unlikely that would not have been noticed before.
I am now wondering if all non waterproof home ink jet photo papers, like the Konica mentioned, suffer from same problem but no one one here has noticed before. I will buy a small pack of another make of paper to make sure. If they are all like that then it is a little disappointing as so vulnerable to water damage.

Just use internet printing! Then you get geniune photographic prints on real photo paper just like you are used to.

I use PhotoBox and generally get my orders next day, even if I order in the afternoon. For me that's quick enough - so far I've never been in a situation where I need my prints *now*.

Home photo printing quality has gone up dramatically in the last couple of years but even so I find that still none of them can match the quality of a genuine chemically-developed photographic print. Not to mention the fact they are significantly cheaper than home printing.

I still don't quite understand why you don't want to use a PC. I could understand it if you didn't have a computer already and didn't want the extra expense just yet - but clearly you do in order to post on here. You've got the hardware - why not just use it?

You could still get real prints without having to resort to a PC and the internet. Just pop into Jessops or somewhere and stick your memory card into their machine, then pop back the next day to collect your prints. Just like taking a film in to be developed!

SS, for when your printer is out of warranty, have you considered third party refill ink that is waterproof?

As for paper, I only ever sold Canon paper, cheaper than Epson/HP and gave better results.

As 'H' said, getting it done by a specialist sounds worth a trail, when looking at the cost of running a home printer. But since you have the kit I can see why you'd want to use it.



BTW, still not found anything better than 'the Nikon' for my use, so thanks for that.

No probs about the Nikon, at least like Cannon cameras, Nikon will around in the future long term unlike the more risky lesser known makes.
.
I might try Cannon paper as a place is doing 2 for one packs at moment postage free. Since I already have the printer and several cartrides and it would seem around 100 sheets of HP paper I might as well use them up. Perhaps there is a water proof ink available, I never thought about that option! The printer is an all-in-one so I thought it would be ok as a general copier if direct printing didn't work out, and at only around £60 instead of normal £130 wasn't too much of a risk financially.

I have just been to Sainsburies and wondered if their photos section did digital photos, although sadly they don't do A4 size they do 10x8 inch prints and although it isn't far away they also do instant printing which is great!
They have one of those things you put your compact flash card in and it goes straight to printer. A 10x8 inch print is £1.30 which although more expensive and smaller than the £1.29 cost of my A4 prints is an enlargement price and instant so quite good.
The paper is Fuji Archive so quite good. The colours are exactly the same as my home printing photos, the only differance is they are just a touch lighter from Sainsburies machine, so another avenue for prints.

Get an A4 laminator then you wont have any trouble with water. You can get laminating pouches for as little as £2.99/100 for 150 mic or £4.99/100 for 250 mic. Maplins pouches cost £4.99 for 25. Woolworth's do a pack comprising of 30 pouches for £4.99 - ten A4, ten 13cm x 18cm and ten 10cm x 15cm. Each pouch is 125 microns.
A Rexel LV250 A4 Laminator costs about £100 and the temperature can be set to cold, photo or standard pouch settings. The GBC Heatseal Photo Laminator costs about £170 but will laminate ID to A3 pouches up to 500 micron, also accepts A4 high speed pouches.

all i can say that if i had enough money i would most certainly buy a digital slr. at the moment ive just finished an AS level in photography and although they want to see that you're proficient in being able to develop your own black and white prints from a manual 35mm slr,in terms of time and convenience it's just unrealistic. i can see why photojournalists have gone digital, because although, as some one pointed out, you're compromising the fact that you're not always focused on the composition, you're more likely to find the shot that you're looking for without the hindrance of changing films every 5 minutes.

but if only i wasn't a poor and lowly student...
oh and i don't think my sentences made sense either. sorry.

Faithy. well done on doing the A Level in photography!
Difficult to say really, you do have to change film sometimes but at least you can get 36 in a roll of film, also with a totally manual camera, I had an OM1 for 30 years, you don't actually have to keep changing the exposure/focus as a lot of time light level changes less than you think and prefocusing saves a lot of focusing hassle, it doesn't hunt like digital so will stay where yo put it so to speak. There are advantages and disadvantages to film and digital.
I was thinking about this today since recently buying my first digitsl SLR camera. Firstly the main advantage of digital is the instant feed back, I certainly couldn't justify spending so much on a digital camera without it. I think that sometimes the advantages like being able to change the white balance on digital are actually bought about due to the fact that in a way digital suffers from a fault that it can produce some slightly odd photos due to varying light, I had some very strange bluish photos when I first used my flash gun until I changed the white balance. Of course you had to use filters if using one type of film in "wrong" light with film but it seems to me that digital cameras need care to get the right effect, you certainly have to be careful to check if the right colour balance is still set on camera next time you use it! I have made that mistake....
I particularly like the thing were a digital camera is attached to a TV/monitor/lap top were you see the photo instantly appear on a larger screen than camera has. Much used in studios it seems these days. There possibility must surely there to have then printed immediately you take them too if the studio lights, etc are set up ok.

I had thought about laminating as I way of protecting favourite photos that would be shown around a lot, I have seen a few done in past.

Any colour faults produced in the camera can easily be adjusted on the computer with a reasonable photo editing program. You can also take over and under exposed pictures and make them more presentable. You don't have to spend hundreds of pounds on Photoshop either some of the programs I use were free off the web and one came free with the computer.

Even more so if you shoot RAW instead of JPEG.

For me, the advantages of RAW images so far outweighs the disadvantages of higher storage requirements that I always use RAW.

In the slim chance that one pic turns out to be an accidental masterpiece I have been shooting highest quality J Pegs and Raw at same time. Since I will only select the best to keep it saves on space.

However what will not turn out to be a master piece is any of the self portraits I have been doing over today and yesterday!
I love black and white so have been using that setting. I have limited practice with doing portraits so it has been good practice with portraits and new camera indoors. Clearly the focusing is an issue so used manual and preset it on a window frame out of view which made it a lot easier with camera on a timer/tripod.
What I found surprisingly helpful was a book I read six months agoby a pro wedding photographer. He went in to great detail about feet position, shoulder angle and weight on back foot,etc.
I didn't try to copy his pics, I can't even remember them, however I would have been a little lost so his god advice really help.
I have only a few pics of me as to be honest I don't really like my photo taken as my smile doesn't look right so go for the mean and moody look.
I have never taken a portrait of a man so practicing on myself really helps as if I ever was I to I wouldn't look so foolish as would have an idea where to start.
Although I would still have done this with film eventually, like the self portraits of my head wraped in tin foil last night, The whole process was cut down in time, I don't think I have done any more adventurous photos with digital though, mine have always been off the wall at times as it makes it all the more interesting, but seeing instant results has speeded everything up!

I have just bought some Cannon Plus photo paper to see if as liable to water damage as HP Plus photo paper.
Cannon paper appears the same photographically as HP paper however it seems to dry quicker. Also I put a wet finger on Cannon paper and although it is damaged by wet finger (the colours change and surface is damaged) the colour doesn't come off on finger and go right through to backing paper.
I have a problem now of nearly a 100 A4 photo HP Plus papers left, however perhaps they can be kept for framed photos as won't be touched. I have found out why HP papers are like that, it seems they have a special "gelatonous" surface for fixing colours and lasting a long time. So although a nusiance isn't a fault as such. Cannon paper seems to be more of a resin coated paper so made differantly.

I am beginning to think there maybe some truth in home printer manufacturer's claims that you should use their products for best results. Although I said Cannon and HP Photo paper appeared identical photographically after some more printing I have have found Cannon paper a little too red like Kodak paper and also a little milky in shadow areas. Although HP Plus has its problems with a surface that is easily damaged and a longer drying time, I shall stick with it. It maybe that HP ink,HP machine and HP paper are a good match when used as one unit.
.
I bought my first ever polarizing filter. I had to decide for which lens as 3 differant filter sizes but macro lens seemed best choice as can be used for general photos but more importantly it will help to reduce those reflections off plant leaves even on cloudy days. Also at a not too large size it keeps cost down. There was a choice to be made about which quality to buy as already have spent a lot and a polarizing filter won't be used all the time. I went for Hoya standard type at around £27, their pro one is double that and Nikon even more. I haven't used it out doors yet but it seemed to reduce Rubber plant and glass reflections so seems promising.

I went out taking pics on the first really sunny day since buying camera and used fill in flash with inbuilt flash gun for head and shoulder shots. As was first real test was not sure of results and didn't really want to use flash bracketing as people get bored with too many pics. It actually worked very well although as expected when subject is wearing a white hat and bright clothes for example and close to camera there is some burning out of bright areas.
When I went home I went in garden and tried the flash bracketing/exposure compensation to discover knocking about 0.3 or 0.7 of a EV off gives a better result with flash close to person.
I know not everone uses fill in flash but I find it makes particularly faces in very bright sun more natural and makes an obtrusive background less so, and boy it can make a photo super razor sharp too!

> I had to decide for which lens as 3 differant filter sizes

Buy the one for your biggest lens and get step-down rings to make it fit the others.

I have to be honest and say the 77mm filter was looking a bit expensive with everything else I have bought. It is possible to just go on and on buying things. Certainly lens wise, the three I bought seem to cover most things, adding another just adds in pounds weight as well as in pounds cost.
Certain stuff could be bought second hand anyway, certainly a scratched second hand filter isn't good value but a rarely used very long lens, battery pack, etc would be ok as long as compatable. My tripod was second hand more than 30 years ago and still built like a tank!
.
....I learnt something recently, "Benbo" tripod name comes from "BENt BOlt", as one is used at top to hold the legs and allow it to go spider like.

And it was developed from the 'bent bolt' tripods used to hold machine guns up.