×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fall 2005 Photo Printer Buyers Guide

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the and-knowing-is-half-the-battle dept.

Printer 189

lfescalante writes "DesignTechnica has some great tips on what to look for when buying a Photo Printer. From the article: 'Some of the best printers offer 9600 x 2400 DPI and over 50 levels of gradation. Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

189 comments

f/p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042589)

first post!

And ... (5, Informative)

Alranor (472986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042597)

The most important specification for /. readers:

Is it supported on Linux? :)

You can check at linuxprinting.org [linuxprinting.org]

Re: Linux (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043129)

Epson has a site in Japan with Linux drivers for most of their non-postscript printers.

http://www.avasys.jp/english/linux_e/index.html [avasys.jp]

Canon still doesn't officially acknowledge Linux and I don't know what HP's status is.

Of course, if you got a printer with native postscript support, then you could run it through cups. Emulated postscript can lead to some unpleasant surprises.

The second most important question (2, Interesting)

jhol (301546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043464)

Does it come with nifty embedded serial numbers in all printed documents?

Re:The second most important question (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043571)

The answer is YES. All major manufacturers are onboard with the US and other governments desire to have printers trackable.

So (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042599)

No real news to post then?

Seriously, I would hope most Slashdot readers are capable of finding a good photo printer on their own. Those that need a little help can probably find a better source of information than this dry, four page advert.

Re:So (4, Insightful)

mustafap (452510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042616)

Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab. If a photo is worth printing out, do it properly, so it gets printed with inks that wont fade with time. And certainly in my case, it's still cheaper. Home photo printers are a costly gimick.

Re:So (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042694)

While I completely agree with you for mass printing, there are cases where photo printer is so much more convenient that it outweight all the drawbacks (quality and price).

Not mentionning that modern inks (at least EPSON ones) don't fade with time as much as they used to. They are actually pretty good in that regard.

But when you're in a rush, doing tests, or just printing the one picture of the day, photo printers are the right tool for the job.

Re:So (4, Informative)

caveat (26803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043016)

Just for the record, a lab print isn't ink-based, at least at the shop I go to - they use one of these suckers [cymbolic.com] (maybe not that exact brand/model, but you get the point) to "paint" the image onto genuine light-sensitive color photo paper that's processed the old-fashioned way with chemicals. $1.99 for an 8x10, $2.99 for an 11x14. They look a hell of a lot better than any photo print I've ever seen, including dyesubs, and they last and last. When I do a print for my small photography side business, I do it this way...the client is almost always amazed with the result, and asks me what kind of printer I use, they just have to get one for themselves. I tell them "trade secret" :)

If you just have to use your printer, I'd suggest Ilford GALERIE Classic [ilford.com] paper; it has an encapsulation system that soaks up the ink and mostly protects it from fading, It's pricey (enough so that there's NO economic advantage over a lab print) and takes a full day to dry out, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get from an inkjet. When I do prints for my own consumption, I ususally go this route for the convenience.

Re:So (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043105)

I agree that you can't beat a decent lab for print price and quality. I am sure I saw something recently on /. that suggested that the price per print you could get from a typical lab was such that there was no economic advantage of printing at home.

My problem is the lab that I am now about to stop using can't following fscking instructions, or even bill me correctly for the work I have had done for me. Morons.

Of course real photos are made with precious metals in dark rooms with lots of environmentally unfriendly chemicals ;-)
 

Re:So (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043440)

Using a photo lab is certainly a good option for a lot of people, especially with "point & shoot" casual photographs. You can get some very good photos and prints that way.

However I might spend half a day or more working on a promising photo in the digital darkroom. I have gotten some excellent results from images that were technically bad but had good artistic qualities, and I rarely find a photo that won't benefit from some tweaking with the unsharp mask and the histogram. But to do this kind of work-up properly requires being able to do test prints on the printer and paper that I'll use for the final product.

A good home color printer beats using a lab for any photo buff who has reached the phase where he wants to do test prints or explore different papers. I'm currently using a Canon 9900, and I'm very pleased with its quality and economy.

Re:So (5, Insightful)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042763)

When you're out shopping, the higher the resolution, the smaller the dots...

No, higher resolution does not necessarily mean smaller drops. Smaller drop size means smaller drops.

The best way to gauge any printer's photo capabilities is looking at sample prints at the store

Except that these are often highly tweaked images and are sometimes even printed from a demo application that doesn't even use the usual printer driver.

or on printer company websites.

Huh? Am I supposed to judge from an image on the website, or should I download a sample and print it out? (It reminds me of a TV ad trying to demonstrate how much better the colours are on their TV...)

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

No, the smaller the drop size, the more dots are needed to lay down an equivalent amount of ink.

I stopped reading at this point.

Re:So (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042951)

I have *never* seen any photo printer give the same quality as the sample prints they hand out in stores.

Not even close, in fact. I suspect they're not just using custom drivers, but custom ink and paper too.

Re:So (1)

Limecron (206141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043096)

Just to play devil's advocate...

>> When you're out shopping, the higher the resolution, the smaller the dots...

> No, higher resolution does not necessarily mean smaller drops. Smaller drop size means smaller drops.

They said dots, not drops. Higher resolution does mean smaller dots. Smaller drops means you can produce different shades of color within each dot.

A common mistake when printer shopping is comparing just DPI. (Not to say the parent poster has done this.) On a monitor, your DPI is around 70-120, but each dot is 1 of 16 million colors (really 3 smaller RGB dots). On many printers, while the resolution can be 1440 DPI, a dot can be only one of 4 colors. Some can do blending on the same dot. Some can produce different shades of one color on one dot.

>> The best way to gauge any printer's photo capabilities is looking at sample prints at the store or on printer company websites.

> Except that these are often highly tweaked images and are sometimes even printed from a demo application that doesn't even use the usual printer driver.

Yes, you're right, this is pure crap. One of my long time wishes is that retail stores would have a set of generic test prints that they would produce on each printer that they carried. That way you could compare apples to apples across a variety of image and text prints.

>> Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

> No, the smaller the drop size, the more dots are needed to lay down an equivalent amount of ink.

Perhaps the author meant you can put a bigger variety of ink in the same area. The important factor of drop size, is that some printers will be able to produce different shades of a particular ink in the same dot using a smaller or larger drop size.

The whole thing does read like a big ad for buying a printer though. Not much useful technical information,

Tripped did we? (-1, Troll)

NotZed (19455) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042609)

Whats a fall? Someone tripped over their oversized-american-feet?

Or do you mean autumn?

Or do you really mean, around November?

International site you know.

Stupid yanks.

Re:Tripped did we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042660)

You are misinformed. Autumn is not a season, but a girl's name!

Re:Tripped did we? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043185)

Don't you know yet that 'merkins like Verb based names for things:

Like Chuck and Ralph.

But then again they have funny names for everything. God forbid that I would "root" for my team.

And if I am really going to rip into their funny naming practices. Whats this thing with uisng your middle name as your first one? (Like W.Silly Person) Wasn't the name your momma gave you good enough for you???

Unfortunately I see this all the time as I live here now :-(

Ignorant and bigoted... (2)

absurdist (758409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043267)

...is no way to go through life.

Funny, I'm a Yank. And I know the meaning of both Fall and Autumn. Two different names for the same season. Now, should I refer to you as an "ignorant Brit" (assuming that you are) because you refer to the bonnet and boot of your car as opposed to the hood and trunk? Of course not. That would just show the world I was an ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic shithead.

In other words, pretty much like what you've done with your incredibly childish, pedantic comment.

Re:Tripped did we? (0, Troll)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043328)

Do they teach manners in Europe? Seriously, the fact that occasionally rude British types invade the forum and insult Americans doesn't exactly make this an "international" site. This is an American site, and you are visiting, and not too graciously if I may say.

Smaller? I wan't larger! (3, Funny)

Greger47 (516305) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042611)

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper.

Gimme a printer with a couple of litres per drop and I'll place down some serious ink!

/greger

epson personal photo lab - $30 on Black Friday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042615)

It would have been nice to have a more detailed review.
I've been looking at that epson personal photo lab since it will be only $30AR @ Radio Shack (I think you have to buy it with a camera to get that price).

What to look for: No HP! (3, Informative)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042619)

The HP printers have three things going for them: First, they're cheap. Second, the printhead is on the cartridge, so a clog means a lost cartridge, not a lost printer or making a flush kit to force Windex through your print head. Third, the HP printers still look great in draft/high-speed mode. Some inkjets look like old color dot matrix printers in high-speed mode.

The big downside is drivers. UGH, HP drivers! They crash at random, require you to be an administrator to run the scanning software, add 20-30 seconds to your login time, and do weird things when other HP software is installed. (For example, installing my HP DVD burner software caused my HP printer driver's launcher to launch an explorer window pointing to the directory with the printer software install every single login. This, on a fresh install with nothing but the HP DVD software installed after XP.)

On the Mac side, people with Tiger and HP printer-scanner-copiers are -still- waiting for a promised update to enable HP-supported scanning, or are giving up and using ports of open source scanning software.

The HP PSCs are comparatively painless with Linux and *BSD, but check out some of the other options if you'll be using Windows or Mac OS on the same machine.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042751)

You obviously have never expeienced the hell that is the Epson Status Monitor which must run in order to use a consumer epson photo printer. If anything should go wrong, the system will hang (print system, not the OS). And if you've ever had to reinstall a driver due to a bug...oh, you're in for some fun. You see, the uninstall doesn't actually uninstall everything, and a full removal requires both manual tracking down of all the epson driver bits (search for E_ in the entire system directory), and editing the registry.

In addition it makes them almost impossible to use with a network print server. Any fault - paper out, ink low, etc - causes the job to hang, and fixing the problem results in the first burst of data getting printed, while the print server stays locked up tight as a drum. To get the system working again generally requires either a reboot or manually killing the entire print spooler service and manually restarting it. Even worse, if you clear the error and do not power down the printserver and the printer, the first burst of information will make it through to the printer, and then the printer will hang. No big deal? Well, since the first few lines of ink get put down, it effectively ruins whatever media you're using. For something on bond it's merely annoying. For an 8x10 glossy print or a printable CD or DVD, you've just thrown away $.25 to $2.00 (or more for a DL DVD) in media. Of course, as a bonus, your required power cycle results in wasting a slug of $$$ ink to the startup cycle.

Sadly, I stick with Epson because the output is just so damned good, and I really like the CD/DVD printing feature. Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (2, Informative)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042828)

I've had Epsons in the past, none at current. Do they have a removable print mechanism yet? I was really happy with the output and the price, but the frequent clogs were horrible. Any time I didn't print for a few weeks, I had to flush it out to avoid stuck nozzles.

I was no fan of their drivers, but thankfully either they or MS offered a version of the drivers wtihout the "helper" (ink salesman) apps.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043002)

No, they still clog if you let them sit for more than a few days to a week. I made up a small "rainbow" image in pshop (about 8"x1") and printed it to a file. I just copy that file to the printer on bond paper once every three or four days and it seems to keep things clear. I do the same with my 24" HP designjet plotter, as I don't use the color heads very often (the rainbow is 2" wide, and it prints on a 6" sheet, which is the smallest size for the roll-feed cutter). At one point I had them on the scheduler (cron-like), but it didn't always work. Now with the epson on a printserver, I have to babysit every print anyway.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

parc (25467) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043621)

Turn off your printer. I routinely go for weeks between prints, and I've only had the nozzles clog once -- I had neglected to turn the printer off. When you turn it off, the printer "parks" the heads in an air-tight "container." Since the ink doesn't dry out, no clogs.

Actually, I did have the nozzles clog one other time -- I had used cartridges that weren't Epson brand, a mistake I've never made again.

Re: great performances. (4, Insightful)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042856)

Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.

Um, no, been there done that.

Fact is that with systems, printers, AND girlfriends, it is much better to keep shopping for low-maintenance, great performance.

Oh, and by the way, of the three the third one requires more attention and TLC than the other two and deserves it as well. So get up from /. occasionally and take care of the lady as well...

Re: great performances. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043023)

I think the low maintenance, high performance lady is easier to find than the equivalent printer. At least I managed to get the former, but the latter seems to be all too elusive. ;-)

Re:What to look for: No HP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042778)

With the new HP printers and the 300 page printing per cartidge, forcing someone to replace the printing head at every 300 page printing is VERY expensive. OTOH, canon ans epson have cheap and good cartridges, and you can change the printing head only when NEEDED. I never had to change one...
If only they turned on a little bit faster...

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042800)

See my other comment on this thread.

Dye-subs are maybe a little more expensive than inkjet but much better:

True Photo look with a real clear coat print on top - not smear resistant - smear proof!
No "drying out" of the cartridge (dye sub colors are dry to begin with).
Regardless of dpi - much smoother look.
99 years life of print.

I tried the inkjets a few years back (the HP photoprinter, forget th model - but hell, I even hassled myself with syringes to refill those overpriced PoS cartridges) and I'm sure nothings changed - dyesubs give you professionally looking results while an inkjet print looks like an inkjet print.

Spend the few dollars more in the beginning for a dyesub, it's well worth it down the road. I believe they start under $200 these days, probably cheaper (I only checked out Hiti printers).

Re:What to look for: No HP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042807)

check out some of the other options if you'll be using Windows or Mac OS on the same machine.

What if I have Windows and Mac OS on the same machine?

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

Echnin (607099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042964)

Canon have some annoying driver policies too... I have a Canon printer connected to my Windows machine, and had trouble accessing it from Macs over the network. The OS couldn't find drivers, even when I tried getting them from the CD. Was really quite annoying, because it's not an old printer (ip5000). Googling around, though, I did found this howto for how to pipe it through a virtual printer: http://iharder.sourceforge.net/macosx/winmacprinte r/ [sourceforge.net]. And it works, I guess. Overall it's a pretty good printer, and looks better than the ip5200 in the article.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

salmacis2 (643788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043019)

On the Mac side, people with Tiger and HP printer-scanner-copiers are -still- waiting for a promised update to enable HP-supported scanning, or are giving up and using ports of open source scanning software.

What are you talking about? I bought an HP all-in-one printer/scanner just yesterday for my Mac, and the scanner works great.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

asv108 (141455) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043038)

While HP Drivers for Windows and OSX might suck, if your running Linux, I've had nothing but success with a wide variety of HP printing products.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

ydrol (626558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043193)

The big downside is drivers.

My HP 8450 has Full Linux support + Network Printing and Web Management.

Re:What to look for: No HP! (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043450)

HP doesn't make quality software anymore if they ever did. Routinely when I activate Windows protection software called Steadfast, the HP software flips out and throws insane errors to dialogs, such as "File '.' not found".

Their scanning software for an older all in one printer, would not display on the screen maximized if you had a resolution smaller than 1024x768, and there were no scroll bars even to see the rest.

Their programmers have messed up, and I'm going to try to avoid HP now.

Why pay for your own? (5, Insightful)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042626)

Ok, having your own photo printer is conventient, and as geeks we love our tech toys of course, but remember that these days you can have your digital images printed professionally at photo labs VERY cheap.

The prints will last longer, and cost per page is probably going to be the same or even lower, as the printer manufacturers keep jacking up the price for new ink cartriges and use ever more draconian tech and/or EULA measures to prevent cheap no-name replacements/refills.

Re:Why pay for your own? (5, Interesting)

RandoX (828285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042681)

Because some [usatoday.com] places refuse to print your work if it looks too good.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

sparkhead (589134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042708)

And most places don't. Heck at CVS it's a complete self-service kiosk. You print what you want, bring it to the counter and pay.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

Maxmin (921568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042863)

Funny thing is, I've only heard of that happening in the 'burbs. In NYC it's never a problem, but maybe that's coz we're mobbed with pro photographers.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

peterb (13831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043649)

Well, sure, this could be an issue. But let's be honest:

Your work isn't that good.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042696)

I was just about to say the same thing. I got a bunch of 7"x5" prints at Boots (the biggest chemist (drugstore) chain in the UK) for 15p each, that's about a quarter. Four large photo-quality prints for a dollar, 7 for just over a quid, no-one needs it to be cheaper than that.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042795)

...because Walgreens won't print the pictures my wife took of me on our trip to a nude beach. Bastards! I know this is Slashdot, but don't ask for the pictures I took of her, or her sister... or the dog.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042879)

Exactly, I have a pair of pro-photo quality epson printers, one is a large format. I cant even dust off my printer for the price of a 8X10, 25X7and 5 wallets printer at costco. and they NEVER refuse to print them if you send them through costco online and put in a "business sounding" name. No pro photo lab can touch their price on digital prints and home printing is obscenely expensive compared to it.

It's to the point that I'm going to sell my printers on ebay (except the R300 I love printing on CD's) and not even think of home printing ever again.

Re:Why pay for your own? (1)

terminal.dk (102718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042887)

There are multiple reasons for having your own printer and printing yourself:

1. Lifetime of home printed is better than chemistry online.
2. Large formats like 8x10" / DIN A4 etc is much cheaper at home (especially with refill inks)
3. You can get way better colors at home with a Scanner, an IT-8 target, and some software (I use ProfilePrism). I have custom profiles for different ink/paper combos, and I get way better colors than the sRGB crap used online.

I agree that 10x15cm / 4x6" are cheaper online, but that is all in their advantage.

Why? (4, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042627)

Unless you are into printing up your home made porn why would you print photographs at home? I always used to think it was a good idea price wise (even when I worked for a online photo printing outfit) as print shops didn't really cater for digital images and prices were stupid. The real print shops quickly got their act together and made home printing totally uneconomical. I admit there is a break even point where very large prints are cheaper to do yourself but only if you don't take into account the thousands spent on buying a large format printer. These printer manufacturer must be laughing all the way to the bank.

This is why. (3, Informative)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042700)

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

I use Mpix.com for all my large printing needs. They are actually exposing the digital exposure to Kodak film paper which can be common among some people. Their price and service can't be beat either. 8x10s for $2.

However if I need a 4x6, or a 8x10, a home printer is a decent deal. I recently picked up the Kodak 1400 [kodak.com] dye sub printer for just this reason. There was a $100 rebate so it's a $343 printer, and the paper size of 8x14 lets me print 4 4x6s, 2 5x7s, 2 6x8s, or one 8x10 or 8x12 per page. I won't be printing out a 'major event' like my son's 2nd birthday portrait or the disaster that was the attempt at my [fotki.com]daughters 4th birthday portrait [fotki.com] because I usually want a ton of wallets, a good amount of 4x6s, and 5x7s and 8x10s for the grandparents, my desk, what not.

But for quick and easy home prints, a decent (but not outrageous) printer works for me. I've got a bad taste in my mouth for inkjet because the Canon S9000 I got when I got my first digital SLR in 2002 fades pretty badly unless you frame it. It doesn't stand up to my 'fridge test' where you print it, take a magnet, and pin it to the fridge for all eternity.

Fotki.com and the Kodak Easyshare Gallery have so far withstood that test rather well. However Kodak keeps making me sign a release form for every order for copyright reasons. Mpix does not, because there is no copyright displayed on my images. Apple has the same issue in iPhoto, but Kodak is their print engine. Fotki has been on the fridge for over a year now with no fading, next to a S9000 4x6 that is about as faded as it gets.

Re:This is why. (1)

alienw (585907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042983)

Or go to wal-mart and get them in one hour without shipping charges, for i think 18 cents per print. The quality is as good as anywhere.

Re:This is why. (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043021)

I admit that if you want a very small number of photographs every now and then (say 2 or 3 a month) then online printing isn't worth it because, as you point out, shipping costs swamp the printing costs. I would argue, however, that most people aren't in that situation. If you print a fair number of photographs in one go (traditially a films worth) then online printing is cheaper. If you print one or two a year then online may well still be cheaper simply because you didn't need to buy the printer. It's a tough call but my guess would be that the vast majority of people could save money printing online.

As for shipping prices I think you should shop around a bit. I just got 60 photos printed for IIRC 11p a shot + 99p postage.

Re:This is why. (2, Informative)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043317)

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

With Wal-Mart, Target, and CVS, you can upload the pics and then go pick them up in-store and not pay shipping. Or you can just go there with your memory card or CD and use the kiosk. Sure, it's like 29 cents/print instead of 14 cents, but for 2 pics the price difference isn't that much.

Re:Why? (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042721)

I suppose that's why there's no mention of running costs in the article. Given the controversy over the price of ink, I would have expected to see some indication of the cost per print in a review. But they wouldn't want to upset their advertisers.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042801)

My wife the artist and her fellow artist folks laugh at you. Spend $5 on shipping and wait three days for the result of the print? Insanity! My wife will print half a dozen large images at home in the final stages of creation, determine that it's exactly what she wants (which is why she can't use a normal inkjet or laser), and then send it out to create the large number of prints for sale.

Fall ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042630)


is "Fall 2005" some sort of competition ?
sounds like a rockclimbing or skydiving compo

DPI is (almost) meaningless (4, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042657)

A good tip I heard from a printer designer was to ignore the DPI figure, as long as it's more than about 600. It (usually) means how precisely the printer can place dots. It does not say much about the detail or grain you'll see in the print. For that, you need to know the dot size. Of course there's a trade off: smaller dots means (other factors being equal) longer print times, since you have to squirt more dots to get the same level of ink density.

Higher end printers have several shades of grey ink as well as black. This can add a lot of the apparent smoothness of prints, especially if you are going to be printing any black and white photos.

Metamerism is also very important. Print a black and white photo and look at it under tungsten and in daylight. It should stay looking black and white! You'll find some will look red in tungsten and greenish in daylight.

Finally, look at color management. Does the driver let you use your own profiles, or is it more of a point and shoot thing?

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless (4, Informative)

Shanep (68243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042826)

A good tip I heard from a printer designer was to ignore the DPI figure, as long as it's more than about 600. It (usually) means how precisely the printer can place dots.

There is another issue, with so called photo printers. I don't know if this still holds true, so it would be good if someone could confirm this.

With older technology printers, dots per inch is actually meaningful. It literally accounted for the number of non overlapping dots, each of which could be considered a pixel. However with these new bubble jet and ink jet type printers, they need to spit many very small ink dots into the area which makes up a printed pixel, so as to build up a single pixel of varying colour through the use of dithering.

Fair enough right? Whatever needs to be done to make those images look great?

Well unfortunately, these photo printer makers are using deceptive marketing. Because a "dot" in their definition of dpi DOES NOT equate in a meaningful manner to a pixel, instead their "dot" refers to each of the smaller dither dots.

This is why for a long time, ink and bubble jets of 600dpi looked like crap against a 300dpi laser print out, where edge smoothness and text mattered.

9600dpi, 2400dpi, whatever. Don't bother telling me because it is now a meaningless figure. You could make a printer with a real dpi of 150, but made up of 9600dpi dither dots and it is still going to look like a 150dpi print out. But the brochure says 9600dpi, not 150dpi. This is an exageration btw, to make the point. The best thing to do is look at actual print outs and decide on quality with your own eyes, because manufacturer quoted numbers in this regard are pretty much useless when the most important metric is undisclosed and remains so because it would hurt sales.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless (2, Interesting)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043070)

Yes, you're right. For inkjets ... it means pretty much zip. It's just a figure produced by marketing departments. Epson used to be very guilty of doing this, maybe they're better now.

Another tip a printer designer told me :) don't think of DPI, think of PPPI, or Pixels Per Printed Inch. Try sending a photo to the printer at higher and higher resolution. At what point do you stop seeing a quality improvement?

For the large format inkjets I used to work with (rated at 600 x 1200 DPI), image quality maxed out at about 150 pppi (because of the size of the dither cell, as you said). You can actually start to see a drop in quality beyond this since the printer is downsizing your image and you'll start to get moire effects. Plus of course your print is taking longer because you're shipping more data to it.

A desktop photo printer will have a much smaller dropsize, so the quality will peak at a higher pppi than that.

Re: DPI IS Meaningless (3, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043078)

As a former product manager at an imaging OEM I can confirm that everyone should completely ignore "DPI" specs.

What they also fail to mention is the paper requirements in order to produce a photo-quality image. It's got to hold a heck of a lot of ink, so there's very few papers capable of holding/controlling that much ink.

A better predictor of "photo quality" is the number of inks.

The other thing to watch out on is what the borderless performance really is. I work with a Canon that won't do borderless on plain paper, so if I have a document with tiny margins, it generally screws it up.

At this point, I don't see a reason why it's really necessary when most photo processors do it arguably better, but on real photo paper that is much less resistant to fading.

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless (2, Funny)

jrockway (229604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043319)

> 9600dpi, 2400dpi, whatever.

It's a good thing, then, that the FCC has limited the maximum DPI to 56600. (53000 in some areas.)

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043378)


Reminds me of the time when they started inflating CDROM speeds, and you could no longer rely on the number behind the X. "36X CDROM??? Well we have 100X hahahahah!!!!!"

Re:DPI is (almost) meaningless (2, Interesting)

Marauder2 (82448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043284)

Yes, the DPI number is technically meaningless (some might say mostly harmless). What people really want is not DOTS per inch, but PIXELS per inch. Unfortunatly, that's not a number that is usually advertised, instead they give the deceptive dots per inch.

First, let's look at the pixels... A standard consumer P/S and low end professional DSLR camera would take images at around 6MP (Nikon D70), a high end professional would be closer to 12MP (Nikon D2X)

The 12MP D2X can take images at 4288 x 2848. Scaled landscape on an 8x10 (what most people end up printing at home, either 8x10 or 81/2x11) we get a resolution of (4288/10) x (2848/8) or 428.8 x 365 in true pixels per inch.

For the D70, it's native resolution is 3008 x 2000. Scaled landscape on an 8x10 we get (3008/10) x (2000/8) or 300.8 x 250 pixels per inch.

Of course if we, say, print a 5x3 which would give us 601.6 x 666 2/3 pixels from the 6MP D70. If we enlarge to say 13x19 we'd get about 153.8 x 158.3

Now the problem here is that Pixels per inch does NOT directly translate into Dots per inch. See http://imaging-resource.com/TIPS/PRINT1/PRINT1A.HT M [imaging-resource.com] for a more detailed description on why this is, and why, say, 720 DPI on a printer might translate into only about 130 true pixels depending on how accuratly the printer can place those dots. In short, it usually takes many DOTS of varying colors to make a single pixel. Plus there may be some interpolation and smoothing going on too.

PPI can be a factor of DPI but DPI by itself is meaningless. Printer manufacturers advertise DPI because they want the big numbers to impress uninformed consumers. With most of the high end, high resolution photo printers will give you comparable output in terms of resolution quality so you can't really go wrong there. What you really want to do is look at real photo printout samples if you can, not just for resolution but for things like color quality at different angles, the shine of the gloss for glossy inks, how much it smears/water solubility, etc. Those that plan to do any black and white need to be sure to look at black and white output, particulatly on the papers they plan to use. A printer that can do amazing color might do a poor job of B/W and something that can do great output on glossy paper might not do as good a job on matte paper.

My personal recommendation is to either go with the Epson R800 for up to the standard 8 1/2" wide prints, or the R1800 if you want to do larger prints (up to 13" wide). I have the R1800 and have used an R800 as well. The two printers are virtually identical other than a few things such as the position of the buttons and the maximum paper size. They use the archival quality UltraChome Pigments which are resistant to water, smearing, and are supposed to be fade resistant for 100-200 years depending on paper and environment. They can print on CDs and roll paper. The output looks great.

Tin-foil hat brigade criteria (3, Informative)

merc (115854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042671)

Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. ... and the better the secretly embedded printer's serial number may be hidden on your document.

*blinks*

Re:Tin-foil hat brigade criteria (1)

vettemph (540399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042832)

>>>secretly embedded printer's serial number

Put scotch tape over the yellow print head and hold a heavy duty vibrator against your printer while its printing. This should "randomize" your printer.

I should put together a book of "tips". :)

Bring back dot matrix impact printers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042676)

Sod all this fancy colour hi-res snazzle. I remember reinking the ribbon on my Amstrad DMP2000 printer. Great for listings, especially with the fanfold paper - no worries about page ordering there!

oh and FUCK Firefox's 'Delete To Go Back' functionality. If you're at gmail beforehand you lose everything because gmail forces a reload.

I happen to own one of those.. (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042684)

I own the HP Photosmart 8450, the print quality is truly astounding.
It's an 8 colour (9 inks, two are black in seperate cartridges) printer.
It can do upto A4 size, prints on the glossy photo quality stuff are excellent. (I have a bunch of photos from holidays printed out on A4 and 10x15cm photo paper, HP premium plus photo paper glossy).. the grey shading also is very impressive.. ever notice the problems with lots of printers and grey colours? This doesn't have those problems. (it has grey a grey ink cartridge, 2 shades of grey and black)
My biggest gripe with the printer however is that the inks come in 3 seperate cartridges, so you get 3 inks per cartridge.. meaning whenever one cartridge runs out of a colour you'll need to buy a new cartridge (if you want to use that ink colour). Which as you can guess rakes in the cash for HP and annoys people who buy the damn things.

I'm not sure exactly why this is classed as a printer of 2005 (it was released in 2004), see here [steves-digicams.com] for a good review on it.

That was a crap review (1)

CarrotLord (161788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042699)

I wanted someone to tell me "buy this one if you want speed, this one if you want value, this one if you want quality, this one if you want large prints, and this one if you want a good all-rounder". Give me opinions, dammit, I don't have time to form my own! I'm a consumer, for crying out loud!

Re:That was a crap review (1)

CarrotLord (161788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042709)

... eg what I want is something that will do A4 (or ideally A3), edge-to-edge, high quality. I'm not worried about speed, and not particularly worried about cost per page... Someone tell me what to buy!

System Requirements (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042704)

i have a Kodak Digital Camera, i was reading the specs for the Kodak Easyshare Printer Dock, i never owned this dock but it says system requirements:

System Requirements Operating System Apple MacOS X Microsoft Windows 2000 Microsoft Windows 98 Microsoft Windows 98 SE Microsoft Windows ME Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Microsoft Windows XP Professional

i wont bother to buy one of these if it must be attached to a computer via a USB umbilical cord with Windows installed, i would much rather have a printer dock that is independent of any computer and only requiring electricity and ink & paper...

Re:System Requirements (1)

melandy (803088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043237)

Don't know about the Kodaks, but HP has lots of photo printers that don't require you to connect to a PC. AFAIK, any of them that include an LCD screen can do this (you need the screen to see what you are doing). They also have some that work in conjunction with a digital camera that use the LCD of the camera as an interface. This requires a certain kind of camera (I believe they are sold as a bundle), so unless you are shopping for a new camera too, you might look elsewhere.

btw, you can connect these to a PC, but you don't have to, and the ones with a bunch of card slots (SD, compact flash, etc.) also function as a general card reader -- not just for photos -- when connected to a PC.

Longetivity? (3, Interesting)

russianspy (523929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042719)

I am amazed that nobody mentioned anything about how long the prints are expected to last. That beautiful photo you're printing as a gift - will is still look the same 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?

Re:Longetivity? (1)

Coelacanth (323321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042862)

Epson makes printers with archival-quality inks (supposedly 100 year lifespan). I own an Epson R800 ($400), and though I use online services for large quantities of basic prints, the Epson is brilliant for making frameable prints, larger prints, etc. Works great with OS X, too.

Re:Longetivity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14043018)

I have an HP 1220c, and under standard fluorescent lighting you are lucky to get *three months* out of the picture before it's faded. So sad.

Re:Longetivity? (1)

lthown (737539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043254)

Hey, someone else is beating my dead horse! Always gets me how none of the "reviews" ever deal with the issue that the majority of inkjet printers except the pigmented Epson ones are going to give you prints that will fade and turn orange in a matter of MONTHS some times.

Why Own a Printer? (1)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042731)

I've not had a printer of any kind online at home since 2000, and, I've had no need of one. In the 80's, once a year, a big PC mag edition of new printers would come out all shinny and new, but, really, today I don't see the need for a printer at home. The cost of ink alone makes it more cost effective to have photos done at a shop and there's the added benefit of top of the line tech.

There was a divide in the late 90's when older users felt the need to print out material in order to study it. Remember the huge dead tree weight that came in the form of manuals in the 80/90s? My dad couldn't properly study new material unless he first printed it out.

Personally I think printers at home are pretty much an extravagance.

Re:Why Own a Printer? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042830)

Interesting. I find that my hard copies don't run out of battery after a couple of hours, and that labeling CDs and DVDs looks much better when printed instead of scribbled with a sharpie.

Re:Why Own a Printer? (1)

Jerudong (931207) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043068)

I might not need to own a printer if I lived in a developed area. But I live on the island of Borneo. The nearest print shop is a long distance through the jungle from here. My work requires I print a wide variety of documents, some in color, but my workplace lacks the facilities. I NEED my home HP bubblejet. There's no Kinko's in the jungle. I'm sure this is the case for many other people who live and work in rural areas, anywhere. The inkjet is essential if you're a modern professional in an undeveloped area.

Article downplays superiority of dysub over inkjet (3, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042735)

From TFA:
No matter if you choose inkjet or "dye sub" printers, crisp detail and smooth color gradation are the keys to good prints. When you get your photos back from the lab, they're shiny and smooth (without lines or dots). Getting this quality at home depends on several factors including printer resolution, i.e., how many dots per inch (DPI) of ink the printer lays on the paper as well as paper quality......


But I would never use inkjet, well anywhere. On photos because it would always smear and generally give out crappy results (you can see the intermittent lines). Plus it looks god-awful on regular paper and that ink cartridge dries out if you don't tend to regularly use it every few weeks.

Except for the cheap paper bit, dye-sub doesn't have these problems and even a lower resolution looks better because it' more blended in. My dye-sub puts on a clear coat too so it has that professional look from the photo lab, not the cheapo inkjet look. And I can only print on photo paper with my dye-sub so the quality is kinda always forced on me:) but I don't mind. The cartridges aren't with ink so it can't dry out (the color layers are on a plastic and heat transferred to the paper).

I use a Hiti printer (Hi-touch Imaging) which only focuses on these printers but they are good. I don't know if it supports linux but it's stand-alone anyway. Plus I find the price of consumables reasonable - fifty 4x6s and a dyesub cartridge bundled together for under 20 bucks.

But whatever company somebody goes with, avoid inkjet! Plus my photos have a life of 99 years - I don't think the same can be said for inkjet (imagine that stored in someplace moderately humid).

Re:Article downplays superiority of dysub over ink (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042958)

Well, I think Epson would probably disagree with you on the longevity. I probably would, too, as I've had high end dye sub output look like the poster in the window of a beach popsicle stand in just a year or two (you know - all cyan with a touch of yellow here and there...not a hint of magenta to be found). The longevity figures are all artifically created, and DS mfrs are no more trustworthy than inkjet companies. Epson claims 108 (color) to 200 (b&w) years with their new pigment based inks. No, I don't believe them, but I also have lots of transparencies from the 60s and 70s, and silver prints dating back to the late 1800s - they're not perfect either.

I do agree that Dye Sub is the way to go for photographic prints. I've been hoping that the technology would really get some traction, but its been a slow sell. The continuous tone is just fantastic, and looks good even under a loupe (300dpi and lower can be a bit pixellated at >4x) - not something you can say about even the best inkjet prints. With the cost of 4x6 lab prints down in the sub 15 cent range, the consumables are going to have to find some real economies of scale to compete now. I looked up the Kodak in the article, and print packs look to be $80 for 50 sheets...$1.60 for an 8x10 or similar, or $.40 a 4x6 when printed 4-up. Not bad - certainly as good or better than dark prints from an inkjet with OEM supplies - but not really competition for mini-lab or mail order costs.

Another down side for DS is that you can't print on bond (for the occasional non-photo print) so you'll want a second printer for all your non-photo work. Not a big deal for the photo enthusiast, but annoying for the average user to need an extra printer for day-to-day stuff. It's also hard to find a printer that will do larger than A4 (for, say, an 11x14 print) for less than the cost of a new car. 13" inkjets are expensive by the throw-away standard of inkjets today, but you can still easily get in for under $500 if you shop around (the Epson R1800 comes to mind).

print vs. store cost comparison (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042740)

My Dad just told me that he probably wont buy a photo printer because the cost per print is roughly 30 cents per picture, whereas a store can do it for much cheaper at around 20 cents.
Unless, of course you don't want to go through the hassle of stepping outside of your house.

So print them over the Internet for 8c each (1)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042785)

A quick search [google.com] will show you plenty of places that will print your pictures and ship them to you without having to leave yourself for as low as 8 cents each.

While choosing such a bargain-basement site might not grant you the greatest quality, I can't imagine anyone wanting to struggle with inkjet printers only to pay more per print and have them not be as high of quality. I hate inkjet printers.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14043053)

an egg.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14043067)

Or if you want complete creative control of the print process and don't particularly want to hand over your digital media to some spotty 17 YO that doesnt care about the print quality or the color balance, or the maintenance of the minilab, or the cropping etc etc etc. You get my message...

Depending on what the photos are, whether they are an irregular size (I'm also a framer for my wife...) or if they are a larger format than 7x5 I print at home, its much easier to get the cropping just right and a few other bits and pieces when you can set the printer up once and save the profile for the exact same paramaters (paper, ink, size, color/BW)

Holiday snaps etc just go to my local print shop where they are done at 6x4 on my choice of paper for 10p each for any number.

I havent printed any superlarge formats yet as we only just purchased our new camera and havent had anything that merited it, although I have decided that i want a large format print for my home office and then maybe a few more commission pieces for my employers.

just my 0.02

is that your 2 cents or your 2 pence worth? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043253)

:) I agree, you do put your photos at risk at a store, however most are so automated that the only way some 17 yo could mess them up is by putting their greasy prints on them when removing them from the machine.

Re:print vs. store cost comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14043403)

he probably wont buy a photo printer because the cost per print is roughly 30 cents per picture, whereas a store can do it for much cheaper at around 20 cents.
Unless, of course you don't want to go through the hassle of stepping outside of your house.


Great. But I hope you live within walking distance of that store, because if you're driving there, you're probably going to be burning a bit more than 10 cents' worth of gas. Or paying more than 10 cents in postage, if you go mail order. You need to be printing a LOT of pictures before you start saving money by paying someone else to print them.

Actually, even walking or cycling, you might well burn 10 cents' worth of calories...

No comparisons (1)

EMIce (30092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042758)

A buyers guide without comparisons isn't really all that useful. I'd like to know which machines have relative top quality and take separate cartridges for each color.

How do you judge cartidge dryout? (1)

davco9200 (13848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042997)

I have an Epson Photo printer, and use it probably a couple times a month. But the biggest problem I have with it is not the quality of the print, but the cartridges drying out, so realistically, I only get a small handful of prints per cartridge. Are the differences between printers on that issue? It dramatically affects my costs, making it really expensive per print.

Relatedly, does anyone have any handy tips on keeping the cartridges wet / fresh longer? I can't predict when I will need to use the printer, so taking the cartridges out every time and putting them in baggies isn't really practical.

Less ink = more ink? More ink = more accurate? (1)

courtarro (786894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043014)

"the smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print"

This is completely backwards. Smaller drops means more accurate placement, and the size of each drop likely has no effect on total ink dispensed since that's completely up to the controller that's spitting them out.

Interesting summary... (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043024)

"Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper."

Huh? I'm pretty sure I've spilled some pretty big drops of ink, measured in centiliters onto the paper, and there was a LOT more ink per square inch than my inkjet gets on the paper.

What for? (2, Interesting)

KlausBreuer (105581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043079)

And? What do I need a color photo printer for?
Sure sounds ghastly coming from a computer freak like me, but, heck, chaps: I got myself an age-old Hp Laserprinter, complete with lots of RAM and PostScripting, 600 dpi, flat paper storage, for about $200. Works like a charm, hooks up simply to my parallel port (but can hook into my network).
It's all I ever need for printing.

I print lots of photos. Either over the net, or by simply walking to a small Photo-Shop. They will print me any digital image at any size, in excellent quality, on paper, cups, shirts... and quite a bit cheaper (and better!) than I could manage with my own printer.

Why would I want a color printer?

Aaaachoooo! Waterproofing (2, Funny)

Generic Guy (678542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043119)

One of the things I didn't see addresses was how 'waterproof' the ink stuck to the paper. My sister has one of those HP portable photo printers, and I thought it did OK printing. She seems to like it. A few weeks later, I sneezed on a photo it had printed, and the ink literally blew off. Now there is a blank spot where her face should've been.

It makes me wonder how long they can last with sweaty hand or in humid climates, even with moderate handling. There is still the fading issue with a number of these photo printers, too.

Re:Aaaachoooo! Waterproofing (2, Funny)

AsnFkr (545033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043666)

r, I sneezed on a photo it had printed, and the ink literally blew off. Now there is a blank spot where her face should've been.

Sure...you "sneezed" on the picture of your sister.

Is it just me? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043171)

Or can anyone else actually feel money being pulled from their pocket everytime they print out full page color anything? There must be a better way to do this than spitting out so much ink. Ugh.

is this accurate? (1)

andrelix (873009) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043286)

"The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper. The more ink, the more accurate and lifelike the color of the print." This is not quite accurate, it should state that the smaller the droplet, the more accurately it can place ink per square inch, or something to this affect....

Off topic, but for b&w Samsung lasers are popu (1)

Anonymous Bullard (62082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043367)

Photo schmoto... most photo printing folks probably also print some documents in black and white and considering the price of photo inks, people might consider getting a cheap mono laser. After recently studying the market, I learned that Samsung has for a few years now made some very compact and best of all cheap laser printers with Linux official support.

(and no, I'm not affiliated with Samsung in any way or form)

why is life important (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043662)

why is shelf life of a print imp ?
Isnt that the point of digital - you print another on demand ?

Maybe the software can print an invisible number on the print, and when you want another copy, you look at the print with a special lens and enter the number in your software and get another copy

Anyway, as soon as the morons* figure out that 5x7 lcds with magnets can be made and sold by the gazillion, prints will be pretty passe

morons = people who don't understand that design and gui are worth paying for , ie ipod vs the rest of the mp3 world
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...