[calvin-c]

My wife wants a portable photo printer for her birthday. Not battery powered, but one that can be easily carried to shows, etc. Our current system works fine at home but isn't very portable (download pictures to PC, select, and send to printer). We'd still use that for 'significant' pictures, the one's my wife's interested in printing are snapshots (they don't even need to be saved).

I suppose she could get a laptop, but then she'd need to worry about connections, etc. I agree that a photo printer that prints directly from the camera would be better but am adamantly opposed to the Kodak model she prefers. AFAIK the dock only works with Kodak cameras, right?

At work, we constantly swap memory cards & I've noticed that they seem to wear out much faster than the ones I have at home-presumably because at home we download the pictures from the camera without removing the card. I've seen some printers advertising PictBridge which appears as if it would allow this, but how does it work? Our current printer allows printing directly from the memory card (which we use occasionally-generally for visitors) but it's clumsy. Would PictBridge work any better?

Anyway, I'd appreciate any recommendations. Particularly ease of use. Thanks.

[PopPicker]

Blimey I've never heard of cards wearing out, even with lots of use. Certainly from misuse but normal even if excessive use. My cards (CF and SD) are in and out of my cameras at least 15 times a day and have never worn out, they do show signs of abrasion on the plastic but not in any way that's detrimental to their use.

Anyway have look at this one from Epson, I think it does pictbridge and cards.

As with any home printer (or portable in your case) it's an expensive way to print 6x4's compared to the offer from major retailers and online. I guess it's the Polaroid Instant Picture thing that has the appeal.

The other downside to these is the media they use, like any printer they don't like to sit around and not be used, the cartridges tend to dry up after a few weeks and you'll waste a few prints and ink headcleaning.

PP

[calvin-c]

I suppose there could be misuse involved with the cards here at the office. We have one camera that everyone uses with their own card. Then we have a card reader everyone uses to download from their card. So who knows how they're treating their cards. The only sign is, as you said, abrasion so we've just assumed the failures are due to the frequent insertion & removal. Nice (for me) to know that maybe I don't need to worry about it. I'll pass this along to the office too-see if anything changes.

Yeah, I know about the expense & need to use them-but it's really a bit more than the 'Instant Picture' thing. Mostly it's charity shows; "Take your kid's picture for a buck" type of thing. Wouldn't work if the customers had to wait for their pictures. I find it interesting that fewer people seem to want this sort of printer. The older people who used to work these shows with her, who had the printers, have moved & only one of the new people has this type of printer-so now she wants to fill the gap.

Of course I've never understood why anyone would want a printer like this for your own pictures. If you want your pictures on photo paper why use a digital camera? But for this sort of thing it's great-all I need to do is decide which one is best.

Thanks.

[PopPicker]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Of course I've never understood why anyone would want a printer like this for your own pictures. If you want your pictures on photo paper why use a digital camera? But for this sort of thing it's great-all I need to do is decide which one is best.

Most labs, shopping centres, camera stores and online DO print on photo paper. It's the best and funnily enough still cheaper.

This is slowly changing or at least will over the next few years as high quality dye-sub printers and fast ink-jet printers take a hold and the consumables go down in price.

PP

[calvin-c]

OK, I guess I didn't say it clearly. The people I've known who used these printers in the past didn't store their images-they printed them & stored the prints. That being the case, I never understood why they switched from film to digital.

I'll agree that when you do want a print it's best on photo paper-that wasn't what I meant although I realize now that you can easily read what I said that way. But you generally don't need a printer dedicated to printing photos if you only print them once in a while. For us, most photos are memories-either souvenirs or family moments. Except for portability, those work equally well on screen as printed. (Portability as in, talking to a visitor in the living room, you say "just a minute & I'll show you the photos from our recent trip". With digital-and no laptop-you'd say "Come into my office & I'll show you the photos, etc." Just doesn't quite work as well-at least not if your office is as messy as mine usually is.) I love the new digital photo frames, BTW-those very nicely fill the gap.