matthearn.com

Now that digital photography is all the rage^[1], I think it’s time to stage an intervention: folks, any printer you can afford is not going to make a nice photo.

I know HP and Epson and Canon have promised you that your printers will make quality prints, but they won’t. They will make “half-decent” prints for a short while, and then things will get clogged and the pictures will be streaky. Even when they’re new, the shots come out grainy, with colors out of a cross-processing nightmare. IT’s fine if you just want a picture of your kids to go in your wallet, but here’s the thing: too many people, myself included, are hanging framed artistic shots that look like seven asses in a speedo.

There’s no reason to put up with this. Sure, you have to wait a while, but places like Shutterfly can produce fantastic, inexpensive prints and mail them straight to your door, and they charge you nothing to store your pictures (unlike Kodak, which is now asking you to cough up for that service). There are even options wherein a local pharmacy or megamart can produce them for you to be picked up later in the day! Walgreens will do it, and also Walmart, although if you’re like me going to Walmart causes me to donate vast sums to whichever political party supports eugenics.

If you’re looking at a photo printer, ignore internet advice or anything you might read in Consumer Reports. The only thing you need to know about photo printers is this: can you afford the one you’re looking at? If so, it’s a piece of crap. The only photo printers worth their salt are the ones purchased by professional printing services, which are thousands of dollars. You do not have thousands of dollars to spare, or you wouldn’t be reading this: you’d be sitting on a beach in Cabo drinking heavily. At least, I sure would.