IT is easy to think that all photo printers are the same. After all, in the film days, you probably did not spend time comparing the print quality of different one-hour photo labs. You went to the cheapest one, or the one closest to home. But now that digital cameras take really nice pictures, your best shots should become really nice prints, too.
Though most printers can spit out photos, this spotlight is on the smallest ones, designed for photographs. They have liquid-crystal displays, memory card readers and camera-compatible U.S.B. ports, so that they can operate without computers.
Their printouts are usually 4 by 6 inches. Most manufacturers sell ink-and-paper packs, which allows them to promote a "cost per print."
As easy as it is to lump them all into one category, a look at five models from the most popular printer brands — Canon, Epson, Hewlett-Packard, Kodak and Lexmark — reveals significant differences.
Hewlett-Packard's Photosmart 475 ($250) has gadget appeal. Push the power button and all its lights blink on, the paper feeder and tray flip open, and its 2.5-inch L.C.D. screen pops up. A tiny remote control lets you crop and print without hunching over the box. You can also connect the printer to your TV for a slide show.
Photosmart was the only model tested that prints 5-by-7's as well as 4-by-6's. It has a battery option, and an optional Bluetooth accessory (about $60) for wireless printing. There is even a 1.5-gigabyte hard drive, so you can dump shots from a full memory card and keep shooting.
Storage is also a focus of the Lexmark P450 ($200), but instead of internal memory, it has its own CD burner. Pop in a camera's memory card and throw a blank CD into the tray, and the photos move straight from card to disc.
Neither printer's performance, however, measured up to its impressive specs.
Two of the Photosmart's first four print jobs jammed. Printing time was relatively slow. The only slower print time was the Lexmark's.
Perhaps the Lexmark was doomed from the start. With a fresh ink cartridge, it said it was printing but produced blank sheets of paper. After some jostling, the cartridge worked, although Lexmark lost more points for its flimsy "premium" paper.
The simplest and cheapest of all printers was the $150 Canon Selphy CP710. Its limited features include a small L.C.D. screen, an optional battery and a built-in retractable mini-U.S.B. cable, which connects to certain cameras, mainly Canons, of course. The problem with the CP710 was its inefficiency with assorted memory cards; on occasion, it could not find all the stored photos.
The defining feature of the Kodak EasyShare 500 ($200) is a 3.5-inch L.C.D. screen, which dwarfs the competition but can look a little grainy. Its ease of use is an example of Kodak's characteristic simplicity. It has a built-in Bluetooth compatibility.
Kodak is pushing this, as its newest camera, the $450 V610, also has internal Bluetooth hardware. Pairing the camera and the printer is simple. Once done, you may find yourself printing anything, just for the thrill of doing it wirelessly.
Epson's PictureMate Deluxe Viewer Edition ($200) is somewhat similar to Hewlett-Packard's Photosmart 475. It has a 2.4-inch color screen, easy controls and advanced editing features for adjusting colors and adding frames. You can connect external drives, like U.S.B. thumb drives or even CD burners, though the PictureMate lacks the Photosmart's ability to connect to a TV handy remote and internal memory.
Both the Canon CP710 and the Kodak EasyShare 500 are dye-sublimation printers. Instead of the inkjet process, dye-sublimation printers layer four sheets of color onto paper in four passes. It is a reliable technology, but tends to cost more per print.
Once the pros and cons of a printer's performance were weighed, my final test was to compare its output. By printing the same set of shots on each printer, labeling the backs, then shuffling the deck, I did a simple blind test. I selected shots that tested a printer's potential weaknesses, like excessive blueness, poor detail or an unnatural boundary between object and background.
In the test, Lexmark prints always fell out early. The colors did not look right compared with the others' colors, there were visible dots of ink and the prints smudged easily. Hewlett-Packard's prints did not fare much better.
Thanks to dye-sublimation technology, the Canon's prints were water resistant, and looked good enough for home use, for the most part. If it were not for technical difficulties, the printer might have been a more serious contender.
In the end, there were two print-quality leaders. Neither the Kodak nor the Epson had problems with smearing, and both printers rendered rich, natural colors, realistic scenery and sharp detail. The stock on which the photos were printed also felt solid and professional.
Picking a winner from these two is difficult. If you have a Bluetooth phone or camera, the Kodak has obvious advantages. On the other hand, the Epson has a far lower per-print cost. Either way, you will not pick a loser.
Hewlett-Packard and Lexmark have done a lot of marketing to impress consumers they are good at printing, but perhaps those dollars would be better spent on research and development. In any event, you have been warned: not all printers are alike.
