Banner Sponsors
For artists and collectors sponsored by Intercal...your mohair supplier and Johnna's Mohair Store
Bears by EdieGail, I think it would depend on what contest you are entering and the quality you get from your photo printer. For the Toby's it says in the entry information "photos should be good quality, professionally developed color prints. Laser / thermal-printed digital images must be print quality" and for the Golden Teddy's it says "photos must be good quality color prints. No computer printouts." Does this help at all? I don't have info on any of the other contests.
Deborah, the Toby's say "no digital files - disk or email and the Golden Teddy's say "no discs" - it has to be printed photos for both of these contests.
I have a Canon printer. The print does not 'scratch off' ...and the photos are indistinguishable from those done at a professional lab I also use. For over a year I have had several prints literally lying around loose in a drawer at work getting rubbed, handed around to all and sundry, mixed up with pens, clips, brushes and generally mistreated. I looked at them yesterday after reading this thread. Not one mark is on those pictures after over a year of abuse. No fading, no colour change since I took them and printed them out over a year ago.
I can accept the need for professional prints for magazines but really do think it depends on the printer and the paper quality. I use Canon print photo paper and its as good as anything from a lab. Is this just about the photography as much as the print? I once heard the argument that it was because of people digitally enhancing competition pictures that the competition organisers insist on professional prints, but you could still do that before getting your pictures printed at a lab so I don't buy that one.
It's a poser that's for sure!!
BrisbaneI agree Jenny we also have a canon photo quality printer and for the most part the prints we get out of it are better than any we get from a lab!! 
Bearhaven BearsThanks Edie, you saved me some reading :lol:
Dang!!! now what the heck am I gonna do? I thought I had all my bases covered. I used to bring my contest bears in to the Super Store photo studio for their shots and that got very $$$ and they didn't always do a great job, plus I prefer to shot my own work, control freak here.
I think your info on the do it yourself kiosk is fantastic I'm now confident with the quality and I'm willing to take a risk and use those photo's, next competition I enter unless I can find a professional in my area who takes great shots at a reasonable price. 
They don't call me el cheapo for nothin ya know.
Hugs Deborah
Hey, check this out: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1645744,00.asp
It's the last page of a several page article on photo printers, and it talks about some of the things I've been told -- and have been stumblingly trying to communicate here -- about digital print quality. This article, however, uses all the correct words, rather than my stumbling attempts at half-informed explanation!
In short, what this article says is that there are two kinds of non-chemical printing -- thermal and ink jet. Thermal is superior because of the way the ink interacts with the paper; something to do with how it's printed. Also, according to this article, some thermal printers can overcoat their photos with a protective layer, giving them that much more durability. Ink jet printers, according to this article, do not have the ability to overcoat ... although they can, in some cases, apparently "waterproof" their photos with a different kind of coating.
All these variables, and the ways they interact (or don't!), come into play to determine the quality of a digital print. Which echoes Jenny's statement that it all boils down to printer and paper quality.
I have an ink jet printer that doesn't, I don't think, even waterproof my photos, much less print with thermal inks or overcoat a protective layer. Jenny may have a photo printer that's thermal and/or that overcoats. And so on. Thus making our home printed photos of very different qualities indeed.
I'm sure these variables apply to instant print kiosks as well. Your print quality from a kiosk will depend on what kind of printer technology they're using behind the box. Ink jet? Thermal? Coated? etc.
I'm guessing that this is why the contests ask for professionally printed photos; because they know that no matter what kind of photographer you might be, the prints, at least, will be chemically processed if they're taken to a photo shop ... and that these variables therefore won't come into play.
PS Jenny, by "professional prints" the contest organizers mean professionally DEVELOPED -- not professionally photographed. I know many. many bearmakers who've entered contests, myself included, who always take their own photographs and have never hired a professional. Like I said, I think the promoters are just trying to avoid getting the kind of prints that my -- and many other people's -- printers spit out. Not everyone has a "nice" printer that produces thermal prints with an overcoat, so by requiring that all photos be professionally developed the contest promoters ensure that they get nice quality prints that will be suitable for use as camera-ready art. You, being a photographer, obviously totally know your stuff. But most bear artists are not in your enviable shoes!
Just Us BearsSuch an interesting subject! :photo:
Obviously there is no cut and dried when it comes to home printers, and it would seem the quality of them is fast approaching professional standard if you take Jenny's as an example.
I have heard many times the same info Shelli is sharing. Additionally, I have heard that the paper quality used in the large chain stores in far inferior to the professional stuff which is why the prints are so cheap. The paper may have 'Fuji' or 'Kodak' on it but it is definitely thinner. I agree that these prints are ideal for our 'brag books' and really appear as good a quality as their more expensive counterparts....but for long term prints I want to have for the future....importnat prints, I always get them done at the photo shop.
A frind of mine who works at the local photo lab here is a real photo nut. She has over the recent years taken and developed hundreds of photos on her digital camera and printed them on her home printer...which was always being updated to the latest technology with the best paper used for printing. She recently mentioned to me that she has noticed that many of her prints have faded...some of the earlier ones are so faded you can hardly see what they are. So she prints all her shots at the phoo lab now, as she has realised that the hundreds of dollars spent on printers, inks etc has been wasted. Fortunately thanks to computers they are all backed up and she can reprint them, but it's got to have been frustrating.
Jenny, it sounds like your printer is very close to professional quality...as I said, they are getting better all the time with so much demand, so please don't feel I am lumping all printers in the same basket.
Jellybelly BearsJust wanted to say thanks for all the info in this topic Shelli, thanks so much for doing the hard yacka for us again and giving us the info in a nutshell It's so good to be able to learn so much here! I would never find the time otherwise!
talking about prints and stuff...anyone have old photos from when they were kids ( late 70's) that are faded, going very dark and like that cepia colour? All my baby photos have done this 
I suppose that will be what happens to baby photos that are taken now and printed in the cheaper way
Bears by EdieJust an update - I heard back from Kodak so thought I'd let you know what they had to say on the subject:
"The process that is used with the kiosks is that it uses a thermal
printer to burn the images into the paper. There are no chemicals
involved like with film developing. The prints last for well over 100 years as they are very durable and weatherproof. "
Bears by Jodi
