Top myths about personal photo printers

[JDArt]

The allure of printing your own digital photographs is great. After all, printer makers advertise their color photo printers using wonderfully-composed and exposed photographs, magnificently printed, and suggest that great results for you can be just a button-press away. Sometimes things are that easy. But more often, they're not. When you embark on the often complex task of setting up your own home photo printing equipment, it pays to know the myths from the reality.

Myth: Printing your own digital photos is less expensive than having them printed at the store.

Fact: Printing your own photographs at home is not a value proposition. Despite the relatively low cost of inkjet photo printers, the cost of accessories will quickly add up to more than what you paid for the printer itself, and your per-print cost is likely to be about what it costs you to have an outside service make your prints for you.

You may not want to take into consideration the cost of your photo printer in calculating a per-print cost, but you surely can take into account the cost of consumables: paper, ink, and even your time.

Uninformed color inkjet buyers soon learn a sobering truth about their printing investment: The cost of replacement ink cartridges can quickly amount to more than the entire purchase price of the printer itself.

It's not uncommon for a set of ink cartridges to run 100 dollars or more - sometimes much more - for today's inkjet color photo printers, and paper can amount to a dollar a sheet, depending upon the quality you get.

If a set of ink cartridges generally gives you about 50 full-sheet printouts, then your full-page per-print cost is probably running you from 1 to 3 dollars. If you get four photos per page, you can divide those numbers by four.

A little math, though, will probably quickly show you that printing photos at home is likely costing you a bit more than it would to have your prints digital photos developed at a local store - and that's not taking into consideration the cost of your printer itself.

Myth: It's easy to get great color from today's inkjet photo printers.

Fact: It's one thing to print photos at home, but trying to get your printed photos to match what you see on your computer monitor is often a very frustrating experience for newcomers.

That's because the acquisition of a color photo printer, ink, and paper is just half the battle. Your printer typically must be profiled - by yourself or a color expert - in order for you to be able to confidentally expect to see the color on your printouts that you see on your computer monitor.

Profiling is a process by which both your monitor and your printer are adjusted to conform to standard color specifications. Several products are now on the market that make the job of profiling your equipment easy. Consistently rated among the best is XRite's EyeOne Photo - a package consisting of both hardware and software necessary to ensure that your monitor and printer are talking the same language when it comes to color.

Here's the kicker, though: profiling is not cheap. A package such as XRite's can cost as much as 1,000 dollars. You can find cheaper solutions that profile only the monitor, for instance, but then you're tackling just half of the job.

Still, if you're serious about getting professional-quality photographic prints at home, the profiling is a must. And if you happen to have more than one printer, the cost of a profiling package may seem more reasonable. You can find good directions on using profiling equipment all around the Web, including at Sign Industry.com's "Printer Profiling" page (Printer Profiling- Matching What You See To What You Get).

Myth: Buying third-party ink refill cartridges is a great way to save money.

Fact: Lots of folks try to save money by buying cheap ink - drop-in replacements made not by the manufacturer of the printer but by a third party. While you can save a significant amount of money by purchasing less expensive ink, there are hidden costs involved in using such ink that may outweight the short-term advantage.

First of all, no printer manufacturer will provide warranty service to a printer damanged through the use of third-party ink. Second, the color characteristics of third-party inks are rarely identical to those of the inks from the printer manufacturer. That's where custom printer profiling equipment, as discussed above, can be crucial.

But even if you do get good color profiles when using third-party inks, keep a close eye on printout irregularities that could signal trouble with printer head clogging that results from the use of such ink. Some photo printers, including those from Canon, have been known to develop problems with print heads resulting from the use of non-supported inks. Once your printer's print head gets clogged or damaged, it typically will need to be replaced.

Myth: Direct-print photo printers make printing easier.

Fact: Easy is only part of what users want. Quality is also part of the equation for satisfaction. The idea is great, though: plug in your camera or film card directly into the printer, see the pictures, and print them without going through a computer.

Direct-print printers, however, typically use a less sophisticated color printing system, with fewer colors, than photo printers that you hook up to your computer. Plus you sacrifice many of the preprocessing controls found in software - or even in a larger photo kiosk found in retail photo stores. In addition, using a tiny screen on the printer to sort through the photos on a film card and choose the ones that you'd like to print is anything but easy. It's time-consuming and difficult to guage just which photographs are nicely exposed, with good contrast and color.

The bottom line is that consumers need to spend as much time researching and learning about the photo printing process as they do researching which digital camera to purchase. All the time and effort can pay off in a rewarding home photo printing experience, but the hassle of home printing is definitely not for everyone.

[Kellycat]

Great Post JD

[coalcliff]

Fact: Don't get the Robin Williams character from "One Hour Photo" to print your cheap prints...lol.

BTW I agree about home printing, as you never get the first print right, so the cost really escalates.

[R. House]

Home printing is not a hassle for me, instead I find it to be a part of the process of my photography. The investment of a printer and consumables plus time is to me an investment in satisfaction. I might also say that its impossible to match what you see on a monitor to a print, I just strive for a good print and work within the limitations of my equipment and experience.
Not trying to be arguementive, just the other side of the coin for balance. Good post and informative.

[Songman45]

Thought provoking and interesting read. Strange that much as things change they stay the same. 30 years ago we could have been reading the same arguement about 1 hr labs, custom labs, and processing/printing in home.

10 years ago we might have been discussing the cost of digital actually being more expensive than film and the difficulty of getting even a photo lab to print accurate colors.

[R. House]

Songman45...yep! And for me, my major jump to digital began with a scanner and printer. Didn't buy a digital camera until 7 years later. My druthers would be large format film and a darkroom doing B/W only, but thats only in the dream stages right now. There are labs doing some awesome printing and if I ever go beyond 13"x19" I won't hesitate to use one. I think silver gellatin (sp?) is just a georgous medium. Now if I could print something worth...

[ohenry]

I enjoy printing at home and, for me, that is part of the total photography experience. It was more expensive for me to print color prints at home, as well...yet, it was a part of what I enjoyed. One can't place a monetary value on enjoyment, IMO.

[INSOMNIAC269]

I will print at home when I need to get prints to a client ASP. Yes, I find it not very cost effective, and colors can be hit or miss often. I use Adorama for my printing by the way.

[ohenry]

I don't know. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I utilize color management and color aware programs (Photoshop, Lightroom, QImage, etc), have a calibrated monitor, and use printer profiles on my Epson printer and get the results that I expect nearly every time. I don't see "hit or miss" as a part of my experience. If one is going to do home printing, one must do more than just letting the printer control the output and hope for the best...color management is a must.

[jhawk1000]

As a part owner of a pro photo lab and a former ink jet home printer, I do have some thoughts on this topic. First off, I did enjoy using my epson printers to make up to 13X17 ink jet prints but I never hung the prints. Something about the ink jet did not lend itself to display. The color matching, the reprints, the cost of ink and good paper made the per print cost more than I wanted for ink jet prints. At the lab which is managed and pretty much run by my wife, we have Fuji Frontiers for up to 15" prints and a ZBE Chromira for up to 30" wide prints as long as you want them. The true photographic paper runs through a chemical processor (Kreonite) and comes out dry and ready for cutting and mounting. Since it is a true photo process, the colors and sharpness are really top notch. We no longer have photo printers at home, only a couple of Canon Pixma cheapies. Strangely enough, I now hang the prints at home and in my office and of course, in the lab and studio. I do not like ink jet prints but that is a personal opinion which not everyone shares. I like the actual wet chemical prints on Fuji photopaper much more and the cost (actual cost) is probably less than the ink jet. Seems that the pro photographers like the photo paper based prints since they keep the lab humming every day.

Mel

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by jhawk1000

We no longer have photo printers at home, only a couple of Canon Pixma cheapies. Strangely enough, I now hang the prints at home and in my office and of course, in the lab and studio. I do not like ink jet prints but that is a personal opinion which not everyone shares. I like the actual wet chemical prints on Fuji photopaper much more and the cost (actual cost) is probably less than the ink jet. Seems that the pro photographers like the photo paper based prints since they keep the lab humming every day.

Mel

I agree with this completely. I've never hung a print that I printed myself, primarily because I've never gotten the quality I want.

[Ellbee99]

My Epson 7600 is a very large paperweight that I use in the spring, to print out graduation announcements. I also print out an occasional art print on textured fine art paper. Other than that it is not cost effective to print images to sell to clients. Banding issues, cost of inks and papers, archival qualities or lack there of...for clients or things I want to keep or give as gifts...I order through Miller's. We thought we would save a lot of $$ and have better control over our images. In the long run, you just can't beat a great lab that you trust.

[PrestonSmith]

I agree.

IMO, Personal printers are best suited for event photography where you can charge a premium price to many people in return for instant gratification.

[nyschulte]

When i started out with the epson 3800 i never looked back to a lab...
maybe because the local labs can not meet my requirements?
I usually provide one or 2 prints when the models leave, so this could not be done by a lab as well.

another factor is choice of paper. i only use hahnemuehle paper with their provided profiles, so no hassle. i do use some more exotic papers, like their baryta, bamboo papers.

Yes, it is way more expensive. there are some reprints, but only in the beginning when i try out new papers ...

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by nyschulte

When i started out with the epson 3800 i never looked back to a lab...
maybe because the local labs can not meet my requirements?
I usually provide one or 2 prints when the models leave, so this could not be done by a lab as well.

another factor is choice of paper. i only use hahnemuehle paper with their provided profiles, so no hassle. i do use some more exotic papers, like their baryta, bamboo papers.

Yes, it is way more expensive. there are some reprints, but only in the beginning when i try out new papers ...

Thanks for the comments. I do believe that even with well-tried paper, the costs are higher with home printing.

[letsmakeart]

This sounds like a wonderful piece of writing you would expect from a printer!

You have a lot of points however with some research none of these things are a real problem. For instance when buying a printer, everyone should check out the cost to replace all of the ink cartridges and determine if it's worth it.

My A4 prints are fairly high quality, use great paper, and come in at about a dollar (63us cents) a unit. And that's just personal printing, if I bought bulk I'd save a heap more.

So printing at home can be very economical, so long as you do the right research and know your way around a printer.

[sqw]

I hate all printers (the machines) with a vengeance!!

I've spent fortunes on them and wasted hours - no day - NO WEEKS of my life wrestling with them.

Never, ever - have I managed a quality image that I'm hapy with.

So, now I have several hundred pounds worth of printers and ink sitting in the store room.

I do have one printer - a Canon Selphy 4x6 inch dye sub - I love it!!!

Everything else goes to labs which is quicker, easier, more consistent and hassle free than any print I've ever managed.

[Worm324]

Excellent write-up Jay Great read and very informative!

Best,
Jay

[leader4u]

I'm not sure I agree with everything being said either. I run a bulk ink system and Lysonic extended gamut inks on a Canon i960. I also use Profile Prism to create my own printer profiles for each type of paper I use, and a Monaco Optix sensor and Coloreyes Display Pro software to calibrate my monitor. Maybe some people consider some of this ancient technology. But tell you what, having calibrated my entire processing path (including a calibrated monitor and customized print profiles for each type of paper I use) sure makes getting excellent prints up to 8.5 x 11 easy. Yes, I have at times had to spend hours fixing a problem (a bad print head, air in the ink feed lines, etc.) but I have compared my prints to many prints from local, standard, run of the mill labs and my prints are almost always better. Everyone else thinks so as well! (And they have no clue I made my prints myself.)

The other HUGE advantage is the control you gain over the entire process. I have been disappointed way too may times after taking film to various labs. Now that I shoot digitally and use a calibrated system, getting things done at a decent lab is much less hit or miss if I decide to go that route. But again, it is so, so nice to know that what I see on my screen is what I will see come out of my printer. So may people don't manage the entire process and then are disappointed by the results. Not here!

I have also done the cost calculations. The bulk ink system allows me to print standard 6 x 4 inch prints for the same cost as most local labs. Stocking up on decent paper when it is on sale helps too. (I do use some better papers - with my own printer profiles - but standard Canon paper is actually very decent quality and perfectly acceptable for standard prints.) I can actually print full 8 x 10 inch prints for cheaper than I can get them for at Costco.

Yes, this can take time. But the quality results I get at a more than fair cost are worth it!

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by sqw

So, now I have several hundred pounds worth of printers and ink sitting in the store room.

To add insult to injury, most of these printers are practically worthless on the used market--or at least selling them is more of a pain than they're worth.