Is it time to start doing my own printing?

[brian.austin]

After reading some threads on the newer Canon printers, I came across some costs that surprised me: $2-4 per print. Obviously that number is dependent on paper size, ink volume, etc., but it's lower than I expected. It probably doesn't include "capital" costs of the printer and setup.

Up to this point, I've used Mpix and a few other sources for printing photos. I tend to save my printing for larger orders, usually to reduce shipping costs. I also like their ability to color correct for me, matching my calibrated monitor, although it didn't quite make it on one or two. Costs seem very reasonable.

Another concern is archival quality. I don't want a print to fade in 5-10 years. Not printing myself, I haven't kept up with photo printer technology. Is print life still a factor with newer inks and papers?

So...is it time for me to seriously look at bringing my photo printing home? Costs seem to be evening out. Quality seems to be as good or better than more traditional photo labs. Archival retention is an unknown, since only time will ultimately tell the true story over manufacturer's claims.

[jfrancho]

I know when I decide to print, I'll want as much control over the process as possible. This will lead to RIP software, calibration tools, books, time and energy, frustration, delight, etc. For now, the lab offers the best option. Though, part of my satisfaction with photography is doing it all myself.

[Ken-L]

I used to say, "I have NO desire to print EVER". I'd rather just view my photos on my monitor......

How I went from THAT to printing escapes me, but now I do....as of a week ago!

I bought the Epson 1800, and I recommend it. My shooting buddy, Randy Forshey, a long-time pro, also uses an Epson and since I've seen his work up close I knew that I couldn't go wrong with Epson.

If you want to do a lot of black and white the Epson 2400 is tops, but for color the 1800 is as good as it gets for "home use".

I'm only printing 13" X 19", nothing smaller. As of this writing I'm in the process of printing 10 scenes for display at a local public library at their request.

You would not be dissappointed with the Epson 1800. I downloaded all the Epson ICC profiles. I also bought Nik Sharpener which is a GREAT tool for printing.

I knew absolutely nothing about prining until I got the Epson. I found it was easy! Of course I did have the benefit of Randy telling me what settings to use, but seriously, it is easy!

[Tom Swaman]

Brian,

First, I do not think that archival issues need be a current issue. If you stick with good pigment ink and quality paper, you are looking reliably at 25 or more years for most prints. Smoother papers tend to have longer archival life. Some of the newer dye-based inks reportedly have reasonable life, but this remains to be seen. The obfious advantage to a dye-based ink over a pigment based ink lies in the capillarity of the paper to saturate rather than to hold the pigments on the paper surface.

Before you buy a printer, take a good look at the Epson Stylus Pro printers. These are not just good, they are great. And, Brian, I do not work for Epson and I have nothing against Canon, but the Epson printers, both initial cost and use cost are better now and the archival testing of the Epson system has a much better database, IMHO.

As for printing costs, what you have read may be way understated. The current costs for printing an 8" X 10" print on a standard sheet of high quality photographic paper is in the $!.50 to $3.00 range for raw supplies, i.e. paper and ink. However, this cost does not include time, equipment cost amorization, software costs, training costs, wastage, equipment maintenance costs or sales costs. By the same token, your time can be reduced by multi-tasking, i.e. editing images while your printer is doing its thing. If you really want to optimize costs and you are doing a reasonable volume of printing, the trick is to purchase a printer that uses ink cartridges that optimize your printing patterns. You can always spend your time editing images while your printer is doing its thing, but changing ink cartridges, wasting ink and the like has an incredible negative impact on printing costs just like buying paper in small quantities does.

I have not had one single maintenance issue with my last three Canon inkjet printers or with my current Epson printer and I have printed thousands of pages using these. The printing technology is good at this time. I truly believe that Epson has the hardware and and ink quality advantage over Canon in the professional printers and in any printer that fits on a desk, table or reasonably sized stand and is capable of printing wider than thirteen inches.

Tom

[jfrancho]

Does Epson offer 16 bit color depth yet?

[Tom Swaman]

John,

I do not know the truthful answer to your question. I think this is a two part issue, namely the printer driver issue and the software issue as many softwares, which you know, edit in full 16-bit and then reduce this to 8-bit to print. I think this question needs to be directly answered by Epson for their products.

Yes, I have read that the Canon ipf 500 prints in full 16-bit and I have also read that it does not. I think this is a question that Canon needs to answer .

Some claim that 16-bit printing is possible with small images and not with big images. This one bothers me and I clearly do not either accept this or understand it.

Ignorance is bliss,
Tom

[jfrancho]

Me neither. I let my lab handle it

[Ken-L]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Does Epson offer 16 bit color depth yet?

[Worm324]

Great thread I have the Canon Picxma Pro 9000 and It's my first good quality printer. I'm blown away by the quality everytime I use it. Epecially after getiing stuff back from the lab when it looks about the same as my High gloss prints. I'm doing most of my printing at home these days, but for big # orders I will still use the Lab for time and effort savings.

Intersting thoughts on the costs. I'm going to start a spread sheet of prints/ catrage usage to try and boil down my exact costs per print #'s

Best,
Jay

[Paul Shields]

I always think that if you don't print then you're not really doing photography, though doing it yourself can be costly unless you're doing enough to offset the printer cost - even then it's a fine line . I'm about to make the jump to an A3 pigment based printer as I really want to have control over the process - and it's much more of an instant gratification thing than sending a file off and waiting for the print (and wondering if it's going to be exactly as you hoped it would be).

[jfrancho]

I always think that if you don't print then you're not really doing photography

That's quite a narrow point of view. What am I, and others really doing with our cameras then?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

That's quite a narrow point of view. What am I, and others really doing with our cameras then?

Well, it's just my opinion, but in the end isn't photography about the image and the viewing of images? If we don't print then what's left? Flickr? We all may as well sell our high resolution DSLR's and use our 2mp P&S's. I like to see the whole image as the camera captured it - i.e. printed out to a resolution and size that is not possible with any other medium (until we all start using 30" LCD's). Even then, it's not the same at all as a nicely printed image.

But anyway, you ask a good question. What are you doing with your cameras if you're not printing? Maybe I'm missing out on a whole new world .

[jfrancho]

I get my prints from a pro lab.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I get my prints from a pro lab.

Ah, well maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I was referring to a previous post in this thread about people never printing. Whether it's yourself or a lab that's fine. It's the 'not printing' thing that I found surprising.