Do you still use a printer?
sort of fell away from the idea of a printer cost of ink ect do you still use a printer for photos
I have just got back into printing pictures for competition purposes which I'm finding quite a lot of fun at the minute.
Always had a printer at home but only for the occasional stuff so only ever bought cheap and cheerful and used cheap ink if it dies it dies.
I actually repair large format & graphic printers so printing pictures always felt a bit like a busmans holiday but if I wanted a picture printed I can use professional equipment at work for free. We sell one machine that takes 8 printheads @ over £600 each and inks are about £150 each not something your would have at home.
Always had a printer at home but only for the occasional stuff so only ever bought cheap and cheerful and used cheap ink if it dies it dies.
I actually repair large format & graphic printers so printing pictures always felt a bit like a busmans holiday but if I wanted a picture printed I can use professional equipment at work for free. We sell one machine that takes 8 printheads @ over £600 each and inks are about £150 each not something your would have at home.
I always print my photographs, and everything else, at home. I struck it lucky recently when I rescued an Epson EcoTank printer from the scrap heap when I caught somebody just about to throw it out. He couldn't get it to work properly after having dropped it (How can you drop a printer?) and after some cleaning spilled ink and running the printer through maintenance tasks, print head cleaning etc, I had it up and running in no time.
I have always used Epson printers, and I always use third party inks which in my opinion are just as good as the originals but at a fraction of the cost.
William.
I have always used Epson printers, and I always use third party inks which in my opinion are just as good as the originals but at a fraction of the cost.
William.
I have three printers or at least I have two and my wife one. My Wife's is a general purpose Canon Office printer/scanner. She does print the occasional photograph but does not need a high standard. I have a B&W laser printer/scanner for office type use and can produce copies very cheaply with this. As we both serve on various committees there is often a need to print or copy things. Finally, I have always printed my own photographs and currently use an Epson SC P600. I only ever tried third party inks in one of our past office printers and the results were very poor. I would not dream of using third party inks for my P600. The main reason for using it is for high quality and the Epson inks are superb. If cost was a significant factor, I would use commercial printing as this would be cheaper but I still like to control the entire process. In particular, B&W prints are much better from the Epson P600 than commercial prints as it uses three Black/grey inks.
Dave
Dave
I have a Canon Pro 100 and always use Canon inks - I found third-party inks gave poor results. I like printing my own photos and like Dave I also sit on various committees so need to print various documents from time to time. I gave up with Epson printers a long time ago for a variety of reasons, mainly print heads clogging up.
Yep, albeit it doesn't get used as much as it should - I have a back log of nearly 300 images to print, and that is only from the point at which I last upgraded (at least 5 years ago)!
It occurred to me a few years back that should anything happen to me the chances are that all the photographs I have created would be probably lost as a consequence of not having a printed archive. Let's face it, a hard portfolio box of beautiful prints is likely to trigger someone to think twice about throwing them out. Whereas images stored on a hard drive are so easily wiped... My photography is important enough to me to want to leave a physical presence of my images as some kind of a legacy for my loved ones to remember me by. Sorry - I seem to have strayed off the original topic.
Anyway, commercial printing is good, but the paper choices can be limited. I often like printing on archival matt art papers - the last time I checked the few labs that did this charged £15 per A3 print. This makes home printing still economical, albeit expensive.
It occurred to me a few years back that should anything happen to me the chances are that all the photographs I have created would be probably lost as a consequence of not having a printed archive. Let's face it, a hard portfolio box of beautiful prints is likely to trigger someone to think twice about throwing them out. Whereas images stored on a hard drive are so easily wiped... My photography is important enough to me to want to leave a physical presence of my images as some kind of a legacy for my loved ones to remember me by. Sorry - I seem to have strayed off the original topic.
Anyway, commercial printing is good, but the paper choices can be limited. I often like printing on archival matt art papers - the last time I checked the few labs that did this charged £15 per A3 print. This makes home printing still economical, albeit expensive.
Yes but not every week. I print photos and calendars for the family and a few documents and copies as and when needed.
What I do print I like to control, unless it's a large photobook for example and home printing does allow access to a multitude of paper types..
I do like the mono results from ny Canon Pro 100-S.
What I do print I like to control, unless it's a large photobook for example and home printing does allow access to a multitude of paper types..
I do like the mono results from ny Canon Pro 100-S.
Some of the early Epson Photo printers produced good pics straight out of the box but as the complexities of modern digital photography evolved the problem with home prints grew. I met a lecturer on the platform in Morlaix back in 2007 whilst photographing French trains who said he was from the London school of printing or some such (old brain curse stage 2!).I asked him how to get what was on screen onto photo paper and he said "Million dollar question" and smiled....Basic problem is a mix of pc colour management and transmitted v reflected light....For me all colour prints produced at home are a personal compromise, and if you accept this you will be well on your way to being satisfied with your efforts...this is based on hundreds of pounds and recently euros spent trying to get "perfect prints"....sadly there is no such animal for me just the nearly version.
Quote:
It occurred to me a few years back that should anything happen to me the chances are that all the photographs I have created would be probably lost as a consequence of not having a printed archive. Let's face it, a hard portfolio box of beautiful prints is likely to trigger someone to think twice about throwing them out. Whereas images stored on a hard drive are so easily wiped... My photography is important enough to me to want to leave a physical presence of my images as some kind of a legacy for my loved ones to remember me by. Sorry - I seem to have strayed off the original topic.
I reached a similar conclusion but realised that a box of prints will also be thrown out. The best chance of some of your images being retained for a while is a good quality Photobook. I went for a large hardbacked Photobook from Blurb which you can easily construct from Lightroom or using their application. I believe the book cost me about £80 but contains around 120 of my favourite photographs. Several who have seen it have now done the same.
Dave
I must admit that I like to hold a print that I have done myself. Apart from an A4 Canon for general printing I have a Canon Pro 10s A3+ printer. I use an Xrite ColorMunki for calibrating my monitor and producing bespoke printer profiles. I find that prints match the monitor (given the transmitted light v reflected light difference).
Such is my confidence that I often print on A3 Olmec Photo Gloss Double Sided and rarely spoil a sheet.
There is a certain satisfaction in being in total control from concept, taking, post processing and then printing.
Such is my confidence that I often print on A3 Olmec Photo Gloss Double Sided and rarely spoil a sheet.
There is a certain satisfaction in being in total control from concept, taking, post processing and then printing.
I have never bought an expensive printer, just use a cheap 3 in one Canon for documents, letters etc.
I damaged one by using cheap inks so I only use full price Canon.
For the last 3 or four years I have needed good quality modestly sized prints of my own photos for local exhibitions (10x8) I send off for 6 to 10 on line at a time to minimise postage. I was using one well known firm (Cewe) but they were taking too long and send back the prints with a lot of waste packaging.
I now use Jessops, the prints are very good, excellent in fact, they turn the order round in 3 or 4 days and each print costs £1.30 p + postage and they come in a simple card envelope.
I would never be able to produce the quality and with the cost of a decent paper (+waste) and inks (+waste) + wear and tears (me) the costs are comparable for me and I get a much, much better product.
Probably half my prints are in b/w and I have never been able to print b/w with any quality.
If I want anything really special printed, for example some of my step daughter's wedding photos or special finishes I use Whitewall.
I damaged one by using cheap inks so I only use full price Canon.
For the last 3 or four years I have needed good quality modestly sized prints of my own photos for local exhibitions (10x8) I send off for 6 to 10 on line at a time to minimise postage. I was using one well known firm (Cewe) but they were taking too long and send back the prints with a lot of waste packaging.
I now use Jessops, the prints are very good, excellent in fact, they turn the order round in 3 or 4 days and each print costs £1.30 p + postage and they come in a simple card envelope.
I would never be able to produce the quality and with the cost of a decent paper (+waste) and inks (+waste) + wear and tears (me) the costs are comparable for me and I get a much, much better product.
Probably half my prints are in b/w and I have never been able to print b/w with any quality.
If I want anything really special printed, for example some of my step daughter's wedding photos or special finishes I use Whitewall.
Quote:I have a Canon Pixma for everyday use and the occasional A4 or smaller colour print but it’s no good for b&b - always produces a colour cast. For my competition and serious work I used our club printer. But now I’ve moved l’ll have to buy my own!
Interesting, a club printer is something my club considered and we could easily afford it. If we had our own clubhouse, we would certainly own one. However, as we do not have a clubhouse we could see not practical way for many members being able to use it.
Dave
now I have given up selling my work via galleries and exhibition I have finally disposed of my "pro quality" printer and did ask myself the question whether to get another printer for my own printing. I ended up getting the Epson XP-970 which with its A4 size but ability to print to A3 on good quality paper looked ideal, as it has turned out to be.
Its not up to the standard of the pro printers I've owned but can still produce prints good enough to hang at home and as presents for others. I can also "cheat" it into using some of my favourite art papers (even though it is not supposed to be able to handle them
)
I would hate to no longer be able to have the pleasure of seeing a new image appearing for the first time so ignore the economic case for getting my pics produced commercially
Its not up to the standard of the pro printers I've owned but can still produce prints good enough to hang at home and as presents for others. I can also "cheat" it into using some of my favourite art papers (even though it is not supposed to be able to handle them
)I would hate to no longer be able to have the pleasure of seeing a new image appearing for the first time so ignore the economic case for getting my pics produced commercially
