What are folks thoughts on printing: using a service versus "do-yourself-in?"

I would like to start printing some of my photos, perhaps the largest approx. 11X17"

If I'm going to be printing maybe 30 or so a year, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of either approach?

Which way have you gone, and why?

Anyone recommend good printers that don't clog much, and good quality printing services?

Thanks!

As with most things in life, there are trade-offs.

How picky are you about getting exactly the image in your minds eye (or on the screen) onto paper? Or are you just looking for a "good" print? Do you use soft-proofing (in LR or PS) or something similar in an attempt to pre-visualize your print? Or will you make a print, then adjust color or contrast to try to get closer to what you want the final image to look like?

For 30 prints a year, using a service is likely to be much cheaper. If you're not a perfectionist, you'll probably be quite satisfied with the better services.

OTOH, if you do it yourself, you have much more control of the process. If you're not quite satisfied with the image, you can immediately make adjustments and make another print, rather than waiting for delivery and then decided to do it over.

When you send a print off to a service, you're somewhat in the dark about how their printer is profiled. If you control the process, and use soft-proofing, you can generally get very close to what you want on the first try.

I guess I'd summarize it as service is easy, and gives "good" results. Doing it yourself is harder, but can provide "excellent" results.

As for which printer, I'm inclined to recommend Epson simply because there is so much aftermarket support. They are certainly the most commonly used brand in the "serious" photographic printing market. Every significant paper vendor makes available free profiles for Epson printers. There are multiple support forums. And the latest models, with teflon coated print heads, don't seem to suffer from the frequent clogging that used to be such a problem with pigment ink printers. But ANY inkjet can clog. The secret to avoiding clogs seem to be regular use and humidity. If you're not printing regularly, run a nozzle check every couple of seeks. It uses very little ink, and ensures every nozzle gets ink pushed through it. If it's dry where you are (or cold in the winter, so your house gets dry), use a humidifier, or get a plastic cover for the printer and keep a wet sponge under the cover (but not where it will get the printer wet).

Which brings up another decision point: dye ink or pigment ink? Dye inks can produce brighter colors and a wider gamut, but will fade fairly rapidly if exposed to UV light or various oxidants, especially ozone. Pigment inks are much more stable, possible more stable than traditional photo printers. Modern pigment ink printers have much wider gamut than earlier ones. Not quite a match for pigment inks, but I don't feel the gamut is really a problem any more.

Finally, glossy or matte paper, or both? Some printers are better at one or the other. There's lots of information available about the different Epson models if you do some google searches.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

Several years ago I owned an Epson 3800, and was really delighted with the whole process of making my own prints and framing them. Problem is, I didn't make all that many prints, and I bought a bunch of different papers, and bought a complete extra set of ink cartridges. For the prints I actually made and hung on the wall I figure I am up to about $750 per print (I only have two hanging, and gave several others away).

I got laid off and ended up selling all that great stuff. Now that I am gainfully employed again I am weighing the tradeoffs between buying all the stuff and doing my own printing and just using someone quality like Bay Photo to handle my printing needs.

The downside of doing it myself is the very high expense per print. The actual PROCESS and the control it gives me are certainly worth something, because I really enjoy doing the whole thing from beginning to end... but is it worth it? Also, I believe if I was going to buy the stuff today I would buy the Epson R3000 instead of an Epson 3880. When I had the 3800 I never made a print bigger than 13x19 even though you can make 16x20s on it. When I look at the 13x19s I have on the wall, by the time you add an appropriate mat and frame, they are pretty big, so I don't think I need a printer that can do 16" paper.

It's a LOT cheaper using a service to do your printing (a 13x19" Lustre print from Bay Photo is only $17.99), if you want to give up the control, and give up instant gratification, and give up the whole PROCESS of doing the printing (which I quite enjoy). However, I think a good service will likely do as good a job as I could, perhaps better.

Not sure what to do, but with the current Epson $150 rebate, the R3000 at $599 after the rebate is looking pretty interesting, even if the ink cartridge set costs a whopping $250 or so.

I posted this last week, but it's still valid (actually $5 less now) ...

Canon PIXMA Pro9000 Mark II for $144 (now $139) from B&H

__________________
Olympus E-M5, 45/1.8
Lumix 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/2.8, 14-42mm X, 14-45mm, 45-175mm X
Minolta MD 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.8

Thanks, but that's a pretty unwonderful printer compared to the Epson 3880 and R3000. It's cheap, but that's it's major virtue.

If you prefer, the Pro9500 Mark II, which is more on par with the R3000, is $499 after rebate.

Either way, I was offering the OP another, less expensive, but still very capable option. $600 for a $750 printer is still well out of a lot of people's budgets, but a $450 printer for under $150 probably isn't. The Pro9000 Mark II has been rated as quite high, if not quite on the same level as the R3000/Pro9500 (or Pro-1).

__________________
Olympus E-M5, 45/1.8
Lumix 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/2.8, 14-42mm X, 14-45mm, 45-175mm X
Minolta MD 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.8

If I buy a printer, it needs to be great at black & white / greyscale printing. The Epsons are.

I have no experience with home photo printers, but as an amateur/enthusiast I have been happy with the quality of prints I've ordered from Mpix. I PP my RAWs in Aperture using on-screen proofing and the Mpix rates include color correction.

If you're printing in small numbers I think a home printer ends up being significantly more expensive. However that's the way to go if you are really interested in taking control of every step in the process.

A couple of other online services that seem to have good reputations are White House (whcc.com) and ProDPI.com - but Mpix offers promotions once in a while if you don't mind saving up a batch for printing.

__________________

E-P3 | 14 | 25 | 45 | 40-150 | various legacy

Fair enough. Of course, that's a personal thing, too. Depends on how much black and white a person shoots/prints. I would have looked at the Pro9500 (three different black/grey cartridges) or the R3000, if I did more of it. Don't know if CarlB does or not.

__________________
Olympus E-M5, 45/1.8
Lumix 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/2.8, 14-42mm X, 14-45mm, 45-175mm X
Minolta MD 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.8

Great discussion here. I was reading Michael's first comment and thinking to myself, "I must be very easy to please", because I've been very impressed with prints from the Canon Pro9000 II. After the second comment, I realized it might have to do with the fact that all of them were color prints. I've never had an Epson printer, but I have heard that they are the best for B&W.

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.