Photo Printing

Nope, I quite "home printing" several years ago and will never go back. The quality is nowhere near a real professional lab and the pro lab always cost LESS than doing at home. For inexpensive high quality prints I use Mpix and Adorama. They are great! Sorry I can't help you with a printer, I just usually tell people to avoid them. My only printer now is a b&w laser printer for text documents.

 

Labs like Mpix and Adorama offer tools to help calibrate to their system. I've used them quite successfully. Of course, a big part of that is having an accurate monitor yourself too.

 

I do. I use an Epson 3800 which was not cheap, but worth every penny IMO. It has been superseded by the 3880, which I hear is very nice as well.

With proper color management and a calibrated monitor, you can make beautiful prints.

Before I bought the Epson, I had a Canon IP5000, which was very inexpensive and fairly nice. I believe it has been discontinued for a while. The Canon used dye instead of pigment inks, and while prints in albums have kept up fine, prints that were exposed to ambient air would fade fairly quickly.

Regards,

Antonio

 

I've been thinking about buying a Canon Pro9000 Pixma MARK II so I can print at least contact prints or photos for gifts. It's inexpensive, and seems to put out very high quality images. I'll have to figure out what the trade-off is against having a professional lab make the prints for me.

 

I hear you - but it's worth considering how much you will print. For example, the Epson 2880 is also a fine printer, and much less expensive then the 3880. However, once you pay for a printer it will last years, and your expense is in the ink. The 2880 has tiny cartridges which cost a great deal per ml. The 3880 has large cartridges, with a much lower per ml cost. It comes loaded with these larger cartridges. If you subtract the cost of those larger cartridges from the cost of the printer, you will see that this larger printer is actually really good value.

I have sent things out to print, and been happy enough with the results. But for me a finished print is a really important part of photography. I find screens OK for looking at images, and for enjoying social photographs. But I fine that really absorbing a photograph, and enjoying it, is very hard to do on a screen, and ultimately only truly satisfying in a print.

So I print a lot, and a good printer is worth it to me.

 

Did you end up purchasing the printer? If so, any feedback would be appreciated?

 

Waterproof prints? Not with a normal inkjet. Water and prints do not mix well.

 

You need to be a little bit careful with large cartridges of ink for a small number of prints. Some printers recognize the cartridge "use by date" and stop printing until you've replaced the cartridge one it reaches the "use by date". HP is one of these. Having said that they are great printers!
Cheers
DUD

 

Epson's canvas, aka "PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas" IS water-repellant once properly cured. I don't say waterproof, or that one could spill expresso coffee on it, ok?
It's my main media for the Epson 4800, whether I print colour or B&W.
However, it has a drawback: comes only in rolls, the narrowest size being 17 in. It's pretty thick too; offhand, I'd rate it equivalent to a 350g paper.

 

I print at home. Presently I am using a Canon Pro 9500 MKII. It is a very nice printer. I had an Epson 2200. At photo get togethers we'd all compare prints, some from commercial labs, some printed at home. I and others in the group, found the Epson 2200 superior to Costco, Mpix et al. The Canon Pro 9500 MKII is better than the Epson.

I saw a Kodak commercial years ago where entire walls had so many prints that one couldn't even see the paint ... I've emulated that commercial ... from 19x13 to 4x5 both printers have done it all ... I get nothing but compliments and dropped jaws.

Remember that opinions come easy and fast on the internet ... so do your homework and also check out the photo sites of those whose opinion(s) have/will influence your final decision. A site with exceptional image will help validate and rate the opinion giver.

Gary

PS- Printing at home isn't cheap ... but seeing a 13x19 which absolutely pops hanging on a wall ... just provides an extremely high level of personal satisfaction. Printing makes one feels like the photographic experience is complete.
G

 

100% agree. What was true in chemical (*) photo years remains true in digital age.

(*) Those who call it "analog" never looked into a lab focusing magnifier, I presume...

I'll ad that if you want to produce a single exhibition of ca. 50 prints, 11x14 in., archival paper and pigments, a pro grade printer is already paid for, compared to sending out to an exhibition quality custom lab.
Plus you save a lot of time and keep control, i.e. you don't have to argue with the labman, who knows better than you what you need  , will ad "depth" on shadows you wanted soot-black, etc.

 

I have a mat board cutter and buy frames on sale ... I use a variety of simple frames w/glass ... no problems with reflections. Typically I use Kodak Lustre paper for 8x10 and smaller.

G

PS- To clarify that home printing was better than Mpix and Costco, there was not a big difference between home and commercial, but using a high end printer at home did produce better prints than the large commercial outfits. Is the difference worth the effort and monies to print at home ... that is subjective ... for some it is for others commercial is the better fit.

 

This is why I use water-resistant canvas, both for colour and B&W: I frame it without glass. The papers I like best, typically Somerset Velvet, just loose too much no matter how carefully you cover them with glass.
For exhibitions I usually frame the canvases with just top and bottom aluminum or wood clamped flat bars. Sometimes I stitch the top and bottom around a hidden bar, kakemono style. It makes it easier for transport, just rolling the prints. And no problems with broken glass...