Posted by Mike Maples on September 13, 2006 at 2:40 PM
My wife and I are being asked more and more to take photos for local functions like the Company Christmas Parties, School fundraisers (pics with Santa), ball teams, etc. Some of these require that we produce photos on the spot so the printer search begins...
We think we need a printer that will produce lab quality color output on standard photo papers for sizes up to 8x10. Of course it would be nice if it was fairly fast, so the kiddies and parents don't have to stand around too long, and as economical as possible with respect to inks and upkeep. It must be portable and reliable and easy to use.
Any help appreciated. If you think my wish list is faulty please let me know. What do you recommend?
Posted by Guy Tal on September 13, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Mike, a few questions you need to address are: 1) do you need archival prints? 2) do the prints need to be water-resistant? 3) is bronzing or gloss-differential acceptable?
There is no perfect printer out there. Some of the dye based printers do a god job on coated papers (which I think is what you mean by "standard photo paper") but may not be as archival or water resistant as pigment based printers. The pigment printers generally don't do as well on coated papers, producing bronzing, metamerism, and other artifacts that may or may not be acceptable.
Guy
Posted by Mike Maples on September 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM
This is like your Second Grader sitting on Santa's lap or you and your Date/Wife at the company Christmas Party or Junior's T-Ball team and individual photos. I'm not sure what "archival prints" are. We need to produce the quality one expects for the type of photos described. We would still use a lab for things like wedding photos, graduation photos and such.
I suspect these photos might be framed for a while and then stored or scrapbooked as keepsakes.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Richard Wong on September 13, 2006 at 4:08 PM
If I were a consumer I'd want archival photos because if I have photos of my 2nd grader winning in t-ball I'd like it look just as good 5 - 10 - 20 years from now. As opposed to looking great now, then fading and color shifting in a few years. From what I understand, dye prints look good initially but don't last long.
Posted by Mitch Erwin on September 13, 2006 at 4:21 PM
Mike, I would look at any of the Epson brand printers as they are capable of producing fast, quality prints. I would also look for a smaller more maneuverable printer as you will be either taking it in and out of your vehicle into your venue you are shooting. I personally have the Epson R 1800. I love it, somewhat light, capable of printing up to 13" wide prints of archival quality. Also look at the 1280 by Epson as I've heard alot of good praise about that model as well.
Posted by Mike Maples on September 13, 2006 at 4:42 PM
What about Dye-Sub like the Kodak Professional 1400? Any thoughts?
Posted by Guy Tal on September 13, 2006 at 4:58 PM
I don't have experience with it myself, but there's a good review here:
There are lots of folks doing this at the zuganet forums. I've seen a fair bit of discussion of printers and strategies for location printing.
We opted out of location printing because it's expensive in the long run by the time you pay for consumables PLUS have someone there to keep the computer and printers ticking, even as we have to pay for mailing envelopes and postage. It's possible for a single photographer and one assitant for managing people and money to do several hundred sittings in an evening, but I don't think there's any way you could manage that if you were doing your own prints with a single printer. My wife and one assistant did 314 sittings in just over three hours at a high school prom last spring. With a minimum of three units (8.5 x 11 sheets) per sitting you would be hard pressed to finish 1000 sheets in three hours, even with three or four printers going. If people expect "prints while you wait" you'll lose lots of business if word spreads through the event that you are slow.
Most major labs prints "promo packages" with unit prices that are just about impossible to beat on your own, plus the photos are much more scratch resistant. We have no complaints from our clients about a week's wait before they get their shots.
Posted by Les Barstow on September 13, 2006 at 10:56 PM
If you're producing archival/water-resistant pictures, the Epson R800 (the smaller cousin to the R1800) is great for the task. Some of the dye sub printers might also work, but they're even more limited than the R800 on papers designed to work with them.
If you've "got to" have on-the-spot printing, that's where you're wanting to look. Hank has a point, though. "Fast" is a relative term when you're printing good quality images. This might be where some of the higher end dye sub printers win out over the Epson.
If you do location printing Mike, there are other considerations that are at least as important as your printer(s). Look into wireless hookups directly between your camera and computer. Make sure your computer will support multiple printers simultaneously. Look carefully into your software options for previewing, cropping, batching prints, etc. Photoshop simply isn't going to cut it- either for speed or functionality.
Discussion
9 repliesWe think we need a printer that will produce lab quality color output on standard photo papers for sizes up to 8x10. Of course it would be nice if it was fairly fast, so the kiddies and parents don't have to stand around too long, and as economical as possible with respect to inks and upkeep. It must be portable and reliable and easy to use.
Any help appreciated. If you think my wish list is faulty please let me know. What do you recommend?
There is no perfect printer out there. Some of the dye based printers do a god job on coated papers (which I think is what you mean by "standard photo paper") but may not be as archival or water resistant as pigment based printers. The pigment printers generally don't do as well on coated papers, producing bronzing, metamerism, and other artifacts that may or may not be acceptable.
Guy
I suspect these photos might be framed for a while and then stored or scrapbooked as keepsakes.
Hope that helps.
I don't have experience with it myself, but there's a good review here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/kodak1400.html
Guy
We opted out of location printing because it's expensive in the long run by the time you pay for consumables PLUS have someone there to keep the computer and printers ticking, even as we have to pay for mailing envelopes and postage. It's possible for a single photographer and one assitant for managing people and money to do several hundred sittings in an evening, but I don't think there's any way you could manage that if you were doing your own prints with a single printer. My wife and one assistant did 314 sittings in just over three hours at a high school prom last spring. With a minimum of three units (8.5 x 11 sheets) per sitting you would be hard pressed to finish 1000 sheets in three hours, even with three or four printers going. If people expect "prints while you wait" you'll lose lots of business if word spreads through the event that you are slow.
Most major labs prints "promo packages" with unit prices that are just about impossible to beat on your own, plus the photos are much more scratch resistant. We have no complaints from our clients about a week's wait before they get their shots.
If you've "got to" have on-the-spot printing, that's where you're wanting to look. Hank has a point, though. "Fast" is a relative term when you're printing good quality images. This might be where some of the higher end dye sub printers win out over the Epson.