Posted by Josh Anderson on December 4, 2006 at 8:51 AM
As of now, the largest print I can make is an 81/2 X 11. I sold somewhere between 30 and 40 prints last week at this size, but found out some of my customers actually wanted larger prints. I wonder if purchasing a printer (Epson 2400) that prints 13 inches inches would be sufficient? What do most of you use who do a lot of printing?
Thanks,
Josh
Posted by Richard Ennis on December 4, 2006 at 8:55 AM
You may also look at the new Epson 3800. If you need larger than that, I would have someplace like WHCC, or MPIX print them for you. They are very cost effective.
somewhere between 30 and 40 prints last week!!!!?
Phew! We sold 6 (six) prints on a photo fair 3 weeks ago and thought THAT was quite good! Wow!
to deliver an answer also, yes as Richard says, you should even consider the 3800 model. (not to mention the Epson 9600, 10600 we actually print on)
selling 40 prints a week, investing in a good printer sounds like a good idea!
georg
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 4, 2006 at 9:49 AM
Thanks for the suggestions Richard and George.
I normally don't sell more than a handful of prints on a weekly basis. The high number this past week was due to Christmas.
I'm not sure how most people market their images, but I have found from experience that people are more likely to buy an image if they can see them in print. I have generated sales from my website, but most sales have been made from people seeing the actual matted print. Just my 2 cents for the day.
Owning a studio from which we sell portraits as well as our own nature prints.
Selling in galleries, in which a range of sizes of the same photos are offered.
In our studio we have proved a rule of thumb: The biggest print most people buy is one size smaller than the largest you have on display. I.e., if you display bigger you will sell bigger, yet people will usually step down one size from the largest as a nod to "economy" or something.
In galleries where people are presented an array of sizes to buy on the spot rather than ordering, 8x10's are certainly the biggest sellers, but folks tend to jump right over the 11x14's for 13x19 when 20x24's are mounted and framed. In cases where I have displayed as large as 30x40, the next size down (usually 20x24's) sell better than either 11x14 or 13x19, while the 30x40's seldom sell. Interstingly, though not all images were printed and displayed at 30x40, I sold more of 30x40's from special orders than I did of those on display. Go figure, but I think folks put a whole lot more thought into the big stuff, and were willing to order to get what they wanted.
Whether you got a printer large enough to print your own or had a lab do it, I think there are benefits to having the bigger stuff available. You will sell some but more important in the long run, I think they will raise the size of your average sale.
Whether you bought a 13" or 20" printer, I would meanwhile have a lab make up some bigger ones for display. As I hope I have demonstrated, those bigger prints will help sales of those from whichever new printer you select.
Damn,
I have not sold yet 30-40 prints in total and still own A3 printer. Guess, time to think.
I think 2400 should be great, larger wil be even better.
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 4, 2006 at 10:22 AM
That is very interesting Hank. I truly appreciate you taking the time to respond. I will definitely get some bigger prints made for the exact reason you stated.
Posted by Jack Graham on December 4, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Josh, 2400 would do it.... anything bigger ---there are labs that do a great job more cost effectively , depending on how many you are selling.
I am old school, I still use the Epson 2200, have used it for three years. The R2400 is a good price with great quality but even still, you will want to make a larger print which will require another printer. For nature prints I would try to decide if purchasing the printer (a larger more expensive Epson like the 7600 or 9800) is worth the time and cost (ink and paper). For my sports and family and team pictures I print on Epson Luster paper at Allens camera www.allenscamera.net Rex (at Allens) uses a 9600 for larger stuff and the colors are nice, I have never had a complaint on a print and I sell roughly 1400 - 1500 prints ranging from 4x6 - 11x14 for sports and families per year. For my landscape stuff, I sell very few, but I use Calipso's lab, the cost is high for the first one then it comes down but the images are amazing. For smaller prints (no larger then 11x14) I still use Rex at Allens. He is good, cheap and the prints are nice. He also has a custom framing shop next door and can meet any needs you may have.
If you are printing and selling that much call him and work out a deal with him 801-224-0006
Josh: I would consider Costco for anything up to 12x18 ($3 for a 12x18 - unbeatable). If you run a color-calibrated system and have a good grasp of color management, excellent continuous-tone photographic prints can be made on Fuji Crystal Archive paper on Costco's Noritsu or Frontier minilab machines. Excellent profiles are available for your local Costco here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/
Posted by Dan Borzynski on December 4, 2006 at 1:00 PM
$3 for a 12x18... That actually sounds around, or maybe slightly higher than my Epson 4000 prints.
I would probably look at a 17" or wider printer. A 16x20(24) is pretty big, but I have had people ask for bigger. I have declined, mainly because it wasn't something I wanted to do, but I am now looking into having larger custom prints done. Another issue, another thread.
But the point is, if you are going to put the money into a larger printer as a business, I think you would be better off going larger than smaller. You don't always need the capacity, but it is there if you need it.
I am not personally familiar with the 3800, but I would have no qualms about recommending the 4800/7800/9800 series. One thing which may well scare you off from these printers is the cost of the ink cartridges. This really is a non-issue. These ink cartridges, especially for the 220 ml sizes, are far more cost efficient than the smaller cartridges of the 2400 printers. You won't be replacing them every two or three weeks (if you are, either you are doing something seriously, seriously wrong, or you are selling enough to make the rest of us envious).
My experiences with the 4000 is that paper is by far the bigger cost. I found that once I replaced the first 3 cartridges that ran out, the rest (and the replacements) empty more or less individually, so you are not replacing multiple cartridges at the same time. The first three ran out within about 2 weeks of each other and were the 110 ml cartridges. Replacing with the 220 spreads replacement out a lot more.
I have found that the 4000 was almost useless for printing individual 4x6's Either I had to print several on the same page, or send them out to the film place, the latter the route I have taken. The 3800 may be more friendly regarding this - I don't know. In the 4000's defense, it really wasn't designed with this in mind anyway. I don't do many 4x6's so this really isn't an issue for me.
What paper surface are you planning to use? This may help for advice, especially if you plan to regularly switch between a matte and a glossy surface.
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 4, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Thanks again for the responses. Dan, I won't need to prints 4 X 6's. Very rarely do I print anything smaller than an 8 X 10 (with one exception of selling 110, 5 X 7's to a hospital, but I had to send them off anyway to get printed). Up until about a week ago I printed exclusively with glossy. I recently began experimenting with matte, but I think I like glossy better.
Michael, $3 for a 12 X 18? That is tempting. Although I do like making my own prints.
I'm not sure about nature prints, but I can speak up on behalf of our local Walmart for small stuff. We mostly use a distant lab requiring shipping for work from our studio, but occassionally there's a time crunch and we have to provide same-day service. Portraits simply cannot be printed on any of our desktop printers due to scratching issues, so we have to go with machine prints even on short turnarounds.
If our experience with Walmart is the exception, we're happy for it. The person running the machine has been at it for several years and has a great eye for color balance. In combo with our color balance work, she turns out great stuff for us.
We still send 99% of our work out (H&H Color Labs) for greater diversity in products and wholesale pricing, but for 8x10 and smaller combined with quick delivery we're happy with the local source.
$3 for a 12x18... That actually sounds around, or maybe slightly higher than my Epson 4000 prints.
Yes, Don, but again, these are continuous-tone photographic prints on silver halide paper - not inkjet. Big difference. $3 for an ICC-compliant 12x18 Fuij Crystal Archive is an incredible deal.
Posted by Ed Dubois on December 4, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Hi Josh,
Since you mention that you like to make your own prints, there are some interesting discussions on current printers and papers on the Luminous Landscape discussion forum under Printers,Papers and Inks: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/
I use a Canon i9100 (2+ years old) that prints to 13" wide and does a nice job. There is a new printer called the Canon 9500 coming out in the beginning of the new year that will use the new pigment inks. The reason I mention this is that their newest larger format printer (ipf5000) that uses those same inks seems to be extremely frugal in its ink use which translates to very reasonable costs. Michael Reichmann estimates only 25 cents for an 11"X17" and 70 cents for a 17"X22" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-5000-terms.shtml
Sorry if this reply is OT or irrelevant.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on December 4, 2006 at 2:25 PM
I tend to take Micheal Reichman's technology reviews not completely serious (since at least for my tastes, he seems more in love with the technology than the process), but here is his review of the Canon 5000:
Posted by Kim Kaiser on December 6, 2006 at 11:27 PM
does costco require a pickup of the print,, if so, one needs to consider the price of you time and travle to and fro,, at todays prices, that is a a legitimate cost,,,
Posted by Jody Grigg on December 9, 2006 at 12:49 PM
You can upload to any Costco anywhere in the country and it doesn't cost anything.
Posted by Don Miller on December 10, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Josh, one thing to consider is ink tank size. I have a Epson 2200 and 7800. The 2200 small tanks are always running out of ink, so I can't set up a big job and leave it to run.
I would check out the Canon's too. If these printers are faster than the Epsons, that would be an advantage. The black ink swapping need of the Epson 7800 is a real problem.
Discussion
18 repliesThanks,
Josh
Phew! We sold 6 (six) prints on a photo fair 3 weeks ago and thought THAT was quite good! Wow!
to deliver an answer also, yes as Richard says, you should even consider the 3800 model. (not to mention the Epson 9600, 10600 we actually print on)
selling 40 prints a week, investing in a good printer sounds like a good idea!
georg
I normally don't sell more than a handful of prints on a weekly basis. The high number this past week was due to Christmas.
I'm not sure how most people market their images, but I have found from experience that people are more likely to buy an image if they can see them in print. I have generated sales from my website, but most sales have been made from people seeing the actual matted print. Just my 2 cents for the day.
I relate to this question from two standpoints:
Owning a studio from which we sell portraits as well as our own nature prints.
Selling in galleries, in which a range of sizes of the same photos are offered.
In our studio we have proved a rule of thumb: The biggest print most people buy is one size smaller than the largest you have on display. I.e., if you display bigger you will sell bigger, yet people will usually step down one size from the largest as a nod to "economy" or something.
In galleries where people are presented an array of sizes to buy on the spot rather than ordering, 8x10's are certainly the biggest sellers, but folks tend to jump right over the 11x14's for 13x19 when 20x24's are mounted and framed. In cases where I have displayed as large as 30x40, the next size down (usually 20x24's) sell better than either 11x14 or 13x19, while the 30x40's seldom sell. Interstingly, though not all images were printed and displayed at 30x40, I sold more of 30x40's from special orders than I did of those on display. Go figure, but I think folks put a whole lot more thought into the big stuff, and were willing to order to get what they wanted.
Whether you got a printer large enough to print your own or had a lab do it, I think there are benefits to having the bigger stuff available. You will sell some but more important in the long run, I think they will raise the size of your average sale.
Whether you bought a 13" or 20" printer, I would meanwhile have a lab make up some bigger ones for display. As I hope I have demonstrated, those bigger prints will help sales of those from whichever new printer you select.
I have not sold yet 30-40 prints in total and still own A3 printer. Guess, time to think.
I think 2400 should be great, larger wil be even better.
Call me if you want more info.
JG
If you are printing and selling that much call him and work out a deal with him 801-224-0006
I would probably look at a 17" or wider printer. A 16x20(24) is pretty big, but I have had people ask for bigger. I have declined, mainly because it wasn't something I wanted to do, but I am now looking into having larger custom prints done. Another issue, another thread.
But the point is, if you are going to put the money into a larger printer as a business, I think you would be better off going larger than smaller. You don't always need the capacity, but it is there if you need it.
I am not personally familiar with the 3800, but I would have no qualms about recommending the 4800/7800/9800 series. One thing which may well scare you off from these printers is the cost of the ink cartridges. This really is a non-issue. These ink cartridges, especially for the 220 ml sizes, are far more cost efficient than the smaller cartridges of the 2400 printers. You won't be replacing them every two or three weeks (if you are, either you are doing something seriously, seriously wrong, or you are selling enough to make the rest of us envious).
My experiences with the 4000 is that paper is by far the bigger cost. I found that once I replaced the first 3 cartridges that ran out, the rest (and the replacements) empty more or less individually, so you are not replacing multiple cartridges at the same time. The first three ran out within about 2 weeks of each other and were the 110 ml cartridges. Replacing with the 220 spreads replacement out a lot more.
I have found that the 4000 was almost useless for printing individual 4x6's Either I had to print several on the same page, or send them out to the film place, the latter the route I have taken. The 3800 may be more friendly regarding this - I don't know. In the 4000's defense, it really wasn't designed with this in mind anyway. I don't do many 4x6's so this really isn't an issue for me.
What paper surface are you planning to use? This may help for advice, especially if you plan to regularly switch between a matte and a glossy surface.
Michael, $3 for a 12 X 18?
If our experience with Walmart is the exception, we're happy for it. The person running the machine has been at it for several years and has a great eye for color balance. In combo with our color balance work, she turns out great stuff for us.
We still send 99% of our work out (H&H Color Labs) for greater diversity in products and wholesale pricing, but for 8x10 and smaller combined with quick delivery we're happy with the local source.
Yes, Don, but again, these are continuous-tone photographic prints on silver halide paper - not inkjet. Big difference. $3 for an ICC-compliant 12x18 Fuij Crystal Archive is an incredible deal.
Since you mention that you like to make your own prints, there are some interesting discussions on current printers and papers on the Luminous Landscape discussion forum under Printers,Papers and Inks: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/
I use a Canon i9100 (2+ years old) that prints to 13" wide and does a nice job. There is a new printer called the Canon 9500 coming out in the beginning of the new year that will use the new pigment inks. The reason I mention this is that their newest larger format printer (ipf5000) that uses those same inks seems to be extremely frugal in its ink use which translates to very reasonable costs. Michael Reichmann estimates only 25 cents for an 11"X17" and 70 cents for a 17"X22" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-5000-terms.shtml
Sorry if this reply is OT or irrelevant.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-5000-terms.shtml
I would check out the Canon's too. If these printers are faster than the Epsons, that would be an advantage. The black ink swapping need of the Epson 7800 is a real problem.