Just a question of curiosity here for all of you MWNP's -
How many people print at home? And who still prefers to outsource? What is your preference and why?
Personally, I print at home on a pigment inkjet printer (an HP B9180). I decided to go this route because I wasn't satisfied with the print quality that I was getting with chromira prints from digital labs. My inkjet is sharper, has a much better color gamut, can print on a wide variety of media (my preference being matte rag papers), and allows me to test print and make adjustments on the fly. The general tonalities are to my eye, significantly superior to my chromira prints that I had previously done. Also worth mentioning, is that the archival print life is much longer (my inkset is rated at 200 years before fading). All in all, I really love it.
That said, there are a few downsides. Most notable being the upfront cost that is required to get the printer in the first place. It took me some time just to save up for it. I'm also limited in terms of print size and I'd still have to outsource for larger sized prints. And, if there's a hardware problem, I personally have to deal with it.
Despite the negatives, I wouldn't go back. I'm finally getting the prints that I've always wanted and I'm really enjoying the ability to print at home with complete control over my final product.
Generally, I print at home on an Epson 4000. Beyond the initial startup cost, I have found it to be a lot cheaper, with better control and color.
Major weaknesses: Poor results on shiny papers, such as the glossy and luster papers, especially with whites. Fortunately, I rarely use them, and then just for myself. Inability to print individual 4x6's which I have done locally instead (they are also cheaper by this route). The printer makes a horrible text printer, because of speed, switching between profiles and control panels, and having to switch out my normal papers. It does work for this, do get me wrong, but it just wasn't designed to print resumes. Replacement catridges cost a lot.
Major strengths: When I bought it 30 months ago, there really wasn't anything better on the market. Bigger, perhaps, but not better. It is still a great printer. Replacement catridges last forever. Well, maybe not forever, but a long, long time. Better color, control and shadow detail than what I was getting "professionally" done. Long print life. Fast. Ego gratification.
I print with an Epson 7600 and a 2200 on matte art papers and canvas.
To me the art is in the print.
I've always been an artist, in many different media. The final physical hardcopy is what you display, though the web has changed that some. As an artist, or even a darkroom trained photographer, I'm not happy if I can't say that the image / print is mine from beginning to end and know that what I see is what I did, and can do it again, or change it as I wish.
Joel, I print at home with an Epson R1800. Thus far I've been very pleased with the results; however, I only use it to print my digital images since it only prints up to 13x44. For my large format stuff I always send them off since I never print anything smaller than 16x20. If I could afford a printer that would allow me to do it all at home, and a pc that could handle the enormous files from the 4x5 I would really just rather do it all myself. It seems like it takes forever to get a print back from my 4x5.
I do thoroughly enjoy the control and instant enjoyment I receive from printing at home, and cost isn't a factor to me - especially with the price of gasoline. What I'm still trying to figure out is the type of paper to use. I'm still in the experiment phase of that side of printing, but otherwise it's a joy to me.
I print at home with an Epson 2200 and a series of custom profiles; I really don't have room for a larger printer, though I'd really like to be able to print on 16" side output. The 2200 isn't designed to print neutral b/w images--which is my only major complaint other than the media size limitations and the relatively expensive ink/output ratio on the relatively rare occasions when I do a lot of printing--but I've been able to work around that by using a RIP.
I've had this printer for about 2 1/2 years; it replaced a used 2000P which I used for several years prior to that. I can't imagine going back to having prints produced commercially. It's not that it isn't viable, and there's certainly a learning curve involved in obtaining truly satisfactory output of your own, but I don't want to surrender full control over the printing process...though I would have to do that if/when I need to go larger than 12x18.
I've been using West MI Photo Works, a pro lab in Holland, MI for the last two years. I upload my files to them and can usually pick up the prints in a day or two, 3-4 days if they mail the prints to me. Their work is excellent and saves me a lot of hassle.
bigger than that I outsource to West Coast imaging ( mainly because I don't sell many prints over that size).
Epson Premium Luster paper / Moab Entrada Matte
Current correct printing profiles are a must. Check Epson foe new ones ( using the NEW Epson paper)... if you still have old paper you are ok.
JG
Posted by Chuck Beatty on May 24, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Hi Joel,
I print on an Epson R2400 at home. I use Epson Enhanced Matte right now, but will probably move to a higher quality paper when I finish this box. I print my cards on Moad Entrada Matte. I'm very pleased with the output I obtain. I agree with Jack that it's critical to have the proper profiles installed.
I've never had experience using outside vendors as I don't print larger than 11 x 14 (that's about the limit for my camera resolution (D70).
I've been printing on my Epson 4000 for about three years now. I generally like the images that I obtain with matte & lustre papers, but, as has been noted, the glossy prints have their problems with differential ink placement on the white portions, which yields the differential glossy/lustre funny finish on the glossy paper. If I'm doing art prints for myself or customers, to the limits of the printer, I prefer to go that route.
When I need larger prints with my panoramics (I've done up to 8' wide), or larger "normal" perspective prints (here, I've printed up to 4'x5'), I use a local pro lab: Burne PhotoImaging (www.burne.com). I get GREAT work out of them, in part because I know the owner & staff quite well. They will readily prepare test prints for me before I go final on some of these larger prints. They also mounting for me onto gatorboard when I request (in fact, some of the local framing shops use Burne when their customers request gatorboard).
For more of my production work, such as weddings or portraits, when I want a glossy, true photographic print or larger quantities and I don't want to hassle with the printing & handling, I've been using Mpix, Pictage (not any more), and have recently moved to EZ Prints (still evaluating).
Finally, I've used Canvas On Demand (www.CanvasOnDemand.com) for canvas prints, which really look awesome. I did a large print (~40x48) with them last winter/spring, and wasn't pleased with the output - the colors were off. I requested their printer profiles, but was told that they were proprietary. After modifying the input file colors, they kindly reprinted the image for me, which would have cost me another $250 or so. And, they do the stretching, which isn't a skill that I've pursued...
Dan, good point about the potential limitations of some inkjets with glossy/luster media. Inkjets in and of themselves are certainly not created equal. Current inksets seem to do better with glossy media (gloss optimizers, specific glossy black inks) than the previous generation. I still think Chromira prints are probably nicer if ultra high gloss is the goal. Since that isn't my preference its kind of a non factor for me, though my printer does quite well with gloss media (and the epson K3 set is probably even a bit better in that regard than my inkset).
Rob, I agree with you about the print being the ultimate statement of intention for the photographic artist. I find nothing more satisfying than a great print as well.
Robert - what do you scan with that you always print 16x20 or larger? Do you have everything "worthy" of print drum scanned? I just use a flatbed scanner at home and if I want a larger print, or have a dense/troublesome chrome, I have Danny drum scan it for me. Big large format prints are a lot of fun, but it hurts my wallet!
Jack and Chuck - I also print on Moab Entrada (natural 300 being my preference). I really like the paper overall, but I've noticed in certain light that there's some sort of glittery material in the coating that can look kind of strange if viewed from a non-ideal angle. That sort of bothers me, but in normal viewing circumstances, it's not a problem. I'll probably give Photo Rag 308 a try at some point as well. Guy Tal has been talking good about Photo Rag Pearl as well, so I may also order up a sample and see what that's all about.
Also, thanks for the outsourcing recommendations from those of you who use those services.
Joel, I always have my 4x5 images drum scanned. I just had one done by Danny recently, and the 400mb file is causing my poor pc to smoke. Once I get the image complete I'm sending it to Michael Gordon for printing.
I don't have a good scanner at all. I do have access to an Epson 4990 and it works pretty good, but if it's not by my desk when I feel like scanning it really doesn't do me much good to just have access. I've been torn with the decision on purchasing a good scanner, but still haven't decided.
I enjoy big prints from large format for sure, and as you mentioned they are heavy on the wallet. It's worth it if one has such an image they would like to see in large print
Discussion
11 repliesHow many people print at home? And who still prefers to outsource? What is your preference and why?
Personally, I print at home on a pigment inkjet printer (an HP B9180). I decided to go this route because I wasn't satisfied with the print quality that I was getting with chromira prints from digital labs. My inkjet is sharper, has a much better color gamut, can print on a wide variety of media (my preference being matte rag papers), and allows me to test print and make adjustments on the fly. The general tonalities are to my eye, significantly superior to my chromira prints that I had previously done. Also worth mentioning, is that the archival print life is much longer (my inkset is rated at 200 years before fading). All in all, I really love it.
That said, there are a few downsides. Most notable being the upfront cost that is required to get the printer in the first place. It took me some time just to save up for it. I'm also limited in terms of print size and I'd still have to outsource for larger sized prints. And, if there's a hardware problem, I personally have to deal with it.
Despite the negatives, I wouldn't go back. I'm finally getting the prints that I've always wanted and I'm really enjoying the ability to print at home with complete control over my final product.
Thoughts?
Major weaknesses: Poor results on shiny papers, such as the glossy and luster papers, especially with whites. Fortunately, I rarely use them, and then just for myself. Inability to print individual 4x6's which I have done locally instead (they are also cheaper by this route). The printer makes a horrible text printer, because of speed, switching between profiles and control panels, and having to switch out my normal papers. It does work for this, do get me wrong, but it just wasn't designed to print resumes. Replacement catridges cost a lot.
Major strengths: When I bought it 30 months ago, there really wasn't anything better on the market. Bigger, perhaps, but not better. It is still a great printer. Replacement catridges last forever. Well, maybe not forever, but a long, long time. Better color, control and shadow detail than what I was getting "professionally" done. Long print life. Fast. Ego gratification.
I am happy with the choice.
To me the art is in the print.
I've always been an artist, in many different media. The final physical hardcopy is what you display, though the web has changed that some. As an artist, or even a darkroom trained photographer, I'm not happy if I can't say that the image / print is mine from beginning to end and know that what I see is what I did, and can do it again, or change it as I wish.
I do thoroughly enjoy the control and instant enjoyment I receive from printing at home, and cost isn't a factor to me - especially with the price of gasoline. What I'm still trying to figure out is the type of paper to use. I'm still in the experiment phase of that side of printing, but otherwise it's a joy to me.
I've had this printer for about 2 1/2 years; it replaced a used 2000P which I used for several years prior to that. I can't imagine going back to having prints produced commercially. It's not that it isn't viable, and there's certainly a learning curve involved in obtaining truly satisfactory output of your own, but I don't want to surrender full control over the printing process...though I would have to do that if/when I need to go larger than 12x18.
bigger than that I outsource to West Coast imaging ( mainly because I don't sell many prints over that size).
Epson Premium Luster paper / Moab Entrada Matte
Current correct printing profiles are a must. Check Epson foe new ones ( using the NEW Epson paper)... if you still have old paper you are ok.
JG
I print on an Epson R2400 at home. I use Epson Enhanced Matte right now, but will probably move to a higher quality paper when I finish this box. I print my cards on Moad Entrada Matte. I'm very pleased with the output I obtain. I agree with Jack that it's critical to have the proper profiles installed.
I've never had experience using outside vendors as I don't print larger than 11 x 14 (that's about the limit for my camera resolution (D70).
I've been printing on my Epson 4000 for about three years now. I generally like the images that I obtain with matte & lustre papers, but, as has been noted, the glossy prints have their problems with differential ink placement on the white portions, which yields the differential glossy/lustre funny finish on the glossy paper. If I'm doing art prints for myself or customers, to the limits of the printer, I prefer to go that route.
When I need larger prints with my panoramics (I've done up to 8' wide), or larger "normal" perspective prints (here, I've printed up to 4'x5'), I use a local pro lab: Burne PhotoImaging (www.burne.com). I get GREAT work out of them, in part because I know the owner & staff quite well. They will readily prepare test prints for me before I go final on some of these larger prints. They also mounting for me onto gatorboard when I request (in fact, some of the local framing shops use Burne when their customers request gatorboard).
For more of my production work, such as weddings or portraits, when I want a glossy, true photographic print or larger quantities and I don't want to hassle with the printing & handling, I've been using Mpix, Pictage (not any more), and have recently moved to EZ Prints (still evaluating).
Finally, I've used Canvas On Demand (www.CanvasOnDemand.com) for canvas prints, which really look awesome. I did a large print (~40x48) with them last winter/spring, and wasn't pleased with the output - the colors were off. I requested their printer profiles, but was told that they were proprietary. After modifying the input file colors, they kindly reprinted the image for me, which would have cost me another $250 or so. And, they do the stretching, which isn't a skill that I've pursued...
Tim!
Dan, good point about the potential limitations of some inkjets with glossy/luster media. Inkjets in and of themselves are certainly not created equal. Current inksets seem to do better with glossy media (gloss optimizers, specific glossy black inks) than the previous generation. I still think Chromira prints are probably nicer if ultra high gloss is the goal. Since that isn't my preference its kind of a non factor for me, though my printer does quite well with gloss media (and the epson K3 set is probably even a bit better in that regard than my inkset).
Rob, I agree with you about the print being the ultimate statement of intention for the photographic artist. I find nothing more satisfying than a great print as well.
Robert - what do you scan with that you always print 16x20 or larger? Do you have everything "worthy" of print drum scanned? I just use a flatbed scanner at home and if I want a larger print, or have a dense/troublesome chrome, I have Danny drum scan it for me. Big large format prints are a lot of fun, but it hurts my wallet!
Jack and Chuck - I also print on Moab Entrada (natural 300 being my preference). I really like the paper overall, but I've noticed in certain light that there's some sort of glittery material in the coating that can look kind of strange if viewed from a non-ideal angle. That sort of bothers me, but in normal viewing circumstances, it's not a problem. I'll probably give Photo Rag 308 a try at some point as well. Guy Tal has been talking good about Photo Rag Pearl as well, so I may also order up a sample and see what that's all about.
Also, thanks for the outsourcing recommendations from those of you who use those services.
I don't have a good scanner at all. I do have access to an Epson 4990 and it works pretty good, but if it's not by my desk when I feel like scanning it really doesn't do me much good to just have access. I've been torn with the decision on purchasing a good scanner, but still haven't decided.
I enjoy big prints from large format for sure, and as you mentioned they are heavy on the wallet. It's worth it if one has such an image they would like to see in large print