First off, I have never done any photographic printing myself and I'd like to streamline my costs a bit by at least getting a printer that can print up to 12 x 18 in size. My initial budget for the printer, inks, and anything I would need is around $800.00 Quality is very important to me as is cost and ease of use. I would prefer to own my own printer as opposed to just printing at Costco because I'd like to experiment with using different types paper, as well as having more control over the final output.
If anyone could offer any recommendations I'd really appreciate it. I don't mind paying more for higher quality or for a printer that may initially cost more, but doesn't use as much $$$ in ink.
The only other consideration I have is space: I am very limited on space right now - so size is definitely a consideration as well.
Thanks so much for your time; I really appreciate it.
Michael
Posted by conrad Rowe on January 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Michael, I have used Canon & Epson printers for a long time. They are both good printers but I believe that Epson holds an edge over Canon. I use the 2880 right now and just love it. You can't go wrong with Epson. Just my 2 cents worth. Conrad
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 11, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Michael, it's just like which photo editor to use or which camera company to use, you can expect passionate "this is the best, it's what I use" answers flying in, lol! (EDIT: No reference to Conrad, I wrote that line before he replied). But there are tried-and-true and for your price range, have a look at the two most popular powerhouses in the $700 range:
Each have their strengths and weaknesses. The Epson is like Photoshop, has been around for years, a ton of people use it, there are tons of paper profiles out there as well as tutorials on how to get the best prints. Canon is quickly gaining ground though, and they have, arguably, a better print driver, more accurate when printing from Photoshop.
Both are pigment inks which is what you want for fine art and matte printing and B&W. Dye-based inks are on the cheaper models and are fine if you print high gloss.
Both have multiple black ink cartridges for truer B&W printing (Photo black, matte black and gray). The Canon has 10 cartridges where the Epson uses 8, so Canon could potentially print finer degradations of color, but in an inkjet print that may not be all that noticable. However, in my years of owning inkjets I've always had to waste a lot of ink keeping the Epson heads clean. I now have a Canon (older 9000) and that thing is a joy to maintain, so ink cost could be less with the Canon, but really, how much?
I could go on forever about pros and cons, but it's honestly like Ferrari vs Lamborghini, both are amazing machines. Here's where the choice lies, IMO, since all other features and print quality are so close: The Epson can print from roll paper so you can do panoramics (at an extra cost for the adapter), I don't think the Canon does that. The Canon has a removable print head, so if the print head goes after a lot of use, you can buy a new one and pop it in, whereas Epson insists on making the head as part of the assembly, so if it goes you have to pack up the printer and get it to them (if the 2880 is now dofferent someone please correct me). Anyway, to me that's the choice. I personally would be happy with either printer, the image quality from both are crazy good.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 11, 2011 at 1:02 PM
And like Conrad said, he feels the Epson "holds an edge", and really, it's just that, an edge... there isn't a huge hands-down gap, so don't worry that you'll make a potential bad choice. Being that the Canon rebates are over, that Epson is especially attractive because it's $100 cheaper. Oh, with the Canon, you have to have it a foot away from the wall because it prints 13x19 paper flat on a deck, and it runs back and forth through the printer, so since you mentioned space that's something to know. You can store it on a desk against the wall and just pull it forward to print (it has wheels in the back to make that easy, just lift the front and roll it towards you). I have no idea how the Epson works, maybe Conrad or whoever reads this can pipe in.
Thanks so much guys. Paul/Conrad - out of curiousity, approximately what is the average cost for a 12 x18 print including ink and paper?
Posted by David Bostedo on January 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM
...Both are pigment inks which is what you want for fine art and matte printing and B&W. Dye-based inks are on the cheaper models and are fine if you print high gloss.
Paul - As you own a 9000, I think you are doing dye-based inks a bit of a disservice. The main reason pigment printers are more expensive is that pigment inks last longer, are more sought after for "archival" prints, and thus a higher price can be charged. (They may be more expensive to manufacture, and because of how they sit on the paper, maybe the mechanisms are more complex too?)
The 9000 and 9500 from Canon (at least the Mk I models) were essentially identical in quality with the ink-set being the main difference. From what I've seen with my 9000 and from a few others' prints is that dye isn't just for glossy - it's good for anything, and in fact
-- It can often surpass pigment based inks in gamut
-- It doesn't show as much metamerism or bronzing as pigment
-- It doesn't clog like pigment
Really, if it weren't for the longevity thing, I don't think printers would use pigment inks at all. (Although I have seen some few and far between articles on people certain pigment/paper combos because of the way the ink sits on the paper. But I think these are less important.)
That being said, most estimates for modern dye inks put the longevity at something like 30-50 years if kept out of strong direct sunlight and that's long enough for me. (Pigment is something over 80 and can go much higher depending on storage. See this page for details on Epson 2880 print longevity)
In any case, the first thing I'd decide is pigment vs. ink. If you have customers that will care, get pigment - it's the standard because of the "archival" designation.
In addition to the printers above, HP makes B8850, although I'm not sure they've been active and are really trying to compete. There's also the Epson R1900, which is a bit below the 2880 in their line.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 11, 2011 at 1:54 PM
out of curiousity, approximately what is the average cost for a 12 x18 print including ink and paper?
While you're learning, about 50 bucks, lol! Oy, that's not one that I ever calculated, but there are those on here who have. There's isn't always a great savings (there CAN be once you have your workflow down and once you find great sales on ink and paper, lol), but to me the cost is worth having full control. I'm sorta weird, I take great joy in printing almost like a challenging art in itself. Trying all kinds of different papers on the same image is neat, but that does cost obviously. I don't mind, look at all the money we save not using film (ha, ever since digital came into my life I've sent 10x the amount of money on this craft!).
OK, I got a little off topic, sorry. Hunt around in the forums, I remember poeple here posting threads about printing costs. You can (should) also arm yourself with the best knowledge up front on how to obtain the best print, because then you will run that thing efficiently and that's where the savings is realized. Nothing costs more than throwing away ill-colored prints. By far the best two resources I've invested in to learn the process was this book by Tim Grey, and this video set by Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichman. Tim Grey's book is pushing 5 years old and it's still selling used for over 60% of the new price, which is amazing. The book is totally relevant and not outdated at all. And the video set is smething I've watched probably 4 times, it's 6 hours of complete instruction on every step of the way, including sharpening for print, etc, not just how to use profiles. Now I know how to approach printing efficiently because of these resources, and the only wasted prints are when I try new papers and don't like the outcome.
Enjoy!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 11, 2011 at 2:00 PM
As you own a 9000, I think you are doing dye-based inks a bit of a disservice. The main reason pigment printers are more expensive is that pigment inks last longer, are more sought after for "archival" prints, and thus a higher price can be charged.
LOL! I keep saying with every print that comes off that 9000, "well, it may not last until 2265 like pigment but it sure looks good to me!"
Seriously, I'm glad you chimed in, I think I got passively indoctrinated that dye inks were yesterday's news.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 11, 2011 at 8:54 PM
Paul - I think one of the issues is that early dye ink printers weren't good at all for longevity. I have no direct experience, but I've heard stories of dye prints on people's walls that noticeably changed after only a couple of years with the old inks. Some dye inks are still not looking so great in that regard. But the higher end Epson and Canon dyes are supposed to be much much better. In fact I just found this extensive page from Canon on the longevity of their newest dye inks :
They are correct that their numbers are only valid with those papers, but given the way dye works most other paper brands would probably be about the same.
Posted by John Reed on January 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM
I've had nothing but Epson pigment based printers now for over 8 years and have never looked back regarding quality or how the prints look to my eye. I've been tempted to try others but I'm in the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp and I have no complaints. I may be missing some things but for my needs, things are going AOK. Differences between dye and pigment I'm sure are real but I've witnessed too many arguments that are just another of those Ford/Chevy Canon/Nikon things.
Maybe I'm also missing the boat on cost per page but I've never found anything definitive on comparing various brands/models. Just too many variables for valid comparisons and with mulitple tanks that will empty at varying rates depending on the colors in the prints made, I've not attempted to calculate it myself. Probably very poor business practice on my part, but life is short so I've chosen to make that one less thing to worry about.
One other thing, albeit minor, to consider is this. To some folks (i.e. buyers) inkjet prints are not viewed as the same high quality nor as archival as "real" photographs. So to be able to say that a print is "archival", one is pushed to a pigment ink print. Probably debatable, maybe just downright wrong, and a shame regardless, but there it is.
JR
Posted by David Bostedo on January 12, 2011 at 12:56 PM
So to be able to say that a print is "archival", one is pushed to a pigment ink print.
Yep ... and it's not all that debatable, if you want prints that have the same lifetime as previous generation processes. I think the 20 year minimum I get with my dye inks is great, but I also wouldn't care if the thing faded 10 years from now. People who buy hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of art prints certainly would care!
Wow. Thanks a lot guys. I'll check out that book and video Paul. I'll have to do some reserach on pigment vs dye based inks. I really don't know anything about them, except what I've read on here.
Do you think the quality you can get from a 12 x 18 with one those the aformentioned printers is better than what you can get at Costco?
Posted by David Bostedo on January 14, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Michael - At Costco, everything up to 12x18 uses a Noritsu photo printer. It's a traditional style printer and is good, but won't have quite as much gamut as a higher end inkjet and may be a little softer. Above 12x18, they use Epson 7880's, which are high end Epson inkjet pigment printers. They are about as good as you can get. Costco also provides ICC profiles for soft-proofing for either.
I've heard that depending on the Costco, some are better for color matching than others. So it's possible that with more difficult prints (higher dynamic range or colors on the edges or beyond the gamut range) results will vary. I don't have any personal experience with Costco.
The main advantage of printing at home is that amount of control you have and the various papers and image processing you can easily try out. I would not really recommend someone print at home to save money. I think I could probably get the prints I want cheaper using the online sites (or someplace like Costco) but it wouldn't be as much fun or offer as much control.
Example : My printer was $400, and I've probably completely replaced the inks about twice (maybe $200 in ink). I've made probably 40 large prints that were final (i.e. not messed up or test prints). I've also made a bunch of smaller prints for people and a lot of experimentation and screwing up . Factoring all that, I'd guess each final print so far has cost about $15. Of course that will come down a bit over time since I'm factoring in the printer cost - but I got a fairly cheap printer.
A lot of pro's build up a relationship with a local or online lab so that they know exactly what to do and take all the hassle out of it. This works best if you're getting a lot of prints made of course.
Thanks David. I've been using a local printer here in Scottsdale and have given them a ton of business.They use a Light Jet printer and offer Fuji Crystal Archive paper on Matte, Luster, Glossy, Metallic, and Fuji Flex. I've tried them all and I like Fuji Flex the best. Of course, it is the most expensive. They charge about 20 - 25% more for the first print than for additionals.
However, if I get five copies of one print and then order five more of the same print a month later, they still charge me that extra on the first one. I've talked to them about waving that fee, but they are not very flexible. Currently, I am selling 75% of my prints on the street at art festivals and I starting to wonder how much value the extra quality really adds from a customer's point of view.
The going rate at art festivals in Arizona for a 12 x 18 matted print is about $80. I am not sure most customers know the difference between a light jet print on high end paper and the same print done from Costco. Regardless, give the current economic conditions, it is even feasible to try to charge more than the five or six others selling landscape even if their quality isn't quite as good.
Anyways, my thought is I'd like to have a lot more control over the whole process and I realize if I got a super huge order or was very busy my turnaround time would be a lot longer.
Thanks so much for your input. It is very helpful.
Michael
Posted by David Bostedo on January 14, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Michael - The Noritsu prints from Costco should be pretty similar to the Lightjet prints I think. I believe they use a similar kind of paper, but I'm not positive.
I don't sell prints myself, so I can't really comment on that. What I can say is that in general, photographers are much tougher on their prints and images than the general public is. That said, there is a large range of buyers that I've seen - most will not notice the difference between types of prints or even overall quality, and buy more on the impact of the image or maybe even the colors in the print. A smaller number will care about the image and at least care about general print quality - blocked shadows, blown out whites, etc., a pretty small number will care what type of paper or printer, and of these most will want pigment inks for longevity. And as you move through each group, the knowledge and pickiness, and price they're willing to pay all go up. But that's all observation and reading from me - as I said, I haven't tried to sell anything myself.
Hopefully someone with more sales experience can contribute their take on that.
Discussion
14 repliesIf anyone could offer any recommendations I'd really appreciate it. I don't mind paying more for higher quality or for a printer that may initially cost more, but doesn't use as much $$$ in ink.
The only other consideration I have is space: I am very limited on space right now - so size is definitely a consideration as well.
Thanks so much for your time; I really appreciate it.
Michael
Epson 2880, $689
Canon PixmaPro 9500 MKII, $765
Each have their strengths and weaknesses. The Epson is like Photoshop, has been around for years, a ton of people use it, there are tons of paper profiles out there as well as tutorials on how to get the best prints. Canon is quickly gaining ground though, and they have, arguably, a better print driver, more accurate when printing from Photoshop.
Both are pigment inks which is what you want for fine art and matte printing and B&W. Dye-based inks are on the cheaper models and are fine if you print high gloss.
Both have multiple black ink cartridges for truer B&W printing (Photo black, matte black and gray). The Canon has 10 cartridges where the Epson uses 8, so Canon could potentially print finer degradations of color, but in an inkjet print that may not be all that noticable. However, in my years of owning inkjets I've always had to waste a lot of ink keeping the Epson heads clean. I now have a Canon (older 9000) and that thing is a joy to maintain, so ink cost could be less with the Canon, but really, how much?
I could go on forever about pros and cons, but it's honestly like Ferrari vs Lamborghini, both are amazing machines. Here's where the choice lies, IMO, since all other features and print quality are so close: The Epson can print from roll paper so you can do panoramics (at an extra cost for the adapter), I don't think the Canon does that. The Canon has a removable print head, so if the print head goes after a lot of use, you can buy a new one and pop it in, whereas Epson insists on making the head as part of the assembly, so if it goes you have to pack up the printer and get it to them (if the 2880 is now dofferent someone please correct me). Anyway, to me that's the choice. I personally would be happy with either printer, the image quality from both are crazy good.
Paul - As you own a 9000, I think you are doing dye-based inks a bit of a disservice. The main reason pigment printers are more expensive is that pigment inks last longer, are more sought after for "archival" prints, and thus a higher price can be charged. (They may be more expensive to manufacture, and because of how they sit on the paper, maybe the mechanisms are more complex too?)
The 9000 and 9500 from Canon (at least the Mk I models) were essentially identical in quality with the ink-set being the main difference. From what I've seen with my 9000 and from a few others' prints is that dye isn't just for glossy - it's good for anything, and in fact
-- It can often surpass pigment based inks in gamut
-- It doesn't show as much metamerism or bronzing as pigment
-- It doesn't clog like pigment
Really, if it weren't for the longevity thing, I don't think printers would use pigment inks at all. (Although I have seen some few and far between articles on people certain pigment/paper combos because of the way the ink sits on the paper. But I think these are less important.)
That being said, most estimates for modern dye inks put the longevity at something like 30-50 years if kept out of strong direct sunlight and that's long enough for me. (Pigment is something over 80 and can go much higher depending on storage. See this page for details on Epson 2880 print longevity)
-------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, the first thing I'd decide is pigment vs. ink. If you have customers that will care, get pigment - it's the standard because of the "archival" designation.
In addition to the printers above, HP makes B8850, although I'm not sure they've been active and are really trying to compete. There's also the Epson R1900, which is a bit below the 2880 in their line.
Check out http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews.
While you're learning, about 50 bucks, lol! Oy, that's not one that I ever calculated, but there are those on here who have. There's isn't always a great savings (there CAN be once you have your workflow down and once you find great sales on ink and paper, lol), but to me the cost is worth having full control. I'm sorta weird, I take great joy in printing almost like a challenging art in itself. Trying all kinds of different papers on the same image is neat, but that does cost obviously. I don't mind, look at all the money we save not using film (ha, ever since digital came into my life I've sent 10x the amount of money on this craft!).
OK, I got a little off topic, sorry. Hunt around in the forums, I remember poeple here posting threads about printing costs. You can (should) also arm yourself with the best knowledge up front on how to obtain the best print, because then you will run that thing efficiently and that's where the savings is realized. Nothing costs more than throwing away ill-colored prints. By far the best two resources I've invested in to learn the process was this book by Tim Grey, and this video set by Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichman. Tim Grey's book is pushing 5 years old and it's still selling used for over 60% of the new price, which is amazing. The book is totally relevant and not outdated at all. And the video set is smething I've watched probably 4 times, it's 6 hours of complete instruction on every step of the way, including sharpening for print, etc, not just how to use profiles. Now I know how to approach printing efficiently because of these resources, and the only wasted prints are when I try new papers and don't like the outcome.
Enjoy!
LOL! I keep saying with every print that comes off that 9000, "well, it may not last until 2265 like pigment but it sure looks good to me!"
Seriously, I'm glad you chimed in, I think I got passively indoctrinated that dye inks were yesterday's news.
http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/html/Chromalife100Plus/index.html
They are correct that their numbers are only valid with those papers, but given the way dye works most other paper brands would probably be about the same.
Maybe I'm also missing the boat on cost per page but I've never found anything definitive on comparing various brands/models. Just too many variables for valid comparisons and with mulitple tanks that will empty at varying rates depending on the colors in the prints made, I've not attempted to calculate it myself. Probably very poor business practice on my part, but life is short so I've chosen to make that one less thing to worry about.
One other thing, albeit minor, to consider is this. To some folks (i.e. buyers) inkjet prints are not viewed as the same high quality nor as archival as "real" photographs. So to be able to say that a print is "archival", one is pushed to a pigment ink print. Probably debatable, maybe just downright wrong, and a shame regardless, but there it is.
JR
Yep ... and it's not all that debatable, if you want prints that have the same lifetime as previous generation processes. I think the 20 year minimum I get with my dye inks is great, but I also wouldn't care if the thing faded 10 years from now. People who buy hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of art prints certainly would care!
Do you think the quality you can get from a 12 x 18 with one those the aformentioned printers is better than what you can get at Costco?
I've heard that depending on the Costco, some are better for color matching than others. So it's possible that with more difficult prints (higher dynamic range or colors on the edges or beyond the gamut range) results will vary. I don't have any personal experience with Costco.
The main advantage of printing at home is that amount of control you have and the various papers and image processing you can easily try out. I would not really recommend someone print at home to save money. I think I could probably get the prints I want cheaper using the online sites (or someplace like Costco) but it wouldn't be as much fun or offer as much control.
Example : My printer was $400, and I've probably completely replaced the inks about twice (maybe $200 in ink). I've made probably 40 large prints that were final (i.e. not messed up or test prints). I've also made a bunch of smaller prints for people and a lot of experimentation and screwing up
A lot of pro's build up a relationship with a local or online lab so that they know exactly what to do and take all the hassle out of it. This works best if you're getting a lot of prints made of course.
However, if I get five copies of one print and then order five more of the same print a month later, they still charge me that extra on the first one. I've talked to them about waving that fee, but they are not very flexible. Currently, I am selling 75% of my prints on the street at art festivals and I starting to wonder how much value the extra quality really adds from a customer's point of view.
The going rate at art festivals in Arizona for a 12 x 18 matted print is about $80. I am not sure most customers know the difference between a light jet print on high end paper and the same print done from Costco. Regardless, give the current economic conditions, it is even feasible to try to charge more than the five or six others selling landscape even if their quality isn't quite as good.
Anyways, my thought is I'd like to have a lot more control over the whole process and I realize if I got a super huge order or was very busy my turnaround time would be a lot longer.
Thanks so much for your input. It is very helpful.
Michael
I don't sell prints myself, so I can't really comment on that. What I can say is that in general, photographers are much tougher on their prints and images than the general public is. That said, there is a large range of buyers that I've seen - most will not notice the difference between types of prints or even overall quality, and buy more on the impact of the image or maybe even the colors in the print. A smaller number will care about the image and at least care about general print quality - blocked shadows, blown out whites, etc., a pretty small number will care what type of paper or printer, and of these most will want pigment inks for longevity. And as you move through each group, the knowledge and pickiness, and price they're willing to pay all go up. But that's all observation and reading from me - as I said, I haven't tried to sell anything myself.
Hopefully someone with more sales experience can contribute their take on that.