Which photoprinter?

[Grimble Gromble]

Perhaps I can kick this one off! I'm looking for a photoprinter. There don't seem to many good ones about. Canon, Epson and Hewlett Packard just about covers it, I believe. I've always used HP printers in the past, and scanners, but always seem to run into awful problems getting everything to work properly with their software and, after the last farago, finally decided it wasn't worth the aggravation any more. Which leaves Canon and Epson.

The printers aren't horrendously expensive, but that's no doubt down to the cost of ink which is. And I never seem to see any figures for how much it's going to cost to cover a sheet with ink - which a photo is going to do. I take it that's a measure of just how expensive ink is! Plus their are issues of longevity, number of colours, alternative ink systems ...

Then there's the question of how good the results are. I currently have a very good quality business printer, but banding is still visible - never had a printer where it wasn't (not even the old dot matrix). What's special about photoprinters that could eliminate that? And do they?

Then there is the question of paper (I gather the Epson R2400 supplies a roll feed which would be good for panoramas, but is there any decent paper for it?). I'm not even going to mention the paper/ink interaction, or calibration (oops!).

So give! What are you all using? Does it match up to 'old' photos? Would I be better off with a print service (a recent review claimed this was the cheapest method - not to mention accountable - and it's not as though I have anything 'erotic' I'd like to print)? Are any of you disappointed with what you have?

[jtgraphics]

Ok my opinion on printers, these days it's cheaper to get prints done at a local photo processor to tell you the truth, especially if its for personal use.
With that said printer selection depends on what you are looking for.
If its strictly for photos get a dye sublimation printer.
If you plan on printing text use a laser toner is much cheaper that ink!.
Combo of text and photo inkjet down side media and ink costs.

My experience I own the following printers which I use some more than others and some not at all anymore.

HP laser 1200 for text. (In use)
HiTi PS 630 Thermal Printer for 4x6 prints archival quality or proofs when I need prints fast. (In use)
KODAK PROFESSIONAL 8660 Thermal Printer 8x10's (Retired)
Epson 1280 small color proofs not for archival prints short term hanging. (Retired)
Epson 9600 large format printer for posters. Archival prints for short term display and large proofs for commercial printing (In use)
All other prints are sent out to photo processor its just more cost effective unless I need a print A.S.A.P. but even then a photo processor takes only a few hours most times.
So you need to decide on which format fits your needs and if its going to be cost effective for you.

[Grimble Gromble]

Thanks for the input. If I were to get a printer (and your comments reinforce the idea that it may be better not to) it would be specifically for photo printing. Format would depend on the picture I'm trying to print - I try my hand at just about everything - but I suspect A3 would provide real impact if the subject is right. I guess that would boil down to how much extra it would cost compared to A4.

Dye sublimation is not a technology with which I'm well acquainted, but a quick search would suggest that Canon and Sony 'thermal' printers are the place to look though you've used a Kodak. How would you characterise the results you get? Are they expensive to run?

Grim

[Larry N. Bolch]

First about cost. My standard run-of-the-mill inkjet print is the equivalent to the best silver/dye prints in my professional portfolio. Each of those probably took a day or two to print and a box of paper and the chemistry to process it. With the digital darkroom, I nail it first print. If paper and ink were ten times as expensive as now, it would still be cheap in comparison to the fume-room. Time is also money, and I can have a perfect print printing in a fraction of the time it took for exposing and processing a test-strip in the lab.

Quote from a photography teacher: "The better printer you become, the more paper you throw away!"

When you took your film to the drug-store, you got back prints of everything - most of which were only viewed once. With the digital darkroom, you choose only the ones you are actually going to live with and show. Most of my work is viewed on the screen - only the exceptional image gets printed.

If you farm out your printing, unless you are working with a pro-level company, you get the lowest common denominator print that meets the company's production demands. It gets printed by an overstressed tech who is trying to get it all done before the shift ends. If you do work with a company that colour manages their process, you can get the profiles from them and do the processing with some assurance that what you see on the screen will be what you see on the print. However, you probably save very little money by doing this.

Doing the print yourself liberates you from the bored operator. The print you show is 100% your own from concept, through exposure, through processing to presentation. It is something that you can show with pride, rather than passing off someone else's work as your own.

The quality of the print has less to do with the printer than the person doing the printing. There is the learning curve to consider and if it is worth it. Get hired as an apprentice printer in a photo lab and within a couple of years you should be expert. The fume-room gives you only exposure and colour balance, dodging and burning. In the digital darkroom, that is barely the beginning, you have control over contrast, gamma and curves for each colour channel, saturation, sharpening, and the incredible things that can be done with layers. Control of colour balance area by area. The learning is never done, but the satisfaction increases with every image processed.

Given a great image, any of the big three printer maker's photo printers will produce a superb print. That has been true for several years. The difference now is in features. Do you need a print that will last for centuries? Do you need a very fast printer for event work? What is the maximum size you will print, and do you need to print on roll paper? Do you need to print on CDs and DVDs. Do you want user replaceable print heads? Do you want built-in calibration? Will you be printing on extra-thick media? Do you want a wide selection of papers with accurate colour management profiles? Do you want optimum printing on glossy paper, or on matte? Do you need an LCD monitor built in? Do you need a printer that will work on a network - Ethernet or wireless WiFi? Will you always be using Photoshop, or will you need to print from the camera card or the camera itself? Rank your answers to these, and you will come up with a short list of possible printers.

A practical note. Don't buy anything photography related during the month of September. This is the year of Photokina, opening September 26. Equipment announcements have already started, but this is the time when everything new is announced. However, if you find that the above questions point at a printer that is about to be replaced in the manufacturer's line, you can be on the look out for it at clearance prices.

[Grimble Gromble]

Thanks, Larry. For myself, I was happy to leave the chemicals behind. I waited a long time for digital to become affordable. So far I've been happy to look at my pictures on screen (uncalibrated). Any prints I do (only occassional) would be for other people. But as you point out, there's almost as much again to learn about printing, apparently endless combinations of options which may or may not be useful, and I just don't have any confidence that photo printers can do a really good job - nobody I know shows any of their pictures, except a friend who, like me, has them up on a screen.

On your practical note, I won't be buying anything until I've got my 70-200 lens! So, a little while yet. Cheers,
Grim

[abuyck]

Hi, I am currently using a canon i960 printer for photos only. I can't print bigger than 8.5x11, but usually if I need something bigger I have a local printer do it. My favorite paper has been ilford smooth pearl, but with the dye inks in my current printer, there is a problem with fading. If you are making a print to sell to someone, I suggest getting a pigment ink system. Epson is probably the company with the most options right now, but canon will be introducing some models very soon...hope this helps..good luck

[Grimble Gromble]

All responses are helpful (so far).

No intention of selling but wouldn't want a picture that fades anyway. If dye inks fade, would that have implications for the dye sublimation printers mentioned earlier?

Does anyone here have a rough idea of how much it costs to print an A4 or 8.5×11 photo using a printer? Do they waste much ink (my non-photo printer chugs away for a couple of minutes clearing its throat every time I turn it on!)?
Thanks,
Grim

[Larry N. Bolch]

Worth pointing out that all colour prints from the fume-room, one-hour lab, or pro custom lab are all dye prints. So are all colour negatives and slides you shot in the camera. Only pigment inkjet prints and Cibachromes promise longevity, and pigment-based inkjets are by far the most archival of colour media at the moment. Kodacolour negatives will be gone long before inkjet prints made from them.

Realize too that ALL colour fades. The great and not so great art galleries around the world keep armies of people who do nothing but restore fading paintings full time. Millions of dollars. pounds, guilders, etc. are spent on restoration. Photographic prints that are fading are perhaps the very easiest to restore. My first colour prints are now in dreadful condition, but have all been restored digitally.

Using K3 inks and good paper, noticeable fading from Epson's fine art printers should not be visible for at least a century with colour prints and three centuries with B&W. Since digital resoration is so easy now, it will only become easier in the future according to Gordon Moore's Law pushed at bit beyond what Gordie intended. If a customer comes beating on your door two denturies from now, pat him on his soft little head and give him a fresh new print a few seconds later. It is simply no issue.

The cost of the print can vary widely depending on the paper it is printed on and the content of the picture. A high-key portrait uses very little ink, while a dark rich portrait against a dark background drinks the ink. It is a question that can be answered only by printing the same negative over and over until the ink runs out and then calculating. It is a question with no answer possible. The difference between the cost of a dark print and a light print is a matter of night and day.

However at the very worst, it is far less than making your own perfect fume-room colour print. My worst run-of-the-mill digital print is on par with the best in my professional portfolio from film. However, the inkjet print is perfect the first time. In the colour lab, a portfolio print could take a day or two and consume a whole box of 11x14 paper and the expensive chemistry to process it. In comparison, digital printing is so cheap that it is not even a consideration. Not only are materials incredibly cheap, but I value my time. I may spend half-an-hour on a digital print and 16 to 20 hours on a fume-room print.

The ink used in clearing the throat each time, is a fraction of what it would cost to have the heads changed when they block. If you could save that ink, you would greatly regret it. The cost and labour of a new set of print-heads nearly equals that of a new printer. Cartridges are filled at the factory with this in mind. You get the full number of prints, even though it does the head cleaning routine. NO INK IS WASTED. It is saving you a huge amount of money in replacing heads. NO INK IS WASTED.

I am sure if everyone protested, that the companies would be glad to sell you new heads every few weeks for a couple hundred dollars, rather than supply a buck or two of head cleaning ink for free. I repeat NO INK IS WASTED. It is being used to save you from the huge cost of repairs.

So coming from the world of film and the fume-room, I have never had it so good. An inkjet print is as good as the best I have ever received from a big-buck pro-lab, and costs perhaps 5% as much. If you are REALLY cheap, you can still see the equivalent of an 11x14 enlargement on a standard 19" monitor. Furthernore, you only print that which will actually be viewed. When you have film developed and printed, all the failures and insurance shots are printed as well - and you pay for those. Be happy that you live in the digital age. Cost of printing is simply a non-issue.

[jtgraphics]

I'd agree with Larry that inkjets look just as good as silver/dye and Thermal.
Most here are not interested in film and chemicals but are looking for a cost effective way to get some prints on the wall. Inkjets are easy but not all that cost effective for personal use but it is the choice if your looking for a printer that is capable of a wide range of sizes.

Dye Sub Thermal printers are fast provide high-quality prints. You get water fast prints that are light fade resistant, fingerprint resistant, and re-transfer protective.
Price per print is accurate when you buy media (Paper and Color Ribbon) for say 100 prints that's what you get!

Color accuracy requires a little work on your part depending on just how well you want the screen to match your output some people are more picky than others that's a personal decision on your part.
For me it is a large part of some of my work because I so some artwork for commercial printing (not photo processors) and color accuracy needs to match all the way up to the final print from the press.
I use an Xrite color management system and RIP for this which is calibrated to specific presses using an AGFA Galileo CTP.

The price of a print can vary greatly on an inkjet depending on coverage so a price per is imposable to predict
KODAK PROFESSIONAL 8660 Thermal Printer 8x10 @ $3.60 per print. By the way it also prints 5 x 7 inches; A4; 8.5 X 11, 12, and 14 inches.
HiTi 4x6 @ $.38
Inkjet typical range $2.10 - $5.00 @ 8.5x11 price varies on media, ink and coverage could even be higher into the $10.00 range with certain media.
Prints from a photo lad range from $.11+ for 4x7 and 5x7 and $1.80+ for 8x10's. if you setup for them you'll get great prints that will work I'm sure for you to display with out all the hassle and costs that go along with it unless prints from your own system are something that is a must for you.

Any way my thoughts for you and cost and different printing systems.
I also don't like to tell people that inkjet print last for any certain time frame even with pigment inks that is still to be seen in the real world since those tests are done in a lab, real world exposure can vary greatly as its life will also.
We have all heard that story with CD and DVD media when it first came out how the story has changed over the last few years.
The traditional photos well we know the real story so for me if its going to be sold or displayed for a long term I still pick traditional silver prints, I know what I can expect from it. I'd hate to sell something that will fade in even 10+ years when the person expects much more.

[Grimble Gromble]

I'd just like to express my thanks to Larry and jtgraphics for two very comprehensive answers. It would appear from your comments that the things we're led to believe are critical in chosing a printer are actually fairly minor fare - most any printer will do a good job at a respectable price. I've clearly been thinking too much and trying to anticipate every possible thing that can be tweaked. It is with great relief that I shall now do what you suggested in the first place and decide which features I feel I can't live without, see what's out there that can satisfy the list, and then make a decision whether to go for that or the local supermarket. Very many thanks!
Grimble.

[Larry N. Bolch]

While my big printer was being reconditioned, I bought the cheapest Epson Photo Stylus made at that point - an R200. It is a dye-based printer, so no longevity in centuries (me neither), and produces superb prints on the highest quality setting.

Printers simply print what you hand them. If you are lacking in shooting and processing skills, they will not improve the results for you one bit. Tell them to print a badly exposed and poorly processed image - and they will deliver it exactly in that form. Skill is far more important than the choice of specific printer in getting great results.

Yes, any of the big three inkjet printer makers sell printers that will do excellent prints. Comparing features is important - it can make a printer much more pleasant to use and best fulfill your needs if you take the time to find the best combination for yourself.

If you don't really know your needs, buy one at the bottom of the price list and use it as a tool for learning. When skills as well as understanding are developed, it can be passed on to someone else and replaced by something more suited to your needs. Consider its cost - and the cost of consumables - as your tuition. Money well spent.

[Bob Martin]

ZUXIYB1Look at the new HP B9180 printer - 13 x 19 inch prints using pigment inks. HP has solved the problem relative to the print drivers and they work great with Photoshop. This printer was just available in September, so it is in short supply and not very many reviews available yet. If you want something for larger prints HP also announced the Z2100 and Z3100 printer - 24 inch and 44 inch printers using pigment inks.