I've watched YouTube videos of printer profiling. It ilooks straightforward but very time consuming to generate the profile. Running the software to generate the test print then running the scanning equipment over the test print to get the profile.
Calling those who print
- Thread starter Doomrider74
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
DR provided a good balance between home prints and sending prints out. I'll add to that.
I concluded that for 4x6 prints, it would have to be something very special to need the incremental quality of a high end printer. Sending those prints out for "okay" quality is usually just fine. For example, when I send images through Shutterfly, they have automated exposure and color adjustments. 75-80% of their prints are excellent, but 20-25% are incorrectly exposed or have other adjustments applied automatically. I could tell them not make adjustments, but then I run into potential issues with profiling and their equipment calibration. Given the price, I simply accept their errors as a cost of getting cheap prints. If I use MPix though Zenfolio (my website) I get a higher quality small print at a modestly higher cost. Shipping costs can add up, but it's okay if I add small prints to an order. MPix does a much better job with color correction, and images that are not adjusted are relatively accurate. I find MPix is good enough for client work - especially with the related integration and fulfillment. Looking at a 5x7 print - I find the same to be true as small prints but will more likely consider Mpix and the higher quality. At 8x10 and larger - I prefer MPix to Shutterfly.
I consider 8x10 prints to be the line where the time and effort to print on my own printer makes a difference. I don't normally print anything smaller for personal or client use. With my own printer there is more time required for setup, and I often make adjustments resulting in 2-3 prints as test prints before I am satisfied. I may look at an element of an image and decide to adjust my editing and make adjustments. Or I may see a dust spot or highlight that needs to be corrected.
The other big advantage of personal printing is you can manipulate a wide range of papers to optimize the image. I have images that are printed large on textured paper to give the impression of a watercolor, and others that are printed on metallic, baryta, or velvet textures. My standard paper is Epson Premium Luster, but that represents just about half of the images I print. Some papers have a very different feel in your hand - like rag or fiber papers.
When I am testing a paper, I buy a 25 sheet pack of 8.5 x 11 inch paper. I found a couple of sample sheets is not enough for a good test. All the papers from most companies are good for the right use and image - that's not the question. It's how they work for the prints and images I make. 25 sheet packs give me a really good sense of the paper, how it handles, and where I should use it. I also have found that out of a sample pack, only 3-4 papers are legitimate test candidates for me at that time, so I end up with 75% of the sheets being wasted.
What kind of volume are you expecting for each size? Smaller printers are relatively inexpensive, but ink costs can really add up. I have a Canon Pixma Pro that produces nice every day prints, but ink cartridges are small so even with infrequent use, it's $110 for ink every 9 months. Because the ink is only sold through ink sets, you end up discarding half thee cartridges when they are 75% full. It never clogs and produces nice prints - but is not a printer I would recommend. I'd want to be able to replace individual ink cartridges - and they generally will cost $50 each or more for bigger cartridges and more ink.
Many experts suggest leaving a border to title, data, and/or sign your print. Some print the title on the border and leave room for the signature. That's the case for leaving a border. The signature and title would be on the original print and can be duplicated on the mat, shown with a wider mat opening, or covered by the mat - it's a matter of preference. I apply a sticker that is a mailing address label on a clear background that goes on the back of the print over the border.
I like Epson Premium Luster paper for use on Epson Printers. The stock profiles are accurate and it eliminates a lot of variables. The paper has a nice weight to it and is readily available. It's also relatively inexpensive. If you want a Fine Art paper, the sky is the limit. Keep in mind
Borderless prints without trimming means you have ink being sprayed somewhere in your printer. Over time, it does accumulate and there is no good way to remove it. I prefer printing multiple images on a sheet and then cutting them apart as needed. If you are conscious about layouts, it's very quick and cost effective.
If you go the route of a lever cutter, get a good one. I have a Swingline Ingento 18x18 lever cutter on a big, heavy wood base. The blade is a metal self sharpening arm that extends the length of the cutter. It's a paper cutter - only for photography and art papers. It's pricey but gets a lot of use.
@DRwyoming
@bleirer
@EricBowles
Thank you all for the above info.
Very informative.
I’m still in shock, WHCC say they print Adobe 1998! I always send it to them with that color profile. You’re saying that is not the case, and they color convert it?
Another mystery got an answer here. My wife complains WHCC photo prints have a slight crop on ALL sides. I never knew why.
The ready 4x6 photo paper sold by B&H, would over spray, or leave a slight border, or the 4x6 papers are a bit bigger in size and need to be cropped?
One major lesson I’m learning now, A high quality precision cutter, is a must for full bleed.
Like I have a Spyder to calibrate the BenQ’s, I will need another to calibrate the printer and build a profile.
Then comes the printer its self.
I can’t see my self trashing half full ink’s because one got low. Which eliminates the Canon printer. Which leaves me with the choice of the Epson P700 or P900.
They have good quality lusture paper that plays nicely with the printer, which is a plus.
Regarding fine art paper, the sky is the limit, would you mind collaborating?
Thank you all!
—
As per the information above, the answer on B&H isn’t correct
@bleirer
@EricBowles
Thank you all for the above info.
Very informative.
I’m still in shock, WHCC say they print Adobe 1998! I always send it to them with that color profile. You’re saying that is not the case, and they color convert it?
Another mystery got an answer here. My wife complains WHCC photo prints have a slight crop on ALL sides. I never knew why.
The ready 4x6 photo paper sold by B&H, would over spray, or leave a slight border, or the 4x6 papers are a bit bigger in size and need to be cropped?
One major lesson I’m learning now, A high quality precision cutter, is a must for full bleed.
Like I have a Spyder to calibrate the BenQ’s, I will need another to calibrate the printer and build a profile.
Then comes the printer its self.
I can’t see my self trashing half full ink’s because one got low. Which eliminates the Canon printer. Which leaves me with the choice of the Epson P700 or P900.
They have good quality lusture paper that plays nicely with the printer, which is a plus.
Regarding fine art paper, the sky is the limit, would you mind collaborating?
Thank you all!
—
As per the information above, the answer on B&H isn’t correct
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Joel,
You don't necessarily need to build your own profiles. Some paper companies provide profiles for their papers for many printers. That's one of the reasons I like Red River Paper products; they do. And their customer service has been very good so far, for me.
As far as any printer is concerned, I would avoid printing via wireless connections, and opt for a physical connection between the computer and printer. Many online resources reccommend to do this. I echo their advice, and add that I've made one bad print caused by a wireless connection issues.
As far as what your printer purchase will be, look at the cost, per volume, of your printer's ink. One of the factors that made me feel better about purchasing the P900 was that the ink costs should be lower than with the P700. It certainly is a lot less expensive than the inks I used with my Epson Artisan 1430.
Here is a link to a useful ink cost comparison page: Red Rivers Printer Ink Cost Comparison
@DRwyoming
Quote:
Realistically there aren't any print processes out there that support the full Adobe RGB 1998 color gamut. Even commercial CMYK offset printing or high end inkjet processes have some pretty big restrictions compared to Adobe RGB 1998.
Quote:
Realistically there aren't any print processes out there that support the full Adobe RGB 1998 color gamut. Even commercial CMYK offset printing or high end inkjet processes have some pretty big restrictions compared to Adobe RGB 1998.
I think that's where the print house's own profiling comes in. They would map your Adobe RGB 1998 to the gamut of the printer.
BlackRockArt
Well-known member
Joel, the EPSON P900 has very good network capability, for client's photos, I always print via LAN Cat6.
Oliver
Oliver
Steve Cooke
New member
I home print on the Canon ProGRAF 300 A3+ printer for display in my portfolio books. Great prints every time. A 10 ink system is quite expensive but worth the cost to me to get print exactly how I want them and WHEN I want them.
Good morning.
“When” What are emphasizing?
For about $900 whats the reason you chose it over the epson? which is cheaper to replace ink
Thanks
I’m would use USB, or a small wired network switch to manage 2 printers. I still need an office printer..
jstefely
Member
I used to make my own prints in a dark room, now print on a Canon PRO-1000 mainly because I like the process and the control. This might be worth watching.....
as far as " Then comes the printer its self. I can’t see my self trashing half full ink’s because one got low. Which eliminates the Canon printer." That is certainly not true on the Canon Pro-1000, you can replace individual ink cartridges
The Six Steps to Making Perfect Inkjet Prints (Updated for 2023) with Eric Joseph https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oRG02hU4c He also has some very good videos on how to use both Canon Professional Print & Layout and Epson Print Layout
I have found him to be a great resource if you'e going to do your own printing.as far as " Then comes the printer its self. I can’t see my self trashing half full ink’s because one got low. Which eliminates the Canon printer." That is certainly not true on the Canon Pro-1000, you can replace individual ink cartridges
I hear a lot of talk about printer profiles and wide gamut monitors but do any of you profile the cameras color with a color checker? I find the Z9 at least benefits greatly in the blues and greens from a proper camera profile.
Thanks!
—
Regarding Canon, They have a unique color taste (love or hate) on their cameras, Is this also true for their printers?
jstefely
Member
No, I calibrated my monitor and use paper profiles that match the paper I'm using and my prints match my monitor. (Altho, I shoot Nikon so I can't comment on Canon cameras.)
Don't know if there's a question there but FWIW I was surprised by the response on the Pixima printer gamut and took a look at some high end printer specs. I stand corrected in terms of high end inkjet printers, they've come a long way and some have much expanded gamuts these days. You'll still want to profile them with the papers you use and map the Adobe 1998 (source profile) to the printer, paper and ink profile (destination profile) if you want to match the quality that good labs provide day in and day out.
Bottom line, home printing can be very satisfying but if you want to match the quality coming out of labs it's a bit more than just buying a good printer and sending your files to it. Some really enjoy that but it's an entire process to itself that some prefer to job out to labs. But yes, it's no longer a given that inkjet printers lack color range as it once was, apparently I was mistaken there according to that response.
Printing in my studio with a Canon Pro-1000, BenQ monitor and a Calibrite Display Plus. Printing on Canon or Hahnemuehle Papers. Home/Studio printing is worth it if you care about quality and are willing to put some time into creating a color managed workflow from calibrated screen to a high-CRI viewing station.
Most printing outfits are capable of cranking out barely decent prints for relatively cheap, especially small prints. Once you start getting into a higher volume of prints or larger sizes, having your own printer starts to pay for itself. I went to a workshop with Eric Joseph of FreestylePhoto who showed us a half dozen prints made by cheap to high-end printers under a high-CRI lamp/viewing station. The results spoke for themselves and I immediately put a budget together for myself.
Seeing my work in print is very important to me, especially for laying them all out and looking for trends and areas of improvement.
Now that I'm selling prints, the margins are insanely better AND I have more paper options.
There is a balance here related to "trashing ink". The thought process I had was a $350 printer for occasional use could trash some ink without approaching the total cost or cost per print of a $900 printer. And for me, this was a second color printer chosen primarily for convenience with small prints.
Like you, the value of immediate turnaround and the ability to reprint immediately is probably more important than anything else when it comes to printing on my own equipment.
In general, if you stick with Canon and Epson printers you will be okay.
Agreed! I'm sure there are some good off-brand photo printers out there but my concern would be ongoing support. I tend to stick with mainstream manf when it comes to high use items such as photo printers, etc. I prefer Epson as I've gotten good results over the years but I've heard lots of good things about the Canon's as well.
This is all very good information Eric, but I still struggle with understanding how printing at home makes economic sense, especially if a good quality vendor is available (definitely not Shutterfly). I know how expensive inks and good quality paper can be, not to mention the cost of the printer itself. Then of course there’s the other variables of developing the knowledge to print competently - my overall impression is that the print process can be tricky and requires a whole new skill set to do well. Most of my prints are larger format (16x20 or larger), so I would need a fairly sizable printer to accomplish it. Outsourcing to my local professional art printer just seems to make sense to me, but maybe I’m missing an opportunity that others enjoy.
It's probably a matter of your interest in spending the time to learn and make a very good print on the paper of choice - even if it means making proof prints and test prints. Once I purchased the printer, I probably spend $750 per year on paper and ink ($325 per year on ink (3 carts per year or 3.3 years average life per 200 ml cartridge) and $425 per year on paper). Per print costs after the initial outlay are not that different from using a vendor. The initial outlay was $2000 and included a starter set of inks - 80 ml each if I recall correctly.
I find the prints I make myself are more satisfying. I can make small 8x10 test prints with adjustments and reprints in a single session. Once I'm satisfied, I can make a very nice 16 x 20 or 16 x 24 print with very little additional effort. 90% of the time that is a final print, but if I wanted to make an additional change or edit, I can do it right then and have a final print. This process could take a month with vendors and multiple iterations, and the shipping cost would be very high.
So I think about it in terms of what I want out of a print. If you are just talking about making a generic print - yes, a vendor is cheaper. But if you are talking about making a high quality print that reflects the best final image you can make, a modest investment in a printer and ink, and some incremental investment in supplies, are not too expensive and may be the only way to get the results you want.
I print at home with an Epson P900. I replaced my aging R3000. The P900 is much better as far as color consistency is concerned.
I use the Epson Print Layout Software to match paper icc settings. I prefer Capture One for adjustments then I use the Epson Print Layout as a plug in. The results are consistently good.
I am enjoying using Canson papers. Different fine art papers provide a different mood. Different subjects work much better with fine art papers.
The larger ink cartridges on the P900 make it worth using. A2 an A3+ A3 and A4 paper sizes output are all good to see. I do have large display boards but I have also a collection of frames I can use. Building my own frames and making my own mounting mats is something I have learned to do. It is however very time consuming.
I have used commercial printers for an annual calendar. The results are often very good.
I like to produce work where I know exactly how it will look. I do have a small cottage which I can now set up as a part time studio and this makes home printing of portraits very worthwhile. Being able to print on the same day is a great help.
I use the Epson Print Layout Software to match paper icc settings. I prefer Capture One for adjustments then I use the Epson Print Layout as a plug in. The results are consistently good.
I am enjoying using Canson papers. Different fine art papers provide a different mood. Different subjects work much better with fine art papers.
The larger ink cartridges on the P900 make it worth using. A2 an A3+ A3 and A4 paper sizes output are all good to see. I do have large display boards but I have also a collection of frames I can use. Building my own frames and making my own mounting mats is something I have learned to do. It is however very time consuming.
I have used commercial printers for an annual calendar. The results are often very good.
I like to produce work where I know exactly how it will look. I do have a small cottage which I can now set up as a part time studio and this makes home printing of portraits very worthwhile. Being able to print on the same day is a great help.
jstefely
Member
I haven't had clogging problems with my Canon Pro-1000. For what it's worth I have seen complaints about Epson printers clogging if you don't use them a lot but I have no first hand experience with them, so who knows. If you sit down and run the numbers printing at home can be less expensive than a good quality vendor, but I think you would need to print a lot for it to make sense. If you use the printer a lot it doesn't waste ink during setup, etc.
In my view, I want as much control over the printing process as I have with post processing. If I could get that with a good quality vendor, I might rethink doing my own printing. But it would have to be with someone local so I could be more hands on, be able to select the right paper for the right image, tweak colors, etc. (Same as we used to do in the dark room) There is a learning curve, but once I figured it out its relatively straightforward.
As for making economic sense.......it's probably not a good idea for me to dig too deep into that subject or may find I need to sell all my camera equipment
In my view, I want as much control over the printing process as I have with post processing. If I could get that with a good quality vendor, I might rethink doing my own printing. But it would have to be with someone local so I could be more hands on, be able to select the right paper for the right image, tweak colors, etc. (Same as we used to do in the dark room) There is a learning curve, but once I figured it out its relatively straightforward.
As for making economic sense.......it's probably not a good idea for me to dig too deep into that subject or may find I need to sell all my camera equipment
ajrmd
Well-known member
That's true and quite candidly, unless one invests thousands of $ into a high end spectro system and software, it is unlikely that you'll improve upon the canned profiles. I've been making profiles for over 25 years and paper manufacturers have recognized the importance of producing and providing high quality profiles. In the early years, many paper manufactures produced something in house, often with limited resources, and limited attention. In the case of Red River, they outsource their profiles to Chromix and while they are well made, the profiles are produced with an M3 bias (Without going too far in the reeds, ISO 13655:2009 specifies four comprehensive color measurement modes, M0, M1, M2, and M3, which are useful for different applications). M3, utilizes polarizers to minimize surface reflections and is better suited for wet press applications rather than common ink jets. Many commercial ink jet profiles are either M1 or M2 (UV cut/OBA's) rather than M3. With RR and Chromix, it is difficult to know why they employed a M3 bias, though I suspect that it was used to increase the gamut volume and lower the L* values for the blacks. This profile seems to open up the shadows more than those I produce with M1/M2 at the expense of linearity and some detected tint. If you would like more resources, please let me know.
With respect to wireless connections, I use them all of the time. There were some reported issues in the past, though all of my LFP's are in the basement - I just have the 17" and smaller ones in my office - and they print wirelessly without incident.
From an overall perspective, printing small at home is not cost or time effective and one is better served by uploading them to an inexpensive service. There are many reasons to print at home, from the convenience (questionable), to enjoying the craft/process, to being able to explore media/inks, etc. Many years ago, I used to have a sideline printing business though it rapidly declined as the industry consolidated. Simply, one couldn't compete in a shrinking market where the consumer interest for prints waned.
Currently, I print for enjoyment and for a few selected sales. Though this will sound like heresy to some, I eschew the garish, over-saturated, low fidelity metal prints though understand why many folks like them. Though I explored canvas for years, it seems dated and if one uses an ultrasmooth surface, why not print with better definition on paper? Some of the high-quality acrylics are really nice (those made with paper) though they require a lot of space, attention, and expertise to produce. Call me a traditionalist, there is nothing better than eyeing and handling a print, especially one you have produced.