Can any one suggest a budget. home printer

[Mike Power]

Good evening . I would like to be able to print some of my own prints , usually 8x10 or about . i am now using a canon pixma which is fine for letters but doesnt do a great job on prints. It was doing ok and now there are a lot of streaks on the prints . I cleaned the nozzles but I guess the printer is a couple of years old and has lived out its life. If anyone has any suggestions of something in the 300 dollar range (if that exists) of a printer that would be ok to do prints suitable to give to family and friends or hang on my wall it would be greatly appreciated.. meanwhile thanks for all the great responses ive had to questions in the forums so far and all the knowledge i've gained so far . Thanks

MIe

 

[BirdDogDad]

Mike, my experience for what it's worth: a few years back I owned both high-end Canon and Epson printers, thinking it would be great to do my own prints at home. Wrong. The cost of the printer is negligible compared to the cost of replacement inks, which you will need with maddening regularity. Then there is the whole issue of color calibration, which can lead to insanity. Plus, if you don't use the printer almost every day, the inks will dry up and the nozzles will clog. Which means more replacement inks.

There are so many good online photo houses these days--Bay Photo, Nations, Mpix, to name just a few, that IMHO the average photographer would be crazy to print his/her own. The professional labs have the finest equipment, their quality is superb, and the cost is extremely reasonable (for example, Bay Photo charges $4.40 for an 11 x 14 print; $6.95 if you want their color correction services). Uploading to their websites is a breeze. Most offer free shipping with a relatively modest order.

Other forum members might have had good success doing their own prints, and I defer to their expertise. Me, I will never consider owning my own printer again. Can't afford it!

 

[Mike Power]

Thanks , this is. Really great advice . and a lot that I hadn’t thought about . i think the problems I had with my old printer is because It was clogged . I certainly will look for a professional lab close to where I live here in Canada. Appreciate the timely reply .

 

[BirdDogDad]

My pleasure, Mike. You can find a ton of well written photo printer reviews online lamenting the cost of inks and the total cost of ownership. I'm sure there are some good photo labs in Canada, plus all the popular labs here in the States will ship to Canada. Don't know if there would be duties involved, but I can't imagine it would be anything substantial. I live in Colorado, but do business with a lab on the West Coast and one on the East Coast, both about as far away from me as you can get. The packaging is always excellent and have not had any problems with damage. Good luck!

 

[Ralph]

Thanks , this is. Really great advice . and a lot that I hadn’t thought about . i think the problems I had with my old printer is because It was clogged . I certainly will look for a professional lab close to where I live here in Canada. Appreciate the timely reply .

I totally agree with Birddog. Everything he said is spot on.

 

[Ken Miracle]

@Mike Power I use what our camera club calls the club printer. A Canon Pixma Pro 100, there are 26 of them in the club, and printing from the Light Room Print Module from my spyderx pro calibrated iMac is amazingly good. It is fun to have on demand prints for print night, my albums etc.. BUT as @BirdDogDad said there are cheaper options than doing your own. McKenna Pro in Iowa does my metal prints and they can do a wide range of paper prints etc.. at less than what it costs me for ink for the same size print. You get the hint where Canon profits are when you can get the printer on sale with fast rebates for less than the cost of an 8 pack of ink. In fact I have another pro 100 in my closet that I bought and used the ink out of it in my other printer. I do not have room for another ink box that doubles as a back up printer so no more of that. Nope I would not suggest a printer unless you just want it for the "fun" of it.

 

[EricBowles]

I have a full size printer for prints up to 16 x 24, and I contract out prints larger than that size. The real value of you r own printer is what I refer to as "proof prints". My proof prints are 8x10 prints. It just seems to help make a better final print when you can do some testing along the way. The ink cartridges are 200 ml and sold individually for almost $100 each, but a cartridge lasts 2-3 years with heavy use for large prints.

I also picked up a Canon Pixma Pro 10 for my wife to use for printing materials for notecards and occasional small photos. The print quality is good, but it's over $100 for a set of inks. We're buying a set of inks per year just for occasional small print jobs. When I buy ink, it's a full set of inks rather than just what I need - and they don't last long.

Start up and cleaning does burn through a lot of ink, but it's necessary to prevent clogs if you are not using your printer frequently.

Years ago I used Shutterfly - and later MPix - to product small 4x6 prints as test prints. Before printing larger, I would always do a test. We've bought note card supplies from Photographer's Edge to use and sell some of the 4x6 test prints. Small prints are exceptionally cheap. I'll send a set of small prints from a trip to one or two family members rather than sharing electronic versions.

I do like the idea of making small prints. Just know what you are getting into. A well done print you make will be better than a production print from a consumer print house. But learning to print is a big effort - just like learning to take the photo. There is a lot of trial and error involved while you learn. Like anything else, you need to practice and print regularly for it to be effective.

 

[Rodamu]

I learned the hard way the high quality printers must be used frequently or they will clog up. Unless you're printing almost every day, follow BiridDogDad's advice.

 

[EricBowles]

I learned the hard way the high quality printers must be used frequently or they will clog up. Unless you're printing almost every day, follow BiridDogDad's advice.

My Epson 4900 needs to be used about every two weeks or I get minor clogs. A page or two every week is ideal - even if it's a test print. That printer had an early problem with clogs caused by a bad pump. A lot of people associated it with the head, but the pump went through 3 part numbers before it was resolved.

I have a LR Collection for images I intend to print.

 

[Ken Miracle]

A printer repairman friend helped me set up my Canon Pixma Pro 100. When I asked him what I needed to do for maintenance he told me to use it once a month. It has worked surprisingly well since I started using it in August 2017. I used it to print images that were good enough to win first place and a judges choice aware in the pro division of a pro juried competition. Back when there was such a thing going on. I got stuck in the pros because I sold retail at 3 locations once for a few months ... got to busy so re-retired. The same repairman photographer said he liked his big Epson but it needed more use and tender loving care.

 

[Dan291]

I’ve used an Epson R3000 since 2012. Others are right on, it’s not necessarily an economical pursuit for an enthusiast. I still send out for anything larger than A3. But, I started darkroom work as a high school freshman and continuing the photographic process through to the print is still too ingrained in me. Still, I do prefer working in digital overall; it’s quicker and my fingers smell better afterward.

I run a nozzle check once a week and haven’t had a clog in memory, in a printer notorious for clogging. It doesn’t use much ink for that.

 

[eaj101]

I totally disagree about the lab vs home printing issue.

It depends on what your final use is, but I don't know of a single fine art photographer who sends his/her images out to print for anything except special requirements. Yes, it's annoying and a time sink, though the cost per print of ink goes down dramatically on the higher end printers (you're buying a lot bigger ink cartridges, for one). I sometimes run ten test prints trying to get the look correct before doing a final print at size. I also use different papers depending on what I want the image to look like. You have no idea whether the lab tech's vision for your print is anything like yours. With a little experience you will produce much finer prints than a lab will.

I intentionally limit my prints to what I can print at home, so that's 17" wide by whatever (I have a roll feeder). I have at times taken printing workshops at labs where I can use 44" wide printers (a 44" wide printer is about the size of an upright piano and weighs @300lbs).

I've used Epson printers for years, but there are certainly photographers who like Canon printers (many fewer using HP, I think). Currently using an Epson P800. It's actually cheaper than it seems because they bundle a substantial amount of ink with the purchase. You need a colorimeter (Datacolor or X-rite), and paper. Lightroom has a reasonable printing module.

Depending on where you are, there might be boutique labs that will let you work on their printers or photo programs at community colleges.

 

[dabhand16]

Good evening . I would like to be able to print some of my own prints , usually 8x10 or about . i am now using a canon pixma which is fine for letters but doesnt do a great job on prints. It was doing ok and now there are a lot of streaks on the prints . I cleaned the nozzles but I guess the printer is a couple of years old and has lived out its life. If anyone has any suggestions of something in the 300 dollar range (if that exists) of a printer that would be ok to do prints suitable to give to family and friends or hang on my wall it would be greatly appreciated.. meanwhile thanks for all the great responses ive had to questions in the forums so far and all the knowledge i've gained so far . Thanks

MIe

Some Canon printers allow you to remove the print head for cleaning. If you can do this soak it in isopropanol or similar or a print head cleaning solution and it will cost a bit less than $300.

 

[JohnW]

Been printing at home with the Epson 3800 since late 2007. Really have had minimum clogging isssues even when the printer has sat idle up to 6mos at a time. Quick cleaning and I'm usually all set to go. I did have a stubborn clogg after it had sat idle for a year but number of cleaning cycles and the clogg cleared. It may be the humidity at home but just don't get the clogs that other with the 4800 and larger x800 series seem to encounter.

Have always printed my own work starting in 67 in a wet darkroom. At that time most of the prints were B&W, and later as we started to enter the digital age but before the D100, I would scan my slides and negatives with a Nikon coolscan and then print them using Epson 1270. Even back then the quality that I could get printing my own was on par with most of the custom labs in town. I had the advantage that I could continually tweak the outcome to get the print that I wanted. It was possible to do that with a custom lab , but it meant going downtown and sitting with the printer until we got the desired results. This was especially difficult with slides as they would require the lab to produce a 4x5 internegative. The one negative with the 1270 was that the prints seemed to fade over time.

Later in 2007 moved on to the 3800. Now when shooting 4x5, I'll scan the negs/trans and print using the digital file on the 3800. With the advancements in the inks, papers and processing of the digital file I'm getting better BW prints than I ever got out of the wet darkroom. The only time I send out for a print currently is if I need greater than a 17" W or if I need to print on canvas. Most of my B&W Fine art prints are 16X20 so I'm thinking of converting the 3800 to a dedicated B&W printer using a carbon inset, and then getting something along the lines of a 24" Epson P7000 for color prints.

Both Canon and Epson make excellent printers and you can get excellent results with either. Lots of different materials / surfaces to print on that most of your labs are not going to carry. I just happened to start with Epson and never have had any real issues so never contemplated changing. I've images hanging in the house made with the 3800 over 10 years ago and no sign of fading or deterioration. But it does take some time and commitment to refine the process to get those results.

 

[eaj101]

Been printing at home with the Epson 3800 since late 2007. Really have had minimum clogging isssues even when the printer has sat idle up to 6mos at a time. Quick cleaning and I'm usually all set to go. I did have a stubborn clogg after it had sat idle for a year but number of cleaning cycles and the clogg cleared. It may be the humidity at home but just don't get the clogs that other with the 4800 and larger x800 series seem to encounter.

Have always printed my own work starting in 67 in a wet darkroom. At that time most of the prints were B&W, and later as we started to enter the digital age but before the D100, I would scan my slides and negatives with a Nikon coolscan and then print them using Epson 1270. Even back then the quality that I could get printing my own was on par with most of the custom labs in town. I had the advantage that I could continually tweak the outcome to get the print that I wanted. It was possible to do that with a custom lab , but it meant going downtown and sitting with the printer until we got the desired results. This was especially difficult with slides as they would require the lab to produce a 4x5 internegative. The one negative with the 1270 was that the prints seemed to fade over time.

Later in 2007 moved on to the 3800. Now when shooting 4x5, I'll scan the negs/trans and print using the digital file on the 3800. With the advancements in the inks, papers and processing of the digital file I'm getting better BW prints than I ever got out of the wet darkroom. The only time I send out for a print currently is if I need greater than a 17" W or if I need to print on canvas. Most of my B&W Fine art prints are 16X20 so I'm thinking of converting the 3800 to a dedicated B&W printer using a carbon inset, and then getting something along the lines of a 24" Epson P7000 for color prints.

Both Canon and Epson make excellent printers and you can get excellent results with either. Lots of different materials / surfaces to print on that most of your labs are not going to carry. I just happened to start with Epson and never have had any real issues so never contemplated changing. I've images hanging in the house made with the 3800 over 10 years ago and no sign of fading or deterioration. But it does take some time and commitment to refine the process to get those results.

I've thought about a dedicated B&W printer as well. There are ink sets and rendering engines specifically tuned for that.

I think Epson printers have improved their reliability over the years. My old R1800 clogged all the time, my 3800 clogged at least monthly, the 3880 clogged much less before losing one ink channel permanently after five years, and the P800 hasn't clogged at all in the several years I've had it (fingers crossed).

 

[EarthImages]

I’m amazed at the number of photographers who only show their work on a screen. All the more so when that screen is a cell phone. The print is the final step to creating an image and brings my work to life. People can see and feel the amount of effort that I have put into creating the image.

For me, the downside of printing at a lab is the lack of control. Results can often be disappointing and color not what I envisioned. The time it takes to visit the lab or shipping from it is a big negative factor. However, I will use a lab when I need prints larger than I can do at home or on a material other than paper.

Printing at home is initially more time consuming, more technically challenging, and carries higher up-front costs. But these costs pale to what I have in camera equipment. I regard printing my own work a craft in itself. I enjoy learning about screen calibration, printer/paper profiles, paper surfaces, etc. The advantages of printing at home are that I retain full control of my final print, I have a wider range of papers and surfaces, and I can get my work printed faster - making adjustments is a matter of minutes rather than days.

I’m currently using an Epson P900 with both Epson and Red River papers. Epson Print Layout software makes printing from Photoshop and Lightroom simpler by putting all the choices you need to make in one spot. I use its Advanced Black and White Photo Mode for my fine art prints. I do not see the need for a dedicated B&W printer.

 

[abc123brian]

If you plan to make many prints, I could see investing in a printer. I don’t make enough to justify the cost so I use labs. Bay Photo mentioned above is my favorite, but I use a cheaper lab for canvas out of Colorado. Photography is a hobby for me so home printing is tough to justify.

 

[eaj101]

I’m amazed at the number of photographers who only show their work on a screen. All the more so when that screen is a cell phone. The print is the final step to creating an image and brings my work to life. People can see and feel the amount of effort that I have put into creating the image.

For me, the downside of printing at a lab is the lack of control. Results can often be disappointing and color not what I envisioned. The time it takes to visit the lab or shipping from it is a big negative factor. However, I will use a lab when I need prints larger than I can do at home or on a material other than paper.

Printing at home is initially more time consuming, more technically challenging, and carries higher up-front costs. But these costs pale to what I have in camera equipment. I regard printing my own work a craft in itself. I enjoy learning about screen calibration, printer/paper profiles, paper surfaces, etc. The advantages of printing at home are that I retain full control of my final print, I have a wider range of papers and surfaces, and I can get my work printed faster - making adjustments is a matter of minutes rather than days.

I’m currently using an Epson P900 with both Epson and Red River papers. Epson Print Layout software makes printing from Photoshop and Lightroom simpler by putting all the choices you need to make in one spot. I use its Advanced Black and White Photo Mode for my fine art prints. I do not see the need for a dedicated B&W printer.

Like you, I really don't consider an image to be 'real' or complete until it's printed. Perhaps it was growing up in era of nature photography as art - Ansel, Eliot Porter, the Westons, William Garnett and the like, and in the close vicinity of Yosemite and Big Sur. The elegance of a matted and framed print is magnetic, to me. Later influences like Galen Rowell and Joseph Holmes validated color as a medium, but chemistry-based home color printing was/is an insurmountable barrier in complexity and cost.

The advent of (relatively) inexpensive color printers capable of fine art quality output changed photography as much as digital cameras changed shooting. By now, the printer you use at home is at least the equal of the printers used in labs (in many cases they're actually the same). In some cases they're better, and in all cases you can make a better print than a lab will, just by knowing your artistic intent and working to that end. And it's hard to overstate the satisfaction of succeeding and holding the physical image in your hand. Even when you just give it away as a Christmas present

If you're interested, you can get started for well under $1000, all in. Under $500, even. There are good intros on youtube and sites like luminouslandscape.com.