Drbobcameraguy
Active member
I have a pro 100 and do the same as you with the same good results
Let's talk all things photo printers
- Thread starter DavidT
- 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).
When it comes to print costs, on the face of it your own printer will be more expensive. But there are adjustments to both ends. For example, I need to account for printer cost, ink cartridge cost, paper cost, ink lost due to printer cleaning cycles, prints that have a problem and are trashed, etc. If I treated the cost of the printer as a sunk cost, the equation changes.
On the vendor side, the cost of shipping can really add up. There is also a big difference in quality between Shutterfly automated prints and an individual print with either no adjustments or professional adjustments. I recently printed a calendar and ordered some small prints through Shutterfly. The small prints were fully automated and corrected exposure - making the prints unusable. The calendar also had some automated adjustments - and they were different. Printing was fine for the calendar but to my eye it was obviously production quality. The same print on my Epson was much better. The final factor in dealing with a vendor for your prints is the time delay. When I'm working on a print, I may make 3-4 copies with adjustments before I am satisfied with the result. The same kind of fine tuning would take me several weeks and cost $20-25 with a vendor. Having to make a print and wait for it to arrive is disruptive to the creative process.
On the vendor side, the cost of shipping can really add up. There is also a big difference in quality between Shutterfly automated prints and an individual print with either no adjustments or professional adjustments. I recently printed a calendar and ordered some small prints through Shutterfly. The small prints were fully automated and corrected exposure - making the prints unusable. The calendar also had some automated adjustments - and they were different. Printing was fine for the calendar but to my eye it was obviously production quality. The same print on my Epson was much better. The final factor in dealing with a vendor for your prints is the time delay. When I'm working on a print, I may make 3-4 copies with adjustments before I am satisfied with the result. The same kind of fine tuning would take me several weeks and cost $20-25 with a vendor. Having to make a print and wait for it to arrive is disruptive to the creative process.
I've always printed my own prints that were smaller than 13 x 19. I've used an Epson R3000 that I bought in 2009. It's been a great printer, does not clog and spits out beautiful prints. I most often use Red River Paper but also Epson paper. I really don't care if it costs me more to print at home as I like the ability to experiment with different papers and to get the print immediately. I often print cards for people and can print just one card, made especially for that person, at a time using my images. My prints are used to hang in a local gallery where I sell artwork. Last week I printed an image to be hung in a local photography show, it was printed on a RR ultra pro gloss paper, a paper I've used often and am generally satisfied with. When I looked at it I just was not happy with the result. Yesterday I chose a different type of gloss paper, RR Arctic Polar, and reprinted it and it really made a big difference in the outcome, the print was beautiful and the colors popped as I wanted. There is no right or wrong way, well maybe there is but not with which way you decide to print, with one choice or the other, it depends on what outcome you want. I want quality prints with deep inks and the right "look" for each print and I can get that with immediacy when I print at home. I'm hoping my printer hangs in there for another couple of years!
Last edited:
hef19898
Well-known member
Funny that the Epson ET8550 was only mentioned once, so. For a more casual use, as in not trying to sell A2 sized prints, it works great. Ink is cheap, you actually only have to worry about paper cost. Epson claims 10+ years before ink fades, in an album or something similar it should hold up forever.
And running the numbers, I did before I bought mine, doing these kinds of break-even calculations at work for certain things helps, shows it is cheaper per print than a lab (write off of the printer in 12 months with a total of 200 10x15 cm prints). A lot less than that when it comes to A3+ sized prints (using the normed test numbers of prints per cartridge, it kind of scales linear for the same kind of print).
Regarding quality, even someone like Keith Cooper, you should look up his detailed, down to earth, real life reviews on printers, says he'll happily hang prints from an ET8550 on his walls.
For ewat its worth, printing helps to improve your photography from composing and taking the shot to post-processing.
Which reminds me, I have to do some printing again of some pictures.
And running the numbers, I did before I bought mine, doing these kinds of break-even calculations at work for certain things helps, shows it is cheaper per print than a lab (write off of the printer in 12 months with a total of 200 10x15 cm prints). A lot less than that when it comes to A3+ sized prints (using the normed test numbers of prints per cartridge, it kind of scales linear for the same kind of print).
Regarding quality, even someone like Keith Cooper, you should look up his detailed, down to earth, real life reviews on printers, says he'll happily hang prints from an ET8550 on his walls.
For ewat its worth, printing helps to improve your photography from composing and taking the shot to post-processing.
Which reminds me, I have to do some printing again of some pictures.
I went down the R&D road for home printing. I got stuck with hanging it.
A lab can glue the prints on a hard backing. I can’t.
Using a glass frame is not even a consideration.
A lab can glue the prints on a hard backing. I can’t.
Using a glass frame is not even a consideration.
I've got the Epson P900. Truly dumby (me) proof technology. I often in long bouts of not printing forget the rule to use it at least a couple times a month for printer head health, but 1) the print test still comes back fine, or 2) the 'clean heads' quickly, one button pressed simplicity, gets the printer ready to go. Output is gorgeous. But I gotta stress using the printer is no more difficult than printing a memo at work. I don't print much (should print more; plan to) but I'm still using the cartridge set that comes with the printer (and but for one colour) I've still not got a n'ink level warning' after probably 150 printings over a couple years -- I mention that as a full set of ink cartridges is $cdn600.
hef19898
Well-known member
Ink cost only left the ET8550 back when I was shopping around. A Canon Pro-200 was a close second, a deal I got for the Epson decided that. Any honestly, it is quite nice to not worry about ink costs when printing. Even if costs per print aren't that far apart, but eith the Canon I would have to do some accounting maths every time I print. Eith the EcoTank, well, I already forgot what I paid for the printer. Which is a lot more peace of mind when printing A3 and realizing the print came out a tad too dark, I just print another one without much thought. Unbeatable.