treatise on costs... http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-...-printing.html
treatise on costs... http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-...-printing.html
Yes, I saw that before when considering a wide format printer. Still considering.
This is part of the reason I went for the Epson 3880. It has one of the lowest ink costs of the photo printers.
At a high level, the larger the ink cartridge (volume), the lower the cost per print, even though the cost per cartridge is higher. Canon inks have tended to be priced higher than Epson inks.
If you're smart you'll steer clear of all of these printers and order your prints from Vistaprint, UPrinting, Printaholic, 4over4, or even Costco. The amount of time and money spent on self prints is not even a viable option today. For the love of God people, take your pics to Staples and let them do it. If you are not happy, complain to them...
I think you'll find, Robert, that a significant number of us on here consider printing to be an integral part of the process of making an image. We like to retain control over the entire process and are not willing to sacrifice some of that control to 'High Street' printers. If we want to go externally, then it will be to reputable print companies with whom we could from a relationship and to whom we could give clear direction as to what we want.
You may be happy going to those companies you refer to, but don't assume everyone will be.
You're not one of the more prolific contributors to the forum and your last post, on 26th September 2013, regarding SmugMug was a little wide of the mark.
And I was thinking of considering a Canon Printer with the 9 cartridges I saw a few days ago...I am still thinking about it though...is it really worth it? I may have to ask this question myself throughout most of 2016 where my priority is updating my computer first.
I've been printing for a very long time; in the B&W and colour "wet" darkroom and now in the digital darkroom. To me the physical print is still the ultimate output of an image. I would not hesitate to take my snapshots to Costco or one of the other mass production printers you have listed, but I certainly would not for my "fine art" work. They just don't have the quality I am looking for; that includes the selection of quality papers and finishes I use for this type of work.
Donald is quite right, I would not use them for most of the images that I print myself.
Nine cartridges is the minimum that they put into the better photo printers. They exceed the AdobeRGB colour space. It you look at the high end printers, they are running up to 12 cartridges (they may have green, orange, red or blue cartridges) for an even wider gamut.
As for whether getting a printer is something you will find useful; that is a question only you can answer.
I am still using the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 Mark II printer. I don't print all that often and like the fact that the Canon ink cartridges don't clog up my heads when I have not printed for a while.
I like having the color printer available because I enjoy immediacy in printing and also I have not been all that satisfied with tyhe Costco, Staples printing. Custom printing is slower and much more expensive...
I do all my B&W Text printing with a Brother Laser printer with which I use third party ink (I always use Canon ink for my Pixma). I purchase my document paper on sale at Staples or whoever else has cases of the stuff on sale. My cost for a text print averages two to three cents per page depending if I print back to back or not. This is good for me because we need to print a lot of documents for our dog rescue efforts...
Glad to see my Epson 3880 is one of the more economical. I agree with Donald that producing a good quality print is a essential part of the photographic process and all the better if you can do it in the comfort of your own home studio. It can be frustrating at times getting the colour right but very rewarding when everything turns out satisfactorily.
Grant
From a purely financial point of view (and I assume this is the position from which 'rstone' above was coming), unless you're doing a pretty high volume, then 'No'. On the other hand, unless you're in the business of making money from it, what in photography is 'worth it'? We don't need DSLRs or expensive lenses to make pictures nowadays. We only need a mobile phone.
Is it worth it from the aesthethic/artistic/creative/satisfaction-rating perspective? Absolutely.
But like you say Izzie, it has to sit within the priority ranking. If you need a new computer, then that needs to come first.
Last edited by Donald; 30th December 2015 at 09:04 AM.
My desktop is good at the moment but I want better simply because I love learning and seeing results faster... printing is one of them I enjoyed with my CiC approved images...and hanging them up around my den and little studio gives me the best pleasure. Bill's airplane images that I take most of the time, goes out to a commercial printer. He is proud to spend on them...you are right, priority ranking is important...
Hi, I just purchased an Epson Photo R1900 after I got kind of fed up just just looking at images on a computer screen and also because I came across a youtube video by a gent called John Read of Marrutt to an actuall camera club. Have a look especially if you are in the UK and looking for cost effective way to produce images on paper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FYHRIJU7gw
Russ
As others have suggested, not as a way to save money, but as a way to gain the satisfaction of having more control over your prints, I certainly think so.And I was thinking of considering a Canon Printer with the 9 cartridges I saw a few days ago...I am still thinking about it though...is it really worth it?
The current Canon dye-based dedicated photo printer, the Pro-100 (oddly, quality goes up as the numbers go down) is a very good choice, IMHO, for people who want to do a modest degree of printing. I have one, and I also have the predecessor (Pixma Pro 9000II) sitting on my floor. The prints don't last as long as pigment prints before fading, but I have had prints on the walls for years without noticeable fading. And the prints are gorgeous.
I still have the old one for one of the reasons why I recommend the new one: they are dirt cheap, if you hunt around, and so I can't easily sell the old one. The reason is that Canon often bundles these with cameras, and so there are lots of unwanted ones floating around. I just checked on our local Craigslist, and you can get the Pro-100 still in the box for $150 or less.
On the button Donald and printing is another photographic skill worth learning. I recently replaced my ageing HP B9180 (an ink drinker) with a Canon Pro1 and couldn't be happier. The different 'look' that one can achieve with various papers is amazing and that knowledge all adds to the visualisation process at the shooting stage.
One of the reasons that I like oil paintings is that you can close your eyes and touch/feel the brush strokes.
Think of the sensations were you to be able to see and feel that image were they to develop 3-D printing
techniques for the photographer.
When I made the switch to digital printing images was a major part of the decision making process; I did a cost analysis based on the cost of getting film developed and printed. Digital output as compared to film, cost of converting, and cost to continue the hobby were significant parameters and still are.