Photo printer

[crainbow]

I recently purchased the Epson 2880. Prints up to 13" wide and you can put roll paper on it. I have been impressed with the quality of the prints and the speed of the printing. I can also now see a stunning difference in the various types of paper that are available.

It ran me about $800 before the rebates.

Chuck

 

[frugal_mar]

I am very pleased with the results that I get from my Canon PIXMA Pro9000.

It will do up to a 13x19 print and handles some specialty paper very well. There is a plugin for photoshop to help to get the correct colors. I think it runs about $500. It doesn't do the roll paper, but I haven't had a need to do those sorts of prints.

Again, I am quite pleased with this piece of equipment.

 

[Nik's Mom]

I've always been pleased with Epson printers. My current printer is about 3 years old and it still runs great. And it is used ALOT!

 

[manning]

With home printing, you must put the photo under glass....they fade big time...as you found out.

Any printing, not only home. It also happened in the days of film. The culprit is ulra violet light which is present just about everywhere in varying degree. Glass acts as a filter.

Many many many years ago when I did wedding photography I made sure the 8x10s given to the bride and groom were in frames with glass.

 

[boBQuincy]

Pigment ink printers (mostly Epson) are better for fade resistance than dye inks (mostly everyone else, except for their pro models). Both have made great progress and the newest ink formulations are probably better than what you have now. I don't like constantly buying the latest printer but it usually pays off in print quality and permanence.

The gamut for dye inks is wider although pigment inks have come close and the difference may be too small to matter anymore.

Bottom line, prints are better off behind something (or left in the dark), I greatly prefer plastic (acrylic) and will not use glass anymore. Your local home improvement store may carry some acrylic, here is another good supplier: http://www.framingsupplies.com/AcrylicForPictureFraming/ClearAndNonGlareAcrylic.htm

 

[lsayd]

Not to hijack the thread, but another issue with the HP vivera ink - it runs so easily when exposed to any amount of moisture! Does anyone else have this problem? I am a long time HP printer fan, and with the old inks you could literally (at least I could) run the printed matter under water after it was dry and not have it run. This new ink is awful. Are the pigment based dyes less soluble? My printer is less than a year old, but I'm getting ready to give up on this one and replace it with an Epson.

 

[boBQuincy]

"Are the pigment based dyes less soluble?"

Yes, somewhat, but the paper can have a great influence on water resistance. Nanoporous (nanoceramic) paper can be very water resistant with dye inks.

 

[lsayd]

Thanks - I will have to look up that type of paper. I have had no luck with any of the papers I've used, from plain old copy paper to card stock to photo paper, matte, glossy, you name it!

 

[zackiedawg]

No problems with my 5-year old all-in-one HP photo printer...prints I have made with it going back 5 years are still hanging on my walls at home and in the office with no fade. All are in glass-covered frames. I've got a few printed at photo stores, and they look of the same quality. I even have a few prints dating back to my previous HP printer, about 8 years old, that still look fine with no fade.

As for the cost...I'd basically agree that printing at Costco/Walmart/etc will likely be cheaper overall when you add up the per print cost taking the printer itself, the ink, and the paper into consideration. But that would go for small 4x6 type prints, which are very inexpensive at stores.

When getting into 8x10 or larger prints though, the home solution can be equally cost-effective if not better. Over the 5-year lifespan so far of my HP printer, I've been able to average around 40 large prints per color and photo ink cartridge. The total cost for the inks is around $70 (for tricolor & photo)...the semi-gloss paper I use adds around $14 a pack for 100 sheets. The printer itself cost $280...I'm not sure how to add that into the cost-per-photo equation, since it also serves as my fax machine, copier, scanner, and non-photo printer. Figure around $5 added to the $7 paper cost (for half-a-pack or 50 sheets) for the cost of the machine, and I'm running around $82.00 for 40 large photos...about $2.05 per 8x10 or 8.5x11 photo. And the averaged cost of the machine drops for every print I make from it...slowly lowering the overall cost per print. Most places will commonly charge between $2.70 and $3.00 for 8x10 prints...so my at-home cost is currently beating that rate.

 

[dr_zero]

If you don't want to frame them spray them with some Krylon Crystal Clear or Krylon UV-Resistant Clear this will make them last longer and more durable to handling.

I used to paint miniatures for Disney and we sprayed them with this for years to make them hold up better and then one day a paper salesman showed me the trick of spraying printed photos.

You can get this from Wal mart or the likes dont get caught up in paying too much

 

[caniswolfie]

I think the cost for 8x10's and other larger than 4x6 prints can beat the at-home prices at the right stores. Costco and Sam's Club prices for an 8x10 is $1.49. It looks like the Big Box type stores have higher prices for these prints however. I don't know what the local type places will charge for printing either, they might be hit or miss. I understand that the locations like Costco and Sam's club have membership fees associated with them, but they provide other services for that membership fee in addition to photo printing.

The advantages of printing at home is having more control over printer profiles and color matching for prints. Also more control over the types and sizes of paper for printing, especially for custom sizing. Also, there is a very immediate result of checking for quality while doing photo editing. In extreme cases people modify their printers with large ink tanks and hoses to allow for printing much longer between refills.

Personally I don't have budget to print at home and I end up doing most of my prints at my local Costco. This is especially since I don't print all too often to make justifying the purchase of a photo printer sensible.

 

[KarenAylwood]

I took a photography class and we were allowed to edit specifically for printing and then make our own prints in class. Ever since, I can't seem to look at photos printed from anywhere else and be satisfied with them.

I was looking at the Canon Pixma Pro9000. It's $500 MSRP, but is sold for around $400. After reading the recent "prints" thread I went to B&H Photo to see if the price was still $370 as it was before xmas. It's now $399.95 with $28 shipping, but there's a rebate for $100 good until January 17th.

Do you have a photo printer? Has it been worth it to you? I'm an impatient / instant gratification kind of person and I HATE waiting for prints so I usually go 1 hour and am then disappointed (local options are Walgreens, Rite Aid, BJ's and Walmart).

I'm trying to convince myself this is a great deal ($330 incl shipping) but this is my photography budget for the next 6 months.

Tell me how much you love your at-home printer

 

[wdwwishes]

Had one, a Canon i900. The results were decent, the instant gratification was great BUT one ink color always seems to run out before the next and on and on. I found I always had to have lots of ink around as well as paper. As far as cost comparison to having prints done, I never could quite figure it out per print. I now use Snapfish for larger orders and fun things. if I need a quick print for a note or card, I just print one off my H.P., they're decent and I'm done. I think the only way to truly evalute print quality would be to take several photos on film, develop them and do the same shots with digital, print them and compare them all side by side.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Do you have a photo printer?

Yes.

Do you love it?

No. In fact, I'm thinking of selling it on Craiglist.

Like the pp, I found the ink was expensive and the quality not as good as commercially done prints. Maybe the one you're thinking about is better. Right now if I need something instantly, I just use my full size desktop printer.

 

[jfinke]

I don't think that I would get one unless I did a lot of prints.

I was listening to an old "This Week in Photography" and they interviewed Andrew Darlow. You may want to check out his site at http://www.inkjettips.com/.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have a Canon Pro9000 and believe the prints from it equal or surpass anything I have seen from *any* other source. This claim is based on many years of printing, including Cibachrome, using pro labs, etc.

*However*, I have a calibrated monitor and do soft-proofing in Photoshop with profiles for the printer and whatever paper I am using. I also set up the print parameters keeping in mind the limited Dmax of paper.

After all that the prints do look really good!

 

[frugal_mar]

I have the Pro9000 and just love it. The quality of the prints is excellent and you can do up to 13x19 prints.

 

[jann1033]

i was gung ho on getting one to print on art paper etc a few months back( summer) till i saw prints from the new at that time models offered by epson, canon and hp in the $800+ range. the color prints were good but all claimed to be great for B&w and imo none of the B&W were worth printing, i wasn't alone either since i happened to be looking the same time as some guy who wanted one for B&W and we both just yet "yuck" when we looked at the demos...these were the demo prints made by the manufacturer so i figured what are the chances i could do better..every one of them had off color casts and one ( canon i think) evidently knew they couldn't pull it off so printed one with selective coloring and called it b&w, lol, maybe to mask the color cast of the rest of the non selective colored part .

i can get 400 8x10s at mpix for the price of just the printer alone.

i presently have a hp photosmart i never use, as it's not worth the cost for the quality i get and they just raised the ink $$ again but at least for me i'll wait to get a better one when they can print better than they do now in B&w since if i spend i bunch on a printer i want to be able to print everything i want

now if i could just find someone, anyone , anywhere who will print on transparencies and do a decent job i'd be happy

 

[rtphokie]

I have a Canon photo printer (dont recall the model). It is going on ebay. I've used it a time or two and it produces wonderful results but so does Walgreens, Target, etc.

I so rarely print photos, it isn't worth keeping a printer around. Its a path worth considering if you dont print a lot.

$200-300 is a lot of money. Even before ink and paper, that's 1500-2000 4x6 prints.

You could find a nice used lens for $200-$300

just my $.02.

 

[safetymom]

I have several Epson printers. I love the quality of the prints. Cost per print wasn't bad either.

I never send my photos out to be printed.