Printing from Leica Monochrom?

[JoshuaRothman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm in the market for a photo printer—something that will let me make my own 5 x 7, 8 x 10, or 11 x 14 prints at home.

I will be printing a lot of color photos, made with my M10. But I also have a newly acquired M10M, and I'd like to get the most out of that camera.

Are there certain printers I should be looking at that will provide better quality in terms of black and white tonality? Or certain features? Or will a printer like the Epson P900 work just fine?

Also, if you have any other tips for printing from a Leica Monochrom camera, I'd love to hear them.

About me: I have a budget of about $1,500. I'm a hobbyist, not a professional, and so have no one to satisfy but myself. I essentially take family and travel photographs—I'm not aiming for Andrea Gursky levels of perfection. But I do want to print black and white portraits from the M10M that, ideally, have some of the same richness as the ones I've shot on medium format film.

Many thanks for your insights!

[pedaes]

4 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

a photo printer

Some will say Epson, some Canon. Both are excellent and you will get a great printer for your budget. Loads of videos on YouTube testing and comparing. If you are going to do a load of printing also check ink costs as there are some anomalies eg ink per ml is cheaper for Epson P900 than P700. Also look to see which print software you prefer. I use Epson Print Layout after Lightroom and so much simpler than direct from Lr.

Good place to start 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dpitt]

If you do not print on a regular basis, Canon is the better choice. All Epson's struggle (and have struggled) with keeping the nozzles open when not used for a longer period of time (like a few weeks or months).

If you plan to print at least monthly, this will probably not be an issue.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

If you do not print on a regular basis, Canon is the better choice. All Epson's struggle (and have struggled) with keeping the nozzles open when not used for a longer period of time (like a few weeks or months).

If you plan to print at least monthly, this will probably not be an issue.

Actually the opposite these days.  The modern Epsons are much better than their predecessors regarding clogging.  I’ve had no clogging issues with either my 3800 or P800, each for 7 years. The Canons run mandatory cleanings that users cannot control, so while they don’t have clogging issues, it’s better to use them frequently than to waste inks on required cleanings that will use lots of ink anyway.  The Canons also have user-replaceable heads, which is smart because their ‘hot-fire’ technology wears them out, unlike the cold firing Epson approach. 
 

Trade offs, but the Epson P900 and Canon Pro 1000 are both fine machines. The former has 50ml cartridges (compared to the 80ml of the P800), while the Pro 1000 still has 80ml. So, if one prints frequently, there are some economies with the larger cartridges.

To answer the OP, either of these machines is capable of superb color or B&W prints (using Monochroms or color based cameras).  The user is key, just as with all aspects of photo gear and photography in general. 
 

There are loads of related discussions in the Digital Post Processing section of the forum.

Jeff

Edited September 15, 2023 by Jeff S

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

About me: I have a budget of about $1,500.

If you buy Epson, be sure to check their online rebate center for latest discounts, which are regularly available.  The business model is like razors and razor blades; companies lure you in on the former, but make money on the latter. I saved $400 or so back when I bought my P800, using dealer discount and Epson rebates.  Canon may have similar buying opportunities; worth checking.  

I prefer the 17 inch machines to the 13 inch counterparts.  The discounts will bring down the purchase costs, and the larger cartridges will be more economical if you print regularly. The print size flexibility will also come in handy at some point, and the machines are very similar in size/footprint anyway.

I also highly recommend ImagePrint software for producing optimal prints, but you won’t like the cost!  Maybe something to consider after you get your feet wet.  Good luck, and check out the DPP section for lots more discussion.

Jeff

[JoshuaRothman]

Thanks for these replies, they’re very helpful! I didn’t think to look in the DPP section—I’ll do that. I think the idea of a larger printer is a good idea, too.

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Actually the opposite these days.  The modern Epsons are much better than their predecessors regarding clogging.  I’ve had no clogging issues with either my 3800 or P800, each for 7 years. The Canons run mandatory cleanings that users cannot control, so while they don’t have clogging issues, it’s better to use them frequently than to waste inks on required cleanings that will use lots of ink anyway.  The Canons also have user-replaceable heads, which is smart because their ‘hot-fire’ technology wears them out, unlike the cold firing Epson approach. 
 

Trade offs, but the Epson P900 and Canon Pro 1000 are both fine machines. The former has 50ml cartridges (compared to the 80ml of the P800), while the Pro 1000 still has 80ml. So, if one prints frequently, there are some economies with the larger cartridges.

To answer the OP, either of these machines is capable of superb color or B&W prints (using Monochroms or color based cameras).  The user is key, just as with all aspects of photo gear and photography in general. 
 

There are loads of related discussions in the Digital Post Processing section of the forum.

Jeff

Thx for correcting me Jeff. I have had 2 Epsons die on me because of not using them enough. But that was more than 10 years ago. Mainly in comparison with HP printers.

Now, I gave up printing myself, and ask a friend with a Canon P1000 to print occasionally for me. He said recently that Epson still has this issue, but as always it is never easy to compare. His results are great with the Canon. I have no idea what a current Epson would do in comparison.

Edited September 15, 2023 by dpitt

[charlesphoto99]

I would go Canon over Epson. In ten years with my ipf6400 not a single clog, even after not printing for a month. I've had to replace a print head every year or two unfortunately, though this may be because I mostly print only b&w, I don't know.

[Jeff S]

34 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I would go Canon over Epson. In ten years with my ipf6400 not a single clog, even after not printing for a month. I've had to replace a print head every year or two unfortunately, though this may be because I mostly print only b&w, I don't know.

Just as I explained above.  Canons rarely clog, but that’s because they run automatic cleaning cycles whether you want them or not. That’s because Canon uses thermal print heads that create tremendous heat and leave residue, which must be regularly cleared out.  But, even with those cleaning cycles, the print heads wear out.  Epson uses cold firing heads that don’t generate heat or residue.  But they will clog if not used for long-ish periods.  I avoid that by merely running a test print now and then if I know my machine will remain idle. And I run a quick nozzle check before any important print session. I haven’t had any permanent clogs in 14 years.  
 

This video explains all of this…

 

Moral of the story… if you buy a printer, use it.  You will end up using inks to print, or to clean, one way or the other.

Jeff

Edited September 15, 2023 by Jeff S

[Martin B]

I am using very successfully the Canon Pro-100 photo printer for my monochrome images. I am using this printer now for several years without having issues. Only debit as always with inkjet printers is the cost of cartridges (about $100 for a set of 8 inks). Third party ink is much cheaper but I have never tried/tested them. 

[charlesphoto99]

37 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Just as I explained above.  Canons rarely clog, but that’s because they run automatic cleaning cycles whether you want them or not. That’s because Canon uses thermal print heads that create tremendous heat and leave residue, which must be regularly cleared out.  But, even with those cleaning cycles, the print heads wear out.  Epson uses cold firing heads that don’t generate heat or residue.  But they will clog if not used for long-ish periods.  I avoid that by merely running a test print now and then if I know my machine will remain idle. And I run a quick nozzle check before any important print session. I haven’t had any permanent clogs in 14 years.  
 

This video explains all of this…

 

Moral of the story… if you buy a printer, use it.  You will end up using inks to print, or to clean, one way or the other.

Jeff

I know all that. I used to have Epson printers. Never again. I'd rather replace a $350 print head now and then and lose a bit of ink vs scrapping the entire printer, as I've seen done, or wasting LOTS of ink trying to unclog. But everybody's experience will be different, as obviously Epson is a leader in printing hardware. 

[Jeff S]

I donated my 7 year old 3800, with full ink set, to a local college when I moved to the P800.  Their machine was chugging along several years later, and my P800 has been maintenance free for subsequent 7 years.  Just minor cleaning cycles now and then.  A good friend has had very similar experience, except from an Epson 4900, which was a dud product.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I know all that. 

Then I don’t know why you attribute your head replacement to B&W printing, as it’s the nature of the Canon head technology.

Jeff

[jgeenen]

I had an Epson R2880 that produced great images from my M9, the only concern for B&W use was some reflection issues on dark image parts, which Canon addresses with an additional clear coat layer. It clogged after some years (being an amateur, there had been times with different (work) priorities. I then switched to a Canon 10-S that seems a little bit more clogging resistant (but required already heavy cleaning cycles). 
 

my conclusion - being an amateur - my next printer will be an A3 capable Photo office printer for general printing and Lay-out stuff. Fine art printing will be done via Whitewall or other printing services. They offer silver prints on photographic material as well, best for end-to-end B&W experience.

Johannes

[DadDadDaddyo]

I've used both. I ran an Epson 3800 for a number of years and it produced really creditable results.

i wanted to go larger than 19" and ultimately decided on a Canon imagePROGRAF Pro-2000 (newer version is the 2100). I added the second roll loader so I keep Glossy paper on one roll and Matte on the other. The printer switches papers effortlessly. You watch it and realize: it's a bloody robot!

Huge, too. Took three guys to get it in the house. I'll admit it's a little mad running one of these at home, but I can work on photos whenever I want, hit go, and produce amazing prints any day, any time. Once set up right, it's a very welcome capability to have at home. 

The imagePROGRAF line produces excellent results for black and white printing. Ink prices will take your breath away, but I only use OEM inks. The larger imagePROGRAF printers can take gigantic ink cartridges: astronomic initial price but long life and lower per-print price. The printer wakes up and agitates the ink from time to time. 

If you're not crazy like me, I imagine most folks would be highly satisfied with the 19" imagePROGRAF Pro1000 which fits, almost, on a desktop. 

 

[irenedp]

I have the Prograf 1000 and the Epson 7500. Both print really well but I feel the Epson has an edge, particularly on heavier paper like Hahnemühle Rag Baryta. The Canon stains the edges of the sheets. I haven’t had cloggings with the Epson so far.  

[JoshuaRothman]

Thanks, everyone—these replies are very helpful!

[Stuart Richardson]

I run a printing studio and would definitely suggest not getting a printer unless you plan on using it regularly. Especially if you live in NYC. Your money is better spent going to someone like Sergio Purtell's studio: https://www.bwonw.com/

Or me if you are in Iceland lol. I pretty much only do exhibitions, but despite doing this all the time, I of course often want to roll my 44" printer out the second floor window and watch it smash on the street. This is the P9500 (9550 in the US I think). The P9000 was a more reliable and less frustrating printer in my experience, but the lack of ink switching and better density in the new one make it hard to consider switching back. I think Canon or Epson, both will make good prints, neither are consistently reliable. They work a lot better if you are not a perfectionist (banding is always an issue that seems to raise its head at times, particularly in areas of solid color...it can be subtle enough that most don't see it, but not exactly ideal if you are producing for an exhibition where the work might be sold for thousands of dollars).

Not a popular DIY opinion, but I just think the amount of terrible prints I see by amateurs in my line of work, along with the hugely inefficient ink/paper costs for small volumes, and then of course the years of experience to do it really well. In the end are you really saving? It is good to see what kind of volume you are doing. Also you need to account for all the losses in ink from cleaning if your printer is not used frequently, and of paper if you are not already a good printer yourself...and of course jams, headstrikes, clogs, banding, platen gap issues, feed problems, manufacturer errors. If you are really into it and enjoy the process, then by all means, but I don't think I have met many who enjoy inkjet printing. The prints? Absolutely! The process and the tools? Not so much...constant headaches and irritation are more common. Darkroom work is a totally different story and is a far more appealing process (though of course even more demanding). If you have to produce many prints, then of course the economics will be in favor of buying vs having someone do it. I also definitely recommend going to someone who you can look in the eye and talk to and who will listen to your requirements and work with you to achieve your goals. That is more common in fine art printing studios than it is in larger print shops, even if they are certified or high quality.

As for clogs, if you do get a printer, then it is a good idea to have a humidifier near it. Having a 40-60% humidity in that room will reduce clogs and keep the paper flatter and less likely to curl up and cause head strikes.

If I had to get a new small printer these days, it would probably be the P900 even though I did not get on with it all that well. I use a P5000 as my home printer, which is quite a good one, but it is a monster unlikely to be appreciated by spouses or anyone else who needs to enter whatever room it is placed in.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

This is the P9500 (9550 in the US I think).

 

P9570 (replaced P9000).

What problems did you experience with the P900?

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stuart Richardson]

3 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

P9570 (replaced P9000).

What problems did you experience with the P900?

Jeff

Probably just spoiled from the full size printers. I found it excruciatingly slow when used on the full resolution settings, which in my experience have been more or less necessary to prevent banding in the newer generation of printers. I also found that the roll adapter and manual cutting was not great. I am also not a fan at all at the move toward touch screens and a more digitized, slower and less professional interface than there was on the previous generation of printers. Not having a simple physical button to release the paper at any time etc. These are critiques more geared towards volume printing and professional stuff. The prints out of it are of course just as good as they would be out of the 44" model. In any case, I took a trial of the P900 for a week or two at home and reluctantly bought the P5000 instead. It is much better, but obviously not for the faint of heart. Had I realized quite how big it was when I ordered it, I might just have gotten a 24" floor standing model...