To buy a printer or use online printers?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow!  ImagePrint is obscenely expensive!  He surely doesn’t seem to waste any money on his website - half the links don’t work!

Anyone have a more sensible alternative (I think I know what the answer is - simplicity doesn’t come cheap!)

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Far less costly than just the custom profiling gear I’d need to buy (which I wouldn’t do as well as their two step process), forgetting about all the other significant benefits IP provides. Not just about simplicity, and not just a RIP. Results matter.  Small price in comparison to the costs for camera gear, computer and nice monitor, paper, inks and other supplies, and all the rest of my photography. Big bang for the buck for me. And that was even before saving $500 on the Epson cost (rebates and dealer discount), which was applied to IP.
 

Ironic using the term obscenely expensive on a Leica forum, and trying to explain to someone why it costs more for something that seems so simple, and why it offers so many advantages over alternatives. 🤪

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

Far less costly than just the custom profiling gear ...

Fair point.  I got the discount on the P906 as well - I guess it's soon to be replaced with an upgrade!  I'll think about ImagePrint.  Thanks for the recommendation.

[Jeff S]

Btw, I’ve lost count, but I think I’ve seen posts or gotten PM’s from around 5 members here who have moved to IP without any regret.  I do imagine, however, that being in the US helps with sales and service, although one member from Spain loves it.

I no longer have the link, but one respected US printer tried various alternatives for B&W, including Epson’s ABW, Jon Cone’s Piezography, etc, and concluded that prints using IP were superior.  And those other products offer far fewer features and less flexibility.

Jeff

Edited October 12, 2024 by Jeff S

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Wow!  ImagePrint is obscenely expensive!  He surely doesn’t seem to waste any money on his website - half the links don’t work!

Anyone have a more sensible alternative (I think I know what the answer is - simplicity doesn’t come cheap!)

Lightroom print module, Epson P800, Epson printer management s/w, plus either profiles from the manufacturer (free) or my own custom profiles (the cost of a Xrite/Calibrite device)*. Much cheaper. And you're not limited to one printer or s/w version.

My aim is to translate what I see on my screen onto a sheet of paper as accurately as possible - this combination works for me.

 

* I bought this partly because at the time I was using off-brand inks, so standard paper profiles were not suitable (with the P800 I'm back to Epson inks). I have since used it for a few washi papers, which had no profiles. Thus in most cases you only need a calibration device for your screen which is cheaper than the screen-and-paper tool (and not even that if you have a self-calibrating screen).

Edited October 12, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[01af]

Am 10.10.2024 um 22:32 schrieb Stuart Richardson:

... but I can say that inkjet printing is a series of endless hassles: clogs, driver malfunctions, ink scams (meaning the printer uses too much, clogs, forces cleaning and then charges you insane amounts, region locks them etc).

Not in my experience.

The Epson Stylus Pro 3800 I had before gave me a few headaches due to clogging ... but I'm afraid I didn't use it enough. Too long periods of time sitting idle. The Epson SureColor P-800 I have now is working absolutely hassle-free for a few years now. But then, I am printing more these days than I formerly did—at least one A4 print per week.

[elmars]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb 01af:

Not in my experience.

Mine not too.

[hansvons]

8 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 I'll think about ImagePrint.  Thanks for the recommendation.

There's also Mirage Print, which doesn't come cheap either. One advantage is that you don't need to rely on printer drivers, which can easily be screwed up when updating your computer's system. This happened to me when updating my MacBook to Sequoia 15.1. Downloading new drivers didn't resolve the issue. Maybe I have to wait for a new C1 build. Also, the previsualization through paper profiles works better than directly in the editor. In my case, that's C1; maybe Lightroom does a better job. However, as I said earlier, in my case, my computer's screen (calibrated to 5,000K and Hahnemühle Photo Rag (under proper 5,000K light) are eerily in sync without profiles. 

[LocalHero1953]

I don't find LR's previsualisation particularly accurate (it highlights areas of over-saturation that don't show on the print), but it does give me an idea of where the problem areas are. I guess I'm just used to its foibles.

[Stuart Richardson]

My experience is primarily with the 9900, P9000 and P9500. The 9900 and P9500 were both major headaches. The 9900 was terrible upon introduction and eventually needed to replace the entire cleaning station within the printer, despite being less than a year old. The P9000 (which coincided with the P800 that everyone liked) was good and the most reliable to date. The 9500 is fast and convenient in not having ink switching, but the ink is not ready for primetime. It has huge struggles with banding (trying to get pure, banding free black areas on all black photos or pure solid colors can be a true nightmare), most likely due to the dual head design and the excessive speed. Great for posters, bad for fine art prints. I am sure that printing A4 prints at home once a week makes all of these printers seem pretty good. When I am talking about unreliable, I am talking about the new roller system in the 9500 wrinkling prints 1.5 meters into a 2 meter long print, ruining all that paper and time. It's randomly deciding to not print the print as layed out, despite the previous prints working fine and nothing changing. It's the printer driver not being sticky and simply deciding to "forget" saved printer configurations at seemingly random intervals (an area where a RIP would be an improvement). I am talking having to print 22 copies of a 96x145cm print for a 9 print exhibition because the color gradient in the image only shows banding in one particular tonal level, so the print is halfway done before it shows banding and therefore needs to be thrown out. It is trying to get inks delivered to you, because they are 40% cheaper in the US because of cartel pricing, but the manufacturer will not let companies ship it outside their region. I really only take on high end jobs at this point because the hassle is simply not worth it. The technology has seemingly taken a step backward (in Epson at least) and I spend more time throwing out ruined prints and trying to fix errors and inconsistencies than actually making my client's work.

I generally work for fine artists as much as photographers, and there are a lot more challenging images than a photographer comes across (continuous or gradient tones are much harder to print than a landscape or portrait, for example), and I use a lot of non-standard papers, so my experience is likely impacted by that. But I know that among my colleagues who are fine art printers, the P9500 is not well liked and many went back to the P9000. If you are doing home printing and smaller prints with normal images you will probably have an easier go of it. But like I said, I would not wish my experience with them on anyone. And it is not like I don't have experience...I have been running a Hahnemühle Certified Studio for fifteen years.

Edited October 12, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Jeff S]

No thanks when it comes to large format printers for me.  Waters are calm at the 17” size in my experience, further eased by IP’s print driver control, profiles (built on LUTs), and excellent and reliable soft proofing (what some are calling “previsualization”). 
 

Like 01af, I’ve owned both the 3800 and P800, neither of which caused clogging problems for 15 years.  The P800 is still going strong, and I donated the 3800, that was still humming along, to a local art school after 7 years.

Printing at home? Highly recommended, especially if one doesn’t need or want monster sized prints.

Jeff

 

[ALScott]

Update.  Calibrated with Calibrite Display Pro HL for the first time today.  Canon Pro-1100 arrived later and I had it set up and connected to my MacBook in about 45 minutes.  First print was Keith Cooper test print and it looked like the image I downloaded.  Not quite as vibrant but nothing on paper is compared to a screen.  First print was from our recent trip to Yellowstone and it looked great.  So good I can’t believe how this has gone.  I then reprinted a B&W 8x10 I had ordered online for $12.50 and never liked.  Printed a couple and got it exactly like I wanted it.  So, very happy with this outcome and super excited I can print whatever I want whenever I want.  Oh, read on here before printer was delivered about ImagePrint and held off due to the price.  I used Canon’s PPL at Keith’s recommendation and I can’t see why I would ever need anything else.  I am sure there is something ImagePrint does that would be helpful but as long as I am getting my pics from LrC to paper and they look the same I am good!  Can’t wait to try some bigger stuff and some 5x7’s and different papers.

[Jeff S]

Congrats, and enjoy.

I used to print from LR as well. Just sayin’. 😉

Jeff

[ALScott]

24 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Congrats, and enjoy.

I used to print from LR as well. Just sayin’. 😉

Jeff

So, just for my own education are you sayin’ you used to and LrC was fine or IP crushes LrC in terms of the final print quality?  I am literally only a few prints in but it’s hard for me to imagine getting massively different results.  I am sure I don’t know enough about printing yet to appreciate all that may be possible.  Again, forgive my ignorance but without asking I will never know.  I read more about it and I don’t think I will use a million different papers, my driver is working as it should at the moment and I will not be cutting out a ton of pics.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, ALScott said:

So, just for my own education are you sayin’ you used to and LrC was fine or IP crushes LrC in terms of the final print quality?  I am literally only a few prints in but it’s hard for me to imagine getting massively different results.  I am sure I don’t know enough about printing yet to appreciate all that may be possible.  Again, forgive my ignorance but without asking I will never know.  I read more about it and I don’t think I will use a million different papers, my driver is working as it should at the moment and I will not be cutting out a ton of pics.

I think you should continue as is, learn how to tweak things, overcome obstacles that might arise, try different papers and PP options, and continue to improve your results. Only then might you appreciate any differences IP might provide.

I used LR for years, happy with results, but didn’t know what I didn’t know. At one point I got frustrated when updates to Adobe, Epson and Apple O/S versions created compatibility problems and system failure until I finally got resolution. It was at that point that I learned of IP, which avoids that mess. After biting the bullet on cost, and using the software over the years, I came to appreciate the differences in operating simplicity and, more importantly, improvements in my print results.  Some of that can probably be attributed to my own growth, but surely IP contributed.  Profiles were better, soft proofing was better, and over time, ColorByte introduced improved controls and features for final editing, including output sharpening (different than LR sharpening), narrow gamut controls, subtle toning effects, etc, to further enhance LR edits.  Plus whatever is “under the hood” matters; Pannozzo and his team are smart.

As noted earlier, I only use a small fraction of IP’s features. It’s more of an operating system than a RIP. And much like Photoshop or other programs, one learns which aspects can best serve their particular needs. In the link I provided above, John Pannozzo describes a few of these potential uses. He talks too about their custom profiles, specific to your printer (recently adding some Canon models in addition to Epson) which I can attest are indeed superb.  These include virtually all papers, and even for different lighting conditions (including greyscale), which can greatly help if one changes display environments, for instance an exhibition space.  They’ll even make a free profile if by some chance they don’t already include that paper.

Next step… do your own custom matting and framing. Then I can provide some more recommendations! 🙂

Jeff

Edited October 13, 2024 by Jeff S

[Jeff S]

Delayed edit to above…. the Apple/Adobe/Epson compatibility issues I mentioned specifically caused problems with color management.  

And, just to clarify, I still use and like LR Classic (and occasionally Photoshop).  But I don’t use the LR print module; instead using IP as an external editor once I’ve completed LR edits.

Jeff

[Advizahol]

I got tired of dealing with clogged nozzles and expired inks, so I just use online printing now. The color consistency and convenience have been way better for me.

[Chris W]

I have an Epson P600 I bought years ago. Sometimes I don't print anything for a year and it still works fine.

You can buy an affordable BenQ colour monitor that can be accurately profiled. The profiler software isn't that expensive. You'd need to know how accurate your picture was before sending it to a commercial printer anyway, right?

It's super easy, you just rest the sensor against the screen and hit 'go' in the software.

I use relatively affordable paper from a local (UK) supplier. The quality from my years old printer and fairly standard paper is outstanding. The most expensive thing about home printing (BY FAR) is the ink. I now buy 3rd party ink for my Epson. It's about half the price of the official Epson stuff.

If you want to dip your toe into home printing buy a Canon Selphy. It's a very cheap, portable printer. The print quality is fantastic though. Great for giving free prints to your subjects.

Edited June 15 by Chris W

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

i have very bad experiences with third party inks. I used Epson-certified from a reputable seller, and after two years all the prints that were on the wall had colour shifted and faded. No UV resistance. The prints that I had done using Epson ink were fine. 

[Chris W]

There's probably many different types of 3rd party ink at different price points. The ink I use is indistinguishable from the vastly over priced Epson ink and the prints I made with it (both colour and B&W) have lasted for several years and look identical to my Epson prints.