Printing Question

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If this is the wrong forum, I apologise but I know there are quite a few members who are also keen home printers and I wanted some advice.

 

I've been thinking that I need to expand my experience and have a go at printing. But the more I look into it, the more it seems like a financial black hole.

 

Ideally, I would go for an Epson R1900 or Epson R2400 or equivalent printer. That sets you back close to £500. Then you need a screen calibrator, say another £130. And probably a CIS, which adds about £200 more. Then assume approximately £100 in materials to get it all calibrated and working properly. It seems to me you could get into a lot of expense, nearly as much as I was planning on spending on a new PC, just to get a home set-up running.

 

By contrast, I could get a well recommended London printer to do me 16x12s for £25each. So, it seems that you'd have to be doing, say, 40+ 16x12s in, say, a year to see a good return.

 

Now, one factor not in the equation is that learning to print might add to my skills, so to what extent is that important?

 

Is there something flawed in my thinking which I am missing or is home printing really only for professionals with a high demand that justifies the start-up investment?

 

TIA for any responses.

 

LouisB

[DaveB]

I'm a hobbiest and print for pleasure and to exhibit. These past four months I've been making the leap from casual printing with a Canon s9000 to something more serious, I hope, via the HP B9180.

 

It has not been terribly expensive in terms of money. The printer retails in the States for less than $600 USD, I've bought some paper, replacement ink, a Spyder2 to calibrate my LCD for about $75, and that's about it. The greatest investment has been in the time necessary to feel that I'm in control and able to produce the results I'm after.

 

Learning how to control a color managed workflow from the camera to the printer took a while. It doesn't seem so puzzling to me now, but there were enough mistakes made along the way by me to realize that trying to do something approaching fine art printing at home is probably not for everyone. I found the Michael Reichman / Jeff Schewe tutorial, From Camera to Print, available on the Luminous Landscape website for about $34 to be invaluable. It helped with understanding color management, workflow and aesthetic issues as well.

 

Printing has also forced me to come to grips with CS3 and my favorite printing utility, Qimage, to a degree that I never did before.

 

So, I've wasted a great deal of paper, spent more time and ink than I would have liked, but now feel much more in control. I have five large A3 framed B&W prints hanging in a show now. I just love the way M8 images print onto some of these gorgeous Hahnemuhle papers. The results in color and detail are like nothing I've been able to see before, certainly not on any monitor.

 

If you can afford the time, and tolerate some frustration, it's a fun and rewarding adjunct to photography. Sure beats darkroom work.

[elansprint72]

BIG,

I'm sure that stuns will pitch in here 'cos he's got a big print set-up; from what I've seen of your photos, aimed at the right, market you could sell a few. It might be worth forking out to get a few of your best B&W shots printed up and then hawking these around the small galleries in your neck of the woods on a sale or return basis. I guess that getting a foot in the door is the first hurdle; if you flog a few, that can subsidise the purchase of printer/equipment, colour printing is a black art and, as I've been saying for the past 35 years "I don't think it will catch on".

 

Good luck.

[Agent M10]

We decided to get into printing and, frankly, our prints are quite a lot better than our professional lab's. Indeed, when we finally get the calibration, RIP, and everything down, we were blown away with the difference. Our lab, in fact, advertises nationally for its B&W printing.

 

It's not a lot of fun at the start, but it is rewarding to have that print come out and you did it from start to finish.

 

BTW, we're using a 2400 and ImagePrint.

[stunsworth]

Hi Louis, I guess this is me pitching in as Pete puts it.

 

I have an Epson 3800 and have been very happy with it. Yes printing ecternally might have been cheaper, but I guess I'm a control freak <grin>. I've been able to try a few papers, and it's interesting to compare them. If you used an external printer I;m guessing you'd loose that kind of control.

 

The M8 is easily capable of producing excellent A2 sized prints - as I'm sure you've guessed.

[adan]

Hi, Louis:

 

1) yes there will be an up-front cost roughly as you describe (although I've never bothered with a CIS, and since I just joined Steve in the Epson 3800 Club, I now have huge-cartridge capacity and multiple-gray inks built-in, so I never will).

 

2) 40 prints a year? I do more like 40 prints a MONTH! Once you SEE an A2 or Super-A3 print, you just want more!

 

3) I'm not sure prints can be commoditized: "My lab charges X so I have to be able to match X at home in terms of expense" - and that's the end of the equation. At least once one gets beyond the 4x6 snapshot stage.

 

For me, having someone else print my shots is like hitting the driver and irons - and then handing someone else the putter and saying - "Here. YOU finish the hole."

 

What you learn about, and by, printing will feed backwards and likely improve your shooting and desktop "processing", because you are integrating all parts of the process.

 

Even if you still go to a lab for 20x30s and 40x60s, you'll be able to talk to the lab guys more effectively if you've got experience yourself.

 

Finally, as to printer choice - the 1900 is aimed at glossy color work (gloss optimizer and red/green (or is it red/blue) as the 'extra' inks. The 2400 is aimed at better B&W (black + 2 grays as the extra inks) on any paper except the mirror-gloss. The 3800 is a 2400 with bigger cartridges and paper width - same K3 inks.

 

The K3 inks, BTW, are absolute dynamite on the new Harman (ex Ilford) Gloss Fiber paper - the reflectivity of that paper is so close to that of Epson's pigment inks that there is virtually no gloss differential - the ink looks like it is IN the paper surface, not ON it.

[Marquinius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Louis,

 

I'm just mudling along on the amateur side, but I'm very glad I invested in an R2400, software and paper.

 

The printer will eat through cartridges, until you learn to do your initial test prints small and on smaller sized paper. I mean: the first A3+ photo rolling off, full color, is so beautiful, that it took me weeks before I stopped and woke up to the fact I was changing yet another cartridge.

 

- invest in good quality paper (like Harman/Ilford)

- get the correct ICC profiles (downloadable from most paper manufacturers)

- use a RIP for B&W printing: I use Quadtone RIP and was glad to pay the few dollars

 

Quadtone takes some getting used to (I just had a bad bout of banding, until I googled and found a sollution), but gives you stunning B&W prints.

 

In the end it is a bit like Andy says: you want to do the whole thing and not leave the best part to someone else. Or in other words: the printing made me realise that taking a photo and making a photo are two sides of the equation.

 

Marco

[biglouis]

Guys

 

Thanks for all the responses. I'm tempted. I could muddle along with my current PC for another year and instead invest in a printer. (Muddle along, read still play Half-Life Episode II in 800x600 without problems ).

 

I'm in tune with Pete's response about the problems of colour printing. Incidentally, early on I decided I only wanted to work in colour. It may be a mistake but I figured that there are so many different avenues to go down that sticking to Urban Landscapes in Colour was what I should do and try to do it as well as possible.

 

It is interesting to read the responses which deal with understanding the whole process which I guess is where I am coming from, e.g. growing my expertise.

 

Thanks again for the lengthy responses, the advice is very welcome.

 

Cheers

 

LouisB

[marknorton]

I'm in the Epson 3800 camp as well, great printer, though a set of inks is a bit frightening...

[johnwolf]

Hi Louis,

 

My observation is that there are two camps: those who enjoy printing and want complete control, and those who find it time-consuming and not worth the effort. The latter group finds a lab they like and accepts the compromises.

 

I used to pursue the first option with my R2400. But I've frankly grown weary of technology and the time and effort it takes to get superb output. So I use my printer for proofs and casual stuff and send the rest out for printing. The lab's results are better that I am able to get. That probably has more to do with my skills than the capability of my printer. But printing really is a whole separate discipline that requires a commitment of time and effort.

 

I can't quantify the expenses, but my sense is that the lab route costs less or it's a wash.

 

But I really think it's more of a question of what areas of photography you enjoy and how you want to spend your time. Personally, I want less time at the computer -- not more.

 

John