Author Topic: Do You Still Print Your Photos?  (Read 969 times)

BruceSD

  • Confirmed Bokeholic
  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 251
  • I'm here to learn from the best
    • The F/2 Guru
Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« on: June 10, 2024, 20:40:49 »
 .
In around, 20002 I purchased a large format Epson printer. The 24" rolls of printer paper, and 210ml ink cartridges it used were quite expensive. I considered this printer an investment that would pay for itself with future print sales.

I tried selling prints online, and selling them at art fairs. Neither worked out.

Lucky for me my huge/old Epson printer (aka "money pit") died a few months ago. I doubt I'll ever buy a large format printer again, but I've read where many serious photographers have purchased smaller "desktop" color printers that are much less expensive to operate than large format printers. I'm considering maybe purchasing a desktop printer in the future, and would like to hear your current thinking on the merits of doing your own printing.

Do you regularly print your images? What type of printer do you use? What do you do with the prints?


Ian Watson

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 547
Re: Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2024, 02:01:24 »
I have a Canon Pixma Pro-10 that I bought around ten years ago. It was almost impossible at the time to find a lab that would make such a good print in the smaller sizes (usually US letter) that interested me. Even when I did send files to a lab, the prints sometimes suffered during shipping. So I decided to make them myself. It has been a fun (and sometimes frustrating!) experience and one that I consider part of photography.

I still make a few prints per month, just for the sheer pleasure of it.

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2679
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2024, 06:40:30 »
I still make inkjet prints.  I use a 17" Epson, though I commonly print 8.5x11", 11x17", 13x19" and even little 4x6" snapshot prints on occasion. 
There is a balance between the cost of printing---especially the cost of ink--- of the small, true desktop-sized printers vs. larger (17") size printers---how big is too big?
Does 17" print width qualify as "desktop"? 
I have a now-old (2017) Epson Stylus Photo 3880 that sits happily for weeks or months between printing use.  The 80mL ink cartridges now cost ≈US$80, but last a long time.  This unit sits in the middle ground between the smaller true-desktop printers that use tiny ink cartridges at a high cost $$/mL, and the giant production machines whose ink is less expensive per mL but comes in large $$$$ cartridges and that need to be used constantly (as in a printing business) or may face severe clogging issues.
I will acquire a similar 17" capable unit when this 3880 printer expires. 
The current equivalent models to my Epson 3880 are the Epson SureColor P900 and Canon Image pro-Graf Pro 1000. 
The P900 is really small/light weight for a 17" capable printer but the paper transport may be a weak design. 
The Canon Pro 1000 is relatively large and heavy and seems to consume a prodigious amount ink for "maintenance", but is considered a reliable battleship.  The cost per mL of ink on the smaller-than-17" printers is a limiting factor IMO. 
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

Ilkka Nissilä

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1709
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2024, 12:14:39 »
.
In around, 20002 I purchased a large format Epson printer. The 24" rolls of printer paper, and 210ml ink cartridges it used were quite expensive. I considered this printer an investment that would pay for itself with future print sales.

I tried selling prints online, and selling them at art fairs. Neither worked out.

Lucky for me my huge/old Epson printer (aka "money pit") died a few months ago. I doubt I'll ever buy a large format printer again, but I've read where many serious photographers have purchased smaller "desktop" color printers that are much less expensive to operate than large format printers. I'm considering maybe purchasing a desktop printer in the future, and would like to hear your current thinking on the merits of doing your own printing.

Do you regularly print your images? What type of printer do you use? What do you do with the prints?

I make prints on a weekly, sometimes almost daily basis. I make them to see how the image looks large, and to archive my best images outside of the digital storage system. I put smaller prints (A4) in binders and larger ones (A3, A3+) in boxes which are made for the purpose. I can show the prints around to people and although there is some risk in handling them, I can easily fix such damage by making another print. I also occasionally frame prints for wall or table display. I rarely sell prints, but occasionally that too can happen.

I think the 200 ml sized cartridges of your printer would be good for high volume printing. I use the P900 with 50 ml (for a long time I had the Pro 3880 with 80 ml cartridges) and I find the P900 fantastic. Easier to use than the earlier printers, and very high quality. I think 10 years may be a practical limit to how long these machines keep working in regular use, and to keep the printer from clogging, regular use is needed. With the 200 ml cartridges I wouldn't be able to keep up with the required volume to keep the ink fresh and I wouldn't want to make such a big investment. Edit: I would avoid the printer which have the really small cartridges (15 ml etc.) as the ink constantly runs out and just handling the frequent cartridge swaps is a major additional workload. I find the P900's paper transport superior to the Pro 3880 in that it keeps the paper centered relative to the rollers so there is no tendency to pull the paper from side and lead to skewed printing as could happen on the earlier models. However, I haven't used the P900 for a long time yet. So far, I'm very happy with it.

I greatly enjoy my own prints, I think being able to see them in physical form and outside of the confines of digital displays is great. With displays, one has to boot the computer and find the file to display it, and probably it doesn't show as much detail as a large print. There is also something enjoyable about having a physical object that one can look at and place at one's choice of location rather than requiring that an electronic device be used to display the image.

I think most people would be really impressed to see a large print at close distance (taken with a modern camera and lens) but many people somehow seem reluctant to print often; they know that the printer takes space, incurs costs, and can clog up if not used often enough. They might only make a print or two per year, which to me seems very low, considering the cost of the other things many people put into photography (cameras, lenses, travel, accommodation, time, etc.)  can be an order of magnitude or two higher than what they put into printing.

I am sure that once I am gone no one will ever view my digital images, but there might be a chance that a printed image may be kept and enjoyed for some decades longer. I'm also convinced many people will lose their digital files by lack of attention put into continued archiving and copying the files to new media, and negligence / falling victim to economic tides of cloud services. Prints kept in boxes, albums etc. or framed on a wall have a better chance of surviving a lifetime (when made on archival media) than countless digital images that are for many so numerous that the sheer volume of it prevents the images from being found.

The non-archival printers from early days of photo inkjet printing probably did a lot of damage to the reputation of inkjet printing as the prints could fade visibly in months in some environments. I know some people who were enthusiastic about printing before experiencing the fading of the dye-based prints and some of them never moved up to pigment-based printing which does solve the problem but the printers are somewhat more expensive.

Dogman

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 481
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2024, 15:46:47 »
A couple of years ago, my second desktop Epson photo printer died of the same disease as my first--paper would no longer feed.  I was angry because it had just gone out of warranty, had not been used much and there was no local repairs to be had.  At that point I decided to stop printing.  Since the COVID days, I had gotten lazy with filing my prints and I had a stack about 2 ft. tall sitting on the desk beside the printer.  I realized then that no one, even myself, had looked at them in a year or more.  All the friends and family who were interested in photographs had moved away or had died off.  That happens as you get older. 

About the same time, I realized photos I had posted online were being viewed by a number of people and for whatever reason some people liked them.  One of the joys of photography, other than the self satisfaction of the creation, is sharing the photos with others.  Today the internet seems a more efficient method of sharing. 

I'm a B&W shooter.  I like nothing much better than a beautiful monochrome image printed on fine art inkjet or silver gelatin paper.  But the world has changed in the decades I've been a photographer.  One of the changes is how we no longer sit around showing each other prints or sit in the dark showing slides on a roll-down screen.  So, reluctantly, I'm no longer printing.  I post online and I look at photos the same way or printed in books.  I do love photo books...but that's another story.



"If it's more than a hundred feet from the car, it's not photogenic."--Edward Weston

My Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/197057338@N03/

Hugh_3170

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
  • Back in Melbourne!
Re: Do You Still Print Your Photos?
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2024, 16:48:31 »
Dogman, I think that maybe we need a second thread asking how many people use digital projectors to show their images?


...........................................

I'm a B&W shooter.  I like nothing much better than a beautiful monochrome image printed on fine art inkjet or silver gelatin paper.  But the world has changed in the decades I've been a photographer.  One of the changes is how we no longer sit around showing each other prints or sit in the dark showing slides on a roll-down screen. 

...........................................

Hugh Gunn