.
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.
