Printing, Myths and Truths.

[Dale.]

Recently, I have gotten a few prints printed by a friend of mine at my camera club. Having prints as a tangible object in my hands of my work is a satisfying experience and one I have been missing out on, as I mostly produce DPI s. My friend has a large format printer and he is a bit of a guru when it comes to printing. His prints of my images come out more or less as they appear on my monitor (and his) both calibrated.

It dawned on me recently though, that whilst my friend is good enough to help me out, only taking payment for material costs and not profiting at all, I am not in control of the whole process. I want to be. I can take a photograph, process it, even build a bespoke frame for it myself but I'm not doing the printing. It would be nice to be able to say that when an image finds its way to our wall in one of my frames, I've done the whole thing, from pressing the shutter button, processing it, printing it, mounting, framing and hanging it.

It begs the question though, being as I'm only paying for the materials used, is it worth me getting a printer and all the potential pitfalls of owning one. Printing is an art I'd like to learn too but is it a thing I need to be doing, all things considered? Also, I may only be printing say 30 images a year, including competition work.

One thing that concerns me is that printers need to be used regularly, or the heads will dry up and need replacing. Is this true and how often does a printer need to be run if so?

If I do this, I will be looking at one of the Canon Prografs, possibly the 300.

I know this is a deep, potentially expensive hole but I wouldn't mind having another ability/skill in my pocket, together with my framing and to be in control of the whole process.

Any other myths or truths I should be aware of?

TIA.

 

[droj]

Just that the more STUFF we have, the more of the Earth's resources we consume. It's like a hamster's treadmill ...

 

[ecoleman]

I print my own stuff. Like you I like to be in control and I enjoy the process. It is after all an integral part of the hobby of photography.

Yes you need to print fairly regularly and for that reason I would avoid the Canon if you don't think you will be able to do that. The Canon printers will run a timed cleaning cycle. While this is great for keep the nozzles from clogging up you will find that most of your ink goes towards cleaning instead of printing. Epsons on the other hand do not have a timed cleaning cycles so some manual intervention is required.

I have an Epson SC-P900 and I run a nozzle check once a week. I use a program called Qimage One for my printing and that includes a nozzle pattern over a full A4 sheet. Printing that each week is a lot cheaper than expensive head cleans. I also use Epson printers because Marrutt do some fantastic refillable inks for these printers. The inks are so much cheaper then original epson with no difference in print quality.

I wouldn't say that printing is an art but some things need to be in place to get consistent results. A good screen calibration and brightness setting is key along with some good print profiles for your different papers (companies like Marrutt and Fotospeed will do these for free if you use their papers), a little bit of soft proofing and a good understanding of ppi, dpi viewing distances etc. I recommend a book called The Digital print by Jeff Schewe

 

[Don Fischer]

If you do your own it can be less expensive but, BUT, only if you do quite a bit. I say that because you really will at some point want to get at least a 13" printer. On mine I can do up to 13x39 inch photo's but Biggest I do are 12x24. Printers are lot more expensive than 8 1/2" ones and I think you have to use them every so often to keep the print heads clean, but, You can get really nice photo's from them. Problem is knowing when to stop printing. Geese do I have a bunch of photo's! I also have an 8 1/2" Canon Pixma 100 and if I was smart I'd do 8x10 and keep them in an album. The little printer I've printed up to 8x16" on. Printing can become an addiction! And then get's expensive. One thing I don't do is get tied up in expensive papers. Myself I don't think it's worth it. A picture is a picture and I'm not gonna be around a hundred years to see if it last's. I have photo's on my walls over 20 yrs old and look fine!

 

[Harlequin565]

Pretty much what Elliot said...

Printing your own isn't cost effective in many cases, but then again, neither is a 500mm f/2.8, or upgrading your camera every 2 years. I print because I want to get the best results from my work. I print at A3 or bigger because if I can't make it good, I need to make it big And A3+ prints aren't cheap to buy. It's a hobby - I don't do it to make money, or to do it as cheaply as possible.

My Epson P900 has gone long times without printing and still performs perfectly every time. I do have a cork wall in the office that I refresh every year and pin up successful images so it doesn't sit idle for "months", but it can still be a few weeks before I make a new print. I can't say "don't go Canon" because I've never tried them, but Epson haven't let me down (yet!)

Making a print is part of the process of photography in my opinion and something the photographer should control. That's just me though.

 

[Nod]

IF you do go down the home printing route, I'd definitely go Canon rather than Epson. I'd also say stick with Canon inks. I'd try to do at lest one print a week, even if it's just a 6x4 to keep the ink flowing.

Enjoy the control!!!

 

[yzfmike]

I'd definitely go Canon rather than Epson

Why?

 

[stevewestern]

A few of us here use an Epson eco-tank printer and while expensive to buy they are so very cheap to run, making cost per print so cheap once the purchase price has been forgotten.
Worth looking at I'd say.

 

[droj]

Making a print is part of the process of photography in my opinion and something the photographer should control.

Is not the required control something that's exercised in producing the file that you're sending to print, including soft-proofing for a given paper, rather than anything within the printer itself? If so, how does it matter whether the printer's on your desk or in a lab that's remote?

 

[Dave Canon]

I still choose to print but it costs more than using a commercial printer. Heads have blocked 3 time over the last 6 years with my Epson SC P600. This thread served as reminder that I have not used the printer for about 2 months so not surprisingly several of the colours are blocked again. However, I have found it relatively easy to clean the heads in the past so will have to do again. I should have run a weekly nozzle check at this time of the year but forgot. Printing is not an art but a science.

Dave

 

[Craikeybaby]

Just cut up £50 notes and stick them in a frame, it'll be cheaper than printing at home.

 

[Bebop]

I have a now discontinued Canon Pro 1. I love the prints from it, and it does give me great pleasure to see them emerge, but it is expensive to run. I used to joke it was like keeping a horse that needs constant feeding and looking after.

I don't know about the recent Canons, but mine does do cleaning cycles, even if you print often. I also use Q1. It has turned off several times in electrical storms, and despite sometimes not being used for several months, I have never had a clogged head nor any issues at all. It is kept in quite a cool room.

I now also have the Epson ET-8550 which is my everyday printer, but will also print photos. It has pigment black, but is otherwise dye. The prints are not up to the same standard as the Pro 1, no surprise, but I will print without considering the price of ink. Picking the right paper is important.

My photography interest has waned a little and so I don't print so much now. If my Pro 1 died, I probably wouldn't replace it, but then I've been through that part of the journey.

Keith Cooper on YouTube is great for learning more https://www.youtube.com/@KeithCooper

 

[droj]

Just cut up £50 notes and stick them in a frame, it'll be cheaper than printing at home.

This could equally apply to lab prints using archival inks and papers. But for everyday use, C-type colour prints are cheap as chips & may be good for 50 years on the wall as long as you don't hang 'em in direct sunlight.

 

[Dale.]

Lots to think about.

I am still seriously considering it. My main reason is to be in control of the whole process. My friend does absolutely beautiful prints and I'm still going to have him do prints in the meantime though.

I'm not particularly stuck on a Canon printer. I did have an Epson R1400 years ago, I still have it, it's lives in a cupboard in my workshop but hasn't been run for years. The reason I was reluctant about an Epson printer is that with the R1400, B+W images always came off the printer with a blue, green cast. There was no dedicated black in that printer and it used colour in mono images.

Now that modern printers have dedicated blacks, that shouldn't be so much of a problem, if any.

Still lots to learn here, I'm not completely novice at printing, I used to print my own with the Epson a long time ago for competition use. I learned then and at that time, maybe printing wasn't for me as I seemed to bin more than I used with the Epson. My reasons for wanting to print are different now though and I'm looking at it with a different attitude as well.

We'll see where this goes, I'm in no rush, I have a few other projects on the go that require a financial input as well, so I have plenty of time to research too.

 

[ecoleman]

Lots to think about.

I am still seriously considering it. My main reason is to be in control of the whole process. My friend does absolutely beautiful prints and I'm still going to have him do prints in the meantime though.

I'm not particularly stuck on a Canon printer. I did have an Epson R1400 years ago, I still have it, it's lives in a cupboard in my workshop but hasn't been run for years. The reason I was reluctant about an Epson printer is that with the R1400, B+W images always came off the printer with a blue, green cast. There was no dedicated black in that printer and it used colour in mono images.

Now that modern printers have dedicated blacks, that shouldn't be so much of a problem, if any.

Still lots to learn here, I'm not completely novice at printing, I used to print my own with the Epson a long time ago for competition use. I learned then and at that time, maybe printing wasn't for me as I seemed to bin more than I used with the Epson. My reasons for wanting to print are different now though and I'm looking at it with a different attitude as well.

We'll see where this goes, I'm in no rush, I have a few other projects on the go that require a financial input as well, so I have plenty of time to research too.

The bigger Epson printers like the SC-P700 and 900 (and maybe some others, I don't know) have an Advanced Black and White mode to ensure no colour casts. It only uses the Black and grey inks.

 

[Dale.]

The bigger Epson printers like the SC-P700 and 900 (and maybe some others, I don't know) have an Advanced Black and White mode to ensure no colour casts. It only uses the Black and grey inks.

Yup, that's what makes me think Epson are back in the running. Actually, my friend that currently prints for me uses an Epson. I'm not sure on the model but it is a large format printer. His B+W prints are gorgoeus.

 

[Nod]

Why?

IME Canons are less prone to nozzle blockages than Epsons.

 

[Harlequin565]

Is not the required control something that's exercised in producing the file that you're sending to print, including soft-proofing for a given paper, rather than anything within the printer itself? If so, how does it matter whether the printer's on your desk or in a lab that's remote?

I guess if we're talking semantics, you're right. Soft proofing, making an online order using the lab's UI, and ticking the right boxes does require some control. For me, it was far less rewarding, and felt much less involved than doing it myself.

It's also less about the printer for me, and more about the paper. Different papers respond differently to different types of images and different colours. Experimenting with paper will allow you to choose what's best for your image. As said in the OP, having something tangible in your hands is part of the process. The feel of the paper therefore becomes part of the image (for me!!). You don't really get that with lab prints without going through a very expensive process of ordering the same print on different paper to see what it looks & feels like.

The immediacy of being able to try an image on different papers to see what works is a huge benefit to me

I have found soft proofing to be a complete waste of time. I guess part of my process is the "hands on" part (outside of a computer) rather than fiddling with settings to get what I want. For me, soft-proofing isn't needed when you print your own, because you can see the results of a print immediately. With ICC profiles that work (and some really don't in my experience) and good calibrated screen brightness, what you see on the screen is what comes out of the printer.

Soft proofing and lab is one way to go. Home printing is another. DIY is far more rewarding to me and I feel like I have more control over the final product than I do when using a lab. I wasn't trying to say that the lab way is "click & hope" and thus the photograph is in some way devalued. I was more trying to say that an image that I've printed myself feels more valuable to me. The OP seemed to be leaning that way as well, and I just wanted to encourage it.

Gosh, that was an overly long reply... Sorry

 

[Dale.]

I was more trying to say that an image that I've printed myself feels more valuable to me. The OP seemed to be leaning that way as well, and I just wanted to encourage it.

My feelings too. It's a bit of a missing link for me although I will always be grateful for my friend's efforts.

I've had a few prints done this last week. The paper they are on is gorgeous, it's a cotton, textured paper and suits the subject very well. I get to pick the paper, from my pal's recommendations.

 

[Craikeybaby]

If you know what paper you like you can usually get it printed on that from a good commercial printer, especially the Hanhemuhle papers etc. Having a even a subset of their papers at home, is expensive, and that is even before you consider having to store them somewhere.

 

[Don Fischer]

I've had a few HP printers, couple Epson's and several canon's. Results and life span definitely best with m canons. Used to always buy the printer makers ink but just to expensive. So tried an after market ink, Ink Technologies and have had good luck with both my Canon iP100 and my Pixma 9000 MKII and going to try it in the new Canon printer Pixma 200. As much as company's charge for ink they should just give you the printer! Tank from after market for my 9000 MKII is $500. From Canon they were $18! Get all my paper from Red River and no complaints!

 

[Harlequin565]

The paper they are on is gorgeous, it's a cotton, textured paper and suits the subject very well. I get to pick the paper, from my pal's recommendations.

I did a post last year about paper. It's probably a bit nerdy but here for reference: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/talk-paper.748842/

 

[droj]

Gosh, that was an overly long reply... Sorry

Nowt to be sorry about. Explaining is good!

I've had a few HP printers, couple Epson's and several canon's

And where did they go to, Don, after you finished with them?

 

[ecoleman]

And where did they go to, Don, after you finished with them?

It really is irrelevant. If you want to lecture people about their e-waste, please do it elsewhere.

I've had various printers in my life and they all went to the tip. Where else? Are we just meant to hoard them in the loft?

 

[droj]

It really is irrelevant.

On the contrary ...

 

[Dave Canon]

The bigger Epson printers like the SC-P700 and 900 (and maybe some others, I don't know) have an Advanced Black and White mode to ensure no colour casts. It only uses the Black and grey inks.

This is a key issue for me. I have sent images to a commercial printer and printed myself to compare; for colour there was little to choose between them but for B&W the Epson Advance B&W was significantly better. It is not just the lack of colour casts but the range of greys are more subtle. At club print competitions, the B&W prints produced in this way stand out and not surprisingly win the awards.

Dave

 

[Dale.]

Looking at the P900, not to buy just yet but £380 to re ink it. I know this is a cost that I'd have to accept and in that sense, it's fair enough. How many say A3+ colour prints would I get from that? I know there are some variables and there's not an exact answer/figure, so just (very) roughly speaking.

 

[ecoleman]

I promise you won't be disappointed. I've used Marrutt inks for years on my P600 and P900.

Epson P900 Refillable Cartridges - SC Continuous Refill Inks

Print at a fraction of the cost without compromising on print quality with the easy to install Epson P900 refillable cartridges and Marrutt professional inkjet inks

marrutt.com

Once you have the refill kit then you just buy the inks from then on.


A full set of 10 OEM carts (50ml) is £293 at cartridge people.

Epson T47A Multipack - Full Set of 10 Ink Cartridges (Original)

Exceptional deal on this Epson T47A (PB/C/VM/Y/LC/LM/G/MB/LG/V) Black & Colour Ink Cartridge 10 Pack (Original) with next day delivery available. Buy today from Cartridge People and enjoy huge savings. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee included!

www.cartridgepeople.com

For the same price at Marrutt you get 125ml each.

Marrutt Bulk Inks For Epson P900 - Refill Pigment Inkjet Ink

Image performance and longevity tested and approved – many of the world’s finest commercial photographers and designers make use of the Bulk Inks for Epson P900

marrutt.com

For 250ml of each colour in OEM inks you would need to pay £1465. Marrutt inks would cost you £519

For 500ml in OEM would cost you £2930, Marrutt £899

You won't get too many prints from your first set of inks, not because there is less ink but because the initial prime of the ink lines uses 70% of the ink in the tank. The ink is still there, just not in the tank and you have to replace the cartridge before the tank empties. Although you will find that you will use some colours faster than others. My P900 is relatively new and I'm still transitioning from OEM inks to Marrutt inks on this printer. I still have 4 or 5 colours that are still on the original cartridge.

 

[jerry12953]

To save ink, don't switch your printer off. Every time you switch it on again it runs a cleaning cycle, which uses ink (vast quantities of) .

I can't imagine it uses much power although I'm happy to be corrected.

I've not trusted compatible inks for years because I suspected that was why my print heads kept getting blocked.

 

[ecoleman]

To save ink, don't switch your printer off. Every time you switch it on again it runs a cleaning cycle, which uses ink (vast quantities of) .

I can't imagine it uses much power although I'm happy to be corrected.

I've not trusted compatible inks for years because I suspected that was why my print heads kept getting blocked.

That's not true at all for modern printers.

Canon do timed cleaning cycles but Epsons do not. Leaving your printer on does nothing at all except waste electricity.

You are correct that cheap compatible inks from the likes of ebay etc are rubbish. Marrutt inks are not your average cheap ebay cartridge. I have no skin in the game with Marrutt, I just use their inks and I wouldn't use them or recommend them if they weren't up to scratch.

 

[jerry12953]

I have an oldish Canon printer (MG6150) and every time you turn it on - eg after a power outage - it does a cleaning cycle. So I have learned to leave it switched on.

 

[Dave Canon]

I promise you won't be disappointed. I've used Marrutt inks for years on my P600 and P900.

Epson P900 Refillable Cartridges - SC Continuous Refill Inks

Print at a fraction of the cost without compromising on print quality with the easy to install Epson P900 refillable cartridges and Marrutt professional inkjet inks

marrutt.com

Once you have the refill kit then you just buy the inks from then on.


A full set of 10 OEM carts (50ml) is £293 at cartridge people.

Epson T47A Multipack - Full Set of 10 Ink Cartridges (Original)

Exceptional deal on this Epson T47A (PB/C/VM/Y/LC/LM/G/MB/LG/V) Black & Colour Ink Cartridge 10 Pack (Original) with next day delivery available. Buy today from Cartridge People and enjoy huge savings. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee included!

www.cartridgepeople.com

For the same price at Marrutt you get 125ml each.

Marrutt Bulk Inks For Epson P900 - Refill Pigment Inkjet Ink

Image performance and longevity tested and approved – many of the world’s finest commercial photographers and designers make use of the Bulk Inks for Epson P900

marrutt.com

For 250ml of each colour in OEM inks you would need to pay £1465. Marrutt inks would cost you £519

For 500ml in OEM would cost you £2930, Marrutt £899

You won't get too many prints from your first set of inks, not because there is less ink but because the initial prime of the ink lines uses 70% of the ink in the tank. The ink is still there, just not in the tank and you have to replace the cartridge before the tank empties. Although you will find that you will use some colours faster than others. My P900 is relatively new and I'm still transitioning from OEM inks to Marrutt inks on this printer. I still have 4 or 5 colours that are still on the original cartridge.

Some years ago I calculated my ink consumption and put all the figures on a spread sheet to show the total cost of printing over say 6 years. At that time I was printing about 70 A3 ish prints per year and it would have been more expensive to use refill kits. If I was printing more than 120 or assumed that the printer life would be much longer than 6 years then it could tip the other way. So my decision was that it was not worth it for me to use a refill kit. However, the current printer is now in its 7th year but I have had to fight hard to keep jets unblocked. My current printing need is down to about 30 per year so it would definitely have been much more expensive to use.

Dave

 

[ecoleman]

Some years ago I calculated my ink consumption and put all the figures on a spread sheet to show the total cost of printing over say 6 years. At that time I was printing about 70 A3 ish prints per year and it would have been more expensive to use refill kits. If I was printing more than 120 or assumed that the printer life would be much longer than 6 years then it could tip the other way. So my decision was that it was not worth it for me to use a refill kit. However, the current printer is now in its 7th year but I have had to fight hard to keep jets unblocked. My current printing need is down to about 30 per year so it would definitely have been much more expensive to use.

Dave

I've just finished some of my bottles of ink that I first bought for my P600 8 years ago. The P600 inks also works in the new P900

 

[Dave Canon]

I've just finished some of my bottles of ink that I first bought for my P600 8 years ago. The P600 inks also works in the new P900

Good for you but my point is that anyone considering this route should calculate the costs for their circumstances. I was accosted by one of the refill companies at an Exhibition who was trying to sell his products to me by exaggerating the potential savings. To shut him up, I showed him my spread sheet and he then acted confused and decided he had to deal with something urgently elsewhere.

Dave

 

[Don Fischer]

Nowt to be sorry about. Explaining is good!


And where did they go to, Don, after you finished with them?

Trash dump! The Pro 9000 MKII Is in the back room resting.

 

[ecoleman]

Good for you but my point is that anyone considering this route should calculate the costs for their circumstances. I was accosted by one of the refill companies at an Exhibition who was trying to sell his products to me by exaggerating the potential savings. To shut him up, I showed him my spread sheet and he then acted confused and decided he had to deal with something urgently elsewhere.

Dave

Okay, whatever floats your boat.

Genuine OEM cart for P900 is 34.90 for 50ml. Marrutt is £29.95 for 125ml

I don't need a spreadsheet to see that I'm getting more than twice as much ink for less.

If you're not printing enough to make that cheaper for you, then why buy the printer in the first place?
I really am intrigued as to how you figure that it may not work out cheaper for you.

 

[Dave Canon]

If you're not printing enough to make that cheaper for you, then why buy the printer in the first place?
I really am intrigued as to how you figure that it may not work out cheaper for you.

I have said earlier that it would be much cheaper for me to send my images to a commercial printer but the quality particularly for B&W is not as good. You may also choose your route even though it may not be the cheapest. When I calculate the total cost per print over a 6 year printer life it includes the capital cost of the printer. Also, if you have to buy ink in larger quantities, you may not consume it all over the 6 years but I do include the total cost. If the printer did fail after 6 years, you may be stuck with ink you cannot use or forced to buy a printer that you would not otherwise choose. I accept 6 years may not be the best figure for a printer life but my experience so far is that this about right for this type of printer.

Dave

 

[moggi1964]

I bought a Canon Pro100 at auction for £100 and it came with OEM inks and a whole bunch of inks that happened to fit our home printer so I basically got it for free

Anyway, I love having a printer and enjoy making prints. I know it would likely be cheaper to get them printed elsewhere but I enjoy the process (bit like shooting on film when digital is so much cheaper). I have lots of different papers to experiment with and some standard ones I use most often.

I strongly urge you to watch Keith Cooper's videos on YouTube - he gives tons of advice on printing and for the first time in his history on YT he actually recommended a printer that would suit most people.

 

[Harlequin565]

How many say A3+ colour prints would I get from that?

It depends...

If all you're printing is black & white, you're only going to be using the monochrome inks. Because there are so many colours, each one gets used at a different rate depending on what you're printing, and one cart is generally all you need at any one time. As I keep a full set, I never run out, and as soon as I replace one, I re-order it. I bit the bullet and bought a whole extra set when I got my P900. Elliot is right in that quite a bit gets used up.

This post I did on my experience with the P900 shows that you have about 1/4 tank left in each colour when it finishes charging. A subsequent post further down the page shows that I got about 40-50 A4 test prints out of that last 1/4 tank before needing to replace the LGY (light grey). If you assume say 3 A4s to an A3+ that would be around 13-15 prints per 1/4 tank before needing to replace at least 1 cart. You can go a good 3-5 prints beyond where Epson start warning you about empty carts too. By my very very rough maths, that's around 50 - 60 A3+ prints on a full tank before needing to replace at least one. Bear in mind though that my printing could be very different to yours. If you're printing predominantly "white lily on a black background" or "bird against a blue sky" you're going to hoover through those colours much quicker.

This is how my ink levels look now after 3 years of printing and you can see that the colours are all used unevenly... After the initial 6 months, I was probably buying 1 cart a month and I print quite a bit. Mostly A4 for test prints before doing A3+ or A2 for that "big print" feel.


Looking at my historic orders...
I replaced Violet last month. Light Gray (LGY) and Photo Black (PK) were replaced in April.
Vivid Magenta (VM) and Cyan (C) were replaced in Jan 2023
Light Grey is by far the one that needs replacing most often, but I do a fair bit of black & white printing. Blues get used much less often.

I won't get into the discussion on whether OEM inks are better than 3rd party ones. All I'll say is that in the first month of ownership, I caught my hip on the paper tray and broke it off. Epson sent an engineer out free of charge to fix it. It was an excellent service but the first question they asked was "do you use OEM inks?" For me, I'd rather have the peace of mind of print quality, warranty & repair than saving a few quid on 3rd party inks. But I'm fully aware others disagree. Maybe do the first 6 months on OEM, then consider 3rd party for peace of mind?

 

[Dale.]

Thanks for some very helpful replies here.

When I used the R1400 many moons ago, I seemed to chew through ink at a rate of knots. Admittedly, I was printing up to A3 in must cases and in colour. They were quite small tanks, I think about 14ml and it was at the time, about £90 for a full set, which doesn't sound much when it comes to cartridges but they didn't last long at all.

Anyway, the bigger cartridges on the Prografs and Epsons, whilst being a lot more than £90 to replace a full set, should last longer which I can accept.

I'm going to take my time with this, I'm in no rush and not even 100% decided but this thread has eased a few concerns I've had.

I do have a printer sat here next to me, it's an Epson XP-900. I've owned it from new but to be fair to it, it never got the use it deserved and I'm pretty sure some of the heads have dried up as it doesn't print a full set of colours. I have been tempted to get a set of fresh inks for it, they are not expensive in a cartridge replacement sense, £50 a set but again, they are tiny and I would also probably have to replace the head on top.

I am tempted though to resurect this Epson for now and see how I get on, in the short term.