Good quality budget printers?

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,470
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Not only am I a man on a budget, but I'm also a man of fairly simple tastes, who does not have a clue about printers and printing, so was wondering.........

Printers under £100, are they worth it for printing the occasional home wall hangar in a frame?

Or is it smarter to send off your finished JPEG files to a printer and wait a few days for a high quality picture to be delivered?

This is for personal use, so my print needs will not be great, but obviously if cheap printers are not going to look good, or if there's a really visible lack of quality, I would rather discount the idea. If however, they can produce pleasing pictures that look good hanging on the wall, then I'm all for doing it myself at home when the need arises. I can't see myself going above A4 (maybe A3)
 
Crotal Bell said:
Not only am I a man on a budget, but I'm also a man of fairly simple tastes, who does not have a clue about printers and printing, so was wondering.........

Printers under £100, are they worth it for printing the occasional home wall hangar in a frame?

Or is it smarter to send off your finished JPEG files to a printer and wait a few days for a high quality picture to be delivered?

This is for personal use, so my print needs will not be great, but obviously if cheap printers are not going to look good, or if there's a really visible lack of quality, I would rather discount the idea. If however, they can produce pleasing pictures that look good hanging on the wall, then I'm all for doing it myself at home when the need arises. I can't see myself going above A4 (maybe A3)
Click to expand...
I don't think you will find an A3 Inkjet for <£100

I used to have a Canon TS8250 and rarely printed A4 photos on as the ink costs were prohibitive....... having said that if you were only going to print such a photo approx once a month or longer then just maybe your ink costs might be acceptable???
 
If you lived on the Isle of Wight and use Windows, I have an old A4 Canon printer (iP4700) 3 dye inks plus pigment black that you could have for free. It no longer works with my Mac due to the drivers, and is a basic printer that you can't use paper profiles with, however we used to be happy with it using Canon paper for home use. I even have 2 new cartridges for it.

Printing can be a bit of a journey and there is quite a bit to learn once you get picky. You could search on YouTube 'should I print photos at home' for more info. Personally I find it really satisfying to see my photos roll off my printer.

This is a good starting point and it's also worth looking at the channel by Jose Rodriguez - I couldn't quickly find a suitable video.

View: https://youtu.be/Yk5AqNZBLWw
 
Crotal Bell said:
Or is it smarter to send off your finished JPEG files to a printer and wait a few days for a high quality picture to be delivered?
Click to expand...
Yes. The capital spend on a printer is hardly justified for the odd print, and neither is the desk space. Plus if you hardly use it, the heads are likely to clog. There'd be lots of faffing and waste. And in the end, it's just more landfill. At a budget price it would use dye-based inks, too, not pigment, which are not as lightfast hung on the wall.

I would choose a print house and establish a workflow so that what comes back tallies with your screen view.

C-types from a lab are pretty durable fade-wise unless hung in direct sun. And remarkably cheap, size for size.
 
Last edited:
steve_lyt said:
Have a look at the Epson eco tanks, they maybe a bit more expensive , but the ink cost is very low. and It lasts ages. Also the jets don’t get clogged up if you let it cose down on its own
Click to expand...
A very good point and Keith Cooper has received one of the Epson ET printers more aimed at general use and as in all his printer reviews he looks at them in regard to photo printing

View: https://youtu.be/mpmWyZ6Daos
 
tijuana taxi said:
Home printing is costly, demanding, frustrating, but ultimately rewarding.
Click to expand...

To me there are two main advantages with home printing...

Time, I can have prints in my hand the same day I took them.
Quality, I'm in control of quality and I'm not going to be frustrated at waiting for a print and then receiving one that's going straight in the bin.
 
Last edited:
I use an HP Envy, with Instant ink, prints cost less than 5p each.
Photo quality is excellent, and with simple calibration needing no special equipment, colours are very good.
Paper choice is very important, we have found one that is really good, matt finish.

It is much better than any colour photo print I have seen, and is certainly good enough to hang pictures at home, but my daughter had her favourite printers for anything commercial or exhibition.
 
5p?

Mine (Epson R2880) are somewhere between 50p and £1 but this will depend on paper costs as well as ink and print size.

A full set of inks are over £90 for the R2880.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
5p?

Mine (Epson R2880) are somewhere between 50p and £1 but this will depend on paper costs as well as ink and print size.

A full set of inks are over £90 for the R2880.
Click to expand...
Sorry, 4.49p plus paper for A4
 
Sangoma said:
Sorry, 4.49p plus paper for A4
Click to expand...

I can't get anywhere near that. I'm using Epson Premium paper and Epson ink so that could be a part of it.

I don't print much. I used to give prints people asked for and do a yearly calendar but these days I only print to frame and display at home but I've kept the printer for convenience. Usually A5 or A4 although I have printed A3 but those will probably be in single figures.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I can't get anywhere near that. I'm using Epson Premium paper and Epson ink so that could be a part of it.

I don't print much. I used to give prints people asked for and do a yearly calendar but these days I only print to frame and display at home but I've kept the printer for convenience. Usually A5 or A4 although I have printed A3 but those will probably be in single figures.
Click to expand...
The paper I have found I really like is PLATINUM M120100 Instant Dry Matt, costs 3.69p an A4 sheet (0bviously you can't just buy one sheet)
 
Sangoma said:
The paper I have found I really like is PLATINUM M120100 Instant Dry Matt, costs 3.69p an A4 sheet (0bviously you can't just buy one sheet)
Click to expand...

I'll make a note of that and I might just give it a go. Thanks :D £10.27 for 100 sheets on Amazon :D The Epson paper is £18 for 30 sheets when I can get it for that price.
 
Last edited:
I got an Epson XP-8700 6 colour all in one from John Lewis for £119.99 to replace my HP all in one document printer which was 12 years old and no longer had a dedicated driver, and my Canon which was reserved for prints but developed a fault.
I print A6 or A5 size photos of family members for the wife to put up in the kitchen and A4 photos to frame and put up until we want a change. I use cheapish paper and inks, I just get A4 paper and cut it to size.
If we want a print to last then I get them done professionally.
 
For most people I’d always suggest outsourcing printing. To do it yourself requires a fair commitment of time and money and space. If you’re printing lots on a regular basis, or want specific papers then yes, otherwise outsource. Photobox, DS Colour Labs, Loxley etc
 
When I got my first digital camera I also got my first computer and first primter. Printer was an inexpensive HP that I could do 8x10's on. Were the photo's any good? I'd like to think so as most I was happy with. Several years and it broke down so I got a new one. HP 13" can't remember the model number. Shook the table printing and was noisy as could be but I did get some really nice 13x19 print's out of it. It broke down and I got, I think this time, a Canon Pixma 9000 and still use it today. I don't think you can get one other than maybe used today. I can print up to 13"x about whatever I want on it and down to very small.

I think most important is why I got a printer in the first place. To cheap to pay for developing film and with digital figured printing was still gonna cost more than I was willing to pay. I think for starting out I'd go with some brand of 13" printer. Have had HP, Epson and Canon printer and like the Canon best, but then had the other two to compare it to. Best idea I believe is the 13" and a small very protable one like my iP 100. Have had the small HP and allI can say is it worked but only for 4x6 pritns and the small Epson and again only 4x6 prints and now the iP 100 canon and with it I can do up to 8x16" prints and will work on the seat of my truck using an inverter plugged into the cigar lighter!

Something about printing, only person I really care about impressing is myself. We all have different taste in thing's we like! My home is full of photo's I printed and in fact framed myself. Most people that come by like them, good enough for me. I have no plans on becoming a pro, to confussing for me! I think all the thing's pro's talk about in what makes a photo good I don't understand so I try the impress the important guy, me! Got my first digital camera about 2002 along with my first printer and computer. Once in a while I shoot some film and have to send it off to get done. Like my film camera's but hate waiting on and paying for developing so less film all the time. had a printer break down on me one time and replaced it with what I could get local, about a $40 Canon. Know what? The photo's I printed looked fine to me, actually I was not expecting to think much of them, didn't pay enough for the printer! Just goes to show that for at least me, what I pay for something doesn't mean it's gonna be great even though it satified me! Another thing, what I had to say about HP and Epson is strictly my own opinion. Have been very happy with my Canon printer's and long as I'm happy, no reason to change! have had my Pro 9000 Canon about 6 or 7 years now and couldn't get it into my new computer when the old one broke down a couple years ago. Sat doing nothing for a couple years and finally got it going again a few days ago, Prints just as well as ever!

I don't believe you have to have an expensive camera to take a good photo and don't believe you need an expensive printer to print a good photo. But I'll tell you this, getting a printer to save money on processing doesn't work. What I found out is because I got one to save money I print more and am willing to take more photo's because it's less expensive with my own printer. Well actually the best part's are I can have print's very soon after taking a photo and I did them myself. Cost went up because I print a lot more photo's! To take up some of the time away from printing I like to find old buildings to take photo's of then steal a board or two and make a frame for the finished product. Figure out what you can afford for a printer and go get one. And remember the only one has to be happy with your prints is yourself! Lof of photo's on the walls of my home and I printed all but a couple myself and a nephew did the rest! Just do it!!!
 
Last edited:
I gave up on our inkjet years ago - expensive ink and always wanted cleaning before it would do anything. Last one went to the tip a few months back, a mouse had been using it as a toilet in the garage and I shared the sentiment ;)
My printer is a colour laser (LED) which does for all the labels and productivity prints, the colour aspect was good enough for our kid's homework. it doesn't do a strong job with photos but that's OK with me.
It was a discounted machine under £100 from Viking direct and the starter cartridges lasted for ages. it also print a full A4 page in a few seconds and follow ups even quicker not minutes from an inkjet.

I think home printing is an art form that some people love but I suspect for <£100 you're just going to be disappointed and spend more than if you paid for professional printing for a small number of shots.
 
AMcUK said:
I gave up on our inkjet years ago - expensive ink and always wanted cleaning before it would do anything. Last one went to the tip a few months back, a mouse had been using it as a toilet in the garage and I shared the sentiment ;)
Click to expand...

I suppose this could vary from make to make or even model to model so the following may not apply.

If your printer hasn't been used for a long time it may need to go through some sort of cycle before printing and some may be healthier for being always plugged in. Another issue could be unplugging the printer before its ready and causing it to power down controllably and this could also lead to additional long initiation or cleaning cycles.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I suppose this could vary from make to make or even model to model so the following may not apply.
Click to expand...

Probably - I think it was mainly down to lack of use for anything. For productivity printing it was always very slow and often wanted cleaning.
For photo printing it had a habit of getting half way through a sheet of expensive paper, covered in expensive ink then a colour would start to band or disappear entirely wasting the whole thing and the many minutes to get there.

As I said it's an art form that some people love. I think you need to do it regularly to get the best from the equipment and consumables so ideal for some, not for me!
 
E_YNw3eVUAcegnI
 
Well had to look up A3 and A4 printer's to figure out what it means. Did it two time's and don't really know much more than when I started. Near as I can tell A3 handles larger paper like 13x19 and 11x17. When I went looking for my 13" printet I did not look for an A3 printer, not a clue what that ment! Then in the discriptions I read, seems there are some other differences but I haven't a clue what they were talking about. Actually looking for a 13" printer was pretty easy for me, I simply looked for a printer designed to handle up to 13" wide by 19" long and just lived with the idea I can go over 19" long. Now if what I got was an A3 or an A4 really don't mean squat to me, just wanted one that would do at least 13x19 inchs! Everything else they had to say is simply just so much BS to me!
 
andrewc said:
A4 is roughly the same size as US letter.
A3 is double the width of A4, approx same as US tabloid.
fold a sheet of A4 in half, and you get A5.
Click to expand...
Saw that. I think the A3 and A4 seems to have nothing to do with the printer other than the size paper it use's.
 
Don Fischer said:
Saw that. I think the A3 and A4 seems to have nothing to do with the printer other than the size paper it use's.
Click to expand...
To us UK (and EU) printer users, yes A4 & A3 and A3+ will be the maximum size of paper that the printer can handle.

For me when I look at the weight of paper I know what the gsm (grams per metre) means but seeing the equivalent in the USA (and others?) as in lb's (pounds) is completely alien :headbang::headbang::headbang:

So, where you live and/or were educated matters even in things printer :)
 
Don Fischer said:
Well had to look up A3 and A4 printer's to figure out what it means. Did it two time's and don't really know much more than when I started. Near as I can tell A3 handles larger paper like 13x19 and 11x17. When I went looking for my 13" printet I did not look for an A3 printer, not a clue what that ment! Then in the discriptions I read, seems there are some other differences but I haven't a clue what they were talking about. Actually looking for a 13" printer was pretty easy for me, I simply looked for a printer designed to handle up to 13" wide by 19" long and just lived with the idea I can go over 19" long. Now if what I got was an A3 or an A4 really don't mean squat to me, just wanted one that would do at least 13x19 inchs! Everything else they had to say is simply just so much BS to me
Click to expand...

This has all been covered above but just to help out:

It’s of no use to you if you are in the US but it’s not BS. The A paper series are logical and if you fold any one in half on the long side you get the next size down, so all have the same aspect ratio, a pity camera sensors aren‘t done the same way.

A0 is a square metre (so it’s easy to relate the gsm weights) with sides in the ratio of 1.4142 (sq rt of 2), so maintaining the ratio throughout.
 
In regard to paper sizes and 'weight' measures, the UK/EU population far exceeds the USA so from this side of the pond the BS (and it isn't) is across that side ;)

PS even Adobe recognise the A series paper sizes :)
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
In regard to paper sizes and 'weight' measures, the UK/EU population far exceeds the USA so from this side of the pond the BS (and it isn't) is across that side ;)

PS even Adobe recognise the A series paper sizes :)
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s perfect though. A lot of people here (UK) don’t understand the principle behind the A (DIN) paper sizes and A4 is just a name to them. I’m with @Don Fischer here to the extent that really the maximumum paper width in inches or cm ought to be quoted as that’s all that counts. After all, the length can be almost anything if fed off a roll etc.
 
sphexx said:
I don’t think it’s perfect though. A lot of people here (UK) don’t understand the principle behind the A (DIN) paper sizes and A4 is just a name to them. I’m with @Don Fischer here to the extent that really the maximumum paper width in inches or cm ought to be quoted as that’s all that counts. After all, the length can be almost anything if fed off a roll etc.
Click to expand...
In general I agree with you.

However, the likes of A4 & A3 are the defacto way to describe consumer size papers.

But where photo prints are concerned I do "think" in imperial and frankly I have never printed an A4 or A3 print i.e. a bleed edge print on said size papers.

The larger printers like the Epson P5000 (IIRC?) and upwards are described by their printing widths 13, 17, 24............44 inch printer etc. These also use as a default roll papers.

But this thread is about budget (consumer/prosumer) level printers and at this level A series paper sheet sizes are the 'rule' in the UK EU region.

PS it is not 100% clear where @Don Fischer is domiciled and why finds the A series sizes BS?

PPS I bought the ET-8550 A3+ printer because by splitting the A3+ sheet of paper I can print 2 off 12x8 inch (with border) prints. I have a pack of Epson semi gloss for this purpose and will doing so for my own enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the US. While A4 and A3 may be very common sizes in Europe they are completely un heard of here, well mostly anyway. Here you look up printer's and it depends on the size paper they use and A3 and A4 are never mentoned! I would think that, here anyways, the printer companys would make that clear.
 
Don Fischer said:
I'm in the US. While A4 and A3 may be very common sizes in Europe they are completely un heard of here, well mostly anyway. Here you look up printer's and it depends on the size paper they use and A3 and A4 are never mentoned! I would think that, here anyways, the printer companys would make that clear.
Click to expand...
Well they do say of the USA & UK that we are two nations with one language..................well almost ;)

In regard to the way printers are sold over there.

Here is what B&H say about the ET-8550
Epson size.png

Sold as a 13" printer not an A3+ printer

For comparison here is the way WEX in the UK spec it out.

Epson sizeUK.png

A3+ stated and not a mention of inches :LOL: even though as I said above, when it comes to photo printing my brain 'thinks' in inch sizes and at a push cm sizes.
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
In regard to paper sizes and 'weight' measures, the UK/EU population far exceeds the USA so from this side of the pond the BS (and it isn't) is across that side ;)

PS even Adobe recognise the A series paper sizes :)
Click to expand...
It's not only the UK/EU that uses A sizes, it would probably be more accurate to say fewer places use the American sizes.
 
Sangoma said:
It's not only the UK/EU that uses A sizes, it would probably be more accurate to say fewer places use the American sizes.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more but that is perhaps a discussion for the TP Lounge ;)
 
Box Brownie said:
Well they do say of the USA & UK that we are two nations with one language..................well almost ;)

In regard to the way printers are sold over there.

Here is what B&H say about the ET-8550
View attachment 389918

Sold as a 13" printer not an A3+ printer

For comparison here is the way WEX in the UK spec it out.

View attachment 389919

A3+ stated and not a mention of inches :LOL: even though as I said above, when it comes to photo printing my brain 'thinks' in inch sizes and at a push cm sizes.
Click to expand...
Ha! As I recall, here we say two Nations separated by a common language! Had an English lady working the bowling alley in the service. Used to love listening to her talk. One sentence that got to all of us was, Knock me up in the morning! here we say wake me up in the morning and they both mean the same thing. She was a really nice lady, everyone liked her!
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
Ha! As I recall, here we say two Nations separated by a common language! Had an English lady working the bowling alley in the service. Used to love listening to her talk. One sentence that got to all of us was, Knock me up in the morning! here we say wake me up in the morning and they both mean the same thing. She was a really nice lady, everyone liked her!
Click to expand...
Darn, I knew I go the the nations difference saying wrong :lol:

As for the expression 'Knock me up in the morning' IIRC that stems in the UK from the early days of the industrial revolution. There was the "knocker upper" whose job was to walk down the streets of the (mining towns & mill towns?) with a long pole with which he would tap on the upstairs windows to wake the workers up & ensure they were on time to start the day. Bearing in mind this was pre electric light and very few owned a clock let alone and alarm clock.
 
Box Brownie said:
Darn, I knew I go the the nations difference saying wrong :LOL:

As for the expression 'Knock me up in the morning' IIRC that stems in the UK from the early days of the industrial revolution. There was the "knocker upper" whose job was to walk down the streets of the (mining towns & mill towns?) with a long pole with which he would tap on the upstairs windows to wake the workers up & ensure they were on time to start the day. Bearing in mind this was pre electric light and very few owned a clock let alone and alarm clock.
Click to expand...
Now that is interesting. never heard it before! Thanks!
 
Don Fischer said:
Now that is interesting. never heard it before! Thanks!
Click to expand...
Knocked up also has another more indelicate meaning here (UK).

If you’re interested in that sort of thing here’s something from a long excerpt from a book on the subject:

"The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions," Churchill wrote in The Second World War. No interpreters were needed, for one thing, but there were "differences of expression, which in the early days led to an amusing incident." The British wanted to raise an urgent matter, he said, and told the Americans they wished to "table it" (that is, bring it to the table). But to the Americans, tabling something meant putting it aside. "A long and even acrimonious argument ensued," Churchill wrote, "before both parties realised that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing."

The author writes that both meanings existed in English on both sides of the pond but sometime in the 18thC one was lost but a different one on each side. :)

www.nytimes.com

‘Origins of the Specious’ (Published 2009)

“Winston Churchill gave the folks at Bartlett’s plenty of fodder for their books of Familiar Quotations.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com


It rather shows that almost nothing is as you believe about English spelling and pronunciation :)

Payalled but some free and you may get more access being in US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top