Talk me out of buying a printer

Brian G

Brian G

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,247
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Some years ago I had an Epson "clogmaster" photo printer which used more ink cleaning itself than printing (since consigned to the bin.)
Since joining a club, I find the need to produce large-ish prints for comps and exhibition.
I decided that, for my needs, I would be better off sending my images to a lab rather than printing them myself, and I have found a lab that produces great prints that I am entirely happy to use.
I'm OK with mounting prints for comps and exhibition.
However, I do yearn to have complete control over the entire process from start to finish.
I have been looking at some of the latest photo printers from Canon (Pro-300) and Epson (surecolor SC-P700) and they look very impressive.
However, I'm not too sure I need to be a printer owner, since it looks like it could be the thin end of an ever broadening wedge.

These, as I see it, are my Pros and Cons of owning an A3+ photo printer:

Pro: Instant results and control over output.

Con: They are large, and I don't have a lot of available space.
High Running cost (ink and paper)
Reliability (will it clog and do I need to run a cleaning cycle every time I use it?)

From what I gather, inkjet photo printers need to be run every week, if not daily, for reliable results, and bearing in mind that I'm not going to be using it every week, is printer ownership for me, or would I be better off keeping things as they are and using a lab for my prints?
 
Last edited:
I go round the same loop on a regular basis, as you say it's not worth it from both a time and cost point of view. Head versus heart decision. If I printed more I don't have the wall space to hang the prints and printing photobooks etc. at home (unless you are into binding) just adds another layer of time, cost and effort.
 
I've ended up with a black and white laser printer. It's very fast, reliable, cheap and B&W is fine for what I commonly print at home: postage labels, forms, colouring in pictures for kids, boarding passes etc. Mine is a Samsung M2026W which was on offer with cashback, but there's also Brother ones which are good.

I used to have an inkjet (several over the years) but always seemingly running out of ink or one problem or another. I prefer to pay for photos to be printed online, often there's coupon codes to bring down the price, and the quality is good enough for me. Most of my photos get printed into books anyway, and it's just the occasional wall photo or some for family.

If you're going to be doing it a lot or the really large prints are important then probably specialist inkjet is the way to go but run a few numbers to see how the options compare.
 
I don't think anyone I know prints their own images because it's cost effective. The only exception to this would be someone selling fine art prints because if that's all you're printing, it's cheaper to DIY because of the premium most print companies attach to printing on decent paper. Many people on here though fulfill client print orders using DSCL cheapo paper so even that is no reason for some people. Another con to consider is the learning curve. Getting a print looking good might need a bit of tweaking in your software, or with colour profiles.

I print because of control over output, and the ability to make a print when I want. I can do a trial A4 print before stepping up to A3 or larger. I also print my own because it makes me feel as though I have "completed the process" from start to finish. I don't print my own because it's cost effective. In terms of cost, I don't smoke, I don't really drink much, and have no other hobbies. Did I choose my camera because it was cost effective? No. In reality there are many cheaper cameras that would deliver the same quality.

It's not just control over the quality of output, it's control over the medium too. I can print on whatever my printer can handle, and when it comes to paper, there is a *massive* range of choice. Using a lab means you use their paper. DSCL for example, have C-Type prints for their cheap option (1 choice), and if you go "fine art" you get quite a bit of the Permajet range and 2 - yes 2 - Hahnemuhle papers. Want to use Canson? Nope. How about Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Metallic? Nope. What about Marrutt's fab Ultra Glossy Canvas. Nope. You might find a lab that will do one of these or maybe 2. But only in your own home can you try the one print on several different types of paper to see how it looks.

So determining whether it's "worth it" for you you have to accept that mathematically it's probably not going to weigh in when it comes to monetary value. You have to then weigh up whether the imeasurable Pros you've listed balance out against the cons. And that's very tricky to advise on. Imagine asking whether the f/1.2 lens is "worth it" over the f/1.4? It costs an extra £1000 for half a stop. Is that "worth" it? There are lots of discussions in the equipment forum like this.

Good luck with whatever you decide!
 
In my experience, Canon do not tend to clog but they do periodically (usually at inconvenient times) run a prolonged cleaning cycle. I dispensed with my Canon Pro-100 and instead find a small A4 Canon (TS705) fine for my needs. If I want A3 (or larger) I send it off for printing.
 
I’ve used epson for about 20 years and have had head clogs which generally could be cleared but it was a pain. I’ve had the SC P800 for a few years and it really is quite a different machine. I’ve not had a single problem and have had spells where I haven’t used it for weeks. Print costs aren’t too bad really and certainly no more expensive than a really decent lab print. B&W prints are truly excellent as well.
 
I was thinking of printing my images. For a year I looked around at all the options regarding printers for photography reading reviews of high end photos and papers. In the end I decided against it as I don’t think I would print enough images for warrant the outlet and hassle. I came to the conclusion printing for the hobby photographer isn’t a cost saving exercise but one where the photographer enjoys the process of printing their own images and is willing the pay extra for that experience. If you can work out if you will take enjoyment from the process then it’s probably for you. If it’s more about the end goal ie getting an image printed it’s probably not for you. I’ve decided I will use labs for printing though most of my prints so far are wall canvasses. I keep meaning to do a photo book.

If you want a cheap to run inkjet printer for general home use I can recommend the Canon G5050. I bought one at the start of lockdown when I was sent to work from home. I still needed to print for work and it was a hassle getting approval to pop back into the office every week to print the paperwork I needed to manage jobs onsite. 4-5 months later I’ve printed over 1000 pages and Ive only used 15-20% of the ink tanks. The printer is more expensive to buy than most printers but it came with a full set of coloured ink and I think 3 bottles of black ink. I purchased a spare set of colour ink for around £24 but I can’t see me needing them in quite a while.
 
I have an Epson XP950 ( now superceded with the 960). This I have had for 7 years with no clogging and it prints up to A3 size. Never had a problem with it but the in carts are pricey. I only use Epson ink carts which is why maybe it has never clogged up. I also use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss paper as it is quick drying. If this is of any help
 
Last edited:
I gave up on trying to produce my own photo prints years ago because of cost. Right now I have an HP Colour Laserjet CP3505DN that I picked up used for £40 with an almost full set of toner that I use for general printing & an HP Officejet Pro 7740 A3 MFD mainly as a scanner & for printing the occasional A3 document or single page letter or similar.
I have had a variety of inkjet printers over the years, they all had an appetite for cartridges. I discovered the Officejet Pro uses more ink just doing cleaning cycles at power up if you keep turning it on/off, if left on standby it seldom does a cleaning cycle and is always ready to go.
 
I get all my prints done at Costco, decent quality and very cheap
 
Control over output is not a plus, or really a requirement. People only think they need it because they don't calibrate.

If you have a calibrated system, then you can send images to the lab and know they'll be perfect everytime.
 
Thank you all for the comments.
Nice to know I'm not the only person who suffers from this dilemma!
Ahhyes said:
I've ended up with a black and white laser printer. It's very fast, reliable, cheap and B&W is fine for what I commonly print at home: postage labels, forms, colouring in pictures for kids, boarding passes etc. Mine is a Samsung M2026W which was on offer with cashback, but there's also Brother ones which are good.

I used to have an inkjet (several over the years) but always seemingly running out of ink or one problem or another. I prefer to pay for photos to be printed online, often there's coupon codes to bring down the price, and the quality is good enough for me. Most of my photos get printed into books anyway, and it's just the occasional wall photo or some for family.

If you're going to be doing it a lot or the really large prints are important then probably specialist inkjet is the way to go but run a few numbers to see how the options compare.
Click to expand...
I have a Brother laser for documents and I also have a Canon "Selphy" dye sub printer, which produces superb 6x4 prints.
I know a few people at the club print their own, and it's nice to have instant gratification. Mind you, the print company that I use has a next day service, provided I get the files to them before 13;00, so it's not that long to wait.
I can imagine I'll do a print, see it can be improved and immediately do another, thereby doubling the cost, when the first one would have undoubtedly have been fine to enter into a comp.
As I said, I'm really happy with the results from the lab I have chosen, and I've turned some of the other club members on to them as well and they are also pleased.

I think, as things stand, I'll carry on using the lab for my prints, and just continue to gaze longingly at those large format Photo Inkjets.
 
I went through the same thing a while ago, and ended up with a Canon IP8750 with a refillable cartridge set which I now use it for all the household printing as the ink is so cheap.
It doesn't take up much more space than the old Canon all-in-one when folded up. It often gets left for a few weeks at a time with no problems, cost around £220 now. I print a lot more A3 than I ever expected to, and only use an online service for books or calendars - I only keep the old TS8150 for scanning.
 
I usually print my own photos using a Canon PIXMA iP8750. It'll print up to A3+. It might not be the greatest printer for a tech-head but I find the prints as acceptable as those I've had from on-line print services. It's not a lot bigger than an A4 printer and I use it as my day to day printer running off invoices and stuff, so it gets used most days.
 
Home printing is an expensive, endlessly frustrating exercise that I endure because of the quality of the results it gives me. Yes, DS colour will produce a perfectly acceptable A3 print for £1.20 - less than the price I can print one for - but when you want it on fine art paper the price escalates to over £10 a print and then printing at home starts to attractive.

As Harlequin565 mentioned above, it’s the immediacy and the choice of media that are probably the biggest benefits. If that isn’t a factor for you, then my recommendation would be to stick with your lab of choice and save yourself the money and frustration!
 
Home printing costs the sort of money you would only ever spend on a hobby
Saying that its very satisfying to watch the print roll out of the machine, all part of the enjoyment for me

Yes, ideally they should be used regularly, I have a small test photo that contains a variety of colours which I print occasionally
Seems to keep the works moving and my printer has a function which agitates the inks to stop them gumming up
 
At my camera club roughly 1/3 never print, 1/3 use their own printer and 1/3 use a commercial printer. The majority using commercial use Simlab. The results from Simlab for colour are excellent but the B&W is no match for a good specialist B&W printer. It does cost more to print yourself. I choose to print myself to have control and produce high quality B&W prints. I use an Epson SC P600 and have used it for 3 years now. According to Epson, ink jet printers only dry out in low humidity, This is rare in the UK but I tend to just print a nozzle check from time to time during dry and low humidity periods. Recently I realised that I had not used my printer or tested it for at least 3 months and a nozzle check showed it was fine so I printed an A3 anyway. My previous Epson a R2800 did block on one occasion when I left it for weeks in a dry spell. I had to use the silver bullet cleaning kit which worked and the printer gave no more problems for the next 12 years until I decided to buy the P600.

Dave
 
I get a lot of pleasure from watching my images roll out of my Canon Pro 1, however I'm not sure I'd buy it again. I've never owned a horse, but I feel it's bit like I've bought one. I have to think about it and care for it by printing regularly. It nags at my conscience if I haven't used it for a while.

I've never had a clogged head, nor any problems with it at all in 3 years use. Occasionally (like now) I have gone several weeks without printing, but I do face those dreaded cleaning cycles and the ink is expensive, not to mention the paper. I try not to think about it anymore :whistle:

For me it's a 20 mile round trip to get something printed, unless I were to order online, so I do love the convenience when I sell the odd few.

I'm just off to print something now...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sky
Bebop said:
I've never owned a horse, but I feel it's bit like I've bought one.
Click to expand...

This analogy made me chuckle and I very much identify with it. I know that I'd never be able to go back to standard cheap prints though.

Bebop said:
It nags at my conscience if I haven't used it for a while.
Click to expand...

I saw what you did there :)
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Home printing is an expensive, endlessly frustrating exercise that I endure because of the quality of the results it gives me.
Click to expand...

I would concur.

My printer is the least satisfactory bit of kit that I have in terms of use and hassle and cost.

Home printing has its rewards but I think you have to bear in mind that occasional printing is suboptimal use of the equipment - space for the equipment - and consumables.
 
From low end Canons the new small Pro 300 or whatever is worth a look as it does away with ridiculous margins from the old PRO-10. Ideally, the 24" and bigger are much more economical to run.
 
I have a Canon Pro Graf 1000. I took me while to get to grips with it and it does require regular use but this has only served to make me better at printing, selecting papers. In the two years that I have had it, it only has had one need for cleaning and that was because I hadn't printed anything matt for quite a while - lockdown. It has separate ink for matt and doesn't throw it away when switching between. I could not go back to a postal lab - all the waiting would drive me crazy - and the person who used to print for me is 20 miles away so that was waiting plus driving... then occasionally getting home to find the prints were 'dinged' and could not be used. It isn't cheap but not very much about photography is cheap. When I print a photo that looks great, it makes me smile a lot. All my own work.
 
I stopped printing my own images for exhibition about 5 years ago. Getting them printed on-line gave better quality prints & worked out cheaper.
On-line printing can be slower - there have been a couple of exhibitions where my prints hadn't arrived in time for handing the prints in to club members for hanging & I ended up mounting prints on the night before setting up on one occasion.

I have now learnt not to rely on their expected 10 day turnaround.

However the family have pointed out that doing without a home printer is not a good idea. So I've ended up with a cheap colour laser - no dried inks, reasonable colour output for the family (not photo grade) so I now get the best of both worlds. Trouble free quick printouts for kids homework/letters etc & top quality archival prints for photographs :)
 
Thank you all for the comments and insights, most of which seem to reflect my own feelings on the subject.

Although I would like the control and instant (more or less) gratification of the process, I'm mostly interested in prints for the club competitions and the prints I get from Simlab are quite impressive and certainly good enough for the club comps.
I like the look of the new Canon Pro 300 and it's affordable, but as I said, I'm limited for space and the prospect of unpacking it, using it and then packing it away again doesn't seem a good idea, plus I still have to store it somewhere.
I think that, for the time being at least, I will continue to send my files to the lab for printing.
The results from Simlab are excellent and the turn around time is really good, so I think I will stick with them at the moment.

Once again, thank you to everyone for your input, you have succeded in talking me out of buying a printer.
 
Interesting reading this, seems like the consensus is that it's a PITA to home print unless doing it a lot.

I've been looking at the Epson XP-970, pretty cheap and you can use the CISS continuous ink system.
 
Some years ago I calculated that if my printer lasted 6 years or more, I would be needing to print about 100 prints a year to make it worth using a continuous ink system. At the time, I was only printing 70 p.a. so did not bother but I am printing no more than 40 p.a. now so definitely not worth it.

Dave
 
It's a steep learning curve and clearly (but not dramatically) more expensive than putting the work out, but seriously interesting and rewarding. But beware PAS - so many amazing papers to choose from..........
 
I've just bought an Epson SC P700. Have had a couple of higher end Canon A3+ printers in the past - got shot because they ended up getting rarely used. Not used in anger yet, but B&W results from the new one look outstanding so far. Initial calibration and set up etc. suggest that lots of ink has been used, but I suspect it more a case that it's sitting in all the pipes inside. it's got a light inside that lets you see the work being printed out as it's happening, which is nice if not completely unnecessary!

It's more satisfying printing your own stuff, but overall it's definitely more expensive! So far, I've only bought one pack of Ilford smooth pearl. Additional paper types will certainly rack the cost up, as will replacement inks in due course (probably about £250 for a set).

Don't forget additional cost of hardware calibration system and decent PP software (which I expect you probably already have anyway).
 
py6km said:
I've just bought an Epson SC P700. Have had a couple of higher end Canon A3+ printers in the past - got shot because they ended up getting rarely used. Not used in anger yet, but B&W results from the new one look outstanding so far. Initial calibration and set up etc. suggest that lots of ink has been used, but I suspect it more a case that it's sitting in all the pipes inside. it's got a light inside that lets you see the work being printed out as it's happening, which is nice if not completely unnecessary!

It's more satisfying printing your own stuff, but overall it's definitely more expensive! So far, I've only bought one pack of Ilford smooth pearl. Additional paper types will certainly rack the cost up, as will replacement inks in due course (probably about £250 for a set).

Don't forget additional cost of hardware calibration system and decent PP software (which I expect you probably already have anyway).
Click to expand...
I read a review about this printer (don't ask me why?!) and it did mention that an amazing amount of ink went into the lines during set up. Hopefully once it's up and running it will prove more economic.
 
"Talk you out of buying a printer"?
They're expensive to run, endlessly frustrating, they take up more space than a washing machine and you get better, cheaper results from even the most basic of on-line printers.
One thing I will say about my home ink-jet printer...It made a very satisfying noise when I threw it out of my bedroom window. :)
 
Re: Epson P700

A real time user review and his 'a picture is not one until it is printed.......'view of the world ;)

photopxl.com

Epson P700 Print At Home - Print Them Out! No Excuses - PhotoPXL

Print Your Images Own Images At Home I’m excited. As a regular reader of this site, you will know that I am a big believer in printing and getting my exposures onto a piece of paper. In many ways, I don’t believe you have a photograph until it is in print. A print is lasting, … Continue reading...
photopxl.com photopxl.com
 
Bebop said:
I read a review about this printer (don't ask me why?!) and it did mention that an amazing amount of ink went into the lines during set up. Hopefully once it's up and running it will prove more economic.
Click to expand...

I've only made half a dozen prints so far (A4 size), mixture of B&W and colour, but I fully expect to be warned by the printer quite soon that some cartridges will need replacing. As you say, I think there is a lot of ink in the pipework, so the new cartridges should last a decent amount of time, but it's an unwelcome layout so close to initial purchase. Still, I knew that it would be coming fairly close to having been set up.

"I read a review about this printer" - you and I both know why! Do it ! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
py6km said:
He seems to like it a lot doesn't he. Wonder if he paid for it :thinking:
Click to expand...

AFAIK he does buy his own printers like he does buy his own cameras. I think somewhere in the article he mentioned purchasing it. :thinking::thinking::thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top