Dilemma - Print myself or continue sending out

ColoradoSkier

I keep going back and forth in my mind on whether or not to continue sending out my print jobs or to start doing them myself. I've seen mention of Continuous Ink Systems that really bring the costs down, but I'm still not sure if I really want to start doing this. For those that have done both, any thoughts as to which you prefer and why?

If you are printing on your own, what printer are you using? Does it accept a CIS?

fredjclaus

I would say send them out. If the lab you send them to uses chemical based printing the quality is so much better. People can tell the difference beteween a computer printed image and a chemical based image. But then again it all depends on the quality your clients want.

Photog4Christ

Ditto to Fred. If you use a pro lab, then you can tell people "I use a professional photo lab!" instead of saying "I printed this in my basement."

Art Scott

Another way to look at this is.......if your printer is an INKJET then you bump up the price considerably and charge for a Giclee fine art print............ :-}}

99.9% of the world still does not know what a Giclee print truly is......and they pay handsomely for them for some reason..............

fredjclaus

Art, You always teach me something. I never knew that "Giclee Fine Prints" are just inkjet prints. My pro lab charges me 3 times the amount of a Luster print for that service. They were also very closed lipped when I asked what a Giclee print was.

Thanks for the input.

Art Scott wrote: »

Another way to look at this is.......if your printer is an INKJET then you bump up the price considerably and charge for a Giclee fine art print............ :-}}

99.9% of the world still does not know what a Giclee print truly is......and they pay handsomely for them for some reason..............

Photog4Christ

Fred: Giclee = "To squirt ink on paper and charge lots of money!" It just sounds better because it's French!

Giclee Wikipedia

Rocketman766

Wonder if I can send an updated invoice to all my past customers for the difference in price?

Back to the OPs question, I print very little now in house. Majority of what I sell now goes out the the lab. For a couple reasons: I am not confident in my color correction ability just yet ( but getting better), my cost per print is higher (see first reason: multiple prints to get it right.), turnaround time is faster than if I printed at home. This really comes into play when I am processing orders with over 1k photos. When people place orders for events, I still use the lab, for some of the same reasons above.

I never even looked into CIS, but if they ever make re-usable photo paper, for those multiple prints I have to print to get it right, then I might do more prints at home.

Sam

I am not going to get into a debate about the term "Giclee". You can goggle it for all the info.

But a current general definition could be along the lines of: A high quality pigmented ink print on archival fine art paper.

A pigmented ink print on fine art paper is rated as having a longer life then say a typical chemical print done even at the best pro lab.

See: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

I warranty my prints for as long as I live. If I knew how to extend extend it longer, I would.

And yes...they can cost more! A high end large format (ink jet) printer offers the ability to present your images in a way not possible with standard chemical prints.

You need to put a fine art image printed on archival fine art paper in your hand. The look and feel is very special.

Now to the OP question: For most event type images I recommend using a Pro lab. For fine art prints where quality and control are the over riding concerns printing yourself has many advantages, but you need to be willing to put in some hard work learning how to get that great print.

I wouldn't touch a CIS system, but remember a large format printer uses ink cartridges starting at about 130 ml and going up to 700 ml per cartridge. A typical desktop printer uses 13 ml cartridges. This along with better ink management reduces the cost substantially.

Sam

NikonsandVstroms

Sam wrote: »

I am not going to get into a debate about the term "Giclee". You can goggle it for all the info.

But a current general definition could be along the lines of: A high quality pigmented ink print on archival fine art paper.

A pigmented ink print on fine art paper is rated as having a longer life then say a typical chemical print done even at the best pro lab.

See: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

I warranty my prints for as long as I live. If I knew how to extend extend it longer, I would.

And yes...they can cost more! A high end large format (ink jet) printer offers the ability to present your images in a way not possible with standard chemical prints.

You need to put a fine art image printed on archival fine art paper in your hand. The look and feel is very special.

Now to the OP question: For most event type images I recommend using a Pro lab. For fine art prints where quality and control are the over riding concerns printing yourself has many advantages, but you need to be willing to put in some hard work learning how to get that great print.

I wouldn't touch a CIS system, but remember a large format printer uses ink cartridges starting at about 130 ml and going up to 700 ml per cartridge. A typical desktop printer uses 13 ml cartridges. This along with better ink management reduces the cost substantially.

Sam

I used 220 ml cartridges on an Epson and while the ink is extremely expensive when you consider you just printed out a 16x20 for under 5 dollars it isn't so bad.

Now the downside is you need to keep it calibrated, which can be a big pain especially if you ever don't use it for a month or more. I tried getting a Epson 10000 working again after a year of not being used, eventually it was just time to give up and the print head needed to be physically cleaned.

ColoradoSkier

Sam - what printer do you use, if I may ask?

Sam

ColoradoSkier wrote: »

Sam - what printer do you use, if I may ask?

I have a Canon ipf5000. This is a baby large format printer with 12 pigmented ink cartridges and a roll feed. it will print 17" wide by 50 feet if needed.

Perfect for 16 X 24 or panos 16 X 32 or 16 x 48.
I print a fair amount at 10 X 15, and 12 X 18.

Sam

colourbox

fredjclaus wrote: »

I never knew that "Giclee Fine Prints" are just inkjet prints. My pro lab charges me 3 times the amount of a Luster print for that service.

Sam wrote: »

A pigmented ink print on fine art paper is rated as having a longer life then say a typical chemical print done even at the best pro lab.
See: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

There's a lot of unwarranted prejudice against inkjet prints. Well, some of it is warranted; I don't use the term "giclee" because of its negative association with the early days of inkjet when all the inks were dyes and they faded quickly and badly.

But that was back in the mid-90s. The technology has advanced so dramatically that if you are doing it with the right pigmented inks and archival papers, as Sam says you will produce a print that can outlast a chemical print and you should be able to call your work "pigment inkjet prints" with absolutely no shame. In addition, I just looked at the gamuts of the profiles and the profile for my Epson 3800 on glossy paper has a significantly larger gamut than the profile of both the EZPrints and Costco chemical printing labs. This is going to be especially true if the lab asks you for sRGB files, since many high-end inkjets exceed that range pretty handily these days.

But on the question of whether you should print your own prints, the answer to that is the same as for whether you should be shooting raw. Are you good enough to do it your way? You should only shoot raw if you can operate raw development software so that you can get a better result than in camera JPEG. And you should only print at home if you can master the intricacies of printing well enough that you can meet or beat lab quality without constantly blowing a lot of money and time on wasted prints and ink.

Also, inkjets need to be used regularly or they clog. If you aren't going to print that often, it's overall cheaper to send it out.

Sam

In addition to what colourbox said. Canon printers will clog less then the Epson. Sorry :cry

Most large format printers will print 16 bit files and can use Adobe 1998 color space. Which can produce a superior print.

Sam

Icebear

I use an Epson R1800 so don't print anything larger than 13x19, but I think my prints are superior to what I get from most labs. Based on my experience, I would stay waaaaayyy far away from continuous ink systems. They're fiddly as heck, and mine was constant source of frustration. I finally trashed it, spent $140 to have the print heads professionally cleaned and the pads replaced, and went back to Epson cartridges. Failed experiment.

ColoradoSkier

Sam wrote: »

I have a Canon ipf5000. This is a baby large format printer with 12 pigmented ink cartridges and a roll feed. it will print 17" wide by 50 feet if needed.

Perfect for 16 X 24 or panos 16 X 32 or 16 x 48.
I print a fair amount at 10 X 15, and 12 X 18.

Sam

Is $295 for one of those monsters a good price?

http://denver.craigslist.org/pho/1844668498.html

Sam

ColoradoSkier wrote: »

Is $295 for one of those monsters a good price?

http://denver.craigslist.org/pho/1844668498.html

Here is the conundrum of a used printer. While the $295.00 price seems very reasonable at first glance. You need to buy a new set of inks. B&H has a set listed at $948.00. This means you need to spend $1253.00 and you have a used printer without any guarantee it works at all. (Since the seller has stated that it needs 10 of 12 inks you won't be able to test it.)

B&H has a sale and there is a mail in rebate available which will allow you to buy a brand new ipf5100 for $1539.95.

Seems a no brainer for me.

Sam

Icebear

Sam wrote: »

You need to buy a new set of inks. B&H has a set listed at $948.00 . . . B&H has a sale and there is a mail in rebate available which will allow you to buy a brand new ipf5100 for $1539.95.

Seems a no brainer for me.

Sam

I agree with you in principle Sam, but the new printer only comes with what Canon calls a "starter set" of ink, so you would have to buy a full set purdy soon. The math isn't quite so crystal clear, but yeah, I think I'd fall toward the new beast. If I had the room for it, which I don't.

Sam

Icebear wrote: »

I agree with you in principle Sam, but the new printer only comes with what Canon calls a "starter set" of ink, so you would have to buy a full set purdy soon. The math isn't quite so crystal clear, but yeah, I think I'd fall toward the new beast. If I had the room for it, which I don't.

Picky, picky.......:D

You are right about the starter ink set, but if my memory isn't failing me the starter ink sets are 90 ml, (the standard is 130 ml) so depending on the quantity of prints made this could last awhile.

I was trying to provide some context to the OP.

The cost of the printer (all printers) is basically very low to begin with. The ink is where the cost comes in to play.

While the price of $295.00 for a ipf5000 is not unreasonable, for what I would consider a small premium you can have a new current generation model with a full warranty.

If and when repairs are needed the cost of repair could be prohibitive.

But I think we are in agreement that at the asking price of $295.00 and the sale / rebates available now the better choice would be the new one.

Sam

Icebear

When I upgraded from an Epson R800 to the R1800, I couldn't even GIVE the smaller unit away. People figured, "why take a pig-in-a-poke and have to spend good money on a set of eight ink cartridges?"