Press printing vs photographic prints
I'm in the process of ordering my first high-end album. Can anyone explain to me the difference between press printing and traditional photographic prints? Seems like many vendors (WHCC, Bayphoto, etc...) offer only press printed products. These are not cheap, but they are less expensive than a photographic print mounted into the album (Black River Imaging, etc...)
0
Comments
When it comes to ordering hi end albums, I would splurge. Biggest and best with the coolest covers available (but keep the album at the minimum number of pages). Studies show that clients will almost always scale back and order less than what you show them, so if you plan on selling medium, show them large. Have amazing products that you are excited about and your clients will pick up on this. I only offer photographic print albums for main wedding albums, but will use good press printed albums for parent albums if cost is a concern.
Press printed has traditionally meant mass reproduction requiring the prep of a large press loaded with CMYK inks. This means they were not economical unless you had a big run, but if you have a big run (like, you're Newsweek mag) press is cheaper per copy than printing them on a desktop printer. Traditionally press expects CMYK image data.
Reason I said "traditionally" is that now there is a middle ground of "digital presses" that are like super-inkjet printers, expecting RGB image input and capable of short runs economically. Still can't beat CMYK presses for large runs, but to enjoy the low copy cost of a CMYK press you need to want thousands or millions of copies. Anything smaller and the digital press is a godsend because it gives you a middle ground between expensive individual photo paper copies and high-upfront-cost CMYK print run. Albums that are called "press printed" these days are usually on digital presses. Because you're not ordering enough to make it economical to ink up a full CMYK press.