Print at home vs. lab

[MTalley]

OK, I'm getting a little more confused on this issue the more I research, so I thought I'd throw this in the ring and get some local opinions.

I've been doing a little portrait work (just friends right now) and printing the results on my Epson R800. Once I got the color management issues resolved, I'm making fabulous looking prints on their Premium Luster paper. From day one, I've offered the option of lab prints instead, but nobody's taken me up on it yet.

I stopped by the local photo lab where the pros have their stuff done and inquired about pricing, etc. They were real nice, but the guy was visibly shaken when I mentioned that I was using my inkjet thusfar to produce prints and started rattling off inherent problems with "doing it yourself", chief among them was the problem of metamerism in inkjet prints.

Sure enough, after I left and got back in front of a computer, I did find where many Epson models such as the 2200 had problems with metamerism, but that the different ink formulations for the R800 and R1800 series seems to have solved the problem (except for possibly B/W prints - which I haven't done yet).

Then, we get into print life expectancies and so forth. I understand all that, and it's the reason why I was going to offer lab photos as an alternative (I do let all my customers know, in advance, the possible repercussions of relying on current inkjet print life estimates, so they aren't in the dark).

With all that said, here's where I'm a little lost. If I send a digital print to a lab to have it printed on "Photo Paper", do they essentially just print digitally to paper also? I'm aware of all the different print technologies such as dye-based ink, pigment ink, dye-sub, etc.

I see folks mention quality print equipment like the Fuji Frontier series and so forth. What technology is utilized to print digital originals to paper here? If this is a similar technology to the pigment-based inks I'm using now, what do we reliably know about the print life of prints coming from these machines?

Maybe I haven't researched enough yet, but opinions based on my ramblings would be appreciated. Granted, if I were professional and was shooting important events such as weddings, all of this might be a moot point.

Sorry for the long and rambling post. I'm not even sure if I boiled it all down to any single question or point, so fire away!

Edited to add: Not trying to particularly justify my use of my own printer vs. a photo lab, or to be cheap, just trying to understand the inherent quality and/or life expectancies that I would gain (if any?) by shooting my images over to a lab and having them do it.

[tim]

Even film prints have been digital for years - the film's scanned then printed from the digital file. They probably have much higher quality equipment than you can afford to have at home, that's why I use a print shop rather than doing it myself.

[slin100]

I see folks mention quality print equipment like the Fuji Frontier series and so forth. What technology is utilized to print digital originals to paper here? If this is a similar technology to the pigment-based inks I'm using now, what do we reliably know about the print life of prints coming from these machines?


My understanding is that the Frontier uses RGB lasers to expose regular photographic paper and develops the print using standard RA-4 chemistry. IOW, it's an optically-exposed, chemical print. No inks whatsoever.

[UncleDoug]

The lab is trying to get business and is giving some good advice.

Those dye-sub prints usually have the clear coat on top so you can pass around the shots at the dinner table, what mist smaller size prints are for. We used to print all our smaller images in house on our inkjet. But the prints coming out would blemish too easily.

Metamerism is not goo or bad, it is a fact of life. If it was not for the concept of metamerics we would not even be having this talk let alone being able to get a good relatively color accurate print from just CMYK or in the case of a dye-sub RGB. (If you want I'l delve further)

So, from my perspective, if the prints are durable enough from your printer for your liking, the color is on and economies of consumables & time justifies it, stick with your printer.

Otherwise the lab could be a great time saving thing.

[kong]

I print with an R800 and an R1800 on epson Paper... I'll put my prints up against the lab prints Anytime........I still sometimes use a lab for speed and die cut wallets etc. but when I print myself, with my setup, I have all the confidence that they are as good or better then the lab...

My 2 cents..............

[MTalley]

Thanks for all the input so far. Regarding the clearcoat, the R800/R1800 do utilize a clearcoat cartridge that puts a clear top layer on whether printing glossy or luster. If nothing else, it keeps the pure white areas from having a different gloss than the areas with ink sprayed on.

I've been tracking ink costs since day one. As of right now, ink is averaging about $1.29 US a page. Paper is about $0.77 a page, so I'm right around $2 a page (8x10, 2-5x7's, etc.).

I understand the photo lab's perspective. He was offering me pretty competitive rates if I sign up with their pro lab program. I'd have to have a business license (which I'm working on) before I can sign up. They do have a nice setup, though. I upload digital files via FTP, they print 'em out, I pick them up. He didn't give me exact pricing, but said that it compared favorably to the walk-in customer rates. I know that a walk-in 8x10 enlargement runs about $5. With pro, I can get a nice luster print - walk-ins get matte.

Running my 4x6's through them would definitely be cost-effective, I do know that.