Printing at home vs Photolab

At the moment I have all my prints done by online photolabs, but I've been considering purchasing a photoprinter.

The quality of the prints I receive from photolabs is good, but even with my calibrated monitor, ICC profiles, etc, sometimes the colors aren't as close as I would like them.

I figured home printing might give me more ability to make adjustments to colors, etc, but can I get a photoprinter for < $500 that will match the quality of online photolabs?

with the cost of consumables, i think it is often cheaper to have a photo lab print your photos... having your own photo printer is nice for the occasional printing of 1 or 2 photos...

flipteg wrote in post #4611090
with the cost of consumables, i think it is often cheaper to have a photo lab print your photos... having your own photo printer is nice for the occasional printing of 1 or 2 photos...

I know its not cheaper, but I would print myself when I want to make large prints (16X20", etc) and I want the colors just right. The question is: would the quality be as good as photolab prints?

the quality will be as good... the question really is about the photos' durability... that will largely depend on the ink the printer uses, and the paper the photo is printed on... i don't know much about inks and papers, but a google search will show you some durability experiments done on different types of printer inks and papers...

versedmb wrote in post #4611339
I know its not cheaper, but I would print myself when I want to make large prints (16X20", etc) and I want the colors just right. The question is: would the quality be as good as photolab prints?

No, the quality won't be as good, unless you purchase a printer that costs as much as a small car.

Similarly, the prints won't last nearly as long, unless you purchase archival inks and paper, which is also fairly expensive.

Labs prints, which utilize silver, will usually last at least around 100 years and, as they are not composed of droplets of ink, will usually look better to the eye (unless, again, you own an extremely expensive photo printer.)

http://www.epson.com …BVCookie=yes&oi​d=53540919

This is similar t the printer my brother has and it produces outstanding prints.
He does gallery shows and such with his photos from it.

removed

Full disclosure:

I currently have a system (printers, calibration, software, and ,media) that costs as much as a small car. I print for my clients and offer print services to other photographers, including custom profiling. I'm lucky to live in a market that can support my business.

I guess I was an exception that actually found the online print houses less than adequate and I am able to now print in studio for a fraction of the cost at a higher quality, quicker, and with better control. I'll admit I had to get my head around it, but it wasn't that bad, and worth every penny. I'm a photographer first and printer second.

Most online labs send sRGB files to their top of the line photo emulsion printers (Durst and Oce) removing image quality advantages. WHCC also only accepts JPGs. That just doesn't cut it for me, especially with larger images. For most people, sending in snapshots of grandma and the family BBQ it's just fine.

Regarding archival quality, if you look at WHCC's FAQ they actually use inkjets for their archival fine art program, not emulsion printers.

Anybody can print with stellar results for under $500 these days...just not in a wide format. Look for a pigment based printer and invest in some good paper. The new baryta and F-Gloss papers from different manufactures turn out amazing prints.

For anyone bored and really curious check out the books "Mastering Digital Printing" and "Fine Art Printing for Photographers". Great intelligent insight into what technologies would be best for you.

I have an Epson 1800 I picked up recently for $448 with a $100 rebate. The prints are rated for 100-200 years and up depending on the paper used. Better then most silver based prints will last. If I use a paper with no optical brighteners they won't yellow with age. There are literally hundreds of types of papers that I can print on. I can print up to 13x19 any day of the week and have my print within minutes and not days. If I want, I can buy a roll of paper and do up to 13x44. It's like having a darkroom again. The quality I'm printing is salable as fine art due to being pigment inks and archival papers. Do some research first and decide what type of photography you want to print most. Some do glossy type better, others do great black and whites. Most will blow away stuff you get from labs.

Small (quantity) print orders/one-offs - at home on the R2400.
Large print orders - lab.

I hate cutting paper.

Ditto for me, I ussualy print small orders on my R1800 and send the larger ones to the lab.

Last year I found myself facing a similar decision. After crunching some numbers and agonizing if I should jump, I picked the Epson Pro 3800. Since then I've been extremely happy about the decision.

I recommend the Epson R2400 or Pro 3800 depending on budget.

Have fun.

versedmb wrote in post #4611046
The quality of the prints I receive from photolabs is good, but even with my calibrated monitor, ICC profiles, etc, sometimes the colors aren't as close as I would like them.

Curious if when printing files at lab(s) you are turning off their 'autocorrection' if it's avaliable?

Tdragone wrote in post #4643237
Curious if when printing files at lab(s) you are turning off their 'autocorrection' if it's avaliable?

I've also been curious as to what this "autocorrection" does.