Is a printer worth it?

Post #10 & #18. Note that these are 2005 threads & I haven't had any problems with them in 8 years.
Where to get photos printed

I have a Pixma Pro 9000 Mk II. I have my walls covered with framed 13" x 19" prints. I enjoy the process and convenience. It would be somewhat of a chore to go through a print provider and have to wait days to see what something really looks like as a print. If something does come out to be really outstanding, I can then get it printed professionally. I do have a 36" x 54" canvas print in my living room. As an amateur, it is just an enjoyable part of the hobby, and I never asked the question of whether or not it was "worth it".

Colorblinded wrote in post #16384856
I certainly don't wax nostalgic about digital printing methods. Back in the darkroom days printing was absolutely a part of creating the final image and something I enjoyed. I could adjust contrast further, dodge and burn, etc and it was a nicely paced methodical process. Digital printing is boring, unengaging and if you get in to doing it at a high level with calibration and everything else... tedious. I will leave the printing to a lab these days!

With digital my goal is to have everything done to the image on my computer and have the print come out as close as possible. The choices I make in printing now usually come down to glossy, matte or metallic paper.

Yeah I'd rather give a lab a few bucks and let them deal with bulk purchasing inks, papers, cutters, and the physical space to make it all worth their while. I can get the cost near the same if I try hard enough but it's a lot of work and assumes little to no print errors and/or re-dos.

I basically bought the printer to bring everything in-house for total control the way others in this thread mentioned. I fulfilled two serious orders with it and said enough was enough. Ever since then it's mostly just been one-offs, the occasional small batch of catalogs, etc. Even those haven't been done in ages so I'm sure the heads are clogged by now. Time is money and I'd rather not waste either.

My viewpoint might be different as a pure hobbyist.

When I can get a 18 x 12 printed out on good quality (Fuji Progessional) paper for £1.20 ($1.95) why would I bother with a photo printer.

Nightstalker wrote in post #16385264
When I can get a 18 x 12 printed out on good quality (Fuji Progessional) paper for £1.20 ($1.95) why would I bother with a photo printer.

To be able to use the paper you want, get the print immediately, use the settings you want on the printer driver..............

The list is endless!

... and just be involved, which is perhaps the main reason behind a hobby.

Lowner wrote in post #16386692
To be able to use the paper you want, get the print immediately, use the settings you want on the printer driver..............

The list is endless!

Indeed. Frankly, I never understood why people give up control of their image at the stage it's actually becoming an image instead of bits in a machine or ions in an LCD screen.

Printing, even on my mx922 has rekindled my interest in photography. I know it's not printing to a lofty standard, but now I'm surrounded by the output of my work instead of occasionally looking through photos on a computer screen.

I don't know if I'd commit to a very expensive printer and time consuming print processes, but for now cheap glossy II paper is making me happy. Maybe I just haven't taken that perfect image yet. Lol

Hen3Ry wrote in post #16387248
Indeed. Frankly, I never understood why people give up control of their image at the stage it's actually becoming an image instead of bits in a machine or ions in an LCD screen.

Because there are professionals who do it day in and day out better, cheaper, more efficiently, and with no hassle on your part...?

Having complete control doesn't make it inherently superior.

I posted the exact same message last year, i.e is it worth investing in a printer, because there was a good deal on a Canon Pro 9000 MkII. I ended up buying the printer, and for a while I got some decent prints out of it, up to 13 X 19, and some are still on my walls. I invested dozens of hours in trial and error, reading up on ICC profiles and color management and everything in between. For a while I was "near" getting what I saw on the screen on the paper. Near.

But then, I don't know why, but it all went downhill. For some reason the prints I get now are unusable. Very contrasty (browns are black and beige skin tones appear almost white), or with an ugly red color caste. I've tried everything, printing from photoshop, printing from lightroom, printing from DPP, nothing will do. I've tried managing colors manually, but it's hopeless. It all started, I think, when I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 8. It's either that or the third party ink.

Whatever it is, I'm about ready to give up now. The money and time I invested into this, in retrospect, just doesn't seem worth it. It's become a source of endless frustration and aggravation, while all other aspects of my photography have remained a source of joy.

Like others have said: I guess you have to be interested in the printing process itself to really get a kick out of home-printing. If you're doing this to save money, to save time, or for quality-gains, you might end up disappointed like me.

agedbriar wrote in post #16386748
... and just be involved, which is perhaps the main reason behind a hobby.

For me it is a business however and that probably changes my perspective.

I don't print much but in a few weeks I'll be dealing with orders for probably 300+ prints - believe me being able to sub this out and know that I will get reliable prints is a godsend.

I've been going back and forth on buying a 'real' photoprinter myself. I do print the occasional 8x10 and more often 4x6 (to give away, kid's school projects etc) on my Epson Artisan 835 using Costco paper and am actually quite pleased with the print quality. I'd love to print on fine art papers, water color paper, fabrics, etc and can't do that with that machine. I'd need something with a direct feed and the capability to print on thicker materials. Just don't know if I'd do it as often as I think (or like to think) and the whole idea of dealing with profiles and settings is rather unappealing to me, so I have not bought one. Besides that I'd have to spend some $600 up for one of these.

Now, if I had no printer at all, I'd buy one. Based on my experience with my all in one, I'd buy the same thing again though, as I use the copy function and other functions more often than printing photos. I do have an old Epson Photo 220 that a friend gave me, never installed it or tried it, probably will once we have some rainy days.

But then, I'd want to go even larger, which that machine can't do, so I'm back to online printing services again. Also can't print on metal nor do I want to get into stretching canvas etc.

I loved the dark room, and love printing as a craft process, have a press for etchings and monoprints in the garage, but the fiddly dealing with profiles and settings on the computer and printer has nothing crafty to me, it's more annoying than fun.

I'd say if you don't have any printer, get it, it's a good price. Not cheap to print at home, but I'd hate not having the option occasionally.

Printing your own is enjoyable and the price of most printers is dirt cheap. The cost of most papers
is reasonable. The good part the cost of the inks will put you in the poor house.

I use a Canon MG5150 all in one to print up to A4 size. I only use Canon OEM inks in this printer and when doing prints serious prints for myself use Canon Platinum Pro paper. This gives me really nice results. I do use cheap paper in it sometimes (Polaroid A4 Glossy photo I think it's a dozen sheets in a pack from the local poundland) the results are OK and most non photographers are hard pressed to see the difference between that and the Canon paper unless you place them side by side. On the Canon paper taking ink into consideration it probably costs me around £2 to make an A4 sized print. I use a lab based in Manchester to do larger images and they do really nice traditional photo prints on Fuji Crystal Archive at 16"×12" for only £1.10 each. The quality of these prints is really good, of course all of the work that used to go into making a good print from film is now done digitally, so you only need a well maintained consistent exposure/processing system to get good prints. I can have them next day even, but delivery is £10. If I have 10 or more prints made at a time though the cost works out at the same as printing the A4 at home.

What I would really like is a simple cheap digital enlarger head that I could use for black and white printing in a home darkroom. That would be the best of both worlds for me.

Alan

Using A3+ as my standard, my costs are as follows:

Ink £2.06 per print
Paper (Hannemuhle Torchon) aprox £3.00 per sheet.

So without any framing costs, it costs me just over a fiver to print one image. Divide that by 4 to get a rough price for A4.