Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 15 Nov 2014 (Saturday) 15:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Home printing

 
Kirby
Member
Avatar
185 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2005
Location: 45min. from Yosemite
     
Nov 15, 2014 15:30 |  #1

Is home printing becoming a dying art form? As evidence- in my region the local retailers that used to stock varieties of inks and papers have drastically downsized their selections.
My local Best Buy doesn't stock the ink for my Pixma Pro 9000 any longer. And the Office Max and Office Depots haves seriously scaled back their photo paper selections.
Use of the internet to purchase from online retailers like Adorama or B&H is an option, but sometimes one may need supplies quicker than UPS can deliver.


"It's the photographer's task to explore,photograph and share with others... that which they otherwise might miss" -William Neill

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ralff
Senior Member
766 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Asheville NC
     
Nov 16, 2014 04:32 |  #2

I buy all my printing supplies on the web, no local suppliers. Do not think that it says anything about home printing dying, just not enough volume for the box stores. Side note, time to get the humidifier going in your print room!


Canon 6D - Canon 7D - gripped, Canon 50D - gripped, EFS10-22mm, 17-40 f4 L, nifty-fifty, EF 28-135mm IS, 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 ProD Macro, Benbo Trekker, Feisol 3371 w/ Kirk BH-3 ball head - Epson Pic-Mate, Epson 2200, Epson 3880 :D http://www.flickr.com/​photos/WNC_Ralph (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Nov 16, 2014 06:35 |  #3

I believe its photography in general that is less popular than it once was. Home printing was never a cheap option so only us control freaks tend to prefer it!


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,013 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1626
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 16, 2014 07:26 |  #4

When it comes to home printing what I would really kill for is a reasonably priced digital head for an enlarger. Printing direct to Ilford B&W papers, and Ciba-Chrome for the colour work, would be absolutely brilliant. Just think all the advantages of Photoshop and the authentic darkroom experience to boot.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shane ­ W
Senior Member
839 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Traverse City, Michigan
     
Nov 16, 2014 08:37 |  #5

Lowner wrote in post #17274740 (external link)
I believe its photography in general that is less popular than it once was. Home printing was never a cheap option so only us control freaks tend to prefer it!

Really?! Have you seen how much floor space in an electronics store (Best Buy) is devoted to photography? DSLRs, Mirrorless, P+S, waterproof, you name it... it's selling! They even stock a pretty good selection of accessories for the person just starting out too. You didn't see that 10 years ago- or even like 5.

A few years ago, I could be the only photographer at different locations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, now you have to wait in line or get there really early to get first dibs on the best spot to set up your tripod!

On home printing.... yea it's a little work, but you can get a good printer pretty cheap and print on nice papers (I like Red River) for close to the cost a pro-lab is charging. Not Walgreens or Costco prints, but pro-grade prints.


Shane W

70D | Sig 10-20 | EF-S 15-85 | EF 70-200 2.8L | Sig 150-500 | Viv 28 2.5 | Sig 30 | Tak 50 1.4 [COLOR=blue]| EF 100 2.8 Macro | 1.4x TC | Nodal Ninja 3 | Tripods | Some Flashes | My flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,168 posts
Likes: 171
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 16, 2014 09:49 |  #6

Lowner wrote in post #17274740 (external link)
Home printing... only us control freaks tend to prefer it!

I probably would have used the term "quality fanatic." Home printing, when done using professional equipment and by somebody who knows what they are doing, surpasses even the best "custom printing" at upscale labs. I've tested and compared many times.

It all boils down to how much you love and value your art, and how important it is to you that people who purchase it hang the best.

You either care about your work equal to a walgreens, sam's club or costco print, or you value it enough to lovingly craft a fine art print on a good fine art paper.

Edit:

Lowner wrote in post #17274740 (external link)
I believe its photography in general that is less popular

I don't think it is necessarily less popular as much as truly good work has been diluted by people who know so little about good pictures that they will hold a smartphone or tablet in the air, click a shot, and accept what they get. Plus, heading more toward the aficionados, there's the DSLR gear heads who know a lot about bayer layers, but really don't know how to compose a good shot. All this makes it "appear" as tho photography is less popular, but the good work is still out there.


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
myphotographic
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Oct 2010
     
Nov 17, 2014 17:12 |  #7

You used to have to get your photos on to paper if you wanted to show them to people (or the hassle of projecting slides). Now there's a lot more mediums, many more convenient than prints; social media and other internet sites, laptops, tablets, digital picture frames and phones. Does a large print trump looking at a photo on someone's phone? Sure, but just as "the best camera in the world is the one you have with you right now", "the best photo sharing method in the world is the one you have with you right now." I can carry my life's portfolio around with me 24/7 on my phone or share a jpg with somebody I've never met in person. It's a lot less practical to do either of those with paper.

More photos than ever are being taken but fewer than ever must be getting printed. I believe the mass-market have all but given being interested in printing their work. So it's only a subset of more dedicated photographers that are still printing in serious quantities to justify home equipment. Everyone else isn't printing or small enough amounts that only photo labs make economic sense.


Paul

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Nov 18, 2014 06:43 |  #8

myphotographic wrote in post #17277989 (external link)
...... So it's only a subset of more dedicated photographers that are still printing in serious quantities to justify home equipment. Everyone else isn't printing or small enough amounts that only photo labs make economic sense.

Funny you should say that. Just this last weekend I decided it was about time I got some prints done so I walked in my local shop with 37 pics on a memory card hoping to get some prints and came out with no prints stunned at the cost.

The old fashioned 6x4s were a reasonable enough price but if I wanted anything 10x8 or larger or to get a panorama done it was, for me, prohibitively priced.

In the past I've printed at work on an epson r1900 and been very happy with the results. I am now seriously considering getting a printer for home.


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,013 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1626
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 18, 2014 09:02 |  #9

StayFrosty wrote in post #17278997 (external link)
Funny you should say that. Just this last weekend I decided it was about time I got some prints done so I walked in my local shop with 37 pics on a memory card hoping to get some prints and came out with no prints stunned at the cost.

The old fashioned 6x4s were a reasonable enough price but if I wanted anything 10x8 or larger or to get a panorama done it was, for me, prohibitively priced.

In the past I've printed at work on an epson r1900 and been very happy with the results. I am now seriously considering getting a printer for home.

Try DS Colour Labs (external link), they have 16×12 prints on Fuji paper for only £1.15 each (external link). The work is really good, I know of other members here who use these prints for competition entries, and they have regularly won prizes. So the quality is good. They will ship same day if ordered before 1pm. I usually use the standard RM delivery option now as it is half the price of courier, and usually seems to get here next day anyway.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Nov 18, 2014 09:54 |  #10

Thanks for that link I'll try them out.

The prices don't seem to get ridiculous when you go larger and the panoramic seem very cheap.


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Nov 25, 2014 07:09 |  #11

Reporting back, I tried DS Colour Labs, I got
1xPano 36x12
1xPano 32x12
1x 36x12
1x 32x12

All on the Lustre Fujifilm paper.
It was £22.69 including next day courier delivery (due to the size of the panoramas) and I'm very happy with the results.

They were slightly darker than I expected but frankly it's put the idea of getting a home printer straight to bed and I will definitely be using these guys again.

Thank you very much BigAl007 for the recommendation!:)


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Nov 25, 2014 08:35 |  #12

StayFrosty wrote in post #17291970 (external link)
They were slightly darker than I expected

May be due to your own monitor being too bright? Do you calibrate it?

As standard from the manufacturer they are always waaay too bright!


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,013 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1626
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 25, 2014 08:35 |  #13

If you are not using a calibrated monitor, that also includes setting brightness, then it is not surprising that your prints come out a bit dark. If you are using a monitor that is set to anything like factory brightness levels while doing any editing you are going to get very dark results. Most people who are editing and doing prints are using monitors with the brightness down around 20%, while factory is often up above 80%!

Even if you are allowing them to do auto-correction a really bright monitor might make things so dark that the auto-adjustment won't compensate. I use the pro service with DSCL with no adjustments, and my prints are almost an exact match to my screen, but as I say it is turned way down brightness wise.

I have been looking at new computers lately and I think the only reason that I do not find the displays objectionably bright is the high levels of ambient light in the stores. Not really good at home though.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Nov 25, 2014 14:32 |  #14

No my monitor is not calibrated, it's very likely too bright and saturated for print work. I will compensate for it next time I get some prints done.

Thanks again for the recomendation I'm very happy with the prints and will now start having a look around for frames and get some more done, maybe trying out different papers etc.


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,398 views & 0 likes for this thread
Home printing
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Nidzza2
876 guests, 310 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.