Pros Printing their own proofs and albums??

[corrie sweiger]

I was recently at a promotional meeting with several other pro

wedding photographers, and several of them mentioned that they are

starting to print their own proofs-with an epson printer and a nikon

film scanner.

At first this sounded really unprofessional to me-but these

photographers do not seem like the types to go for anything but high

quality. They swear that its the best way to go now.

 

Does anyone else do this? How do you find your sales and quality

with this method?

[steve_levine]

I own a $350 Epson printer, and my lab has a $125,000.00 Noritsu printer. Guess who does my printing? IMHO, Ink jets prints cant't hold a candle to color prints on photo paper.

[darice michelle]

My fellow professional photographer just told me that she bought the new Epson printer

and couldn't believe the quality of the print. She swears it is much better than what she

backs from Pictage. She got me wondering.

[bruce_rubenstein]

If you shoot film, it makes no sense to scan everything yourself to print proof books. It just takes too long to do and not worth it. If you do direct digital capture, proof books from the digital files works well. Whether you do the printing yourself, or send the files out will depend on how much control you want and time/cost factors. Its not very hard to get better quality yourself out of a an inkjet than sending files out. However, there are a number of places that will do correction on your files when they print them (just like getting prints made from film) rather than having to do them yourself. If you print yourself, you want very good out of camera pictures. You don't want to spend hours tweaking individual files just for decent looking proofs.

[wickedmartini]

You might even be surprised at how many studios have purchased Frontier printers to do the same thing...

[jmichaelc]

I was doing personal inkjet printing in 1999 and the prints have already faded. I do not think i would ever chance that for wedding prints. Inkjet gives you a wider color graument but that is about it as far as quality goes.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I appreciate the sentiment behind the use of traditional printing and the impressions people have of inkjet prints, but things are rapidly changing.

 

I find that the prints comming from the newer (past 12 months or so) epsons are all but a step above all traditional prints. With the right paper and ink, they are water resistant (same as traditional) and lightfast (same as traditional). However, these newer printers (like the epson R1800/800, 2400, 4000, etc.) have better color reproduction and longer lasting fade resistant inks known as Ultrachrome.

 

It is not what it used to be. This is the first year I have been happy to sell a 'homemade' print. YMMV.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I agree with Steve. And remember, only 24 hrs to each day. We can only do so much, but try to do each task extremely well.

 

What do you want to excel in? And then others do things for you?

[cjogo]

We do not even own a printer, any longer. No way to compete with the price & quality of a lab, printing with a Fuji Crystal archive system.

[Jochen_S]

Printing personally is a way to have complete control, a chance to pull the emergency brake and a reasonable way around the color management hassle. - I can understand these folks although I don't like the idea at all, according to cost and time consumption. I'd prefer to print my own stuff after shift or during lunch break on professional equipment.

[cjogo]

Our lab offers a great down loadable profile system ~~ and fast, dependable printing. No complaints and just upload the images ,,,no longer the time consuming, costly printing at home. Free shipping or local pickup. Crystal Archive prints..back printing..etc

[jordan_prussky]

ink jet prints? is that what we are talking about? Anyone doing their own ink jet printing is doing so to save money. Steve is right, they do not even come close to "real" prints.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Jordan, you are kidding right?

 

I have never seen a B&W 'lab print' done using C41 chemistry that even approaches what I have had from an Epson in contrast, richness of blacks and details exposed. If you are talking color prints, I have yet to get a print that matches the Epson in most areas.

 

I am certainly not printing to save money. In fact I knowingly spend twice what a lab costs and happily too for the quality I get.

 

If you have not had this same experience with an inkjet, I imagine the particular printer/paper/ink is not giving you what IS possible.

 

I am amazed there are so few who know fine art prints from an quality inkjet, posting in this thread. C'mon guys/gals, where are ya?

[jordan_prussky]

I have had some experience with an EPSON 7600 with specialty inks and papers. Ink just does not do it for me. It's not personal.

[fotografz]

I tend to agree with the observations of the photographers you met with Corrie. Things

have changed. Ink-Jet has come a long way, BUT requires a steep learning curve to

maximize end print results. The Pieziographic folks seem to do alright using Ink-Jet to

produce fine-art prints.

 

IMO, the Epson 2400 was a quantum leap forward both in color ink-jets and especially

B&W printing sans any color cast.

 

When shooting film, I still let the lab make the proofs, then scan only the selects for the

album which I print myself to control the final print. That cuts down on scanning time

considerably. Work flow while scanning is pretty easy: scan the first image, scan the

second and while that's happening work on the first and send it to the printer, by then, the

second one is ready ... and so on. You just need enough RAM and have a decent Scratch

Disk for PS to do that. Our clients don't seem to mind ink-jets, and half of them are

designers and art directors.

 

But, as usual, to each his or her own.

[kipling]

which epson and what paper are you using for color files marc? certainly not smooth gloss, I find it too delecate and scratch prone for anything but prints that will be behind a protective surface. premium luster? also, do you use a custom profile for b&w or a different ink set-up?

[cjogo]

One answer >> COSTCO..best archival-quality control printing.. on the West Coast ~ @ .17c 4X6. Upload ..they ship free.

--20X30 $9.95 >> All my fine art B&W prints, for the galleries representing me, ..receive Fuji archival enlargements. I said goodbye to the inks & metarisms from my 2200.

[cjogo]

COSTCO Fuji Crystal Print

 

 

 

<p> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7369009554&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

[corrie sweiger]

Thanks all. I guess i'll have to see the physical prints from these desktop printers before i see the evidence. Im a fan of the more matte finish papers myself. Im curious to see how these stand in time, quality, and how they are in resistance to water. (no...i dont plan on dunking them, but i've had people drool over their images..litterally..;)

 

I agree about the costco thing too...although that's not where i go for wedding enlargement, i do use their services when i need some images for use in my own home or for friends etc. I find that they can produce very professional looking images, however the results can be extremely inconsistant as well. Maybe they would be better though if i sent in a file to print rather than the negative. Im also concerned about them LOOSING a negative or something...theyre really busy, and try to produce as many images in an hour as they can-not paying much attention to quality, let alone mixing up peoples images. That's my biggest fear.

[cjogo]

CORRIE===Best to only hand Costco - digital files : either upload or physically visit the counter. They are very consistent for us,,,even going as far as > to reprint enlargements between a paper batch change!

(We expect perfect whites on our B&W, as do the galleries ~ and they have reprinted an order :: if the corrections were slightly-off from a paper batch.)

[wedding-photography-denver]

C Jo, I want to use one of these places because of the turnaround time it offers. I have been hesitant due to the image (forgive the pun) they have. You really that happy - like for a print competition say?

 

Maybe I should be a little more open to the idea..

[cjogo]

MICHAEL------The prints from COSTCO are sold in galleries ..represented as Fine Art quality.

[corrie sweiger]

C JO, Have you ever had someone buy one of your prints and turn it over only to see that the back is stamped 'costco'? and then complain? Im just curious. (maybe they dont print the backs there, they certainly do here!)

[blueworldstudios]

We use a pro lab that uses FCA, we also use Costco/Walmart for same day turn-around

since it's great to be able to upload a file and go get it in an hour.

 

There are two grades of FCA, and Costco/Walmart uses the lower grade. The high grade

FCA from a good pro lab looks significantly better than a CostMart print. Although clients

are happy with CostMart, even they can readily see the difference in quality.

 

As for inkjets, I just don't see them making sense. Quality issues aside, we just don't want

to have to take the time to keep the printer clean and calibrated. And, I'm not sure you

save any money unless you are using a third party ink with a bulk feeder.

 

For $2, we get an 8x10 on high grade FCA with perfect color repeatability. Once you have

a calibrated monitor, we have all the 'control' we need, and the prints come as expected.

 

The time maintaining and printing on an inkjet isn't worth that $2.

[cjogo]

Corrie:::

 

The FineArt prints and the portraits are back-printed with our name, only & Fuji Crystal Archival appears...nothing denoting " by Costco." You wouldn't believe how many top photographers, in our area, are seen passing through the Costco counter. We mainly use their free shipping: after uploading....Costo also allows you maintain "albums" of you previous uploads! Many of our files our 45/50 megs each >> I know storage is cheap, but nice of them to manage/store your work.