Buy a printer to save money, or outsource?

[sam_portera]

I am relatively new to digital photography spending much of my life in a

darkroom. I am a multiformat shooter, mainly shooting 35mm, 4x5, and some

digital. I have a good scanner and scan my 4x5's. I have been making some

12x18 pigment prints and I am quite happy with the quality of these prints,

however at $45 a pop I have been thinking of purchasing an Epson printer.

 

After thinking and rethinking it through I have yet to arrive at a conclusion.

Will I really save money with the costs of Inks and paper? Is it worth it to

own your own, or is it just as easy to outsource?

 

I am not an event photographer, or wedding specialist. I am an art

photographer, who occasionaly does a portrait here and there.

 

Thanks for the advice in advance.

[ronald_moravec1]

It would depend upon the amount of prints you make.

 

Low volumns do not pay reguardless of print size. Check the cost of inks and the fact they have a shelf life once they are in the machine. That means you will need to replace every cartridge once or twice a year whether it is empty or not.

 

Also consider every print will not be a keeper just like a darkroom. Save money by printing small until you are sure the output will be what you expect.

 

I gave up on inks and got a Kodak Dye-sub 1400. It just sits there until I want it. It`s output is limited to 8x12, but there are larger models.

 

Ink models can print on differnt media and there are some really beautiful papers you can print on so they don`t look like photos. To me this is the greatest benefit of ink printers.

 

I would get something where the nozzels are built into the ink cart. That way when they clog, and they do clog, there is a home fix that is easy. That leaves out Epsons and Canon. I dumped two ink models and can say I never got a photo from either one. One was a Lexmark that came with my computer and a C86 Epson. Both clogged up. You need to run them and make prints weekly so that is another expense.

 

You decide.

[beauh44]

Hi Sam, I'm not sure who's been charging you $45 bucks a pop for 12X18" prints but http://www.mpix.com offers them for $10.79 each and mpix isn't the cheapest in town. If you buy more than 10 prints the price comes down a little. If you do try them be sure to send them the files in the sRGB color space or they'll come back rather murky looking. As to whether it's best to "roll your own" so to speak, I look at it more as a control issue than a cost issue. Sure, it's not cheap but if you make a print that's a little off you can instantly go back and correct what's wrong and make another. Good luck!

[david_henderson]

I'm just facing the same decision, on colour prints at least- I'm still happy with traditional fibre for b&w.

 

Basically I have drum scans and prints made for me by labs- primarily by WCI in the USA but also by a UK lab when I need to be faster or the job won't take the shipping costs. These routes are fine when a client's paying but it does restrict the volume of prints I have made for myself, and the stock I'm prepared to hold.

 

My decision is to buy a film scanner, learn to work in a colour managed environment to make my own files for printing and to continue to have the prints made by my labs, sending the files with their designated profiles attached. This route will reduce my cost per print including transport very significantly if I can get it done right and it will also reduce timescales by simplifying logistics and replacing physical proofs with soft proofs. WCI charge $29 for a 16" x 24" Chromira/Crystal Archive print on that basis, and there are other machines and papers available.

 

I've made this decision because

 

Firstly because I prefer LightJet/Chromira prints to inkjets

 

Secondly because I'm not terribly technical; the variety of things that could go wrong between computer and print output here is significant and I don't want to spend my life learning what to do. The route I've chosen is not without risk, but its simpler than printing myself to a high quality.

 

Because printer technology continues to develop and whatever I buy now I'll probably want to change in a couple of years. Meanwhile scanner technology seems stable and unlikely to change. There is more chance of recovering the cost of a film scanner over say 4 years than a printer over two. My libraries are also increasingly asking for scans not transparencies and so a film scanner has that purpose too.

 

Because the "out" if I'm not able to get this remote route to work is to put a printer on the back end. It's not costing much to try the remote route as there's an obvious bail-out available.

 

Because at the prices that apply to the print types I like best, I can't possibly save a lot of money printing myself when I take into account machine amortisation as well as paper inks and wastage. The only way I'd justify the investment in my terms is if I simply can't control the prints well enough whilst printing remotely.

[robert_k2]

I use Copy and print center, http://www.copyandprint.net they charge $3.99 for 12x18, $14.95 for 16x20 and $17.95 for 20x30 poster you can not beat that. I don??t think you can print your own cheaper than that, by the time you pay for the paper and ink not to mention the time waiting for an ink jet print to finish. It might be just cheaper to send it out.

 

Check them out I am very happy with their work.

[sattler123]

It is exactly the same issue as having your own darkroom or sending film out to have it developed by a lab - it is all about controlling the final output. I have a darkroom and I have my own Epson 2400 printer and I could not imagine having a lab do this for me, BUT that's just me. Most people are very happy with the lab results and rightly so. I do not think that you should approach it from a cost perspective - this should only be about the end result and how much control you want to have over it.

[Ed_Ingold]

There are several reasons to buy a printer. The most important is to gain complete control over the quality. The second is to be able to meet critical deadlines without waiting for the minilab to open. Finally, you can make large or unusual prints (e.g., panoramas) for much less than a lab would charge. It is pointless to make 4x6 prints at home unless you have no other choice.

 

Printers that will do 12x18 inch prints are relatively inexpensive. The Epson R2400 is widely recognized as the best of the pigment printers. For about twice as much, you can get an Epson 4800, which handles paper up to 17 inches wide in rolls or sheets. I do relatively few prints over 12x18 inches, so it makes sense to farm these out. A 16x24 inch print cost me $30.

[conraderb]

sam - you can get even cheaper than the epson 2400 if you go for the epson r1800. it is a 13x19 printer that prints gorgeous glossy color, and that is what it is best at. b + w glossy are definitely not neutral on this machine, but the 13x19 glossy color prints are astouinding. only $500.

[chris_vincent2]

I've had an R2400 for 6 months and couldn't imagine being without it now. If I'm not happy with a print I can adjust it and reprint, learning as I go.

 

I find the Epson profiles for Epson paper very good and I believe my large prints are better than a lab.

 

Running costs are higher than buying cheap prints and fine art B&W is best achieved with a custom ink set - but online lab B&W is a very beige area.

 

7x5s still tend to go via broadband to Photobox for next day delivery.

 

I find this is a good compromise in terms of time/cost.

[steven_clark]

I bouhgt myself an R1800 a ehile back and I'd estimate the incremental costs are very low, somewhere much closer to $9 or $15 than $45. Overall it's very good for someone like me who just want to make good prints, not sell them, and even then I know I could.

[larry w]

I agree with Juergen. And add to the control benefit the fact that locally my choices for printing have gone from slim to one (which might as well be none between their high cost and lack of quality) and you also get the benefit of much faster results than having to send out for them and waiting for delivery.

 

I chose to get a Canon Pixma Pro9000 ($500). I buy sets of ink directly from Canon ($100 for a set, $14.25 each), again less expensive than I can find locally, and most of the paper I use from them as well ... And I calculate a 13x19 print to cost me about $4.50 ($2.00 for paper and $2.5 for ink) ... That's a grossly conservative estimate as I get many more than 40 13x19 prints from a full set of ink carts (I did have to replace one at 40, another at 60, I'm about to replace the photo magenta for the second time during which I still haven't had to replace the other 6 carts) and not all Canon papers cost $2.00 a sheet like their Fine Art Papers do (I use Photo Paper Pro or Plus Semi Gloss which are less than $2.00 for the bulk of my printing). Obviously smaller prints cost much less.

 

Sure there is much debate between Canon and Epson and such, but that's all individual preference and whatnot ... I chose Canon and I'm a happy camper.

 

Bottom line is that you have to factor in time and control to your decision, beyond straight up dollars and cents ... For me, when it comes to prints of 13x19 and smaller, there's no reason not to do them myself.

[van_camper]

Some have given legitimate excuses why they want to send out, usually the issue is justifying the cost of the printer.

 

I decided I enjoy doing all the printing myself, like having total control, hate the idea of waiting for prints or scans returned from the labs. I hate mailing my film to a lab (too much trouble to lick the envelope), and fear it may get lost or damaged (if they lose the film, a guy like Peter Lik stands to lose $100k easily on prints sales...having many editions of 50 sold out at $2-3k per print). How important are your images? How much did your last photo expedtion cost you in travel/motel fees?

 

I consider the costs of a high end scanners (used cezanne/creo IQsmart2/or drum scanners) and a wide format printer (eg-24-44inch) the same as a traditional darkroom in the old days (build darkroom, enlarger, sinks, trays, easels, several lenses, etc). If I could afford a darkroom then, I can certainly afford a lightroom today, especially when there is more control in PS, no chemical vapors, its faster, no set up and clean up, mixing chemicals). So I do not consider the costs. A pro will consider his time, and find it is easier to have a lab do the work.

[sam_portera]

Thank you all for the advice.

 

I agree that control is what counts when art making, and this is why I print all my own B&W. The thought of coming home from a shoot and having a finished print that night or the next day intrigues me.

 

I have used Mpix for a few 12x18's but I prefer the results I get from the epson printer on photo-rag from the local fine art printer. It reminds me of Ilford Semi-matte paper, a favorite of mine.

[Robin Smith]

Sam,

 

Quite honestly I cannot think of any good reason for you not to have a printer. This way you have all the control yourself and you avoid the inevitable cock ups or poor quality that many labs saddle you with. Of course you can still make mistakes, but then it is your own fault. I am not sure whether you shoot color too. If so then I cannot see how you can manage without one to be honest. If you shoot mainly black and white then there is an argument that a good old fashioned silver print is still best, but then you have a darkroom for this.

 

It seems to me that most people use a pro printing shop when time, or volume of other work means they just do not have the time to do it themselves, or a very large print size is needed. This would not seem to be particularly the case with you as you are an art photographer.

[qtluong]

Money is easy enough to figure out. Printing on a small Epson is around $3 per square foot. See how long it takes you to amortize the cost of the printer depends on the lab costs and the number of prints you do.

 

More important in my opinion: do you examine and sign the prints before they are sent to the customer ? If so, are there many instances in which you feel like redoing the print ?

[qtluong]

David, from the point of view of someone who had prints made full-service by labs, prepared his files, and operated his printer (Epson 9800), I'd say that printer operation is a rather trivial task that requires very little skill in comparison with digital work.