burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

In 2003, I put two Epsons (44” and 17”, both roll-fed) in a pro portrait lab. We had 15 Noritsu mini-Labs for sizes up to 12”x22”. The two Epsons replaced 12 dedicated large format optical printers.

We printed 10”x30” panoramas and 16”x20” prints on the 17”, and all our large prints on the 44”. We also made canvases on the 44”, along with some art board prints.

We made team and group prints up to 96”x44”, canvases up to 40”x60” (with 2” wrap borders), and lots of large composite prints of bands, sororities, fraternities, senior classes, nursing schools...

Standard paper and ink cost us $1.14 per square foot, even with high volume discounts from our supplier. Paper and chemistry for the Noritsu cost way under $.25 a square foot. (We bought several tractor trailer loads of Kodak paper every year, and thousands of gallons of chemistry for it.)

Fortunately, large photo prints cost our customers a LOT more than 8x10s, so we recovered our costs — and more.

szoots

I have tried using ink jets but unless you use it frequently, the ink dries in the head and stops working properly. Color lasers are expensive initially especially one that is photo quality. Dye-sub printers are really great because they can sit for years and then produce a high quality print. But they tend to be expensive and more if bigger format is desired. I inherited one that prints 8x11s and I keep my exhibit of bird photos rotating on a monthly basis. I will not buy another photo printer as mentioned above, just not practical or economical unless you do enough volume and get paid for your prints.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Beware dye-sublimation printers. Many are practically orphaned now, because their manufacturers no longer sell paper or ribbons for them (i.e.; some Kodak models, some Polaroid models...).

szoots

Mine is by Mitsubishi and they still support it with consumable products. It also can print both glossy or matte with the same paper.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Mitsubishi and Shinko are reliably supported.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

Agree. If you own a printer, use it or you’ll waste half your ink cleaning the head. Haven’t seen a dye sub in quite some time.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The event photography and photo booth "printing on site market" relies on them. But it is not a very big market. In that field, dye sublimation printers are the fastest and most reliable.

Kuzano

Start here.

Various government studies put the price of inkjet ink at about $500 to $600 per gallon, While gas for your car tops out about $4.00 per gallon.

Prices from there on get worse in comparing home vs print shop printing. No aspect of home printing costs less than your friendly printing kiosk down the street,

I am not shitting you a pound and the ink does not easily wash off your hands or clothing if you are stupid enough to refill cartridges.

Remember this. Inkjet printers were not invented to print images. They were invented to sell ink and paper for proofing for final prints!

This all proven fact by people who print innumerable bad prints at home. Simply to costly to consider.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I must point out that with *proper color management* (a calibrated and custom profiled, high quality monitor, plus the right software, properly configured, and matching paper, ink, and printer profiles), *what you see is what you get* color is achievable.

I ran all the digital printing departments of a large pro portrait lab for five years. We had many kinds of printing technology. The best quality in the house came out of the Epson wide format printers.

Many high end photographers who specialize in celebrity portraits own the same sorts of printers. Many museums make limited editions for exhibiting artists on similar inkjet printers.

Wilhelm Imaging Research has some very interesting things to say about the archival longevity of various printing technologies. If you’re making an important print for sale or museum display, consider that pigments in high end inkjet photo prints last about five times longer than the dye-based silver halide wet process prints made by most labs.

Use inkjet for specialty printing. It works with a wide variety of papers, art board, metal, canvas...

But if you’re a typical amateur enthusiast photographer, it’s not going to save you money. If you’re serious, and follow the disciplined path to color management, it WILL reward you with great prints and give you privacy and a high degree of control. If not serious, you should use an outside lab or service bureau.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not at all, but it really is fun to see your image as it comes off the rollers - and being the first person to do that.

User ID

`

I never ever used monitor calibration. We had a small
inkjet, but most work came from an 11x17 laser and
a 30" CAD plotter forced to render photos and posters.

We were a "graphics and print shop". As printers and
as producers of much of the content, each worker had
to have a "printmaker" mindset, not a "photographer"
mindset. We knew the "personalities" of our printing
devices and knew how to create files to print on them.
We'd know how to look at the monitor and tweak what
we saw for the personalities of our printers. Yes there
was the occasional re-do.

There's much ado around here about calibration, and it
derives from the idea that you create a photograph that
satisfies your expectations and then expect a machine
will rather faithfully put that photo onto paper. I agree,
of course, that such a flow requires calibrations. OTOH,
if you get know your printer and prioritize "printmaking"
rather than "photography" as your "enthusiast pastime"
you might find yourself much happier with the process
and the results and freed from the desire for exacting
reproductions of camera images. A printmaker wants a
good looking result ... that covers a lotta ground ... but
a near match to the camera shot has little to do with
"a good looking result".

------------------------------------------------------

In the film era, I was mainly focused on making photos,
you know, those shades of gray on paper ? IOW I loved
the darkroom, so my camera-user mindset was all about
producing "files" that that would be successfully rendered
onto paper by my "printer". Of course "files" means negs
and "printer" means the chemical darkroom for printing.

I was not "printing my photos". I was "making my prints".
Optically and chemically those two things are alike. But in
mindset, they are opposite. And there was no calibration
of monitors involved. OK, I had a densitometer but it had
no ability to display images. It was helpful experimenting
with film and chemicals, but much less so for printing any
particular negative "to taste".

So if you are primarily a photographer [a "cameraman"]
do expect to do some calibrating. But if you're primarily
a printmaker [a maker of paper or cloth graphics] your
intimacy with your process trumps exacting calibrations.

`