What’s a decent home printer that prints up to A3 size? I want to print my stuff at home and skip the hassle of getting prints online or at a local store. Yes, I want problems. Anyway, let’s make this a general printer thread.>What’s your experience been like printing your own photos?>Did you print them yourself or professionally?>Have you had bad experiences with any brands, companies or websites? and vice-versa?
>>4449451>home printer>for photos>A3>home
>>4449451Canon Pro inkjets are solid as far as inkjets go. Do my own prints but there are online places that are cheap up to 8x10 but A3 is kind of pricey. Turns out I don't do a lot of A3 so it was kind of a waste.
>>4449451I looked into an 11x14 printer and the damn ink is like 1000 dollars.
Epson Ecotank ET-8550.
>>4449460what’s your experience been like with it? any photos you printed where you were unhappy with the results? usually just how you wanted them? the ongoing costs for this printer seem really cheap but the outright price is similar to the Canon Pro300. I’m wondering if its ten replaceable pigment cartridges are worth the extra ongoing cost compared to the 8550’s six refillable pigment/dye tanks.
>>4449463It's my first photo printer, so it is still a bit of trial and error, but when I get things right I am usually pleased. If the prints don't look right it is me, not the printer. I landed on the 8550 after the same type of consideration with regards to cost. No manufacturer that still sells cartridges deserves my business.
>>4449452i don't understand your mocking post, i have a canon pro-200 for home use. is this a problem?>>4449456the trick is to not buy new, the older models work just fine and they have better third party ink infrastructure. the pro-100 for example has plentiful cheap and reliable off-brand options. but yes, it is overkill if you don't print big enough. my printer lately just churns out 4x6s and 8x10s.
>>4449521yeah buying used is good but I will never use third party inks. If I wanted cheap, I'd just go with the 8550 which is a good printer but I wanted pigment. Possibly a waste but it's nice knowing the prints should last. Tempted to get an 8550 anyway
anyone ever use one of these? I'm interested. it seems to have a lot of advantages>portable w/ battery (sold separately)>fixed 4x6" prints (3:2 aspect ratio; no cropping required)>gloss, semi-gloss or matte finish>dye-sublimation printing (the ink doesn't go "bad" if unused)did I mention it's portable?if anyone else needed a portable printer and decided on something other than this or has experience with other set-ups, give me a (you)
>>4455705i've gifted the smol instax printer to my sister in law, she enjoyed how low key it was.
>>4455737meant polaroid printer, not instax. Also yes, it's dye-sub, not the instant photo paper one.
>>4455705Have that exact one. I love it for doing small prints to give to friends and family. I shot an entire lake trip and printed on my Selphy every day to give pictures to said friends and family.
>>4455835I heard it has three finish options: gloss, semi-gloss and matte. I’m interested in using it for framing some prints of portraits, so I’m particularly interested in the matte finish to reduce glare and reflections. How well does it work compared to printing on matte paper, in your opinion?
>>4456155buying one of these today
>>4455705Not portable, but I'm eyeing Epson XP-8700, which is less than 150 European money here. Internet is shilling heavily for the ET-8500, but it's quite an upfront cost.
>>4455705I have one. At its price point I consider it a necessity for beginning photographers, along with some cheap ikea 4x6 frames and a photo album or two. I use it all the time.
>>4456155The matte is a joke sadly and there's only one paper stock available.
What's the bang for the buck like for home printers, compared to professional service? Like, how many prints are the break even point when compared to having them done professionally?
>>4459669what exactly do you dislike about the matte finish? I am relying on it being somewhat good so I can reduce glare in framed photos
>>4459690It is not actually matte, it just prints the glossy layer differently or something. It looks nothing like real matte prints. You should still try it with the glossy prints, the glare is not bothersome in my framed prints. But if you're familiar with real matte you will be disappointed, I tried it once and never used it again.
>>4459670So many prints that it's not worth it from that perspective at all. The main reason IMO is so you can actually hardproof and change stuff immediately instead of waiting to have another order arrive.
>>4459704yeah, it’s just a different overcoat. meh, I may think differently of it since I’ve never actually *seen* a matte print IRL yet. I have zero expectations. Thanks for elaborating and yeah, I’ll try the gloss and semi-gloss options too.
Premium luster looks the best in my opinion, but it is also expensive.
>>4449451I have a Canon Pixma Pro 100S, which is great. It's cheap and the ink is cheap. I think the 200 is current equivalent.I've had a Pro-1 in the past, which is supposedly much better, but it clogged and died. I didn't find it substantially sharper or better in any way that matters to me. I wouldn't go pigment again unless I was printing much more frequently, which is unlikely any time soon. I prefer the look of dye-based ink for gloss and lustre colour prints anyway. Pigment is better for B&W, but really a darkroom print is better again, so why bother?Dye prints fade faster, but really not a problem if you frame behind glass.
Would I be a massive faggot if I got one of those instax printers that you load up with photos you've already taken?I'm already kitted with a full frame loadout, and I get 6x4-8x12 prints from a good shop, but people around me tend to like the instax meme. I like the idea of giving someone a photo they can slide in their wallet instead of going through and making an album or framing it. Some anon in a thread (might even be this thread) mentioned going that route and it got me thinking.
>>4460454>will I be a faggot for buying something that makes more people enjoy my hobby in ways they can't nowI promise you you will never regret a purchase made along these lines.
>>4460454Keep in mind that the instax-branded ones use somewhat of a hybrid approach. It doesn't actually print, but exposes fuji's polaroid paper with LEDs to produce the result. It's not a good choice if color accuracy is important to you, it's more of a retro vibe thing. Polaroid and Canon-branded ones like >>4455705 are proper dye-sublimation printers.There are also portable inkless printers, but those are really crap.
What print service do you guys use good quality prints? I mostly print 4x6 to give to people but will occasionally print something around 16x24 for some wall art. Any recommendations?
>>4460452there's a used one of these floating around on FB marketplaceI might bite the bullet and grab it, based on what you've said
>>4460585They used to give them as bonuses for buying a 5d+kit lens, back in those golden days when normies didn't have cameraphones but did have computer rooms, so there's a shitload out there. If it's not been used lately then also budget for a full ink-sethttps://www.inkstation.com.au/8-pack-genuine-canon-cli42-ink-combo-1bk-1c-1m-1y-1gy-1pc-1pm-1lgy-p-5395.html?utm_source=google-ads&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=17668243377&utm_adgroup_id=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17669234812
>>4460503I'll be honest, if it allows me to avoid the clusterfuck that is dealing with dye and clogged jets and overall maintainence, I'll take the instax over anything else. I know there's these ZINK things floating around as well that might be worth considering. Total accuracy and image quality is not the goal especially considering instax mini is like a 2.3" photo, but the printers are about the same price as the cameras and I'd rather go through my photos and pick the ones I want to hand out.I rarely print 6x4 and wouldn't want >>4455705 because of it. 5x7 is generally the minimum I'll print and anything nicer gets a way bigger size. But even 5x7 defeats the purpose of this.This idea is just to give people in my life something neat and compact; 6x4 photo albums aren't bad but I try and fill them out which is like 20 photos and isn't always ideal.>There are also portable inkless printers, but those are really crap.If there's a printer like the small selphy that isn't a hoe with ink prices, doesn't require maintainence or regular use, and can do miniature photos that are instax-sized, I'd like the idea of getting my own photo paper, but the instax mini printer is like... $150 AUD and film is cheap as fuck.
>>4460690>t allows me to avoid the clusterfuck that is dealing with dye and clogged jets and overall maintainenceSo can do the dye-sub printers from Canon and Polaroid. Instax suxxx.
>>4460709Sick, link me a printer you speak of that is suitable for tiny-format prints and costs $150 AUD or less
>>4460712https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/polaroid-hi-print-2x3-travel-sethttps://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/hi-print-4x6-printer
>>4460713Danke. Unironically helpful
>>4460713And ordered. Let's see if this is worth it. Kind of wish there was PC software instead of just a phone app, but let's be honest the target audience doesn't understand anything except a touch screen
>>4459667Just got this one. It's kinda cool, I'm expecting to become a better photographer any day now.
>>4460940I'm now going through some phone photos that my [spoiler]boyfriend[/spoiler] took and it's easy to appreciate how compressed they all look. On my shitty photos I always have to move exposure, and shadows, and highlights, otherwise prints are too dark or overblown compared to the screen. And phone photos are almost print ready.
>>4462338By Ken rockwell standards>no black! no white! all saturation! MORE SHARPENING! PERFEEEECTLY CLEEEEAAAAAR BIIIITCHEEEES
>>4462348That's not quite what I meant. For example, with my camera snaps, I usually need to lift the shadows, because fine details in shadow areas don't look good (to me) on a print, but the phone somehow does it for you. Phone does give the extra saturation, but it doesn't seem a bad thing for printing, because my prints (on semigloss paper) have the same feeling as very dim screen; I set my laptop to 10-20% brightness for editing.
>>4462565>because my prints (on semigloss paper) have the same feeling as very dim screen; I set my laptop to 10-20% brightness for editing.You should probably just calibrate your monitor and use a profile for your printer and paper.
>>4459667The ET-8500 is 3.33x more expensive but with the included ink it can print 10x as many photos - as a LOWER bound. I don't think the XP-8700 comes with the high-capacity cartridges that I based that number on. Even if we assume the ET-8500 will only physically last as long as it takes to use up the ink it comes with it's a way better deal just for the ink alone. And if it lasts longer, the refills are even cheaper per-page than cartridge refills. And it's a better printer, too.Only get a cartridge printer if you're not going to print enough to use the ink up. Otherwise, just be patient and get the ET-8500 when it goes on sale for Black Friday or Boxing Day or something. Or if you see a good clearance price.
>>4463341Well, I already got the 8700. I'll see if I get to use 500 Euro worth of ink within the observable future, at which point I can think of upgrading.
>>4463341>>4463345To add, ET-8500 (650 Euro right now) costs in the same ballpark as cheaper pigment ink printers (Epson P700 is 750 Euro), and I think pigment ink may actually have a point, because dye prints seem relatively delicate.
>>4462642Well, I have been following the instructions from the fat Englishman, and using Epson's print utility, and using supported Epson paper, etc, etc. I guess I should get to calibrating the screen, but I'm not holding my breath, because my issue is more about how shadows/blacks feel in paper vs the screen.
>>4463349You can convert an ecotank to pigment ink, never done it myself though. Just get it framed and/or laminated and keep it out of sunlight if you want it to last.
>>4459667Haha, with Epson Print Layout, this printer's default setting (aka "printer manages color") is "perceptual" (or at least it can decide to choose it) and sometimes it would just invent colors.
>>4459667Another fun fact: Epson 10x15 paper is 4x6 inches; Hahnemuhle 10x15 paper is 100x150mm.
>>4463349Dye prints can have good longevity as long as you stick with the OEM pro-inks and papers. (Epson Claria, Canon Chromalife, HP's higher end ink). Not as good as pigment but I think accelerated aging tests have them as good as drugstore prints. I forgot the name of the test sites but I know there's a prolific forum user "Ink Stained Fingers" who also does these sorts of tests on some printer sites.
Any recommendations to make the printed photos last longer?I thought about something like laminating them with foil that block the UV and makes them water/oil proof?Are there good picture frames that protect the photos better?Boxes that are keep the photos at the optimal moisture level?Wrap it in aluminium foil to stop UV and keep at stable temperature?
>>4473441If it's on matte paper, there are protective sprays that supposedly delay UV damage. They aren't meant for glossy paper though.
>>4473441>Any recommendations to make the printed photos last longer?this is consoomerism. even dye ink on matte paper will last at least 10 years ... way longer if you don't hang it into direct sunlightin 10 years you will have swapped out the image like 4 times because it gets boring after some timeit's of course a different thing when you're selling prints. then consoomerism is on your side and you can advertise with "we use archival grade paper with pigment inks our prints last 100 years"but for personal use at home? don't burn your money. ink is already expensive enough
>>4463349pigment prints are delicate. you can scratch them very easily.pigment inks for home use is overkill and just marketing. prints for personal use get swapped out regularly (no one wants to look at the same stale image for years). dye inks already hold 10 years or longer (unless you hang it into direct sunlight but then even pigment inks get fucked).the only reason I would buy a pigment printer is for the print size. dye printers end at A3+ and if you want to print A2 or larger there's only pigment printers available.
>>4463352it's inherent to the medium. no matter how much you calibrate and sperg out you will never have a 100% reproduction of what you see on screen to paper. calibration and trying to make photos look the same as on screen is a path leading to madness. don't do it. accept that different media have different characteristics and embrace them. no painter will lament that his water color painting lacks oil painting texture, etc. why are photogs sperging out about paper not looking like backlit LCD? don't be autistic anon. embrace paper. embrace its qualities. try different papers and enjoy prints.
>>4463352>because my issue is more about how shadows/blacks feel in paper vs the screenThat's right, anon, a monitor that can emit light has more dynamic range than paper can't do that. That's inherent quality of the medium. There's a good reason why serious people print proofs first. Get some 4x6 or 5x7 and use it them to get your exposure right before committing to a bigger print. You'll get a feel for it with experience and won't need as much.
>>4473468Well, perhaps dye it is then. I was a bit unhappy that I scratched a couple of prints by just (mis)handling them, but in the end it's not a big deal; I only print small ones anyway, and they seem to get a bit more durable after an hour or two.
>>4474102also dye printers dont clog up so easily. you can get away with not printing once a week - what you are supposed to do with a pigment printer.
>>4473441UV exposure is the biggest. Kept in an album is an easy way to stop UV but glass and certain plastics also work great. Avoid direct sunlight.>>4473467>>4473468If the prints are going into a family photo album, that is by definition archival and a good case for pigment. I also see a lot of boomer types keep the same photo on a wall or dresser for decades. For stuff that you only care about for your lifetime, dye has the advantages of more consistent (no metamerism) and poppier color as well as a much smaller chance of clogging. I do have photos from inkjets and dye subs from 20+ years ago which have faded quite a bit and I have no access to the originals so I'm biased toward getting the most archival quality possible. It's ironically the digital stuff that is likely to be lost and forgotten. A busted capacitor in a hard drive or degraded flash and I can imagine someone just chucking it or maybe losing the password to or never accessing online photos whereas an old worn photo can still be kept and people usually keep albums even if they only look at them every decade.>>4474102Yeah, the inks require quite a bit of time to set and dry. My pigment prints haven't gotten scratched yet even with toddlers handling them but I figure dyes soak in for more resilience.
pro200 owner here. it's absolute overkill for my hobbyist snapshitter use but i love holding the big 13x19 prints. i don't know about the print longevity to UV or whatever, i haven't placed any near sunlight or anything so i have year old ones that still look great. ink replacements are pricey though pretty well almost the 1/3 the cost of the printer each time. honestly i'd say for most people just sticking to a service is probably best unless you're really gonna be cranking out that much at home.
>>4478219$550 at Walmart is absolutely hobbyist justifiable. A service is cheaper whether for a few prints but actually much cheaper especially if you are cranking them out. But the convenience of being able to proof prints quickly at home is worth it.
Alright. I'm getting an ET-8550 (based on recommendations from the other thread, >>4472235). Hopefully they don't fuck it up in transport, should be here before the weekend. Got a deal on a refurbished one that appears to be in working condition. Wish me luck anons. If it works, next step will be going autistic on paper choice and ICC profiles.
>>4478536nice. Make sure to order some Epson A3 photo paper since I don't think they will have any of that with the printer and as >>4478219 says, big prints just make you smile.
