Cost Effective To Print From Home?

G

gingerweasel

Guest
Hi All,
I'm pondering the purchase of an A3 printer so I can turn out some competition prints for my local photography club and to mount and hang some stuff in my house.

I was wondering if people thought home printing was cost effective or has it reached a point where it's cheaper to pay for A3 prints on a regular basis?

As a bonus question for 10 points what printer would people recomend for A3 printing? (I have a particular fondness for B&W).
 
I reckon if you only want a dozen or so prints a year get them done by an online service.

Hooowwwever I like printing my photographs off just for fun and to give as little gifts to people who comment they like them ( not too many LOL )

I went for a Canon Pixma Pro 9000 Mk2 A3+

The first print out of it had me gobsmacked to be honest. I have used an old Epson R300 for years. Struggled until I got a profiling system and then was fairly happy with the results. No good for B&W though, one of my favourite outputs as it always had a purple tinge.

The 9000 gives inky black ( no pun intended ) and great colour. I chose the 9000 after much deliberation and help from some good members of variuos websites.
 
I personally think that if you are using genine ink and printing on standard paper then its cheaper to get them done by a lab once you factor in the cost of the printer, if you are printing on specialist papers then it becomes more viable and the convenience of having it handy to run a print off right away is a bonus.
If you are looking for excellent B&W the canon 9500pro is pretty much rated as one of the best A3 B&W printers due to its 10 inkset, but there was an issue with it leaving a large border on fine art papers and I don't know if this has been corrected, and also excesive ink usage with some 9500 mk1's
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't think it really is cost effective. I used to own a Canon photo printer but every time I started it back up again it would eat up a bunch of ink from cleaning the nozzles or whatever it was doing. Silly really.

I can get you dead cheap printing with really good quality. But if your going to be giving them out as gifts while they are with you, obviously the faster option would be to print for home.
 
AdamPearcey said:
...every time I started it back up again it would eat up a bunch of ink from cleaning the nozzles or whatever it was doing...
Click to expand...
That was the issue I was having with home printing, loads of ink was being used because I wasn't printing very often and the nozzles needing cleaning. I don't bother with home printing now.
 
I cant see how any home printer - can compete with a company like DSCL
 
gingerweasel said:
Hi All,
I'm pondering the purchase of an A3 printer so I can turn out some competition prints for my local photography club and to mount and hang some stuff in my house.

I was wondering if people thought home printing was cost effective or has it reached a point where it's cheaper to pay for A3 prints on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Cheaper to print your own? No. More convenient? Certainly.

I considered the same - do I buy an A3 printer, or do I pay for prints. I opted to buy the printer (Canon Pixma 9000). No way has it been cheaper, but without it, I'd only have made a fraction of the prints I have, as I tend to just decide "I like that shot... I'll print it".

gingerweasel said:
As a bonus question for 10 points what printer would people recomend for A3 printing? (I have a particular fondness for B&W).
Click to expand...

Canon 9000 mk 2 or 9500 mk 2... The 9500 may be better suited to B&W, but costs something like £150 more. That said, I've never been disappointed with B&W prints from my 9000, but I print colour far more than B&W, so might not be the best person to comment about it.
 
OneTen said:
That was the issue I was having with home printing, loads of ink was being used because I wasn't printing very often and the nozzles needing cleaning. I don't bother with home printing now.
Click to expand...

Seems a bit of a waste really. The cost of paper, ink, hassle and the printer itself. Not worth it IMO
 
easy when DSCL don't supply all the different paper types you can get for inkjets. not every one likes bog standard gloss or luster. You can't get fibre base prints done at DSCL for example.


cambsno said:
I cant see how any home printer - can compete with a company like DSCL
Click to expand...
 
For the occasional print then it's prpbably cheaper to have them printed by a decent lab.
But.

If you want a bit of personal satisfaction, want to use a range of paper surfaces and textures, or maybe need the results quicker than a lab can supply then you could consider printing your own..

I would also suggest you consider , if you haven't one already is getting a calibration device for your monitor. It's just as important in monochrome as it is in colour as you are depending on the correct tonal separation to give the image it's character.

I'm running an Epson 2880, which print mono just fine with multiple black inks. However I'm sure a Canon machine would do just fine as well.

When looking at a printer make sure it will handle the weight of paper you plan to use. Hahnemulhe do an interesting Monet Canvas at 410 gsm. Not all printers can handle this. Also some of the others are fairly stiff such as Museum Etching , whilst being 350 gsm , would benefit from a "Straight Through", path rather than the normal vertical delivery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top