Epson Photo R3000 A3+ printer, just costs too much.

[ShinySideUp]

I have one of the above, I have had it for years and have hardly used it because the printer cartridges are so bloody expensive and there are nine of them; if I replaced them all today it would cost me over two hundred quid.

When I've run out of ink this next time, I'm getting rid of it. as apart from the cost, it takes an age to start up so I can't even use it as a day to day printer; I have a second printer -- small Canon -- for that.

But I like A3+ prints, just not the cost of producing them. Since this printer is quite old, I am assuming that things have moved on a bit now and perhaps I can presume that printers are more economical and a bit easier to use.

I suppose the Epson was a little overkill for me and is really for people who want studio quality and longevity.

Anyone suggest an A3 printer for photographs that will also function as a quick-switch-on general printer for printing documents and letters? Does such a thing even exist?

 

[Box Brownie]

I have one of the above, I have had it for years and have hardly used it because the printer cartridges are so bloody expensive and there are nine of them; if I replaced them all today it would cost me over two hundred quid.

When I've run out of ink this next time, I'm getting rid of it. as apart from the cost, it takes an age to start up so I can't even use it as a day to day printer; I have a second printer -- small Canon -- for that.

But I like A3+ prints, just not the cost of producing them. Since this printer is quite old, I am assuming that things have moved on a bit now and perhaps I can presume that printers are more economical and a bit easier to use.

I suppose the Epson was a little overkill for me and is really for people who want studio quality and longevity.

Anyone suggest an A3 printer for photographs that will also function as a quick-switch-on general printer for printing documents and letters? Does such a thing even exist?

I can only suggest the Epson ET-8550

I have this and it is possible to get very good prints including B&W plus it is an A4 scanner/copier. And most key it is one of the Eco Tank printers

 

[ShinySideUp]

I can only suggest the Epson ET-8550

I have this and it is possible to get very good prints including B&W plus it is an A4 scanner/copier. And most key it is one of the Eco Tank printers

Quite expensive but the ink might save me money in the long run. How long does it take to start up, for instance if I just wanted to print off a letter?

 

[Box Brownie]

Quite expensive but the ink might save me money in the long run. How long does it take to start up, for instance if I just wanted to print off a letter?

Unless I am going on holiday, a bit like the router it is left on. But IIRC note it goes into a low power sleep mode......when I send a letter to print it wakes and prints it within or less than 1 minute.

It hard to say the exact amount of time but a two page, duplex printed letter comes out within 10 seconds of the output tray opening. If the tray is left open the letters come out quickly.

Note ~ the output tray is motor driven it's opening is automatic but to close needs user intervention by pressing the button on the info screen.

Oh, it is connected to the router wirelessly and can be used by both if us and even from the phone on the house network

Edit
As for the ink.....each bottle is 70ml and the first filling when setting, uses approx 1/5 of the tank volumes but note there was some left in the bottled to top up when needed.

I think I bought it at start of April 2022
I topped up the tanks with the remainder in February 2023 and that gave me >50% in the tanks.

In Spring 2023 I bought another set of inks when Epson had their Spring Promotion approx £89 per set of 6 off 70ml bottles.
At my rate of usage I don't expect to even open those bottles until after January 2024?

 

[stevewestern]

I too have an Epson ET-8550.
Starts up in around the same time as every other printer I've ever had and after about a year I'm only three quarter through the first filling of ink.
Not having to worry about the cost of ink is a major thing for me. 100% recommended.

 

[zx9]

I bought a ET-7550 which is 5 ink ie. YCM K plus photo K , despite been envious of the ET-8550 for the extra bells and whistles and another ink colour (grey?) I have to say it does turn out prints that look good on my walls including very neutral B&W prints.
My only complaints are it can get a bit messy when Mrs. ZX9 sends it A3 formatted spread sheets and it is loaded with A4 paper, and the YCM K inks are water soluble dye not a problem for photos, big problem turning up on site with an ink blot personality test not a set of GA drawings - lesson learned don't put a wet brollie next to the drawings!

 

[ecoleman]

Have you Tried Marrutt Inks.

I've been using Marrutt Inks on my P600 and P900 for years now. They are just as good as the original Epson inks but a 5th of the price.

Marrutt Inkjet Inks And Bulk Ink Systems For Epson R3000 Printer. With Compatible Photo Papers, Inkjet Inks And Technical Support.

Marrutt Inkjet Solutions for the Epson Stylus Photo R3000 Printer. See our range of professional Inkjet inks, reliable bulk ink systems and compatible inkjet papers. See also our support section for this printer with best practices for reliability and quality including correct print settings...

marrutt.com

 

[Bridges]

I bought an expensive Epson A3 printer many years ago; used it to print up a portfolio, then a couple of other prints, but it's sat in its box now for several years. I'm not sure it still works even, or if compatible software is even available. TBH it was a huge waste of money and I could well have got all my portfolio prints done for a lot less (including ink costs) at a commercial printers. Given how (relatively) cheap such printing is these days, I'd not bother again. For the rare occasions I need a print, I have several high quality services nearby. I now only have an A4 'home' printer for documents etc. Spending lots on a home printer, even if it is high quality, is still a poor choice given the quality you can get from professional services. A top grade A3 print will cost less than £20. I can't think of any reason to buy such a large home printer, unless you live out on the sticks and away from pro services. With things like legal documents now acceptable in digital only form, and things like boarding passes working on your 'phone/watch, I doubt I'll ever buy another home printer.

And who actually has a printed portfolio these days??

 

[ecoleman]

I can't think of any reason to buy such a large home printer, unless you live out on the sticks and away from pro services. With things like legal documents now acceptable in digital only form, and things like boarding passes working on your 'phone/watch, I doubt I'll ever buy another home printer.

And who actually has a printed portfolio these days??

Because it's part of the process for me and why shouldn't we have a printed portfolio?

Photography for me is the the process of finding a composition, taking the image, editing it and then creating a print. Something tangible to hold and say "I created that". Photography is a hobby for me, all of it and that includes a photograph at the end of it. I really couldn't care less that it costs me £6 to make an A2 print.

I guess I could ask you why you have a camera (assuming you do being on a photography forum). Surely you could just google an image, download it and store that on your hard drive for nobody to see. There are plenty of digital images out there so why would you want to create another one?

There is an art to printing which take a lot of practice. Understanding profiles, rendering intents, soft proofing, PPI, DPI confuses a lot of people which is why many people shy away from it and I understand that but really what you are suggesting is a bit like somebody doing Clay pigeon shooting as a hobby but doesn't buy any shells.

 

[Bridges]

Because it's part of the process for me and why shouldn't we have a printed portfolio?

Because literally nobody in the 'industry' is ever going to look at a printed portfolio. Those died out 10, 15 years ago or more. The only real use for prints these days is exhibitions/display. There's nothing wrong with having a printed portfolio; it would be nice to show guests etc, but you can even get actual printed books for very little these days, so even that use is somewhat outdated really. I haven't shown anyone my printed portfolio in years; my digital 'portfolio' can be adapted to suit the 'audience'. And that will almost certainly be done via some sort of screen, be it iPad, laptop, desktop or even a 'phone. I haven't printed a digital image at home in years; for my own home display I'd use a commercial printers (better quality than I can achieve at home anyway), or simply send a digital file to anyone who might want a print for themselves (which they can then get done any size etc they want).

Photography for me is the the process of finding a composition, taking the image, editing it and then creating a print. Something tangible to hold and say "I created that". Photography is a hobby for me, all of it and that includes a photograph at the end of it. I really couldn't care less that it costs me £6 to make an A2 print.

But that's you, and not the entire photographic community/world. Which is fine; nobody is stopping you doing so. For the vast majority of people taking photos today, the final 'output' stage is just an image on a screen.

I guess I could ask you why you have a camera (assuming you do being on a photography forum). Surely you could just google an image, download it and store that on your hard drive for nobody to see. There are plenty of digital images out there so why would you want to create another one?

I'm losing sight of what you're trying to say here. So if I choose not to print an image, then it's not worth taking it in the first place? Strange.

There is an art to printing which take a lot of practice. Understanding profiles, rendering intents, soft proofing, PPI, DPI confuses a lot of people which is why many people shy away from it and I understand that but really what you are suggesting is a bit like somebody doing Clay pigeon shooting as a hobby but doesn't buy any shells.

Again; this is confusing. I did enjoy B+W printing when I was younger, and would happily get into it again, but wasting time and money on digital printing isn't my idea of fun. But knock yourself out if that's your bag.

 

[ecoleman]

But knock yourself out if that's your bag.

And back at you.

You said you didn't understand why anybody would have large photo printer at home and I told you why they would.

I don't care if you want to print or not and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but there are plenty of us that do want to print and probably do so for the same reasons as I do. I know for a fact that I can produce just as good if not better print than a commercial printer, because I have the control over every aspect of the print. I do understand that some don't want to invest the time or money into mastering that process.

You said you did enjoy B+W printing when you where younger so I am wondering why you didn't just send your film off to a commercial lab? Surely that would have been cheaper than a dedicated room, all those chemicals and paper. Same thing isn't it?

Oh and I don't really care about the "industry". I'm not in the "industry". My portfolio is for me.

 

[Bridges]

You said you didn't understand why anybody would have large photo printer at home and I told you why they would.

Well, I didn't; I only expressed my own opinions on home printers, in relation to my own needs. I perfectly well accept that other people might well want a large home printer.

I know for a fact that I can produce just as good if not better print than a commercial printer, because I have the control over every aspect of the print.

Commercial printing services use technology costing tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. Many will have experience of using such technology over many years, decades. They will likely have far more knowledge of the best printing solutions than the average home printer user. They will also be able to print on a much wider range of materials than your average home printer. And likely use better quality inks/dyes. Having used a range of digital printers form the 1990s onwards, I have yet to see a home printing solution that can match the quality output of professional printing services. I'm not saying you're unable to produce better results to your own satisfaction than a commercial printers, but I know for my own uses, those professional services are just superior. This is knowledge and experience gained over quite a long time. This is what informs my opinion on the choice of owning a home printer and using external services.

You said you did enjoy B+W printing when you where younger so I am wondering why you didn't just send your film off to a commercial lab? Surely that would have been cheaper than a dedicated room, all those chemicals and paper. Same thing isn't it?

Not at all. Commercial B+W printing services were very expensive, so cost per print was far, far cheaper doing it myself, either at college or later in my own home darkroom. The manipulation and fine tuning was done in the printing stage, whereas with digital it's done in the image processing stage. Significant differences in the processes. All I'm interested in with a print from digital, is that it looks as much like my on-screen image as possible, in terms of fidelity. The digital printing stage is adding nothing 'human'.

Oh and I don't really care about the "industry". I'm not in the "industry". My portfolio is for me.

And that's fine. For you. Others have diverse needs and requirements. I haven't been asked for an actual physical print in years. Very little of my current output is ever printed. The vast majority of it is only ever viewed on a screen. This is the medium I'm working with now, as is the case for most others. My current 'portfolio' is entirely digital and online.

 

[Box Brownie]

@ShinySideUp

I also use Epson Print Layout software to print my photos on the ET-8550....... IMO a real boon.

 

[ShinySideUp]

I think I have been swayed by the 'send it to a lab' people and when I've run out of ink in this one I'll probably knock A3 printing on the head and get a cheapish A4 photo printer, saving the really good prints that I want A3+ to be sent off for someone else to do. It will give me an awful lot of space on a shelf that is currently occupied by a very large lump of plastic.

 

[Bridges]

I think I have been swayed by the 'send it to a lab' people and when I've run out of ink in this one I'll probably knock A3 printing on the head and get a cheapish A4 photo printer, saving the really good prints that I want A3+ to be sent off for someone else to do. It will give me an awful lot of space on a shelf that is currently occupied by a very large lump of plastic.

I think that's a wise decision. What I found with an A3 printer, is that it wasn't big enough for larger prints of course, so I still had to use external services. It was still quite limiting, A3 really isn't that big. Exhibition prints generally tend to be a good bit larger, and A3 was still a bit small for home display prints, and definitely too small for displaying in larger areas. Once I had A3, I wanted A2, A1 etc. And then there was the ink costs; A3 of course uses twice as much as A4. So prints became very expensive. I didn't get many A3 sized from a full set of inks. £80+ a set, and that was 15+ years ago. And of course, as technology constantly improves, so the quality was very quickly bettered by newer and cheaper machines. One of my worst purchasing decisions, buying that printer. And I think it's probably still around somewhere, taking up space on a shelf...

 

[mike_g]

If you don’t print that often then it’s not worth the money and hassle of having an A3 printer at home. For me personally a photo isn’t finished until it’s printed. I use Fotospeed inks which keep the cost manageable but I wouldn’t be able to afford Epson or Canon’s prices for ink.

 

[ShinySideUp]

It's one of those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' things.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think A3 is about a 13" printer? I have the Canon 9000 Mk II and love it. I think it has 8 ink cartridges and were simply getting to expensive so I tried some after market ink, $5 a cartridge and seem's to work very well. If I was a pro and actually making money off the thing I'd get Canon ink and pass the cost on, I'm not a pro! For hanging on the walls at home I find with it I can print print's I really like. But 16x20 I can't do yet 13x19 certainly is nice and these days I'm leaning to 8x16, 9x19 and 12x24 and they do look big to me! Anything much smaller than that and I use my Canon Pixma iP 100. But then again i tend to print a lot more than I have room to hang and if your not planning on printing quite a few, the cost of a bigger printer probably isn't worth it. I get my ink now from Ink Technologies and so far, no complaint's at all and no problems.

But if you only want a big print once in a while I would suggest an 8 1/2" printer. For that I have another Canon the iP 100 I mentioned and it does up to 8x16 prints for me with two ink cartridges, one color and one B&W. I had a small Epson and trouble with it turned me off on Epson. Something I'm starting to think about my printer is I might not have enought camera to print good photo's as big as I might want. In which case either I sub them out or do with out. My iP 100 has convinced me I can get good photo's without having to buy 8 ink cartridges much less more! Now that I seemed to have found inexpensive ink that works, I would not be without a 13" printer and if I needed to get a new one it would be another Canon!

 

[Bridges]

It's one of those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' things.

Yeah, I thought that too. But it was when I went to have something larger printed out at a professional place, and the assistant showed me various examples of what they could achieve with their vastly superior technology, that I realised my mistake.

 

[flook999]

I'd like to thank this thread for helping cure me of my printer GAS