Never Mind Film: What's Going On with Printing?

[amateriat]

We've been biting our nails over The Incredible Shrinking Film Manufacturer (EKC) for some time now. While i've worried about that for some time as well, something else has been gnawing at me. But I hadn't thought too much about it until now, thanks to two events.

The first one made the news a short time ago. (Also here and here.) The second came when I was getting set to stock up on more HP Premium Plus photo paper for a photo project. HP had apparently changed the formulation of its top-line papers, purportedly in the name of making them more eco-friendly. From the responses of end-users on HP's site, it sounds like they blew it, big-time: people are screaming bloody murder. All HP seems to be doing in reply is offering a boilerplate response to use a different profile setting - inconveniently, a setting that doesn't exist for my Photosmart Pro 8750.

And, speaking of my 8750: after purposely passing over HP's train-wreck of a sequel to that printer (the B9180), I've noticed that they haven't bothered to come up with a replacement 13" carriage format photo printer for their lineup. Have they really decided to cede that segment of the market to Epson and Canon? (Their sales figures haven't been so hot, either.) Or perhaps this is symptomatic of the inkjet printer market overall, as fewer people bother to make prints at home (if at all)? Photo printing does appear to be less relevant to people who are quite content to view snaps on their phone and the rear screens of their cameras (and - when they get around to it - their laptop/desktop screens). Those who do bother simply get it dome online, or have the occasional book made, but I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of that, either.


- Barrett

 

[johannielscom]

Never mind HP, I can recommend getting an older Epson and QuadTone RIP as a profile set.
I'm still in the process of setting my kit up good but results from others show that it can be truly inspirational to see prints with that printer, true Epson ink, the correct type paper and the QT RIP profile.

 

[Keith]

I think you're dead right about home printing. Ink for my R2400 is damned expensive here in Oz and mistakes are consequently costly.

A friend of mine recently had a 20" x 30" print done for framing from a digital file I provided and it cost him $19.00. Small 6x4s cost next to nothing these days and as you say everyone is looking at images on screens or monitors.

Digital frames have dropped a lot in price too of late ... and they are getting better and provide a system of viewing photographs that pretty well matches 21st century values where nothing needs to occupy your attention span for more than a few seconds! 😛

 

[amateriat]

Never mind HP, I can recommend getting an older Epson and QuadTone RIP as a profile set.
I'm still in the process of setting my kit up good but results from others show that it can be truly inspirational to see prints with that printer, true Epson ink, the correct type paper and the QT RIP profile.

Been there, done that (Epson SC 1100, QT setup). Looked gorgeous when it worked right...which, unfortunately, was about 30% of the time. My 8750 has produced gorgeous black-and-white (and color) prints with minimal pain-and-suffering for about six years now. Hopefully i won't have to make a switch, but I have been working a bit with Epson's R3000, and have to say they've done a decent job with it. I could live with that one if I had to.


- Barrett

 

[Nikon Bob]

Yea, I won't buy another photo printer because it is just too costly for what I need. If I made a living from it than might be different. The best digital picture frame that I have is my big screen TV. I am thinking home printing is going the way of dedicated film scanners.

Bob

 

[Bob Michaels]

Barrett: I have not seen anything new in high quality home printing in the last 5-6 years. I think it is a mature technology with no new advances possible. Epson comes out with a new model ever 2 years or so but they do nothing that that previous model did not do.

I have been using the 6-7 year old Epson 2400 models and cannot wish for any realistically possible improvements. My b&w prints are consistently better to my eye than I did in 10 years in the darkroom. 95% or more of the time, my first print is exactly what I want. The cost is very reasonable especially considering the largest cost element is quality paper. If I only needed the quality one gets from a commercial lab, I can do that with paper that cost half what I normally use.

I do think the total market is shrinking as several suggest. Many just seem to be happy showing their photos on-line or having the viewers look at the back of a camera.

 

[Pablito]

Epson 3880 - amazing printer, virtually never clogs, uses very little ink, terrific software (I have not needed any RIP to get fantastic results and I am fussy)

Huge selection of papers out there, just not cheap.

Inkpress papers - best value for the money.

 

[FrankS]

Print with light, not ink!

 

[amateriat]

Barrett: I have not seen anything new in high quality home printing in the last 5-6 years. I think it is a mature technology with no new advances possible. Epson comes out with a new model ever 2 years or so but they do nothing that that previous model did not do.

I have been using the 6-7 year old Epson 2400 models and cannot wish for any realistically possible improvements. My b&w prints are consistently better to my eye than I did in 10 years in the darkroom. 95% or more of the time, my first print is exactly what I want. The cost is very reasonable especially considering the largest cost element is quality paper. If I only needed the quality one gets from a commercial lab, I can do that with paper that cost half what I normally use.

I do think the total market is shrinking as several suggest. Many just seem to be happy showing their photos on-line or having the viewers look at the back of a camera.

Bob: Agreed. Since getting my 8750, I haven't seen anything resembling a palpable improvement in printer technology in the 13" format (and in HP's case, their last attempt was pretty much a step backwards, especially for b/w printing). Assuming the paper situation with HP gets sorted out (I recently found out that their 11 x 17 and /or 13 x 19" papers were not changed), I could be printing merrily for another several years yet. It's always amazing to watch companies "fix" something that wasn't broken...the excuse of "we have to bring out new stuff to get people's attention" doesn't cut it for me any more.

Yea, I won't buy another photo printer because it is just too costly for what I need. If I made a living from it than might be different. The best digital picture frame that I have is my big screen TV. I am thinking home printing is going the way of dedicated film scanners.
Bob

This is what makes me wonder about the high(er)-end camera market; for how long will there be a sizable, viable market for pricey dSLRs/dRFs and posh compacts? Especially when the viewing medium for said imaging machines continues to blur the lines - pun intended - between the picture someone took with Canon Rebel and the person next to him who took the same snap with an iPhone 4S?

What I need to do is more photo-editing to get my mind off this stuff... 😛

Print with light, not ink!

I grok that, Frank; ran outta room to do that properly years ago.


- Barrett

 

[Keith]

Print with light, not ink!

Your persistence in attempting to convert the uneducated to analog photography is admirable! 😀

 

[Bob Michaels]

........................
This is what makes me wonder about the high(er)-end camera market; for how long will there be a sizable, viable market for pricey dSLRs/dRFs and posh compacts? Especially when the viewing medium for said imaging machines continues to blur the lines - pun intended - between the picture someone took with Canon Rebel and the person next to him who took the same snap with an iPhone 4S?
.............................

Barrett: you are thinking far too logical for most consumers in the photo industry. There will always be that horde who believes their biggest factor in the quality of their photos is that they are being constrained by using a two year old obsolete camera.

 

[wray]

Barrett, what precisely is the problem with the reformulated HP Premium Plus paper! I've been using it with some success on my 8750!

 

[lynnb]

As you mentioned, the Facebook generation probably doesn't see any point in printing when they can see and share their photos online from any device.

Keith's point about low cost printing services is spot on IMHO and means the only people interested in owning a printer are enthusiasts who like to have control over the process and quality. Those people will buy higher-end printers. That article on Lexmark seems to confirm that home snapshot printing is now commoditised to the lowest cost provider, the online discount services.

I'm thinking that Canon and Epson will be the last two left standing in the higher end, quality home/small business printer market. I got burned with a B9180 and am now very happy with my Epson 3880. The 3880's established reputation, service network and large ink carts (significantly lowering per-print ink costs) were the deciding factors. Most of my prints are smaller than A4, but because I enjoy printing (and quality) it made more sense to buy a larger, cheaper running cost printer than suffer the daylight-robbery ink costs of consumer printers.

I think the printer market will soon just consist of all-in-ones, plus the niche market for small business photographers and enthusiasts.

 

[amateriat]

Barrett, what precisely is the problem with the reformulated HP Premium Plus paper! I've been using it with some success on my 8750!

From what I've been reading, heavy users are complaining about noticeable color shifts (midtones and highlights), largely green. Also, the paper weight is lighter, and somewhat flimsier. Apparently, HP has also dome away with the textured backing that allowed one to stack freshly-finished prints without worry. (For everyone else tuning in: the "pre-reformulated" HP Premium Plus papers were designed around HP's Vivera archival-dye inks; one characteristic of these "swellable-base" papers was that they are not "instant-drying", but in fact took a little while for the ink to settle-in. However, once dry, the prints exhibited virtually none of the usual artifacts - bronzing, gloss diffferential, and metamerism - people took for granted in prints coming from anything short of a large-format printer with a custom profile.)

HP was supposedly aiming for a quick-drying paper, which they already offered with their Advanced paper line. (I remember when I was told I could use the Advanced paper with my 8750; my results proved otherwise, and shortly thereafter HP seemed to change their tune.) So far, it appears their 8-1/2 x 11" and smaller papers have gotten the New Coke treatment; since this appears to be a work in progress, I'll need to keep sifting for info, but it appears that i can source older stock from a few places.

Here's one or two samples of feedback on HP's site about the Great Paper Change.


- Barrett

 

[Nikon Bob]

Barrett

I came to the realization that JPEGs from a small p&s digital are not all that bad when displayed on a big screen TV. Expensive DSLRs and high end P&S camera are not necessary for most people to be satisfied with the results given the viewing medium. I really have to wonder why I drag a heavy kit around but there is always an off chance I may want a file enlarged for display at home.

Bob

 

[jtm6]

I was recently looking for yet-another high quality Epson letter/A4 printer like the Photo Stylus Pro 200, 280, etc. They don't exist anymore. It's all wider format for creative applications, at least for Epson.

 

[ola.b]

Buying a printer this last january has been one good kick in the photographic ass for me.

It's made me bother with "finishing" a picture.

It's made me focus on the good shots rather than the plethora of bad ones.

It's made me discover some lost gems from my archive.

It's made me follow through with a "photo-a-week"-project this year.


I've started reccomending buying a printer instead of photo-gear(lenses, bodies, flashes etc) to other photo-interested people..

 

[KM-25]

Epson 3880 - amazing printer, virtually never clogs, uses very little ink, terrific software (I have not needed any RIP to get fantastic results and I am fussy)

Huge selection of papers out there, just not cheap.

Inkpress papers - best value for the money.

A friend of mine who own's a gallery has one of these, we did several nice shows on it including one I did entirely from my iPhone. He just raves about it really...

Then today I brought by a 20" x 20" print I did by hand in my darkroom from a 6x6 Agfa APX 25 neg printed on Ilford Warm Tone Fiber, mounted and matted in 8 ply. He was simply speechless for at least three minutes...

Then he replied, "Jesus Dan, what should we charge for this?"

 

[defconfunk]

Depsite owning numerous printers capable of print making, I haven't felt the want/need to use them. For $0.30 a print (often much less when sales happen), I can get 4x6s or 5x7s on archival paper from my local photo chain (Black's). I've always been impressed with their album sized prints (no, it won't rival a wet print, but for keeping in an album, I don't need that). Considering what ink and paper cost, I don't think it makes any sense for me to print at home.

I apologize to those of you who do, I'm one of those people helping to kill your market, but I'm keeping my local photo printer in business, so I'm not too bent out of shape over it.

Some day I'll try wet-printing - but first I need a negative worthy of it.