Is there a really solid personal photo printer out there?

[Larry Cloetta]

I print at home up to 13x56 inch.

I used an Epson R2400 from 2005 until 2015 with no issues. Decided it was getting a bit long in the tooth (over 12,000 large prints equivalent) and bought the Epson P600. No issues again, I'm up to about a thousand prints with it. The inks are excellent, there are paper profiles for nearly any paper available, and the P600 can be used with USB, ethernet, or WiFi connections.

(My old R2400 I gave to a friend and she completed two major projects with it. The stepper motor controlling the paper feed finally died at that point, and wasn't worth repairing.)

I like having the ability to manipulate the printer and paper myself, something you cannot get with any print service. I haven't seen much in way of having to deal with "inevitable printer problems" as long as you keep the printer in use. Printers don't like to be left sitting for too long, that's all. Make a print or two a week and they stay happy for a long, long time.

Of course, if you're not going to make a print or two a week, it's probably more sensible to use a print service anyway.

G

Godfrey,

I am not being snarky here, it's an honest question, but what does one actually do with 13,000 prints? That kind of volume would make owning and dealing with a printer more cost and time effective than using a print service; I just have a hard time conceptualizing what you might be doing.

I am in a multi-year process of scanning many thousands of negatives and transparencies going back 70 years, for, I honestly don't even know what, printing, 8K viewing picture frame viewing, (posterity!!? lol), I don't know what, and have printed hardly anything in years, waiting until everything is "ready", then deciding what to do with either a printer of my own using the optimum tech which exists at that future time, or sending the best ones out to a calibrated print service, en masse. I will decide when I get there. If I die first, no one suffers. But, 13,000 prints, there must be end use options I have not considered, as I have wall space and cigar box issues which preclude that.

 

[Dogman]

"...what does one actually do with 13,000 prints?"

"...there must be end use options...."

Larry, Godfrey will have his own response soon I'm sure. But I'll respond too, if I may.

It's not the physical print that drives some of us to print our photos. It's the creating that is important. I probably have a few thousand prints scattered around the house myself. Most of them will never be seen by more than a handful of people and none of them were printed with an end use in mind. I printed them because it was fulfilling to do so.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I read

...over 12,000 large prints equivalent...

differently from

13,000 prints

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey,

I am not being snarky here, it's an honest question, but what does one actually do with 13,000 prints? That kind of volume would make owning and dealing with a printer more cost and time effective than using a print service; I just have a hard time conceptualizing what you might be doing.

I am in a multi-year process of scanning many thousands of negatives and transparencies going back 70 years, for, I honestly don't even know what, printing, 8K viewing picture frame viewing, (posterity!!? lol), I don't know what, and have printed hardly anything in years, waiting until everything is "ready", then deciding what to do with either a printer of my own using the optimum tech which exists at that future time, or sending the best ones out to a calibrated print service, en masse. I will decide when I get there. If I die first, no one suffers. But, 13,000 prints, there must be end use options I have not considered, as I have wall space and cigar box issues which preclude that.

"...what does one actually do with 13,000 prints?"

"...there must be end use options...."

Larry, Godfrey will have his own response soon I'm sure. But I'll respond too, if I may.

It's not the physical print that drives some of us to print our photos. It's the creating that is important. I probably have a few thousand prints scattered around the house myself. Most of them will never be seen by more than a handful of people and none of them were printed with an end use in mind. I printed them because it was fulfilling to do so.

I agree completely, Dogman. To me, a good print is what photography is all about. I only put photos on iPhone, iPad, and the internet because it's a good way to share them with a lot of people inexpensively. What makes me smile when I am looking at photographs is seeing them on paper—actual, real, tangible things that I can hold.

But I don't print such volumes just for the sake of printing them. I used to sell prints. Made a good bit of my living doing it for a while (a few years). That $600 Epson printer, the ink and paper, netted me about enough money per year to pay the rent, the electric bill, and some other stuff too. (Photo assignments and licensing fees made the rest of my income in those years.)

I later returned to my career in the computer industry, and I retired last year. The printer doesn't work as hard as it once did now, but ... for instance, I make all my holiday greeting cards with it. I'll run through about four boxes of 8.5x11 paper just with that in the next week or so. I print a few photos every week or two that I mostly give away to people who like a particular photograph. I still sell a few here and there.

And I stack the rest in boxes so that whomsoever ends up handling my estate can earn their fee for being the executor by sorting them out and distributing them according to my Last Will and Testament, eh? ]'-)

G

 

[jsrockit]

It's too bad no one makes a nice 8x11.5" photo printer anymore. Everything is 13x19" or bigger... I will agree though, the P600 was the last printer I used and it worked great and required zero maintenance.

 

[Calzone]

It's too bad no one makes a nice 8x11.5" photo printer anymore. Everything is 13x19" or bigger... I will agree though, the P600 was the last printer I used and it worked great and required zero maintenance.

John,

The P600 and P800 are reported to run on higher pressures and it seems that these higher pressures help prevent clogs, unless your name is Jeff. LOL.

The ugly with these two Epson printers is the third-party ink lockout that makes a P600 or P800 owner have to use Epson OEM inks and get gouged on pricing.

For me I would like the option of buying refillable carts and using high quality third-party pigment inks that cost 1/10th the price of OEM Epson inks.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

...unless your name is Jeff. LOL.

Haha, true Cal... 😱

 

[Larry Cloetta]

"...what does one actually do with 13,000 prints?"

"...there must be end use options...."

Larry, Godfrey will have his own response soon I'm sure. But I'll respond too, if I may.

It's not the physical print that drives some of us to print our photos. It's the creating that is important. I probably have a few thousand prints scattered around the house myself. Most of them will never be seen by more than a handful of people and none of them were printed with an end use in mind. I printed them because it was fulfilling to do so.

I can understand that, just can't decide what makes the most sense for me at this point, buying a nice printer and really learning how to dial it into my satisfaction, or just working with a printing service; some of that hesitation being age related. If I were under 30, I'd absolutely be getting a nice printer and optimizing my workflow for the long haul. If I were under 30, I'd actually be setting up a maximized wet print darkroom, even better.

For me at this point, it's just too late for that to make sense any longer (at least the darkroom). Too many other skills that still need honing with the time that involves, without adding something else, no matter how interesting that in itself might be if done well.
Digital printing at home is enough in the middle that it is still at least on the table as a future possibility, but it depends on how many of my thousands of photos I eventually end up feeling are really worth printing.

This is a bit like the Winogrand discussion regarding is it better to let things sit for a while before you develop them, or in this case, print them. If I were to print them immediately after my first look at the files, I'd probably have thousands of new prints. If I assessed all the files as a group before picking ones which were great enough to print, I might have 500, and that's if I am really pumping up my own tires about my original esthetic judgments when I depressed the shutter, or processed the scans. One way leads to owning my own printer, the other way, just send an expert the files and go have a beer.
Lord, I'm long winded.🙂

 

[jsrockit]

It has special printing mode for very smooth, high quality color prints. To me results are often astonishing.
M-E DNG file, letter sized print, Ilford Gallery Gloss paper:

I can't tell if your print is great or not... but that photo is pretty cool.

 

[Godfrey]

John,

The P600 and P800 are reported to run on higher pressures and it seems that these higher pressures help prevent clogs, unless your name is Jeff. LOL.

The ugly with these two Epson printers is the third-party ink lockout that makes a P600 or P800 owner have to use Epson OEM inks and get gouged on pricing.

For me I would like the option of buying refillable carts and using high quality third-party pigment inks that cost 1/10th the price of OEM Epson inks.

Cal

The watershed between "printers that clog a lot" and "printers that do not clog" was for me the pigment ink printers. All my dye ink printers tended to clog too much, but pigment inks require larger nozzle sizes and generally don't clog if used regularly. Neither my R2400 nor the P600 have had any clogs.

Regards the "third-party ink lockout" ... Well, one of the major reasons I buy Epson printers is that they have the best inks in the industry. I would never bother putting a third party ink into my Epson printer. The cost per print is ridiculously low for the quality of what you're getting anyway ... In the two years since I've owned the P600, I've only just had to replace one set of ink cartridges for about 1000 prints ... that's about $0.24 per print on ink. The paper I use is four to ten times that price per sheet.

If you don't use Epson inks, you must not use any of the available printing profiles for a fully color-managed print workflow either since they are pretty much specific to a printer/ink/paper combination.

G

 

[Larry Cloetta]

To me, a good print is what photography is all about.

G

Thanks, Godfrey. I'd agree with that completely, a good print is what photography is all about.

It's the fact that it is not possible to make a "good print" from a photo that isn't esthetically meaningful, in some way, to start with, at least that's how I look at it. Why would the print then be "good"?
Which makes me ask myself, "how many of those do I really have?" if I am honest with myself. Not thousands, in my case.

The desire to "hold something in my hands" isn't overwhelming for me, which might be why I can't get with the program. I'm not suggesting others should look at it that way, it's just how I look at it.

"It wasn't a great photograph, but, at least, he could hold it in his hands."

 

[jsrockit]

Regards the "third-party ink lockout" ... Well, one of the major reasons I buy Epson printers is that they have the best inks in the industry. I would never bother putting a third party ink into my Epson printer. The cost per print is ridiculously low for the quality of what you're getting anyway ... In the two years since I've owned the P600, I've only just had to replace one set of ink cartridges for about 1000 prints ... that's about $0.24 per print on ink. The paper I use is four to ten times that price per sheet.

If you don't use Epson inks, you must not use any of the available printing profiles for a fully color-managed print workflow either since they are pretty much specific to a printer/ink/paper combination.

G

He uses...

https://piezography.com

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I can't tell if your print is great or not... but that photo is pretty cool.

Thank you 🙂. Photo was staged completely not by me. 🙂
This photo, actually, helped me to see what Cron 50 IV could do.

This printer is exactly for 8.5x11 prints, nice for sure 🙂 and available:
https://epson.com/For-Home/Printers/Inkjet/Epson-Stylus-C88+-Inkjet-Printer/p/C11C617121

 

[Calzone]

The watershed between "printers that clog a lot" and "printers that do not clog" was for me the pigment ink printers. All my dye ink printers tended to clog too much, but pigment inks require larger nozzle sizes and generally don't clog if used regularly. Neither my R2400 nor the P600 have had any clogs.

Regards the "third-party ink lockout" ... Well, one of the major reasons I buy Epson printers is that they have the best inks in the industry. I would never bother putting a third party ink into my Epson printer. The cost per print is ridiculously low for the quality of what you're getting anyway ... In the two years since I've owned the P600, I've only just had to replace one set of ink cartridges for about 1000 prints ... that's about $0.24 per print on ink. The paper I use is four to ten times that price per sheet.

If you don't use Epson inks, you must not use any of the available printing profiles for a fully color-managed print workflow either since they are pretty much specific to a printer/ink/paper combination.

G

Godfrey,

I print big and ink costs are considerable as well as paper. In a 24 inch by 50 foot roll I only get 16 prints because I print for an exhibition size of 20x30 image size on 24x36 paper. Also a box of 17x22 gets depleted fast, so I tend to buy 2-3 boxes at a time and the same goes for 17 by 50 foot rolls. I run and support two printers.

If I did color printing I would go with Jon Cone's archival pigment inks. Pretty much they are compatable with Epson OEM inks to the point they can be mixed. Also you don't have to use Jon Cone profiles with Jon Cone color inks because they can be seamlessly used, although optimized for use with the free curves provided. To me it is no big deal using non Epson curves. These JC Color inks use encapsulated pigment just like Epson OEM. No other third part ink I know of uses encapsulated pigment other than Jon Cone.

On my 3880 if I use Epson OEM nkset about 10ml of ink gets thrown away with the cart which is not really empty. Also know the size and volume of printing requires me topping up my inks every other week on the 3880 for small prints.

On the 7800 I have to top off my carts also every other week, and know the volume of these oversized carts that I utilize do not allow me to close the doors, and the filled volume is about 350 ml. I bulk up inks to save money and I buy 700 ml bottles.

My ink cost are a lot and I lay down lots of ink. I do everything I can do to manage costs. Know that I print for other artists.

Cal

 

[robert blu]

Another vote for the P-600. With the supplied paper profiles color are really good, unless you are for something special no need to use custom profiles, of course this is just my opinion.
Crossing fingers never had clog problems, even after three weeks holidays ...

I mainly print on matt cotton papers, recently printed myself the cards for the RFF postcard project. Only things to know if you oft change from a matt paper to gloss or vice versa there is a lost in ink because of the cleaning heads process. Just plan not to change the gloss/matt toot.

Printing yourself means to have full control on your photography and opens many interesting possibilities, you can print for exhibitions or postcards, you can even print your own visit cards with your photos on it...everything under your control.

robert

 

[Godfrey]

He uses...

https://piezography.com

I used piezography inks and printing system once upon a time. When I used it, consistency was awful, clogs and such destroyed two of my printers, et cetera. I dumped it all when I bought the R2400 in 2005. Absolutely consistent, never a clog, far less expensive... I never looked back.

I'm sure the modern piezography system is better than what I used, but there's really no upside to it for me.

G

 

[Godfrey]

All well and good, Cal. But ... What you're saying is that you're using Epson wide-format, professional printing engines for what is, essentially, a professional print service. The solutions and needs that you are discussing have virtually nothing to do with a "really solid personal photo printer," the subject under discussion in this thread. 🙂

A setup like you're talking about is a tens-of-thousands of dollars business proposition to setup and use profitably. A good, solid personal photo printer for an advanced amateur (even a professional) who works a modest number of relatively small format prints up to 13x19" or 17x22" is a $1000 to $1500 maximum cost outlay. There's a huge difference between producing vast-sized prints in the quantities you're talking about and making a modest number of 8x10, 11x17, or even 16x20 prints.

I once wanted to open a print service shop like what you have going. I didn't, I didn't have the financial resources at that time to invest in the business and was leery of doing it on a highly leveraged small-business loan. For that, at the time, Epson was the only reliable source of inks that met my needs. It's good to hear that Jon Cone has stepped up to a higher level of service with the inks, etc.

G

Godfrey,

I print big and ink costs are considerable as well as paper. In a 24 inch by 50 foot roll I only get 16 prints because I print for an exhibition size of 20x30 image size on 24x36 paper. Also a box of 17x22 gets depleted fast, so I tend to buy 2-3 boxes at a time and the same goes for 17 by 50 foot rolls. I run and support two printers.

If I did color printing I would go with Jon Cone's archival pigment inks. Pretty much they are compatable with Epson OEM inks to the point they can be mixed. Also you don't have to use Jon Cone profiles with Jon Cone color inks because they can be seamlessly used, although optimized for use with the free curves provided. To me it is no big deal using non Epson curves. These JC Color inks use encapsulated pigment just like Epson OEM. No other third part ink I know of uses encapsulated pigment other than Jon Cone.

On my 3880 if I use Epson OEM nkset about 10ml of ink gets thrown away with the cart which is not really empty. Also know the size and volume of printing requires me topping up my inks every other week on the 3880 for small prints.

On the 7800 I have to top off my carts also every other week, and know the volume of these oversized carts that I utilize do not allow me to close the doors, and the filled volume is about 350 ml. I bulk up inks to save money and I buy 700 ml bottles.

My ink cost are a lot and I lay down lots of ink. I do everything I can do to manage costs. Know that I print for other artists.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

I used piezography inks and printing system once upon a time. When I used it, consistency was awful, clogs and such destroyed two of my printers, et cetera. I dumped it all when I bought the R2400 in 2005. Absolutely consistent, never a clog, far less expensive... I never looked back.

I'm sure the modern piezography system is better than what I used, but there's really no upside to it for me.

G

I understand Godfrey, it isn't for me either, but Cal has been using it for awhile and it works for him. I've seen the output and it's really nice. Of course the epson standard output is really nice too. It was always good enough for me, but in digital, I never went past 13x19" and the costs were fine for the convenience IMO.

 

[Godfrey]

There are photographs that are "technically good" and there are great photographs. Like the infamous chicken and egg problems, you need to become technically proficient to produce great photographs, but you also need to see photographs that are great and then work hard to capture and render them. Which of these comes first is always a question mark, and the solution is different for different people. Some folks become technically proficient but never learn to see great photographs, others see great photographs all the time but cannot master the techniques required to capture and render them consistently, some do both ... most are better at one of these things than the other.

IMO, once you get past being technically proficient and have mastered the ability to capture and render to a good print whatever photograph you have, then is when the abyss opens up in front of you and you have to work harder, much harder in fact, to learn to see and start making great photographs. Having a physical print in your hand that is technically excellent, in a sense, is a way of gaining some confidence and security that you CAN produce quality photographs ... you've learned sufficient technique. After that, you have to figure out what a great photograph is (to you, at least) and then try to learn how to make that.

Not an easy task. I've been working at it for fifty plus years and think I've achieved a pleasant little handful of maybe "great photographs", at least to me... But I've made and sold thousands of very good prints that satisfied myself and my clients: they met the spec that was called for, etc.

Good luck! Keep working at it! 😀

G

Thanks, Godfrey. I'd agree with that completely, a good print is what photography is all about.

It's the fact that it is not possible to make a "good print" from a photo that isn't esthetically meaningful, in some way, to start with, at least that's how I look at it. Why would the print then be "good"?
Which makes me ask myself, "how many of those do I really have?" if I am honest with myself. Not thousands, in my case.

The desire to "hold something in my hands" isn't overwhelming for me, which might be why I can't get with the program. I'm not suggesting others should look at it that way, it's just how I look at it.

"It wasn't a great photograph, but, at least, he could hold it in his hands."