Finally - true cost of printing A4 photos!
- Thread starter Neo
- Start date
- Status
kiwi2 said:Thanks Neo! Blew me away with your project, especially when I looked at the spent ink cartridges! Really itching now to get a good Canon printer.
Btw, how's the black and white quality? I read a review quite some time back that Epson seems to produce it better bcos it even has a separate black ink for more tonal gradations?! :bigeyes: But I'd still go for Canon if I were to get a printer cos me tinks it has many other benefits.
Oh and also, when you do double sided printing and bind them into a book, won't the face-to-face prints get stuck after some time?
Hi Kiwi2,
Epson delivers better black & white quality, but only for the models which feature extra grey cartridge - namely the R2400 and the wide-format printers. For the other A4 and desktop models, they are equally prone to colour casts when printing monochrome. If printing monochrome images is important to you, then look for the R2400 or the upcoming Canon PIXMA Pro9500, as both these printers come with dedicated grey cartridges for great monochrome prints. Or if you're feeling generous, you can go for the A2-sized Canon iPF5000 wide-format photo printer which delivers terrific monochrome prints.
If you're printing using the other consumer printers, you will probably get a slight colour tint/cast in the print, namely magentish or greenish in monochrome prints.
The prints will not stick to each other. But one thing to note is to air the surfaces for about 30 mins before stacking them. I did not follow the instructions on the package for the first time and noticed one of the photo had a ghost image of the photo on the facing page because I stacked them under a heavy load. It's quite rare, but good to air them for a short time prior to assembly.
astroboy
Senior Member
Dear Neo
Thank you very much for starting this thread and sharing your experience using the Canon printer for mass production.
I applaud the way you handle rude people who are just trying to be smart alecks without having anything positive to add.
Back to topic, I used to own an Epson 2100 and later discovered that I am spending too much time doing color mgmt and experimenting with color profiles and different papers etc. In the end, I sold the printer when they came out with newer (K3?) technology in less than a year.
However, I have been getting inconsistent results from the lab recently and thinking about going back to DIY printing using the Canon printer.
For me, absolute costs is just a small part of the equation. I guess there is nothing like total control from image capture to print output - 100%-controlled by the user.
Here's a question: Which model of Canon printers can equal or surpass lab print quality?
Thanks again for sharing.
Thank you very much for starting this thread and sharing your experience using the Canon printer for mass production.
I applaud the way you handle rude people who are just trying to be smart alecks without having anything positive to add.
Back to topic, I used to own an Epson 2100 and later discovered that I am spending too much time doing color mgmt and experimenting with color profiles and different papers etc. In the end, I sold the printer when they came out with newer (K3?) technology in less than a year.
However, I have been getting inconsistent results from the lab recently and thinking about going back to DIY printing using the Canon printer.
For me, absolute costs is just a small part of the equation. I guess there is nothing like total control from image capture to print output - 100%-controlled by the user.
Here's a question: Which model of Canon printers can equal or surpass lab print quality?
Thanks again for sharing.
Is Inkjet printing really that gd? Pardon me but my experience of it with Epson 6 ink cartridge system has never surpassed lab printouts. What is worse, the printout will fade over time. This is my personal understanding of the system.
My friend who is the boss of a large format printing company also commented that photographers shd still stick to the lab cause inkjets dun print out that well in comparison. He is speaking from the point of a person who do projects for those cosmetics company.
My friend who is the boss of a large format printing company also commented that photographers shd still stick to the lab cause inkjets dun print out that well in comparison. He is speaking from the point of a person who do projects for those cosmetics company.
I just printed 80 A4 size pics. Cost per pics $4.50 on the HP Photosmart 8450. Cost is almost same as outside, just that you get the ability to print as and when needed. Quality as good as lab print out. Cannot see any pixel even with magnifying class. Oh I use Fujiflim premium glossy photopaper 235gsm. 18.95 for 20 pcs.
kiwi2 said:Thanks Neo! Blew me away with your project, especially when I looked at the spent ink cartridges! Really itching now to get a good Canon printer.
Btw, how's the black and white quality? I read a review quite some time back that Epson seems to produce it better bcos it even has a separate black ink for more tonal gradations?! :bigeyes: But I'd still go for Canon if I were to get a printer cos me tinks it has many other benefits.
Oh and also, when you do double sided printing and bind them into a book, won't the face-to-face prints get stuck after some time?
you can do a cold lamination on the print to prevent that from happening..
astroboy said:Dear Neo
Thank you very much for starting this thread and sharing your experience using the Canon printer for mass production.
I applaud the way you handle rude people who are just trying to be smart alecks without having anything positive to add.
Back to topic, I used to own an Epson 2100 and later discovered that I am spending too much time doing color mgmt and experimenting with color profiles and different papers etc. In the end, I sold the printer when they came out with newer (K3?) technology in less than a year.
However, I have been getting inconsistent results from the lab recently and thinking about going back to DIY printing using the Canon printer.
For me, absolute costs is just a small part of the equation. I guess there is nothing like total control from image capture to print output - 100%-controlled by the user.
Here's a question: Which model of Canon printers can equal or surpass lab print quality?
Thanks again for sharing.
Hi Astroboy,
Thanks. Actually I was hoping I never had to put anybody down because at the end of the day no matter who's right, such brickering spoils everyone's mood including other readers.
You're absolutely right about having to spend time on colour management. There are different levels of users, from the photographer who prints casually and are happy with prints that is 90% accurate, to the critical professional who demands up to 95% or more in terms of colour accuracy. Maintaining absolute colour consistency takes a lot of time and effort, as well as knowledge about colour management. I guess you belong to the demanding group, and your attention to details pays off in terms of accurate prints.
My point is this - having a closed loop workflow on your desk will deliver prints closer to what you want compared to sending off the images to the lab, because the variables are reduced. Spending time on digital editing and learning about colour management will pay off ultimately because you gain absolute control over your work. Spending a lot of time in the beginning is usual to find out the ideal combination for your workflow, but once you settle in the degree of control you have is rewarding. Just see it as learning to drive - the frustrations of learning how to control the clutch etc... but once you mastered it, the freedom is unbelievable.
On your question on which Canon printer can surpass lab quality, it is difficult to answer. Surpass in terms of colour gamut? Light fastness? Gradation reproduction? For critical users, I do suspect only the prosumer/professional range will do. You can either wait for the PIXMA Pro9500 or Pro9000 (I think the i9950 is weak in terms of the ability to colour manage). One option I'm sure will make many critical users happy will be the 17" (A2) iPF5000, but that cost about $5k and takes a big chunk of space, so it's usually out of the question for most people. If my partners agree, I might just be able to get one for the office though.
CreaXion said:
Hi CreaXion,
Is your friend speaking about the quality of the large-format prints vs lab prints? Large-format printers spray really coarse ink droplets because they are meant to be seen from far, so when viewed close up they are quite shocking. I've done Duratrans and they are really nice and smooth, compared to the huge inkjet prints. It was for a showroom and meant to be seen up-close. The cost was many times that of inkjet printing, but nothing short of Duratrans will do for that project.
But for A2 and below, I think the inkjets do very well against the lab prints. One important consideration is that for photography enthusiasts like ourselves want the control over the printing, which makes the inkjet photo printer a good choice too.
Cool book Neo!
Thanks again Neo. U've been most helpful in sharing with us your tips and bountiful knowledge abt printing. Dun understand why a minority few put u down. :nono: :dunno: Even if they disagree there are better ways to put it across.
I guess not everyone appreciates home printing cos they feel lab is hassle free and cheaper. But for the most demanding digital photographers with high standards and satisfaction, whether you are an advanced amateur or pro, I feel nothing beats seeing everything done by yourself from the moment u press the shutter down to the final print. It's a heck of a knowledge there which I also feel some film users dun appreciate and play down digital photography as "too easy" -- just press shutter and whack. If anything, digital photography is more challenging than film to me cos your concepts must span many areas, not just photography itself.
I read a bit about the PIXMA 9500... it's an A3+ photo printer right? It's too big for my desk area. I wish they'd have a newer A4 model that has an extra grey ink cartridge. I kinda like monochrome prints. But Epson doesn't appeal to me cos I've heard of the problems it has with inks and cost per printing too.
Oh yah.. an add on.. Call me paranoid but people are so concerned about leeching on the Internet and they put all the watermarks and stuffs but how come no one is concerned about their images being "leeched" when they send to the labs? It's so much easier and moreover, u are giving them your very high resolution images!
Thanks again Neo. U've been most helpful in sharing with us your tips and bountiful knowledge abt printing. Dun understand why a minority few put u down. :nono: :dunno: Even if they disagree there are better ways to put it across.
I guess not everyone appreciates home printing cos they feel lab is hassle free and cheaper. But for the most demanding digital photographers with high standards and satisfaction, whether you are an advanced amateur or pro, I feel nothing beats seeing everything done by yourself from the moment u press the shutter down to the final print. It's a heck of a knowledge there which I also feel some film users dun appreciate and play down digital photography as "too easy" -- just press shutter and whack. If anything, digital photography is more challenging than film to me cos your concepts must span many areas, not just photography itself.
I read a bit about the PIXMA 9500... it's an A3+ photo printer right? It's too big for my desk area. I wish they'd have a newer A4 model that has an extra grey ink cartridge. I kinda like monochrome prints. But Epson doesn't appeal to me cos I've heard of the problems it has with inks and cost per printing too.
Oh yah.. an add on.. Call me paranoid but people are so concerned about leeching on the Internet and they put all the watermarks and stuffs but how come no one is concerned about their images being "leeched" when they send to the labs? It's so much easier and moreover, u are giving them your very high resolution images!
kiwi2 said:
Totally agree with you on the two points. Whether you are a photography enthusiasts or a serious photographer, making your own prints makes photography even more fun. Secondly, great editing and good printing techniques takes your photography further, and people who think that digital photography is too easy probably only explored half of digital photography.
P.S: The image where I showed the cover of the book is actually that of the Canon Lens Workbook III. All my albums are wrapped in plastic covers, so I can't show the wrap being taken off. Just to clarify before I get accused of misrepresentation... :embrass:
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Neo said:Totally agree with you on the two points. Whether you are a photography enthusiasts or a serious photographer, making your own prints makes photography even more fun. Secondly, great editing and good printing techniques takes your photography further, and people who think that digital photography is too easy probably only explored half of digital photography.
Mmmm.... I always thought Digital Photography simplified too many issues... perhaps I am wrong....
Neo, you open my eyes to a new world of actually doing digital dark room as a way to improve photography.... this will be an area I will venture should I ever jump into DSLR.........
- Status
Similar threads
