Thread 4449451

What’s a decent home printer that prints up to A3 size? I want to print my stuff at home and skip the hassle of getting prints online or at a local store. Yes, I want problems. Anyway, let’s make this a general printer thread.
>What’s your experience been like printing your own photos?
>Did you print them yourself or professionally?
>Have you had bad experiences with any brands, companies or websites? and vice-versa?

>>4449451 (OP)
>home printer
>for photos
>A3
>home

>>4449451 (OP)
Canon Pro inkjets are solid as far as inkjets go. Do my own prints but there are online places that are cheap up to 8x10 but A3 is kind of pricey. Turns out I don't do a lot of A3 so it was kind of a waste.

>>4449451 (OP)
I looked into an 11x14 printer and the damn ink is like 1000 dollars.

Epson Ecotank ET-8550.

>>4449460
what’s your experience been like with it? any photos you printed where you were unhappy with the results? usually just how you wanted them? the ongoing costs for this printer seem really cheap but the outright price is similar to the Canon Pro300. I’m wondering if its ten replaceable pigment cartridges are worth the extra ongoing cost compared to the 8550’s six refillable pigment/dye tanks.

>>4449463
It's my first photo printer, so it is still a bit of trial and error, but when I get things right I am usually pleased. If the prints don't look right it is me, not the printer. I landed on the 8550 after the same type of consideration with regards to cost. No manufacturer that still sells cartridges deserves my business.

>>4449452
i don't understand your mocking post, i have a canon pro-200 for home use. is this a problem?
>>4449456
the trick is to not buy new, the older models work just fine and they have better third party ink infrastructure. the pro-100 for example has plentiful cheap and reliable off-brand options. but yes, it is overkill if you don't print big enough. my printer lately just churns out 4x6s and 8x10s.

>>4449521
yeah buying used is good but I will never use third party inks. If I wanted cheap, I'd just go with the 8550 which is a good printer but I wanted pigment. Possibly a waste but it's nice knowing the prints should last. Tempted to get an 8550 anyway

anyone ever use one of these? I'm interested. it seems to have a lot of advantages
>portable w/ battery (sold separately)
>fixed 4x6" prints (3:2 aspect ratio; no cropping required)
>gloss, semi-gloss or matte finish
>dye-sublimation printing (the ink doesn't go "bad" if unused)
did I mention it's portable?
if anyone else needed a portable printer and decided on something other than this or has experience with other set-ups, give me a (you)

>>4455705
i've gifted the smol instax printer to my sister in law, she enjoyed how low key it was.

>>4455737
meant polaroid printer, not instax. Also yes, it's dye-sub, not the instant photo paper one.

>>4455705
Have that exact one. I love it for doing small prints to give to friends and family. I shot an entire lake trip and printed on my Selphy every day to give pictures to said friends and family.

>>4455835
I heard it has three finish options: gloss, semi-gloss and matte. I’m interested in using it for framing some prints of portraits, so I’m particularly interested in the matte finish to reduce glare and reflections. How well does it work compared to printing on matte paper, in your opinion?

>>4456155
buying one of these today

>>4455705
Not portable, but I'm eyeing Epson XP-8700, which is less than 150 European money here. Internet is shilling heavily for the ET-8500, but it's quite an upfront cost.

>>4455705
I have one. At its price point I consider it a necessity for beginning photographers, along with some cheap ikea 4x6 frames and a photo album or two. I use it all the time.

>>4456155
The matte is a joke sadly and there's only one paper stock available.

What's the bang for the buck like for home printers, compared to professional service? Like, how many prints are the break even point when compared to having them done professionally?

>>4459669
what exactly do you dislike about the matte finish? I am relying on it being somewhat good so I can reduce glare in framed photos

>>4459690
It is not actually matte, it just prints the glossy layer differently or something. It looks nothing like real matte prints. You should still try it with the glossy prints, the glare is not bothersome in my framed prints. But if you're familiar with real matte you will be disappointed, I tried it once and never used it again.

>>4459670
So many prints that it's not worth it from that perspective at all. The main reason IMO is so you can actually hardproof and change stuff immediately instead of waiting to have another order arrive.

>>4459704
yeah, it’s just a different overcoat. meh, I may think differently of it since I’ve never actually *seen* a matte print IRL yet. I have zero expectations. Thanks for elaborating and yeah, I’ll try the gloss and semi-gloss options too.

Premium luster looks the best in my opinion, but it is also expensive.

>>4449451 (OP)
I have a Canon Pixma Pro 100S, which is great. It's cheap and the ink is cheap. I think the 200 is current equivalent.
I've had a Pro-1 in the past, which is supposedly much better, but it clogged and died. I didn't find it substantially sharper or better in any way that matters to me. I wouldn't go pigment again unless I was printing much more frequently, which is unlikely any time soon.
I prefer the look of dye-based ink for gloss and lustre colour prints anyway. Pigment is better for B&W, but really a darkroom print is better again, so why bother?
Dye prints fade faster, but really not a problem if you frame behind glass.

Would I be a massive faggot if I got one of those instax printers that you load up with photos you've already taken?
I'm already kitted with a full frame loadout, and I get 6x4-8x12 prints from a good shop, but people around me tend to like the instax meme. I like the idea of giving someone a photo they can slide in their wallet instead of going through and making an album or framing it.
Some anon in a thread (might even be this thread) mentioned going that route and it got me thinking.

>>4460454
>will I be a faggot for buying something that makes more people enjoy my hobby in ways they can't now
I promise you you will never regret a purchase made along these lines.

>>4460454
Keep in mind that the instax-branded ones use somewhat of a hybrid approach. It doesn't actually print, but exposes fuji's polaroid paper with LEDs to produce the result. It's not a good choice if color accuracy is important to you, it's more of a retro vibe thing. Polaroid and Canon-branded ones like >>4455705 are proper dye-sublimation printers.
There are also portable inkless printers, but those are really crap.

What print service do you guys use good quality prints? I mostly print 4x6 to give to people but will occasionally print something around 16x24 for some wall art. Any recommendations?

>>4460452
there's a used one of these floating around on FB marketplace
I might bite the bullet and grab it, based on what you've said

>>4460585
They used to give them as bonuses for buying a 5d+kit lens, back in those golden days when normies didn't have cameraphones but did have computer rooms, so there's a shitload out there. If it's not been used lately then also budget for a full ink-set
https://www.inkstation.com.au/8-pack-genuine-canon-cli42-ink-combo-1bk-1c-1m-1y-1gy-1pc-1pm-1lgy-p-5395.html?utm_source=google-ads&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=17668243377&utm_adgroup_id=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17669234812

>>4460503
I'll be honest, if it allows me to avoid the clusterfuck that is dealing with dye and clogged jets and overall maintainence, I'll take the instax over anything else. I know there's these ZINK things floating around as well that might be worth considering. Total accuracy and image quality is not the goal especially considering instax mini is like a 2.3" photo, but the printers are about the same price as the cameras and I'd rather go through my photos and pick the ones I want to hand out.

I rarely print 6x4 and wouldn't want >>4455705 because of it. 5x7 is generally the minimum I'll print and anything nicer gets a way bigger size. But even 5x7 defeats the purpose of this.
This idea is just to give people in my life something neat and compact; 6x4 photo albums aren't bad but I try and fill them out which is like 20 photos and isn't always ideal.

>There are also portable inkless printers, but those are really crap.
If there's a printer like the small selphy that isn't a hoe with ink prices, doesn't require maintainence or regular use, and can do miniature photos that are instax-sized, I'd like the idea of getting my own photo paper, but the instax mini printer is like... $150 AUD and film is cheap as fuck.

>>4460690
>t allows me to avoid the clusterfuck that is dealing with dye and clogged jets and overall maintainence
So can do the dye-sub printers from Canon and Polaroid. Instax suxxx.

>>4460709
Sick, link me a printer you speak of that is suitable for tiny-format prints and costs $150 AUD or less

>>4460712
https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/polaroid-hi-print-2x3-travel-set
https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/hi-print-4x6-printer

>>4460713
Danke. Unironically helpful

>>4460713
And ordered. Wish there was a PC program instead of just a phone app but let's see if this was worth it.

>>4460713
And ordered. Let's see if this is worth it. Kind of wish there was PC software instead of just a phone app, but let's be honest the target audience doesn't understand anything except a touch screen

>>4459667
Just got this one. It's kinda cool, I'm expecting to become a better photographer any day now.

>>4460940
I'm now going through some phone photos that my [spoiler]boyfriend[/spoiler] took and it's easy to appreciate how compressed they all look. On my shitty photos I always have to move exposure, and shadows, and highlights, otherwise prints are too dark or overblown compared to the screen. And phone photos are almost print ready.

>>4462338
By Ken rockwell standards
>no black! no white! all saturation! MORE SHARPENING! PERFEEEECTLY CLEEEEAAAAAR BIIIITCHEEEES

>>4462348
That's not quite what I meant. For example, with my camera snaps, I usually need to lift the shadows, because fine details in shadow areas don't look good (to me) on a print, but the phone somehow does it for you. Phone does give the extra saturation, but it doesn't seem a bad thing for printing, because my prints (on semigloss paper) have the same feeling as very dim screen; I set my laptop to 10-20% brightness for editing.

>>4462565
>because my prints (on semigloss paper) have the same feeling as very dim screen; I set my laptop to 10-20% brightness for editing.
You should probably just calibrate your monitor and use a profile for your printer and paper.

>>4459667
The ET-8500 is 3.33x more expensive but with the included ink it can print 10x as many photos - as a LOWER bound. I don't think the XP-8700 comes with the high-capacity cartridges that I based that number on. Even if we assume the ET-8500 will only physically last as long as it takes to use up the ink it comes with it's a way better deal just for the ink alone. And if it lasts longer, the refills are even cheaper per-page than cartridge refills. And it's a better printer, too.
Only get a cartridge printer if you're not going to print enough to use the ink up. Otherwise, just be patient and get the ET-8500 when it goes on sale for Black Friday or Boxing Day or something. Or if you see a good clearance price.

>>4463341
Well, I already got the 8700. I'll see if I get to use 500 Euro worth of ink within the observable future, at which point I can think of upgrading.

>>4463341
>>4463345
To add, ET-8500 (650 Euro right now) costs in the same ballpark as cheaper pigment ink printers (Epson P700 is 750 Euro), and I think pigment ink may actually have a point, because dye prints seem relatively delicate.

>>4462642
Well, I have been following the instructions from the fat Englishman, and using Epson's print utility, and using supported Epson paper, etc, etc. I guess I should get to calibrating the screen, but I'm not holding my breath, because my issue is more about how shadows/blacks feel in paper vs the screen.

>>4463349
You can convert an ecotank to pigment ink, never done it myself though. Just get it framed and/or laminated and keep it out of sunlight if you want it to last.

>>4459667
Haha, with Epson Print Layout, this printer's default setting (aka "printer manages color") is "perceptual" (or at least it can decide to choose it) and sometimes it would just invent colors.

>>4459667
Another fun fact: Epson 10x15 paper is 4x6 inches; Hahnemuhle 10x15 paper is 100x150mm.

>>4463349
Dye prints can have good longevity as long as you stick with the OEM pro-inks and papers. (Epson Claria, Canon Chromalife, HP's higher end ink). Not as good as pigment but I think accelerated aging tests have them as good as drugstore prints. I forgot the name of the test sites but I know there's a prolific forum user "Ink Stained Fingers" who also does these sorts of tests on some printer sites.

Any recommendations to make the printed photos last longer?

I thought about something like laminating them with foil that block the UV and makes them water/oil proof?
Are there good picture frames that protect the photos better?
Boxes that are keep the photos at the optimal moisture level?
Wrap it in aluminium foil to stop UV and keep at stable temperature?

>>4473441
If it's on matte paper, there are protective sprays that supposedly delay UV damage. They aren't meant for glossy paper though.

>>4473441
>Any recommendations to make the printed photos last longer?
this is consoomerism. even dye ink on matte paper will last at least 10 years ... way longer if you don't hang it into direct sunlight
in 10 years you will have swapped out the image like 4 times because it gets boring after some time
it's of course a different thing when you're selling prints. then consoomerism is on your side and you can advertise with "we use archival grade paper with pigment inks our prints last 100 years"
but for personal use at home? don't burn your money. ink is already expensive enough

>>4463349
pigment prints are delicate. you can scratch them very easily.
pigment inks for home use is overkill and just marketing. prints for personal use get swapped out regularly (no one wants to look at the same stale image for years). dye inks already hold 10 years or longer (unless you hang it into direct sunlight but then even pigment inks get fucked).
the only reason I would buy a pigment printer is for the print size. dye printers end at A3+ and if you want to print A2 or larger there's only pigment printers available.

>>4463352
it's inherent to the medium. no matter how much you calibrate and sperg out you will never have a 100% reproduction of what you see on screen to paper. calibration and trying to make photos look the same as on screen is a path leading to madness. don't do it. accept that different media have different characteristics and embrace them. no painter will lament that his water color painting lacks oil painting texture, etc. why are photogs sperging out about paper not looking like backlit LCD? don't be autistic anon. embrace paper. embrace its qualities. try different papers and enjoy prints.

>>4463352
>because my issue is more about how shadows/blacks feel in paper vs the screen
That's right, anon, a monitor that can emit light has more dynamic range than paper can't do that. That's inherent quality of the medium. There's a good reason why serious people print proofs first. Get some 4x6 or 5x7 and use it them to get your exposure right before committing to a bigger print. You'll get a feel for it with experience and won't need as much.

>>4473468
Well, perhaps dye it is then. I was a bit unhappy that I scratched a couple of prints by just (mis)handling them, but in the end it's not a big deal; I only print small ones anyway, and they seem to get a bit more durable after an hour or two.

>>4474102
also dye printers dont clog up so easily. you can get away with not printing once a week - what you are supposed to do with a pigment printer.

>>4473441
UV exposure is the biggest. Kept in an album is an easy way to stop UV but glass and certain plastics also work great. Avoid direct sunlight.

>>4473467
>>4473468
If the prints are going into a family photo album, that is by definition archival and a good case for pigment. I also see a lot of boomer types keep the same photo on a wall or dresser for decades. For stuff that you only care about for your lifetime, dye has the advantages of more consistent (no metamerism) and poppier color as well as a much smaller chance of clogging. I do have photos from inkjets and dye subs from 20+ years ago which have faded quite a bit and I have no access to the originals so I'm biased toward getting the most archival quality possible. It's ironically the digital stuff that is likely to be lost and forgotten. A busted capacitor in a hard drive or degraded flash and I can imagine someone just chucking it or maybe losing the password to or never accessing online photos whereas an old worn photo can still be kept and people usually keep albums even if they only look at them every decade.

>>4474102
Yeah, the inks require quite a bit of time to set and dry. My pigment prints haven't gotten scratched yet even with toddlers handling them but I figure dyes soak in for more resilience.

pro200 owner here. it's absolute overkill for my hobbyist snapshitter use but i love holding the big 13x19 prints. i don't know about the print longevity to UV or whatever, i haven't placed any near sunlight or anything so i have year old ones that still look great. ink replacements are pricey though pretty well almost the 1/3 the cost of the printer each time. honestly i'd say for most people just sticking to a service is probably best unless you're really gonna be cranking out that much at home.

>>4478219
$550 at Walmart is absolutely hobbyist justifiable. A service is cheaper whether for a few prints but actually much cheaper especially if you are cranking them out. But the convenience of being able to proof prints quickly at home is worth it.

Alright. I'm getting an ET-8550 (based on recommendations from the other thread, >>4472235). Hopefully they don't fuck it up in transport, should be here before the weekend. Got a deal on a refurbished one that appears to be in working condition. Wish me luck anons. If it works, next step will be going autistic on paper choice and ICC profiles.

>>4478536
nice. Make sure to order some Epson A3 photo paper since I don't think they will have any of that with the printer and as >>4478219 says, big prints just make you smile.

>>4478536
Of course it has nozzle problems... The seller provided a test page, supposedly from last week, that's perfect, so either he lied and it was lying unused for some months, or the printer got screwed up in transit (package wasn't even marked with any "this way up" symbols; I know couriers don't always respect those, but they didn't even try). Hopefully it's just air in the tubing. Ran power cleaning today, going to let it rest now and we'll see if it's doing better tomorrow.
Also, getting consistent banding when printing large test swatches of color, even after running alignment. Again, hopefully this is just caused by the clog, and will go away once that's fixed.

>>4478992
RTS that shit. Print a test page and photo it to him and ask wtf.
But yeah if it was upside down for prolonged periods that'll clog the shit out of it

>>4478993
I'll try to do some more purging, cleaning, and waiting (apparently that can genuinely help after a clean), but if I can't get it working properly within a week, I'll be returning it for sure.

>>4479001
It's a Halloween miracle, it works! Nozzle check page looks good, no banding when printing in highest quality. Ordered some photo papers to start playing around with. Smaller formats for now, but will for sure follow >>4478611's advice and get some larger sheets eventually. Thanks to everyone one that shared good info and general excitement about home /p/rinting.
One last thing I'm struggling with is using ICC profiles with Linux/CUPS. Was planning on buying Keith Cooper's profiles to unlock more papers to play around with, but doesn't seem like I'd be able to use them at all at this point.

>>4479410
>Halloween miracle
wat

>>4479643
Just that it happened on Halloween. I meant it as a silly cultural reference joke, no need to read into it deeper than that anon. It's probably not as funny as maybe I initially thought in my head, but that's just how I phrased it, oh well. Hope you have a good day! Taken any nice photos recently, printed any?

>>4479410
congrats anon, I can imagine your relief!

Fuck. So... I got the nice photo papers. And the printouts look nothing like the pics on my screen. And I don't mean a slight difference in color matching. I mean, on screen, the color balance is more on the cool side, there's details, and bluish greys. The printout is pretty much all completely reddish, low contrast, and parts appear posterized, where there should be detail.
Is color balance that fucked on a non-calibrated display? Surely it couldn't be that bad, given the photos look similar on different displays I've seen them on (external screen, laptop, phone), and the printout is the only outlier, and an extreme dogshit one at that.

>>4480785
did you select the correct paper type? what program are you using to print? Check the print driver settings ... Keith Coopers vids on that printer should help you out but check the rendering intent https://www.redrivercatalog.com/profiles/which-rendering-intent-for-inkjet-printing.html

>>4480785
>Is color balance that fucked on a non-calibrated display?
Yes but the eye-test on several devices is normally enough to assume it's reasonably sRGB accurate. I would just calibrate by eye using https://www.eizo.be/monitor-test/ which got me fairly accurate with minimal effort.

>>4480800
>did you select the correct paper type?
Yes.
>what program are you using to print?
Same results with: darktable and gimp (on linux), as well as preview on Mac
>Keith Coopers vids on that printer should help you out
Yep, definitely checking out his vids. Haven't seen anything on this specific problem yet.
>but check the rendering intent https://www.redrivercatalog.com/profiles/which-rendering-intent-for-inkjet-printing.htm
That's interesting, will try that. I've been using perceptual until now because that's what darktable recommends for most photo applications, and I didn't really understand what this setting means anyways.

>>4480814
> darktable
It was over before it even started

>>4480814
Have you run calibration on the printer? If you have a windows machine or if there is a phone app to print try that.

>>4480824
What exactly do you mean by calibration? Wouldn't printer color calibration just equate to generating a custom ICC profile, which requires a few hundred $ worth of equipment?
>>4480822
Thanks for the insightful comment.
>>4480804
Hmm, interesting. From this test I'm getting a gamma of 2.4. But I'm getting 2.0 from the test image (also from Ezio) from this post: https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/lcd_display_gamma/
Either way not sure what I should do with this. Should I use software to change the gamma to 1.8 (heard that's potentially a standard in printers)?
>>4480800
So setting intent to relative colorometric visibly changed the print out, and in my eyes slightly for the better, but it's still far off from what I was expecting.

>>4480861
>From this test I'm getting a gamma of 2.4. But I'm getting 2.0 from the test image
uwot. I just had a quick look at that link and according to that test chart mine is set to 1.4 which is the same kind of discrepancy in the other direction. I would go off the active test site, which is what I've done and everything looks fine when viewed on other devices. If I tanked my gamma on my PC monitor I guarantee shit would look bad to me, ergo the test site seems accurate.