Just buy a laser printer. Or buy one of the Canon inkjets that has the easy removable heads for cleaning. Or buy a printer where the heads are in the cartridge. So many options.
Sounds very familiar... In the mid '80s I was doing my own printing using a spare bedroom for my darkroom. Eventually I had to give it up due to lack of space. In 2003 I got into digital photography and this made printing soooo much easier. After working with some smaller Canon photo printers, I ended up getting a imagePROGRAF iPF5100. This had everything I wonted. 17" roll paper, a paper tray for sheet paper and 12 pigment inks. Alas, after 6 years and a couple of printheads, a power surge made it unrepairable. By that time, Canon no longer made a 17" roll printer (I had a stock of roll paper) so I moved up to a Canon imagePROGRAPH PRO-2000. Wonderful except sheet stock is a bit of a pain. I have had it for 7 years now and replaced the printhead once. You are spot on, this class of printer NEEDS to be used regularly.
Sound advice, Tony. I find that I'm probably not printing often enough...I'll have to drag myself out of the photographic doldrums and print a lot more. Ink costs are quite scary, even for an A3 printer - almost £200 for a full set on a Pro-300! It really strains my pension!
It is costly to set up and use, so I use two print people, one for everyday printing and a specialist for doing Giclee/fine art work. I loved working in the darkroom but I can't be bothered with the stupid prices for ink, such a rip off, so that is why I farm it out.
Good Iain, I'm glad you see the benefits of that approach. Another photographer made a video about how you SHOULD buy a printer so I thought I'd make a retort.
Wow! I thought £100 for a set of inks for my Canon Pro100S was eye watering. I agree that there is something satisfying about printing your own photos even if it costs the same (or more!) than getting them done by a lab. I have sent files to a lab in the past and been disappointed with the results. Some do tweak them for you but some don't and it does pay to pay the bit extra for the better labs. I don't sell many and it's the postage that kills me if I only need one or two modest prints. Decent quality paper and blood, sweat and tears learning how to do it can pay for me for those occasions.
Thank you John, well at least I may have put the thought of buying a large format printer out of your mind. Might have to sell mine if business doesn't pick up soon!
Didn't watch. Couldn't disagree more. Images are meant to be printed. Too many sit on hard drives. Yes printing can be challenging (and costly), but it's an important skill. Today's eco-tank options make printing much more accessible. I regularly print and make my own photo books. Photos deserve to be printed!
Thanks Ian, I agree, but if you'd watched it, what I explain is that amateurs shouldn't buy one unless they're going to print regularly; contrary to what another photographer recently said.
Just buy a laser printer. Or buy one of the Canon inkjets that has the easy removable heads for cleaning. Or buy a printer where the heads are in the cartridge. So many options.
Sounds very familiar... In the mid '80s I was doing my own printing using a spare bedroom for my darkroom. Eventually I had to give it up due to lack of space. In 2003 I got into digital photography and this made printing soooo much easier. After working with some smaller Canon photo printers, I ended up getting a imagePROGRAF iPF5100. This had everything I wonted. 17" roll paper, a paper tray for sheet paper and 12 pigment inks. Alas, after 6 years and a couple of printheads, a power surge made it unrepairable. By that time, Canon no longer made a 17" roll printer (I had a stock of roll paper) so I moved up to a Canon imagePROGRAPH PRO-2000. Wonderful except sheet stock is a bit of a pain. I have had it for 7 years now and replaced the printhead once. You are spot on, this class of printer NEEDS to be used regularly.
Thank you Ted, good to hear your story, especially after some have called this video 'clickbait'.
Sound advice, Tony. I find that I'm probably not printing often enough...I'll have to drag myself out of the photographic doldrums and print a lot more. Ink costs are quite scary, even for an A3 printer - almost £200 for a full set on a Pro-300! It really strains my pension!
Thanks Bill, much appreciated!
It is costly to set up and use, so I use two print people, one for everyday printing and a specialist for doing Giclee/fine art work. I loved working in the darkroom but I can't be bothered with the stupid prices for ink, such a rip off, so that is why I farm it out.
Good Iain, I'm glad you see the benefits of that approach. Another photographer made a video about how you SHOULD buy a printer so I thought I'd make a retort.
Wow! I thought £100 for a set of inks for my Canon Pro100S was eye watering. I agree that there is something satisfying about printing your own photos even if it costs the same (or more!) than getting them done by a lab. I have sent files to a lab in the past and been disappointed with the results. Some do tweak them for you but some don't and it does pay to pay the bit extra for the better labs. I don't sell many and it's the postage that kills me if I only need one or two modest prints. Decent quality paper and blood, sweat and tears learning how to do it can pay for me for those occasions.
Thank you John, well at least I may have put the thought of buying a large format printer out of your mind. Might have to sell mine if business doesn't pick up soon!
Click bait.
Thanks scaramonga, but it has an important message for amateur photographers. Did you watch it?
Didn't watch. Couldn't disagree more. Images are meant to be printed. Too many sit on hard drives. Yes printing can be challenging (and costly), but it's an important skill. Today's eco-tank options make printing much more accessible. I regularly print and make my own photo books. Photos deserve to be printed!
Thanks Ian, I agree, but if you'd watched it, what I explain is that amateurs shouldn't buy one unless they're going to print regularly; contrary to what another photographer recently said.