# Printing at home vs at stores



## molested_cow (Apr 7, 2013)

Not living in the city means I have limited choices when I want to make some prints. I am not talking about high quality large prints, just your normal 4X6 prints. I just got a batch of photos back and they are awful!
I don't know what the matter is, these are the worst prints I've gotten in a loooong while.

So I was thinking, are today's office/home printers good enough for the job? I mean compared to those specialized printers at a photo place.
I used to have an Epson 1280. Granted it's more than 10 years old, it did print large prints cheap and decent. I haven't had a home printer since ( never had to print color so I always did it at the office ). Soon I will be looking for one and I will probably look for something that can do what the Epson did - 13" width prints.

So I have two questions.

1. Are today's home/office printers good enough to replace store printers?

2. For the likes of Epson 1280, what do you recommend as a replacement for today's options?


----------



## JBrown (Apr 7, 2013)

As a general rule its always more expensive to print at home vs a lab for compareable quality. That said you gain convenience via printing at home. Without knowing your budget and specific quality needs I can't recommend anything specific. Epson and canon both make some great high end printers. Only question is cost really.


----------



## Benco (Apr 7, 2013)

Longevity is an issue with home/office printers, any modern inkjet can produce a very good print but they won't neccessarily last (especially if the photo is going to be exposed to the light). Most use dye inks and these are variable, some are useless and will fade in no time, others are pretty good (I've got an Epson 1400 which uses the Claria inkset, Epson make some very ambitious claims for this ink, so far I've yet to have a print fade). The next level is to get a printer that uses pigment based ink, sky's the limit with those, beautiful, durable prints but more technical issues to be dealt with.

I don't know about the 1290's inkset durability, a decent replacment would be the 1400 though, that's a nice printer. 

Another important thing is to use archival quality media, it's pricy but worth it.


----------



## Helen B (Apr 7, 2013)

There are a few printers that could replace the 1280. It would help to know your budget and priorities. How important is longevity (inkjets can be better than store prints) and wide gamut (again, inkjets usually win). Do you want good B&W? For high quality, archival work, a print from a home printer can be cheaper than the equivalent from a printing service, but you have to be prepared to put some effort in to learning the printing game. Would you be willing to use a bulk ink supply to reduce ink cost but maintain quality and longevity)? How regularly do you wish to print?


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 7, 2013)

Well, printing photos will not be the main use for this said printer. I will be printing presentation materials, graphics etc. For this purpose durability is not an issue. Print resolution and perceived quality will matter. However I do want the freedom to print my own photos once in a while without making it into such a big fuss (run to the store, specify this and that blah blah). The main thing is, I can experiment with the print until I get what I want, before making the big print. With the store, it is what it is, unless I go to the professional labs.

Honestly, for speed sake, I'd very much like to have a color laser, but not for photos for sure. I guess the inkjet option is purely a toy for me.... you know, one more thing I spend on my photography hobby.


----------



## Benco (Apr 7, 2013)

molested_cow said:


> Well, printing photos will not be the main use for this said printer. I will be printing presentation materials, graphics etc. *For this purpose durability is not an issue*. Print resolution and perceived quality will matter. However I do want the freedom to print my own photos once in a while without making it into such a big fuss (run to the store, specify this and that blah blah). The main thing is, I can experiment with the print until I get what I want, before making the big print. With the store, it is what it is, unless I go to the professional labs.
> 
> Honestly, for speed sake, I'd very much like to have a color laser, but not for photos for sure. I guess the inkjet option is purely a toy for me.... you know, one more thing I spend on my photography hobby.



that's true but it's just a matter of what printer (and therefore the inkset) that you choose. The thing is that even if it's only a small part of what you are using the printer for if you want to be able to do durable photographic prints you _have_ to have durable ink, it doesn't matter if presentation work is printed with ink that'll last for decades, it does matter if photos are printed with ink that'll only last a couple of weeks.


----------



## PerfectShot (Apr 12, 2013)

surely there are good online services that make going to the store or buying a printer pretty much superfluous. So far I have never printed out my own pictures because (there aren't really any worth printing and I don't even know good websites for that. Instead I got some art prints of well known paintings, for now. At some point I would really like to make my own photography art though, so if anyone knows a good online printing service, let me know


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 12, 2013)

Here is what I print with at home:  Amazon.com: Canon Mark II Inkjet Photo Printer PIXMA Pro9000: Electronics

Excellent quality.  I believe it's being replaced by Canon, so the price has been falling.  When I bought mine 2 years ago it was $400.  I only got it because Canon was offering a $400 rebate if I bought the printer and a camera (t3i).  It was a no-brainer.

However, it delivers outstanding results.  Make sure you are processing your pictures on a calibrated monitor and it prints very true to that image.  Good luck!


----------



## Newtricks (Nov 20, 2013)

molested_cow said:


> Well, printing photos will not be the main use for this said printer. I will be printing presentation materials, graphics etc. For this purpose durability is not an issue. Print resolution and perceived quality will matter. However I do want the freedom to print my own photos once in a while without making it into such a big fuss (run to the store, specify this and that blah blah). The main thing is, I can experiment with the print until I get what I want, before making the big print. With the store, it is what it is, unless I go to the professional labs.



I realize adding this half a year after the question was asked may not help you specifically at this point in time. I have an old HP 5550 that routinely gets pressed into service to make prints of snap shots, make photo greeting cards, print fax and other documents and have been pleased with the results for snapshots and cards where photos are concerned.


----------



## AceCo55 (Nov 21, 2013)

Something to think about.
The Epson 3880 uses 80ml ink tanks. When I bought mine I calculated that the ink was half the price/mL than if I used the A3+ (13") printers with the smaller tank capacity.
It was significantly cheaper ink costs simply by buying the ink in the 80mL tanks.
I worked out that I was saving about $600 - $700 by the time I used a complete set of 80mL tanks.
So if you think the A3+ (13") printers are cheaper and more affordable, just do the maths on ink costs. You might find the A2 (17") Epson 3880 turns out to be more economical.
The print quality will knock your socks off, plus it is relatively small for an A2 (17") printer.


----------

