# Print your own



## graham1981 (Jan 1, 2016)

I know there are quite a few keen photographers on here and I was just wondering how many of you print out you photos regularly and more importantly who prints them at home?

I've always had a bit of a bad relationship with photo printers, the results always seemed a bit 'meh' compared to the on-screen photo (I never got into calibrating everything) Then yesterday for my birthday I got an Epson XP-900 standalone photo printer and wow what a difference! All I do now is stick my photos on a USB stick plug that into the printer select photos et voila prints appear!

Just printed an A4 print of Stonehenge (we went yesterday) and the quality is such now I really can't tell the difference between this home printed photo and a lab photo - I'm sure lots of you remember not so many years ago how bad home photo printers were! :swoon:

So who else prints their own? And do you print regularly?


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

I've had loads of printers in the past. I bought a Kodak printer a few years ago, mainly because the replacement ink cartridges were said to be cheaper than most ink jets at the time, and I was quite happy with it at first........ however, the cartridges run out really quickly, and by the time you've spent extra on Kodak paper to get the best results, it's hardly worth bothering. Also, if you don't use it very often, the cartridges dry up, similar to all other ink jet printers. Pretty much a waste of time IMHO, and if I want photos printing I just get them done by someone else (some of the supermarkets have got photo processing labs on site, and it's not that expensive to have them done that way).


----------



## gimli (Mar 24, 2016)

Graham can you post some pictures of printed photos ? I'm curious of all this and would like to see what modern technology can do. :yes:


----------



## graham1981 (Jan 1, 2016)

gimli said:


> Graham can you post some pictures of printed photos ? I'm curious of all this and would like to see what modern technology can do. :yes:


 I can do @gimli but I will have to take a photo of the photo - if I scan it will just be a digitized version like the original digital file :biggrin: I will see what I can do to show you how good the prints are now.


----------



## graham1981 (Jan 1, 2016)

Right here's a couple of bad photo's of the photos:



__
https://flic.kr/p/TckCUw



__
https://flic.kr/p/Scj8ev


__
https://flic.kr/p/Scj8ev

And this is the printer ('borrowed' photo from 'tinternet):



__
https://flic.kr/p/TckQHw


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Photo inkjet printers that utilise six or more cartridges and inkjet photo paper can be fantastic. As Davey P mentioned, if you don't print frequently the cartridges can be a hassle, and if you do print frequently it can become expensive. An alternative that may suit your needs is a colour laser printer combined with laser photo paper. The result isn't museum archive quality, but under "normal" viewing conditions looks quite nice. Lasers can provide high yields at low cost with out the worry of the consumables going bad.

Later,
William


----------



## gimli (Mar 24, 2016)

Wow thanks Graham! That's what I was looking for. What camera did you use to take the photos ?


----------



## graham1981 (Jan 1, 2016)

gimli said:


> Wow thanks Graham! That's what I was looking for. What camera did you use to take the photos ?


 Canon EOS 1200D and Tamron 18-200mm lens, strictly 'budget' kit, but it does go to show what results you can get nowadays with relatively affordable kit.

There are two main reasons why I'm starting to fall in love with home printing again - 1) I can go for a day out and print out the photos that evening, 2) I get to see a photo being created in front of me and not just seeing a picture on the screen.

I wouldn't get to hung up about archival quality etc - if it does fade in years to come print off another one :yes: And as for cost - for me it's a hobby and hobbies always have a cost attached. I have just bought aftermarket ink for £30 and that should be enough ink for roughly 200 photo's I reckon so 15 pence a photo - even if you only get a 100 photos out of them it would still only be 30 pence a photo :thumbsup:


----------



## dobra (Aug 20, 2009)

Printers - I have an A3 Canon Pixma 9000 Pro Mk11 and a Samsung A4 colour laser CPL 315. Because I have belonged to camera clubs, home printing has been a must for me. The laser will only print on plain paper as the heat would destroy coated photo paper.The inkjet Canon has eight cartridges and produces excellent quality prints for competitions.

mike


----------



## graham1981 (Jan 1, 2016)

dobra said:


> The laser will only print on plain paper as the heat would destroy coated photo paper


 This ^^ never even occurred to me! The XP-900 only uses 5 inks, black, photo black, cyan, magenta and yellow so I guess may have slightly less tonality and not so smooth graduations between shades. I must admit I struggle to find any faults with the quality of the prints, even closely studying the A4 photo I printed I really can't see anything to complain about :yes: - but I don't enter competitions or print for commercial use so I don't need to be super critical of the quality either.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

dobra said:


> Printers - I have an A3 Canon Pixma 9000 Pro Mk11 and a Samsung A4 colour laser CPL 315. Because I have belonged to camera clubs, home printing has been a must for me. The laser will only print on plain paper as the heat would destroy coated photo paper.The inkjet Canon has eight cartridges and produces excellent quality prints for competitions.
> 
> mike


 HP makes coated paper for laser printers, it is different from the glossy inkjet paper they sell. They call it Brochure 150g Glossy and has Laser written on the package. It's not too thick for colour lasers and the coating doesn't smear or glob and can be used on both sides.

Later,
William


----------

