- This topic is empty.
Is home printing cost effective?
-
Hi all,
I need to get a DVD/CD printer and have noticed that some a3 printers have them built in. Considering the dvd/cd printer looks to cost around €200 on it’s own, I’m considering getting the printer + disc printer option (R2880 probably. )
Thing is, I’ve always been under the impression that printing from home is a PITA and a big expense. Factoring in maintenance time, consumables and such how does it compare to just FTPing to a higher end lab?
Truth is, I don’t do a whole lot of printing anyhow. However, I can see me doing more in the future.
I guess my question is, is it worth it in the end?
thanks for the help..
I have an epson R360 and to be honest the 6 ink system is a pain in the ass and costs me about 30 quid a month to run. The black ink is the worse and about 5-6 A4 prints will use it all. Although I have been printing a fair bit of late, its nice to see the print and to get it out quickly so this outweights the negatives.
I am also considering buying one of these CIS http://www.svp.co.uk/consumables/ciss-for-epson-r265-r360-rx560-printers-mte058_boxed-ciss-unit.html as I am hearing good things and huge savings.
For bulk prints, like summer holidays or kids school events I usualy just just go to photobox
Hope this helps
Deeit depends on a lot of factors
with a 2880 printing wont be cheaper really than a mass production lab
If you include your time and ‘faffing around time’ then it wont be cheaper than going to a specialist, like me
CIS systems are BAD BAD BAD, dont touch them, not for pro work
I have an A4 canon printer that does CD/DVDs and it cost less than 100 euros
as long as your not trying to print the full surface of the disc, you wont have any real probs, but the disc registration isnt great on the cheaper printers so if you want full surface its worth paying for a dedicated printer
if your going to do a lot of printing buy a bigger printer, mainly so you can get the bigger ink carts then it becomes much more cost effective
but that means much higher capital cost on the printer, and it really needs to run otherwise you will get issues with head cleaning etc
If you want prints that will last years rather then a few months, then consider your choice of ink and paper very carefully. Getting prints done in your local lab will typically last decades on display, and over a century when stored in an album (Fujicolor Crystal Archive Pro for example).
When you print at home, there’s basically two types of inkjet printers, Dye and Pigment.
1. Dye = BAD. Even the new “super ink” from Epson, Claria, is not proving to be as long living as claimed. I’ve had some samples in light tests for a year, and they’re not living up to the hype at all. And even with those bad results, they are still hugely better than the dye inks you typically get with CIS systems. I also have a CIS using Signal Inkjet inks, and after 6 months on display the prints are completely washed out. Completely unacceptable if you’re giving presents to people, or worse still, selling prints.
2. Pigment = GOOD. Well, some of them. Most of the OEM inks perform very well when matched with the OEM paper, and also with other well-respected quality papers. We’re talking decades here. Some inks perform up to 80-100 years on display without any visible degradation. There are some 3rd party pigment inks that perform as well as the OEM inks.
Two very good sites are http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/. These sites are run by probably the two most expert people in the field of digital print longevity. I have some samples under test in labs of the owner of the second, Mark McCormick-Goodhart. Both are dye samples, and the results so far are very revealing. Check out the “Light Fade Test Results” at http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/acceleratedagingtests.html. The publicly available results give you an idea of the amount of detail he gathers with each sample, but to view all the results you’ll need a subscription.
So, to conclude, avoid Dye inks, and especially avoid dye CIS systems. And if you’re going to use a pigment CIS, get some solid info from the Aardenberg website before deciding on which one to use. You’ll be glad you did, and can print in the comfort of knowing that your clients won’t be back on your doorstep in six months time with washed out prints.
Regards,
Dave.eas wrote:
Hi all,
I need to get a DVD/CD printer and have noticed that some a3 printers have them built in. Considering the dvd/cd printer looks to cost around €200 on it’s own, I’m considering getting the printer + disc printer option (R2880 probably. )
Thing is, I’ve always been under the impression that printing from home is a PITA and a big expense. Factoring in maintenance time, consumables and such how does it compare to just FTPing to a higher end lab?
Truth is, I don’t do a whole lot of printing anyhow. However, I can see me doing more in the future.
I guess my question is, is it worth it in the end?
thanks for the help..
I use a epson r2880, and a r2400 before that. It does cost more to do it yourself, but i love the printing/mounting/framing thing.. It gives me a buzz. the great thing about printing your own aswell…..someone orders a print, its ready with in an hour, in my opinion thats great especialy if its local and you have alot of them to do.
At the end of the day the profits not as good, but you get to see whats goin on, youre in total control of your own work. Dont get me wrong……..specalists like steve etc do a top class job, but its the people over seas that do big prints etc. You here storys of prints not coming back the way you liked. Thats what puts me off.
Sean.
great stuff – thanks for all the advice.
in a nutshell – printing at home is more expensive and troublesome, but can be fun and has an element of instant gratification. =)
i think I’ll need to think about this one….
1. Dye = BAD. Even the new “super ink” from Epson, Claria, is not proving to be as long living as claimed. I’ve had some samples in light tests for a year, and they’re not living up to the hype at all. And even with those bad results, they are still hugely better than the dye inks you typically get with CIS systems. I also have a CIS using Signal Inkjet inks, and after 6 months on display the prints are completely washed out. Completely unacceptable if you’re giving presents to people, or worse still, selling prints.
strange thing to say-i’ve 2 hp dye sub printers( 24 and 44 inch) and they’re both excellent performers- maybe your using microporous paper which doesnt do any favours
Scas i assume you mean dye based inks, i wasnt aware of a dye sub printer that large
if you stick to pigment inks from the main 3 manufacturers you cant go far wrong, each have their good and bad points
i have a 24 and 44 inch using pigment inks, and i am very careful about papers etc
mind when i cold press the stuff then all the figures go out the door
scas wrote:
climberhunt wrote:
1. Dye = BAD. Even the new “super ink” from Epson, Claria, is not proving to be as long living as claimed. I’ve had some samples in light tests for a year, and they’re not living up to the hype at all. And even with those bad results, they are still hugely better than the dye inks you typically get with CIS systems. I also have a CIS using Signal Inkjet inks, and after 6 months on display the prints are completely washed out. Completely unacceptable if you’re giving presents to people, or worse still, selling prints.
scas wrote:
strange thing to say-i’ve 2 hp dye sub printers( 24 and 44 inch) and they’re both excellent performers- maybe your using microporous paper which doesnt do any favours
OK, By “BAD” I mean under 20 years on display for Claria, where the pigments exceed 100 years. Check out the research on http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/. Interesting reading. The paper I’m using is Epson Professional Luster, which I believe to be one of the better papers around.
Rgds,
Dave.Just to follow up on that last post with a bit of extra info.
The measured 20 years (approx) in “average” display conditions is much less than what Epson quotes in their marketing blurb, but thats’ all open to interpretation. Epson may change the definition of “average display conditions” to suit their marketing. Yes it does perform FAR better than other dye inks, but still not as good as the latest pigment inksets.
Also, about the paper. The Epson luster paper has been tested with several samples under test at the moment (at the website mentioned above), and the pigments are pushing centuries under the same conditions that Claria is only achieving a couple of decades. The paper is the same, it’s only the ink that changes.
From that research, I sure know that my next printer will have Ultrachrome K3 Hi-Gloss inks! :)
Rgds,
Dave.P.S. I hope Mark McCormick-Goodhart doesn’t give out to me for giving away too much information in the above post, most of the information about specific inksets is for subscribers. That’s probably my encouragement to take out a subscription with the site if you’re any way interested in ink longevity :)
Just thought I’d put in my 2 cents worth of wisdom, having sold (large & Very Large) printers in the past.
The short answer is : no, unless you go for a larger printer & larg(er) numbers of prints
The First Question is what will your printing volume be. For small volumes you’d be better off with a smallish printer (e.g. Epson 2xxx and smaller) that fulfills your requirement. you have a moderate initial outlay but a “high” unit print cost due to the high consumable cost. I have an “old” epson 2100 and find when printing 30-40 A4 photoprints a month I will go through a set of 7 cartridges €18-20 ea. (for the OEM)… that’s when I wish I had a 4880 (ink is up to 7 times cheaper but…), so you’re talking +/- €3.50 of ink per A4 for my 2100, while the 220 ml cartridges of the 4880 would run the cost down to €0.50 per A4
If you plan to print bigger quantities the likes of the Epson 3880 and larger come into their own. you have a high initial outlay but much much cheaper ink. on the downside you need to print often (every few days) to keep the printheads from drying out , so while the ink unit cost may be lower, you need to print more to keep everything running smoothly.
The next 3 questions are :
1/ would you enjoy seeing your prints immediately?
2/do you need it?
3/is the cost benefit compromise acceptable?It’s been awhile since I looked into this, so if anyones spots nonsense in this post please do correct me.
(please note I do not work and have never worked for Epson)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
