what printer for photography?

[Davi]

Just in case... Mods, please don't move this to computers and gadgets n stuff, I am asking in Photography because I want the opinion of photographers and in particular member of this part of the forum, ta.

So... that out the way - what is good in the printing world for desktop printing of your shots? I'd like A3 but imagine cost is going to limit me to A4. I was thinking of looking for one with 4 separate ink carts so I stopped wasting so much, but in reality the quality of the print is kinda key right now.

Ta

Oh - and a tip for home printers that I got yesterday - Lidl photo paper - superb stuff! Far better than the Canon / HP / Kodak stuff I've tried and a fraction of the cost!

[MartinP]

Personally I don't bother with home printing. With the cost of consumables and the hassle of something else to colour calibrate and maintain it didn't look a good option for me, so I just use Photobox for general stuff and Loxley Colour for pro work. Just another option for you to consider...

[Cabinet Enforcer]

Davi said:

Just in case... Mods, please don't move this to computers and gadgets n stuff, I am asking in Photography because I want the opinion of photographers and in particular member of this part of the forum, ta.

So... that out the way - what is good in the printing world for desktop printing of your shots? I'd like A3 but imagine cost is going to limit me to A4. I was thinking of looking for one with 4 separate ink carts so I stopped wasting so much, but in reality the quality of the print is kinda key right now.

Ta

Oh - and a tip for home printers that I got yesterday - Lidl photo paper - superb stuff! Far better than the Canon / HP / Kodak stuff I've tried and a fraction of the cost!

Costco paper is also very good value, shame they don't do A3.

A3 does ramp the costs up. I have an epson B1100, it is supposed to be an office printer, but TBH the photos it churns out are pretty damn good, which you could expect as it is the exact same tech as all their other 4 colour printers. Though I would say that despite the extra large carts available it is not particularly parsimonious, cleaning cycles being very greedy indeed. The price of the printer has gone up a lot too, it was only £140 when I got it, now seems to be nearly 200.

Agree with the above poster, home printing is not really worth it at the costs charged for ink, it is nice to be able to tinker though.

[Davi]

MartinP said:

Personally I don't bother with home printing. With the cost of consumables and the hassle of something else to colour calibrate and maintain it didn't look a good option for me, so I just use Photobox for general stuff and Loxley Colour for pro work. Just another option for you to consider...

I wouldn't really consider it for 'proper' work, I'm just extremely impatient and like tinkering

[Dogsey]

I've always used Epson printers for the photo's I do print at home (most get printed at Photobox), get one with as many colour inks as possible - mine is six (the best available at the time), I believe you can get 8 ink ones now.

The R2880 is the daddy of A3+ photo printers and has been for some time.

[andy-xr]

Lab if you're not keen on throwing cash and have the time. There's a decent Mitsubishi dye-sub kicking around for about £550, and I met a guy from Canon who printed out an A3 print on Canon paper that looked pretty decent. Think it was a Pixma, the bigger one. Not expensive, inks werent either

[tog]

I had an Epson A3 one that cost about £150 to fill with ink, and I found it was only really being used for printing invoices and the like these days. So a Canon A4 and lab prints is the way I've gone. It's a Pixma ip4850 and does pretty decent photo prints for the rare occasions I need to produce prints and a day's wait is too long.

[GetCarter]

I have an Epson A3 7 ink printer, but it's more expensive to use in ink and paper than photobox, so it rarely gets used.