I'm interested in a printer, I think...

[Boscoe]

So due to space I'm finding converting my bathroom into a darkroom a real chore. I'm beginning to think it's going to be a lot easier to buy a good printer and scanner and use those. I'm thinking of trying to get hold of a v700 or 750 form eBay. I really don't know much about printers. I want something that can give comparable results to wet prints and A4 is adequate for me. Can people just tell me a bit about them, what to look out for etc?

Thanks
Boscoe

[Darin Boville]

Espon 3880. Simple, huh? :)

--Darin

[Richard Johnson]

The quality pigment photo printers all have larger paper sizes, it's a shame they don't make a state of the art small printer. The R3000 will print comparably and is a lot less expensive to buy but the ink costs much more. The 3880 is larger, more expensive but more economical on ink and higher build quality. You have to figure the amount of output you'll do to compare value.

[Jim Noel]

So due to space I'm finding converting my bathroom into a darkroom a real chore. I'm beginning to think it's going to be a lot easier to buy a good printer and scanner and use those. I'm thinking of trying to get hold of a v700 or 750 form eBay. I really don't know much about printers. I want something that can give comparable results to wet prints and A4 is adequate for me. Can people just tell me a bit about them, what to look out for etc?

Thanks
Boscoe

There is NO PRINTER which can give results comparable to a wel done silver print!!!

[sanking]

The quality pigment photo printers all have larger paper sizes, it's a shame they don't make a state of the art small printer. The R3000 will print comparably and is a lot less expensive to buy but the ink costs much more. The 3880 is larger, more expensive but more economical on ink and higher build quality. You have to figure the amount of output you'll do to compare value.

If your criteria is absolute print quality I would recommend the R3000. It has 2 picoliter drops vs 3.5 for 3880, and if you print on very smooth paper and/or make digital negatives you can see a difference if you look very closely at the print. And my own experience is that the dreaded "pizza wheel" marks are less problematic with the R3000 than with the 3880 with some media.

On the other hand, the R3000 is limited to 13X19" size, compared to the 17" wide carriage of the 3880, and the smaller cartridges will result in higher ink cost.

Sandy

[Peter Lewin]

With all of these printers, is there a minimum number of times they have to be used each week or each month to avoid clogging issues? I know with my darkroom, my use varies a lot; there can be times when I am printing several days each week, but also a month or more when all I'm doing is developing, and using my scanner and inexpensive desk jet printer merely to make proofs. That has always been my concern about really getting into digital printing.

[djdister]

With all of these printers, is there a minimum number of times they have to be used each week or each month to avoid clogging issues? I know with my darkroom, my use varies a lot; there can be times when I am printing several days each week, but also a month or more when all I'm doing is developing, and using my scanner and inexpensive desk jet printer merely to make proofs. That has always been my concern about really getting into digital printing.

I would say that the inactivity/clogging problem has been solved with the newer, better photo inkjets (like the 3880). I used to get clogs on my old Epson 2200, but not at all on my 3880, and sometimes my 3880 can sit for a few weeks between print runs. Just speaking from my experience only...

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, although it varies and some people, that seemingly only exist on the internet and not in real life, claim that they can leave their Epsons for months at a time and never get a clog. Others seem to get clogs daily for no apparent reason. My latest experience was that my last Epson started to act flakey a few weeks after the warranty expired and repair costs were more than it was worth so out to the curb a $600 printer went.

Truth is that once I printed a few portfolios and prints to frame/donate/sell, there wasn't a reason to print very much. If I had $5000 to print an exhibit of 16x20s then I might get a new Epson but otherwise... I will send out to a good printmaker for the occasional fine inkjet.

Under ideal conditions I am sure that silver prints are "best" but I've seen very few prints and printers who create ideal conditions. What I mostly see exhibited are a lot of poorly printed silver prints with defects throughout and obvious Spotone marks, or alt process prints with a lot of excuses and "organic random happy accidents". In comparison, a rich inkjet without apologies is a welcome relief from amateur hour.

[paulr]

FWIW, I've had clogging problems with every inkjet printer I've used, with the exception of the 3880. I'm hard on printers; mine sit idle for weeks at a time between projects, and until recently, I lived in industrial spaces that had practically no climate control. The printers really don't like low humidity, like what they get here all winter long.

The recommendations for using and maintaining the 3880 are about the same as for anything else. It's not supposed to sit unused long stretches. But in most people's experience, it's unusually robust about putting up with neglect.

My current 3880 does clog from time to time, but it's usually after a long stretch of inactivity, and it's always cleared with a single head-cleaning.

[Peter De Smidt]

Do you want to print color, bw, or both? Do you want to print on papers that require photo black ink or on papers that require matte black ink?

[Jim Andrada]

My 4880 is almost perpetually clogged. I use more ink (by far) for head cleaning than for printing. Because I have bursts of activity and bursts (not the right word, I know) of inactivity where nothing gets printed for a month or two. Of course the humidity in Tucson is almost non existent except for this time of year when the monsoons arrive. (I've lived in Boston and NJ - no comparison to the dryness here in the desert) I've heard rumors of the Holy Grail (sorry - meant to say "an Epson that doesn't clog") with the 4900. 17" is a nice size but I think I'd like to go to 24" next time, although everything gets more expensive. If you use a RIP they charge by the width of the printer for example.

13 x 19 is a nice size for most things.

[paulr]

My printmaker (for big stuff) uses a 7900. I think. He says it clogs constantly. Besides that, he loves it. He gestured around his studio and said that it had literally paid for everything. And the results are quite stunning.

[Adamphotoman]

I must agree that a masterful silver print is somewhat rare, but so is a well made inkjet print.

I am contemplating purchasing my 9th printer since 2000. Most of my choices have been economically driven in that my clients demand larger output sizes. Early on the Epson was my choice but I have recently moved on to Canon and now I am thinking about an even larger 60 inch HP. I am fed up with clogs. Canon offered some sale pricing combined with a rebate program. Right now they are offering attractive pricing on 24 inch Canons. At the turn of the century Canon could not compete but now the tide has changed.

The iPF8300 that I bought - or was basically given for free for buying ink - has not given any problem for two years. I leave it plugged in & it will wake up and agitate the ink wells from time to time. Even if I leave it for 40 days it merely cleans itself and keeps on printing. Ink is a fraction of the cost. I am only replacing the original 330ml starter cartridges with 700 ml carts.

I was worried that the Canon could not meet my requirements but I think its technology has surpassed Epson in some critical ways. Now don't get me wrong. The Canon can be quite flakey especially when loading sheets.

[paulr]

My printmaker has a 44" Epson and 60" Canon. The Canon is newer. His appraisal is that Canon is great for billboard media, and also a great respite from clogging ... it almost never clogs, while the Epson clogs daily. But he much prefers the Epson overall, both in terms of print quality and media handling.

I just checked his site for the printer models. The Epson is a 9900 (I misidentified it above as a 7900); the Canon is an IPF9100.

[bob carnie]

I have both Epson and Cannon

I have upgraded to the Cannon IPF 9400 from the 9000 (still use the 9000) very pissed that the ink is different .. but I must say the Cannon is a great printer.

for anyone purchasing this type of equipment I have learned the hard way to buy the 3-4 year insurance package.

These machines IMO are made to work 3 years in a busy print shop and then get obsolete... my new printer is a 12 ink package, I am sure they will upgrade to 16 and 20 ink packages.

When this happens we will all have to switch to ProPhoto to capture the possibilities.
I just finished a project where I sheet fed over 300 prints on the Cannon and it worked magnifcantly




I must agree that a masterful silver print is somewhat rare, but so is a well made inkjet print.

I am contemplating purchasing my 9th printer since 2000. Most of my choices have been economically driven in that my clients demand larger output sizes. Early on the Epson was my choice but I have recently moved on to Canon and now I am thinking about an even larger 60 inch HP. I am fed up with clogs. Canon offered some sale pricing combined with a rebate program. Right now they are offering attractive pricing on 24 inch Canons. At the turn of the century Canon could not compete but now the tide has changed.

The iPF8300 that I bought - or was basically given for free for buying ink - has not given any problem for two years. I leave it plugged in & it will wake up and agitate the ink wells from time to time. Even if I leave it for 40 days it merely cleans itself and keeps on printing. Ink is a fraction of the cost. I am only replacing the original 330ml starter cartridges with 700 ml carts.

I was worried that the Canon could not meet my requirements but I think its technology has surpassed Epson in some critical ways. Now don't get me wrong. The Canon can be quite flakey especially when loading sheets.

[Toyon]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

[bob carnie]

I have been printing in wet and with digital equipment , including a bubble memory computer 1983 timeline- driving an overhead photocomp machine to mix trans, negs and reflective onto sheets of 16 x20 trans and negative.

I feel both wet and digital are equally challenging and fun to do. I hope I have another 30 years left using both. I have kept a fully functional wet darkroom right beside my computers, they do work well together.

I see both sides of this methodology and feel they are equal tools to make photography in the printed form. I would advise to keep an open mind to all the possiblity's, one will be surprised with the options, and creative end results.




We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

[djdister]

I have been printing in wet and with digital equipment , including a bubble memory computer 1983 timeline- driving an overhead photocomp machine to mix trans, negs and reflective onto sheets of 16 x20 trans and negative.

I feel both wet and digital are equally challenging and fun to do. I hope I have another 30 years left using both. I have kept a fully functional wet darkroom right beside my computers, they do work well together.

I see both sides of this methodology and feel they are equal tools to make photography in the printed form. I would advise to keep an open mind to all the possiblity's, one will be surprised with the options, and creative end results.

Bob, nicely put. Thank you.

[paulr]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in.

If I were to attempt to untangle this morass of unsupportable assumptions and bad logic, I'd probably throw my back out of joint.

[Adamphotoman]

Well put Bob,
I too have had 4 decades of printing both Wet and Computer based.

10 years ago I preferred the prints from the Epson. Now not so much. Last year we printed Epson and Canon Side by Side Same files. I made my choice based on the clients needs.

At any event

Everything we are talking about is just tools. What you can do with those tools is quite another matter.

[marfa boomboom tx]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

Nice foundation thought .. Build on this, avoid detours...


-------------------------
Over 12 years professional dye transfer printer. If we're measuring darkroom sinks, I have more credentials.

[Toyon]

Dye transfer is such a beautiful thing. Thanks for keeping it alive.

[mdarnton]

I had endless clogs with endless Epsons, finally switching to Canon. Last year, at least, they were practically giving away Pixma Pro-100s, and I bought one because B&W is mainly what I do. It was a great decision. I've had zero clogs, zero alignment problems, zero feeding problems, no pizza wheels, and it makes really great prints. If I do it right, it's better than silver, for me. As someone said in another thread, if you can't make digital prints look as good or better than silver, you're doing something wrong. Digital has just as harsh a learning curve as silver, so don't expect to make perfect prints immediately, any more than you did when you first printed silver.

[marfa boomboom tx]

Dye transfer is such a beautiful thing. ....

(See pm)

Some were. Most we're quite pedestrian.
The most beautiful prints I have are stone lithos, and collotypes . Stones are also out of production, leaving collotype.

Ink is more satisfying to me, more than any other paper based art-- ink on paper; light on clouds
.

[Sal Santamaura]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.


If I were to attempt to untangle this morass of unsupportable assumptions and bad logic, I'd probably throw my back out of joint.Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.

[Toyon]

Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.

Paul if you are happy that's more important than understanding.

[Greg Miller]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

And shame on writers who write using a computer. Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Microsoft algorithms thrown in. In fact, we should just disregard words written in an internet forum altogether...

[Sal Santamaura]

So due to space I'm finding converting my bathroom into a darkroom a real chore. I'm beginning to think it's going to be a lot easier to buy a good printer and scanner and use those. I'm thinking of trying to get hold of a v700 or 750 form eBay. I really don't know much about printers. I want something that can give comparable results to wet prints and A4 is adequate for me. Can people just tell me a bit about them, what to look out for etc?

Thanks
BoscoeThis is the thread's original post. I've bolded the originator's request.


We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.


If I were to attempt to untangle this morass of unsupportable assumptions and bad logic, I'd probably throw my back out of joint.


Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.


Paul if you are happy that's more important than understanding.Paul is capable of far deeper understanding than what your post could ever communicate about anything. I won't even quote your other ad hominem post attacking Paul personally; it shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Why do you feel compelled to crap all over threads where people are exploring digital methods? Is it insecurity? A need to knock down others' work to build up your own? I just don't get it.

Again, other than snapshots and occasional publication illustrations, my work is all gelatin silver wet darkroom. So far I prefer that process. But tools are tools.

[rdenney]

People, digital is an acceptable process for discussion here. Save the anti-digital personal attacks for where it is welcome, which it isn't here.

Rick "doing a little deleting" Denney

[Toyon]

This is the thread's original post. I've bolded the originator's request.

Too often the last resort of someone who is unwilling to frame a cogent argument is to become all sanctimonious. I'll just suggest you take a look at my original post and ask you to figure out why that constitutes, in your prose, to "crap all over threads". If you master that, perhaps you can also devise who began attacking whom. It seems to an unlucky few, that any hint of an alternate point of view that does not entirely validate their own causes deep (psychic) injury and the delusion that they have been severely attacked. Anyone who feels "knocked down" by my mild statement probably has some deeper pre-existing insecurities at stake. By the way, do you really think that the phrase "tools are tools" is worth repeating?




Paul is capable of far deeper understanding than what your post could ever communicate about anything. I won't even quote your other ad hominem post attacking Paul personally; it shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Why do you feel compelled to crap all over threads where people are exploring digital methods? Is it insecurity? A need to knock down others' work to build up your own? I just don't get it.

Again, other than snapshots and occasional publication illustrations, my work is all gelatin silver wet darkroom. So far I prefer that process. But tools are tools.

[Sal Santamaura]

After figuring out that your latest post actually does contain something more than a quote of my post, I separated it out. Let's break this down.


Too often the last resort of someone who is unwilling to frame a cogent argument is to become all sanctimonious...
Once again, you attack a person. Implicit in this wording is the charge that


I'm unwilling to frame a cogent "argument" about why gelatin silver isn't "superior" and
I'm the one behaving badly.

Ad hominem attacks demean only the attacker. Also, there's no need to frame a cogent argument about an off topic tangent.


...I'll just suggest you take a look at my original post and ask you to figure out why that constitutes, in your prose, to "crap all over threads"...In post #1 the OP specifically asks about printers. "Can people just tell me a bit about them, what to look out for etc?" You took that question as an opportunity to once again post off topic "prose" that does nothing but inflame a non-productive tool war and divert a thread from its originator's purpose. I didn't need to "figure out" why it constitutes crapping all over the thread; that characterization is clearly appropriate for the observed behavior.


...If you master that, perhaps you can also devise who began attacking whom. It seems to an unlucky few, that any hint of an alternate point of view that does not entirely validate their own causes deep (psychic) injury and the delusion that they have been severely attacked...Your now-deleted ad hominem post attacked Paul. Neither he nor I claimed any injury, shallow, deep, psychic or otherwise. Neither Paul nor I responded to it, other than my mentioning it didn't deserve a response. That the moderators have deleted it seems to validate the observation that it was ad hominem.


...Anyone who feels "knocked down" by my mild statement probably has some deeper pre-existing insecurities at stake...Reading what's written, and not imagining that something else is on the screen, is important. I asked whether you are knocking down others' work to build up your own, not others.


...By the way, do you really think that the phrase "tools are tools" is worth repeating?Yes. I think that every time you or someone else craps all over threads with pronouncements about how a completely gelatin silver workflow is inherently superior to digital, counterbalancing such nonsense with the phrase "tools are tools" is very worthwhile.

[rdenney]

My 4880 is almost perpetually clogged. I use more ink (by far) for head cleaning than for printing. Because I have bursts of activity and bursts (not the right word, I know) of inactivity where nothing gets printed for a month or two. Of course the humidity in Tucson is almost non existent except for this time of year when the monsoons arrive. (I've lived in Boston and NJ - no comparison to the dryness here in the desert) I've heard rumors of the Holy Grail (sorry - meant to say "an Epson that doesn't clog") with the 4900. 17" is a nice size but I think I'd like to go to 24" next time, although everything gets more expensive. If you use a RIP they charge by the width of the printer for example.

13 x 19 is a nice size for most things.

Jim, do you turn your printer off between uses or just let it sleep? I used to have the problem you describe with a 1270, but when I bought the 3800 maybe five years ago, I started turning it off between uses. It may sit for a couple of months between uses, and I'm still on my first set of full tanks. But, despite that I'm inviting clogs with infrequent use, I haven't had one clog as of yet. I think it's because turning it off goes through a shutdown cleaning cycle that permits extended non-use.

Rick "hoping to get this back to an in-topic tangent" Denney

[Greg Miller]

FWIW the newer Epsons' have integrated techniques to minimize clogging. I have not had clogging issues with the 4800 or 4900 (I had awful clogging with the 4000).

The new features in the 4900 include:
1) The printer powers itself off if idle for a long time. Powering off the printer causes the print head to be parked and capped, which will minimize clogging from evaporation of ink in the head. I forget the time required for the auto-power-off to kick in, but is long enough not to be a hassle.
2) The printer performs an auto nozzle check (and clean if necessary) when powering on. It does not use any paper for this process.

[Jim Andrada]

Good point Rick (and thanks for the explanation Greg)

I generally DON'T turn it off because it's the only printer on the system and I often have to print out an e-mail or something several time a night. My clients are in Japan and our customers are on the east coast so my work day is around 25 hours out of 24:<)

I think I'm going to add a small laser printer for business stuff and then it will be easier to turn the 4880 off.

[Greg Miller]

Ouch - using expensive Epson (or whatever) ink to print out emails. You will quickly pay-off the cheap laser printer with your savings on ink. I think you will also see fewer clogs by powering off the printer and letting the print head cap. Just think, you'll be rich from all the ink saving!

[Peter De Smidt]

There are various programs, such as MIS Autoprint, that'll print a document for you on a schedule. When I'm not printing, my system prints a page that uses a little bit of each ink color each day. Doing this seems to help.

[paulr]

I asked an Epson tech about whether or not to turn off the 3880. He said turn it off when you're done for the day, but keep it turned on if you think you'll use it again in the next several hours.

Most of this was about ink conservation. The printer uses a significant amount of ink every time you power it off or on. But! It also uses ink when you leave it on. It goes through timed cycles of clearing the heads when it's standing by. The tech said the amount of ink used in these automatic clearings is minute, but if you left the printer on full-time they would add up.

As far as preventing clogs, it's possible that leaving it on all the time would do a better job, because of the periodic clearings. But you'd probably waste more ink this way than if you just had to run a cleaning cycle once every few weeks.

[Boscoe]

Thanks for all the replies. I have been looking at the R3000 mostly but now also the Pixma Pro 100 as I am on a budget. The thing is I'm planning on buying a scanner too and I have only just realised the v700 I was planning on buying is only really effective up to ~2300dpi. So I'm now turning my attention to better scanning solutions. Being an electronic engineer I would consider making one but I don't really have the time. I want to be able to scan 35mm and 4x5 so if anyone has any suggestions for that i'm interested to know. My budget is around £500 or $750.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you have a good dslr, then using it to "scan" your negatives is a viable option. Otherwise, the V700 is a good choice for 4x5 and medium format film.

[Richard Johnson]

Please invent and market a scanner better than the Epson for $750!

[Boscoe]

Please invent and market a scanner better than the Epson for $750!

I think it's easily done because component cost is low but demand is also low hence the high prices of scanners.

[rdenney]

For me, it was cheaper to own two scanners than to own a large-format scanner that could also do well with 35mm.

Now, i can scan 35mm color slides pretty well with a Bowens Illumitran, though I'm still dialing in contrast control.

Rick "who uses a Nikon 8000ED for roll film" Denney

[antonygrakhar]

For me, it was cheaper to own two scanners than to own a large-format scanner that could also do well with 35mm.
Now, i can scan 35mm color slides pretty well with a Bowens Illumitran, though I'm still dialing in contrast control.
Rick "who uses a Nikon 8000ED for roll film" Denney
I also think so. I don't think that a large-format scanner worth its money if it's used for non business purposes.

[Lenny Eiger]

I also think so. I don't think that a large-format scanner worth its money if it's used for non business purposes.

Based on what? People here spend tons of money on expensive cameras, tripos, expensive lenses and all other manner of toys for photography. They buy materials like platinum to make prints when that's what they like. Inkjet printers can cost a lot, depending on their size. Enlargers also can cost a lot. Why is a scanner that costs $1500 "not worth it". Not worth it to you perhaps, but you can't make a generalization. Everyone wants something different.

For me a good scanner was a revelation. Printing on the inkjet was a need when I didn't have the wherewithal to set up another darkroom. I do now, but it allowed me to make prints that were as good as the platinum prints I had made earlier. Both methods work. Had I used cheap equipment I would never have gotten there.

Lenny

[Tin Can]

+1

If people would examine Peter's post's they might realize he really does know what he is doing and recommending.




If you have a good dslr, then using it to "scan" your negatives is a viable option. Otherwise, the V700 is a good choice for 4x5 and medium format film.

[Ken Allen]

If you do opt for an inkjet printer keep it in a DUST FREE and somewhat humidity controlled (RH 40%-60%) environment and it will be a much happier printer with fewer issues. Also, keep an eye out for dust buildup from the paper you feed into the printer. For example the Epson Hot Press Bright is a great matte paper but it throws off lots of dust that I assume is from the inkjet coating. Fine art semigloss papers like the Canson Platine are less dusty and the RC based papers like Epson Luster don't seem to create their own dust. This dust will make it's way onto the print head, wipers and flushing pad causing clogs and making them more difficult to clear.

I love a great silver gelatin print, but if your not printing full time an ink jet printer is easier to start up and quickly make a few also great prints. Financially, in many cases it is cheaper to actually have a professional do the prints, but I'm assuming you want to buy a printer because you love printing. In that case you don't need to run the numbers, just get a printer.