Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Jan 31, 2017.
Vote on this week's poll - Do you print your images at home?
When the @?<>ing printer is working, yes.
A poll with a reasonable list of options!
I used to print regularly, but now that my printer has become possessed I print only occasionally.
As an aside, I believe that the demon who's possessed my printer is probably Sonneillon (the fourth prince of thrones who tempts men to hatred and is opposed by Saint Stephen), principally because of the pure, burning, white-hot hatred that I feel for my printer every time it turns out yet another print with an unasked-for sepia tone.
Only very rarely, and if it is a special (not necessarily brilliant) image. Too much of a FAFF to print regularly and getting seemingly more expensive.
I have printed all my own pictures for over 50 years the largest being 20x16 and the most recent A3 plus! down to 5x7.... but I must admit I don't print many pictures now, but (touch wood) both my printers are still working and once a week I switch them on just a precaution to stop them drying out.....
Any printing I want done I normally get Photobox to do , be them on paper , canvas or whatever .
I do have a printer , and have printed my own but as it only does up to A4 I didn't use it as much so the heads are probably dried up .
any documents I want printed I tend to do at work .
The amount of home printing I do is about to change as I've nearly finished building a darkroom ! Yay !!!
No more messing about with ink !
Regarding the options of answers for the poll , yes it's better , but there's a valid 5th option missing ; 5) any printing I want done , I send away for a printing firm to do the job .
For normal photography I print 100% myself but if (for example} I am asked to a function I nay be asked alsobe to bring a camera and I know that the host will want copies of all I took - those bulk orders go to Photobox
Gosh, one I can answer. Yes!
Apart from the odd 6x4, I always use labs. When I did have a decent photo printer I didn't use it enough and got frustrated with remembering the setup each time, the no of wasted prints, expensive inks, inks drying out etc etc. Perhaps I was just unlucky with my selection, but I don't think so. I enjoy all other aspects of photography, even if I am no good, but printing is not for me.
Always print my own.... some really lovely papers around now.
I trade print these days, simply because I can get bigger prints if I want. Also they are traditional photo chemical prints which I know will last.
Had problem with inkjets. So not a fan. Sorry
Totally happy and have won trophies and scored at my society with the trade prints.
Prints for exhibition are done professionally, not least because my printer is A4 maximum. Smaller prints (10x15cm) for my own use I'll do myself unless I need a lot (calendars etc.). In the latter case I use the Kodak machines in the local drug store.
These days I only have an a4 printer but quite frankly running the thing is expensive. So I've taken to using a commercial print firm who do a great job and are cheaper than I can do at home. Also I can get a whole pile of prints delivered in a couple of days rather than me spending hours and hours doing my own.
I'll print for competitions or for hanging on the wall myself but if it's just 6x4s then the kiosk in Tesco or somewhere similar will do.
I do my prints via online services such as Photobox or DSCL. I can't really afford the cost or the space for quality printing at home, though I admit that sometimes it would be nice to not have to wait a couple of days.
At last, as others have observed, a poll with a properly constructed range of optional answers.
I never print "snaps" but, when producing prints for competitions and exhibitions I always print my own.
Call it "control-freakery". I have convinced myself that I want/need to retain personal control of the entire photographic process from selecting where to point my lens through to selecting which paper to print on. Even though I know it costs me perhaps 20x as much as skooshing digital files down the line to a sweatshop printer.
If I want to make a tiny but important (to me) adjustment to a print - far tinier than can be obtained by accurately cross-calibrating screen and printer - I might make several versions before being satisfied. I can't imagine being able to convey my requirements accurately to a printshop technician.
I was about to say that I know it's a mug's game - but then, isn't most of what we spend money on in photography equally a mug's game? I guess that we are happy to be mugs.
Whenever I take a half decent picture, I always print it myself.
So, no, I don't print a lot.
All my prints are my own work and there are bloody hundreds misfiled all round the house. I am intrigued with the apparent mismatch of shooting gear and the resulting hardcopy.
Can you explain that a bit farther, Robert?
All that pricey glass and mega pixels squirted down to 6X4 or perhaps A4. Perhaps you can get a quart into a pint pot.
Separate names with a comma.