Eventually I would like to move into the realm of Digital SLR's (35 mm SLR's are very affordable for me right now).

What I was wondering, and this questioned is geared to professionals like Hodgy who primarily shoot in digital, is after you shoot the photos, use Photoshop etc, what do you do when you want prints?

For me, I use a simple Canon A70, and afterwards print the photo out on my printer, it looks good, but it's not the same type of quality that you would get if you had your film processed.

I have had photos printed by several different online services. They turn out excellent and the pricing isn't too bad.

Max,

Even today's mid-range inkjet printers (I, like many here, use the Epson 2200) produce results that rival custom labs and printers. The key is propper color profiling and management, and of course, knowing correct resizing and sharpening techniques using photoshop.

Still, there's always the option of creating an image file in photoshop, saving it to disk, and having a custom photo finisher print it out for you.

Either way should give you good results...

But for professional results like Hodgy, what would he give his clients?

If I had prints come back to me printed off an ink jet, I would be pretty upset or at least question it. Do higher end ink jets produce that good a quality print, suitable for framing? I know my little $99 Epson 740 produces excellent prints, but I wouldn't consider framing them.

What about fading or the ink smudging?

Ahh, digital is just a passing fad...:)

The 2200 is capable of incredibly good prints. I have an Epson 820 (~$80 now) which collects dust - there's a huge difference between the quality of these two printers, they're in different leagues. While I have gotten some pretty good prints from it, it's not reliable and on it's best days (printing the same file a few times) it's not that good.

Like anything with photography, the equipment will only get you so far. I agree with Steve that it's proper use of Photoshop and the whole system - from exposure to print - to create the best results. I have a print by Michael Reichmann which is scanned MF Provia and printed on a 2200 with matte paper - it's a very high quality print.

Many paper/ink combinations are rated to last longer than standard C-prints (optical color prints), but only time will tell for sure (hey, I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist :D ). High quality inkjets haven't actually been around 80 or 100 years yet, now have they?! Personally, I send my files out for printing at the moment.

Ahh, digital is just a passing fad...:)

The 2200 is capable of incredibly good prints. I have an Epson 820 (~$80 now) which collects dust - there's a huge difference between the quality of these two printers, they're in different leagues. While I have gotten some pretty good prints from it, it's not reliable and on it's best days (printing the same file a few times) it's not that good.

Like anything with photography, the equipment will only get you so far. I agree with Steve that it's proper use of Photoshop and the whole system - from exposure to print - to create the best results. I have a print by Michael Reichmann which is scanned MF Provia and printed on a 2200 with matte paper - it's a very high quality print.

Many paper/ink combinations are rated to last longer than standard C-prints (optical color prints), but only time will tell for sure (hey, I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist :D ). High quality inkjets haven't actually been around 80 or 100 years yet, now have they?! Personally, I send my files out for printing at the moment.
I agree that the proper equipment can make all the difference.

But does a higher quality ink jet really make that much of a difference?

I have a friend who works in pre-press and from time to time he makes prints for me on their state of the art ink jet printers (cost around $50k for the printer) and the results are excellent, suitable for framing, and I would expect as much from an industrial printer. But I just can't see how a $300 ink jet can compare to a $50 K printer.

Or maybe it has something to do with the photographer ;)

Well, that depends. If it's for myself, then I will sometimes print on the Epson 2200, or I'll bring my files to blacks and have 4x6's made (these are just personal fun stuff). Otherwise, if it's for a client, it goes to my custom lab. I have to ensure top quality with archival properties. The prints you make from your inkjet (other than the Canon 9000 and the Epson 2000+) are not archival, and thus might fade. I can't have that. My custom prints from my lab are EXACTLY the same as if I was too shoot film. The process is the same except that instead of light passing through the neg onto the paper, a lazer exposes the paper. The paper still goes through the wet process, developer, bleach, fixer, rinse.

If I had prints come back to me printed off an ink jet, I would be pretty upset or at least question it.

Max, by saying this you obviously haven't done much research on the latest generation of inkjet printers...

The bottom line is this: image-wise, mid and higher priced inkjet prints are virtually indistinguishable from custom film and digital file prints using any other process. All of my gallery prints are now printed with my 2200, and if I do say so myself, I think they're exceptional...

As for being archival, as much as I respect Hodgy's use of high end hybrid wet print processes for his critical work, NO color photograph is truely archival.

Epson's mid and high end inkjet printers use pigment-based ink, and combined with the proper acid free paper (and proper storage), have a life expectancy of 80+ years, certainly rivaling "archival" wet processes for color work.

The only true way to create archival color images with film is to archive the image on seperate black and white density negatives (one each for the CMYK layers and each archivally processed).

With digital color images, the only way for a color image to last "forever" is to preserve the file and create additional prints as you need them...

Of course, 80yrs from now, who cares. Im dead.

Max, by saying this you obviously haven't done much research on the latest generation of inkjet printers...

The bottom line is this: image-wise, mid and higher priced inkjet prints are virtually indistinguishable from custom film and digital file prints using any other process. All of my gallery prints are now printed with my 2200, and if I do say so myself, I think they're exceptional...

As for being archival, as much as I respect Hodgy's use of high end hybrid wet print processes for his critical work, NO color photograph is truely archival.

Epson's mid and high end inkjet printers use pigment-based ink, and combined with the proper acid free paper (and proper storage), have a life expectancy of 80+ years, certainly rivaling "archival" wet processes for color work.

The only true way to create archival color images with film is to archive the image on seperate black and white density negatives (one each for the CMYK layers and each archivally processed).

With digital color images, the only way for a color image to last "forever" is to preserve the file and create additional prints as you need them...
You're quite right. I haven't done any real research regarding printers since I don't own a Digital SLR - yet ;) But when the time comes I will look into mid - high end ink jet printers. And I am partial to Epson. I've always had Epsons, and they never fail me. like I said my little 740 creates good prints, and I can rotate the photos at little cost.

But your replies have been helpful for helping me to understand the Digital world in Photography.

And I must say Hodgy, I really love your work. Why didn't I know about you when i got married? ;) I might even have a job for you in the next couple of years. You can PM me and I can give you more detail if you wish.

Again, thanks all for your replies. I'd still like to learn more.......

Of course, 80yrs from now, who cares. Im dead.

Hodgy, you know by then we'll have cloning perfected. So, I'm sure in 80 years you'll still be here shooting little space weddings with the happy couples flying around in JETSON cars... :D

Any thoughts or comparisons about these 2 printers? It sounds like the majority of the people that use this forum like the Epson, but is that because the Canon is new on the market? Has anyone used the new i9900 yet or seen what it can do compaired to the Epson?