Question regarding fast prints, top quality

Had this great question written, did a preview and then back to correct, and poof, all gone.
Anyway, I have a client that needs two views 60 prints each, 120 8 by 10 prints total, the same day. Shoot in the morning, deliver by supper. My Epson 2200 takes about 4 minutes per 8x10, and this would be 8 hours of printing, cutting it too close. Costco printing is a possibility, but their output (even using their profiles) is usually guess work; sometimes they hit, but sometimes they don't. I still might go that way.


ONe store here (Staples) could mass produce the prints, producing beautiful prints on photo paper, but then I found they use a Xerox copier. So here's another question: Is the Xerox these days producing quality prints that are archival too, or will they all fade after a little while? No one there had an inkling.

Another possibility is to take this opportunity to upgrade from the Epson 2200. Can any of the upgrades, like the 2400, etc. produce 8 by 10 prints in around a couple of minutes apeice, or do they run no faster than my old 2200?

I think too, for this project, I can run the prints at 150 dpi for decent qualtiy, yet- but another question arises: does running at less dpi save time?

Thanks in advance, ( and not previewing this time for editing correstions!)

Mark,

Back when I was involved in auto racing there was a guy who drove from track to track with an RV shooting team pictures and racing action. He offered similar type deals for cash and you could order large framed team prints, etc... I think he was using 3-4 machines and 3-4 printers. So your best option might be multiple printers. I would be concerned with the duty cycle of the printers running that long and ink consumption as they might be points of failure in getting the job done.

I use wallyworld for proof prints since they are a couple bux each, you might want to see if you could have 120 prints done on their fuji frontier 370 (or whatever they buy in MT) because you can download ICC's for them and I don't think the quality is bad for $2. Also, Costco uses similar equipment and might be able to do the job as well.

The newer printers, such as the R2400 and 3800, print twice as fast as the 2200. If you go this route, I would choose High Speed (i.e., bidirectional printing) and 1440 dpi for top speed.

Thanks for the replies. Costco seems to be the likely bet for now. Their output is iffy at times, but with a couple of test prints to start, and I think I can tweak the quality to professional grade. I gather their prints last? The Xerox printer at Staples was stunning, but all the employees there were clueless about how long the prints would last. The last thing I want is a bunch of clients coming back to me with faded prints. The Epson 260 or the 380 Stylus's seemed like they would do well, but I can see myself pumping dozens of ink cartridges into it (at $16.95 apiece) to get the job done. It'd be nice if some of these printer companies had the guts to be honest with us on exacltly how much ink their printers consume- or some kind of analysis, instead of us always trying to guess, let alone squander a bunch of money.

Finally went with the Xerox laser printer at Staples. One of the managers convinced me that the prints will last well, plus the initial tests using photo paper were outstanding. Unfortunately, as the printing progressed, the printer started acting up- occassional lines, color marks etc. It'd take a few bad ones, and then a few passable ones would come out. We ran over 200 prints to get 130 decent ones, and at the end I had to let the marginal ones pass. What a nightmare. The employees don't know anything, and couldn't care less, they just run the machines, and say, "Good enough", when you know it's junk. Conclusion= don't go the print centers if you want professional grade. It's theoretically possible, but considering the mindset of the employees, it's unlikely you'll get top results.You've pretty much got to buy the equipment and supplies and do it yourself.

Just as a side note, I once had a bunch of prints made at Wolf / Ritz camera for a portfolio of mine that I needed very quickly. Of course the first batch of prints were terrible, and the 2nd batch of re-do's was awful as well. When I took the 2nd batch back to the store, I talked to the "photo technician" - he said to me: "I can't believe that you would really expect us to get it right."

Go figure.

Best,
John

I have had the Xerox prints done as well and sometimes they came out beautifully and other times they had marks, lines and streaks. I work with a professional printing house here and they have gone to using the Xerox for short run stuff only as the longer the machine runs the worse the quality got.

On a side note for longevity, they told me that the archival ability is only as good as something printed on an offset press and did not carry any archival ability. They fade quickly in the sun (I had a calendar proof done on it and it faded in one day in the sun at an art show) but do seem fairly stable out of direct sunlight. I would not tout them as an archival printer however. The printer I am working with is now using an Epson 9800 for this exact reason.

Mark, good luck with your project!

Yes, on the next shoot (assuming I get another now) I'll rent a motel room, take my laptop, photo paper and
printer, and run them all from there. Then I know it will be perfect, and will even save time and money over all.