Cheaper ink is changing the case for premium photo printers

As image quality gaps narrow between high-end and cheaper models, running costs, paper handling and how often photographers actually print are becoming more important than marginal improvements in output.

For photographers weighing whether to spend heavily on a dedicated photo printer, the real question is no longer simply whether a pricier model makes better output. It is whether the extra cost buys enough practical advantage to justify the running costs, the footprint and the limits of the paper path. In Keith Cooper’s view, that calculation has become harder because modern printers are now so close in output quality that the old hierarchy between entry-level and premium machines is far less obvious than it once was.

Cooper argues that the differences between contemporary photo printers are often too subtle to judge from a screen, even when comparing high-end models side by side. Canon has promoted the imagePROGRAF PRO-1100 over its predecessor on the basis of improved blues, yet Cooper says his own testing did not reveal a dramatic leap. He describes the current state of the market as a contest between printers that are both very good, with only a small margin between them. That is a significant shift from roughly 15 years ago, when a new model could feel plainly superior to the one it replaced. According to RTINGS, the PRO-310 sits below the larger PRO-1100 in Canon’s range, using pigment-based Lucia PRO II inks and a Chroma Optimizer to improve uniformity and surface finish, while still remaining a 13-inch printer rather than a large-format machine.

That narrowing gap pushes other factors to the fore. Cooper contrasts the PRO-1100 with Epson’s EcoTank ET-8550, a model TechRadar describes as an all-in-one photo printer with scanning, copying and duplex printing, plus refillable ink tanks that keep running costs down. The Canon, by contrast, offers 12 ink channels, including a chroma optimiser, and is built for serious paper handling, but it is large, heavy and more expensive to keep fed with ink. B&H Photo’s comparison places the PRO-1100 at $1,299 and the ET-8550 at $749.99, underscoring the gulf in price even before consumables are taken into account. The Epson can also take poster board through a straight paper path and accepts sheets up to 13 x 19 inches, while the Canon’s pigment inks are better suited to archival output and more formal print workflows.

Cooper’s broader point is that cheaper ink changes how people print. Epson introduced its EcoTank line in the United States in 2015 as office kit, but refillable bottles have since moved into photo-oriented models such as the ET-8550. Once the cost of each print falls, photographers are more likely to make proof prints, compare papers and adjust colour management before committing to a large final sheet. That habit matters because paper choice and profiling now account for more visible differences than the printer itself. In practical terms, a machine that gets regular use may teach its owner more about the print process than a more impressive model that is too expensive to load often.

He also argues that most viewers do not scrutinise print quality as closely as photographers do. Minor differences in gloss, surface reflection or tonal rendering rarely matter unless something is obviously wrong, such as an unnatural skin tint. Cooper says that, when people ask which printer is best for selling work, the first question should be whether there is actually a market for the prints. He is similarly cautious about recommending Canon’s PIXMA PRO-200 or the imagePROGRAF PRO-310 to buyers who are highly sensitive to consumable costs, even though both are stronger photo printers than the ET-8550 in several respects. Their cartridges are relatively small, so owners need to keep replacements close at hand. By contrast, the ET-8550’s refillable tanks appeal to photographers who value economy, versatility and the freedom to print often, even if they sacrifice some of the refinement associated with pigment-based systems.