Printing own Greeting Cards?
- Thread starter kim_foxx
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,295
- Reaction score
- 227
- Points
- 63
"Expensive" is a relative term, and what's required depends on the format, look and feel you're going for. A low-cost inkjet printer (under $US 100) these days is a far better printer than the $50,000 proofing printers I used in the late '80s/early '90s. The printer you can pick up at a discount department store (like Walmart) for around $US 50 today will do the trick better than a multi-hundred-dollar machine from ten years ago.
Colour laser printers can be had for ridiculously low prices (speaking historically, here) as well, and they don't have the smudging problem that inkjet prints have (inkjet prints are very sensitive to moisture, and can easily be smudged during handling). The low-cost models come with very small toner cartridges, but if they're only used occasionally you can get quite a few cards out of them before the gut-wrenching toner tax (toner costs more than anybody likes) applies.
The biggest problem with trying to make commercial-quality cards is the card stock (paper) itself. Most low-end printers are very limited in the thickness and texture of the paper they can handle. The Avery (and similar) cards that you can pick up at any stationer's is running just about on the limit of what most home printers can handle, and that's quite a bit flimsier than the card stock that is used for commercial printing. You're also limited in size, although US Letter/A4 is big enough for a lot of purposes (and usually doesn't involve extra postage fees if you're mailing the cards).
Most of the "Super A3" printers that photographers use will handle paper quite a bit thicker and up to 13"/330mm wide (usually up to 44"/1118mm long). The print heads are also designed to use papers with a bit more tooth and texture (provided that you've selected the right paper type in the printer driver). At the moment, you can pick up something like the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 MkII for under $US 300 (I can find it on sale locally for $CDN 250)— it's old tech ("old" also being a relative term; it's just not the current best-of-the-best) and uses dye-based (as opposed to pigment-based) inks that won't stand up to long-term archival use, so it's not nearly as attractive to serious photographers, but cards tend to be ephemeral and the output quality is probably better than anything you've used before. And it doesn't take very many trips to FedEx Kinko's to add up to the price of the printer. There are glossy, lustre, "plain paper" and stock that's similar in texture to watercolour paper (and printable on two sides) available in weights that are suitable for larger cards that will easily feed through the printer. But it is an inkjet, and is therefore subject to smudging problems (and spotting if droplets of moisture get on the print). Using a matte ("natural") finish paper and a spray fixative (a light varnish that's usually used for graphite and pastel artwork, available at art supply and photography stores) will make the prints much more durable. And though the printer may not look it at first, all of these "Super A3" printers are big, heavy, and take up a lot of room when operating — remember, you need to allow room for the paper going in and coming out.
If you're thinking about doing any serious volume (not just the occasional card), then its probably worth looking at the Xerox Phaser "wax-jet" printers in a tabloid (11" x 17") size. Yes, they are expensive as printers go, but they have better colour output and paper handling than laser printers of a similar size. Their output is really indistinguishable from four-colour offset printing, and they can handle suitable card stock, with quite a bit of surface texture, using the manual paper feed. If you plan to do small custom runs or one-offs as a small business, they're worth the money; they're a bit pricey for occasional use unless you have very deep pockets.
Colour laser printers can be had for ridiculously low prices (speaking historically, here) as well, and they don't have the smudging problem that inkjet prints have (inkjet prints are very sensitive to moisture, and can easily be smudged during handling). The low-cost models come with very small toner cartridges, but if they're only used occasionally you can get quite a few cards out of them before the gut-wrenching toner tax (toner costs more than anybody likes) applies.
The biggest problem with trying to make commercial-quality cards is the card stock (paper) itself. Most low-end printers are very limited in the thickness and texture of the paper they can handle. The Avery (and similar) cards that you can pick up at any stationer's is running just about on the limit of what most home printers can handle, and that's quite a bit flimsier than the card stock that is used for commercial printing. You're also limited in size, although US Letter/A4 is big enough for a lot of purposes (and usually doesn't involve extra postage fees if you're mailing the cards).
Most of the "Super A3" printers that photographers use will handle paper quite a bit thicker and up to 13"/330mm wide (usually up to 44"/1118mm long). The print heads are also designed to use papers with a bit more tooth and texture (provided that you've selected the right paper type in the printer driver). At the moment, you can pick up something like the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 MkII for under $US 300 (I can find it on sale locally for $CDN 250)— it's old tech ("old" also being a relative term; it's just not the current best-of-the-best) and uses dye-based (as opposed to pigment-based) inks that won't stand up to long-term archival use, so it's not nearly as attractive to serious photographers, but cards tend to be ephemeral and the output quality is probably better than anything you've used before. And it doesn't take very many trips to FedEx Kinko's to add up to the price of the printer. There are glossy, lustre, "plain paper" and stock that's similar in texture to watercolour paper (and printable on two sides) available in weights that are suitable for larger cards that will easily feed through the printer. But it is an inkjet, and is therefore subject to smudging problems (and spotting if droplets of moisture get on the print). Using a matte ("natural") finish paper and a spray fixative (a light varnish that's usually used for graphite and pastel artwork, available at art supply and photography stores) will make the prints much more durable. And though the printer may not look it at first, all of these "Super A3" printers are big, heavy, and take up a lot of room when operating — remember, you need to allow room for the paper going in and coming out.
If you're thinking about doing any serious volume (not just the occasional card), then its probably worth looking at the Xerox Phaser "wax-jet" printers in a tabloid (11" x 17") size. Yes, they are expensive as printers go, but they have better colour output and paper handling than laser printers of a similar size. Their output is really indistinguishable from four-colour offset printing, and they can handle suitable card stock, with quite a bit of surface texture, using the manual paper feed. If you plan to do small custom runs or one-offs as a small business, they're worth the money; they're a bit pricey for occasional use unless you have very deep pockets.
jensen
Active Member
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 38
Printers these days come with software.
If it's just one greeting card - the software can handle it.
"Professional looking" is also a relative term. I'd love to have the "wax" printers but only if I'm going to sell them and make a profit.
But using an "inkjet photo printer" with high gloss photo paper would also have an almost similar effect. That's my choice for something in between "cheap" and "professional"
But I'd love a handmade card anytime compared to a printed one.
If it's just one greeting card - the software can handle it.
"Professional looking" is also a relative term. I'd love to have the "wax" printers but only if I'm going to sell them and make a profit.
But using an "inkjet photo printer" with high gloss photo paper would also have an almost similar effect. That's my choice for something in between "cheap" and "professional"
But I'd love a handmade card anytime compared to a printed one.
- Messages
- 4,399
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 48
If you're in the UK, VistaPrint print 250 for £3. Not sure if they operate abroad but even if the don't, it serves as an example - unless you're going to many trade stands and giving out many any cards it doesn't make financial sense to invest in specialist equipment to print cards for yourself.