[coldcode]

I only make art designed to be printed on 10-12 color large format inkjet printers. Making plotter art is not inherently better or worse that printing, it's just a different type of art. I love what people do with plotters, but I just prefer doing printed versions, since what I make is often not possible with a plotter, as I deal in pixels (up to 200+ megapixels), and plotters deal in vectors. It's like Photoshop vs Illustrator, the don't compete as much as specialize in different things. https://andrewwulf.com if interested.

[snoman]

I’m sure you know this but it took me entirely too long to really understand and feel the satisfaction of taking and printing my own photos.

It’s very accessible these days to have a finished piece of art that’s all yours - even with little artistic ability.

[jamiek88]

Are there decent at home photos printers nowadays? I was always underwhelmed with the old inkjet soggy paper prints.

[snoman]

Yup! Both epson and canon have some great printers for high quality printing at home. First Man Photography on YouTube has videos on the topic that I enjoyed.

The surprise for me was that paper quality makes much of the difference.

[cosiiine]

Agreed 100%. It all comes down to the artists intentions, and plotters have many limitations. My hope for this article was to expose people to other options.

Great portfolio of art btw, thanks for sharing!

[adamhartenz]

Yup, if your art was sculpture or dance, then a printer or plotter are equally useless.

[mikestaas]

Good stuff! Those would make nice textiles too.

[coldcode]

I had a shirt from a piece made at Printful, but it's way too small (even at XXXL) for a normal person. It is cool to see though. I wish I could find a tailor who actually makes dress shirts, and have the fabic made at Spoonflower.