Instax Contrast for Digital Printing

[EinstStein]

I want a small print digital printer for low volume printing. Something like Epson PM-400 or Canon portable dye sub printer is close to what I want. But the printer head clogging is a concern. The alternatives are Zink or Instax. It seems Instax may have a little better image quality. However, Instax has a special steep contrast curve. It looks special, but not always really desirable.

So I am thinking if Fujifilm Instax SP-3 (or SP-2, SQ10 and SQ20) can do the job, if apply some contrast counter-adjustment before printing. Ideally, it should include global contrast reduction and micro/local contrast enhancement (contrast masking). Since experiment with Instax can be expensive, I wonder if anyone has already tried that, regardless successful or not.

Anyone has experiences to share?

[Balafre]

It doesn't sound like you're into coaxing detail or nuance out of image files. So if you're into decent prints but are only into low-volume, small size printing, and even an Epson PM-400 scares you, consider a photo lab. You don't have the costs of ownership, no capital outlay, and the results will be far superior.
Printers need to be used to avoid clogged heads, monitors needs to be colour calibrated and ideally colour matched to printers and ICC profiles, and you need to become fluent in what paper works best with various types of image files. In the long run a pro lab will save a lot of time and money, produce better prints and keep your blood pressure down!
Printing your own work is worthwhile but it requires a committment to master your tools, where mastery is measured in vast amounts of time and money. All this time and money might be better spent making better photographs. Knowing your limits and sticking to them avoids quixotic outcomes!

[EinstStein]

Your points make perfect sense. It's probably the best advice for those new comers who have never printed their own photos yet.
Instax and Polaroid have something special, and there is challenge and fun of their own.     

[Balafre]

Only someone who's new to printing would seriously contemplate an Epsom PM-400!
Anyway you might get more responses if you put this in the proper Printing forum rather than Medium Format...

 " https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?board=6.0 "

[EinstStein]

I am not sure about that.

It sounds you think you are among the professional photographers or the alike. Do you own any P&S camera? Maybe you are also thinking Instax and Polaroid should not be around professional photographers?

Many professional photographer friends of mine also have Epson PMs (could be early versions) as their "P&S" printers. In the early day, they also shoot Polaroid. Surprise!

Maybe they are not as professional as you are?

[EricWHiss]

There are higher end dye subs that are still portable.   I did use the low end canon Selphy dye subs for all kinds of events where I wanted to give away prints. I guess I've printed maybe over 1000 prints on each of the cheap selphy's that I have.  They've always worked, problem free really. Other than being totally slow, I recommend them.  Dye sub prints have a very nice depth.  The dye sub prints really look great compared to an instax and are probably cheaper per print as well.

[EinstStein]

All inkless printer suffers image quality problems. For some it even becomes a special advantage. Inkjet and Dye sub printers are more widely understood. There is no need to repeat that.   

This topic is about digital version of contrast masking in the context of instax printing.