[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by btaki That's for the black toner, the refills for the color toners are really expensive. The fading depends on the paper and how it was stored.

well yeah, that's how things work. you get a black and white laser printer, for uber cheap and high quality B&W prints, and bring the color stuff to be developed professionally and cheaply.

the point is, photoprinting is nono..too much hassles...

 

[omedon]

IIRC ink cost 100X more per mL than Don Perrion. Talk about a scam.

As far as I know there are no colour, or even B&W, laser printers that can compete with a good quality inkjet. Same goes for most photo labs. You don't know what paper or ink they are using. I have seen some of my dads photos come back looking like garbage. They can offer good bang for the buck as they have economies of scale working for them but quality is all over the map (and concentrated it the mediocre area) and who know how long they will last? Certainly not the bloke working at walmart.

Top inkjets have 8 inks (three blacks) and are supposed to last 75 years (behind glass) but should probably last ~20 under normal conditions.

If you need lots of good looking prints your best bet is to stick with film. Or look into one of these. I saw a review of a continous ink system and apparently there are cheaper versions prone to failure with a reliable system costing as much as a decent printer (~$200).

 

[omedon]

I am very pro Laser Printer though.

Generally much more useful/cheaper/reliable than inkjet. Just don't print stunning photos.

 

[warpdriver]

A good quality inkjet nowadays will equal what you can get from a photolab, and if you take the time to calibrate/adjust the colors, you can do better than the monkey's operating the Walmart photolab machines.

 

[omedon]

Don't blame the monkey's. It is not their fault.

 

[averydonovan]

I love my now ancient HP Laserjet 4L. It's meager 4 pages per minute speed makes even modern inkjets look speedy, but at $30 or so for a cartridge that lasts 3000 pages you can't beat how economical it is. And I even got the printer given to me 6 years or so ago since it was old then. Text printed on it still looks better than just about any inkjet, too. If/when this thing dies I'm going to stick with laser printers since inkjets are just way too expensive.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF good post. Can anyone recommend a good color laser printer that prints good photo quality pictures?

Depends what you mean by "good", as in "how good". And "how big". And "how much" ($$$)

I would easily recommend the Dell 3100cn. You'll find my review of it headlining the Epinions page for it. Far (far) better than the HP, the Oki and the Minolta/QMS I have had experiences with. It's 'ain't small', so you'd better get used to it and be prepared, but if you wait for a sale it's CHEAP! for the incredible capabilities of the machine. For $450 (I paid, it was even $60 LESS one time!) it came with 320MB RAM, PostScript Level3, 100BaseT, 650 page capacity on two separate trays and full toners, not "starters". It does fantastic images considering it's laser, it's price and the fact that it's "Soho".

Buy the new Hammermill gloss laser paper,

http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?...ice%20Supplies

at a really nice 32lb weight with 90 brightness and the printer does really fantastic (for a laser) photos. Calibrate the color adjustments of the driver as you see fit to get best results.

If you don't like the Dell then the new Minoltas aren't too bad - I wasn't too keen on the built quality (and since I've own Minolta I wasn't keen on their running costs (ouch!)) but the new series does a pretty good job and they are incredibly small for a color laser (but don't get the very cheapest one, the 2400W).

I've been a laser guy for quite a while - jeez do I hate inkjets. I have them for a select purpose - those "photo"-style outputs - but avoid them like the plague for general purpose use. They clog up constantly and break you with ink costs - I just can't stand them. Give me a laser any day. I used to own, or used, up to 22 different printers - 2 tabloid Tektronixs, 5 HP's, 2 Oki's, 2 Lexmarks, 3 Epsons, 3 Canons, 1 Seiko, 1 Citizen, 2 Dells and a Minolta .

 

[Gabe Logan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorander Still waiting for my 7-year-old HP Deskjet to die...

lol.Is it the 4 in 1 printer,scan,copy one?If so i have the same one and it still is going today.

 

[ootput]

I made the mistake of purchasing an all-in-one HP machine a few months ago.

All I can say is: "Never again.. Never again"

My old laserjet 5L is still fully functional, and had I not moved to a different state, it would still have been in my possession.

I guess I can't complain though.. I'm now the proud owner of an lj 1100.

You just got to love the power and versatility of a laser printer.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver A good quality inkjet nowadays will equal what you can get from a photolab, and if you take the time to calibrate/adjust the colors, you can do better than the monkey's operating the Walmart photolab machines.

I was one of these "monkeys" you're talking about and I'd like to see some realistic numbers to back up your statement.. I daresay you even know anything about how the photolab printers work so I have no idea why you would make such an accusation.

A decent quality printer will cost you at least $100 this day in time. For top notch printing at home you're looking at, at least $250 dollars. Add in the $40 ink cartridge (most low end models take at least 2 and some of the best ones take up to 8), AND the "photo" quality paper (which is pretty poor in comparison if you know anything about photo paper) which is around $10 dollars a pack and you've already racked up a couple of hundred dollars before you even printed a single picture.

Now you have to go through the process of getting your machine set up correctly so what you see on the screen is how the colors come out of the printer. Which could possibly lead to wasted ink, paper, and time.

At .19 cents per 4x6 print at Walmart in the 1 hour (.15 cents if you choose the 3 day option) for digital prints, I can't figure out why anyone would want to try and make their own pictures.

On a side note, like someone else has already mentioned DO NOT use the Kodak machines that print instantly. The paper for these pictures is meant to look like it has a glossy finish when in truth the finish isn't glossy at all. The machine simply uses a transfer ribbon to transfer the image over to the paper.. Not to mention these generally cost around .10 cents more per print which can add up for those who routinely get 50+ prints per printing session.

JD

 

[majid]

Interesting topic. There are a number of printing technologies available:

• traditional RA4 color print photo paper (the same kind used with film) exposed in a digital minilab (e.g. Costco, Walgreens, the ogres from Bentonville). Inexpensive (specially for 4x6 prints), continuous tone, great quality, quite durable as long as you use Fuji Crystal Archive paper, not the inferior Kodak kind (e.g. as used by Target). Low hassle factor since the minilab operator deals with it. Becoming the leading option now that photofinishers finally have their act together
• dye inkjet printers (the majority of inkjets). Great color gamut, but fade quickly unless you use expensive swellable polymer paper (e.g. HP Premium Plus Photo). Ink is expensive.
• pigment inkjet printers (Epson R800/1800/2400 and now Canon Pixma 9500). Most durable, excellent image quality (not continuous tone, but used in relatively high-end printers with good dithering algorithms). Can be used with special rag or watercolor paper for interesting textures.
• color laser printers. Low-cost, great for brochures and business graphics, but not for photos that have to bear any but the most casual viewings.
• dye-sublimation (Kodak kiosk machines, some Fuji Aladdin kiosk machines when not connected to a Frontier digital minilab, the Kodak 1400 and Olympus 410, most 4x6 postcard photoprinters). Continuous tone, usually a protective glossy overcoat, but expensive consumables and limited choice of media. Mostly used by event photographers or if you want to print 4x6 on the go from a battery-powered printer like the Canon Selphy.
• direct to plate color offset printers designed for individually personalized direct marketing mailings (e.g. the HP Indigo presses used for Apple's iPhoto bound book service and equivalents). Not very high quality (ordinary magazine grade at best), but better than laser.

For cost, the digital minilab from a place like Costco or one of the online photofinishers is the way to go. For quality and control, pigment inkjet printers are what serious fine-art photographers go for, but the costs are very high due to wastage, limited competition (Epson has a monopoly, although Canon has just announced a high-end pigment ink printer in the $800 range), and you need to budget another $500-1200 for calibration hardware if you want professional results.
The discussion above applies to photos only. For most day-to-day printing, a monochrome laser is the most efficient option: fast, cheap, great text quality. Unless you print a lot of color brochures or have kids who do projects, you are best off with an entry-level monochrome laser for office documents and a dedicated photo printer. I personally have a HP1320 (letters, maps), Oki C5150n (banners, color projects like greeting cards) and an Epson R1800 (extra special prints). Most of my photo printing I farm out to Costco (in fact, that's what I got a Costco membership for in the first place), but I don't print that much nowadays, most of my viewing is done on-screen where images benefit from a 500:1 contrast ratio like that of slide projectors, not the comparatively dull 50:1 to 100:1 of paper.

 

[kin0kin]

got owned by color inkjets badly...If i ever need really high quality color print/copy, i'd just pay the extra and get it done on a professional xerox machine. some photo copies i made for a project ages ago was 90% like the original picture in the book..not as glossy however, probably due to the paper they used.

 

[Mr.PD]

When my Canon I850 dies I will look into a laser printer.
For photos, I have gone totally over to online photo stores. Shutterfly to be exact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by omedon As far as I know there are no colour, or even B&W, laser printers that can compete with a good quality inkjet. Same goes for most photo labs. You don't know what paper or ink they are using. I have seen some of my dads photos come back looking like garbage. They can offer good bang for the buck as they have economies of scale working for them but quality is all over the map (and concentrated it the mediocre area) and who know how long they will last? Certainly not the bloke working at walmart.

These on line photo labs can vary in quality, just like film photo labs. I was using Sony Imagestation for my photos, until I finally noticed that the colors and brightness weren't spot on. I tried out Shutterfly and I have been very happy with their work. They use Fuji Crystal Archive paper for the mat finish prints that I get. They cost a little more than Sony, but it's worth it. I think right now 4X6 prints are ¢19 each.
I've never tried a WalMart or Costco lab service.
I have used Canon photo paper pro with my inkjet and gotten prints that look real good, until they started coming out too red. I haven't been able to get that fully adjusted out yet, and it was costing me too much to keep trying.

 

[beerguy0]

I use an Epson 2200 inkjet printer for photos. The output is phenomenal, it really does rival traditional printing methods. The inks can get pretty pricy, but even with the ink and paper costs, you can do an 8x10 for $2-$2.50 per print. I print a fair amount, but I've also done traditional wet printing, both color and B&W, and it's so much more enjoyable digitally. I really like being able to go shooting in the morning and making prints when I get home. I've never had a digital image printed commercially, but I probably will give it a try soon. There's a color lab a few minutes from my house that does nice work, I plan to try some larger images to see how they come out.

I have an older Canon inkjet I use for regular document printing, and I'm about ready to trash it and buy a laserjet for text printing. The thing is typically clogged whenever I want to print text, and I wind up having to run cleaning cycles every time I need to print something, wasting ink, paper, and time.

Consumable costs are the biggest downside to inkjet printers, especially for low-end printers. By the time you've bought your third set of cartridges, you're out the cost of a new printer.

Cheers,

bg