Are Color laser Printers an option?

[CyberDyneSystems]

For reference,. I have a 10D and at the moment no reasonable output device.

I am looking at Canon and Epson Inkjets, and Dye Sub printers.

Trouble is I HATE INKJETS!!!

I would do anything to avoid them.

Are Laser printers an option at all for photo prints?

Lets assume for a moment that cost is no object. (In fact there are some very reasonably priced Color lasers now)

Is there a color laser that approaches the best Inkjets in photo quality?

Thanks

CDS

[boyhowdy]

I would have to say NO because of the fact that laser printers use toner and toner is MELTED on the page. It may look all shinny and stuff but from what I've seen, it is powder melted on paper whereas an inkjet is ink sprayed on paper and dye-sub (the best) is film melted on paper. I just feel the last 2 options are the closest thing to a true printed photograph. I have tried several Epsons and have owned HP's and Canons. The one I use now is the Canon S9000 and I absolutely LOVE IT! It prints up to 13X19's flawlessly and the little cartridges are easy to refill for economy. I also have a Hi-Touch 4X6 dye-sub which prints as good as a photograph! I checked into color lasers and for the price, you could have a good inkjet, a good 4X6 dye-sub and some money left over to buy a new camera or lenses!!!

Patrick

[onehotrx7]

The Canon LBP2410 is a good, close second to a simple inkjet, but nowhere near the quality of a good photo quality inkjet such as the i950 or i9100, even the S9000 - I've sold a couple to photogs looking for a printer to do proof sheets and the like on - you can put six images on a page for people to choose from, and the colour is a good match, for 25c a page... on good paper on an inkjet that'd be $1.50... hence they do proofs on the laser and final prints on the inkjet...

I have an S9000 - I print a lot of A3 and A4 sized images, but generally use a local lab for 6X4 - it costs about the same and the 6X4 clients don't need the hand printed quality I get from the S9000 - for a price comparison, here in Australia, we sell the LBP2410 laser for AUD$1675, and the S9000 is just under AUD$900...

Cheers,
Stuart

[rdenney]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
For reference,. I have a 10D and at the moment no reasonable output device.

I am looking at Canon and Epson Inkjets, and Dye Sub printers.

Trouble is I HATE INKJETS!!!

I would do anything to avoid them.

Are Laser printers an option at all for photo prints?

Lets assume for a moment that cost is no object. (In fact there are some very reasonably priced Color lasers now)

Is there a color laser that approaches the best Inkjets in photo quality?

Thanks

CDS



In short, no. We have an HP 4500 color laser at our office, and it is okay for a business report but definitely not for a fine print. Even the cheapest photo-quality inkjet will do better.

If you don't like inkjet printers and want an alternative that you can afford, dye sublimation is really your only choice.

By the way, what is the beef with inkjets?

Rick "who can think of a few but who still likes the results" Denney

[CyberDyneSystems]

The beef with inkjets is that they all stink!

We use laser printers for text printing and they are so much more relairble than inkjets it isn't even funny.

Inkjets clog,

Inkjet cartridges dry up and must be thrown out if they are left unused for a very short time.

Cartridges are WAY to expensivce for what you get.

The printers themselves are made cheap and break.

HPs inkjets die in about a year,..

Epson Inkjets barely last a few months,. assuming they work out of the box to begin with....

So,.. that my beef :D

CyberDyne "who has owned 5 inkjets all of which lasted no more than a year and all of which allways required hours of effort to get a good print form" Systems :D

[PacAce]

CyberDyne "who needs some pictures printed" Systems,

Have you considered "outsourcing" your print jobs to a local or online photo lab? Unless you plan to print a LOT of photos, I would think that it would be a little more economical and less of a hassle to have a lab print whatever prints you need. And the good thing is that a lot of these places guarantee satisfaction so you'll always be assured that you'll be happy with whatever prints you get or you get your money back.

Just a thought.

[rdenney]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
The beef with inkjets is that they all stink!

We use laser printers for text printing and they are so much more relairble than inkjets it isn't even funny.

Inkjets clog,

Inkjet cartridges dry up and must be thrown out if they are left unused for a very short time.

Cartridges are WAY to expensivce for what you get.

The printers themselves are made cheap and break.

HPs inkjets die in about a year,..

Epson Inkjets barely last a few months,. assuming they work out of the box to begin with....

So,.. that my beef :D

CyberDyne "who has owned 5 inkjets all of which lasted no more than a year and all of which allways required hours of effort to get a good print form" Systems :D



Yes, I've had problems with inkjet printers. The worst problems have been with (dare I say it) Canon's bubblejet printers, which are highly prone to clogging if they aren't used very frequently.

And I have an HP1100C, which is an early high-quality four-color inkjet, and it worked just fine for about two years before the print heads clogged up.

But my Epson 1270 has been going for 2.5 years now, and only once have I had to even go through the head-cleaning exercise. And I use it in binges separated by weeks of non-use. Yes, the cartridges are small and have to be replaced frequently.

Reportedly, the Epson 2200 is more of a professional unit with higher overall reliability than the 12xx series. And the color tanks can be replaced one color at a time.

But if you think this is unreliable, you haven't ever run a chemical darkroom. Talk about having to keep up with it! A layoff of a month means throwing nearly all your chemicals away and starting completely over. I may have to clear the prints heads once in a while, but I used to spend a whole session in the darkroom just prepping chemicals and getting everything clean before I could start a project. Or, you can mix in small quanities and spend all your time mixing (and having to be VERY precise about it). Or, you can spend much more than what inkjets cost and throw away lots of stale chemicals.

No, the problems of my Epson have been minor indeed compared to the travails of an occasionally used chemcial darkroom, especially if you do color. The alternative is to burn a CD and take it to the lab, where I'm sure they can screw up your color as effectively as they could when you shot film!

In short: Cost, convenience, accuracy, and reliability. Pick any two.

Rick "thinking dye-sub is your only reasonable alternative" Denney

[oliver]

I agree that ink jet printers are cheaply made and don't last too long, but also having an HP4500, I can say that there is absolutlely no comparison between the image that you get from the ink jet compared to the laser. The laser colours are faded and very grainy. You cannot print onto high gloss paper because of the heat produced (a friend of mine put some Kodak Photo Paper into a color laser on display at office depot to see what would happen - of course, it completely ruined the laser printer) The other point is that the laser requires changing of the cartriges and drum unit etc. Since I have to pay for this in my office, I am fully aware of the price - and the price is more than a mid level inkjet printer every 6 months or so. I definitely WOULD NOT recommend a color laser for use as an output device for photographs.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,.. it looks like I am back to the Epson Vs. Canon debate :D

Thanks all.

[BOBinsane]

I've had a few injet printers but I never had the money for a good digital camera at the time and so I didn't use them for printing out pictures and stuff. But yeah cheap injets are crap, they're loud, expensive to refill, and suck is all I can say.

But then I bought a Canon i850 since I already bought my S30 at the time after reading reviews and stuff the i850 is rather cheap on ink, it's quiet, and fast. The three color tank system is good so I don't waste ink and stuff. You should look at cnet.com and the injet reviews on there, you'd be suprised at how injets have improved.

And another matter is the type of photo printing paper you use with an inkjet. When I bought my canon printer it gave me a sample pack with 8 4x6 sheets of their fancy paper and the results were fantastic. The photos came out clean and sharp looking and I didn't even have to go to a photolab. But then when that quickly ran out I had some other photo paper and the results were crummy especially on solid color areas it looked like the color was just blotched on. I bought some Kodak Premium Photo Paper, it's not their top notch stuff but it's like 20 bux for 75 sheets of 8.5x11 at sam's club and the pictures came out looking really decent. So the key is to experiment with differnet brands of photo paper with your inkjet, oh and also check recommended printer setting's on the photo paper manuafacturer's website.

But if I wanted the absolute best in quality and you aren't as poor as some kid still in high school, then spend the extra for the expensive paper designed for and recommended for your printer and the results will astound you or something.

[msvirick]

PacAce wrote:
CyberDyne "who needs some pictures printed" Systems,

Have you considered "outsourcing" your print jobs to a local or online photo lab? Unless you plan to print a LOT of photos, I would think that it would be a little more economical and less of a hassle to have a lab print whatever prints you need. And the good thing is that a lot of these places guarantee satisfaction so you'll always be assured that you'll be happy with whatever prints you get or you get your money back.

Just a thought.


I joined dotPhoto.com and for a $15 a month I get about 35 4.5 and 15 5x7 and some 8x11 prints each month. Shipping in US is generally free.