My Epson 6400, which did not last much beyind the warranty has
broken (the carraiage drive mechanism). THese things are NOT built
to last! It had decent color photo quality, but I thin that the
current crop of photo pprinters have better image quality. I am an
artist and it will be used for printing pics for reference in doing
paintings, printing out computer art, etc. so I am picky about the
quality. Just before the printer broke down, I found a delaer who had
special aftermarket ink cartridges for this and many other printers.
These save a BUNCH of money because the new ink cartridges that they
send have a snap-in replaceable ink tank. SO you no longer have to buy
a whole new ink cartride with electronics, you just replace the cheap
ink tanks on the cartridge. Since I dod a lot of printing in color, I
need to find a printer that can use these same type of cartridges.
ALso I have a very high-end HP scanner, and so I am not looking for an
"all-in-one" printer.
I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
Any advice apreciated.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:49:51 -0500, geronimo
<Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote:
> My Epson 6400, which did not last much beyind the warranty has
>broken (the carraiage drive mechanism). THese things are NOT built
>to last! It had decent color photo quality, but I thin that the
>current crop of photo pprinters have better image quality. I am an
>artist and it will be used for printing pics for reference in doing
>paintings, printing out computer art, etc. so I am picky about the
>quality. Just before the printer broke down, I found a delaer who had
>special aftermarket ink cartridges for this and many other printers.
>These save a BUNCH of money because the new ink cartridges that they
>send have a snap-in replaceable ink tank. SO you no longer have to buy
>a whole new ink cartride with electronics, you just replace the cheap
>ink tanks on the cartridge. Since I dod a lot of printing in color, I
>need to find a printer that can use these same type of cartridges.
>ALso I have a very high-end HP scanner, and so I am not looking for an
>"all-in-one" printer.
>I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
>does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
>replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
>Any advice apreciated.
Even high-end color laser printers cannot match the quality
of any reasonably good inkjet printer. Color laser cost per
page is lower than buying OEM cartridges for an inkjet in
many cases (though for a very small color laser printer, the
cost goes up as the cartridge capacity is lower and there
tends to be more addt'l parts to replace like a transfer
roller), but when contrasting with inkjet costs using
aftermarket cartridge refills it might depend on the cost of
the aftermarket refill parts and ink. I have not
comparitively priced these kits against OEM color laser
cartridges for medium or larger color laser printers but
suspect they are cheaper than small (typically 2-3K page per
color) laser printer cartridges.
While color laser quality has definitely improved over the
past few years, it still trails behind inkjet tech in
photorealistic output and thus, does not seem suitable for
your use.
As for finding the best inkjet to run at low cost, if you
found your dealer of aftermarket cartridges to provide a
good product, you might see what else they offer these
cartridge systems for, investigating those brands and models
of inkjet printers.
Many (most?) inkjet printers are not built very well, if you
do a lot of printing you may have to accept that it will
break before it seems it should. This is the one area in
which you get a lot longer life, higher # of pages out of a
mid-level or higher laser printer. There are only a few
advantages of the small laser printers like lower initial
investment cost and smaller footprint/weight than a larger
laser, and faster printing than an inkjet.
In article <r11qf3hdhipaks0kkpngcpa2ttb9dbtvke@4ax.com>, Jamesw@grandecom.net says...
> My Epson 6400, which did not last much beyind the warranty has
> broken (the carraiage drive mechanism). THese things are NOT built
> to last! It had decent color photo quality, but I thin that the
> current crop of photo pprinters have better image quality. I am an
> artist and it will be used for printing pics for reference in doing
> paintings, printing out computer art, etc. so I am picky about the
> quality. Just before the printer broke down, I found a delaer who had
> special aftermarket ink cartridges for this and many other printers.
> These save a BUNCH of money because the new ink cartridges that they
> send have a snap-in replaceable ink tank. SO you no longer have to buy
> a whole new ink cartride with electronics, you just replace the cheap
> ink tanks on the cartridge. Since I dod a lot of printing in color, I
> need to find a printer that can use these same type of cartridges.
> ALso I have a very high-end HP scanner, and so I am not looking for an
> "all-in-one" printer.
> I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
> does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
> replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
> Any advice apreciated.
>
The people over in comp.periphs.printers might be able to help you.
General rules of thumb:
Printers built to last and get a lot of use cost a lot of money.
Pigment inks as a class last longer, give better print results and
clog heads more often than dye inks. Clogged heads are usually a result
of not printing often enough to keep the print head from drying out.
Inkjets beat laser printers for photographic quality prints.
You might want to go through some of the reviews at Newegg.
On 2007-09-28, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:49:51 -0500, geronimo
><Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote:
>>I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
>>does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
>>replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
>>Any advice apreciated.
> While color laser quality has definitely improved over the
> past few years, it still trails behind inkjet tech in
> photorealistic output and thus, does not seem suitable for
> your use.
I would agree with you here lasers simply aren't particularly well
suited to photo work. The problem is at the fuser stage, where
the toner is melted briefly. At this stage surface tension plays
a part and smooths out the printed outline.
For text and line art this is actually desirable since it virtually
eliminates the the stepped appearance caused by the bitmap nature
of the print - this is often readily apparent on inkjets. On photos
or any area where large amounts of halftoning are used this works
against the laser though - if the dots are placed too close together
they risk running into each other with unpredictable results.
Hence inkjets tend to be a better option for that kind of work.
> Many (most?) inkjet printers are not built very well, if you
> do a lot of printing you may have to accept that it will
> break before it seems it should. This is the one area in
> which you get a lot longer life, higher # of pages out of a
> mid-level or higher laser printer. There are only a few
> advantages of the small laser printers like lower initial
> investment cost and smaller footprint/weight than a larger
> laser, and faster printing than an inkjet.
I've heard good things about HP's Business Inkjet range - not to
be confused with the OfficeJets. They seem to be in a sweet spot
between your typical inkjet and lasers in terms of capital cost,
running costs, print quality and reliability. They are a bit more
expensive than most inkjets, but the bottom of the range 1200 isn't
eactly a fortune.
geronimo wrote:
snip...
> I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
> does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
> replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
> Any advice apreciated.
Color lasers are wonderful for many things. Sadly, photographs are not
among them. Sure, if you want to put a small photo in a business report
they will probably do, and they will certainly do for charts and graphs
but forget producing fine art with them. I have a color laser and a B/W
laser on my network and use them constantly but when the time comes for
a good large photo print I always send out.
There are some high-end photo printers out there if you really want to
put out gallery-quality prints. But you will certainly be paying a price
for them. At the top of the range the comparisons get very subjective.
Personally, I am holding out (but not holding my breath) for a Canon
Pixma Pro 9500. But at $750+ it looks very unlikely that I'll be getting
one unless I have some rich relative I've never heard of ready to leave
me a bundle in their will...
Oh. And HP and Epson and Xerox also make quite capable printers but the
better ones are all more expensive than your run-of-the-mill cheap
inkjet where the ink replacement cost more than the retail price of the
printer.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
<andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>On 2007-09-28, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:49:51 -0500, geronimo
>><Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote:
>>>I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
>>>does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
>>>replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
>>>Any advice apreciated.
>
>> While color laser quality has definitely improved over the
>> past few years, it still trails behind inkjet tech in
>> photorealistic output and thus, does not seem suitable for
>> your use.
>
>I would agree with you here lasers simply aren't particularly well
>suited to photo work. The problem is at the fuser stage, where
>the toner is melted briefly. At this stage surface tension plays
>a part and smooths out the printed outline.
>
>For text and line art this is actually desirable since it virtually
>eliminates the the stepped appearance caused by the bitmap nature
>of the print - this is often readily apparent on inkjets. On photos
>or any area where large amounts of halftoning are used this works
>against the laser though - if the dots are placed too close together
>they risk running into each other with unpredictable results.
>Hence inkjets tend to be a better option for that kind of work.
I actually find the opposite to be true, that my fairly
high-end ($1200) current generation business printer, it
still produces more dithering effects than an inkjet does.
I wish the dots blended (and/or melted together) more than
they do. I also find it ever so slightly distracting
(depending on viewing angle) that it seems to have some wax
or similar substance in the toner, such that regardless of
whether the output was supposed to *look* glossy or matte,
the result at certain angles can't help but be glossy. This
is also noticable with black text, this color laser's black
text output is shinier than my B&W laser printers' output.
It also costs more per B&W page, onto the point where if
someone printed a lot (several thousand pages per month) of
text I would suggest putting at least two printers to the
task, one a larger B&W only laser for text.
The difference in output quality is less if the inkjet isn't
using optimal photo quality coated paper, but still if one
is within about 18-24" the difference is there. From about
3' away, the color laser looks good enough you would assume
a printing press did it, like a magazine photo (but to an
artist, magazine photos aren't necessarily so great).
Actually I'm downplaying the quality of the color laser
output a bit, when I wrote magazine photos I mean a quality
glossy magazine, not those cheap ones where if you look
close it looks very pixelated sort of like pictures in a
newspaper.
>
>> Many (most?) inkjet printers are not built very well, if you
>> do a lot of printing you may have to accept that it will
>> break before it seems it should. This is the one area in
>> which you get a lot longer life, higher # of pages out of a
>> mid-level or higher laser printer. There are only a few
>> advantages of the small laser printers like lower initial
>> investment cost and smaller footprint/weight than a larger
>> laser, and faster printing than an inkjet.
>
>I've heard good things about HP's Business Inkjet range - not to
>be confused with the OfficeJets. They seem to be in a sweet spot
>between your typical inkjet and lasers in terms of capital cost,
>running costs, print quality and reliability. They are a bit more
>expensive than most inkjets, but the bottom of the range 1200 isn't
>eactly a fortune.
I would expect a business class inkjet to last longer, but
we don't know the volume the OP has in mind. I've had B&W
lasers last over 500,000 pages, I seriously doubt any inkjet
will last 1/2 that long. However, with the B&W laser it was
primarily for text which was razor sharp 10-15 years ago,
while you wouldn't want to use an inkjet for that long
because there are noticable improvements in inkjets around
roughly '98, then a steady but slower improvement since
then.
I can't speak for everyone's needs, but I would not bother
with a color laser including HPs, if it weren't at least a
2600 series, and in that series there are still some
drawbacks (IIRC) like having separate high wear parts
besides the cartridge replacement. IOW, what I found the
last time I shopped for color lasers was that at regular
prices, the cost of the printer roughly corresponded to how
much toner was in it, that you could end up with the next
higher class of printer at the same total cost of ownership
after 1 (or 2 at most) full set of cartridge replacements,
and sometimes even come out ahead after only one set of
cartridge replacements... but there's some sticker shock
involved, a full set of cartridges for the larger color
lasers can be anywhere from $400 to over $1000. If it were
a personal expense, I would have to think on it a bit to
guess whether a $300 printer will work long enough to use up
another round of cartridges or if I'd be stuck with $200 or
more worth of toner that couldn't be used up unless a failed
printer were repaired or replaced with a compatible model
(which is unlikely, it seems models change just enough that
by the time one fails, the then current gen model isn't
compatible anymore).
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
>> Many (most?) inkjet printers are not built very well, if you
>> do a lot of printing you may have to accept that it will
>> break before it seems it should. This is the one area in
>> which you get a lot longer life, higher # of pages out of a
>> mid-level or higher laser printer. There are only a few
>> advantages of the small laser printers like lower initial
>> investment cost and smaller footprint/weight than a larger
>> laser, and faster printing than an inkjet.
>
> I've heard good things about HP's Business Inkjet range - not to
> be confused with the OfficeJets. They seem to be in a sweet spot
> between your typical inkjet and lasers in terms of capital cost,
> running costs, print quality and reliability. They are a bit more
> expensive than most inkjets, but the bottom of the range 1200 isn't
> eactly a fortune.
Whenever I'm asked about printers for ordinary (non-photo) use, I point out
that, in addition to the running costs, a worthwhile inkjet is about 4X the
price of an acceptable laser. A 'cheap' inkjet is very expensive.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.
"John McGaw" <nobody@nowh.ere> wrote in message
news:T2eLi.67429$Y7.41767@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
> geronimo wrote:
> snip...
>> I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
>> does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
>> replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
>> Any advice apreciated.
>
> Color lasers are wonderful for many things. Sadly, photographs are not
> among them. Sure, if you want to put a small photo in a business report
> they will probably do, and they will certainly do for charts and graphs
> but forget producing fine art with them. I have a color laser and a B/W
> laser on my network and use them constantly but when the time comes for a
> good large photo print I always send out.
>
> There are some high-end photo printers out there if you really want to put
> out gallery-quality prints. But you will certainly be paying a price for
> them. At the top of the range the comparisons get very subjective.
> Personally, I am holding out (but not holding my breath) for a Canon Pixma
> Pro 9500. But at $750+ it looks very unlikely that I'll be getting one
> unless I have some rich relative I've never heard of ready to leave me a
> bundle in their will...
>
> Oh. And HP and Epson and Xerox also make quite capable printers but the
> better ones are all more expensive than your run-of-the-mill cheap inkjet
> where the ink replacement cost more than the retail price of the printer.
>
> --
> John McGaw
> [Knoxville, TN, USA]
> http://johnmcgaw.com
I'm in a greement with the rest of the writers that the inkjets today are
not comparable to those built even just five years ago for longevity. Epson
made some very good printers even ten years ago that have lasted for years,
and keep going. If you were to find a Stylus color 880 on ebay for $40 -
$60, that was in good shape, it would most likely fill your needs. Generic
cartridges with decent quality ink can be found for the 880 at very low
prices.
However, if you are inclined to stick with getting another Epson that
uses the same size cartridge as your CX6400 then you could currently
purchase a C88 or C88+ from Epson for about $80. Print quality is good with
these machines and our C84's are still running after two years of putting
them into service now that we do not use the OEM ink (Dura-brite) that
caused more than half a dozen of our first C84's to clog irrevocably.
Should you go the route of getting a C88 then you may find it even more
practical to use it with spongeless cartridges that you can easily refill
with either pigment or dye base ink that can be had in bulk at much less
cost than cartridges and using a chip resetter. That's what I've been using
with a R1800 for a couple of years and it has saved a small fortune in ink
costs as well as turning out decent prints.
"geronimo" <Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:r11qf3hdhipaks0kkpngcpa2ttb9dbtvke@4ax.com...
> My Epson 6400, which did not last much beyind the warranty has
> broken (the carraiage drive mechanism). THese things are NOT built
> to last! It had decent color photo quality, but I thin that the
> current crop of photo pprinters have better image quality. I am an
> artist and it will be used for printing pics for reference in doing
> paintings, printing out computer art, etc. so I am picky about the
> quality. Just before the printer broke down, I found a delaer who had
> special aftermarket ink cartridges for this and many other printers.
> These save a BUNCH of money because the new ink cartridges that they
> send have a snap-in replaceable ink tank. SO you no longer have to buy
> a whole new ink cartride with electronics, you just replace the cheap
> ink tanks on the cartridge. Since I dod a lot of printing in color, I
> need to find a printer that can use these same type of cartridges.
> ALso I have a very high-end HP scanner, and so I am not looking for an
> "all-in-one" printer.
> I see that color laser printers can be had for around $250 now....how
> does the quality of their photos compare, and what is the cost of
> replacing ink for those compared to ink jet?
> Any advice apreciated.
The Epson Stylus Photo R380 I have is great and the price doesn't break the
bank.
On 29 Sep, 05:33, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
> <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
> >I would agree with you here lasers simply aren't particularly well
> >suited to photo work. The problem is at the fuser stage, where
> >the toner is melted briefly. At this stage surface tension plays
> >a part and smooths out the printed outline.
>
> >For text and line art this is actually desirable since it virtually
> >eliminates the the stepped appearance caused by the bitmap nature
> >of the print - this is often readily apparent on inkjets. On photos
> >or any area where large amounts of halftoning are used this works
> >against the laser though - if the dots are placed too close together
> >they risk running into each other with unpredictable results.
> >Hence inkjets tend to be a better option for that kind of work.
>
> I actually find the opposite to be true, that my fairly
> high-end ($1200) current generation business printer, it
> still produces more dithering effects than an inkjet does.
> I wish the dots blended (and/or melted together) more than
> they do.
I think you misunderstood my original post, because this was exactly
the issue to which I was referring. The dither pattern in a laser is
always going to be larger than than theoretically possible given the
device's resolution to _prevent_ the dots blending together in the
manner I described: it is avoided because it happens in an
unpredictable but generally undesirable manner - if the dither pattern
merges together then large black splodges form with comparatively
large white spaces inbetween, leading to a dither pattern an order of
magnitude more coarse than is possible by being a little more
conservative with the pattern in the first place. This is the same
surface tension at work as it is for text - the toner will try to
minimise its perimeter (within reason - the toner is only so mobile)
in both instances. In the case of text it can do this by smoothing
out any staircase effects, replacing them with a proper curve or
straight line as appropriate. In a dither pattern, if the individual
dots have the opportunity have the opportunity to merge into larger,
solid areas they'll take it since it results in the same minimisation.
It can be difficult to demonstrate this happening in practice however,
since the printer driver and/or the printer itself will take a
grayscale and format it to a dither pattern that _can_ be reliably
printed. However, I do recall a few years ago playing with the gimp-
print driver (Unix) on a LaserJet 4ML, which took on responsibility
for dithering itself and allowed the low-level tweaking needed to
demonstrate the effect. Fairly conservative settings would yield a
nice printed page, with _much_ finer halftoning than the printer would
generate natively. More aggressive settings would cause things to
fall apart with a result that was infinitely worse than the print
engine's own output.
Advice selecting a replacement printer...... 
Linear Mode
