Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

I agree with most said here

Ink Jet Photo printers print photos better than laser printers at home. Laser printers print text faster and cheaper than ink jet printers except for the new tank ink jet printers which print close to the cost of laser printers but much slower and the printers cost more. If someone creates a tank PHOTO ink jet printer with 7 or 8 tanks I would really look at it.

I’ve always used laser printers at home for the speed and cost. I send my prints out which based on the number I print is the most cost effective way of getting great prints. My HP laser MFP (multi function printer) stopped working for doing copies via the bulk feeder so I looked around. I decided to take a chance on an ink jet printer MFP so I purchased the Canon Pixma G7020. It comes with 4 tanks - Black, Cyan, Yellow and Magenta. Those print 30x the number of prints a cartridge printer prints. And the refill bottles cost less than $10 per color and about $11 for black (has more ink). A typical ink cartridge has about .3 to .5 Ml USEABLE ink. The black bottle has 170 ML and the color ones have 70 ML. The printer came with full bottles (not like the starter cartridges in most ink jet printers now) of the 3 colors and 3 bottles of black. I don’t plan on buying ink for a long time.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Electrostatic (Xerographic) printing processes are terrible for long term print longevity. Toners are wax-based and will flake off, transfer to other surfaces, and degrade if hit by sunlight or stored under pressure or in a warm place.

PHOTO inkjet inks — especially pigment inks — are among the most stable you can get. They are up to five times more stable than the best color dyes used in silver halide-based chromogenic papers (traditional wet process photo papers).

Laser printers and four color dye inkjet printers are for office documents.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

As noted above, ink jets (or dye sublimation, kind of like an ink jet) gives better results. Laser printers are cheaper.

It really depends on how much you print. IMHO, if you print fewer than 10 photos per month, it's cheaper to send them to a local photo place. Even Walmart or your local Walgreens or CVS.

I have a Xerox Color Qube printer, about 7 years old, replaced a 12 year old model. It's a commercial printer, designed for printing a few hundred pages a day. It wasn't cheap, but it has performed with minimal maintenance. The ink is wax based, which makes it really easy to add ink, but as Bill notes, the ink will melt at high temperatures. I once left a stack of prints in my truck on a hot day and found the stack glued together later. The printer does fairly well on photos, but it's really for ephemeral copies, not permanence. It was ideal for printing signs for the farm stand since the wax ink doesn't run when it gets wet. It's probably not ideal for the average color printer user.

It is nice to have a color printer. You can make up nice letterheads for correspondence. It is more expensive than a monochrome laser printer for letters, but the black ink is less expensive than the color ink. It will handle cover stock (67 lb) paper which is good for greeting cards, Christmas cards, birthday cards, etc.

Harry13

There has never been a laser printer made that can print a photo like my [8 cartridge] Canon Pro 100. And I've never calibrated anything. I wish there was a hogger near Traverse City MI who could come over and check out the things I have printed and give you their opinion. I have three up at the moment: a picture of a (red) English Cocker Spaniel running in water and light cover, one of a (liver/wh) pointer on point in Western Canada and a N CA seascape with a small beach and bluffs. I promise you that s/he'd love their color. I've been taking pictures for over 50 years and while I make no claim of expertise, I am not a 12 year old with a box camera either! :-) Harry

Harry13

I was never a heavy user of my Pro 100 and at 91, I have pretty much given up photography as walikng is quite difficult for me. I really don't keep up anymore so there is possibly a better printer today than my Pro 100 which is many years old. Harry PS If anyone wishes to contact me, my email is steelvalley7@gmail.com.

M1911 Loc: DFW Metromess

I used to run a Xerox Laser printer that was 8 feet tall, 8 feet wide and 50+ feet long with accessories options. I also ran a 60 inch ink jet printer. The laser fused (melted) the toner on top of the paper. You could feel where the toner stoped and paper was toner free. It did a good job photographically but not for exhibition prints. It needed to be calibrated with an Xrite color photometer and for full calibration it took 35 sheets of paper. It need to be calibrated for best results. Its max paper size was 14x22 inches and could print on 350 gsm (grams per square meter) paper. 20 lb copy paper is 75 gsm and 100 lb cover stock is 270 gsm. Obviously this was not designed as a photo exhibition printer but for adverising, direct (junk) mail, signs, posters booklets etc.

The Ink jets however gave excellent exhibition prints on various media, from glossy to textured.

So my opinion is inkjet for photos you want to hang and laser for sending hard copies to family.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I wouldn't want to send inferior quality prints to family or friends. I print inkjet print at home, but if I didn't want to do that, I would have a commercial lab print them rather than print them on a laser printer.

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

If your question is addressed to me, I use Q-Image Ultimate. I bought it for it's ability to schedule unattended "Unclog Jobs/Purge prints" and use it primarily for that. Sometimes I use it to print because it does have some nice printing options. It also has post processing capability, but I stick to LR/PS.

Bret Perry

I have a Canon G6000 Ink-jet with "tanks" instead of cartridges.
It is VERY economical and make decent photos, but only 4-color, so not as good as a 6-color or more.
But I only use it to print "snapshots" for friends and quality is not an issue.

It does fail now and then and needs an "ink flush" when that happens, which does use a lot of ink, but the ink is very cheap.

Great for office documents and good enough for my photo needs.

I have had laser printers including high-end one at work, photos look ok, but not even as good as my G6000.

baer

Thanks very much!!
Baer

Harry13

"I have a Canon G6000 Ink-jet with "tanks" instead of cartridges.
It is VERY economical and make decent photos, but only 4-color, so not as good as a 6-color or more."

Are there any photo prinrters with carts? Thanks! Harry

Harry13

D^mn, I must be getting old - I meant photo printers with tanks, I know there are plenty with cartridges. Harry PS I expect that I got no answers because everyone thought "Who is this fool?" I know that I would have! Harry

Bret Perry

Kinda, but for Canon, only 6 colors, added red and gray.
And just a dye ink, not the long-lasting pigment.
But the ink-jets are replaceable—mine doesn't have that.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/pixma-g620-wireless-megatank-photo-printer

Epson has more/better ones, not sure if dye or pigment:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Epson%20Ecotank%20Photo%20Printers&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&ap=Y&gclid=CjwKCAjwlqOXBhBqEiwA-hhitEiM2xoR-upbOeM421RDuwnhBndIcEiSRrDU-QDWgHX5VL4E_nMgqBoCrsQQAvD_BwE

And there are the huge roll-fed ones, those are the best $$$$$