Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
Color laser printers any good for photo's?
- Thread starter tE
- Start date
-
- Tags
- GPS Navigation
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Te" <te@-NOSPAM-pobox.com> wrote:
>Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
>
No
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Te" <te@-NOSPAM-pobox.com> wrote:
>Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
>
No
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dujul0l6en6nbh194n7luk41nmhsrrcl8f@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Te" <te@-NOSPAM-pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
> >
> No
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dujul0l6en6nbh194n7luk41nmhsrrcl8f@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Te" <te@-NOSPAM-pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
> >
> No
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Douglas wrote:
>
> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
lasers.
But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
jake e.
Douglas wrote:
>
> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
lasers.
But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
jake e.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.As for
glossy,some lasers have more glossy print than others.Our IT supervisor was
bragging on the photo quality of the new HP laser he installed.I brought in
a couple of photos printed on my Minolta 3300DN,he is now looking into the
purchase of 6 new 3300s.Most, if not all, lowend lasers are not that good
though.Color lasers have their place,as do solid ink,dye sub and inkjet
printers.Usage will decide which is best for you.
"Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
> Douglas wrote:
> >
> > Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
> > inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
my
> > Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
> > keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
> How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
> http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
> Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
> three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
> Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
> the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
> lasers.
>
> But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>
> jake e.
They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.As for
glossy,some lasers have more glossy print than others.Our IT supervisor was
bragging on the photo quality of the new HP laser he installed.I brought in
a couple of photos printed on my Minolta 3300DN,he is now looking into the
purchase of 6 new 3300s.Most, if not all, lowend lasers are not that good
though.Color lasers have their place,as do solid ink,dye sub and inkjet
printers.Usage will decide which is best for you.
"Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
> Douglas wrote:
> >
> > Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
> > inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
my
> > Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
> > keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
> How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
> http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
> Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
> three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
> Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
> the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
> lasers.
>
> But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>
> jake e.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Hi,
Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not
as good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the
photos you want and send them to be printed
on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer
because solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
fluorescent lights...
Just my 2 cents...
"Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
> Douglas wrote:
>>
>> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
>> my
>> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
> How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
> http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
> Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
> three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
> Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
> the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
> lasers.
>
> But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>
> jake e.
Hi,
Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not
as good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the
photos you want and send them to be printed
on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer
because solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
fluorescent lights...
Just my 2 cents...
"Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
> Douglas wrote:
>>
>> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
>> my
>> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
> How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
> http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
> Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
> three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
> Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
> the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
> lasers.
>
> But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>
> jake e.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
"Andre" <SaPbAoMnTnReAaPu@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:WW08d.21598$247.450743@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi,
> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not as
> good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the photos
> you want and send them to be printed
> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer because
> solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
> fluorescent lights...
Actually a good inkjet print on the right paper can outlast traditional silver
halide prints. Both Epson and HP have systems rated at 100 years+ light fade,
compared with 14-40 something years for the best silver halide prints. See
Henry Wilhelm's site at: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/, particularly
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html.
Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
"Andre" <SaPbAoMnTnReAaPu@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:WW08d.21598$247.450743@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi,
> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not as
> good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the photos
> you want and send them to be printed
> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer because
> solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
> fluorescent lights...
Actually a good inkjet print on the right paper can outlast traditional silver
halide prints. Both Epson and HP have systems rated at 100 years+ light fade,
compared with 14-40 something years for the best silver halide prints. See
Henry Wilhelm's site at: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/, particularly
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html.
Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Douglas wrote:
>
> They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
paper.
I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
comparative situation there right now, the quality between
inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
> I don't like them with text.
I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
jake e.
Douglas wrote:
>
> They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
paper.
I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
comparative situation there right now, the quality between
inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
> I don't like them with text.
I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
jake e.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
In a word, no. They are getting better all the time, but they still
aren't photographic, as some inkjet printers are.
However, I have printer photographic materials on color laser, and for
some applications, it is just fine. I would say that color laser
printers are something like where inkjet printers were when they were
printing 150 dpi or so natively.
They can't reproduce as many colors, and don't have the depth. The
gradients are not as smooth, and the toners are more opaque than most
inks, making the image flatter looking.
Art
Te wrote:
> Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
>
>
In a word, no. They are getting better all the time, but they still
aren't photographic, as some inkjet printers are.
However, I have printer photographic materials on color laser, and for
some applications, it is just fine. I would say that color laser
printers are something like where inkjet printers were when they were
printing 150 dpi or so natively.
They can't reproduce as many colors, and don't have the depth. The
gradients are not as smooth, and the toners are more opaque than most
inks, making the image flatter looking.
Art
Te wrote:
> Do color laser printers print photo's as well as ink based printers?
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Words will never give you the answer you require. Pretty much every
color laser printer and solid ink company will be happy to provide you
with copies of test images that can better answer you questions.
One of the problems you will find with all color laser printers is that
if the toner is glossy (none are very glossy) it will be glossier than
matte papers, and yet not as glossy as glossy papers, so the areas with
toner will always look differently than the areas without it (white
areas). The only solutions I have found is to find a printer that uses
very matte toners, and use matte papers, or to spay the image after it
is printed with a surface coating or, laminate it.
It is otherwise hard to find a paper which has a similar surface to the
toner.
The solid ink printers use a wax based image. It can't be laminated
properly, if you need to do that, and the "ink" will scratch off with a
nail.
Xerox makes both solid ink (wax) and toner systems and will probably be
happy to provide you with samples via their website (they send me
samples all the time).
I agree that the Minolta/Konica color lasers provide some of the best
output I have seen.
Art
Jake E wrote:
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
>
>
> How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
> wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
> inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
> paper.
>
> I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
> comparative situation there right now, the quality between
> inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
>
>
>>I don't like them with text.
>
>
> I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
> several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
>
> jake e.
Words will never give you the answer you require. Pretty much every
color laser printer and solid ink company will be happy to provide you
with copies of test images that can better answer you questions.
One of the problems you will find with all color laser printers is that
if the toner is glossy (none are very glossy) it will be glossier than
matte papers, and yet not as glossy as glossy papers, so the areas with
toner will always look differently than the areas without it (white
areas). The only solutions I have found is to find a printer that uses
very matte toners, and use matte papers, or to spay the image after it
is printed with a surface coating or, laminate it.
It is otherwise hard to find a paper which has a similar surface to the
toner.
The solid ink printers use a wax based image. It can't be laminated
properly, if you need to do that, and the "ink" will scratch off with a
nail.
Xerox makes both solid ink (wax) and toner systems and will probably be
happy to provide you with samples via their website (they send me
samples all the time).
I agree that the Minolta/Konica color lasers provide some of the best
output I have seen.
Art
Jake E wrote:
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
>
>
> How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
> wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
> inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
> paper.
>
> I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
> comparative situation there right now, the quality between
> inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
>
>
>>I don't like them with text.
>
>
> I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
> several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
>
> jake e.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
I don't agree. I have yet to see a solid ink printer that is as good as
the better quality color laser printers. The images lack any subtlety.
They are great for renderings, line art and vector drawings, but they
don't quite make it with photographic imagery. The shadow regions are
always blocked up, the dynamic range just drops to black missing the
last several steps.
Some of the laser printers (especially the 1200 dpi models) can provide
relatively good gradient (still not inkjet quality) and the shadows can
resolve with some information.
Solid ink printers basically are working with crayons, and colored wax
just doesn't seem to be able to be made into small enough drops to get
the blends and color range.
The one area that solid ink printer do handle well is working with
porous and colored papers. Since the inks are relatively opaque, they
don't fully reply upon the white of the paper to make color stand out.
I don't like the feel of solid ink prints either, they are greasy/waxy.
Art
Andre wrote:
> Hi,
> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not
> as good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the
> photos you want and send them to be printed
> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer
> because solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
> fluorescent lights...
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> "Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
> news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>>>inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
>>>my
>>>Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>>>keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>>
>>How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
>>http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>>
>>Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
>>three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>>
>>Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
>>the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
>>lasers.
>>
>>But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>>
>> jake e.
>
>
>
I don't agree. I have yet to see a solid ink printer that is as good as
the better quality color laser printers. The images lack any subtlety.
They are great for renderings, line art and vector drawings, but they
don't quite make it with photographic imagery. The shadow regions are
always blocked up, the dynamic range just drops to black missing the
last several steps.
Some of the laser printers (especially the 1200 dpi models) can provide
relatively good gradient (still not inkjet quality) and the shadows can
resolve with some information.
Solid ink printers basically are working with crayons, and colored wax
just doesn't seem to be able to be made into small enough drops to get
the blends and color range.
The one area that solid ink printer do handle well is working with
porous and colored papers. Since the inks are relatively opaque, they
don't fully reply upon the white of the paper to make color stand out.
I don't like the feel of solid ink prints either, they are greasy/waxy.
Art
Andre wrote:
> Hi,
> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not
> as good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the
> photos you want and send them to be printed
> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer
> because solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
> fluorescent lights...
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> "Jake E" <jake.nomail@test.com> wrote in message
> news:415FF9F8.2B19@test.com...
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>>>inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put
>>>my
>>>Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>>>keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>>
>>How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
>>http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>>
>>Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
>>three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>>
>>Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
>>the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
>>lasers.
>>
>>But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
>>
>> jake e.
>
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
In message <415FF9F8.2B19@test.com>, Jake E <jake.nomail@test.com>
writes
>Douglas wrote:
>>
>> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
>> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
>How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
>http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
>Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
>three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
>Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
>the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
>lasers.
>
>But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
Quite good, but it depends what you want, it will not compare with an
ink-jet printing on stupidly expensive coated glossy paper. Contact our
local Xerox reseller and they will provide sample prints.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
In message <415FF9F8.2B19@test.com>, Jake E <jake.nomail@test.com>
writes
>Douglas wrote:
>>
>> Well,yes and no. Yes if you use regular printer paper,or a low end
>> inkjet.No,if you use a photo inkjet with photo quality paper. I will put my
>> Minolta 3300DN up against any inkjet with regular paper.For most of my
>> keeper photos,I use my Epson R800 or my Mitsubishi 3020DU dye sub.
>
>How about those wax-printers then, from Xerox (aka Tektronix)?
>http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Xerox_Phaser_8400B/4505-3159_16-30734239.html
>
>Seems that I can't fins a comparison when printing photos on all the
>three techniques, color laser, wax-printer and inkjet.
>
>Wax -printers should be able to fill those micro caveats on paper, and
>the output should be more glossy, more photo like than with color
>lasers.
>
>But how is it, are wax printers any good with photos? Thanks.
Quite good, but it depends what you want, it will not compare with an
ink-jet printing on stupidly expensive coated glossy paper. Contact our
local Xerox reseller and they will provide sample prints.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
In message <41607D45.1383@test.com>, Jake E <jake.nomail@test.com>
writes
>Douglas wrote:
>>
>> They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
>
>How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
>wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
>inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
>paper.
>
>I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
>comparative situation there right now, the quality between
>inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
>
>> I don't like them with text.
>
>I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
>several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
I don't understand the comment about him not liking it with text.
If you are using glossy paper you need to get different glossy paper for
the laser/solid ink, than the inkjet glossy paper.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
In message <41607D45.1383@test.com>, Jake E <jake.nomail@test.com>
writes
>Douglas wrote:
>>
>> They are pretty good with photos,but I don't like them with text.
>
>How would you describe or compare the photo quality of those those
>wax/solid ink printouts with the printouts of your Minolta 3300DN
>inkjet printer? Both on usual photo copy paper, and then on glossy
>paper.
>
>I'm sorry to insist answer to this. But I have no idea what is the
>comparative situation there right now, the quality between
>inkjet and thermal wax printouts.
>
>> I don't like them with text.
>
>I can live with that limitation, if the photo quality is OK. I have
>several B/W lasers to do all the text and B/W printing.
I don't understand the comment about him not liking it with text.
If you are using glossy paper you need to get different glossy paper for
the laser/solid ink, than the inkjet glossy paper.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
In message <AI58d.18878$223.3936@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>
>The solid ink printers use a wax based image. It can't be laminated
>properly, if you need to do that, and the "ink" will scratch off with a
>nail.
I haven't noticed any ink coming off so I think you must have to try
quite hard (with phaser 8200). With my previous Minolta 2200 when the
fuser was getting to the end of its life the ink would flake off,
particularly on the glossy paper.
It is just about possible to laminate the wax:
1 Use a temperature controlled laminator and turn it down to its minimum
temperature (apart from the cold setting). 2 Put a second sheet inside
the laminate together with the sheet you want to laminate. 3. Use a
carrier and put a sheet of paper either side of the laminate when you
put it in the carrier.
..
>I agree that the Minolta/Konica color lasers provide some of the best
>output I have seen.
I much prefer the output of my Xerox Phaser 8200 to my previous
QMS-Minolta 2200
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
In message <AI58d.18878$223.3936@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>
>The solid ink printers use a wax based image. It can't be laminated
>properly, if you need to do that, and the "ink" will scratch off with a
>nail.
I haven't noticed any ink coming off so I think you must have to try
quite hard (with phaser 8200). With my previous Minolta 2200 when the
fuser was getting to the end of its life the ink would flake off,
particularly on the glossy paper.
It is just about possible to laminate the wax:
1 Use a temperature controlled laminator and turn it down to its minimum
temperature (apart from the cold setting). 2 Put a second sheet inside
the laminate together with the sheet you want to laminate. 3. Use a
carrier and put a sheet of paper either side of the laminate when you
put it in the carrier.
..
>I agree that the Minolta/Konica color lasers provide some of the best
>output I have seen.
I much prefer the output of my Xerox Phaser 8200 to my previous
QMS-Minolta 2200
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
In message <Kp68d.19374$223.9216@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>I don't agree. I have yet to see a solid ink printer that is as good as
>the better quality color laser printers. The images lack any subtlety.
>They are great for renderings, line art and vector drawings, but they
>don't quite make it with photographic imagery. The shadow regions are
>always blocked up, the dynamic range just drops to black missing the
>last several steps.
I find it provides a brighter and more vivid image, which is possibly as
a result of a loss of detail if you are analysing things deeply, but
that doesn't bother me because AFAIC it looks good.
>
>I don't like the feel of solid ink prints either, they are greasy/waxy.
Funnily enough I find most people seem to quite like that feel.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
In message <Kp68d.19374$223.9216@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>I don't agree. I have yet to see a solid ink printer that is as good as
>the better quality color laser printers. The images lack any subtlety.
>They are great for renderings, line art and vector drawings, but they
>don't quite make it with photographic imagery. The shadow regions are
>always blocked up, the dynamic range just drops to black missing the
>last several steps.
I find it provides a brighter and more vivid image, which is possibly as
a result of a loss of detail if you are analysing things deeply, but
that doesn't bother me because AFAIC it looks good.
>
>I don't like the feel of solid ink prints either, they are greasy/waxy.
Funnily enough I find most people seem to quite like that feel.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:01:36 -0700, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:
>
>"Andre" <SaPbAoMnTnReAaPu@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:WW08d.21598$247.450743@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Hi,
>> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not as
>> good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
>> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the photos
>> you want and send them to be printed
>> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer because
>> solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
>> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
>> fluorescent lights...
>
>Actually a good inkjet print on the right paper can outlast traditional silver
>halide prints. Both Epson and HP have systems rated at 100 years+ light fade,
>compared with 14-40 something years for the best silver halide prints. See
>Henry Wilhelm's site at: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/, particularly
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
Then again, there are realistic figures:
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:01:36 -0700, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:
>
>"Andre" <SaPbAoMnTnReAaPu@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:WW08d.21598$247.450743@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Hi,
>> Solid ink printers are better than most (probably any) color laser but not as
>> good as 6 cartridges photo ink jet printer
>> with glossy paper. I find it's way cheaper and less work to select the photos
>> you want and send them to be printed
>> on conventionnal photographic paper. Also they will last a lot longer because
>> solid ink and ink jet are dye based and
>> are subject to fading or discoloration if exposed to daylight or even
>> fluorescent lights...
>
>Actually a good inkjet print on the right paper can outlast traditional silver
>halide prints. Both Epson and HP have systems rated at 100 years+ light fade,
>compared with 14-40 something years for the best silver halide prints. See
>Henry Wilhelm's site at: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/, particularly
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
Then again, there are realistic figures:
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 8
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram