A laser for photos

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have Googled this group and found a lot of information but most of it
dates back several years. So, I guess I am seeking current info.

I need to replace my ancient laser and have just gotten a digital
camera. I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons and
was thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to day
printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal local
pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color lasers,
today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.

Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
that level?

Thank you.
13 answers Last reply
More about laser photos
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Jack Gillis wrote:
    > I have Googled this group and found a lot of information but most of
    > it dates back several years. So, I guess I am seeking current info.
    >
    > I need to replace my ancient laser and have just gotten a digital
    > camera. I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons
    > and was thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to
    > day printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal
    > local pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color
    > lasers, today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >
    > Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing
    > at that level?
    >
    > Thank you.

    Blunt answer? No, you can't. You will not get lab-quality prints from a £500
    colour laser. Nor can you use photo paper in a laser. Buy a cheap mono
    laser for text and a decent-quality inkjet for photos. Only way, IMNSHO.

    --
    In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
    news:JFU1e.28403$ls2.6956@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
    > Jack Gillis wrote:
    >> I have Googled this group and found a lot of information but most of
    >> it dates back several years. So, I guess I am seeking current info.
    >>
    >> I need to replace my ancient laser and have just gotten a digital
    >> camera. I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons
    >> and was thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to
    >> day printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal
    >> local pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color
    >> lasers, today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >>
    >> Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing
    >> at that level?
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >
    > Blunt answer? No, you can't. You will not get lab-quality prints from
    > a £500 colour laser. Nor can you use photo paper in a laser. Buy a
    > cheap mono laser for text and a decent-quality inkjet for photos. Only
    > way, IMNSHO.

    Thank you very much.

    Can you tell me why photo paper can't be used in a laser. Is it too
    thick or something like that?

    Thanks again

    >
    > --
    > In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    There IS photo paper for laser printers.It is glossy,but not as glossy as
    inkjet photo paper.As for photo printing with a color laser,it depends on
    the laser,and the expectations of the user.For some uses the laser is
    better.If you are not interested in archival printing ,or just need a decent
    quality photo for a poster,the newer lasers are a good bet.I have made
    posters with my lasers and after laminating have hung them outside in direct
    sun for 6 months.Inkjet prints might last 1 week.For what it is worth
    though,I do not use a low dollar laser printer!
    "Jack Gillis" <XXXXXXXX@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    news:114gerpj1fdk338@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
    > news:JFU1e.28403$ls2.6956@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
    >> Jack Gillis wrote:
    >>> I have Googled this group and found a lot of information but most of
    >>> it dates back several years. So, I guess I am seeking current info.
    >>>
    >>> I need to replace my ancient laser and have just gotten a digital
    >>> camera. I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons
    >>> and was thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to
    >>> day printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal
    >>> local pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color
    >>> lasers, today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >>>
    >>> Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing
    >>> at that level?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you.
    >>
    >> Blunt answer? No, you can't. You will not get lab-quality prints from a
    >> £500 colour laser. Nor can you use photo paper in a laser. Buy a cheap
    >> mono laser for text and a decent-quality inkjet for photos. Only way,
    >> IMNSHO.
    >
    > Thank you very much.
    >
    > Can you tell me why photo paper can't be used in a laser. Is it too thick
    > or something like that?
    >
    > Thanks again
    >
    >>
    >> --
    >> In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
    >>
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Jack Gillis wrote on 28/03/2005 15:01:
    snipped..
    >I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons and
    > was thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to day
    > printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal local
    > pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color lasers,
    > today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >
    > Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
    > that level?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    >

    Jack,

    I bought an Epson Acculaser C900 recently for the same reason as you -
    i.e mainly office colour printing plus occasional photos. I accept that
    inkjets will get you close to pharmacy quality. But the arguments for
    the laser are (in my opinion):

    - No more blocked jets / expensive and short lived inkjet carts. Epson
    support told me that a cart will only last 6 months even if you don't
    use the printer!
    - Lower costs per page
    - If you use good quality laser paper (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4h46o)
    you WILL get good results. Whether you think they're close enough to
    your aspirations is hard to say - best to try to get some print samples.
    - Possibly a smaller desktop footprint, although colour lasers are quite
    LARGE!

    Also, Epson, for some bizarre reason, are doing a deal (in the UK) where
    they give a free inkjet with every colour laser, so you can have the
    best of both worlds! See http://www.theprinterdatabase.com/ for example.

    I got the free inkjet offer and am currently trying to sell it. Am v
    pleased with the Acculaser.

    HTH!

    Pete
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Probably so.

    Peter Boulton wrote:

    > Jack Gillis wrote on 28/03/2005 15:01:
    > snipped..
    >
    >> I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons and was
    >> thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to day
    >> printing and once and a while photo printing close to the normal
    >> local pharmacy quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color
    >> lasers, today, are much cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >>
    >> Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing
    >> at that level?
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > I bought an Epson Acculaser C900 recently for the same reason as you -
    > i.e mainly office colour printing plus occasional photos. I accept
    > that inkjets will get you close to pharmacy quality. But the
    > arguments for the laser are (in my opinion):
    >
    > - No more blocked jets / expensive and short lived inkjet carts.
    > Epson support told me that a cart will only last 6 months even if you
    > don't use the printer!
    > - Lower costs per page
    > - If you use good quality laser paper (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4h46o)
    > you WILL get good results. Whether you think they're close enough to
    > your aspirations is hard to say - best to try to get some print samples.
    > - Possibly a smaller desktop footprint, although colour lasers are
    > quite LARGE!
    >
    > Also, Epson, for some bizarre reason, are doing a deal (in the UK)
    > where they give a free inkjet with every colour laser, so you can have
    > the best of both worlds! See http://www.theprinterdatabase.com/ for
    > example.
    >
    > I got the free inkjet offer and am currently trying to sell it. Am v
    > pleased with the Acculaser.
    >
    > HTH!
    >
    > Pete
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jack Gillis" <XXXXXXXX@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    news:114g3hbq1jka1d1@corp.supernews.com...
    >I have Googled this group and found a lot of information but most of it
    >dates back several years. So, I guess I am seeking current info.
    >
    > I need to replace my ancient laser and have just gotten a digital camera.
    > I really don't want to by two printers for several reasons and was
    > thinking of getting a color laser to handle my normal day to day printing
    > and once and a while photo printing close to the normal local pharmacy
    > quality. I am not a serious photographer. Color lasers, today, are much
    > cheaper than the last time I looked.
    >
    > Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
    > that level?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >

    No. You can get a inkjet that produces prints to lab quality (though not
    longevity) very inexpensively though.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Caitlin" <caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42481896$0$27867$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Jack Gillis" <XXXXXXXX@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    > news:114g3hbq1jka1d1@corp.supernews.com...

    >> Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
    >> that level?

    > No. You can get a inkjet that produces prints to lab quality (though not
    > longevity) very inexpensively though.

    Actually HP and Epson offer inexpensive inkjet printing whose lightfade (>100
    years) exceed normal photo prints (~ 22 years). See
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <d29n0m$fb2$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, Peter Boulton
    <peter@data*no-spam*perceptions.co.uk> writes
    >
    >I bought an Epson Acculaser C900 recently for the same reason as you -
    >i.e mainly office colour printing plus occasional photos. I accept that
    >inkjets will get you close to pharmacy quality. But the arguments for
    >the laser are (in my opinion):
    >
    >- No more blocked jets / expensive and short lived inkjet carts. Epson
    >support told me that a cart will only last 6 months even if you don't
    >use the printer!

    That's why I wouldn't have an inkjet.

    >- Lower costs per page
    >- If you use good quality laser paper (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4h46o)
    >you WILL get good results. Whether you think they're close enough to
    >your aspirations is hard to say - best to try to get some print samples.
    >- Possibly a smaller desktop footprint, although colour lasers are quite
    >LARGE!
    >
    Are there any downsides to the colour laser?
    --
    Thoss
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I've heard that the new Epson AcuLaser C1100 is very good for photos,
    which is what I need a laser for too, but I've so far found it
    impossible to get hold of any print samples to confirm. If it's as
    good as the reviews say, I want one.

    There's another printer I read good things about, the Kyocera Mita
    FS-C5016N, which is being replaced by the FS-C5020N next month. It
    costs about £1,200, but the only consumables are the toners, which
    cost £65 each and last for 8,000 pages. It's certainly much cheaper
    to operate than other lasers and the reviews say it handles photos
    flawlessly, but that price tag is pretty hefty for a home printer.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote in message
    news:114hp97rqql0m8f@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Caitlin" <caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:42481896$0$27867$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >>
    >> "Jack Gillis" <XXXXXXXX@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    >> news:114g3hbq1jka1d1@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>> Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
    >>> that level?
    >
    >> No. You can get a inkjet that produces prints to lab quality (though not
    >> longevity) very inexpensively though.
    >
    > Actually HP and Epson offer inexpensive inkjet printing whose lightfade
    > (>100 years) exceed normal photo prints (~ 22 years). See
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
    >
    I guess it depends what you call inexpensive - the really cheap Epsons
    (don't know about HP) use dye based inks.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Epson offers several pigment colorant ink printers at their very lowest
    price point, but they are 4 color rather than 6 or 7 or 8. These use
    Durabrite inks, and they are the C and CX series printers.

    In years gone by, the lowest end C printers used dye inks, while the
    more costly (still very inexpensive) used pigment ink. In the current C
    models, both (the 66 and 86) use pigment (Durabrite) inks.

    Although these printers are sold as "office" models, the quality of the
    photo images, while not quite a fine as the 6 color dye models, is
    nothing to poke a stick at. These printers sell for as little as under
    $100 US.

    The inks are more costly, however.

    Art

    Caitlin wrote:

    > "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote in message
    > news:114hp97rqql0m8f@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:42481896$0$27867$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >>
    >>>"Jack Gillis" <XXXXXXXX@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:114g3hbq1jka1d1@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>>Can I expect one of the low end color lasers to do the photo printing at
    >>>>that level?
    >>
    >>>No. You can get a inkjet that produces prints to lab quality (though not
    >>>longevity) very inexpensively though.
    >>
    >>Actually HP and Epson offer inexpensive inkjet printing whose lightfade
    >>(>100 years) exceed normal photo prints (~ 22 years). See
    >>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/.
    >>
    >>Regards,
    >>Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
    >>
    >
    > I guess it depends what you call inexpensive - the really cheap Epsons
    > (don't know about HP) use dye based inks.
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Douglas wrote:
    > There IS photo paper for laser printers.It is glossy,but not as
    > glossy as inkjet photo paper.As for photo printing with a color
    > laser,it depends on the laser,and the expectations of the user.For
    > some uses the laser is better.If you are not interested in archival
    > printing ,or just need a decent quality photo for a poster,the newer
    > lasers are a good bet.I have made posters with my lasers and after
    > laminating have hung them outside in direct sun for 6 months.Inkjet
    > prints might last 1 week.For what it is worth though,I do not use a
    > low dollar laser printer!

    Actually, I should have known that because my grandfather keeps giving me
    laser printed (or colour photocopied) prints to scan, and they don't.
    They're done at his local Kall Kwik (UK commercial printers) and they're
    rubbish, TBH. They don't reproduce. He's given me them to scan and reproduce
    for various projects and they just don't work.


    --
    In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Most color laser printer output is VERY archival. The toners use
    pigments and thermal plastic so the colorant is embedded in melted
    plastic when it is processed through the printer. That makes for a very
    fade-resistant color.

    Art

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

    > Douglas wrote:
    >
    >>There IS photo paper for laser printers.It is glossy,but not as
    >>glossy as inkjet photo paper.As for photo printing with a color
    >>laser,it depends on the laser,and the expectations of the user.For
    >>some uses the laser is better.If you are not interested in archival
    >>printing ,or just need a decent quality photo for a poster,the newer
    >>lasers are a good bet.I have made posters with my lasers and after
    >>laminating have hung them outside in direct sun for 6 months.Inkjet
    >>prints might last 1 week.For what it is worth though,I do not use a
    >>low dollar laser printer!
    >
    >
    > Actually, I should have known that because my grandfather keeps giving me
    > laser printed (or colour photocopied) prints to scan, and they don't.
    > They're done at his local Kall Kwik (UK commercial printers) and they're
    > rubbish, TBH. They don't reproduce. He's given me them to scan and reproduce
    > for various projects and they just don't work.
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo Peripherals