Colour laser v inkjets Update

  • Thread starter Thread starter Len
  • Start date Start date
L

Len

Since posting I am grateful for the help and have now managed to find one or
two helpful sales people - face to face - and 'end users' who have shared
their experiences. If I want to print a page mostly photos I hear it will
take as long on laser as an inkjet unless I spend a lot of money.

Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.

So I am not impressed even with my budget of £1,000 to £1,500.

Perhaps I should be looking at Inkjets with separate colour cartridges - I
understand the prints now come out a lot dryer which was on eof my concerns.

Len
 
Len said:
Since posting I am grateful for the help and have now managed to find one or
two helpful sales people - face to face - and 'end users' who have shared
their experiences. If I want to print a page mostly photos I hear it will
take as long on laser as an inkjet unless I spend a lot of money.

Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.

So I am not impressed even with my budget of £1,000 to £1,500.

Perhaps I should be looking at Inkjets with separate colour cartridges - I
understand the prints now come out a lot dryer which was on eof my concerns.
Click to expand...
Regarding inkjets, Epson seems rather a good deal as their printers are very
cheap but beware, they will rip you off on the ink cartridges and these inks
are formulated specifically for Epson papers - using generic photo quality
papers is very hit-and-miss. Also if you don't use the printer for some time
the head blocks and it takes a number of wasted prints or wasted ink through
the head cleaning process to solve the problem. Also Epson is not consistent
in providing upgraded drivers. (Epson will never make a Mac OSX driver for
my printer) Choose Epson if there really is no alternative.
 
Len said:
Since posting I am grateful for the help and have now managed to find one or
two helpful sales people - face to face - and 'end users' who have shared
their experiences. If I want to print a page mostly photos I hear it will
take as long on laser as an inkjet unless I spend a lot of money.

Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.

So I am not impressed even with my budget of £1,000 to £1,500.

Perhaps I should be looking at Inkjets with separate colour cartridges - I
understand the prints now come out a lot dryer which was on eof my concerns.

Len
Click to expand...


Okidata (USA) site has a form for requesting samples and that includes
photos. I don't know what your intended purpose for a color printer but if
it were for real estate brochure, no doubt it would be sufficient. It won't
compete with photolab though. It's fast because it has 4 drums so it prints
in one pass, . However, it takes a few minutes minutes for starting up,
doing adjustments.
 
leo said:
one


Okidata (USA) site has a form for requesting samples and that includes
photos. I don't know what your intended purpose for a color printer but if
it were for real estate brochure, no doubt it would be sufficient. It won't
compete with photolab though. It's fast because it has 4 drums so it prints
in one pass, . However, it takes a few minutes minutes for starting up,
doing adjustments.
Click to expand...

I have requested info and samples as they have the same facility on the UK
site
Thanks
Len
 
Stewy said:
papers is very hit-and-miss. Also if you don't use the printer for some time
the head blocks and it takes a number of wasted prints or wasted ink through
the head cleaning process to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

heavily snipped

I've had an Epson 1270 for quite a long time (nearly 4 years, I think) and I
haven't experienced any head blocks. (Had the occasional one with the older
Epson 600.) Sometimes I use the 1270 fairly heavily, at other times it may not
be used for several weeks. I do turn it off, by pressing its button (which I
think parks the head correctly). Paper used is either Epson's own, or Pictorico
glossy film which is simply superb. All other papers I've tried have been
troublesome to some degree.
It's used in a centrally heated house with humidity varying between about 35% to
55%.
 
Hi Len
Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor.
Click to expand...

Yep, compared to the best photo inkjets, affordable-by-normal-humans
lasers still suck for printing photos.

Stan
 
RE: Stewy's thoughts:

I've used Epsons since the first Stylus Color. They're great.

Yep, you need to use Epson inks and Epson papers for
best results.

As to Mac drivers: unfortunately, Mac market
share is so low (thanks Steve for killing off the Mac clone
business and thereby sealing that miniscularity)
many hardware companies don't
see the upside to expending resources developing Mac drivers.

Stan
 
Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know
why they don't send samples with photos as the
reproduction is very poor.
Click to expand...

You didn't check the Minolta QMS, then?
The Phaser I saw working in an estate agents produced
very poor quality, was very slow at printing, had a
long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software
seemed to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be
the way it had been poorly set up.
Click to expand...

None of this is found on the Minolta QMS 2350N.
3 Minutes maximum for complex pages to print the
first copy, and then several copies of the same
file per minute. Good inkjets need at least three
times as much.
 
Printing photos means inkjet for almost all of us.

Epson is the traditional leader, but Canon and HP are now right up there.
The main thing that might tip me to Epson is the availability of archival
ink, 3rd party cartridges, continuous fill systems, etc. But that will be
there very quickly for Canon

--
******************
Mark Herring
Pasadena, CA, USA
private e-mail: just say no to "No"

*
 
Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.
Click to expand...

You may want to take a look at the HP line of photosmart printers. They
have great photo printing, are inexpensive, dependent upon which model
you're looking for and what features you are looking for, and currently, are
the only line of printers capable of using the grayscale inks from HP to do
fantastic grayscale (B&W photo) images.

Harry
 
Printing photos means inkjet for almost all of us.

Epson is the traditional leader, but Canon and HP are now right up there.
The main thing that might tip me to Epson is the availability of archival
ink, 3rd party cartridges, continuous fill systems, etc. But that will be
there very quickly for Canon
Click to expand...

Not to mention that supplies are inexpensive for Epson and HP as well, I
don't know about Canon. HP's prints survive well AFAIK. I haven't been
using the line long enough to know their archival properties. I know right
now IMHO they produce the best image out there. I don't mean to keep
plugging HP, oh hell, yes I do. I've been with Epson for years, since the
dot matrix, and now have gone to HP after getting tired of the jams, the
clogs (sometimes, not often). The continuous ink supply does have it's
drawbacks. The HP software driver system automatically checks the internet
for that model printer and updates as needed, at the user's
scheduling.....etc etc etc.

Well, I am finished on the podium, enough of that for now.

Thanks for bearing with me!

Harry
 
Since posting I am grateful for the help and have now managed to find one or
two helpful sales people - face to face - and 'end users' who have shared
their experiences. If I want to print a page mostly photos I hear it will
take as long on laser as an inkjet unless I spend a lot of money.

Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.

So I am not impressed even with my budget of £1,000 to £1,500.

Perhaps I should be looking at Inkjets with separate colour cartridges - I
understand the prints now come out a lot dryer which was on eof my concerns.

Len
Click to expand...
Well, Lem, since "Phaser" is a line of printers using two differing
technologies ... rather than a specific printer, it would have helped
if you noted the type (model, series).

My particular Phaser 740P has a) sufficient memory to print a full
page 1200 dpi color photo, b) is properly installed using PhaserPrint
and a direct network connection, c) is set with most of the
unnecessary 'toys' turned off (only those affecting print quality are
'ON'), d) produces beautiful prints on 100 brighness LASER specific
coated paper and e) is at least twice as fast as my "Epsom" (sic)
inkjunk, and is just below the highest end HP Photo Inkjunk (that's
the first one I've seen to beat the P740!).
 
J. A. Mc. said:
Well, Lem, since "Phaser" is a line of printers using two differing
technologies ... rather than a specific printer, it would have helped
if you noted the type (model, series).

My particular Phaser 740P has a) sufficient memory to print a full
page 1200 dpi color photo, b) is properly installed using PhaserPrint
and a direct network connection, c) is set with most of the
unnecessary 'toys' turned off (only those affecting print quality are
'ON'), d) produces beautiful prints on 100 brighness LASER specific
coated paper and e) is at least twice as fast as my "Epsom" (sic)
inkjunk, and is just below the highest end HP Photo Inkjunk (that's
the first one I've seen to beat the P740!).
Click to expand...

It was a Phaser 700 series brand new but I really do supect that it was not
set up correctly combined with perhaps a poor qulaity digital camera was
used.

Len
 
Len said:
Studying samples off Epsom and Brother I now know why they don't send
samples with photos as the reproduction is very poor. The Phaser I saw
working in an estate agents produced very poor quality, was very slow at
printing, had a long time to 'copy out of machine' and the software seemed
to make printing an ordeal. The latter could be the way it had been poorly
set up.
Click to expand...

I suspect they probably have some expensive estate agents software that
manage to generate awful results! Our Phaser is faster than our previous
QMS and produces much better results. I gather you are in the UK, try
contacting Printware I sent them a sample file which they printed out
for me.

There are two downsides to the Phaser though, i) it is difficult to
laminate, ii) it wants to be left on all the time.
 
Michael Quack said:
None of this is found on the Minolta QMS 2350N.
3 Minutes maximum for complex pages to print the
first copy, and then several copies of the same
file per minute. Good inkjets need at least three
times as much.
Click to expand...

As I said elsewhere I suspect they had some terrible software designed
to generate bad output! (or cheap output!) but for me the Phaser
produces better output than the QMS
 
I suspect they probably have some expensive estate agents software that
manage to generate awful results! Our Phaser is faster than our previous
QMS and produces much better results. I gather you are in the UK, try
contacting Printware I sent them a sample file which they printed out
for me.

There are two downsides to the Phaser though, i) it is difficult to
laminate, ii) it wants to be left on all the time.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed the earlier posts, which Phaser are you using the laser or the
solid ink. I could see that the solid ink would be a bitch to laminate.

Tom
 
Tom Monego said:
Sorry I missed the earlier posts, which Phaser are you using the laser or the
solid ink. I could see that the solid ink would be a bitch to laminate.
Click to expand...
Mine's a solid ink, 8200
 
Printing photos means inkjet for almost all of us.

Epson is the traditional leader, but Canon and HP are now right up there.
The main thing that might tip me to Epson is the availability of archival
ink, 3rd party cartridges, continuous fill systems, etc. But that will be
there very quickly for Canon
Click to expand...


Continuous ink systems are already here for Canon printers,
from WeInk and Mediastreet. I'm using a WeInk CIS on my
Canon S9000.

Canon has indeed been slow to support pigment inks, and
I'm not aware of any desktop Canon printers that can squirt
pigment inks. Afraid to try it on my S9000.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Back
Top