Hi ...

Posting this question for a friend:

He's a professional designer and he needs photographic perfection for
his prints, but doesnt make a whole lot of prints. I was once told that
in order to achieve the same kind of photo quality one can get on an
inkjet these days, a very expensive (>$1000) laserjet is required.

Any comments on this?

thanks,
Rob

Rob de Jonge wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> Posting this question for a friend:
>
> He's a professional designer and he needs photographic perfection for
> his prints, but doesnt make a whole lot of prints. I was once told that
> in order to achieve the same kind of photo quality one can get on an
> inkjet these days, a very expensive (>$1000) laserjet is required.
>
> Any comments on this?
>
> thanks,
> Rob

He could investigate dye sublimation printers
(http://www.bizrate.com/buy/products_...t_id--420.html)
they are arguably the best printers for photo quality work.

Thanks for your reply. A little clarification I guess would be in order
here: my friend would also want to use the printer for text printing
and what not and will work on the Letter/A4 type sizes mostly.

On 5 Mar 2006 15:14:07 -0800, "Rob de Jonge" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hi ...
>
>Posting this question for a friend:
>
>He's a professional designer and he needs photographic perfection for
>his prints, but doesnt make a whole lot of prints. I was once told that
>in order to achieve the same kind of photo quality one can get on an
>inkjet these days, a very expensive (>$1000) laserjet is required.


There are a number of color laser printers
now for well under $1K but I've yet to see
one that can make a photo print matching
even the cheapest Canon or Epson photo
inkjet printer.

If the critera changes to consider cost
per page, text printing, performance on
cheap paper, or print speed, laser printers
deserve serious consideration.

But on photo print quality, neither laser
nor dye-sub can match even a low-end inkjet.
I am assuming appropriate, quality papers
are used in all cases. Lasers are not
fussy about paper, but dye-sub and inkjet are.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

> Thanks for your reply. A little clarification I guess would be in order
> here: my friend would also want to use the printer for text printing
> and what not and will work on the Letter/A4 type sizes mostly

In addition to dye subs there are also the thermal transfer printers
like ones marked under the name Phaser by Xerox. I don't sell my
prints... so my opinion would be that of an amateur. If I was printing
my current volume using OEM ink... it would be more cost effective for
me to go laser, phaser, or big honking design jet. Simply put... I
estimate I would have spent $400 in OEM ink since I bought this printer
earlish this year. and it's possible I might use another $400
equilivent. The Phaser 8500 the last time I looked was about 2.5 times
the price per unit (one stick) for 3.5 times the yield... which isn't
all that bad for something that has an entry price of under $1000.
This does not include the maintance required like a replacement
printhead assembly, transfer roller, and misc consumables.

Inkjets, though they have an entry price of about $100 are not the
cheep solution they apear to be, but they do however do a fantastic job
on the right paper and upgrade to the next model is pocket change.

Most inkjet printers surpass photographic quality as we have come to
know it. Some are better than others depending somewhat on the subject
matter he prints, what type of paper surface he prefers, and how
important the permanence of the print is.

Although some color laser printers do well, in general, inkjet printers
produce better color work.

Art


Rob de Jonge wrote:

> Hi ...
>
> Posting this question for a friend:
>
> He's a professional designer and he needs photographic perfection for
> his prints, but doesnt make a whole lot of prints. I was once told that
> in order to achieve the same kind of photo quality one can get on an
> inkjet these days, a very expensive (>$1000) laserjet is required.
>
> Any comments on this?
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Most inkjet printers surpass photographic quality as we have come to
> know it. Some are better than others depending

IF YOU USE OEM INK AND GOOD QUALITY PAPER. CANON PRODUCES MORE VIBRANT
PRINTS AND GLOSS IT BETTER. EPSON PIGMENTED PRINTERS PRODUCE A NICE
MATTE WITH MORE MUTED COLORS.

> somewhat on the subject matter he prints, what type of paper surface
> he prefers, and how important the permanence of the print is.
>
> Although some color laser printers do well, in general, inkjet
> printers produce better color work.
>
> Art
>
>
> Rob de Jonge wrote:
>
>> Hi ...
>>
>> Posting this question for a friend:
>>
>> He's a professional designer and he needs photographic perfection for
>> his prints, but doesnt make a whole lot of prints. I was once told that
>> in order to achieve the same kind of photo quality one can get on an
>> inkjet these days, a very expensive (>$1000) laserjet is required.
>>
>> Any comments on this?
>> thanks,
>> Rob
>>