What's a good photo printer?

[time]

And what general purpose inkjets really can print photos?

There is the 6-color photo printer range from Epson and the option exists for some Canon printers. My reading is that HP equivalents are running third by some margin at present. Plus there's the issue of wild horses and selling HP. :roll:

I'll be surprised if the answer is Lexmark, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. :eekers:

Some people also claim that you can get reasonable results from 4-color printers, such as the Canon S520 and the Epson C70/80. Epson is even trying to tell us that their new C61 is a starter.

But an Epson support guy told me that their 4-color printers don't use black when printing photo quality. Can anyone corroborate this?

I'm only interested in the results on photo paper here. One issue I've seen mentioned on a photographic site is that the S520 only succeeds in this field with Canon paper (not Epson or Kodak, for example).

I know that running costs vary, but it's hard to get to the truth here. AFAIK, the Canon S520 is 'cheap' to run but everything else isn't. Lexmarks are, naturally, the most expensive. :-? But it's hard to compare 5-color cartridges with 3-color ones.

All and any thoughts welcome.

 

[Pradeep]

I have the C80, I'm certain it uses black for black, because the blacks don't have the faint tinge you get when it is equal mixes of the 3 colours. I recommend it, prints on Espon Photo and HP Photo paper are very good. Uses the DuraBrite pigment based inks. I estimate probably 60-70 full 8*10 prints per colour cart. Also it uses individual ink tanks which saves some money.

I believe the S520 is one of the newer ones from Canon that has the direct connect feature for certain Canon digicams. So you can print straight from the camera (or memory card I think?). If this is not required, I imagine it adds some unnecessary cost to the machine. From Canon, the S900 is meant to be very good indeed, and is the fastest inkjet out there (about 2-3 times faster than the Epsons).

I'm guessing this is for your personal use? The cost of running an inkjet for anything other than photo printing is extremely hgh.

 

[SteveC]

Personally, I think you can't go wrong with either a Canon or Epson printer from their Photo lines. The Canons have really improved in the last year or so to the point where I would put them about even with the Epsons in quality. They're also quieter and significantly faster than the Epsons. You can tell the difference between a 4-color or 6-color printer, so I would stick with a Photo printer. AFAIK, all Epsons use the black when printing photos, even the 4-color models. Maybe the really cheap models don't, but I wouldn't recommend those anyway.
I would recommend getting paper made for the printer, such as Canon paper for Canons, and Epson paper for Epsons. It costs more, but the paper can make a huge difference. Also Kodak photo paper works horrible for both, and I would avoid it at all costs.

Steve

 

[Mercutio]

Don't forget cost per page

Last I checked, the cost-per-page of inkjet photo printers + premium photo paper + fade-resistant ink was something like double the cost of taking a CF card to a photoprocessor (here in the US, drug stores like Walgreens) and letting them do the work.

 

[time]

That would depend on the size of the print. I wouldn't be surprised if they could knock out 6x4s cheaper, but no chance with 8x10.

 

[Tea]

Given the choice between having to troubleshoot a system with normally functional* Canon printer drivers and a system with normally functional ATI video drivers, I think I'd choose the ATI, though I could go either way. I'd choose either before a Lexmark. Xerox might be worth considering. As for HP, the wild horses rule most certainly applies. Guess that leaves Epson.

* Normally functional: term used to describe the usual state of Canon printer drivers and ATI video drivers. Most usefully translated as "stuffed", "rooted" or "broken".

 

[Prof.Wizard]

EPSON Stylus Photo

 

[e_dawg]

Myself, I tried the whole printing photos on an inkjet thing in 2000 (I had a Canon S600 inkjet), and I found it was a little inconvenient (the whole process of scanning the negatives onto the computer, editing the photos to make them look good, and printing them -- which takes forever if you use set the printer to the high quality setting), not to mention bloody expensive (each sheet of photo paper costs you at least a buck a sheet, and each ink cartridge costs about $40... despite what the manufacturers say, the cartidge will only print 25-30 full 8x10 photos before running out).

So what I do now is use an Olympus C-2040Z 2 MP digicam and save the pics on my hard drive, and if I want to look at them, I just fire up the computer. So far, 2 MP has been enough resolution for me and on-screen viewing has been FAR, FAR more convenient than outputting to an inkjet.

Having said that, here is a review of the Epson Photo 785EPX printer that I have heard good things about (uses a roll of 4x6 photo paper for printing photos, which makes it more convenient and more economical if you want to simulate a photolab at home).
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT/E785E/E785A2.HTM

Epsons are the best photo printers (the majority of the pro photographers use Epson inkjets) in terms of picture quality, but because the print heads (the actual ink "jets") are not on the ink cartridges like they are with Canon and HP, if they get clogged, you will need to send the printer itself in for repair instead of just buying a new ink cartridge ($$$). Canon and Lexmark suck, so that leaves you with HP (lower maintenance, probably better as an all-round daily printer) and Epson (better photo quality, higher maintenance to prevent head clogging).

In the end, however, I find most inkjets disappointing. I vastly prefer lasers for anything except for photos. IMO, an inkjet's sole useful purpose is as a photo printer -- not an everyday printer -- and yet it still falls somewhat short of the mark.

 

[Pradeep]

I don't know about the older Canons. but the newer ones have the printhead seperate from the ink tanks. You can actually get a new printhead as a spare part (couple hundred $$$ tho). The main pain with the Epsons is the chip on the ink tanks, which makes refilling rather difficult (though there are utils to "reset" the chip available).

Scanning and then printing is definitely a lot of work, but if you are already using a digital camera then prints are pretty easy.

 

[e_dawg]

My Canon S600 was one of the first Canons to introduce ink tanks that were individually replaceable for each colour. Instead of having the entire 6 colours + printhead assembly all in one monolithic cartridge, the S600 came with 2x 3 colour cartridges, each colour with its own clear plastic ink reservoir. These clear plastic reservoirs fed into the printhead unit on the bottom of the cartridge.

The Canon printheads on my S600 would clog after a couple weeks of non-use, so I would alternate deep/normal clean cycles every week to keep them clear. Needless to say, this used a fair bit of ink. If I had neglected to clean the heads or use the printer for over a month, there was a good chance the heads were irreparably clogged. I would thus have to buy an entire new set of ink cartridges (which include a new printhead assembly). These ran about $70 CDN, or about $45 US.

The silly thing was that it only cost a couple bucks more than buying the individual ink tanks for each colour -- so why not buy an entire cartridge instead and get a new printhead assembly along with it. If you didn't need new printheads at the time, you could just save it for when your current set became clogged.

I don't know how they do it on the new Canons, but if the printhead assembly is part of the full ink cartridge package, then it is very cheap and easy to replace them. Even if the printheads are a separate item from the cartridges and even if they are more expensive, it is still quite a bit better than the Epsons as they are user replaceable. Having to send or take your printer into the regional Epson service center and have them clean your printheads is very expensive and time consuming. The low end Epsons are probably cheaper to buy new than the total cost to repair them.

 

[time]

My response to E_dawg's comments about clogging heads is here.

 

[James]

This is perhaps a bit out of left field, and way more than you were intending to spend - but the Oki 7200C is really quite good in my experience, and it functions as a proper office workhorse printer as well. I think the resolution is 600x1200 dpi in colour, and it uses a different toner cartridge for C, M, Y and K. Obviously the black disappears quicker than the others if you're printing B&W on it as well. It has seperate toner and drum units for each colour.

It does 14ppm in colour and 20ppm in B&W.

For about AUD3200 we got one with 128MB of RAM, a 5GB HD, a duplexer, and the network card. Apart from talking SNMP it also runs a web server to allow you to configure things, check on the level of toner and drum wear, and so on.

If you print out a whole page of colour the paper does tend to curl, but you do get more than acceptable results off normal paper and it's pretty quick to actually get the print out (warmup time is a little long, but once it's going it rips through things at a rapid rate).

Well, if you're ever in the market for a colour laser printer...

 

[e_dawg]

A colour laser... those things have expensive consumables too! Cheaper than ink cartridges, yes, but colour toner cartridges are shockingly expensive.

 

[Mercutio]

My Phaser 850DP cost about $400 to fill with, uh, crayons.
The color is utterly unreal on plain paper, but not much better on photo paper. Inkjets rule on DPI anyway.

There was an article on /. a couple months ago on continuous ink systems for inkjets. I guess it makes their ink actually affordable.

 

[Pradeep]

When you say fill, do you mean filling with 5 sticks of each colour?

What's the photo output like, does it look like a photo?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and I got a fantastic deal on the crayons, too.
Photo output is very, very nice, but frankly, Epson photo printers on Epson photo paper is better still.
Of course, my Phaser doesn't even pause when I tell it to print a photo, unlike that inkjet.

 

[Pradeep]

*dribbles from mouth*

Sigh, they seem to be going for around $1,500 on ebay. The cost saving on paper alone could soon make that up tho.....

 

[Mercutio]

Really?

I just bought mine because it had a NIC, supports postscript and has duplex printing. Duplex printing rules!

 

[Pradeep]

http://www.officeprinting.xerox.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?mode=remanufactured&cache=miss

One for $1299. But a big screen TV is also tempting.

 

[e_dawg]

Duplex printing does rule. Unfortunately, you have to spend quite a bit on a personal printer to get duplexing capabilities. BTW, does your duplexer curl the paper even more, or does it reduce it by feeding the paper "the other way"? I have never had the pleasure of owning one, but I love the duplexing feature of the photocopier at work

 

[Mercutio]

Mine spits the paper almost all the way out, then pulls it back in. So I guess that's the second option. No curl, anyway.

 

[Fushigi]

Duplex printing does rule. Unfortunately, you have to spend quite a bit on a personal printer to get duplexing capabilities. BTW, does your duplexer curl the paper even more, or does it reduce it by feeding the paper "the other way"? I have never had the pleasure of owning one, but I love the duplexing feature of the photocopier at work

For most HP 9xx series inkjets, it's about a US$70 option that goes into the removable panel on the back of the printer. It adds a couple of inches of depth to the printer. My 990 came with it standard and it works like Mercutio was saying; it feeds the paper almost all of the way out, pauses for a few seconds to let the ink dry, then re-feeds it through. No curl problems.

- Fushigi

 

[James]

A colour laser... those things have expensive consumables too! Cheaper than ink cartridges, yes, but colour toner cartridges are shockingly expensive.

As far as I can tell the toner is about AUD320 (say USD170) per colour (C, M and Y) for 10,000 pages, and we got about 5,000 pages from the starter black toner that came with the printer. New black cartridges seem to be about AUD130 for one that does 10,000 pages.

We do a lot less colour printing here so the other colours are all 96-97% full on their starter cartridges. We've printed perhaps 25 full colour pages and maybe another 200 with spot colour, if that helps at all.

Colour drums cost AUD280 each and last about 10,000 pages too. The fuser unit costs AUD305 and lasts 60,000 pages.

 

[timwhit]

You can get Toners on eBay for way cheaper than that. I got toner for my LaserJet 5 for less than $30 last week. It's not a HP branded, but it seems to work just fine.

 

[James]

My point is that for official consumables the pricing really isn't all that bad.

 

[time]

I agree, James. That works out at about 7 to 8c per page (USD), which is two thirds the cost of the HP 4600.

More significantly, the black costs are less than a cent a page, or practically a third of the HP! Oki has always been one of the good guys with running costs.

 

[Pradeep]

The new Epson 860 with 2 picolitre droplets should be out in October, will be interesting to see how that goes.

 

[e_dawg]

2 pL droplets, eh? That sounds like high quality, slow speed, and possibly higher potential for clogging to me.

Anyone try the new HP PhotoSmart 7550 yet? It uses the new PhotoRet IV with 4800x1200 dpi and 7-colour printing (3 colour + 3 photo + 1 black). CNET tested it and found it to be poor quality, although that was on plain and coated paper, not photo paper.

CNET absolutely loves the Canon S900 for both its speed and quality. I don't know... My Canon S600 was decently fast and produced good output, but the long term usability of the printer is where it sucked. The feeder mechanism started feeding multiple pages after less than 1 ream of paper was put through it. The printheads clogged every time if I didn't print and clean it regularly.

My other inkjet, the HP 720c, has been the most trouble-free, low-maintenance inkjet I have ever seen, although the photo quality is not the greatest and the early 16-bit Win 95 print drivers were pretty unstable. Unflappable plain-paper feeding and almost no printhead clogging over the past 5 years. If the new HP PhotoSmart 7550 can live up to the quality promised by its high resolution and 7-colour technology, I would seriously consider it as my next photo printer (assuming the price isn't ridiculous, which it probably will be at first).

 

[P5-133XL]

I gave my brother a few years back an original HP thinkjet 51604A. He is still using it (yes you can still get ink cartridges for it) and it is over 18 years old. We aren't talking high quality output, speedy (though it was actually reasonable speed for the time), or heavy use but I'd be very surprised if any of the modern inkjets from any manufacturer will still work after that amount of time regardless of the useage pattern.

Back then HP was known for quality and high price (you get what you pay for). The worst printer I've ever ownd was an Alps-5000p dye-sublimation printer. at $500. It was incredibly cheap for a dye-sub printer. The output was stunning but you couldn't print more than a few pages before it would break. I gave up, just throwing the printer away after maybe 50 pages total.

The moral of the story, Don't go for the cheapest, the fastest, or the best looking but rather go for the best longest lasting machine that satisfies your minimum standards for output and speed, because it will go and go and go. Unless you think of printers as disposable - go for longevity and pay less attention to cost.

I do note there are good solid arguements treating ink-jet printers as disposable. I would argue otherwise that there are lots of components of a computer that will be re-used through multiple computers. I always pay up for high-quality keyboards, mice (trackballs), monitors, and printers because, in my mind, they are expected to last many many more years than the box's they are plugged into.

 

[e_dawg]

Quite true, Mark. However, inkjets (the cheaper ones, anyways) are more or less disposable these days. The low end inkjets sometimes cost less than a new set of colour and black ink cartridges, meaning that it would be cheaper to buy a new printer than it would be to buy new ink cartridges!

 

[e_dawg]

The low end inkjets sometimes cost less than a new set of colour and black ink cartridges, meaning that it would be cheaper to buy a new printer than it would be to buy new ink cartridges!

What I meant to say was that when the ink runs out, you would be better off buying a new printer than getting new cartridges.

 

[timwhit]

I feel the same way as you Mark. That's why I bought a LaserJet 5. This thing will probably outlast me. Since I don't print all that much, it will easily work until computers no longer have parallel ports...Then I will put a JetDirect card in it and still be able to use it.

 

[P5-133XL]

The low end inkjets sometimes cost less than a new set of colour and black ink cartridges, meaning that it would be cheaper to buy a new printer than it would be to buy new ink cartridges!

What I meant to say was that when the ink runs out, you would be better off buying a new printer than getting new cartridges.

And my preferance is to buy a better printer that has enough quality built-in that disposability isn't an issue. The reason that a set of cartridges are cheaper than a printer is that the printer is junk and not expected to last and the company is gouging you for the ink. They are using the printer HW as a loss-leader to get more money form you. They are ripping you off.

Don't buy into their marketing strategy of trying to fool the consumer. The more people participate the more it is encouraged and the more everyone is harmed. Buy a printer that will last from a company that isn't trying to play semi-ethical games, but rather produce a quality product that they will stand behind.

It is because people accept and tolerate the releasing beta software, that they are harmed by the practice. Please don't encourge the HW manufacturers attempt at producing the same mentality for printers. Mentalities like this that encourage poor quality products should be discouraged because I don't want Society to head down the road of if I can get away with, and make lots of $$$ while I'm at it, producing shoddy stuff, I will. There is too much of that already.

 

[P5-133XL]

Correction: the set of cartridges is more expensive than the printer.

 

[.Nut]

Milestones In Thermal Inkjet
--------------------------------------
1979 - Thermal inkjet technology is invented at HP Laboratories
1984 - ThinkJet printer is developed
1984 - Introduction of the disposable cartridge
1986 - New QuietJet/QuietJet + printers offer 192 dpi resolution through NLQ printing
1987 - First color printer, the PaintJet, provides full-color graphic printing and quickly becomes the market leader
1988 - The HP DeskJet printer is created, offering laser quality on plain paper. Modular Ink Delivery System is introduced in the new HP 2000C Professional Series Printer
1989 - HP rolls out the DeskJet+, DeskWriter and PaintJet XL (B-size) printers
1990 - PaintWriter XL and DeskJet 500 printers hit the market
1990 - Waterfast black ink is developed
1990 - HP introduces scalable fonts (DeskJet 500/DeskJet Plus)
1992 - Inception of plain-paper color and 5kHz print speed
1992 - 600x300 dpi pigmented black resolution is developed
1993 - HP expands printer capabilities to 600x300 dpi resolution
1993 - Increased media independence made possible through pigment-based black inks
1994 - Print quality increased dramatically for new DeskJet printers
1995 - Increased speed and resolution to 600x600 dpi at 12kHz
1995 - New range of cartridges offered for all new products
1996 - First photo printer and print cartridge introduced
1997 - HP DesignJet 2500 series with new large-capacity ink system is created
1997 - The OfficeJet: First $1,000 color copier/printer/scanner offers a complete inkjet solution
1997 - HP PhotoSmart PC Photography System makes it possible to reproduce photographs at home
1997 - HP 1100C A3-capable inkjet printer is released
1997 - Printers with Photo REt II begin to hit the shelves; HP DeskJet 720C, followed by HP 1120C A3 and HP OfficeJet 1170C/1175C
1998 - New HP DesignJet 3500 series allows users to print pieces up to 54 inches wide
1998 - HP 2500C A3-capable Professional Series printer is released
1999 - HP develops the DesignJet 1050 series with a Modular Ink Delivery System for large format printing. HP 2000C represents the world's fastest office color printer
2000 - Tannin destroys an HP inkjet with a sledgehammer
2001 - HP introduces Versatile Black Ink, a revolutionary black ink that prints on coated or uncoated surfaces without compromising speed or quality

 

[e_dawg]

I see someone visited the HP printing website

 

[time]

...
1994 - Desktop color ink jet printer with 720 x 720 dpi resolution (EPSON Stylus Color)
...
1997 - 1440 dpi high resolution colour inkjets (Epson)
...

The reference to Tannin inspired me to post this little piece:

http://www.ddjembedded.com/resources/articles/2002/0209k/0209k.htm

 

[Tannin]

Grrrr... There are times when I wish I was the Tsar. After reading that little article you linked to, Time, I'd simply ask my Chamberlin to invite whoever the three most important people at Hewlett-Packard are to an intimate Imperial dinner. Once we had uttered the usual plattitudes, sampled the various delicacies of the kitchen and reached the port and cigars stage, I'd let the conversation work around to business. It would go something like this:

"And so why did you invite us here, Your Highness?"

"It has to do with that devilishly clever scheme you gentlemen arrived at to monitor ink levels in the 2000C printer."

"Oh?"

"Yes. I've decided to have you shot. Dimitri? Take these men outside and shoot them please. Do try not to get any blood on the carpet this time."

 

[Mercutio]

Mark, if you can actually identify a new, quality inkjet printer, I know that all the rest of us would love to know about it.

 

[P5-133XL]

Mark, if you can actually identify a new, quality inkjet printer, I know that all the rest of us would love to know about it.

I don't know of any. Note, I did say that I'd be surprised that any modern inkjet's will last like the original ThinkJet. Currently if you don't want junk, and still need color, you are almost stuck with color laserjets or solid-ink transfer (crayon printers).

With that in mind, perhaps it is too late to reverse the destruction of quality in inkjet printers. However, I would hope not. If lots of people simply use quality as their #1 priority then perhaps at least one manufacturer will get the message and redefine thier priorities too. If too many people buy into buying cheap then they will get what they want. Everything starts with the consumer: The manufacturers will follow.

With Keyboards, Monitors, Mice, etc. there is a whole spectrum of quality. But with inkjet printers the spectrum has disappeared in favor of just junk. This is a bad harbinger of thinks to come, unless something corrects it. Do we as consumers wish that future? When buying inkjet printers, pay attention to monthly duty cycles.