Reading mode: Light Dark

Inkjet or Dye-Sub

Go to last post
darin62a said:
Why don't more photographers consider photo lasers?
Click to expand...
Because they don't look like photos.
They look like laser prints.

I keep hoping the quality will approach photo quality, but they just aren't there yet. The color gradations are not very good, there are lines and streaks and such even in the best laser prints I have seen.

They are much better then they were just a few years ago, for sure. Every year I buy a new printer (gotta stay bleeding edge in the photo biz) and every year I check out the lasers. I would love the cost per print and even more so, the speed. (which isn't as great as you would think for a full color 8x10.)

But, sadly, the are still not up to snuff. They look like a newspaper photo, which can be good, but not like a glossy photo. Also the Xerox machines I looked at (lower end) can't handle thick paper stock, so you're stuck printing on regular laser paper weight (or hand feeding one sheet at a time)

But, I'll check again in Feb. so if anyone wants to prove me wrong, I would love it!

0, 1
(just my two bits)
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
 
darin62a said:
Why don't more photographers consider photo lasers? I do a far
amount of med/high volume printing of color/photo legal/trial
exhibits and I went with the Phaser because the cost per copy was
significantly lower that Inkjet and Dye-Sub alternatives.
Click to expand...
I've seen some laser prints that do indeed rival 4 color Inkjets. Especially from some color copiers and higher end lasers. But the initial start up cost is too high for me. And also, while lasers do a very nice job they just don't have that same continuous tone that the best 6 color Inkjets and Dye subs have.

But if you're willing to live with very good quality (as opposed to the best) at very low per page cost and very fast print times a laser is indeed a good way to go.
 
I realize this may be out of peope's price range but the Xerox 7750 is a great later printer.

http://www.office.xerox.com/perl-bin/product.pl?product=7750

I saw a demo of one and was astounded by the quality on some very thick 110 lb index glossy card. At a viewing distance of 8 inches or more it looked very photo real. And it was FAST. At it's highest quality setting on cardstock it was printing at 18 pages per minute.

I have no doubt that the best inkjets do better quality. But for the cost per page and the speed I'd be sorely tempted if I had the funds.
 
I can print on index card stock, but that is the thickest I can go. I have not experienced any streaking or lines and the quality is far superior to newsprint.

Have you used a properly calibrated Phaser 7700? The Phaser 7700 is a graphic designer's proof printer for offset jobs. I agree the HP's, Minolta's, QMS' and entry level Xerox laser are not very good photo printers, the 7700 is a completely different animal.

Today, I just ran a 1600 8x11 trial exhibit photo job and the attorney liked the output better than the original 4x6 lab photos. BTW, my hard cost percopy on this job was .02 (paper)+ .21 (toner) + .03 (fuser,etc.).
Montypyfly said:
darin62a said:
Why don't more photographers consider photo lasers?
Click to expand...
Because they don't look like photos.
They look like laser prints.

I keep hoping the quality will approach photo quality, but they
just aren't there yet. The color gradations are not very good,
there are lines and streaks and such even in the best laser prints
I have seen.

They are much better then they were just a few years ago, for sure.
Every year I buy a new printer (gotta stay bleeding edge in the
photo biz) and every year I check out the lasers. I would love the
cost per print and even more so, the speed. (which isn't as great
as you would think for a full color 8x10.)

But, sadly, the are still not up to snuff. They look like a
newspaper photo, which can be good, but not like a glossy photo.
Also the Xerox machines I looked at (lower end) can't handle thick
paper stock, so you're stuck printing on regular laser paper weight
(or hand feeding one sheet at a time)

But, I'll check again in Feb. so if anyone wants to prove me wrong,
I would love it!

0, 1
(just my two bits)
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Solus Veritas,
Darin

10D w/550EX, 17-40 f/4L USM, 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, Xerox Phaser 7700
 
NicholasX said:
I realize this may be out of peope's price range but the Xerox 7750
Click to expand...
Close, but still not there. Even their own literature says "nearly photographic detail"

And As I recall, I got all excited about the 18ppm and the 11 second First Page Out Time, but that didn't take into consideration the time it took to get the image from the computer to the printer and the printers processing time. (the 11 seconds was the paper path time )-:

I can't remember the actual time, but it wasn't much better than my Canon S9000's (1 minute/8x10)
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
 
Yes, the good one are expensive. I was lucky enough to have some steady output jobs to justify the cost.

BTW, I saw your post about the 7750. Wow, it's even faster than my 7700.
NicholasX said:
NicholasX said:
Why don't more photographers consider photo lasers? I do a far
amount of med/high volume printing of color/photo legal/trial
exhibits and I went with the Phaser because the cost per copy was
significantly lower that Inkjet and Dye-Sub alternatives.
Click to expand...
I've seen some laser prints that do indeed rival 4 color Inkjets.
Especially from some color copiers and higher end lasers. But the
initial start up cost is too high for me. And also, while lasers do
a very nice job they just don't have that same continuous tone that
the best 6 color Inkjets and Dye subs have.

But if you're willing to live with very good quality (as opposed to
the best) at very low per page cost and very fast print times a
laser is indeed a good way to go.
Click to expand...
--
Solus Veritas,
Darin

10D w/550EX, 17-40 f/4L USM, 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, Xerox Phaser 7700
 
darin62a said:
BTW, I saw your post about the 7750. Wow, it's even faster than my
7700.
Click to expand...
What is the speed of your 7700? in real life, 1 8x10 per file type printing. (if you ever do any of that)

I believe my friend uses the 7700 in his print shop. They do my flyers and 4 color biz cards. Very nice color for a color copier, but it still is not what I would consider a "photo" equivalent. But every bit as good as traditional 4 color presses for that type of work.
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
 
As you stated in a previous post, the advertised speed is just pushing the paper through and does not consider imaging or transmit time. Memory really makes a big difference in imaging time. When I had 128MB RAM a sample test image took 90 seconds, doubling the RAM to 256MB reduced the time to 60 seconds. I plan on added the max (512MB) amount of memory relatively soon (need to collect on a few jobs).

I just printed a sample 8x11 full page action football image to my networked printer (100baseT). It took 110 seconds from when I pressed the print button to pull the copy from the output tray, the second copy (and subsequent) copies followed immediately after the initial print.

My father in-law has an Epson 2200. I think I might email the same photo to see what he can produce an compare the results. I've been try to find an excuse to purchase a nice Inkjet, but the I can't justify the cost when printing 8x11s.
Montypyfly said:
darin62a said:
BTW, I saw your post about the 7750. Wow, it's even faster than my
7700.
Click to expand...
What is the speed of your 7700? in real life, 1 8x10 per file
type printing. (if you ever do any of that)

I believe my friend uses the 7700 in his print shop. They do my
flyers and 4 color biz cards. Very nice color for a color copier,
but it still is not what I would consider a "photo" equivalent.
But every bit as good as traditional 4 color presses for that type
of work.
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Solus Veritas,
Darin

10D w/550EX, 17-40 f/4L USM, 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, Xerox Phaser 7700
 
With the 850 Mhz RIP, our canon prints at 32 ppm color and rips a 6MB image in about 20-30 seconds... it's great for draft prints being able to print so quickly and for about 1/20th the cost of my epson inkjet prints, but the quality isn't photographic - the major problem is that the toner gloss varies with color density and if the image contains both very dark colors, esp. blacks, and very light areas or whites, when you view them under lights or from an angle the gloss of the toner never exactly matches the gloss of the paper (or lack thereof.) I've tried a bunch of glossy laser stock and I have not yet found one which produces a good result with a variety of photos - either the paper is matte and the toner is gloss, or on the gloss paper the white is gloss and the mid-tones appear more matte finished. As far as color range, our laser is able to achieve better colors than newspaper but a long way shy of photographs or inkjet.
Montypyfly said:
NicholasX said:
I realize this may be out of peope's price range but the Xerox 7750
Click to expand...
Close, but still not there. Even their own literature says "nearly
photographic detail"
And As I recall, I got all excited about the 18ppm and the 11
second First Page Out Time, but that didn't take into consideration
the time it took to get the image from the computer to the printer
and the printers processing time. (the 11 seconds was the paper
path time )-:

I can't remember the actual time, but it wasn't much better than my
Canon S9000's (1 minute/8x10)
--
-Glenn- AssociatedPhoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Jeff
 
Montypyfly said:
Close, but still not there. Even their own literature says "nearly
photographic detail"
And As I recall, I got all excited about the 18ppm and the 11
second First Page Out Time, but that didn't take into consideration
the time it took to get the image from the computer to the printer
and the printers processing time. (the 11 seconds was the paper
path time )-:

I can't remember the actual time, but it wasn't much better than my
Canon S9000's (1 minute/8x10)
--
Click to expand...
As I said, it is very close to the quality of a true photo. Especially when you factor in viewing distance. When I was talking about print speed, I wasn't referring to the time till the first print came out. Regardless of the time it takes to RIP the file, the 7750 produces prints at the highest quality at around 18 ppm. Whether it be multiples of the same file or a collated document it's a consistent 18 ppm. It is a VERY fast printer. There isn't an inkjet built that can even come close.

I've always wondered why they didn't build Inkjets with built in processors and storage space. Even if such a thing cost $1200 it might still have a market.
 
I hear ya...(see my latest post "Digital Printing 101"). From what I gather, the first thing is to get your monitor calibrated, which I can't afford the $150.00 software to do. So, I'm already at a detriment. Plus, everyone seems to use Photoshop and I'm using PaintShopPro so I have to try and decipher how to do everything in a different program...

Lorraine
Jeaco said:
Lorraine said:
What kind of printer are you using? If you post with exactly how
you're doing your printing...(what program, type and brand of
paper, what steps, resizing, etc.) Someone would probably be more
than willing to help you get better prints. Not me....I'm a newbie
to this too...LOL...but someone will! (Aren't I nice to volunteer
everyones services?) :o)

Lorraine

Jeaco wrote:
.
Jeaco said:
--I am a total amateur and I am enjoying this thread.....I just
went out and bought an Epson Ink jet that touted the great pictures
it would make with pigment ink. Yes, the pictures are nice, but
nothing like I get in the lab. When you hold it up to the light,
you can see where the colors change....it doesn't have that smooth,
wet look from a lab. I don't think I can hope for any better and I
kind of wish printer manufacturers had some standard for
advertising so us layman would understand the levels of printers
and the different quality. In the store, they will print you a
sample on a piece of paper that looks great, but it isn't the same
as photo paper. I am thinking that maybe matte papaer might look a
little better for me.
Jeaco
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--I'm kind of embarrassed because I know I don't know what I am
doing....

Printer is Epson CX5400, I have been using ACDC 5.0. I have tried
using Epson photo paper glossy as well as Kodak and other brands.
They seem to all look the same. I pretty much print as ACDC
says...I set it for the paper I am using, put best quality photo,
.....I knnow I should be doing other things, but don't know what.
The prints come out ok, but they don't have that smooth look...they
look kind of layered on the paper and I think maybe that is the
best I can do with this printer. Any suggestions?
Jeaco
Click to expand...
 
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
NicholasX said:
I've always wondered why they didn't build Inkjets with built in
processors and storage space. Even if such a thing cost $1200 it
might still have a market.
Click to expand...
Unless you go to the real low end of winprinters, most inkjet printers do have a processor inside. While most are office printers and not photo printers, there are various printers with ram, and some even have disks. For example, I went to buy.com and business printers, and the first printer they had was the HP officejet 3000n that takes up to 88 megabytes RAM (postscript printers tend to need ram since they build the entire page in memory before printing). Granted it uses Photoret III, and not the newer Photoret IV or Photoret Pro.
 
the best photo printer I've ever owned and I've owned Epson (currently a 1270), HP and Canon and none can come close to the dye-sub. If the 8500 or P440 had been out when I bought this, you can bet I'd bought one of those and saved several thousand dollars.

Jim
yvn said:
Do you guys really think that no matter how good today's inkjets
are improving dye-sub are still the way to go for profesinal look
and quality of photographs. I have owned many inkjets and still
have Epson 2200 and Hp 7960 and just bought Olympus P-440 and me
and my clients do prefer the look and feel of Olympus P-440.
At ferst The P-440 photo paper felt a little thin but later I
realized it was just becouse I got so much used to Inkjet prints. I
have some prints from pro photo lab and they are just as exactly as
my Olympus P-440 prints which I do admire alot. It may not have a
big color gamut as inkjets do but it is so true to a REAL PHOTO,
the tonality and gradation are so smooth and color fadelity is just
something Inkjets can not produce which is realy awesome!
So can you tell me what you think?
Click to expand...
--
Canon 1D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)
 
Same here - I upgraded from HP inkjet to Oly P400 dye sub, and the prints are positively alive in comparison. For lack of a better term, the prints look 'deeper' - they have an almost 3-D look to them.

Also, there is a practical side. I don't print 8x10 color every day. Sometimes, the printer sits unused for a month. Under occasional use, I found that the inkjet cartridges would dry out or develop clogs, so that I'd go to print and find that the cartridge wouldn't work right. More to the point,$50 worth of cartridges wouldn't work right.

Dye sub hasn't done that, it can sit for a long time and still be useable.
 
Very true!
TrapperJohn said:
Same here - I upgraded from HP inkjet to Oly P400 dye sub, and the
prints are positively alive in comparison. For lack of a better
term, the prints look 'deeper' - they have an almost 3-D look to
them.

Also, there is a practical side. I don't print 8x10 color every
day. Sometimes, the printer sits unused for a month. Under
occasional use, I found that the inkjet cartridges would dry out or
develop clogs, so that I'd go to print and find that the cartridge
wouldn't work right. More to the point,$50 worth of cartridges
wouldn't work right.

Dye sub hasn't done that, it can sit for a long time and still be
useable.
Click to expand...
 
Folks

I have had a P400 since 9/01, and the quality is unbeatable. However, it will not make a true 8 x 10, or two 5 x 7's on one page.

For this reason I am considering going to the Kodak 8500.

Anybody want to buy a used P400?

Cashel
 
cashel said:
Folks

I have had a P400 since 9/01, and the quality is unbeatable.
However, it will not make a true 8 x 10, or two 5 x 7's on one page.
Click to expand...
Why can't you print two 5 x 7's - I thought the maximum print area was 7.65 (or close) x 10" ??
Chris Copeland said:
For this reason I am considering going to the Kodak 8500.
Click to expand...
If you're happy with the quality of the P400, why aren't you considering the cheaper (than the Kodak) new P440 whichis like the P400 in everything but the max size is now a true 8" x 10"?
Chris Copeland said:
Anybody want to buy a used P400?

Cashel
Click to expand...
--
Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top