Top deals on CNET here
Community Newsletter: Q&A: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers
- 11/9/07 8:26 AM
Laser Cartridge Life
by comptiger5000 - 11/22/07 6:45 AM In reply to: a little more.. by a9fcI have found that Lexmark cartridges (printer is a C534n) are rated quite conservatively. I have about 2500 pages on my first set of cartridges (6000 page life) and about half of my printing is black text, the other half color, with some photos, both small and full page. None of my cartridges are below 72% full (black is lowest), according to the printer. To me, that seems like great cartridge life.
Outsource Photos
by jboroman - 10/27/07 6:53 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
It's just about a nobrainer to 'outsource' photo printing; a few cents per pic and no wear&tear and no depleted, costly color cartridges. Take your mem card to your local drug store/whatever and print yourself on the spot or download on the www and have em mailed to you. Overall, if doing a LOT of b/w printing, a laser printer is the way to go. On the other hand, the refill yourself route is very cost effective on inkjets. Wow...a lot of great suggestions already posted! HTH
Why even consider a "inkjet" printer?
by Mark0 - Technologist - 10/27/07 10:10 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I gave up on inkjets years ago and have never looked back.
If you are printing your photos at home, I only have one question: Why?
The reason I say this is that there are so many ONLINE and retailer choices that will print photos anywhere from $0.09 - $0.19 a image that at home printing is generally going to cost more.
So you really really want to print at home. Forgetting for the moment the costs of the printer itself, a 4x6" "postcard" print is going to cost you: Laser - $0.07, Dye-Sub - $0.29, Inkjet - $0.39.
What do the printers cost? A quick look shows color lasers $300-$2000, Dye-sub $80-$200 and Inkjets $30-$500.
What do the supplies cost?
Color Laser: Color Copy Laser paper $8 a ream of 500, toner (refill) $125 - (factory) $345.
Dye-sub: $29.95 ribbon and paper for 108 4x6" photos
Inkjet: Paper 4x6" 100 $20, ink for 100 4x6" photos ~75$-~$450
(the wide range reflects the tendency of inkjet print heads cloging and having to be replaced before all the ink is used)
Conclusion: If you HAVE to print at home AND the size of the prints are larger than a cheap Dye-Sub standard paper AND you really really need/want "photo quality" by all means, get a inkjet. I run off most of my photos on my color laser on 8.5x11" paper and place them into photo albums (with sheet protectors), if someone wants a copy, I'll run off a 4x6" on my Canon Dye-sub or just EMAIL them the photo and let them print it by whatever means they so desire (at home, online or retail).
As an example, I bought my color laser printer for $500 a few years ago. I've printed over 800 8.5x11" photos (AND ~400 B&W pages) on the printer using the STOCK TONER that came with the printer and have ~%20 toner left for more prints. While the factory wants ~$300 for new 1500 print toner cartridges, I can refill the ones I have to be ready for 5000 prints for just $125.
An added benefit is that my laser printer sits on my LAN and I can use ANY computer attached to the LAN to print from. Do that with an inkjet without an attached computer "sharing" it.
Why even consider a "inkjet" printer?
by Jillnjase - 11/22/07 8:53 PM In reply to: Why even consider a "inkjet" printer? by Mark0 - TechnologistWhy even consider a "inkjet" printer?
by Mark0 - Technologist - 27/10/07 10:10
Well!!! I'm not too sure which planet you are on, but your prices are way off the mark!!!
Firstly you said you gave up on inkjets years ago so I would suggest that there just may have been some developments over that time.
Hey how much does it cost you in gas and wear and tear on your car to go to a drugstore or lab to print your pics??? And that makes no allowance for the cost of your time.
Why would I want to print my own pics???? Because it is very convenient, and I get superior prints than I would at the drugstore or lab, and believe it or not it is CHEAPER!!! I buy 50 sheets of A4 premium photo paper for 18.00 NZD (I only buy on special), I buy my ink cartridges and get a free pack of 50 premium paper thrown in. Oh, I have an HP3110 which recycles the ink during the cleaning cycle so there is no wasted ink, and if you give me one of your pics I will copy your pic on my 3110 using the enhance mode and produce a superior result to your original. I have proved this many times so to suggest otherwise is incorrect.
You obviously have several printers so they have cost you money to buy them, and they take up a lot of room, and you have to maintain several printers. I have one printer that is very fast and can produce very high quality photos quickly, and my printer takes up very little desk space, and gives me a colour photo copier, a colour scanner, a colour fax machine, and can print photos without turning my computer on. What more could I ask for. It was very cheap 399 NZD, is economic - less then 20 cents NZ for a 6x4, can print up to 30ppm, takes about 20 seconds for a max resolution 6x4 photo.
My time is worth money and as I do not go into the city often and my time is worth more than money (but even that is $100 p/h) - time is precious so even if it cost me more I would still print myself as it is more important for me to spend time with my family and friends. Why is everyone so hung up on money??? Try concentrating on enjoying life - you cannot buy time - time lost can never be regained - I am sure that little Johnny will not thank you for saving 10 cents or 20 cents per print - he would much rather you spent that extra time playing with him. If you want to be frugal then buy your supplies at the right price. I never pay retail price for anything. I have more than 500 A4 sheets of premium paper in stock, and 6 reams of quality plain paper (Reflex) cost me 3.99 NZD per ream. I hope this puts a different slant on the debate about printing yourself or not. If you want to save money on printing costs then buy up on specials, and buy an inkjet that recycles the ink on the cleaning cycle. It has made my printing very afforable!!! Cheers Rod
If you do a lot of prints, go laser.
by back_water_tech - 10/27/07 10:20 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
This is simply answered like this:
If you do more than 1000 prints a month, you need a laser printer.
Inkjet printers are not designed to handle more than 1000 prints in a monthly duty cycle. It doesn't matter if you print color, b&w or photos.
Btw, most color lasers do not need special cartridges or paper to do quality color prints.
Yes, It is true that most laser printers not only need thier color toner cartridges replaced but also need thier fuser and drum units replaced as well. But after 30-50,000 prints. 
Many of the desk top models (read: cheap little ones similer sized to your standard inkjets) do not have servicable drum and fuser units. So on these units you when you wear the fuser/drum units out, you will need to take them to a service center to get them replaced (usually costs more than just replacing the entire unit 
)
If you do more than 10,000 prints a month (color or otherwise) you should be looking at a printer that has a duty cycle that can handle 20-30k per month.
HP makes some nice "workgroup" printers that are not only beefy enough to do the work, but also quiet and fast. Konica/Minolta also makes very high quality units as well. Be perepared to pay a little, though, unless you find a great deal on some used printers. . . 
I have a Inkjet HP printer on my desk and a HP 4550 color laser on a desk across the room. I use the inkjet for little (read: quick) jobs and the laser for big or multi-print jobs. I am not real fond of the print quality of the inkjet printer even though it is a year old. The old 4550 is over 15 years old, and it still kicks the pants off of any inkjet printer I've owned. But when it needs color cartridges, I end up dropping $300. But it runs out usually around 6,000 prints unlike my color inkjet that runs down after about 150. the color cartridge for the inkjet is $24. So to get the same # of prints on a cartridge run as the 4550, I would spend about $960 on ink for the inkjet, and it isn't as nice of quality.
I do a lot of printing. I run a small business out of my home and we print off tons of flyers. For me, a inkjet (buble-jet if you are looking at Canon) just isn't practical for anything but quick draft work.
I do like the old laser printer's ability to print nice photos, too.
__________
Please remember to recycle your used drum, fuser, and toner cartridges! If you use inkjet, remember that your warrenty will not be valid if you refill your cartridges. Use remanufacturered or factory new Ink cartridges!
Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers
by demattj - 10/27/07 10:34 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I saw the cost issue of ink jets years ago, I now only use inkjets on large format media. Years ago I got a phaser 740, at the time the cost per page was only 6 cents. I supports 1200 dpi, but I had to wait until digital cameras had a big enough megapixel rating before its brilliance could be realized. I will say this that if you look close enough at the pictures, like 2-3 inches away, you see the pixels but then on a photo you would see the grain. The only problem is with regular paper the whites are flat where as the toner is glossy, with glossy paper that problem goes away. I used to judge picture quality by getting NASA's high resolution images and printing them on printers, the newer HP color lasers only supports 600 dpi and the toner is flat. If you would compare the two printouts from each, you would see that the tek would win. I would recommend you look at some 2400 dpi color lasers. In addition, the cost per page of color printers to is higher anywhere from 8 to 12 cents a page. I can buy my supplies for my tek off of ebay for a final cost of about 2 cents per page.
Inkjet photo costs vs Laserjet?
by quickrick - 10/28/07 6:25 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
First, Kudo's to both Lee Koo and Edward H. for a great question! After reviewing a lot of the responses - most having lots of great information...there is one area not covered where I felt the need to share some experience and information.
I print a lot photos (at home). I work with numerous laser jets (at work) both color as well as black and white. I also have lots of experience with the newer multi-function "all-in-one" printers - also at work. In addition, we have lots of injet printers attached to various pieces of test equipment.
There are several lessons that can be extracted from this experience. First and foremost: if you want reliability DO NOT purchase one of those "all-in-one" printers. Something is constantly breaking down. Before IT got the bright idea to replace our laserjets with "all-in-one" machines (these are the high end machines based on color laser jet technology)...we could always print what we needed to. Occasionally, a laser jet was down because of either being out of toner or an actual breakdown - but not often. Besides we network several of these so there was always one or two that was running just fine. Most of us (about 30 people) could change a toner cartridge, clear a jam, etc.
Today, we have three "all-in-one" machines that replaced three black and white laserjets, three color printers(two laser jet and one wax based) two photocopiers and a scanner. Thank God they didn't remove the fax machines even though the "all-in-one" machines do that too.
Bottom line is this: of the three, one is ALWAYS broken down, Two are usually not working, and sometimes all three are down. Now granted, one of them might be "down" just because it needs toner. However, the toner comes in five different cartridges. Changing them is so complicated that only two people know how to do it. And, with that many color toner cartridges one is always running out. Further, maintaining the inventory of all those cartridges is a real job. These newer technology machines are a nightmare of complexity. Further, the per page costs have been computed at over $1 !!!! for color. That's not photos that's just color printing. I've tried printing photos on these and they are terrible. And, the repairman is in every week. We've talked about providing a cot for him.
Now, back to 'normalcy'. As I said, I print a lot of photos as home. I've been using one of the very original color photoprinters; HP (color inkjet) photosmart 1115. It's probably close to 8 yrs old now and continues to produce excellent quality photos. It's rather slow but when I print a photo I'm not looking for speed. I'm looking for excellent photo quality. It has two cartridges. A three color cartridge and a black ink cartridge. And, in case your wondering, when it comes to high quality photos, no one is more fussy that I am.
The problem with the new photo injet printers (that no one talks about) is the fact that with 5 or 6 different cartridges - one is always running out...right in the middle of your photo. Talk about waste and high cost... Everybody is pushing these multi-cartridge photo printers. It makes no sense to me. Further they are entirely too small - they only hold a few ml of ink each. So naturally, if you print any volume of photos, your constantly running out of ink in one of them.
Oh, buy the way, they are now down playing the small size of these cartridges. They don't want you to think about the fact that these cartridges are very tiny and hold only a few ml of ink. So, they've resorted to rating the cartridges with "no. of pages" that you can get per cartridge. They claim something like 300 pages per cartridge. That's a joke. If you set your ink consumption to very low and reduce the quality setting you might get close to that...but then if your object is just to save money - why print the photo at all.
And yes, for a while I was using the HP 1115 for all my printing. Then, I decided I needed a fast printer for regular documents. I print a lot of business reports at home. That includes about 75% color documents, including lots of color charts and some photo images where the photo quality is not critical -just need a decent image.
I searched high and low. Finally, I found it. An HP Officejet Pro K550. [Last years newer model of this is the HP Officejet Pro K5400.] Each page comes out in about 2 seconds. The quality is very good. It is not a photo printer. But what it does is it takes the load off my photoprinter and speeds up the printing process. The K550/K5400 holds a full ream of paper. It's fast. It has three separate color cartridges and one black. Each cartridge is available in the XL or extra large size. So, I'm not changing cartridges every few pages.
Now then, about ink refills and the cost of ink. First, if you want to print high quality photos. Forget the cheap route with the ink refills. Stick with the mfg's original cartridges. It's mainly the cost of the paper that drives up the cost of photos. I've tried the refills - several of them. Don't waste your time. There's a great dissappointment in printing a lousy quality photo on god awful expensive paper because you were too cheap to buy decent ink.
You want to save money on non-photo printing - fine.
Incidentally, I know someone who never buys ink cartridges. He just looks for color inkjet sales. Usually picks up a photo quality printer for less than $100. They come with ink cartridges. When the first cartridge runs out, he replaces the printer. The cartridges cost more than the printer 
REFILL YOURSELF & SAVE
by EVTJGM - 10/28/07 11:59 AM In reply to: Inkjet photo costs vs Laserjet? by quickrickoddparts.com has refill ink formulated for your printer by the pint, quart, gallon or 5 gallons. Cost is around $20.00 a pint, they also carry bulk toner, provide refill instructions, syringes and bottles.The only downside is that it can get messy and some cartridges will need a resetter as they physically count each drop of ink ejected and must be reset after filling. I've been using their ink for 8 years or more with excellent results, you'll still need to replace a cartridge now and then and a pint of ink will generally outlast a printer.
Whell......
by winsoftwareman - 10/28/07 9:04 PM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've been thinking about this a while. I currently bought a big and huge $350 inkjet all-in-one by Hp, and I love it. But, ink is pretty bad, because I have to buy like 5 cartriges for it. (photo printer.) I also have a color laserjet all-in-one. I have gone to inkjet. I just like it. And anyway, even buying 5 cartriges, it's about as much as laser cartriges. And, you can re-fill inkjet cartriges for cheap, and you can't do that with laser? (I think.) Actually, lasers print faster. And, lasers cost more up-front. My laser was $450 in 2005. Idk, there both good. I use my inkjet for 1-5 page prints, and photos. I use laser a little bit less then my new inkjet, really.
Don't forget the huge difference in energy co$t$ to operate.
by MultiMuse - 10/29/07 1:19 PM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If I'm not mistaken, laser printers are HUGE energy hogs and produce a lot of waste heat (into your building) that may require more juice to cool (A.C.) in the summer, or in hot climates. The reason is the laser printer technology includes a super hot fuser that actually melts the toner ink dust onto the paper. I don't know how much e-juice the laser suck to paint the static image on the paper (which attracts and holds the ink toner dust), but I'd bet it's as least as energy hungry as ink-jet nozzle activators, plus you have a lot more motorized rollers along the paper path in laser printer than in a 1-pass ink-jet paper path. All those motors eat energy and produce heat too. And heat is hard on mechanical parts, shortening life and increasing long-term maintenance costs. When it comes to color printing, remember... think GREEN!
Colour Printers
by MikeH40 - 10/30/07 12:00 PM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have an Epson 2200 inkjet printer for photos and yes it is an expensive user of ink. I also have a Samsung colour laser printer for general duty. The laser printer is much less expensive to use. The purchase price was also quite a bit less for the laser printer so it is a win-win.
The cost of paper is much higher for the inkjet printer but that is because I want my photos to be on the best photo paper available, whereas the laser paper comes in packages of 1000 from Staples and is not suitable for high quality photos. I have tried laser paper in my inkjet printer and photo paper in the laser and the results were as predicted. The inkjet cannot make a good photo on cheap paper and the laser can't make a good photo on anything.
If good photos are essential, then a good inkjet is also essential. If a colour printer is for general use only (greeting cards etc) then a colour laser is quite acceptable.
Of course one could do what I did and have both......this is not an expensive option these days.
MikeH
not an expensive option
by Jillnjase - 1/14/08 11:32 AM In reply to: Colour Printers by MikeH40I agree Mike, BUT most of us don't have the space for both, and as i have said in the past if you get an HP with ink recycling in the head cleaning mode then the ink costs are dramatically reduced. I have just printed 1000 B&W flyers on my HP3110 in draft mode with very good results, which saved me heaps on ink.
Frustrated no longer - I bought a Kodak AIO :o)
by frustrated bigtime - 11/13/07 7:47 PM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The frustration was trying to find a printer with reasonable print cost when my old HP1000 wouldn't work with my new computer, and there didn't seem to be one in any brand (costs of using new printers were at least 4x my old one because a 42ml black cartridge was reduced to 10 ml on the new ones) until I came across an ad for the Kodak AIO by accident. 'Inkjet or laser' is no longer an issue, you don't need either one for basic printing and excellent photos. It uses archive quality pigment ink for photos that won't fade like inkjet, the ink won't run off the page like food coloring when it gets wet. I tested it by holding a page of colored text under the faucet til it was soaked then let it dry. No runs. Ink cost isn't an issue, a $10 black cartridge lasts as long as a $35 HP. I print most things on draft, and it's plenty clear and readable. When you use Kodak photo paper it automatically changes to best quality. My only complaint is not getting better photos on cheap plain paper like printing out an ebay auction - the HP did a better job there but it's not worth changing back to inkjet with all the cost benefits and waterproof ink of this Kodak. I highly recommend it and several people have purchased one on my recommendation.
Go laser!!!
by danstheman7 - 12/15/07 10:19 AM In reply to: Photo inkjet printers vs. color laser printers by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
i suggest going laser. I currently own a inkjet printer and it is slower then possible. Don't even think about trying to print pictures!The ink is not cheap, but quality is O.K. I am gonna go for laser too. Laser overall is supposed to be much faster, and smarter, and will last longer. If you want long lasting, go laser. If you want cheaper print cartridges, go inkjet!
Danny
(NT) Go laser!!! - New! by danstheman7 - 15/12/07 10:19
by Jillnjase - 12/15/07 1:07 PM In reply to: Go laser!!! by danstheman7An interesting opinion! My dear man this contradicts my experience - over twenty years - twenty years ago you would have been correct about the archival life of inkjet photos, but like everything 'times, they are a changing' and today there is no problem with fading if you use good quality ink on a matching paper. Ten years ago HP inks faded within a few months, but Epson was much better then. Now I have had HP on my wall in bright light for over three years and there is no sign of any fading, and I have prints from my old Epson 1200 that have been on display for over 8 years and they show no signs of fading!!! Speed???? Well if you have a printer that is newish speed is generally very good. I print a 6x4 in a few seconds and the quality is equal to or superior to any lab printed photo, and I don't have drive into town, and then wait for them to print my pics - I get them right now, and i can do reprints while my family and friends wait. COST??? I have an HP3110 and I am very happy with my printing costs. This printer recycles the ink when it does the head cleaning cycle, and this is where other printers waste a lot of ink which adds greatly to your printing costs. Your laser will not cut it with inkjet when it comes to colour quality. BUT if that is your opinion - GREAT, but I would recommend that you try the latest printers from HP, Canon, Epson
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20-%20CNET%20Community%20Newsletter:%20Q%26A%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D2629322){kind=small}