Re: Type of Photo printer

wizof103 wrote: 
We have an Epson R300 printer used for printing of photo's here at
work. They have asked me to see about purchasing a Laser Color to
replace this printer. My question is, in order to save money and have
good quality photo printing, what format of printers is best.
I realize that laser is for volume color printing and ink jet is for
better resolution. Where does  dye sub fall into in this scenario.
Thanks in advance.

Kodak have a relatively new dye-sub, the 1400 priced at around US$500.
It can do 12 x 8 inch or 10 x 8 prints, photo quality is supposed to be
pretty good.

The upsides are:
Fixed cost - you know exactly how much each print costs in consumables -
and that cost is comparable to inkjets - not a lot more.
Water and mar resistant prints - not achievable with dye inkjet on
papers that provide archival properties.
Probably much better archival properties than low end dye subs, which
have extremely poor fade resistance.  Kodak figures for longevity should
be ignored as their test methodology is different - and far less severe
than the methodolgy used by almost every other maker.  But, similar
process dye-sub prints from Kodak have rated 26 years, which isn't too bad.
Kodak claim advantages because of continuous tone printing, but this
isn't really an issue as the dots from any recent quality inkjet photo
printer are invisible to the naked eye anyway.
Reasonable speed - a minute and a half per print.
Much better photo quality than a laser printer.
No ink clogs.

Downsides are:
You can't feed small (ie 6x4s) individually, but you could print 4 6x4s
on one 12x8 ***, and cut them.
Useless for document printing.
Only prints on OEM gloss/semigloss Kodak dye-sub paper.
About 300 dpi, but this won't be as sharp or resolve as much fine detail
as 300dpi from a light-jet or ink-jet - not that most people would notice.
Reduced colour gamut - 3 colour process - compared to higher end ink jet.
Dust can be an issue.
The machine costs about the same as an epson R1800, which will do 13"
width prints which have better archival quality, are also water
resistant, and can print documents as well as photos on a wide range of
media.

I haven't seen one of these in action yet.  They seem an ideal
alternative to an inkjet for some circumstances and if only photo
printing is required.

The answer to your question isn't easy - it depends very much on what
you plan to print and your expectation for print quality, print volume and frequency.
.

Quantcast