Re: Economical printer


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:SDD4g.14994$Qz.9901@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
William Graham wrote:
"..." <just@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dWz4g.18619$vy1.8668@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The top end, HP photo printers use dye inks claimed to last a
lifetime. Just
like Epson dye ink photo printers.

My HP design jet printer is about 1/3rd the cost to run as my r2400
Epson pigment ink printer. Maybe half the cost of a RX510. The
photos are brighter
but they would be about the same as the dye based Epsons. There is so
little
difference in the quality of print in the higher end inkjets, only
the cost
of running them should be important. Certainly I get better results
on cheap
photo papier with the Epson but when you talk about a letter size
(A4) ***
of Pro quality paper costing under a $1, the ink is the only cost you
should
consider.

Canon dye ink photos need to be laminated for lasting results.
-------------

MikeM wrote:
Are there any printers of at least comparable price & photo print
quality to the Epson RX510 that are more economical with ink?

Thanks
Mike

--


Since the image is digitized, I would go for the cheapest printer
that gives you a great looking print right now, and let the devil
take how long the dyes last into the future....In the future, better
and cheaper printers will be built, with even better looking images,
and, since the image is digitized and archived, let those who care in
the future, reprint it on their better and cheaper printers when they
need it.........

I usually agree with you on many things...but...

That solution is fine and dandy...so long as you NEVER...EVER...offer
prints to friends and family...who would be stuck watching their prints
fade into utter crap in short order...unless you give them (and they
carefully follow) a long list of do's and don'ts regarding the special
care they'll be forced to take if they want them to last at all. Example:
Is any friend or family member into scrap-booking? All their long hours
of care taken in layout and design will turn their SCRAPbook into a
CRAPbook before long...and they will be extremely unhappy about watching
their efforts fade into oblivion.

Do I paint a grim picture...or do I exaggerate?

Archival factors are of huge importance anyone interested in sharing hard
copies of their photos with any degree of shield against the irritation of
slow (and sometimes rapid) decay.

Well, since I got a film scanner, I have been scanning the family photos,
and e-mailing them to the other members of my family. I doubt if any of them
have top quality printers, and since I don't either, I assume that they just
look at the photos on their color monitors, which is pretty much what I do.
Some of them don't have high speed connections, and for these, I burn a CD
and snail mail it to them.
In the light of the above, I just think that it would be kind of a waste
of money for them to buy a top of the line printer, and print out these
pictures for an album.....Why not just display them on their computers? -
Especially since most of them have laptops that incorporate a fine lcd
display.....No self respecting teenager today would be caught dead without a
laptop, and the brightness and clarity of the displays on those things is
astounding....Much better than the slide projector and beaded screen that I
have upstairs in my dining room, for example. It just seems to me that
printers are fast becoming obsolete, but I could be wrong. (I was wrong once
before....:^)


.

Quantcast