Laser Vs Inkjet printers

[blitz6speed]

I have a Inkjet printer now i am happy with (quality wise), but the cost of the ink is crazy. I am considering a Color Laser printer because i like to print custom covers, and should likely be cheaper since a toner will do a ton more prints then a ink cartridge. I hear color laser printers arent very high quality tho, and i want it to look at least good enough to put on my shelf.

Does anyone have experience with both of these technologies and can advise either way?

[JakeNRoland]

I've heard inkjet printers are better also, but I decided to go with laser printer anyhow for the same reasons you mention above.

My experiences have been positive so far. As long is the image is high res the printing quality on my prints thus far have been good. Granted, I'm not particularly picky, but I'm happy with what it does.

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by JakeNRoland

I've heard inkjet printers are better also, but I decided to go with laser printer anyhow for the same reasons you mention above.

My experiences have been positive so far. As long is the image is high res the printing quality on my prints thus far have been good. Granted, I'm not particularly picky, but I'm happy with what it does.

Do you have any examples you could post?

[JakeNRoland]

Originally Posted by blitz6speed

Do you have any examples you could post?

Nope.

I don't know how telling they'd be? I'd have to scan both (which I can't do while at work anyhow) and I think it would be more of a reflection of my scanner than the prints.

If you're printing on legal sheets I think the difference is too small to care about, but maybe my standards aren't as high as others.

[JJ]

Another format war, ohnoes...

[blitz6speed]

hehe, photos from a digital camera would suffice IMO. Like the cover of a BD and the printed color laser image next to it, that type of comparison.

[JakeNRoland]

Originally Posted by blitz6speed

hehe, photos from a digital camera would suffice IMO. Like the cover of a BD and the printed color laser image next to it, that type of comparison.

Phew. That sounds like a lot of effort on my part. I don't know about all that. Who knows though, if I get bored tonight I may give it a whirl. No promises though.

[JeremyPiven]

I am having the same dilemma as well. I currently have a color laser. I don't use it too much, but there are times where I go through periods of heavy printing. Mostly labels.

I like the fact that the print is permanent. It won't run or discolor if it gets wet.

I am not a fan of the cost of ownership. Toner is expensive, uses lots of plastic, you have drums and fusers to worry about. Plus the whole things sucks down electricity. Lots of it.

I had ink jets before and never had an issue. They reproduced graphics much better and in all honesty, took less time to print. The big thing I hated about them was the use once cartridges. This is an HP thing. I never felt good about having a cartridge that still had some ink color left, but none of something else. Just so wasteful.

So, my experiences led me to Canon. They are one of the few companies that have replacement cartridges for each color. They are also small, less waste and plastic. HP's new single inks are bulky and still wasteful.

I would actually prefer to trade my laser for something smaller. Inkjet is my choice.

[dakota81]

It's soooo cheap to send your digital photos to Wal*Mart or Walgreens and have them print them out, then just have a black & white laser at home.

The one universal truth to printers is, the more expensive a printer is to buy, the cheaper the consumables are.

[JeremyPiven]

Originally Posted by dakota81

It's soooo cheap to send your digital photos to Wal*Mart or Walgreens and have them print them out, then just have a black & white laser at home.

The one universal truth to printers is, the more expensive a printer is to buy, the cheaper the consumables are.

Not sure how it is with your establishments but I would not trust Wal anything to print my photos using Crayola crayons and construction paper. I have tested some of these places and a lot of them produce photos that are a waste. Washed out colors, not vivid, blurry, and just plain junk.

There are only two places I really trust. Both are mom and pop shops.

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by dakota81

It's soooo cheap to send your digital photos to Wal*Mart or Walgreens and have them print them out, then just have a black & white laser at home.

The one universal truth to printers is, the more expensive a printer is to buy, the cheaper the consumables are.

Its more about the Custom Covers for blu-ray discs and ps3 games. Some of the originals covers are just plain worthless. And Walmart, Walgreens, etc will not print them out due to them being Copyrighted (EVEN IF THEY ARE CUSTOM!!). So you have no choice but to print them at home.

[Marquoz]

I view printers as a disposable commodity these days, it's cheaper to buy a printer every time you run out of ink to get the same amount of ink with a new printer. If you spend 40$ on a halfway decent printer and the ink replacement is like 80$ for the two cartridges, how do you justify not just throwing away the printer and buying a new one???

[JeremyPiven]

Originally Posted by Marquoz

I view printers as a disposable commodity these days, it's cheaper to buy a printer every time you run out of ink to get the same amount of ink with a new printer. If you spend 40$ on a halfway decent printer and the ink replacement is like 80$ for the two cartridges, how do you justify not just throwing away the printer and buying a new one???

Talk about waste. I won't even touch that one.

[dakota81]

Originally Posted by blitz6speed

Its more about the Custom Covers for blu-ray discs and ps3 games. Some of the originals covers are just plain worthless. And Walmart, Walgreens, etc will not print them out due to them being Copyrighted (EVEN IF THEY ARE CUSTOM!!). So you have no choice but to print them at home.

If you know anyone at a local printing press, the cost to print a full color 11x17 sheet is ~$0.10 (they all have service contracts with a fixed cost per print). Eyeballing the dimensions, looks like you can get 3 covers on one sheet. They'll obviously charge you a bit more than $0.10, though. Otherwise, check out the Xerox printers, I wouldn't even bother with HP, their quality has tanked over the recent years.
http://www.office.xerox.com/printers...6130/enus.html

[WriteSimply]

The cons about color laser printers is that it does use a lot more electricity than ink-based printers, but the power spike between color laser and plain laser printers are slight (three toner differences while there's still one fuser). The toner costs a lot BUT with all four fully loaded toners, you can print a lot more!

If you're going for a color laser printer, look for one that prints in a single-pass. This means that the four toners and fuser are all aligned on a single path for the paper to feed through. It uses less energy and produces less noise. Older color lasers like mine has a chamber that rotates the toners when printing in color.

I have the FujiXerox and it works well for my usage of printing labels and documents, color or plain. According to photography websites, the trick is to calibrate the color output of the printer with what you see on the screen; you do this by printing a test picture with gray scales and color bars and scan them using a scanner. Keep repeating it until you've found a meeting point where RGB and CMYK converge. I've not done this myself as I don't have a scanner.

Last year I read an article where Xerox (FujiXerox outside of the US) is trying to snatch away some of HP's customers with their color lasers. The key strategy is cost: the printers costs a lot more upfront but the toners are cheaper in the long run.


fuad

[jw]

inkjet printer is my choice