4 ms·

Laser printers, at least in my experience, suck for photos. Not that people print photos any more but if you're using your printer for any kind of small framed

Laser printers, at least in my experience, suck for photos. Not that people print photos any more but if you're using your printer for any kind of small framed photos or crafts than a laser printer really isn't a solution

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I send photos to Costco for printing. Cheap and easy.
okl 5y ago
But honestly, even consumer inkjet printouts suck, compared to photos printed on a professional machine.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  I have a “consumer” Canon Pixma printer that has 12 different ink cartridges. The quality is absurdly good, and commercial printing has only recently caught up.
ruined 5y ago
anything you can do at home sucks for photos. drugstore prints too. you can't expect inkjet pigments to last very long. if you want a decent photo print that won't deteriorate, projection onto real silver or archival color process is the way to go.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  That sounds overkill just for a glossy picture of my dog
  - ruined 5y ago
    yeah but maybe you really like your dog
shagie 5y ago
> Laser printers, at least in my experience, suck for photos. They do... Though if your use case is only photos, look at a completely different technology. For a number of years, for printing photos I used an Olympus dyesub printer - it was a P-400. It prints an 8x10 (and you had best use the 8x10... or make 4x 4x5s). The problem was that it cost about $3/page to do that print. I'm not sure about the current lineups and price points. Looking around, there's a Kodak one for $130 for the printer that appears to be at $0.50/4x6. Now days, for printing photos - for those that I want printed, I go to smugmug or similar. When you get down to it, I haven't been pleased by the photo printing quality of any of the other technologies.
axiolite 5y ago
I bought the cheapest (Samsung) personal color laser printer I could find, and I would have to say it is, at worst, mediocre for photos. They come out a bit darker than one would like, and some of the colors can sometimes be shifted to a slightly different tint. Very bright/vivid photos generally come out looking great on plain paper... better than inkjet as they don't saturate the paper. You should look around for current reviews on the quality of photo printing on color lasers, as I'm sure you'll find reasonably priced models which do a very good job.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

I send photos to Costco for printing. Cheap and easy.

okl 5y ago

But honestly, even consumer inkjet printouts suck, compared to photos printed on a professional machine.

jiggawatts 5y ago
I have a “consumer” Canon Pixma printer that has 12 different ink cartridges. The quality is absurdly good, and commercial printing has only recently caught up.

ruined 5y ago

anything you can do at home sucks for photos. drugstore prints too. you can't expect inkjet pigments to last very long. if you want a decent photo print that won't deteriorate, projection onto real silver or archival color process is the way to go.

mhh__ 5y ago
That sounds overkill just for a glossy picture of my dog
- ruined 5y ago
  yeah but maybe you really like your dog

shagie 5y ago

> Laser printers, at least in my experience, suck for photos. They do... Though if your use case is only photos, look at a completely different technology. For a number of years, for printing photos I used an Olympus dyesub printer - it was a P-400. It prints an 8x10 (and you had best use the 8x10... or make 4x 4x5s). The problem was that it cost about $3/page to do that print. I'm not sure about the current lineups and price points. Looking around, there's a Kodak one for $130 for the printer that appears to be at $0.50/4x6. Now days, for printing photos - for those that I want printed, I go to smugmug or similar. When you get down to it, I haven't been pleased by the photo printing quality of any of the other technologies.

axiolite 5y ago

I bought the cheapest (Samsung) personal color laser printer I could find, and I would have to say it is, at worst, mediocre for photos. They come out a bit darker than one would like, and some of the colors can sometimes be shifted to a slightly different tint. Very bright/vivid photos generally come out looking great on plain paper... better than inkjet as they don't saturate the paper. You should look around for current reviews on the quality of photo printing on color lasers, as I'm sure you'll find reasonably priced models which do a very good job.