View Full Version : XPost - Kinda OT - Best Photo Printer?
02-10-2007, 03:27 PM
I am looking for a printer that actually prints QUALITY photos – the one I have is an HP OfficeJet 5510, and it sucks. For picture quality, anyway.
I don’t want to go higher than $200 bucks, but I also think that in the end, it’d be cheaper to spend $200 on a printer rather than taking memory cards and burned CDs to Walmart to get prints done every couple of weeks.
Perhaps someone will be able to suggest a good model or tell me where to start? Consumer reports gives decent reviews by the model, but I really need to know WHICH models to look at in the first place…
02-10-2007, 04:46 PM
I have an Epson 640, and it produces stunning prints. I create limited edition prints on it, and I was recently asked by a university lecturer which professional service I used.
In my opinion, Epson are the best desktops. Especially the 6 ink systems.
But, if you shop around online you'll probably find it's actually cheaper to get 6x4 photos printed at a shop. I don't print small photos on my printed because it just works out too expensive for the inks and paper! I only use it for large format and portfolio prints.
In the UK I use www.photobox.co.uk which is absolutely dirt cheap and usually a next day service. The photos cost something silly like 3p each (6c). I'd look into that before buying a printed just for photo printing, it is a VERY expensive way to do it.
02-10-2007, 06:29 PM
I would agree about the Epson printers being the best around. Also they are very expensive to run especially when you are using the archive inks.
I have an Epson Stylus Pro 7600 it uses Epson Ultrachrome inks, every time I change all 7 of my 220ml cartridges it cost's $1600.00 NZD through the local agent gouging (B@$†@®D$) ;). The paper's are pricy too, but I can print up to 24 inches wide, and as long as my software will allow on specialty papers, canvas the lot.
I have paid someone to print them for me in the past at $200 to $300 each at A1 size, for a gilcee (hate that word) or Museum quality archival print which is why I bought my own printer.
You save quite allot doing it yourself with the big prints not so sure about the small prints though. You should calculate the cost's of consumables to the cost's of third party printing if you are thinking doing it yourself.
02-10-2007, 10:39 PM
I use a Canon 6 colour printer S900 (limited as it only prints to A4 size), does a great job using Canon inks and Canon papers, but have been eyeing off some of the bigger epsoms or canons.
As for printing - it is cheaper to get 6x4's done at one of the print shops than to do it on my own printer.
02-11-2007, 09:05 AM
I have used an Epson for years - and invested in a 4800, rather then going out of house for my printing needs. While it is an expensive investment I believe it has paid for its self by now in time and money saved. I think for what you are looking for you might have to up you budget. Here is a good site to take a look at if you live in the states http://www.atlex.com/
02-11-2007, 08:45 PM
I have a Canon Pixma iP3000 and it does great prints. Ive done 8x10s from my old powershot sd200 that looked lab quality.
02-12-2007, 11:50 PM
I think you'll find in the long run, it is still cheaper to get your prints done at walmart than print at home.
Look at the long term costs. Ink (which is the killler), paper, if you need to print another copy because of a mistake or whatever, electricity, time and more importantly longevity of your prints.
To get quality photos you'd need the OEM inks and not the generic (which naturally cost more) and quality paper, because those two important factors combined add up.
You'd roughly spend about 29cents per 4x6 print at home as opposed to the what? 19 cent print at walmart? i'm not up on the current prices there as I work at wolf camera so I know their prices well ;)
vBulletin® v3.5.8, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.