Todays photo printers impressive

vbimport

#1

I am very impressed with the quality of the photos printed on the newer Ink Jet photo printers. Sure some have 6 seperate Ink carts or need a special photo cart and they cost big dollars and you also need quality paper, but at 8 1/2 x 11 is now better than what Kodak Lab would send me not that many years ago in 8 x 10. Just remember when color printers were Dot Matrix


#2

The inkjet printers sold for the past 3-4 years have delivered very good photo quality prints. We have several Canon printers that use the older BCI-6 (i.e. non-chipped) cartridges that we can buy third party at a very low price ($1.59 per cartridge). Even these cartridges provide great photographic quality prints.

The big drawback, IMO, with these printers is the cost of their OEM branded consumables. When you look at the cost of OEM ink and then include the cost of photo paper, it is probably less expensive to have them printed elsewhere. Kodak is breaking the current economic model by selling printers that use a much lower cost OEM ink cartridge. The quality and longevity of prints made by these new Kodak printers are very good. Aside from Kodak I think Canon is the next most economical because they can be refilled easily and there are now chip resetters sold for them. They can still be refilled without the chip resetter but you lose ink monitoring ability. Not a bad trade off considering you can refill for $1 per cartridge verses $15 for a new OEM cardtridge.


#3

[QUOTE=CCRomeo;2102548]I am very impressed with the quality of the photos printed on the newer Ink Jet photo printers. Sure some have 6 seperate Ink carts or need a special photo cart and they cost big dollars and you also need quality paper, but at 8 1/2 x 11 is now better than what Kodak Lab would send me not that many years ago in 8 x 10. Just remember when color printers were Dot Matrix[/QUOTE]

Yeah quality wise they’re indistinguishable from normal photos.

I’ve been using my photo printer for passport/driving licence photos etc. for a few years now and the organisations that provide those documents here in the UK are unbelievably fussy about quality.

Officially inkjet prints are deemed unacceptable for these purposes and it mentions this specifically on the application forms but obviously, when it’s done properly, they can no longer tell the difference . :slight_smile:

[B]Wombler[/B]


#4

[QUOTE=Wombler;2103495]Yeah quality wise they’re indistinguishable from normal photos.

I’ve been using my photo printer for passport/driving licence photos etc. for a few years now and the organisations that provide those documents here in the UK are unbelievably fussy about quality.

Officially inkjet prints are deemed unacceptable for these purposes and it mentions this specifically on the application forms but obviously, when it’s done properly, they can no longer tell the difference . :slight_smile:

[B]Wombler[/B][/QUOTE]

I love the quality but wish the cartridge capacity was larger. Not sure if the 6 cart systems save any money over the 2 cart + one printers.
The big advantage of printing at home is you can crop, edit, and adjust the image as you want not as they think you might like Plus you can add text to your photos.
Just a few years ago ordering a 8 1/2 x 11 print of a photo of yours took time and big $ and they would crop it as they wanted.
Now I just wish I could scan some of my slides and print them

Note the Photo print machines in many stores require a store employee just to assist you to print a photo. Is that a self service machine?


#5

[QUOTE=UTR;2102748]The inkjet printers sold for the past 3-4 years have delivered very good photo quality prints. We have several Canon printers that use the older BCI-6 (i.e. non-chipped) cartridges that we can buy third party at a very low price ($1.59 per cartridge). Even these cartridges provide great photographic quality prints.

The big drawback, IMO, with these printers is the cost of their OEM branded consumables. When you look at the cost of OEM ink and then include the cost of photo paper, it is probably less expensive to have them printed elsewhere. Kodak is breaking the current economic model by selling printers that use a much lower cost OEM ink cartridge. The quality and longevity of prints made by these new Kodak printers are very good. Aside from Kodak I think Canon is the next most economical because they can be refilled easily and there are now chip resetters sold for them. They can still be refilled without the chip resetter but you lose ink monitoring ability. Not a bad trade off considering you can refill for $1 per cartridge verses $15 for a new OEM cardtridge.[/QUOTE]

The Kodak Photo printers have mixed reviews (mostly negative). Google before you buy one.


#6

[QUOTE=CCRomeo;2103669]I love the quality but wish the cartridge capacity was larger. Not sure if the 6 cart systems save any money over the 2 cart + one printers. [/QUOTE]

They do save you some money but not a lot.

Personally I find that for the sort of stuff I do the black lasts longer than the rest but the colour cartridges are all used at roughly the same rate (other usage patterns will be different though).

Invariably what happens eventually is that all the various cartridges get out of sync and seems like your always replacing one or the other.

Swings & roundabouts I suppose.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#7

[QUOTE=CCRomeo;2103671]The Kodak Photo printers have mixed reviews (mostly negative). Google before you buy one.[/QUOTE]

I have read the opposite from the printer newsgroup I frequent. Supposedly, quality and print longevity are pretty good. I don’t plan to buy any new printers until our Canon printers using the BCI-6 cartridges fail to the point they can’t be patched back together. I can buy cartridges for them for $1.59 each which makes printing dirt cheap. Even the heads can be replaced in them by the user for around $50. Saving almost $50 per set of cartridges over buying OEM ink makes even replacing the head economically viable for these printers.