Photo quality printer recommendation ?

Hi,

I have a 'so called' photo quality lexmark printer but it really isn't
good enough for the photos I want to produce and it eats very expensive
ink cartridges.

does anyone have any recommendations on suitable alternatives. Cameras
are all canon if that makes any difference (I would hope not).

Priorities
1 Quality
2 reliable
3 low running costs

--

On Oct 9, 7:09 am, chrisu <chrisnos....TakeThisOut@btconnect.nospam.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 'so called' photo quality lexmark printer but it really isn't
> good enough for the photos I want to produce and it eats very expensive
> ink cartridges.
>
> does anyone have any recommendations on suitable alternatives. Cameras
> are all canon if that makes any difference (I would hope not).
>
> Priorities
> 1 Quality
> 2 reliable
> 3 low running costs
>

You didn't say what size printer you need. I have been researching
13x19 printers and the three that keep coming up for best quality
prints are the Epson 2400, Epson R1800 and the HP B9180 (this printer
has been out in reviews only so ink usage is a question). That said
most photo printers guzzle inks, you just need alot of ink to do a
photo where you have almost 100% coverage on a piece of paper. Most
documents are in the range of 10-20% coverage. Best way to save on inks
is to get a printer with ink tanks instead of replaceable cartridges
that include some portion of the print head.
The printers I have listed use pigment based inks, these inks are known
for longevity, they have a life span longer than a chemical photo
print. If you choose to buy a printer that uses dye based inks, as do
most printers, you sacrifice print life, though by buying papers
designed for dye inks you can get decent lifespan from the prints. This
is mostly using the papers the manufacturer recommends, but certain
papers like Ilford Gallerie Classic (only the classic) are designed to
work with dye based printers.

Tom