Printing photos with cheap colour lasers

On Aug 15, 1:32 pm, mianil....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.

Don't know about the low end ones, but the high-end ones
print photos "so-so". They're okay, but not "photographic".
And with the high end ones, the DO print *FAST* (not minutes
per page, but how many pages per minute).
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

mianileng RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.


Try taking a memory card to Wal-Mart and print some out and see how they
look. You don't mention what camera was used to take them so that would
depend also. It is always cheaper to have them done with a commercial
machine anyway. If you plan on experimenting at home you will have to use
good paper as well. If you are planing on buying a printer you would be wise
to see the results before you bought one. You should bring some prints of
your won and test it out yourself. Many places will accommodate this and
don't make the purchase if not.

Jon.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil....RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.

I have a colour laser at work. The prints are just acceptable to print
maybe a DVD cover, but certainly NOT a photograph.

If you are looking to print cheap at home, I just posted a blurb on a
CIS. You can read about it on my website. Feel free to ask
questions... Rudi

http://www.geocities.com/rudedude121/Continuous_ink_system.html
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil....RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.


Lasers handle images differently than inkjets, while they can make
acceptable publications, reports etc the dynamic range is no where
near that of an inkjet. An expensive laser say a Xerox Phaser, laser
not solid color, or above, the images are the same or worse than even
cheap 4 color inkjet printers. New 6 or 8 color inkjets are close, so
say better than traditional photographic prints. Pigment, and some
dye, inkjet printers have the ability to print their photos to last
longer than chemical photo prints. Lasers on good paper have some
lasting properties but no where near the other two media.
If you want to do reports or small publications buy a laser, photos
get an inkjet especially if your local photo print isn't very good.
Epson refurb has a good deal on the R1800, a nice printer for glossy
color prints. Yes there is a learning curve, but not daunting.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

On Aug 16, 6:02 pm, tomm42 <tmon... RemoveThis @wildblue.net> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil... RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> > printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> > that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> > printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> > mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> > understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> > will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> > somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.
>
> Lasers handle images differently than inkjets, while they can make
> acceptable publications, reports etc the dynamic range is no where
> near that of an inkjet. An expensive laser say a Xerox Phaser, laser
> not solid color, or above, the images are the same or worse than even
> cheap 4 color inkjet printers. New 6 or 8 color inkjets are close, so
> say better than traditional photographic prints. Pigment, and some
> dye, inkjet printers have the ability to print their photos to last
> longer than chemical photo prints. Lasers on good paper have some
> lasting properties but no where near the other two media.
> If you want to do reports or small publications buy a laser, photos
> get an inkjet especially if your local photo print isn't very good.
> Epson refurb has a good deal on the R1800, a nice printer for glossy
> color prints. Yes there is a learning curve, but not daunting.
>
> Tom

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Sorry I didn't have time to
reply to each post as it appeared. You've confirmed what I
already suspected - that a colour laser printer falls far short
of inkjet quality for printing photos in each corresponding price
class.

As usual, RPD has delivered - unlike some NGs where there are at
least a few regulars who seem to take delight in finding
something to flame in almost every thread, no matter how the OP
frames his post.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

mianileng DeleteThis @yahoo.com writes:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ?

We have a somewhat fancier one where I work but I think the quality
is about the same. The prints you get are usable for identification
or documentation purposes etc. but not really good for display.
Buy a daily newspaper with a color photo on the front page. The
prints from the laser printer look about as good as that.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

mianileng DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.


Hello,

I've seen sample photos, from color laser printers, at local stores.
They reminded me of crayon drawings!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil....DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.

They produce trash. They are where inkjets where in 1995, if that.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> mianileng DeleteThis @yahoo.com writes:
>> Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
>> printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ?
>
> We have a somewhat fancier one where I work but I think the quality
> is about the same. The prints you get are usable for identification
> or documentation purposes etc. but not really good for display.
> Buy a daily newspaper with a color photo on the front page. The
> prints from the laser printer look about as good as that.

I have an HP2550 colour laser printer. I use if for document printing.
The problem that you will likely find with colour laser printers in
this price range is the inability to handle the photo paper stock. I
tried once just as a test. I know the printer would not be able to
produce a display quality photograph. While the imagery is fine, the
printer itself scraped some of the toner off the output as it was
passing through the printer thus leaving scratches in the final product.

Producing images for documents on paper and light card stock should not
be a problem.

-G
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

Rich wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
>>printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
>>that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
>>printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
>>mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
>>understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
>>will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
>>somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.
>
>
> They produce trash. They are where inkjets where in 1995, if that.
>

What about printing B&W pictures with a mono laser printer?
There have been several sales recently with cheapish laser printers on
offer and have been tempted to get one just for heck of it.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

dj_nme wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, mianil... RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Has anyone here printed photos with an entry-level colour laser
> >>printer like the HP 1600, 2600 or their competitors ? I know
> >>that they are not meant to compete with high-quality inkjets for
> >>printing photo-type images. Reviews either give only passing
> >>mention to this aspect or they don't mention them at all. Quite
> >>understandable as this is not their primary function. Still, it
> >>will be interesting to know how they compare with entry-level or
> >>somewhat better inkjets for printing photos.
> >
> >
> > They produce trash. They are where inkjets where in 1995, if that.
> >
>
> What about printing B&W pictures with a mono laser printer?
> There have been several sales recently with cheapish laser printers on
> offer and have been tempted to get one just for heck of it.


Hello, DJ:

My Samsung ML6060 monochrome laser has a hardware resolution of 600x600
dpi (and 1200 dpi, using "Samsung Resolution Technology"). Nonetheless,
for photos, it can't match inkjets with comparable specifications.

It's still a very competent and rugged printer, of 2000 vintage; I
bought it, secondhand, in 2003.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

John Turco wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
<snip>
>>What about printing B&W pictures with a mono laser printer?
>>There have been several sales recently with cheapish laser printers on
>>offer and have been tempted to get one just for heck of it.
>
>
>
> Hello, DJ:
>
> My Samsung ML6060 monochrome laser has a hardware resolution of 600x600
> dpi (and 1200 dpi, using "Samsung Resolution Technology"). Nonetheless,
> for photos, it can't match inkjets with comparable specifications.
>
> It's still a very competent and rugged printer, of 2000 vintage; I
> bought it, secondhand, in 2003.

I kind of figured as much.
It would be like trying to print with an inkjet in Black Ink Only mode,
with halftones taking the place of the (seemingly) continuous tone that
can be produced by mixing colour inks.
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers 

dj_nme wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> > dj_nme wrote:
> <snip>
> >>What about printing B&W pictures with a mono laser printer?
> >>There have been several sales recently with cheapish laser printers on
> >>offer and have been tempted to get one just for heck of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello, DJ:
> >
> > My Samsung ML6060 monochrome laser has a hardware resolution of 600x600
> > dpi (and 1200 dpi, using "Samsung Resolution Technology"). Nonetheless,
> > for photos, it can't match inkjets with comparable specifications.
> >
> > It's still a very competent and rugged printer, of 2000 vintage; I
> > bought it, secondhand, in 2003.
>
> I kind of figured as much.
> It would be like trying to print with an inkjet in Black Ink Only mode,
> with halftones taking the place of the (seemingly) continuous tone that
> can be produced by mixing colour inks.


Hello, DJ:

Alas, even then, the ML6060 is outclassed by my two inexpensive,
photo-quality inkjets (Hewlett-Packard D7160 and Epson Stylus Photo
825).

Lasers simply aren't up to the task, generally...they're much better
suited for text, graphs and charts.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Printing photos with cheap colour lasers