Printing photos with cheap colour lasers

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mianileng@yahoo.com, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Guest

    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.
    , Aug 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jonathan Guest

    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.
    Jonathan, Aug 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Aug 16, 2:47 am, "Jonathan" <> wrote:
    > 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.


    I live in a place where I don't have the luxury of such options.
    No local computer shop stocks color laser printers, and even if
    they did, they wouldn't open a new cartridge just to test-print
    a photo for a prospective customer. There are four photo labs in
    my town. The nearest one consistently turns out washed-out,
    underexposed prints. The other three are hit-or-miss.

    I have no immediate plans to buy a colour laser printer. I was
    searching for information I could mentally file away for future
    reference.
    , Aug 15, 2007
    #3
  4. Anoni Moose Guest

    On Aug 15, 1:32 pm, 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).
    Anoni Moose, Aug 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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
    , Aug 16, 2007
    #5
  6. tomm42 Guest

    On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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
    tomm42, Aug 16, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Aug 16, 6:02 pm, tomm42 <> wrote:
    > On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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.
    , Aug 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul Rubin Guest

    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.
    Paul Rubin, Aug 17, 2007
    #8
  9. John Turco Guest

    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 <>
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2007
    #9
  10. G-man Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > 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
    G-man, Aug 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Rich Guest

    On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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.
    Rich, Aug 19, 2007
    #11
  12. dj_nme Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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.
    dj_nme, Aug 19, 2007
    #12
  13. John Turco Guest

    dj_nme wrote:
    >
    > Rich wrote:
    > > On Aug 15, 4:32 pm, 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 <>
    John Turco, Aug 23, 2007
    #13
  14. dj_nme Guest

    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.
    dj_nme, Aug 23, 2007
    #14
  15. John Turco Guest

    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 <>
    John Turco, Aug 25, 2007
    #15
  16. Mark Guest

    If I could only have one printer, I would seriously look at the Konica
    Minolta Magicolor 2550 DN (the DN has the duplexer). It has 9600x600
    resolution like my older Magicolor 2350 and will print on glossy
    stock. My 2350 prints a decent looking photo on glossy as well as
    plain paper - surely not better than, or anywhere close to, my Canon
    i9900 (which is superb :) but still good for a color laser (and way
    better than my ancient HP 890C lol). The only negative about my 2350
    is that it is very loud as it cycles through each of the 4 color toner
    cartridges for each page face - not sure if that issue has been
    addressed in the later models or not.

    http://printer.konicaminolta.com/products/color/mc2550/index.asp
    http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/10207/konica_minolta_magicolor_2550/
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828117022
    Mark, Aug 29, 2007
    #16
  17. wrote:
    >
    > I have no immediate plans to buy a colour laser printer. I was
    > searching for information I could mentally file away for future
    > reference.
    >


    It will still remain cheaper to order prints from an online vendor and have
    them shipped in the vast majority of places. Family pics and snapshots?
    Shutterfly or similar can be alright (nagging brightness on some colors that
    is unnatural, but all in all, not too bad for snapshots). Mpix is a great
    place to print your better pics [hell, I often send even my snapshots there as
    I do my own color correction so they give you a discount if you buy 4x6
    without color correction.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse

    We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
    machinations of the wicked.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 29, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Wicked Lasers Spyder Series™ Portable OEM Lasers

    Silverstrand, Jan 28, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    700
    Silverstrand
    Jan 28, 2006
  2. Miss Perspicacia Tick

    Recommendations:- Sub-£1000 colour lasers

    Miss Perspicacia Tick, May 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    382
    Miss Perspicacia Tick
    May 3, 2005
  3. Ron McNulty

    Colour Lasers

    Ron McNulty, Aug 8, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    469
    Ron McNulty
    Aug 9, 2004
  4. I'm a Trampoline

    What's the Skinny on Used Colour Lasers?

    I'm a Trampoline, Jun 25, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    312
  5. Peter Jenkins

    Colour Lasers

    Peter Jenkins, Dec 19, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    326
    Rob S
    Dec 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page