Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 6:42 AM Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> A laser printer is *much* more economical to run than inkjets. The toner >> cartridges never dry out - with inkjet you often replace the ink before it >> has >> run out, because it has dried out. Initially you pay more for a laser, but >> over the years you will recuperate your investment in lower running costs. > You will pay for it VERY quickly. A good color laser costs $200. An > inkjet plus the first set of cartridges, which will last six months > together, will cost you $100-150 (one way or another - either with a > cheap printer with super-expensive cartridges, or an expensive printer > with more reasonable cartridges). > > There is a reason just about any company with professional IT uses > laser printers. They're just way cheaper to operate long-term, and > really long-term works out to be something like a year. They also > don't print photos (more on that below). > > If you have a family then laser printers also are worth it for peace > of mind. Inkjets are a maintenance nightmare, and they tend to > contribute to spouses becoming a maintenance nightmare. They seem to > ALWAYS need unclogging or tweaking or whatever, and of course every > time you hit that clean button you can just feel money draining out of > your wallet. A laser printer just needs to be fed new toner when a > cartridge empties, which is rare and takes two minutes. Occasionally > they will jam, and usually the paper path is very easy to access and > clear. > >> However, the quality of printing pictures is something you ought to check >> before you buy. As a rule, inkjets with their liquid ink, print better >> colour >> pictures than a comparable laser. Professional laser printers for thousands >> of dollars are better than what you're thinking of buying, but even then they >> won't match the colour flow and finish of a good quality inkjet. So, >> consider >> your use case and go to a shop to try-before-you-buy, because a laser printer >> may not be your optimal choice. > If you care about photos, laser printers are useless. So are "cheap" > inkjets, and they aren't cheap either. > > If you care about photos I almost always tell people to just have them > printed commercially. Walmart is just fine for what most people care > about, and their service will exceed the quality of any sub-$150-200 > inkjet easily. A better service will simply be unbeatable by any > reasonable home printer and will still be cheaper than most inkjet > solutions. > > Now, if you print a LOT of photos then a higher-end inkjet might be a > worthwhile investment, especially if printing on demand is > commercially valuable for you. The higher-end printers combined with > quality ink/paper can turn out a very good product and they're > reasonable economical to operate because the ink is cheap and there > probably are upwards of 10+ individual tanks in them, or they may > support bulk ink out of the box. However, you have to print often > enough to go through a set of cartridges every six months or so, > because they still have a shelf life, and if you're throwing away 10% > used cartridges your cost per page goes WAY up. > > And make no mistake, one way or another decent photos cost money to > print. If you print high-volume with a good printer at home maybe > that $10 print online only costs $7-8 to DIY. Photos go through a LOT > of ink. When you see those stats about pages per cartridge they > generally assume 5% coverage, and a photo is 100% coverage, and of > course you have to use photo paper on top of that. If you aren't > draining those cartridges completely before they dry up then your cost > goes up, and any savings evaporate. They might be worth it for > convenience, but you're paying for it. > > So, I would still generally advocate the laser printer for most > people, augmented by commercial photo printing when needed. Also, > think about whether you REALLY need color - the complexity of the > printer goes up significantly with color and the cost to operate - a > monochrome laser will be much cheaper to operate. > > Right now I'm at the point where I don't even have a working printer. > My postscript color laser needs a new image drum and I just can't see > one paying for itself. I can print at work if I need to, or if I'm in > a hurry I can pay the outrageous $0.10/page at Staples (just email a > PDF to an address and you get an access code to print the document on > demand). Since a good quality printer easily costs half that already > the break-even time to DIY would be quite long, though there is > certainly a convenience factor having a printer at home. I just don't > have that compulsion to print stuff out. If anything I do the reverse > - scanning any paper I'm given and shredding it. > > -- > Rich > >
Thanks to both for the info. I usually use online picture developers or local ones. Why, I like the old style of processing of film. I've seen some inkjet printed images have issues in the recent past. Some are better then others of course but as I get older, I want pictures that can survive more bad storage. As some know, my Mom had been sick for a long time. She passed away a few weeks ago, which is why I haven't been posting much recently. Trying to sort through pictures, I can tell which were done on some sort of inkjet printer and which were done the old way. Heck, I soaked some of the old processed pictures in water to get them to turn lose and almost all of them separated just fine. The ones that were printed with inkjet type printers didn't do well at all. Of course, those old Polaroids didn't even stick at all. Besides, there are places where a 5x7 picture is only $0.12 to $0.15 or I could buy a dedicated printer just for photos. My sis-n-law has one and she said it works pretty well. I'd want to do some testing to see just how much abuse they can stand tho. This is why I was looking mainly at HP, Lexmark and a couple other brands. I've read some stories on Brother not having the best driver support as well as a couple others, I think some Epsons have issues as well. I wanted to find out if a particular printer works or not before I spent money on one. It sounds like that as long as a printer supports a few languages, it has a better chance of working easily. I don't care about brand as much as I do that it just plain works and will not be a piece of junk like the old inkjet printers that I want to get away from. A reason I want to print, for when there is no power here to run computers. We have occasions where due to storms etc we don't have power. It isn't often but when it comes time to eat, a recipe on the puter that I can't cut on isn't much help. A recipe book that I printed tho, that works, even if by candle light. lol Plus, sometimes I want to print something for friends that want printed copies, usually recipes. As it is, I send them a copy and they take it to work etc to print. ;-) I'm starting to warm up to that Lexmark. I really like the price on that second link in other post. I can take the savings and buy a full set of cartridges, high yield ones. While on those. I thought about putting the printer in another room that isn't as climate controlled as my bedroom is. How does the printers do in rooms like that? It gets a bit warm in the summer and cool in the winter. It doesn't get down to freezing or anything but does get pretty cool. I'm just curious if the toner might mess up in temps that are cooler or warmer than normal. Also, should the printer be left on all the time or only on when is use? I recall a friend ages ago that was told to leave his on so that the toner would get clumpy or something. It's been a long time ago so can't recall what the problem was. Thanks so much for the info, both of you. Dale :-) :-)
