On 6/11/20 21:07, David Riley via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
On Jun 11, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Brace via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Yes. I have seen that the consensus is that ink jet printers are not good long term. I haven't gotten anyone to say anything positive about them yet. I will say that I've seen some inkjets in the past 15 years or so that are very good for photo printing, if you have the high-quality ink and paper (the paper makes a difference! The photo-quality paper has a coating that keeps the ink from bleeding into the grain like it does with copy paper, so you get much more precise results). But for the amount I print photos, I'm happy to just get it done by a service that I know will do it well like Shutterfly or the Kodak printers at CVS rather than screw around with dried out print heads and the like.
That said, I've not seen nice results from color laser printers, though admittedly it's been a long time since I've really looked. My laser printers are exclusively monochrome because short of, say, classroom presentations for my kids or something, I never need to print anything in color (and they've got crayons/markers/colored pencils).
I've had different laser printers and none were good for photos. I have had a Brother MFC-J5410DW inkjet for years now and it works great, but I have to print things every few weeks to make sure I don't have an issue with clogging. If one prints regularly it shouldn't be a problem, but this isn't a cheap disposable inkjet. It can scan and print 11x17. And it can duplex scan which is helpful for multipage 2-sided scanning/copying. It is slow compared to a laser. Photos are actually pretty decent as well on photo paper. And ink carts are reasonably priced. But it is not for heavy printing use. For that I go to the office and use the laser. All depends on what one needs. I print very little at home any more so the inkjet is good enough. Mark