Le Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:07:52 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug a écritÂ*:

"J.G." writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers
with the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization, much to my
chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to
refill 1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers: 0. IMHO, all
ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs! 1.
Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative. 2.
The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Why is Epson not recommended in the US (I assume most posters here are
in the US)? Epson is great for photos, although as I concentrate on
linux Canon driver development I only use Epson as a backup. I buy 3rd
party inks for my Epson, haven't tried refilling it. I'm not aware of
any problems with the ink cartridges, but maybe there are, which is why
Epson is not being discussed here?

I don't have an Epson printer at home, but I have seen Epson printed
photos and HP printed conterparts. I mostly noticed that Epson colours
seem to fade a lot faster than HP's. True enough, the fading of HP
prints, although slow, is an awful lot faster than that of old photos
that were chemically treated !