I have a printer at home supplied by my employer, an old HP all in one. It's ok for docs etc but the print quality for photos is awful.
Would anyone care to recommend one that I could use just for printing photos, wireless would be good, but not essential. Running costs will have to be considered.
Or am I just better off taking the images I want printing to a High St shop and getting them done there?
BB
If you're home printing original inks are a must, with a paper that is designed to work with the driver. I have an old Canon i965 that works well and Epson do some good printers too.
Having said all that I rarely print out photos now as MIL no longer visits due to her age. We use on-line photos to show her the latest from the family. It's usually cheaper unless you print loads to use the high street, finding a quality developer may be the problem there though.
I have a Canon iP3600 which has been faultless, I agree with Sandwich regarding the ink. I wasn't doing huge blow ups and I always found it difficult to tell the difference, with the naked eye, between a printed photo and a proper lab developed photo. Costwise, I can't really remember but I think it was in the region of 20c per A4 photo plus paper cost.
Canon make cameras, Canon make printers too, I woukld like to think that the two departments talk to each other.
Another possibility would be to use a service like http://www.myphotobook.co.uk/ - I've used them in the past to make up albums to send to grandparents etc., the quality is excellent (albeit not a full gallery style print) and the service quick.
I use a Canon mg6150? but with non original inks from IJT. Works great
I'm using a really old HP940 ink jet, which cost all of £50 about 10 years ago, and if I use quality HP paper and ink, the results are as good as a professional printer.
Get a set of greyscale inks (and appropriate driver) if you do a lot of B&W.
Apart from the odd snap which you need quick, i'd use an online print service. IMHO Printing at home properly costs a lot of money, and is a pain is the ass.
I can't help with a recommendation, but I'll add my experience that home printing is not very long-lasting. I've got plenty of prints knocking around the house and many have faded badly.
I use snapfish online and they hve been brilliant. Which Mag came to the conclusion that home printing was 4 times more expensive than using an online service, for worse kwality..
The good thing about printing at home is that you can print, then adjust your image, print again, and continue to do this until you have the prints looking how you want them. Not really possible with a highstreet printer without a lot of back and forth.
I've had an Epson and now have a Canon. The Epson was a clunky old thing, but the print quality was better than the Canon.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
