The "net" is overflowing with data on how to maintain, clean, and repair Epson inkjets.

You **can** replace the print head, but on a low-end machine, it would not make economic sense.

I've never had a print head fail on any of my Epson printers....

Be careful comparing printer types if you are not comparing equal quality. You can defend all you want but you look like an idiot if you compare a cheap color laser to a high quality ink printer. Dah, there is no comparison when comparing a poor model to high quality models. If you compare with a printer service, then both types will look equal.

Printing on glossy paper with a laser printer is pointless because the toner is not translucent as ink. Actually toner is opaque. Ink also blocks glossy. It is best to print on matte or flat paper and then apply a glossy finish for both ink and laser printers. If putting in a picture frame, printing on glossy paper is useless.

Normal settings will not produce the same amount of quality when getting photos from a professional. Also "what are the normal settings," so it seems you know nothing about printers.


The same old saying about HP are generally supported. To me HP are generally have hardware problems. Multi-function printers are a joke and people does not want to do things the right way that has always and always works which is using separate units. All multi-functional printers are partially supported in Linux.

I still recommend to not go with multi-functional printers because separates gives you more of a selection. Sure devices that are multi-functional can give some nice features, but they are annoying to work because companies have a horrible menu system and their proprietary naming for certain features are confusing. A company that advertises that their ink printers can produce laser like quality is a joke. All companies have been saying that for decades. Neither ink printers can output laser like quality, so do not buy based on this stupid advertisement. There is a big difference with ink that tries to output laser quality and a laser printer that actually does. Anybody notices it.

I know from a fact that family are still greedy, so you should always ask for compensation for the amount of time, problems, and supplies that you have to pay for.

If you want to protect photos, it is best to save a copy in fire retardant safe that is bolted down. Not all safe are water proof, so it is best to use something like Foodsaver to protect against water.

I suggest go to the following site for scanning and printing tips.

http://www.scantips.com/

I still recommend to use professional printing service like Vistaprint, FedEx Office (aka Kinko's), or Kodak Gallery.

With all of our advice and exposition on the nuances, OP was last seen considering a low end multi-function inkjet which is a 4-color printer and therefore (in my book) does not qualify as a photo printer.

I'd say that we have collectively succeeded in providing more information than was needed......

From the OP:
I read that as "photo-quality".

For B&W text, an inkjet cannot touch a good laser printer.

For high-quality photos, a laser cannot touch a good "photo-quality" inkjet.

This is why I have both.

my personal experience with an HP Photosmart 'All in one' printer is that it's ridiculous what you pay per page! the ink last me about 100 pages and replacing it cost around ZAR1200.
Even though I was only printing black text most of the time, the colour cartridges ran out at the same time.
I've since heard that the only 'affordable' printers are 'high-yield' laser printers. It's not worth paying around ZAR12 a photo when it only costs ZAR3 to get your photo's printed at Kodak.
Of course, This is South Africa, and the ink appears to be made in Ireland, so it may be cheaper elsewhere.
I recommend laser printers. Get your photo's printed at the Kodak shop!

There are many printers that use separate ink cartridges for black, grey, and three or six different colours so that you do not need to replace them when just one runs out. Most of them are made by Canon, which is the reason I favour Canon printers.

I've had a few Canon printers, but I can't recommend them. The ink cartridges were not built properly, when the ink dried, there was no way to unclog them (unless you know how). At least with Epson and HP, I know how to unclog them.

One thing I have noticed for text, is that documents printed with an inkjet printer fade over time and the print will run if they get wet. If you print photo's however, you want to use an ink jet printer.

So you know how to unclog HP and Epson printers but not Canon printers; that's you, your knowledge and your experience. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how good or bad Canon printers are in and of themselves.

Here are some instructions that can be tried with most print heads (except, as noted, Epson) in extreme cases when the quick and easy methods do not work.

http://www.pcuser.com.au/pcuser/hs2....256C3600130030

thats because it puts a layer of yellow then a layer of blue then black to make it softer.
(and maybe a conspiracy to waste ink).

A laser printer can and does touch as photo-quality. Kodak uses a laser printer when printing out photos from a 35 mm film camera.


Ink printers does not have to have multiple colors for photo quality. It is all about the concentration of the pigment. Multiple colors such as six cartridges has less pigment compared to three colors. A printing press uses three colors.

I doubt you have the best quality color laser printer, so your comparison is flawed. Color laser printers from Konica Minolta are known to be the best, so compared based on this brand than something like HP or other brands.

Both color laser and ink printers have equal quality. The only difference is how many pages and how much are you willing to spend per page. Laser is the cheapest while ink is the most expensive.

Okay I've been comparing specs on laser and inkjet printers and I'm confused. An Epson "Workforce 600" multifunction touts color print quality of the following:
5760 x 1440 dpi
Whereas a Konica-Minolta "magicolor 7450II 4039322 Workgroup" laser jet advertises this color print quality:
9600 x 600 dpi
Why the huge differences in these numbers? Is it because of the way the ink/toner is laid down on the paper? Forgive my ignorance here but I'd rather look dumb than not be clear on the facts.

Once you get over 1000 or so, the dpi numbers really are not all that meaningful. A REALLY high-resolution print would be something like 360 pixels/ per inch. To get smooth tonal gradation, you need several actual dots per pixel. (Another way to state this is that the printer should have resolution higher than the file to be printed For typical digital photos, I can see the difference between 720 dpi and 1440, but it is often not enough to worry about.

And with lasers, there are no dots, so the spec. has some different kind of meaning.

The reason for the extra colors is twofold: 1. To give smooth tonal gradation--ie the use of light cyan and light magenta. 2. To increase color gamut--eg in the Epsons with added red and blue inks.
I don't think so. For comparable print quality, the 4-color and 6-color printers will put down the same total amount of ink. The extra ink colors are used for smooth tones.
Not for photos....I have NEVER seen output from a laser that would match what I can do on 5-year old inkjet technology. Further, I have NEVER seen a print at a show that was done with a laser. On websites catering to professional photographers and artists, I do not recall ever seeing discussion of laser printing.

PS: I have also never seen a camera store selling laser printers or supplies

I know there exist color laser printers, but the quality and longevity of the prints are questionable.

Ummmm----we've been talking quite a bit here about color lasers--including many specific models.

I have never seen any data, but the nature of the process suggests to me that they should have pretty good life. Uncle Google will know......