For black and white, I’ve favored a Brother laser for years decades. Low cost per page, no ink to dry out, and the machines are usually fine with affordable third-party toner.
Wanting to do photos and cards … an Espon with their EcoTank. Still has the pitfalls of an inkjet (like head clogging from disuse), but as least its not going to screw you over in replacement ink costs.
(A better solution IMHO is print photos at a CVS or something. Their photo printing will be better and more cost effective than buying the printer, photo paper, and ink yourself.)
@narfcake I wish they would just use a print service or go to cvs to print photos but, with their health not being the best these days, it’s better for them to be able to do it at home. Thank you for this advice re printer options. I appreciate it so much!
I second the nom for a Brother laser. All of the inkjets suck in one way or another, and I will say so despite the fact that there’s an Epson ET-2750 sitting in front of me and a Canon G3000 in the workroom. The ones with itty-bitty ink tanks (which get more proprietary every week) can be more expensive in the long run than having prints made at WallyWorld, and if not used often (for some, daily), all of the inkjets clog up and become useless. The ten-year-old Brother near my S.O.'s desk never misfires or produces an ugly print.
@PooltoyWolf Up front cost is higher, yes, but the operational cost long-term is a heck of a lot less. Particularly given that the laser will outlast three inkjets easily. The bottom line really comes down to the fact that if you want trouble-free photo printing, you only really have two options. One is to have them printed at some place like Wally World or CVS, and the other is a color laser. The inkjets really are crap. I can say that from long and painful experience. I have yet to find one which can reliably sit unused for as much as a week and a half, and still print a photo flawlessly on the first attempt.
@werehatrack Yes, it’s almost a given that a color laser printer is a better long-term investment than an inkjet printer, if you’re going to be using it a lot. I simply said the purchase price is much higher.
@PooltoyWolf@werehatrack You guys are the best! Thank you so much for all of this. I think the Brother option is probably the best way for me to go with this. Thank you, thank you!!
@PooltoyWolf@werehatrack hahaha on laser longeity. I am still using an HP laserJet 1200 from around 2000. Paper tray is broken and I have to prop it up but otherwise it is fine. Cheap. Reliable. Maybe 2500-3000 pages on one laser cartridge.
Color laser over color inkjet, for all the reasons mentioned, but they’re not cheap.
But my vote is really for using a print service, whether local or online. Saves on the maintenance hassles, as well as (probably non-local) family tech support calls.
Is there a dye sub photo printer that’s reasonable and economical for home use yet? I set up a few commercial units with tethered DSLRs and laptops to make them a one click operation that volunteers could run for photo booth/celebrity photos for events some years back and they were pretty bulletproof. They printed great photos and could sit in a storage unit for ten months or so and then come back out and fire right back up as long as you had paper and ribbons to feed them. I’m just wondering how that technology has come along since then.
For this particular problem, I’m on team laser as well. I bought a Dell C4016/something or other wireless color laser five or so years ago for probably $99. It happily accepts generic toner from Amazon and prints like a champ. But I don’t do much photo printing on it or know how easily it handles 4x6 photo paper.
I just happened across an answer to my own question… It’s not super economical (just under 50c/print for paper and film at Amazon prices anyway) but there’s a Kodak Dock Printer that’s a 4x6 dye sub that connects either to USB-C or Bluetooth to print from your phone.
Got one from goodwill for $20, let’s see if it works.
I wish the Xerox solid ink technology had proven more reliable. When they worked they were great. Sorry, @natasha_natasha, not helpful for you but I got to whine a bit and feel better as a result, so there’s that.
@ybmuG man, I loved the Phaser digital crayons! The prints were so thick and textured, and the puzzle-shaped blocks of wax were so much fun! I dealt with them at two different companies, and they did not remain in use at either. I think I junked the last one within the last two years at my old job, after it had sat in an abandoned office for years. If it were feasible to keep one operating I would have loved to bring it home just for the fancy prints.
@djslack@ybmuG Alps made a very strange thermal printer that used ribbons coated with that wax; it could make color prints after a fashion, and they were water resistant but not weather-durable unless covered with a protective coating. It wasn’t fussy about the stock it was printing on; it would do sheet vinyl as readily as paper.
For black and white, I’ve favored a Brother laser for
yearsdecades. Low cost per page, no ink to dry out, and the machines are usually fine with affordable third-party toner.Wanting to do photos and cards … an Espon with their EcoTank. Still has the pitfalls of an inkjet (like head clogging from disuse), but as least its not going to screw you over in replacement ink costs.
(A better solution IMHO is print photos at a CVS or something. Their photo printing will be better and more cost effective than buying the printer, photo paper, and ink yourself.)
@narfcake I wish they would just use a print service or go to cvs to print photos but, with their health not being the best these days, it’s better for them to be able to do it at home. Thank you for this advice re printer options. I appreciate it so much!
I second the nom for a Brother laser. All of the inkjets suck in one way or another, and I will say so despite the fact that there’s an Epson ET-2750 sitting in front of me and a Canon G3000 in the workroom. The ones with itty-bitty ink tanks (which get more proprietary every week) can be more expensive in the long run than having prints made at WallyWorld, and if not used often (for some, daily), all of the inkjets clog up and become useless. The ten-year-old Brother near my S.O.'s desk never misfires or produces an ugly print.
@werehatrack Oh, and that Brother is a color laser.
@werehatrack Only problem is color laser is considerably more expensive to buy than inkjet.
@PooltoyWolf Up front cost is higher, yes, but the operational cost long-term is a heck of a lot less. Particularly given that the laser will outlast three inkjets easily. The bottom line really comes down to the fact that if you want trouble-free photo printing, you only really have two options. One is to have them printed at some place like Wally World or CVS, and the other is a color laser. The inkjets really are crap. I can say that from long and painful experience. I have yet to find one which can reliably sit unused for as much as a week and a half, and still print a photo flawlessly on the first attempt.
@werehatrack Yes, it’s almost a given that a color laser printer is a better long-term investment than an inkjet printer, if you’re going to be using it a lot. I simply said the purchase price is much higher.
@PooltoyWolf @werehatrack You guys are the best! Thank you so much for all of this. I think the Brother option is probably the best way for me to go with this. Thank you, thank you!!
@natasha_natasha @werehatrack No problem!
@PooltoyWolf @werehatrack hahaha on laser longeity. I am still using an HP laserJet 1200 from around 2000. Paper tray is broken and I have to prop it up but otherwise it is fine. Cheap. Reliable. Maybe 2500-3000 pages on one laser cartridge.
@Kidsandliz @werehatrack Reminds me, I still need to see if I can revive the ancient HP LaserJet 6L I saved from the trash a few years ago…
Color laser over color inkjet, for all the reasons mentioned, but they’re not cheap.
But my vote is really for using a print service, whether local or online. Saves on the maintenance hassles, as well as (probably non-local) family tech support calls.
@blaineg color laser it is, then. Thank you!!
Is there a dye sub photo printer that’s reasonable and economical for home use yet? I set up a few commercial units with tethered DSLRs and laptops to make them a one click operation that volunteers could run for photo booth/celebrity photos for events some years back and they were pretty bulletproof. They printed great photos and could sit in a storage unit for ten months or so and then come back out and fire right back up as long as you had paper and ribbons to feed them. I’m just wondering how that technology has come along since then.
For this particular problem, I’m on team laser as well. I bought a Dell C4016/something or other wireless color laser five or so years ago for probably $99. It happily accepts generic toner from Amazon and prints like a champ. But I don’t do much photo printing on it or know how easily it handles 4x6 photo paper.
I just happened across an answer to my own question… It’s not super economical (just under 50c/print for paper and film at Amazon prices anyway) but there’s a Kodak Dock Printer that’s a 4x6 dye sub that connects either to USB-C or Bluetooth to print from your phone.
Got one from goodwill for $20, let’s see if it works.
I wish the Xerox solid ink technology had proven more reliable. When they worked they were great. Sorry, @natasha_natasha, not helpful for you but I got to whine a bit and feel better as a result, so there’s that.
@ybmuG man, I loved the Phaser digital crayons! The prints were so thick and textured, and the puzzle-shaped blocks of wax were so much fun! I dealt with them at two different companies, and they did not remain in use at either. I think I junked the last one within the last two years at my old job, after it had sat in an abandoned office for years. If it were feasible to keep one operating I would have loved to bring it home just for the fancy prints.
@djslack @ybmuG Alps made a very strange thermal printer that used ribbons coated with that wax; it could make color prints after a fashion, and they were water resistant but not weather-durable unless covered with a protective coating. It wasn’t fussy about the stock it was printing on; it would do sheet vinyl as readily as paper.