Recommend a printer? :)

[Power_13]

Does anyone have any recommendations for a good quality printer/scanner? I'm looking for one that is accurate enough for photo work. Is photo printing a specialist printer thing, or would I be able to find one that can print quality photos as well as normal printing jobs?

I've been looking at the Officejet 6210 All-In-One. Any comments on this one?

Thanks for any help :)

[mojo]

HP has always made good printers. I don't know if they are as good as they were in the past. The HP printer division is now owned by the Chinese and I believe manufactured their as well. If it's an HP it will have good functionality, they always do. It's the overall durability catagory that I think has sliped just a bit. Go to the library and check out Consumer Reports for the best All in One Printer/Scanner/Fax/Copier. Good Luck...mojo

[Power_13]

Cheers. I know what you mean about HP printers being durable. The printer we have right now is a Deskjet, which came with the first PC we got. It's been working fine since 1997, but with my mum being a cardmaker and my dad getting back into photography, I thought a more up to date printer/scanner combo would be useful for 'em :)

[MMP]

Canon
I don't know about the combinations but if they are anything like their printers, then they are awesome. My PIXMA ip4000 prints 4x6 color prints on photo paper and uses individual ink tanks for each color for about $12-13 each. Run out of one color and you dont have to re cartridge the whole thing. The prints are at least as good as I would get at the CVS down the street. WOW! check them out.

[tenebrae]

Personally, I got so pissed off at Hewlett Packard and their crappy driver support that I stopped using their products a couple of years ago. I now use Canon.

A good quality inkjet will print photos fine. The printing isn't really the problem. It's the ink technology that is still not quite up to speed. It's not super stable over extended periods of time ~ tending to wash out and break down slightly....

Dopn't get me wrong, HP make good stuff. I used a printer and scanner in combination that cost about $700 the pair and produced beautiful results in photo work and day to day printing (250-300 pages a month). These were new products about 6 months out from Windows XP. Unfortunately HP never implemented driver support for these products, relying on Microsoft to do it for them. MS native support worked fine on the scanner (if you didn't mind reduced functionality) and did not work at all for the printer. Many moons passed and HP issued some updates, both of which were less than stellar efforts. The scanner driver was good, but was consistently overwritten by the native Windows driver, simply because HP never got the driver digitally signed off by MS (ironically, the native driver was just an old HP driver that had an MS digital signature).

The printer just turned into a fiasco. It went from a printer that would run 20ppm into a slug that would print 1-2ppm and would take an hour/90 minutes to print a single image of reasonable quality. HP never remedied the situation, despite many of its customers complaining, essentially turning their printer into a pile of junk.

Canon, on the other hand, offer excellent custoimer support, release drivers consistently, release drivers that actually improve the performace/functionality of their products, and keep customers supplied with a stream of usable software that improves with each iteration. Happy Canon customer here, Power_13.

Tenebrae

[tenebrae]

Canon

Another happy customer....Good to see.

Tenebrae

[Power_13]

Thanks for the Canon reccomendation, I'll check them out in a second.

One thing I'm wondering about...Tenebrae, you mention that an inkjet photo print will degrade after time. Is there an alternative to inkjet that will avoid this problem? Laserjet, maybe? Just trying to weigh up all the alternatives :)

[MMP]

Power_13,
I have Canon prints that are now 3 years old and still look good. Check out Canon You won't be sorry.
Good to see Tenebrae is another satisfied Canon customer
MMP

[dubya]

Canon
I don't know about the combinations but if they are anything like their printers, then they are awesome. My PIXMA ip4000 prints 4x6 color prints on photo paper and uses individual ink tanks for each color for about $12-13 each. Run out of one color and you dont have to re cartridge the whole thing. The prints are at least as good as I would get at the CVS down the street. WOW! check them out.

:yay ^^^ The Canon ^^^^

[NeoFauve]

I used to have paper jams on a front fed HP. I go through phases when I REALLY put a burden on a printer.
I've had way better reliability w/rear fed Epson Stylus printers.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I've seen and All-In-One units that feed from the rear.

All this stuff is, mechanically, kinda' flimsy.
I thought I wanted and All-In-One a while back.
I run the pants off my printer, so I've had two in five+ years.
Really decent printers are practically disposable now. They're cheap and no one fixes them. On the other hand I've had the same scanner for 2 1/2 printers.
How good an idea it is to house both devices together really depends on your folks printing vs scanning requirements. But if half the unit dies the whole thing has to go. That's edging toward triple the price of a new printer. At least double. Something to consider.

[tenebrae]

Sorry, Photo-13, I've ever only dealt with inkjet printing. Laser printer used to only be black & white and very expensive in the initial purchase ~ though cheap to run. Now, a good quality colour laser printer is still very expensive in the initial purchase and that sort of counts me out nowadays (they still offer the cheapest form of printing, though). I have, however, seen medical imaging and anatomical drawings printed off on archive paper (100% cotton, acid free) that were quite beautiful. I would assume, though, that ink being ink, the results would be the same in the long term ~ it's just that the ink is being delivered to the chosen media in a different way. Things are getting better, however; inks are developing, they have to, given that home photo printing is undergoing a massive boom. I wouldn't worry overmuch about degradation. You'd be looking at probably 15-20 years before you'd actually come across noticeable degradation, I suspect. The first generation of inkjet photos were less stable than that....

Tenebrae

[tenebrae]

All this stuff is, mechanically, kinda' flimsy.
I thought I wanted and All-In-One a while back.
I run the pants off my printer, so I've had two in five+ years.
Really decent printers are practically disposable now. They're cheap and no one fixes them. On the other hand I've had the same scanner for 2 1/2 printers.
How good an idea it is to house both devices together really depends on your folks printing vs scanning requirements. But if half the unit dies the whole thing has to go. That's edging toward triple the price of a new printer. At least double. Something to consider.

I sort of think this way, too. Things don't get fixed, nowadays; they get thrown away via a philosophy of inbuilt obsolescence. The more "stuff" you've got in a unit, the more "stuff" there is that can go wrong....all resulting in you having to throw all your "stuff" away :)!

And buy new "stuff" .

Tenebrae

[BradKM]

We just got a new Canon Pixma as well.

So far I've been very impressed.

[MMP]

Me too. Separate components are the way to go.
Mustek UB 1200 scanner................$59
Canon PIXMA ip4000 .....................$125
Nikon 4 megapixel digital camera ....$250
12x10x32 CD burner .....................$75
Adobe Photoshop Elements.............$99
A dozen ways to preserve your memories.......priceless


Prices and milage may vary :)

_________
"Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers"

[gibsonjunkie]

I have an HP and it does a pretty nice job. If I got one today I'd look at Canon for all the reasons mentioned, and Epson, because I have read reviews stating their color is more durable. don't know if it's true or not... the HP I use has a photo ink cartridge and a black and white ...and a color one that I have to switch out. The ink cartridges are expensive and if one color goes, you have to replace them all. I have also noticed that the B&W one goes almost always at the same time as the color - coincidence - I think not...

[NeoFauve]

I have devised ways to do unusual maintenance on my scanner though.
It's going on 6 years old and the under side of the glass gets fogged.
The only thing I can figure is that the plastic "curing" or giving off a vapor of some kind and it builds up on the glass, or the intense light triggers a momentary chemical reaction. ???
It' really wrecks scans of large images.
So I removed the 2 screws that hold it together and snapped some plastic tabs off to remove the top.
You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get glass "clear scanning" clean.
Damn near anything will show up on a scan.

The way these things are assembled, no one is supposed to get inside and fix anything.

Here, it's a matter of survival for me. It took 2 months to have a bunch of bean counters sign off on my new PC this summer. The major tool upon which it all depends. Working on limping, or sucko loaner equipment was a real PITA.

[NeoFauve]

Regarding ink: My current Epson Stylus C86 uses 4 seperate cartridges. I'm sure I plenty of one color or another in the past with the CMY in one cartridge.
I'm still trying to guage what goes the quickest.

[tonemonkey]

Well, I for one am going to suggest you stick with HP, especially for printing. While others (epson and canon) can match them for sharpness, I haven't yet seen anything that can match them for pleasing and more importantly accurate colour reproduction. Canon aren't bad, but epson do love to pink things up and always seem disappointing in the greens. However canon do make wonderful scanners, and as separate scanners tend to vastly outperform the ones built into all in ones, and as others have mentioned, they do tend to be more fault prone, I'd certainly cosider one of those. HP also have a new ink type called Vivera which has a claimed life of around 100 years.

Do NOT if you want to take my advice get a lexmark, I have finally managed to ditch mine, and never has my home been sullied by a bigger chunk of poor quality consistently faulty excreta. (The Hotpoint washer dryer came close but that was only 2 replacements in a year, rather than the 4 that I suffered with my turdmark printer.)

Just to add, the one you mention may not produce the best results with photos when compared to other models that can be changed to offer six colour printing. More colors, more possible mixes, more natural results.

[moonpie]

I've been using an Epson Stylus CX6600 for a couple of months now.
No complaints :yay

[dubya]

don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[Power_13]

Ok, it looks like it's not gonna be an all-in-one printer/scanner now

Does scan quality vary in any drastic way between scanners? :)

[MMP]

HP scanners seem to do ok. Any high resolution scanner will do a reasonable job, however scan settings are usually a compromise. The higher the resolution, the more pixels in the picture.....the higher the pixel count, the more memory the pic takes. imo, 400-600 resolution produces very fine pics without taking up too much memory. Images saved as .jpg or .jpeg 's are compressed to take up less memory. Adobe Photoshop Elements is a good beginning-intermediate photo processing program that easily converts images to and from .bmp, .jpg, .tif, .gif, etc. The learning curve on it is not too bad either. Good Luck,
MMP
ps.
There's nothing like a good 4-6 megapixel camera to take great pics
Burn your photos to cd's or dvd's and then you can print one anytime you want and not worry about whether the ink will fade.

I have a Mustek USB Scanner. Resolutions to 1200 DPI. I usually use around 400 DPI to scan photos and 600 to scan documents.
I have heard good things about HP and Canon scanners too. We have an HP scanner on the computer in the basement. Both sold for about $60 when we purchased them.
_________
"Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers"

[Strummin' Ronin]

EPSON

Me and my family swear by their printers. The all in one ones are convenient, but they don't tend to have as fancy drivers as having separate printer, scanner.

I have the occacional problem with mine (Epson Stylus Photo 830U), but that's because I use refillable el-crappa inks. Otherwise it's solid as a rock, totally reliable. :yay

If it breaks, I will buy another Epson for sure.

And another vote for Mustek scanners.


Ditto Tonemonkey's NO to Lexmark printers.

[tenebrae]

Well, I for one am going to suggest you stick with HP, especially for printing. While others (epson and canon) can match them for sharpness, I haven't yet seen anything that can match them for pleasing and more importantly accurate colour reproduction.

I agree with you on that, tonemonkey. HP's colour reproduction was top notch ~ and gave beautiful results on sepia rendering as well. I did a number of restorations on old photographs where HP's ability to accurately render the subtle tones of sepia was breathtaking. That is not enough to send me back to HP for printing, however.

Tenebrae

[seagate]

I'm an Epson man...

Spoiled myself with one of these AcuLaser CX11NF.

We use an older Epson Photo Stylus for the rare times we print phtots. Most of our pics go straight on the web...


seagate

[dubya]

I have always recommended, purchased, and used:

http://www.microtekusa.com/smi800.html

for scanners. Need another one. Maybe, I'll put the i700 office unit on the Christmas list. My daughter is now a photography student and this would help both of us.

The "Store" button shows scanners from 59.99 to 2299.00.

[PatentAppliedFor]

budget wise, Costco has the HP PSC 1510 All In One for 89 samolians, tuff to beat dat

[ronworld]

I would always recommend seperate Scanner and printer, so if one goes....Also i havnt seen a scanner on a combi that is worth using.
Im using a Scanjet 2400 and its ok for most image use, though the software is a bit basic!

Ive been using my HP Deskjet 720c since 1999, and despide running on XP's drivers it is still doing great! the high quality print on proper photo paper is still exellent. I have some a4 test prints i did when I got it and they havn't faded a bit!. The plain paper print is great too. I'm not looking forward to having to ever replace it. The cartriges may cost more ( £18.00 each) but they are larger capacity than the competitors and last longer.

[thetallcoolone]

I'm an Epson printer user myself.
I've been using a Stylus 860 for a few years now, after being an HP user for even more years.
The print quality and speed of that printer was a lot better than equivalent HPs at the time.
Too bad their ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg though.
But I'm not a heavy printer user and haven't print a phtot in ages.

There's a local TV news channel that will be doing a story on Epson's ink cartridges, tonite I think. Apprerantly, when the printer tells you the cartridge is out of ink there's still up to 30% of ink inside but the printer drivers block you from using them fully.
I'll try to catch that show and report back.

No comment on scanners. I'd be at lost to choose one.

[tenebrae]

Ive been using my HP Deskjet 720c since 1999, and despide running on XP's drivers it is still doing great!

That's good to hear, ronworld. The HP 930 series ~ however ~ sucked! Big time!

I have some a4 test prints i did when I got it and they havn't faded a bit!..

I just checked some of the work I did from the late 90s and it is still holding pretty fast. I have the original photographs that I restored and I must say that there is some very slight degradation ~very slight ~ apparent when comparing them. The restored copies are still perfectly fine, though. Given the new inks being developed by the likes of HP, as a poster stated above, all issues surrounding this phenomenon effectively become moot.

The cartriges may cost more ( £18.00 each) but they are larger capacity than the competitors and last longer.

Interesting, I find the my Canon cartridges last longer than my HP ones ever did. The price "thing" also makes it an easier choice for me. I was paying $59 Australian for a tri-colour HP cartridge and that had to be replaced whenever a single colour element ran out. I pay $20 Australian for single colour Canon cartridges and feel that this is a real plus, inasmuch as I only need to replace the colour that runs out...not ALL of them :).

I did like the fact that with every HP cartridge you effectively received a new print head...but geez, you paid for it!

Cheers

Tenebrae

[tenebrae]

Hey, TC1! The Stylus range were cool printers.

As to the being "blocked" from using your cartridges fully, try simply popping the cartridge out and reinstalling it when your printer tells you it's time for a new cartridge. That one works on a lot of printers. Keep an eye on your print quality, though, and watch for messages from your printer telling you that your ink is running low....It then really IS time to feed it some new cartridges!

Cheers

Tenebrae

[moonpie]

Does anyone have a junk OfficeJet Model 600 they want to get rid of?
I could use one for parts.

Dubya, I've got a MicroTeck ScanMaker 4850 that's like new. We bought it in part because it had a seperate slide scanner......which sucked. When our printer went out, we bought the Epson because an all in one fits our needs and it had a healthy rebate.

I bought a seperate slide scanner (AFL PF1800-thanks J64) so I don't need the Microtek at all. I'd hook a Sister up

[dubya]

Thanks, Moon! I'll keep that in mind.