[gdodonne]

I've seen articles on photo printers comparing inkets. How come there are no color laserjets compared in these articles? Is it because they are too expensive for most users or because color inkjets are actually better than color laserjets for printing photos?

I guess I'm wondering if more money would increase the terrible photos I've seen others print.

Thanks,

Grant

[JackMac]

Most people who are printing photos at home would only consider inkjet printers. IMHO color lasers are not well suited to this task. The major advantage inkjets have over lasers is the media (ie. paper) available on which to print photos. The Epson 820 I have prints photos almost indistinquishable from photos finished from film. Color lasers are faster and well suited to printing such things as Power Point presentations on plain paper.

[Nobody]

We have a very expensive 12x18 color Laser printer and to get a glossy type paper is expensive for these printers. The color laser is great for graphics such as logos, brochures, and mock-ups where accurate color output is important. Inkjets are actually better for printing photos becuause the can do dither much better.

[Nobody]

Another option is the new dye-sublimination printers coming out under the $1000 mark. Upside they are continous tone on archival photo paper. Downside is supplies are pricey, and you wouldn't use it for the letter to Mom.

Olympus has a couple of models. Considering a couple years ago dye-sub prices were at $30,000, they are now affordable for home use. If you going to do lot of photo printing and need very high quality, Don't mind having a dedicated photo printing taking up desk space, second printer for text, layout proofing, etc... Take a look at them.