|
|
Toner Vs Ink?
I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger
ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? Peter |
Toner Vs Ink?
In article , Peter Jason
wrote: I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. that's a mistake. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? it doesn't matter whether they do or not. fresh out of the printer, they're already not as good as what can be had from even a mediocre photo printer and a colour managed workflow. |
Toner Vs Ink?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? Too many variables... not at all. ink jet versus laser printer. 1 variable. presumably everything else is the same, he just chose a different printer. Toner is melted into the paper, and is generally water resistant. Inkjet prints might run if they get damp, depending on the ink. you must be using a very old inkjet printer and he didn't ask about water resistance anyway. And light-jet photos are actual "old-school" photographs: light-sensitive photo paper exposed to laser light and chemically processed. one reason why they're not as good as inkjet prints. If they get wet, they can usually be dried to their original appearance. so can inkjet prints. The big issue is the quality. Toner cannot make as fine a dot on the paper, and toner pigments don't really mix. Inkjet printers can make a smaller dot, and the different colors of ink mix together as they soak into the paper. Photo-sensitive papers have all three colors already in the paper, wanting to be exposed to the proper color light. the dots can't be seen at normal viewing distances so their size is not an issue. the dots also don't mix in the way you think they do. since they're smaller than what the eye can resolve, the mixing is done in your eye, not on the paper. not surprisingly, if you look at photo paper under high magnification, you can see film grains. I've done toner printed photos and inkjet photos. Inkjet photos look better, but toner photos are more rugged. And properly done photo-sensitive paper prints beat them both. then you did something wrong. first of all, comparing 'properly done photo-sensitive paper prints' with *improperly* made inkjet prints is bogus. if you intentionally **** up one, then the other will win. no surprise there. the correct comparison is with the best each can do. modern ink jet photo printers have a wider gamut than photo paper and laser printers, particularly those with more than 4 inks, and with a properly calibrated workflow, will produce *better* results which last longer than anything you can do with photo paper. the problem with laser printers, what you are calling toner, is that they have a much smaller gamut and cannot be properly calibrated, resulting in lower quality prints. |
Toner Vs Ink?
In article ,
Peter Jason wrote: I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? Peter- Maybe. I assume your Kiosk print is inkjet. Some companies claim their inkjet prints will last 100 years, but I have had some others fade in a few months time. If you are satisfied with the appearance of your laser prints, you still have to worry about them sticking to anything they touch. Mounting in a frame, you need to use a separator to keep them from sticking to the glass. They may fade over time, but I do not know how fast. In either case, the different primary colors may fade at different rates, resulting in color shift over time. You can only find out by waiting. Do not erase your computer image! Fred |
Toner Vs Ink?
On 2/22/2018 3:59 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? Peter There is no single answer to this question, and as Ken pointed out, it may be appropriate to consider film-based prints, too, since they are excellent quality. Laser printers are not all of the same quality, nor do they use the same toner, so image quality and longevity will vary depending on your choice. Inkjets tend to be more economical for the same or higher image quality that consumer-grade lasers are capable of. They also are capable of much larger print sizes than laser or film printers. Just a few things to consider... -- best regards, Neil |
Toner Vs Ink?
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:31:20 -0500, Fred McKenzie
wrote: In article , Peter Jason wrote: I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer. Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety? Peter- Maybe. I assume your Kiosk print is inkjet. Some companies claim their inkjet prints will last 100 years, but I have had some others fade in a few months time. Depends upon the printer and the ink they use. In my experience there are large variations but durability seems to be improving. If you are satisfied with the appearance of your laser prints, you still have to worry about them sticking to anything they touch. Mounting in a frame, you need to use a separator to keep them from sticking to the glass. They may fade over time, but I do not know how fast. In either case, the different primary colors may fade at different rates, resulting in color shift over time. You can only find out by waiting. Do not erase your computer image! Fred -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com