More printer stuff.

Going on from the Looking for a colour 'laser' printer thread, in the windows issue forum, as I said I have been thinking of getting a Ink jet, mainly for photos and stuff like that, looking for A3, after all it may be useful, but the weight these printers can handle differ so much and so confusing. Only realised today that my Brother printer can handle up to 163 g/m2, but only if the manual feed is used. There don't seem to be an easy way to find out printer's paper handling without looking at the specs of every single one.

Also, the price of printers have gone up a lot over the past couple of years or so. One of the ones i looked at a brother MFC-J6540DWE is around £320, a fair bit of money for a inkjet. I know I could get 10-15% of it if I got it from work, depending when I decided to buy it, but still a fair bit.

I have given up on inkjets. You get clogged nozzles, and so you do loads of cleaning cycles, and then the waste ink "tank" (basically, a sponge pad) fills up and you're done. Replacing the waste ink pad and resetting the printer is basically a non-starter. The printer needs replacing and you've got a load of ink cartridges that you can't use because they won't work with newer printers. Note that printers with chonky, high-capacity ink cartridges are no better, since you still have the waste ink pad problem. The whole thing is a scam.

I bought an A3 colour inkjet printer (Epson Stylus Photo 2100) 15 years ago. It was absolutely wonderful while it worked, but I didn't get many prints out of it. I bought a couple of A4 printers, subsequently, but the same thing happened. I once calculated how much ink was costing me. It was over £2,000 per litre. Bulk ink at the time was £70 per litre. If I want any photos printing, I will take them to my local print shop.

Ironically, I have an old HP OfficeJet 725 colour print/scan/copy/fax printer that still works. I can still get ink cartridges for it and the waste ink tank hasn't filled up. I've had it for a long time. I think that I was using Windows 95 when I bought it. However, I don't use it often and colour prints are pretty rubbish. It is more or less redundant, since I can no longer fax repeat prescription requests to the surgery.

Edited by micksharpe (Thu 14-Sep-23 14:30:21)

In reply to a post by micksharpe:

I bought an A3 colour inkjet printer (Epson Stylus Photo 2100) 15 years ago. It was absolutely wonderful while it worked, but I didn't get many prints out of it.

Same here... I looked at photo-quality A3 laser printers, but the prices are somewhat eye-watering for occasional domestic use

I have come to the conclusion that HP had the best business model as far as customers are concerned, since they developed integrated ink cartridges and print heads. When you buy a new ink cartridge, you get a new print head. Brilliant. This means that you do less cleaning cycles, and the waste ink pad lasts for ages. But, that was 25 years ago. I don't know if they are still doing this.

Edited by micksharpe (Thu 14-Sep-23 11:31:23)

Yeah, it's a pity because that Epson was basically a gorgeous piece of kit- 7 ink colours to play with, phenomenal resolution, borderless printing from photo-size to A3+ including continuous from a roll... but when that pigment-based ink clogged up it was like trying to get concrete out of a hypodermic needle

Edited by billford (Thu 14-Sep-23 12:17:09)

However my Epson EcoTank has admirably produced great quality prints for many years with no blockages (the occasional 2 times year head is needed ) and just two bottle sets of ink. I’m very pleased with this inkjet. The secret is not to buy cheap.

In reply to a post by spile:

The secret is not to buy cheap.

The Epson wasn't cheap... somewhere in the region of £500 iirc.

As Mick implied, the problem is inherent in the technology- any inkjet printer, if not used for too long, will clog up. The Epson is really a semi-pro (at least) printer, intended for regular use and its high resolution (ie small jet size) means that “too long” isn’t very long.

The use of pigment rather than dye based ink probably didn’t help- much more fade resistant but the pigment particles were prone to settling without the “shaking” motion of regular printing. I used to run a test print every week if it hadn’t been used to keep it clear and this mostly^* worked, but some years ago circumstances conspired against me and it was idle for several months- I couldn't recover it

If it weren’t for that (and if I’d managed to avoid the waste ink issue) I’m quite sure it would still be producing its usual excellent results.



^* Sometimes I’d forget and miss too many, then I’d have to get more drastic than just the head-cleaning cycle- basically a strip of fabric soaked in solvent held against the heads for an hour or so. Something of a pita, but it worked.

I can't which Canon inkjet it was but was helping a friend and after wasting time with the cleaning cycles I literally took the head part away to the sink and washed it through with warm water until the solidified gunk softened and eventually ran clear, and then let it dry thoroughly before re-installing.

I can't remember if the ink cartridge was attached or if it predated the head being built onto each cartridge or there was a short detachable tube feeding the "nozzle" but it was before the days of chipped cartridges, either way they did get few more months of use out of it but it was clear it would keep happening.

After they were gifted an Epson multi-function inkjet/scanner thing by someone else but which ultimately bunged up without regular use, I said just cut your losses and get a colour laser, we found an OKI with USB+ethernet+wifi pre-installed with reasonable levels toner so they would have a decent run before needing to restock it.
Yes it was heavy and has a larger footprint than a deskjet, but it does not care how often you use it or sulk and refuse to print.
And as fuser warm up time is only 1 minute you can still turn it fully off if you aren't going to use it the rest of the day.

The networked Brother lasers at work ran under heavy daily use for 10 to 15 years as long as you did the basics like riffling the paper pack first and not overloading the trays and could do the toner and drum unit swaps without being rough-handed.

Edited by prlzx (Fri 15-Sep-23 14:48:23)

I know what you are saying, I said when I got my LED printer I would never get an inkjet again, but I am looking at maybe doing some crafting, getting a cricut, and an inkjet is needed for that. At some point if I really get into it i will also buy one with tanks, so I can fill it up with Dye Sublimation Ink, if i decide to go that far.

The brother inkjet I am looking at have fax, but that will never be used, for a start I don't have a phone line and I only know of one person who still have a fax machine.
I know that it is all going to be costly if I do go for it, the printer is either £230 or £320, depending on if I get the one with the A3 scanner., they are bother the same apart from the more expensive one has a A3 scanner, but to be honest I don't think I really need a A3 scanner. i will get at least 10% off it as I will get it from work, maybe 15% if we are still getting 15% discount on payday.

Then there is the cricut, Looking at around £350 or more for that, depending on which one i get

In reply to a post by billford:

Yeah, it's a pity because that Epson was basically a gorgeous piece of kit- 7 ink colours to play with, phenomenal resolution, borderless printing from photo-size to A3+ including continuous from a roll... but when that pigment-based ink clogged up it was like trying to get concrete out of a hypodermic needle

Never got along with Epsons, apart from an old 9 pin dot matrix that seemed to go on and on. One of the better machines I had was a Lexmark Z42, built like a tank and the quality was amazing. Sadly, it cost far too much to keep going and i gave it to a mate. i had some printers over the years, from the thermal ZX printer, right up to what I have now.

I was hoping the LEd printer was going to be the last, but as I said above, if I am going to get into this crafting stuff, I need a decent photo printer.

I had a Lexmark colour laser that was huge and never printed properly from new. I gave up on it and got £100 off my Epson EcoTank ET 4750 as a trade in.

In reply to a post by spile:

I had a Lexmark colour laser that was huge and never printed properly from new. I gave up on it and got £100 off my Epson EcoTank ET 4750 as a trade in.

Lexmark is not the same company now, so maybe not so good in quality, mine was built like a tank and amazing quality for the time. Ink prices were the problem, as the cartridges had the print head built in, like HP does. i did find a way to refill them, which worked, but it was messy.

I was going to buy a printer on Friday as I get 15% discount from work on Friday, I looked at the Brother MFC-J6540DWE and the Brother MFC-J5340DWE, both pretty pricey. But looking at reviews, while they make great office printers, they are not great for photos. so it is back to the drawing board. Not really much
Not really much else there. A Canon PIXMA iX6850, a Epson Expression Photo XP-970, not a fan of Epson, but my brother swears by them, then there is a HP OfficeJet Pro 7720, certainly would not have a HP, while their older laser printers were amazing and very reliable, their inkjet printers are not.

Need to be good at photos, have A3, don't cost stupid money and must have Ethernet connection, don't want to bother with naff wireless. I looked at the canon pro series, but the cheapest is around £400 I think .

I doubt I will get one from work, need to wait for another 4 weeks for the 15% discount,

Which is more important to you - the photo printing or the A3 capability?

I ask because wanting both in the same printer will narrow your choices markedly, but I do appreciate you are probably not in a position to have a good laser for general purpose printing up to A3 with some other type optimal for photo printing.

Dye sublimation printing was considered one of the best types for colour photo/graphics printing a few years back but I do not know if this is still the case.

I see now you mentioned that earlier in the context of loading a different ink type into a regular inkjet printer - do you still need to buy and use your own transfer paper if you didn't buy a printer originally marketed as a dye sub type?

Edited by prlzx (Sun 24-Sep-23 13:16:42)

In reply to a post by prlzx:

Which is more important to you - the photo printing or the A3 capability?

I ask because wanting both in the same printer will narrow your choices markedly, but I do appreciate you are probably not in a position to have a good laser for general purpose printing up to A3 with some other type optimal for photo printing.

Dye sublimation printing was considered one of the best types for colour photo/graphics printing a few years back but I do not know if this is still the case.

I see now you mentioned that earlier in the context of loading a different ink type into a regular inkjet printer - do you still need to buy and use your own transfer paper if you didn't buy a printer originally marketed as a dye sub type?

Both, I want good photo, not fantastic, but good and A3. I already have aLED printer for normal printing, well it does print photos, it is not great.

I have a Dye sublimation printer, but it only does small prints and yes the quality is amazing, but expensive. I am getting myself a cricut, so I have decided today to get a cricut first, practice with that and then when I get some good results then go for a printer. i can use the LED printer for test.

thanks for the reply anyway

I bought a Canon PIXMA iP8750 and cannot fault it.
It was a good few years old model when I bought it so I guess inkjet has reached its peak.

It always works on the occasion I turn it on, has airprint etc and the output is amazing on photo paper.

In reply to a post by smouty:

I bought a Canon PIXMA iP8750 and cannot fault it.
It was a good few years old model when I bought it so I guess inkjet has reached its peak.

It always works on the occasion I turn it on, has airprint etc and the output is amazing on photo paper.

Thanks, I will have a look at that at some point, been spending far too much money over the last few weeks, so need to cut down.