Inkjet Vs Laser For Art Prints

[Fenrir Enterprises]

Lately on some artists' websites I've been seeing comments about how their prints were made on a laser (or "LED") printer, and therefore have good fade resistance. I haven't really kept up with laser technology... every time I've gotten something printed out at an office supply store it's been solid-color graphics/logos, not a photo or artwork.

Are the current high-end color lasers/copiers really good enough to produce high quality prints? The photos I've seen look pretty good but I can't help thinking that only 4-colors + the very different way toner works vs ink would be "rather good" but still be less detailed and color matched when compared to an inkjet print. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[The Hat]

To do good B&W photos on a laser or copier you have to take a complete different approach
than you would using an inkjet printer.

With an inkjet you would go for a good DPI 300 + depending on your individual taste
but with laser printers you have to keep them open by using much smaller DPI
to get the best tones and shadows, again it all depends on taste…

 

[costadinos]

They were probably referring to a different kind of laser/LED printers, those that are used by minilabs and the very expensive wide format RA4 printers (like some from OCE and Chromira) and which use a laser to expose traditional photographic paper and then develop it with chemicals.

As for the regular laser printers (those using toners), even the best of them are not good enough for photo prints, gamut is very limited (various CMYK models) and dMax is generally not that good. There are a few very expensive options that provide better quality (HP and Exenux digital presses for example), but still, the cheapest of inkjets would easily outperform them for photo work. As for fade resistance that would depend on the printer used, using toner doesn't guarantee light-fastness.

 

[Fenrir Enterprises]

As for the regular laser printers (those using toners), even the best of them are not good enough for photo prints, gamut is very limited (various CMYK models) and dMax is generally not that good. There are a few very expensive options that provide better quality (HP and Exenux digital presses for example), but still, the cheapest of inkjets would easily outperform them for photo work. As for fade resistance that would depend on the printer used, using toner doesn't guarantee light-fastness.

At least for a few of them, they're not doing it on a home laser printer, they're going into one of the office supply stores and using their color copiers that are so ridiculously expensive even the store doesn't usually own them, but only has them on lease. I know because I see in their twitter feeds comments like "I have to run down to Maximum Paperclip Depot and make more prints to sell at the convention next week". So I'm assuming the print quality is probably better than if they had a color laser at home but not as good as a photo printer. I cringe when I see people go into these stores and get a copy of an important photo. I always think it would be better to go in to Walmart or Walgreens and use the Kodak copy station than a business Xerox.

Since I haven't actually tried making copies of art or photos on an expensive color laser in a long time, I wanted to make sure that the output hadn't reached decent photo quality levels yet.

 

[costadinos]

Since I haven't actually tried making copies of art or photos on an expensive color laser in a long time, I wanted to make sure that the output hadn't reached decent photo quality levels yet.

It hasn't... I print and bind wedding albums and I'm using pigment inkjets with excellent results, even from the 6-color printers. Another guy around here prints the pages for his albums using a $100000+ HP indigo press, which is considered the best by many, and while the prints look "OK" on their own, they look like crap when placed next to an inkjet print. Color reproduction is very good, but they generally lack that "punch" the inkjets offer, plus, the selection of paper is very limited. Light-fastness should be comparable to pigment inks though (according to HP).

 

[The Hat]

While I tend to agree with you that the inkjet will produce better prints overall,
did you ever stop and think that the guy with the Indigo press might have his head up his ass..

 

[mikling]

One engineering issue that I see and don't know if can be overcome easily is the fact that we'll need around 300 dpi for photo quality. What is not appreciated or understood is that inkjet printers actually much finer than that. That 300 dot (360 and 720 for Epson) per inch has individual dots that are comprised of a matrix or table of dots. Now for the Epson we're looking at up to 5760 / 720 dpi native in photo rpm and in one direction that 300 dpi dot has 8 dots in one direction..and each dot on the Epson is variable in size.
The reason the inkjet can pull off this accuracy is that the dots are always spaced evenly and FIXED on the printhead. The head alignment takes care of coordinating the firing time.... not the direction. Now if you think you're looking at something superaccurate, you are. This aspect goes unappreciated and these inkjet printers are possibly the most accurate device sitting inside your home. The thing to note is that after head aligment, the shooting or mixing of the colors can remain predictable for long periods...because their spacing is fixed...and the quartz crystal on the logic board is stable.
With laser printers, the toners are typically all separate and I believe applied in three phases or even maybe four. So after placing cyan dots, the paper travels and the magenta dots are then placed and then the yellow dots are placed afterwards. The timing can be coordinated like the inkjet but with the paper travel, will it vary ? With the paper traveling through the laser printer, can they really pull off this accuracy of placing dots accurately as the paper travels? Looks to be a big challenge. But in the early days of the inkjet, similar challenges were faced and overcome. So maybe in time and maybe they've solved it but expensive right now. I have not looked at the technical details of how these color lasers perform alignment. When time permits or I'll ask my copy machines/corporate printer repair relative.

 

[costadinos]

While I tend to agree with you that the inkjet will produce better prints overall,
did you ever stop and think that the guy with the Indigo press might have his head up his ass..

I don't think he really cares, as long as others can't compete with him price-wise (the cost per page is negligible for a digital press). And to be honest, the average end customer won't notice the difference unless he compares them side by side.
The only way to compete is by using third party ink with an inkjet, but only very few know/can do that. Printing a 30-sheet (60 page) A3 album using OEM inks is not really a viable option.

The reason the inkjet can pull off this accuracy is that the dots are always spaced evenly and FIXED on the printhead. The head alignment takes care of coordinating the firing time.... not the direction. Now if you think you're looking at something superaccurate, you are. This aspect goes unappreciated and these inkjet printers are possibly the most accurate device sitting inside your home. The thing to note is that after head aligment, the shooting or mixing of the colors can remain predictable for long periods...because their spacing is fixed...and the quartz crystal on the logic board is stable.

I may be wrong here, but while that may be the case with cheap laser printers, it could be that high end machines (digital presses) expose the whole page at once instead of line by line while rotating on a drum, thus negating the need for that amount of precision and also achieve these crazy speeds (100+ pages a minute). Something similar to the chemical minilabs which use 3 LED or Laser emitters and expose the whole area of the paper at once.

I happened to look at the output of an Indigo and other presses, and the resolution is definitely there, at least it looks as good as an inkjet to the naked eye.
Besides, 300dpi is the same resolution the RA4 and dye sub printers achieve (apart from some newer Fuji models that go up to 600dpi).

 

[Smile]

Laser printers are very unstable as the toner empties the colors shift, Xerox the very expensive models have a bit solved this but they are so expensive that it doesn't matter.

Laser gamut is 450.000 vs. 550.000 for 4 color inkjet.
6 color inkjet gamut 650.000-800.000
EPSON K3 with gray inks gamut 1.300.000

So laser is very behind inkjet.

 

[thanhhuy123]

I've heard someone said that laser printer is only excellent in text and diagram/graphics printing on plain paper. Maybe it's due to the way laser printer work? (laser -> drum -> very fine opaque powder -> paper -> cook them up!)