Is a dedicated photo printer worth it, or should I use my all-in-one and order lab prints?

Asked 9/11/2010

1 views

2 answers

0

I currently use an HP Officejet all-in-one for everyday printing and occasional photos, but I find colour ink expensive. I’m considering buying a Canon PIXMA photo printer mainly for photographs.

Would a dedicated photo printer likely give noticeably better photo quality than an all-in-one, or is it more practical to keep using my current printer for proofs and order finished photo prints from a lab?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

1

I use an OfficeJet 6500. It turns out colour photos, but there is a big gap between it and lab-printed photos. Yet lab-printed photos are not that expensive. I use the OfficeJet for basic proofing, and order lab prints online. I order mine from www.photobox.ie

Originally by user1359. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user1359

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

A dedicated photo printer can improve photo output compared with a typical office-focused all-in-one, but home printing costs can still be high because photo printing uses a lot of ink and paper. Based on the community feedback, an office inkjet is fine for basic proofing, but there can still be a noticeable gap between home prints and good lab prints.

If your main goal is high-quality finished photographs at reasonable cost, using your current printer for drafts/proofs and ordering final prints from a photo lab is often the better value. Lab prints are usually inexpensive and tend to deliver more consistent photo quality.

So unless you need the convenience of printing photos at home regularly, buying a second printer just for photos may not be the most practical choice.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer