Photo printer and general B&W printing question

[Stephen]

Is there a good to superb quality photo printer that can do general B & W printing (not photos) without the general copying costing an arm and a leg for the ink? I'm looking for an alternative to having one general purpose printer and a separate dedicated photo printer. I currently have a Canon S9000 photo printer and an HP Deskjet 5650. I'm interested in a printer that has at least as good of quality as the Canon S900, and can provide general printing for roughly the same price as the HP Deskjet 5650, Is there anything out there that can do this?

[Eldmannen]

No.

 

It is like that with all printers. They try to sell the printer itself pretty cheap, then they charge a huge amount of money for the ink. They also make it illegal for other companies to make ink for their printers and sell it, so they sue them, because they cant stand a bit of competition. Then they are alone in the market, and sell the ink cartridges for sky-high prices.

 

Strange that there isn't a standard for ink cartridges that work on all printers? No?

 

Most printers also print a microscopic dots in yellow, which you cannot see, which contains the serial number, so papers you print can be tracked back to you. http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/

 

FOOK THE PRINTER INDUSTRY!

 

I don't own a printer, and I sure as hell don't plan to buy any. If I had to buy one, it would be a laser printer.

[rridgely]

Hes not asking for why you hate printers. Hes asking for some suggestions on a good one.

------------------------------------------

I usually edit my pictures at home and then take them to be developed. It just seems like their prints always just look better no matter what. I don't know much about the printers but I do suggest you could do some research on cnet.com. They usually have good incitefull reviews.

http://www.cnet.com/

 

Newegg and amazon are great places to see some good user review as well. Of course somebody else here might have some good suggestions.

[Andavari]

I usually edit my pictures at home and then take them to be developed. It just seems like their prints always just look better no matter what.

 

No home printer is going to beat professional printers like those of Kodak processing centers or even a Walgreens photo center. When the ink is a toxic health issue and when you see photo technicians wearing gloves and a mask to protect their lungs when re-filling the ink in such places you know it's some strong stuff and isn't nothing like ink in consumer inkjet printers.

 

The photo paper for consumers in my opinion is crap and a waste of money. It can rapidly fade in only a few months with no light on it at all, and have ink shed off it.

 

In the long run it's actually cheaper to get the pictures done professionally when one considers the cost of some photo paper plus the huge amount of ink it takes to print them - the ink usage now that's the real price shock there and is why I don't print on any photo paper.

[Eldmannen]

Well, the answer to his question was "No".

Though I did elaborate the post with some other opinions, thoughts and stuff.