DollyM
(837 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-11 12:09 AM
Original message |
opinions on photo printers please . . . |
|
I am looking for a decent photo printer, not too expensive and not to heavy to move around. I have started an "old time" photo business and I need a printer that can be hooked to a lap top and moved around to different locations as my business will be in different locations. I would like for it to have a drawer for different sizes of pictures so I don't have to stop and cut. I have an HP Photosmart that has served me well but it does tend to run lines across the pictures when the ink gets low so I really use more ink on pictures than I would like. It also doesn't have the different size photo drawers. I had bought a Kodak printer a couple of years ago, excited about it not taking as much ink. It lasted three months before totally quiting. It made great pictures and had the different size photo trays but it jammed every other picture it seemed so it was really frustrating. I looked up reviews on the Kodak printers and that seems to be a standard thing for them--too bad, the pictures were great. Anyway, anyone with any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to spend less than $150.00 on a printer but could go up to $200.00 if I found the right one. Thanks!
|
postatomic
(478 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-11 03:11 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Check out the Canon Pixma |
|
It's inexpensive and you can get the ink cartridges at decent prices from the recycle places. It will 'sense' the paper size and does a decent job. I've had mine for 4 years now. I mainly just do 4x6 and 5x7 prints with it but I've used it with the fancy 8x0 watercolor paper and gallery paper. Hasn't crapped out on me yet.
I honestly don't know much about printers because most of my prints are done with outside vendors.
I've seen Pixmas in job lot stores for $40 (new) and at thrift stores for $25.
Sorry I can't be of more help. Good luck :hi:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |