Tom's Hardware Benchmarks Inkjet Printer Paper

An anonymous reader writes "We all know that the specs of your inkjet printer, driver settings, and ink cartridges can make a big difference in the quality of your prints. But the cheapest and simplest aspect of printing can also have a big impact on the final quality: the paper. This short article is an interesting read, the author actually found ways to 'benchmark' inkjet printer paper."

Comments

Why wouldn't someone find a way to benchmarkpaper?

[GreatBunzinni]

A benchmark is a fancy word to describe a process where a set of items are evaluated objectively based on pre-defined parameters and following a standardized set of procedures. To put it shortly, benchmarking is a process to determine the best option.

Knowing this, why is it so odd that someone found a way to test paper and determine what's best for a given application? Does timothy actually believe that only computer parts can be evaluated by potential buyers?

Re:Why wouldn't someone find a way to benchmarkpap

[Hatta]

I'm really glad they did this. I've been getting terrible frame rates from my usual printer paper.

Re:Inkjet?

[WiiVault]

People that need color printing for only an occasional document find benefit in inkject, especially if they print off an random photo here and there. But for B&W use only obviously laser is the way to go. Still some people just don't print much and need color only every now and then. The thought of having 2 separate printers for those people doesn't make sense, nor does buying an expensive color laser.

Razors?

[spun]

People are still taken in by this scheme?

I believe the Discworld character Samuel Vimes had something to say regarding this "scheme." Being poor, he had to buy cheap shoes that wore out quickly and ended up costing him more over the long run, but he simply could not afford the more economical option because of the higher up-front costs. So yes, people are still being 'taken in' by this scheme because, being poor, they don't have any other real options. Luckily, every poor person is to blame for their own poverty and so we can continue to look down are noses at those inferior folks whose lack of options are their own damn faults.

Re:Razors?

[artor3]

Ah yes, the "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. To quote:

"A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

Emphasis his. See also: payday loans, rent-a-center, reasons why the so-called "fair tax" is anything but.

Re:Razors?

[roman_mir]

Poor people are to blame for their poverty in current society, as they are a voting block, which demands bread and circuses paid by others, and the others end up being those, who actually do provide society with businesses (jobs), products and services, that make the society wealthier.

The 19 century USA gained so much wealth because of high levels of innovation and production based on capitalism and mostly free market.

My point is that cheap and plentiful boots are not a function of government intervention into the incomes of those, who actually do create products and services, but it is the function of those who create products and services. The more of those people are, the more products and services compete for the same money, this drives up efficiency and drives down the costs, and that's why USA had deflation in 19 century, which caused products to become cheaper and at the same time created huge amount of competition, which based on gov't idea that deflation is 'bad' is a paradox, but it is not, it is the idea that deflation based on competition is 'bad', that is wrong.

Get the businesses to compete not in the halls of government offices, but in the market for the customers' money, and you get more and more wealth, which is literally products, such as boots, and you get them cheaper and cheaper.

Get the government into that, start insuring businesses/individuals with government promises, start printing fiat, start living beyond the means, start borrowing and create inflation to write off the debt, and what you'll get is less and less investment, because savings get wiped out, and you get capital flight, which means production flight, and then you are left without wealth and so you are left without cheap good boots.

Re:Razors?

[sco08y]

Ehh I've got karma to burn on OT. The problem with the idea of free market competition is today's market.

Fuck karma, fuck the mods. It's a hybrid economy. It hasn't been a free market since the New Deal.

The invisible hand doesn't work when you have huge corps that can use economics of scale and pure financial clout (I'll sell my shoes at a loss for years just to stop little guy X from getting a foothold (pun intended)) to kill competition.

Megacorps like Amazon? Got something to sell, they'll set you up with the same facilities that they have for virtually the entire process. Hell, you can rent a fucking supercomputer. Want to publish? Same deal, there are self publishing places galore, places that will help you sell your software, your music, other art, etc. And, yeah, if you're trying to set up a burger chain, you might be SOL, but damned near every immigrant starting a restaurant knows that Americans are sick of burgers and fries.

The job creators (small to medium sized business) are unable to compete with the big players and can *not* get started to a point where they could.

The job creators can't compete with the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. We have $14 trillion of public debt, and if you're trying to raise capital, your business has to compete with the 14 trillion pound gorilla that is the US government.

When they issue bonds, they will raise the rate until they get it. If you need a million dollars of capital, you have to prove that you can promise a better return, in spite of the 80% risk of you failing in the first year, than the guaranteed return of a Treasury bond.

If you're trying to hire employees, you have to provide a better wages and benefits package than the local, state and federal governments are offering.

And, of course, you have to comply with a raft of regulations, affecting everything from the building you're in, to your employees from the day you first meet them to the day they leave, any materials you handle, let alone the materials in your product, to arcane taxation and business filings.

And, unlike the government, you actually have to meet the bottom line while doing all this.

Get to the important stuff

[hellkyng]

All I really want to know is if it can print Crysis 2?!?!

Re:Get to the important stuff

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yep but the framerate sucks.

Re:Be careful with laser printer's paper!

[h4rr4r]

Did not look at it, but rest assured it is GOATSE.
Same link.

Can you not afford normal entertainment?

It's about the toner.

[Bing Tsher E]

But the cheapest and simplest aspect of printing can also have a big impact on the final quality: the paper

The biggest expense is the most avoidable. The ink. Don't buy an overpriced spray-and-pray blotter printer. Get a real laser printer. I bought mine at a University Surplus auction for $10. Toner for it was expensive, I paid $90 for a cartridge. But that's enough toner to print on several cases of paper.

The ink sellers will love it if you keep on using their expensive ink in your spray-printer, though.

Re:Why wouldn't someone find a way to benchmarkpap

[Nimey]

It's time to upgrade from your ASR-33, grandpa.

Re:Inkjet?

[hjf]

Ah, I was just waiting for this comment. I have news for you: the "local placethat print photos" is just amazingly cheap. It's not always great.

Photo printing, done right, gives perfect results. 1) An incredible gamut (more than you can get out of your inkjet); 2) extremely long life photos 3) paper that won't turn yellow or degrade.

But in local, cheap photo shops, this is not the case.

1) The gamut comes because of the printing system. A properly calibrated minilab (that means once a week at least, though it can go for months with no calibration and still do acceptable output) has no issues *printing* the correct gamut. The problem is the chemicals needed to develop the paper. Remember, it's regular, chemical-based printing. After a certain amount of square meters developed, the chemicals *need* to be changed. Cheap photo shops get away with adding some chemicals (Replenisher) to the solution that extends its life a little - which is fine and acceptable. It's made by the manufacturer and under certain conditions it will work just as good. But often, these guys at photo labs keep adding the chemicals until all you have is a useless liquid that won't develop anything and we're back to 1980s colors, and only then, they will change the developer. Respectable shops can change the developer and other chemicals as needed - but they charge more than the 1-hour lab at the mall.

2) the long life of the photo comes from proper developing. Because of the destructive process used to develop photos ("ink" is removed from the paper, not added to it, like in the Kodachrome process, which lasts forever), if not done properly, the chemical reaction keeps going for years after the photo is developed (that's why photos fade). There are two steps: stopping and washing, that need to be properly done, in order to actually stop the reaction. If you remove the photo from the stopping bath (or if it's cold, old, contaminated, etc), or don't properly wash the print, the chemicals will continue affecting your print for years.

3) photo paper is not regular "wood fibre" paper, which would disintegrate in all the liquids it needs to be processed in. It's either resin-coated or polyester. Polyester won't turn yellow, and it's not food for bugs, among other benefits.

So, try to develop your photos at a respectable lab.

And for that one-off print you want to give grandma of the kids playing with her that day, the inkjet on photo paper (especially a 6-color epson - even better if 9-color) is much more practical than driving to the lab and having just 1 print developed.

Re:Get a shark

[blair1q]

"a toner grain is a lot larger than the smallest drop of ink that can be sprayed onto the paper"

Are you speaking from knowledge of the nozzle diameter of inkjet printers?

Toner powder is minuscule; tens of microns, maybe in diameter.

Pretty sure to keep from spending 100 years per page, inkjet nozzles are not that small.

Wikipedia says a 600 dpi printer should spec 8-10 micron toner powder. Various sources show inkjet nozzles down to 20 microns, but point out that they work by spitting out a bigger droplet than their nozzle, that then spreads before hitting the paper to make a flat disc of ink much wider than the droplet. Toner powder would spread, too, but the disc radius would be proportional to the 3/2 power of the radius of the droplet or toner grain, so that makes the droplet spread a lot more than the toner spread.

Laser resolution is limited more by the size of the laser (which draws the page in electric charge on the drum) than it is on the size of the grains. Which is one reason that laser print always looks sharper than inkjet print.

I'm fine with my inkjet

[PCM2]

I have a Brother MFC-6490CW inkjet printer. At the time I bought it, it was on sale and Amazon.com shipped it to my front door for $190, total.

I chose this particular printer largely because of a novelty: It is a multi-function machine that can both scan and print at sizes up to 11x17" (aka Tabloid or Ledger, the ISO equivalent being A3). You won't find any laser printers that can do that for less than a couple thousand dollars.

My printing needs are best described as "light." I realized that 90 percent of what I print out I print for my own use. I carry it around for however long I need it, probably a few days, and then it ends up in the recycle bin. I never print photos on photo paper, because as many people have pointed out, that's a waste of ink (and hence money). I do often print things with photographs in them, though (Web pages, etc.) so I like those printouts to be in color. I also like my text to be in color -- it makes it easier to see things like hyperlinks, highlights, annotations, etc. But I really don't care if any of it is "presentation quality," because I'm likely to be the only one who sees it.

The printer came with a set of high-capacity ink cartridges. That set lasted me, I would guess, about a year and a half. Since then I've bought off-brand, generic cartridges, and I've been mostly happy with them. The genuine Brother black ink is more water-resistant than the generic ink, but for my purposes, it mostly serves.

I don't remember what I paid for them, but checking Amazon right now, I can order a set of four high-capacity black cartridges, plus two sets of all three colors, for $10.48. They get cheaper if you buy them in bulk.

So all in all, I'd say I don't feel ripped off. I get to scan big things from time to time and print them out on big paper in color from time to time, and the rest of the time I have an adequate ink jet office machine that costs me less per year than I'd usually spend on lunch.

color is a perception

[p51d007]

I've worked on photocopiers, printers & wide format units for over 30 years. I carry a paper sample card with me that shows the color red, in different shades. Some glossy, some matte finish, some bright, some dark. When I get an end user that says "the colors don't look right", after I determine there isn't anything wrong with the machine, the driver, or how it is set up, I check their paper. Usually they will "cheap out" on inexpensive big box paper, and less than 92 bright. I whip out my sample card that shows all the colors through the front and ask them which one is red. They most likely pick one of the middle red colors, which is a bright glossy red. I then open it up, and show them that the red color they see in different brightness levels or hues, is the EXACT SAME SHADE of red, but printed on different paper stocks. Most of the time they get it, and once I show them how to set different driver profiles for each type of paper, I never hear about it again.