Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
I'm really glad they did this. I've been getting terrible frame rates from my usual printer paper.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
"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'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.