Q & A: Is a cheap Lexmark Photo Printer Print this good? Where’s the catch?
Bystyle = “float: left; margin: 5px; font-size: 80%”>
of catherinetodd2 Question holacarinados : Is this a cheap Lexmark Photo Printer Print this good? Where’s the catch? I must say, a free Lexmark printer. I have a Lexmark Z515 renovated to a seller of games that came with a rebate, then I had the printer for free. He came with two ink cartridges – black Lexmark Lexmark Color 17 and 27. I printed five 8×10 “and the quality is incredible. I agreed with Epson R1800 prints and 2400 – from 0-0. I find no information about the ink or cartridges, but an image is pro pictures disappear in about two years. If that true or is he misinformed or jealous? Any other reason why my prints are lower, if I can not see a difference. I have 20/10 vision or vice versa, regardless of your vision, if you’re 20 meters, which can see that most people see at 10 meters (but I’m not a visionary). better answer is:
What do you think they need? Answer below
2 Comments
July 13th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Lexmark printers are normally felt to be inferior to other ink jets made by Epson, HP, Canon etc. This follows testing by people such as photographic magazine journos. If you are happy, however, then stay with it. I think the inks tend to be more expensive than the others, though, and I notice there is only one colour cartridge, rather than one for each colour, which is wasteful.
July 13th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Common inkjet inks do not have a long life. Lexmark bargain basement printers definitely don’t. The pictures do look great but it is definitely not a professional calibre printer. I had a Z11 that printed very nicely. It was slow but the prints were excellent. When I went to buy cartridges I vowed never again to mess with a Lexmark. They’ve got to be one of the highest priced per mililiter manufacturers out there.
Wilhelm Research at http://www.wilhelm-research.com grades archival qualities of photographic materials and inks.