SillyDog701

[allen-uk]

This thread is split from [sdt=13017]G3 and bits going cheep[/sdt]

Oh, and a PS, Antony:

did you see my note about USB1/2 and your new Brother printer (posted under my Epson printers topic).

I've also been looking at a Canon MP600R. A lot more expensive, but consumer orgs. in the UK don't rate Brother's image quality very highly.

Any thoughts?

Allen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[djv1]

I have a brother mfc 440cn, if you are looking for a printer that prints good quality clear photos then I wouldn't suggest a brother (quite frankly there image quality sucks), I would go with some thing more like a HP Photosmart D7300 as can be seen here HP Photosmart D7300 Printer
I've seen the photo quality that these put out and it is amazing, although the ink is quite expensive..

[Used BBCode to shorten URL. profman, 2/21/2007]

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[allen-uk]

Thanks djv. I had been looking at HP Photosmarts, and due to total lack of space here, I was looking at the multi-function ones, so the recommendation is useful.

Some days I wish there was only one product to choose from. It would make life easier!

Allen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Antony]

Do you scan a lot or often?

If not, you can get a scanner by its own, and put it up-right when not in use. Many Canon CanoScan's come with a kit for upright (vertical) storage and even scanning in that position.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[allen-uk]

No, I don't scan very much, or very often, Antony.

I've still got the Astra which is a pretty basic scanner, but it is USB1, so I might connect it to the iMac and see if it works. At least that'll cut down on the new kit/multiply choices a bit, won't it.

Trouble is, I don't think it works except through Photoshop, which of course as yet I haven't got. Elements looks like the one I need, but I'm not sure whether that takes scanner plug-ins or not. Any ideas?


Allen. (Oh, and PS, the Internet still ain't going on the iMac, but there you are, you can't have everything).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Antony]

Oh, and a PS, Antony:

did you see my note about USB1/2 and your new Brother printer (posted under my Epson printers topic).

I've also been looking at a Canon MP600R. A lot more expensive, but consumer orgs. in the UK don't rate Brother's image quality very highly.

Any thoughts?

Allen.

If you want to get a good colour image, you should get the one with 6 inks (5 colours + 1 black).

After attending Apple Leopard Tech Talks today, I went to department store and noticed following all-in-one scanner/printers.

Canon MP460 and MP510 are both cheap (AU$179 and $199 respectively), however, the sales person suggests me HP Photosmart 3110 for better colour quality... (AU$379).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Antony]

I have a brother mfc 440cn, if you are looking for a printer that prints good quality clear photos then I wouldn't suggest a brother (quite frankly there image quality sucks),

I'll have to agree on the output quality of Brother printer is bad after getting myself a [sdt=13127]6-colour inkjet printer[/sdt]

I only wonder when I can afford a colour laser.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2

[allen-uk]

Hello gang.

Well, I got the Canon MP800 Pixma - all-in-one, scanner, copier, printer - not cheap (£160-ish) - but for what you get, plus the Canon name, pretty good value.

I haven't tried it on proper photographic paper yet, but I did run a pic through on supermarket copier paper which came out in about 4 seconds, and the quality was as good as an average newspaper colour pic, so I'd say that looks on the right track.

The scanner is a bit odd - using it 'direct' on the Canon, the quality isn't as good as when you use it linked to Photoshop, even though obviously the hardware is the same. So, I'm happy using Photoshop, as that is where it would end up anyway.

Oh, and it even scans negs and trannies with a built-in transparency adaptor - haven't tried it yet, but I'll dig out my old box of negs and give it a go.


Allen, London.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2