From: Ken Hart <>
Subject: Re: Toner Vs Ink?
Full headers:
From: Ken Hart <>
Subject: Re: Toner Vs Ink?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:50:53 -0500
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <p6nhgc$13ud$>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Print Article
Forward Article
On 02/22/2018 03:59 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
> I usually have my photos printed at a kiosk, but for the A4 larger
> ones I use the office Fuji-Xerox laser color printer.
> Is laser-toner photos longer lasting than the Kiosk-printed variety?
> Peter
Too many variables...

Toner is melted into the paper, and is generally water resistant. Inkjet 
prints might run if they get damp, depending on the ink. And light-jet 
photos are actual "old-school" photographs: light-sensitive photo paper 
exposed to laser light and chemically processed. If they get wet, they 
can usually be dried to their original appearance.

The big issue is the quality. Toner cannot make as fine a dot on the 
paper, and toner pigments don't really mix. Inkjet printers can make a 
smaller dot, and the different colors of ink mix together as they soak 
into the paper. Photo-sensitive papers have all three colors already in 
the paper, wanting to be exposed to the proper color light.

I've done toner printed photos and inkjet photos. Inkjet photos look 
better, but toner photos are more rugged. And properly done 
photo-sensitive paper prints beat them both.

Ken Hart