From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Toner Vs Ink?
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Toner Vs Ink?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:08:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <220220181908122628%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <hjbu8d1fe34sse5bm726ie12kcib77r6vu@4ax.com> <p6nhgc$13ud$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="43ed6352efc2813e12e49aabe4479977";
logging-data="13568"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VmRAVW28LrQkrHey7dkmK"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9iFTIxGdfnCeM2hI6BxpCcICcC8=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p6nhgc$13ud$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart<kwhart1@frontier.com> 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?
> > 
> Too many variables...

not at all. 

ink jet versus laser printer. 1 variable.

presumably everything else is the same, he just chose a different
printer.

> Toner is melted into the paper, and is generally water resistant. Inkjet 
> prints might run if they get damp, depending on the ink.

you must be using a very old inkjet printer and he didn't ask about
water resistance anyway.

> And light-jet 
> photos are actual "old-school" photographs: light-sensitive photo paper 
> exposed to laser light and chemically processed.

one reason why they're not as good as inkjet prints.

> If they get wet, they 
> can usually be dried to their original appearance.

so can inkjet prints. 

> 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.

the dots can't be seen at normal viewing distances so their size is not
an issue. 

the dots also don't mix in the way you think they do. since they're
smaller than what the eye can resolve, the mixing is done in your eye,
not on the paper.

not surprisingly, if you look at photo paper under high magnification,
you can see film grains.

> 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.

then you did something wrong.

first of all, comparing 'properly done photo-sensitive paper prints'
with *improperly* made inkjet prints is bogus.

if you intentionally fuck up one, then the other will win. no surprise
there. the correct comparison is with the best each can do. 

modern ink jet photo printers have a wider gamut than photo paper and
laser printers, particularly those with more than 4 inks, and with a
properly calibrated workflow, will produce *better* results which last
longer than anything you can do with photo paper. 

the problem with laser printers, what you are calling toner, is that
they have a much smaller gamut and cannot be properly calibrated,
resulting in lower quality prints.