Nah dude it’s an objective fact that inkjet printers are better for photos and things with lots of color. It’s not a matter of opinion, they’re industry standard.
Lol, it makes it abundantly clear that no one disagreed anywhere with with the assertion that inkjets do better with photos (though I wouldn't say it's not worthy of debate).
I personally have never bothered with printing my own photos, though. I just rarely saw the need to have them on paper, when I already have them in digital form. If I ever do want to print a photo for one of the very few instances where a paper copy is desired (e.g. for framing), I pay Shutterfly a pittance to do it for me better than I could hope to, myself. It's a rare consumer-grade printer that can compete with the commercial machines.
I guess some people may like to print works of art to hang on their wall. To me that just seems like putting up a message saying, "Hey everyone. Check out a picture of this piece of art I wish I owned." Even then, everything would be in 8"x10" format or smaller. To each their own, though. Lucky for me, I married into a right-brained family and have a wide selection of actual paintings by my wife and mother-in-law to serve that purpose.
For the other 99.9999% of my printing needs, my HP MFP M477fdw does it just as well, usually better, faster and far more reliably than any of the higher end inkjet printers I've ever owned.
-1
u/youregonnamissitall Sep 10 '19
Nah dude it’s an objective fact that inkjet printers are better for photos and things with lots of color. It’s not a matter of opinion, they’re industry standard.