On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:21:42 +0100, VanguardLH wrote:

"John C." wrote:

Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:

Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I
routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years
I've processed literally thousands of color images.

Inkjets bleed preventing fine detail or sharp delineation. Bleeding is
how blending is achieved. If you want a good photographic-quality
printer, don't get laser or inkjet, but get a dye-sublimation printer.
The printer will cost more as will the photo quality paper ink ribbons.
Or revert back to analog photographically to recapture the high density,
contrast, and brilliance of that photography technology.

If the photo shop is producing high-quality photo prints, unlikely they
are using a laser printer. Much more likely they are using a commercial
sublimation printer. What manufacturers call "photo printers" are not
actually photo-quality printers. They're just good enough for the
majority of consumers, but not for professional photographers.

Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers
looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost. Professional
photographers still use film cameras and develop on photo paper.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

When have you seen a 175 MP digital camera in a retail store to get the
detail of 35mm film, or 313 MP or 2 GP digital cameras to get the detail
of 2-1/4" or 4x5" film? And not in their rated megapixel, but in their
*native* megapixel rating? There are native 100 MP professional digital
cameras at $10K to $26K USD! And still they're deficient to film.

Bloody hell, what film are you using? The 35mm film I used before digital came out was equivalent to about ONE megapixel.