Using the Xerox Phaser 7800 to print professional quality photogrphs

[Samaila Sodangi]

Hello everyone,

Any advice on using the Xerox phaser 7800 to print professional quality photographs on say glossy or satin photo papers. What is the average cost per 5x7 print?

Thanks in advance.

[Luca Ragogna]

I don't have any personal experience with this particular printer, but I have used a number of the larger Xerox and Canon printers / digital presses as well as the Kodak Nexpress. This is a machine made for office graphics, designer's proofs and short run colour work. It's not meant for professional photographic output and it'll never be as good as inkjet or dye sub for photographic output. Don't try to sell the prints as high-end photography or give the impression that it's remotely archival (it's neither).

For photographic output, you'll do much better with a decent inkjet costing a few hundred dollars.

That said, there's not much to getting decent output from a laser printer. Calibrate like any other printer but more often. With our Nexpress we calibrate first thing in the morning and then after lunch. Colour varies wildly based on temperature and humidity. Toner based printers don't tend to do very well with heavier or glossy stock so you'll just have to try out the different papers and see how they do, but don't hold your breath.

[Samaila Sodangi]

Thanks, that's helpful.

[Gemmtech]

Hello everyone,

Any advice on using the Xerox phaser 7800 to print professional quality photographs on say glossy or satin photo papers. What is the average cost per 5x7 print?

Thanks in advance.

My best friend bought a 7800 for his office, phenomenally quick color laser and it produces beautiful output for a laser.  However, as the post above me states, for printing a photograph a "cheap" photo inkjet printer will produce a much nicer print.  It's a graphics printer. I believe it prints a 13x18 (19), very expensive (I believe $4,000+)

[Samaila Sodangi]

My best friend bought a 7800 for his office, phenomenally quick color laser and it produces beautiful output for a laser.  However, as the post above me states, for printing a photograph a "cheap" photo inkjet printer will produce a much nicer print.  It's a graphics printer. I believe it prints a 13x18 (19), very expensive (I believe $4,000+)

Very expensive really ($6000+). In that case Im surprised that xerox listed photography studios, among others, as possible users of the 7800.

[Luca Ragogna]

It's not that expensive if you look at what it's built for. If you had an office with 100 employees this printer would handle all the printing for the entire office quite nicely. And it has a duplexer and booklet maker option so it would work quite well as a small digital press for a small copy shop.

[Gemmtech]

It's not that expensive if you look at what it's built for. If you had an office with 100 employees this printer would handle all the printing for the entire office quite nicely. And it has a duplexer and booklet maker option so it would work quite well as a small digital press for a small copy shop.

There is a difference between "expensive" and "value" correct?  So it can be expensive and still be a good value?  Anything costing $4,000.00 is expensive, how one uses it determines its value.  Or are you saying if I buy the aforementioned printer for my personal use for $4,000.00 that's expensive, but if a company with 100 employees purchased it then it would not be very expensive?  I suppose I could say a $100,000 car is cheap if it saved my child's life?   :-)

I stick by my original statement, it's an expensive printer....

[John Nollendorfs]

Folks, this model Xerox is an expensive printer, and it's only rated  for business graphics not photos! But all the 11x17 size toner printers are expensive! I've been using the much less expensive KonicaMinolta lettersized printers for nearly 10 years. Only the class 9600 dpi versions are good enough for pretty good photographic quality. No, they are not as good as from even cheap inkjet on good media, but I would say on most images "equivalent" to commercial 4-color printing. I use my MagicColor 4650 for printing note cards cheaply and quickly on card stock that is pre-cut to 10x7" and pre-scored by a commercial printer for me. The  cost of this paper works out to about 10 cents a sheet, compared to 30+ cents for inkjet paper. I figure my toner costs per card at  about 15 cents. This allows me to "print on demand" note cards instead of investing $1000's in commercial printing.

This is the 3rd model KonicaMinolta 9600dpi printer I have owned. Each model has printed significantly better and faster than the model before. These class of printers are commonly available for less than $500 complete with toner. It's almost cheaper to buy a new printer, than to buy the replacement toner carts! ;-)

[Luca Ragogna]

There is a difference between "expensive" and "value" correct?  So it can be expensive and still be a good value?  Anything costing $4,000.00 is expensive, how one uses it determines its value.  Or are you saying if I buy the aforementioned printer for my personal use for $4,000.00 that's expensive, but if a company with 100 employees purchased it then it would not be very expensive?  I suppose I could say a $100,000 car is cheap if it saved my child's life?   :-)

I stick by my original statement, it's an expensive printer....

Say what you want, our Canon 5045 was $10,000 and it's a fairly comparable printer. Is $4k a lot of money? I guess, but not when you look at a comparable printer or consider that it can replace 100 personal colour laser printers. $4K is a lot of money depending on what you're buying.