I bought an HP-1022 recently. It was quite a find - no frills, but very affordable and a very small footprint. I did consider some Brother models, but they all seemed cheesy to me, not least because I think symmetrical resolution is important. My only complaint with the HP-1022 is some slight toner scatter towards the bottoms of shapes, visible via a loupe. HP suggested trying different fusing temperatures (easily set via the driver) and even sent me a replacement cartridge, but nothing helped. On the other hand, it’s hard to see the scatter with the naked eye.

In terms of pumping up the color of text rendering, the HP software (at least on Windows) lets you choose a number between 1 and 5 to determine darkness, and it’s pretty effective.

hhp

Thanks for the reply, hrant!

I actually bought the LaserJet 1020, but I was thinking about returning it because:

I use an Intel-based Mac, and this little printer is supported by 1) An older HP driver that offers no access to print quality controls, limiting the output to 600 x 600dpi, and 2) An Open-Source CUPS driver which, although allowing access to print controls, prints 600 x 600dpi no matter what I select. This issue with the CUPS driver is confirmed by web sources.

So I’m basically stuck with a wonderfully compact, reliable (HP), quiet laser printer that is stuck in 600 x 600dpi mode. I compared a page of Underware’s Dolly printed with the LJ 1020 to one printed with my Deskjet 5150, which printed it at 1200dpi. Needless to say, my inkjet brought out the warmth of Dolly, and that rich black it is known for. But at 600 x 600 dpi, it basically loses its charm

Other lasers for Mac are either cheap Brother brands that do 2400 x 600 (why the lowewr vertical res?), or Samsung models that do 1200 x 600.

The only 1200 x 1200 laser from HP that is in my price range is the Laserjet 1022, but that also is stuck at 600 x 600dpi on the Open Source drivers. It does have a Mac driver from HP, but I can’t tell whether it just allows basic printing (what I’m stuck with now) or access to advanced functions.

I feel like tearing my hair out.

What about Post Script support, is it relevant?

Oh yes, be aware of those el cheapo HP printers as many does NOT work with Mac. My girlfriend bought a Laserjet 1018 yesterday; imagine the phone call I got when she had assembled and attached it only to find out that there are no drivers for it. Luckily the shop would change it for a Samsung ML-2010 which works just fine. It’s fast and dirt cheap, but noisy.

The one I recently opted for was the Laserjet P2015 which is more expensive, but very silent and very fast if you stick to vectors (text). First page really is out in eight seconds from stand-by mode. It’s 1200x1200 dpi and it looks fine.

I don’t know about drivers, but the 1020 only does 600x600 anyway, so
return it pronto - the difference between 600 and 1200 is very clear.

I had an inkjet for many years - it was cheap (with ink refills) and had
good resolution, but [affordable] inkjets always exhibit a fuzz that doesn’t
jibe with text output to me.

Postscript support would be great, but ups the price of a printer a lot.
And from what I know HP’s Postscript is buggy.

BTW, the 1022 is noisy, but surprisingly fast.

The 2015 is nice, but besides being about double the price its footprint is bigger.

hhp

I love my Ricoh Aficio AP610N

1200 x 1200, postscript, 20 ppm, 11 x 17”, really reasonable price (I think I paid around $800).

I’ve always heard HPs postscript is buggy too - you need workaround software that limits your options (such as dpi). This Ricoh is basically plug and play into the ethernet port or router, once you download the driver. It’s kinda big tho. I have it under my desk and it makes a nice footrest when I’m not using it. But man, I can print an entire book out in about 15 mins.

Inkjet printers suck.

I just looked at the HP-2015 again and after the typical rebate the price jump from the 1022 for Postscript is probably worth it for many people; and when you count the 1022’s paper tray that sticks out (which does mean you can conveniently lay stuff on it though :-) the 2015’s footprint is about the same. So you should probably go for that one.

hhp

I just recently got the same Rocoh model that Patty got. It has really good print quality and is very fast, plus true PostScript.

Previously I had a Brother all-in-one fax/printer/copier/scanner. The print quality was okay, but it was really slow and would go to sleep and refuse to wake up—sometimes in the middle of a job—necessitating a restart. It also bugged me that it printed much faster from Quark/Windows than from Quark/Mac. I can only conclude that the Mac printer driver was to blame.

The Ricoh has no such problems. Still have the Brother, but only use the fax and copier functions. Never did use the scanner part.

I’d like to thank everyone for relating their laser printer experiences. It’s helping me quite a bit.

So I figured that I’d experiment with various lasers until I get the right one in terms of my budget and print quality concerns. I can just return the unit(s) to Staples and do an exchange each time, just paying the difference. I don’t mind the few extra dollars. A laser printer is an investment.

I’m now trying the Brother 2070N, 2400x600dpi, with included Mac drivers. The options in the print menu allow for 300, 600, and 1200dpi (with the 1200 appearing as an “HQ1200” option.) Is this 1200 x 1200dpi? Or 1200 x 600? What’s the 2400 x 600 all about?

I’m a bit confused here, but in any case, I printed out a sample page set in 10.5 Dolly and the output (at HQ1200) look darker and richer than the previous HP’s 600dpi output.

So for a few dollars more than the HP 1020, I’m getting better results.

But there is also a Samsung model (ML 3051ND) in a similar price range that does 1200 x1200 (stated on the box), but which is rather large (nay, huge!), though it is also “mac compatible” - to what degree I’m not sure.

Any thoughts?

Staples is gonna love ya. :-/

> stated on the box

The boxes lie.
I will never forget the desktop scanner box that -over
ten years ago mind you- claimed a resolution of 9600.

hhp

The boxes lie.

That goes for postscript and real CMYK support, too.

Nothing beats a visual comparison, letter for letter.

The Brother’s printout of my Dolly sample page is virtually the same in terms of the thickness of black text as the page my Deskjet 5150 produced. The only real difference being that the laser-printed text is a bit sharper and crisper than the inkjetted page.

It seems the paper itself has quite a bit to do with the quality. A nice, slightly creamy heavier stock really brings out the richness of black text, especially with a font like Dolly.

I’m satisfied with this little unit. Time will tell how reliable it is.

Thanks for the help, everyone!

I’m still a bit cnfused re dpi:

2400 x 600 vs. 1200 x1200.

Which is better for text? Why would there be less vertical resolution with the 2400 x 600?

Think about how this stuff works: the paper moves, and the electromagnetized (or whatever) specs of toner are laid down on the paper, line-by-line. So the vertical resolution is a matter of how finely the paper can be moved, and the horizontal resolution is a matter of how finely the toner can be laid down. The former depends on the quality of the paper “tractor” mechanics, the latter on the quality of the electronics as well as the granularity of the toner coming out of the cartridge. Since the way any product like this is put together depends on the price point it is meant to end up selling at, an asymmetrical resolution means that it was much cheaper per dpi to produce either horizontal or vertical resolution. A given company might be able to produce finer mechanics and less fine electronics/toner than another company, and/or they value symmetricity of resolution differently.

For text, the horizontal dimension tends to need more definition, for things like consistent stem weights and equal counters in the “m” (especially using fonts with bad/no hinting) but most of all for reduced aliasing in italics. For a printer with finer vertical resolution than horizontal, printing text in landscape format gives better results. BTW, don’t assume the higher number is the horizontal, since the marketing people will always get the literature to list the higher number first either way.

And a general problem with asymmetrical resolution is that if you print something like a fine grid mesh (especially a skewed one) the texture and color of the vertical vs horizontal lines will be different.

In short: Oh brother!

hhp

I’m learning quite a bit here. For text, it seems that a finer horizontal res is more important, when printing in portrait mode.

But all else being equal, hrant, if you want excellent text output, which dpi combo would *you* choose?

I can still spring for the Laserjet P2015 you mentioned earlier, which seems to be a Postscript printer as well. It also seems sturdier than the Brother I have now

I know I’m beating this to death, but if I’m to hound anyone for typographic knowledge, it’ll be you!

I guess all else being equal I might prefer 2400x600 over 1200x1200 if I were using the printer almost exclusively for proofing my own fonts and I could shoot for landscape or portrait printing depending. But probably other factors (footprint, trustworthiness, etc.) would tip the decision for me. And they did! :-)

But if you’re looking for a good general purpose, typographically decent laser
printer, unless buying the 2015 is likely to cause you monetary grief, go for it.

hhp

There are all kinds of reasons for/problems with laser or inkjet printers. For example, we could never use the highly though of — and expensive — Xante because some of its internal software took over & we couldn’t do a proper grayscale profile for it. Now that only affects work with images, but images are an important part of our business. Drive by the office & make us an offer — less than 5,000 sheets through it.

Always remember that what you are after is total resolution, with all elements considered. So,

1/Rt = 1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 + ... 1/Rn.

If one of those R’s is low (like the paper), having high resolution in some other element doesn’t help the total resolution all that much.

My real world test is that a .25-point rule often looks good on a laser printer. It flat-out doesn’t work for offset printing (Direct-to-Plate at 2400 dpi), at least, with uncoated stocks. A .33-point rule is the smallest you can get away with.

After going over my sample pages with a magnifying glass under good lighting conditions, something occured to me . . .

Even though my laser printer is set to highest quality (HQ1200), the inkjet output still seems slightly darker, or better put, thicker. This may be obvious, but it’s allayed some of my fears re laserjet vs. inkjet quality. The ink from the inkjet at high-quality setting seems to bleed into the paper, producing a kind of thick, perhaps fuzzy output that might not be what was intended by the font’s designer.

The laser’s output is just as dark, but seems a bit thinner due to greater sharpness/clarity because toner doesn’t bleed into paper.

I’m assuming, then, that for accuracy’s sake, we’ll want to avoid that “ink bleed” that seems to be characteristic of inkjets. This ink bleed might actually make text appear too heavy on the page.

Am I making sense here?

Yes you are. In other words: NEVER trust an inkjet printer for text ’colour’. Never trust an inkjet for colour accuracy, unless it is fully calibrated, and none of the consumer models are. HP makes a line of pro-sumer Designjets that have an integrated loop-back colorimeter, that can print out a target and scan it, and create the ICC-profile for that specific paper, with the used ink cartridges, and the used printheads, for that temperature and humidity. And only for D5000 norm-light. And that’s only really working with the third party RIP. And text ’color’ is still way off because you have to use some special proof stock to simulate off-set printing. So no, inkjet is not for us.

Am I making sense here?

Yup. Inkjets pretty much suck when it comes to rendering fine text; I don’t use them for anything lighter than Akzidenz-Grotesk. I know some crazy design students who can coax amazing output from an inkjet, but that’s because they sit around all day running prints and tweaking settings for every page.

Something to keep in mind for getting really nice output is to just bite the bullet and have it run off by a local print shop on a really high-end laser printer. Even high-end business laser printers can’t compare with what you can get from a print shops high-end laser printers for a dollar or two.

I ended up taking back the Brother - I had reliability worries with it, and the unit seemed rather flimsy, and bought an HP Laserjet P2015. The one that Hrant suggested, more or less.

I can already tell that the print quality makes this machine worth the extra money. The output is heavy enough to accentuate that deep, rich black, but light enough to bring out the details of the type. It’s interesting how I can tweak the settings (i.e., print density) via a web interface. I compared newly-printed samples to what the Brother 2070N produced, and the Brother at highest quality seems to have rendered text far too dark and heavy. It’s amazing what a difference a quality machine makes.

Question:

What kind of paper should I use (weight/thickness) to really do justice to fonts that are meant to bring out a black that is rich and deep? I know there is “laser” paper that is sold in any computer outlet, but I think some of you might have a better idea.

Actually Claus suggested the 2015 first.

hhp

BTW here’s a discussion of the HP bug I mentioned:
http://typophile.com/node/27813

hhp

I got a 2015 and I really like it. It’s good to know about the HP bug though. I should test my printer and see what I get...

Anyone here use a Xerox Phaser? Pricier than HP, but I’m curious if it’s less buggy when outputting from Mac.

Eben:

What would you suggest are the best print quality settings for the P2015?

I have the print density set to 5, but there’s also a resolution enhancement option (on/off), including an econo mode option with, somewhat oddly, a “highest quality” setting.

I’m assuming ProRes 1200 is the best, but what about those other two options?

If it’s like the 1022, if you set it to “true 1200” you shouldn’t have the resolution enhancement option on (that’s for making 600 look more like 1200, which it does, but visibly not enough). You definitely don’t want “econo mode” on, since that makes everything gray. On my setup all I did was switch it up to “ProRes 1200” and I get the best it can do. But I also have the density set to 3 (the default), and 5 is too much for me (plus it probably distorts the outlines, not to mention takes you further away from what an imagesetter would do).

Beyond that the main thing you’ll need to worry about is changing the paper type setting as needed. Thicker paper needs more toner fusing time, otherwise the stuff can actually fall off after printing!

hhp

There are only three settings for image quality on OS X. The setting for highest quality is pretty self explanatory:
Printer Resolution: ProRes 1200
Resolution Enhancement: On
EconoMode: Highest Quality

As far as I can see the ’Resolution Enhancement’ does nothing when ’Printer Resolution’ is set to ’ProRes 1200’.

So far I have used it to test what an office printer is likely to do - not to try to make it into an imagesetter... ;-) You questions are good ones. I will try to test them out in about a week and a half. If I haven’t posted a result in 2 weeks bug me a little & I will. In the meantime I would fallow Hrant’s advice but also look to see what you think.

What I like about mine is that it prints very quickly, the cost per sheet is low, & it seem to be built well enough that I might get to keep it for more that 2 years unlike an inkjet which is the posterchild for planned obsolecence. It also doesn’t seem to have an obvious problem with vertical or horizontal distortion which most laser printers ( other than a xante) do seem to. This doesn’t mean that it is immune from the bug metioned earlier.