Unless you get clear, definite confirmation that it is OK, don't even
try it. If the glossy surface isn't adequately heat-proof it could wreck
your printer when it melts onto the heater & rollers :-(
--
regards,
dslr
Buy a Premium Laser Color paper...like HP's.....about $15 a
ream....excellent results..
"TObject" <Newsgro...@pronografics.com> wrote in message
news:a79Ca.5341$49.2...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Xerox makes some good stuff, but it's over a $100 per ream.
Ed
If you value your laser printer, DON'T underany circumstances use
INKJET gloss paper, the coating would melt off in the fuser. There
are several Gloss papers available for use in laserprinters.
--
.
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
modelflyer at antispam dot net
Antispam trap in place
> From: edpalmer <epa...@myway.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.periphs.printers
> Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 22:10:19 -0400
> Subject: Re: Premium Glossy Photo Paper in Laser Printer
>
> Inkjet photo-paper is coated to absorb liquid ink- toner will not fuse
> to the coating. It won't ruin anything, but you will have to clean up
> some toner.
>
> Xerox makes some good stuff, but it's over a $100 per ream.
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 21:27:34 GMT, "TObject"
> <Newsgro...@pronografics.com> wrote:
Inkjet coating is not heat resilient. Using (even 1 sheet) of inkjet paper
in laser printer can severely damage the printer.
Yes XEROX does make nice 100 lb coated/semi glossy laser paper at CAN $1.41
per letter sheet.
Jenson Digital makes laser paper as good or better at 1/10 of the price.
Regards
Brian
Trust me. Fusers are expensive...
-Larry
"TObject" <Newsgro...@pronografics.com> wrote in message
news:a79Ca.5341$49.2...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
Can you tell me the web site of where you buy Jenson digital Laser papers &
the Mfg. # of the item you use?
Thanks!
Joe
"Brian Lehen" <blgra...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:BB000552.29C20%blgra...@rogers.com...
With a lot of work, he was able to get the printer working again. He
then tried HP's glossy photo paper for lasers (it's an HP 4500). The
results weren't bad, but they pale next to any good quality inkject
printer.
On Sat, 31 May 2003 21:27:34 GMT, "TObject"
<Newsgro...@pronografics.com> wrote: