Printing Has Changed: A Quality Inspector on Kodak Photo Printers, Large Format Inkjet, and 3D Printer Programs

I’m a quality and brand compliance manager at a printing-focused company. Every deliverable that goes out under our name passes through me first—roughly 200 items a year, maybe 180, I’d have to check the system. In Q1 2024, I rejected 6 percent of first deliveries—no, wait, that was Q1 only; for the full year it was closer to 5 percent. One of those issues cost us a $22,000 redo and delayed a launch. The vendor said it was “within industry standard.” We rejected the batch anyway. They redid it at their cost, and now every contract includes a proofing requirement.

So when I talk about printing, I’m not talking about trends. I’m talking about what I check before a file goes to press. Here’s my opinion, plainly: the printing industry has changed more in the last five years than in the previous fifteen, and most buyers are still using an outdated mental model. What was best practice in 2020 may not apply in 2025. The fundamentals haven’t changed—you still need correct files, good materials, and honest verification—but the execution has transformed.

What “inkjet printer” means now

If you search “what is a inkjet printer”—or rather, “what is an inkjet printer,” since I’m a stickler for grammar—you’ll find the old textbook answer: a printer that sprays tiny droplets of liquid ink onto paper. That’s physically true, but it’s incomplete. The category has splintered. There’s a massive difference between a $99 office inkjet, a photo printer with pigment inks, a label press, and a large format inkjet printer. If you evaluate them all with the same criteria, you’ll miss the real costs. The spec sheet probably won’t tell you about media compatibility, color management, or maintenance intervals.

I’ve followed Kodak’s printing lineup because it reflects this shift. Kodak photo printers include portable photo printers, label printers, all-in-one units, and thermal options. They are not one thing. When people ask me about Kodak photo printers, I don’t tell them to compare megapixels or DPI. I tell them to compare media cost per print, color consistency across batches, and whether the ecosystem supports the output they actually need.

One example: before shortlisting a photo print solution, I spent time reading Kodak Step instant photo printer reviews. Those reviews are useful for consumer experience, but they almost never talk about color consistency between batches or how prints hold up in storage. That’s what I care about as someone who approves or rejects deliverables. The seller’s spec sheet won’t tell you that either. You have to test.

Large format inkjet: the cost that doesn’t show up on the quote

Now let me talk about the phrase “large format inkjet printer” specifically. I run a lot of large format jobs, and the number one mistake I see is thinking the hardware is the whole cost. Most buyers focus on per-square-foot material prices and completely miss setup fees, ICC profiles, test prints, and waste. The question everyone asks is “what’s your best price per square foot?” The question they should ask is “what’s included in that price?” That hidden calibration cost is likely why the “cheap” quote stops being cheap.

I still kick myself for treating a large format inkjet printer purchase as if hardware were the entire budget. If I had planned for media profiles, printhead maintenance, and operator training, I would have saved myself a lot of troubleshooting. Don’t hold me to this, but I think the extra time spent on proofing saves more money than it costs. I once ran a blind test with our procurement team: same design, two different media stocks. 70 percent picked the higher-quality stock as “more professional” without knowing which was which. The cost increase was maybe $0.18 per piece—I’d have to check—and on a 10,000-piece run, that’s a meaningful difference in brand perception.

Physical specs are part of my review too. For label runs, I check USPS Business Mail 101 (pe.usps.com/businessmail101) before approving artwork. USPS defines letter size, large envelope size, thickness, and aspect ratios. A beautiful label that exceeds those specs becomes a non-machinable surcharge or a jammed envelope. That kind of cost is invisible in product photos.

3D printer programs have entered the print workflow

The phrase “3d printer programs” gets searched mostly by people looking for slicing software or design tools. But from a quality perspective, those programs are part of the same workflow: a file needs to be valid before it becomes a physical object. We use 3D printer programs in our lab to prototype fixtures for checking print alignment and packaging jigs. To be fair, 3D printing is a different material science than inkjet. But the old assumption that 3D printing has nothing to do with print buyers is gone.

In my experience, the software matters as much as the machine. I’ve rejected 3D print orders because wall thickness was too thin for the material, or because the mesh had holes that would make the part weak. These are exactly the kinds of problems that show up in printing: the file looks right on a screen but fails under the physical standard.

Objective standards matter for environmental claims too. Per FTC guidelines (ftc.gov), advertising claims must be truthful, not misleading, and substantiated with evidence. The FTC Green Guides specifically address terms like “recyclable.” A product labeled “recyclable” should be recyclable in areas where at least 60 percent of consumers have access. I’ve rejected packaging because a vendor couldn’t back up its claim. That’s not a small point: for B2B buyers, an unsubstantiated label can create legal exposure.

I get it: “printing is dying” and “laser is better”

I hear the objections. Print volume is down in some categories. Text-only invoices don’t need a $3,000 wide-format machine. A monochrome laser is still the right tool for a lot of office tasks. To be fair, if you only print black text memos, the type of printer barely matters. But the assumption that inkjet is only for home offices is outdated. I’ve seen pigment-based inkjet prints hold up well under conditions that would have damaged older photo paper. That’s not nostalgia. That’s a shift in material chemistry.

I also get why people stick with traditional offset for long runs. Offset still has economies of scale. But the false choice between “inkjet vs laser” or “digital vs offset” no longer captures reality. Many production shops use a mix. Inkjet has become a precision tool for packaging, signage, photo, and label work. The old question, “what is a inkjet printer,” now has an answer that depends on the machine’s role.

What I’d check before you approve anything

Over four years of reviewing deliverables, I’ve learned that the spec sheet is the beginning, not the end. So before you approve a purchase or a print run, ask a few uncomfortable questions:

• Is the quoted price based on total cost, or just the base unit?
• Are color profiles, media settings, and test prints part of the process?
• Are environmental claims like “recyclable” backed up with documentation?
• Does the output meet the physical or digital standard it needs to fit? For labels, that includes USPS dimensional specs.

This applies whether you’re looking at Kodak photo printers, a large format inkjet printer, a label run, or even 3D printer programs. The fundamentals haven’t changed, but the execution has transformed. The best time to update your evaluation criteria was before your last expensive redo. The second best time is now. At least, that’s been my experience with production printing.