Can you help me narrow down the search for a photo printer?

A few years ago it was true that online printing services like Snapfish were cheaper than printing at home. Snapfish prices have come down (now 9 cents for a 4-by-6) but I imagine so have prices for home printers. Still, with the low volume you're talking about, I doubt you're going to come out ahead by buying a printer. According to http://ask.metafilter.com/49260/Looking-for-a-printer-with-a-low-cost-per-printout#748436, "Good photograph prints for a consumer are always going to be more expensive when done at home." Not sure what the reasoning is behind that. Snapfish also allows you to have your prints made at a local place like Staples or Walgreens. It's a little more expensive in my experience, but it's useful for when you need prints fast.

What OS do you print from? How involved do you want get? Do you want to make your own paper profiles or just use canned ones from the vendor?

I have a Canon s330 that I got new for $85 in 2002. Six years later, it's still going strong. It is not a dedicated photo printer -- I bought it for general printing in undergrad. It does, however, print some awesome photos. I buy the pre-cut 4x6 photos and use the Canon software to print. I couldn't be happier with the results. They look just as good (and often better, as I adjust the colors before printing) as target/kmart/other generic photo lab prints that I've gotten. I think Canon makes good printers in general, whether they be dedicated photo printers or bottom-of-the-line inkjets (which is what I use!). Additional bonus, the ink is dirt cheap compared to HP/Epson/etc...I think it's $6 or 7 for the blank ink cartridge, $10 or $12 for color depending where you buy it.

I have a Deskjet 970cxi that I garbage picked and cleaned up, and I feel it prints beautifully. Better than newer printers I've compared it to. And I'm sure worse than others. The only annoying thing it doesn't do is the nice edge to edge printing that newer ones have. And it has a duplexer!

I have a Canon i9900 that has performed nearly flawlessly for several years; it is now nearing obsolescence but Canon has continuously improved their line over the last few years and as a high-end camera maker has been responsive to the needs of photographers in terms of such things as ink quality. Epson has pretty much been the gold standard, but their printers have tended to be prone to jamming and print head clogging, among other problems. Those are the two brands I would look at first.

Epson 2200. 13 X 19, fantastic color, rich blacks. There is a newer version that has one more ink, probably even better. Great printer.

http://www.office.xerox.com/printers/color-printers/phaser-8560/enus.html It's not cheap, but solid ink and 25 8x10 prints a minute is pretty damn awesome. The solid ink is pretty damn cheap too. All in all, our black copies cost us about .9 to 1.3 cents apiece, and regular "color" ones about 4 or 5 cents. Full page photos get closer to 7-10 cents.

canon i used to like epsons, but if you don't use them all the time they clog up and aren't really worth fixing thrift stores usually have a few lexmarks and a bunch of epsons. canons don't stay on the shelf if they come in. i have a canon pixma 4000, cost $100 a few years ago, great color, fast b&w, 5 inks, duplex, quieter than an epson even if said epson is off (i kid), looks nice too. got inks for $1 a tank off 'that' auction site. to me, epsons are almost as disposable as lexmarks.

Epson owner, probably wouldn't buy one again. It prints(ed) great photos, but now it seems full of black ink and crap, and way (that I see) into it to clean it. It is so soaking in it, the back of the paper gets lined. Now it is easier to walk 3m across the road to the conbini and stick in a memory card for the automatic photo printing ATMs.