I saw a PCmag review of this printer saying that it gives “high quality photos”. Having printed a few photos on this printer, I wonder what was their standard of reference. Maybe this gives better photos than other printers of similar range? Because, having only seen photos printed from professional labs until now, I won’t call the photos I printed with Canon ip110 as ‘high quality’. I tried two different papers: Kodak photo paper (brilliant, glossy) and Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II. The results are shown in the photo* attached, along with the original digital photo for comparison. They are printed on the same computer with same software, the only differences are date-stamp format and paper used. The Kodak paper print have a greenish tinge on it (and all the other photos I printed on that paper, too). I think Canon glossy II looks better in terms of color reproduction by not having the greenish hue, but still not that great when you compare it to the original digital photo. Both prints are visibly grainy and the edges aren’t as sharp as I’d like them to be. I think that both these flaws have more to do with the quality of printer than the paper. I don’t know if Canon glossy (regular, with closer gsm to the Kodak one I tried) would have done better than Kodak, but assumed it would be similar to Kodak photo paper - Kodak says the paper is compatible with canon anyway.What I understand from reading some online discussions about photo-printing is that you need printer with more colors than this one’s CMYK. But such printers are much more expensive (if not to buy, then at least to maintain). So maybe that’s why reviews like the one from PCmag says this one gives “high-quality” prints but I still think it’s an inaccurate description . But maybe for different people, this would be a great printer. I attached the photos of the prints so you can see and decide for yourselves.Otherwise I’m happy with this printer. It prints color on plain paper pretty well (if you want to print reports or slides with colorful images, this should work well). It’s slower than the printers I’ve used in the office, and has low paper-tray capacity(50), but as I got this for personal use and I rarely print documents longer than 10 pages at a time, I am fine with those specs. What I really wanted was a document printer as compact as possible, and this one fits the bill. The one star I’m taking off is not for the photo printing (as Canon doesn’t really advertise this as a photo-printer), but for not including a printer-cable which would have made setup and usage much easier in all situations. As it is, the printer can connect with wifi without a cable if your router has a WPS button and you have access to it, but they could easily have added a cable to come with the printer. Also, it’s not really portable out of the box. To make it work when traveling with it, it needs a cordless power-source, which is a rechargeable battery sold separately for $99. I don’t need to take a printer when traveling so this is not my problem. Maybe I should thank canon for making it available without the rechargeable battery at a lower price, but just letting people know before getting excited about the 'portability' of the printer. Right out of the box (without a battery), this printer can only work when it’s connected to a power-source with a regular 2-pin plug (no USB charging). Canon website shows a slightly upgraded model of portable printer called TR150 which shows USB charging, but even that seems only possible when you’ve inserted the rechargeable battery. So read the fineprint (the online manual) to know what you’re getting before buying the printer. Seems pretty straightforward, but just emphasizing the need.Note to Macbook users: Initially when I installed the Canon printer software, I was advised to print using something called "Easy Photoprint Editor". Don't use this software. It doesn't give the option to edit the date-stamp format, and the default datestamp came printed with really bad resolution (blurred on the edges - the datestamp was the worst part of the print). You can download the software called 'Easy PhotoPrint Ex" for MacOS, and it gives more control over photo-printing. But it seemed to me that even direct printing from Mac is better than the "Photoprint Editor" software. (I also printed photos using Windows and the quality was the same when using Easy Photoprint Ex).*Some parts of the photo are covered to protect privacy. The printed photos were printed as 2 photos/page with border so the real size of each photos shown are around 4x3 inches (half a regular size photo). The printed photos aren't perfectly aligned because I took a photo of the prints, as I don't have a scanner.