Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Printer consumables

Reply
Thread Tools

Printer consumables

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Paul J Gans wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>

>
>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.

>
> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>
> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
> printing.
>


I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains to
be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and while
they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit larger
than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but if I were,
they would go on the short list.
But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
pictures. There are several:
1. Immediate results.
2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
3. Privacy.
4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.

I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>
>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.

>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>>
>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>> printing.
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans

>
>
> I'd like to offer another solution to this movement away from home
> printing. If the printer manufacturers would sell the printers at a
> price to insure a fair profit on them ALONE and stop trying to make
> all their profit on the cartridges at their high prices and efforts to
> thwart refilling, more people would do their printing at home. That
> was the way things were a few years ago, but someone decided to go for
> a totally different marketing strategy. If it is costing them sales
> dollars now - you suppose they will figure out why? And go back to
> what used to work? I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Olin McDaniel
>


Kodak is exploring just that marketing plan. However, the 'Gillette'
plan (give away the razor, sell blades) has been a very successful plan
for more than 100 years now. I don't expect it to disappear any time
soon. It is great for those of us who print a few pages a month.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
On 12 Sep, 14:26, philc <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
> suppliers in the UK?
> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
> I dont intend on spending more than 100, not sure if i want ink-jet
> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>
> TIA


looks like im going to try the canon cp720 (50 in-store in jessops),
and the cartridge 18 for 108 in Amazon. Anybody got any experience
with this printer?

 
Reply With Quote
 
philc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
On Sep 13, 2:26 am, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> philc wrote:
> > Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
> > costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
> > suppliers in the UK?
> > Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
> > range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
> > I dont intend on spending more than 100, not sure if i want ink-jet
> > or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
> > but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
> > waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
> > surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
> > cost of photobox for 6x4's.

>
> > TIA

>
> AT the moment, the lowest cost for consumables is held by the new Kodak
> printers. The inks are pigment inks, which will probably last as long
> as any prints you buy at a photoprinter.


Ron, do you know where i can find a price comparison table anywhere on
the net?
I've tried to find Kodak 10 x 15 Printer Dock media, but struggle to
find it for <0.30 per 6*4 print, whereas the canon works out at under
17p per print.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Passaneau
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) :

> Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>

snip>>>>>> TIA
>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is
>>>>> around $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen
>>>>> cartridges run out after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers
>>>>> out there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home
>>>>> printing runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside
>>>>> source.
>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job
>>>> with a $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a
>>>> machine which cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>

>>
>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.

>>
>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>> they take them to Wal-Mart or wherever.
>>
>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>> printing.
>>

>
> I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains
> to be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and
> while they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit
> larger than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but
> if I were, they would go on the short list.
> But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
> pictures. There are several:
> 1. Immediate results.
> 2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
> 3. Privacy.
> 4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.
>
> I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
>


Hi all:
I too have looked at the Kodak printers and my problem with then is that
they only do 4x6 inch prints or they are all in ones. I dont need or
want an all in one printer. I want a printer that will do an 8.5x11 inch
or slightly bigger and do that very well. I seldom use an outside
printer, as Im fussy about how my prints look. There is a local photo
shop that does large format inkjets in house and I use them for 11x14 and
bigger prints. But even then they do a small scale proof for me before I
commit to the big finish print. Ive been printing color photograph in my
own darkroom since 1970 and I know what I want. Right now Im using a
dirt cheap Epson R200 with a custom profile and Qimage printing software
and Im getting some of the best looking prints Ive ever made, inkjet or
wet darkroom. I do not think that Wal-Mart could give me the quality of
print that I want. I do wish Kodak well and hope that the other printer
makers take up the idea of fairly pricing ink but Im not holding my
breath.

John Passaneau
 
Reply With Quote
 
philc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
On Sep 13, 3:45 pm, John Passaneau <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote innews:(E-Mail Removed) om:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> ray wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:

>
> snip>>>>>> TIA
> >>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is
> >>>>> around $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen
> >>>>> cartridges run out after doing 15 sheets.
> >>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers
> >>>>> out there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home
> >>>>> printing runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside
> >>>>> source.
> >>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job
> >>>> with a $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a
> >>>> machine which cost several thousand dollars.

>
> >>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.

>
> >> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
> >> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
> >> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
> >> they take them to Wal-Mart or wherever.

>
> >> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
> >> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
> >> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
> >> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
> >> printing.

>
> > I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains
> > to be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and
> > while they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit
> > larger than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but
> > if I were, they would go on the short list.
> > But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
> > pictures. There are several:
> > 1. Immediate results.
> > 2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
> > 3. Privacy.
> > 4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.

>
> > I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.

>
> Hi all:
> I too have looked at the Kodak printers and my problem with then is that
> they only do 4x6 inch prints or they are "all in ones". I don't need or
> want an all in one printer. I want a printer that will do an 8.5x11 inch
> or slightly bigger and do that very well. I seldom use an outside
> printer, as I'm fussy about how my prints look. There is a local photo
> shop that does large format inkjets in house and I use them for 11x14 and
> bigger prints. But even then they do a small scale proof for me before I
> commit to the big finish print. I've been printing color photograph in my
> own darkroom since 1970 and I know what I want. Right now I'm using a
> dirt cheap Epson R200 with a custom profile and Qimage printing software
> and I'm getting some of the best looking prints I've ever made, inkjet or
> wet darkroom. I do not think that Wal-Mart could give me the quality of
> print that I want. I do wish Kodak well and hope that the other printer
> makers take up the idea of fairly pricing ink but I'm not holding my
> breath.
>
> John Passaneau


called into comets on the way home - they had the epson 240 for 70 a
further 10% when ordering on-line. nearly 150 on amazon. the also
had the paper for 23 for 150 sheets. quite surprised and placed my
order.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Bob Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>

>>
>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.

>>
>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>>
>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>> printing.
>>

>I agree with you, Paul.
>I buy generic ink cartridges for my Canon Pixma iP3000 for about 35% the
>cost of new cartridges. I print lots of 8x10s and don't give cost a
>second thought. Despite a lot of pooh-poohing of generic inks in
>magazines, by direct A-B comparisons, I have found very little if any
>difference between Generic and OEM inks. The problem is that generics
>are not available for most printers, especially those using pigment
>based inks. For my Super Shots, I have them printed at Costco ........
>mainly for increased longevity.
>Bob Williams


I think this is a wise strategy, if you are getting satisfactory
results from the off-brand ink. Most printers are so cheap that
if they jam fron off-brand ink, one can simply throw them away
and buy a new one -- *with* cartridges, almost as cheaply as
the cost of branded cartriges alone.

What tends to happen though is that a company's focus shifts.
What business is Apple in? Selling computer hardware? Software,
Iphones, Ipods, music?

It seems clear that what used to be printer companies (or printer
divisions of larger companies) are now INK manufacturers who sell
printers as a sideline to increase consumption of their inks. I
wonder about the long-term viability of this strategy. It has
certainly alienated *me*, for one.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
John Passaneau <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) m:


>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>>

>snip>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is
>>>>>> around $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen
>>>>>> cartridges run out after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers
>>>>>> out there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home
>>>>>> printing runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside
>>>>>> source.
>>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job
>>>>> with a $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a
>>>>> machine which cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>>> they take them to Wal-Mart or wherever.
>>>
>>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>>> printing.
>>>

>>
>> I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains
>> to be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and
>> while they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit
>> larger than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but
>> if I were, they would go on the short list.
>> But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
>> pictures. There are several:
>> 1. Immediate results.
>> 2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
>> 3. Privacy.
>> 4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.
>>
>> I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
>>


>Hi all:
>I too have looked at the Kodak printers and my problem with then is that
>they only do 4x6 inch prints or they are ?all in ones?. I don?t need or
>want an all in one printer. I want a printer that will do an 8.5x11 inch
>or slightly bigger and do that very well. I seldom use an outside
>printer, as I?m fussy about how my prints look. There is a local photo
>shop that does large format inkjets in house and I use them for 11x14 and
>bigger prints. But even then they do a small scale proof for me before I
>commit to the big finish print. I?ve been printing color photograph in my
>own darkroom since 1970 and I know what I want. Right now I?m using a
>dirt cheap Epson R200 with a custom profile and Qimage printing software
>and I?m getting some of the best looking prints I?ve ever made, inkjet or
>wet darkroom. I do not think that Wal-Mart could give me the quality of
>print that I want. I do wish Kodak well and hope that the other printer
>makers take up the idea of fairly pricing ink but I?m not holding my
>breath.


I understand completely. On the other hand those of us who
really care about our photos are a rather small number. There
is a huge market out there of folks who do very simple adjustments
(if any at all) and want to churn out prints of their children,
their vacation, etc. Right now I suspect most of them go to
the corner drugstore because it is cheaper than doing it yourself
at home.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2007
philc wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:26 am, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> philc wrote:
>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>> I dont intend on spending more than 100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>> TIA

>> AT the moment, the lowest cost for consumables is held by the new Kodak
>> printers. The inks are pigment inks, which will probably last as long
>> as any prints you buy at a photoprinter.

>
> Ron, do you know where i can find a price comparison table anywhere on
> the net?
> I've tried to find Kodak 10 x 15 Printer Dock media, but struggle to
> find it for <0.30 per 6*4 print, whereas the canon works out at under
> 17p per print.
>


You should be able to find the information at the Kodak website. The
printers cost more, but the cost of ink is about half the usual price
for other printers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2007
John Passaneau wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>>

> snip>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is
>>>>>> around $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen
>>>>>> cartridges run out after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers
>>>>>> out there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home
>>>>>> printing runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside
>>>>>> source.
>>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job
>>>>> with a $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a
>>>>> machine which cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>>
>>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>>> they take them to Wal-Mart or wherever.
>>>
>>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>>> printing.
>>>

>> I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains
>> to be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and
>> while they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit
>> larger than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but
>> if I were, they would go on the short list.
>> But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
>> pictures. There are several:
>> 1. Immediate results.
>> 2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
>> 3. Privacy.
>> 4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.
>>
>> I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
>>

>
> Hi all:
> I too have looked at the Kodak printers and my problem with then is that
> they only do 4x6 inch prints or they are all in ones. I dont need or
> want an all in one printer. I want a printer that will do an 8.5x11 inch
> or slightly bigger and do that very well. I seldom use an outside
> printer, as Im fussy about how my prints look. There is a local photo
> shop that does large format inkjets in house and I use them for 11x14 and
> bigger prints. But even then they do a small scale proof for me before I
> commit to the big finish print. Ive been printing color photograph in my
> own darkroom since 1970 and I know what I want. Right now Im using a
> dirt cheap Epson R200 with a custom profile and Qimage printing software
> and Im getting some of the best looking prints Ive ever made, inkjet or
> wet darkroom. I do not think that Wal-Mart could give me the quality of
> print that I want. I do wish Kodak well and hope that the other printer
> makers take up the idea of fairly pricing ink but Im not holding my
> breath.
>
> John Passaneau


John,
You seem to have an irrational bias against an all-in-one printer.
They print 8.5x11 just fine, and smaller, and slightly larger sizes as
well. You don't HAVE to use the scan and copy features if you don't
want to. The printers are a bit larger than comparable HP printers, for
instance, but that is a matter of cosmetic design. I have two
all-in-one printers, and they work quite as well as any single-purpose
printer I have ever used, and have some convenience features as well.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Save On Your Consumables jharstedt@printmorespendless.com Digital Photography 0 05-28-2006 06:40 PM
Shared printer not found in add printer wizard =?Utf-8?B?YW50aG9ueQ==?= Wireless Networking 0 10-31-2004 06:49 AM
Force Printing to a printer based on the given printer name Samuel Lee ASP .Net 0 11-11-2003 03:07 AM
Adding the same printer twice in XP (copying printer) cromi Computer Support 2 10-23-2003 05:50 AM
Help - Xerox C15 Printer printer Tom Mix Computer Support 1 07-13-2003 04:20 PM



Advertisments