Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to mine silver?

Reply
Thread Tools

Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to mine silver?

 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2011
Charles wrote:
>
> > "RichA" wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.
>
> Yeah, and bottled water costs more than gasoline.



If it provides better mileage, it might be worth the extra cost.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2011
eatmorepies wrote:

<deleted entire message for brevity>

I just wanna know one thing: Why do you care how many pies anybody
eats?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> So your experience is with the cheaper printers which I've
> suggested are not necessarily that economical; and you are
> indicating that is in fact true.


Yep, I just wish I could consider a $1000+ printer as "cheap". For those who
can justify a $2000++ printer, I guess there is no problem.


> As I've said, professional models are significantly
> higher quality, and are meant for thousands of
> operations. For example the Epson 4880 printer is rated
> for 20,000 A2 prints, and the maintenance unit is rated
> for 160,000 "pump rotations" in continuous operation.


Which is fine if you are in the printing business rather than a photographer
I guess.


> Compare the 200 prints per year suggestion as about the
> break even point for 3 or 4 years of operation, and
> consider that it would be reasonable to expect to get 5000
> print per year for 4 years! If the actual use is only
> 200 prints per year, at the end of 4 years it can be
> sold with a description of "virtually unused"!


And still lose a bomb as people want the newer better printers.


> With less expensive consumer models you probably won't
> get 5000 prints in the life of the printer, never mind
> per year for several years. But that isn't really important
> for someone only print more or less than 200 per year.


Exactly, I'd be more than happy with 5000 prints if the price is right.
Never made that many with any of my printers so far unfortunately, as they
all failed.


>>Maybe, but there are still many amateur photographers who find it hard to
>>justify $1,000++ a year on prints. (cost of printer, paper and ink)
>>Professionals, sure.

>
> That's exactly the point of the details that I provided.
> If you print 2 prints a week, there is no economy of
> scale. If you do 5 prints a week there probably is. At
> 10 prints a week there is no question.


Even 10 prints a week is only 500 per year, that's ten years for your 5,000
print life expectancy. 40 years for the 20,000 print you expect of the
better printers. Even assuming it would last that long, it would be pretty
obsolete by then! For 5 prints per week, forget it!!!!


> The whole point was that the information is available to
> make a sound decision rather than a wild guess.


Yep, I made my decision not to buy any more inkjets. Cheaper to pay to have
my prints done so someone else can justify the outlay.

>>> The point though is that as stated with a high enough volume
>>> the more expensive models turn out to be cheaper over a normal
>>> lifespan of a printer.

>>
>>Depending on the number of prints made per year, which was my point.

>
> Your point? That was the original point of my first
> post... repeating it is not exactly significant. I
> included the essential data required to determine
> exactly how many prints, not just some off the wall
> homespun theory.


Nope, your figures are not TCO and assume no failures, which was what I
said.


>>IF you don't make enough prints per year the printer will probably die or
>>be
>>obsolete before it's paid for itself. If you simply make more prints to
>>try
>>and justify the outlay, you end up paying even more money than you
>>othewise
>>would have.

>
> Sure. But the valid point still remains that for some
> given amount of use it is more economical to go with a
> higher cost printer in order to reduce the total cost of
> operation over the life of a printer.


Which I never disputed, the question remains what that figure is, and I only
disputed your *simple* calculations.


>Hand waving that
> it may or may not be this or that is worthless
> therapeutic noise. The actual prices of ink, which
> allows exact calculations to be made, are what counts...
> and that was exactly what I posted to start with.
> You've added nothing of significance.


In your opinion of course, since you've never had a printer failure and
obviously do enough prints per year to justify the highest capacity models.
NOT everyone shares your requirements that's all.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> A relatively few years ago third party inks were all
> pretty questionable in terms of potential damage to the
> printer. Today there are at least two or three that
> have clearly proven themselves to be high quality and
> safe. The problem I have with any of them is that none
> have been rigorously validated by third party testing
> for archival qualities. For that reason I've stayed
> with Epson inks.


I've sometimes printed with Epson three colour inks, and sometimes
with cheaper 3rd party replacements, not always the same kind. The
Epson inks have slightly better colour fidelity and dynamic
range. I've left prints with both inks tacked to a wall which never
gets any sun and is fairly shaded and dim except when the big compact
fluorescent lights are on in the evening. After a year the Epson ink
prints still look the same. The cheaper inks have all faded badly into
a severe brownish/amber sunset or tungsten colour balance with much
less dynamic range.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
On 10/24/2011 6:55 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "eatmorepies"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2011102415041250073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sad, but true.
>>>
>>> ...but when you want to produce a decent quality print there is no free
>>> ride, from the $800-$1800 printer, to the 8 cartridge system @ $12-$15
>>> each depending on the deal you can find.
>>> I know what it costs to feed my Epson R2880.
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, you have a better idea.

>>
>> My better idea was to buy an Epson 3880. In the Uk the 3880 cost 950 ish
>> and the 2880 480ish. The 3880 comes with 9 cartridges each with 80ml of
>> ink - I guess the 2880 comes with 12 to 15 ml in each cartridge. I can print
>> A2 if I want and I imagine the 3880 is more sturdy than the 2880. 3880 ink
>> is cheaper per ml then 2880 ink.

>
> The cost of ink for the R2880 is roughly $1.02/ml, while
> ink for the 3880 is $0.74/ml. Of course for the 4880,
> in 220ml cartridges, ink is $0.51/ml, or just about
> exactly half the cost of operating an R2880. For the
> 7800 and 9800 series printers that can use 700ml
> cartridges ink is down to $0.40/ml.
>
> The significance is that for any given amount of use it
> is relatively easy to calculate which printer will cost
> less over any given time period. And at least up
> through the 4000 series it is often much less expensive
> to buy a much higher cost printer in order to reduce the
> cost of ink. (The 24 inch wide format and larger
> printer, such as the 7890 or 9890, don't necessarily
> qualify because they do not auto feed sheets and are not
> suitable as a general purpose printer.)
>


But, if you use large capacity cartridges, and don'[t use them
frequently, don't they have a clogging issue?

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
On 10/24/2011 9:08 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The significance is that for any given amount of use it
>> is relatively easy to calculate which printer will cost
>> less over any given time period. And at least up
>> through the 4000 series it is often much less expensive
>> to buy a much higher cost printer in order to reduce the
>> cost of ink.

>
> Only if you don't factor in the printer or print head failing before you
> have printed the number of prints used in your simple calculations.
> Something that happens all too often unfortunately.
> Another alternative is to buy the cheaper printer and modify it for a 3rd
> party ink system. Of course not all ink is created equal, but neither are
> Epson/Canon inks beyond comparison.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Do you get the same quality image from the cheaper printer.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
On 10/25/2011 1:21 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.

>>
>>
>> Sad, but true.
>>
>> ...but when you want to produce a decent quality print there is no
>> free ride, from the $800-$1800 printer, to the 8 cartridge system @
>> $12-$15 each depending on the deal you can find.
>> I know what it costs to feed my Epson R2880.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you have a better idea.

>
> Artist paints aren't terribly cheap. Top-quality printing ink isn't
> cheap. But I do suspect that ink cartridges are a pretty major profit
> center.
>
> What's *really* scary is the prices on cartridges for the big printers
> (4880 and up in Epson land). The idea of 11 cartridges in a printer,
> costing $100 each, is downright terrifying. (Per ml. of ink they're
> cheaper, of course, by quite a lot.)



Street price 110ml %70 229ml $112.

The 4880 comes with a full supply or the 110ml cartridges.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2011102714311229560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> ...and now you can buy an R2880 via Amazon for $580, which is actually a
> bargain for somebody wanting to be able to produce the occasional quality
> print at home.


And when you go to use it for that next "occasional print" you find the
heads are clogged and it costs as much as a new printer to replace them
You can get a lot of "occasional prints" commercially made for the cost of
the printer and paper, and ink and repairs.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2011
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Do you get the same quality image from the cheaper printer.

>
> That is a very good question!
>
> In fact most of the high end consumer printers probably
> produce slightly better images than the best of the
> commercial grade printers!


Hmm. Even those printers used to print Abrams, teNeues or
Taschen image collection books?

<snip>

> The pro models however are much easier to operate, and
> the difference in image quality is of debatable value.


So what are you saying? Make up your mind

<snip>

Since you seem to know a lot and have some rather interesting
opinions (as in this post), I thought I'd look at your webpage.

Quote:

"This greyscale chart can be used to adjust your monitor's
brightness and contrast. Only the darkest 3 or 4 squares should
be all black, and the brightness control should adjust that.
Only the lightest 3 or 4 squares should all be white, and the
contrast control should adjust that."

"Only the darkest 3 or 4 squares should be all black..."

??????????????

"Only the lightest 3 or 4 squares should all be white..."

??????????????

Sigh.

You should take that thing down and replace it with this link:

http://www.programming.de/download/testscreens.zip



--
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at
it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named
Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found
out that you had already stolen it."
Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, around 1983
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2011
(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> Note that Epson says the ink is good for 6 months after
> it is opened, and 2 years on the shelf... but nobody
> pays any attention to that and it's pretty well accepted
> that it lasts well over 1 year and probably more than 2
> years.


Ctein, for example, has said it in a column on The Online Photographer.
He currently uses an Epson 9800 and a 3880, and also still does
dye-transfer printing in the darkroom. He's more meaningfully fussy
about print quality (not just picking nits) than pretty much any three
other people I know, so that means a lot to me.
 
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
Laser Printer and Ink Jet Printer Ink Cartridge Delivery MethodPictures Please flbroker1 Computer Support 5 06-21-2009 09:42 AM
Help me, a friend of mine wrote a program in C# and I wrote the sameprogram in C..His is faster than mine on the same machine...How Come ? c C Programming 43 12-15-2007 01:01 PM
Your getline is better than mine Richard Harter C Programming 0 11-29-2007 09:11 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: WHERE THE TRUTH LIES, YOURS, MINE AND OURS (2005), and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 02-28-2006 10:08 AM
Ink is ink is ink? Or no? Mike Graham Digital Photography 7 08-13-2003 09:25 PM



Advertisments