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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 24, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.
     
    RichA, Oct 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.


    so don't buy it.
     
    nospam, Oct 24, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Charles Guest

    "RichA" wrote in message
    news:...

    I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.

    Yeah, and bottled water costs more than gasoline.
     
    Charles, Oct 24, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    eatmorepies Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2011102415041250073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA <> 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.

    John
     
    eatmorepies, Oct 24, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Trevor, Oct 25, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >Average colour printer today gets about 20 full-bleed
    > 8.5"x11" sheets. That's about $3 a print, not including paper. You can
    > do 8x10's for that at local print shops, including paper. Ink rose
    > dramatically in price as printer costs dropped. Substitution, I'd say.


    Right, and I've never understood either why a 8x12" print costs ~20-25 times
    the price of a 6x4" print locally, when it's only 4 times the size. When
    enlargements from negs required much manual handling the difference could be
    justified, these days it seems to be simply a giant rip off.
    Fortunately it's easy to create mural size from 6x4" prints at *very* low
    cost if you don't mind the joins :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 25, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>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.

    >
    > It's pretty rare.


    I wish my friends and I could agree with you, I really do. My experience
    says otherwise. But then I've never owned one of the $2,000+ printers, I
    have spent $600-$1,000+ three times on printers that failed well before
    expected. (Canon, Epson and HP)
    My friends experiences mirror my own.


    > The number of prints required to justify the more
    > expensive printers is relatively few (200 a year), and
    > doesn't come anything close to the typical life span of
    > the printer.


    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 of course is also more true of the higher grade
    > printers. Consumer printers have significantly lower
    > build quality, and they are commonly designed to expire
    > sooner. Waste ink, for example, is commonly dumped into
    > the bottom of the printer case, and after a predetermined
    > number of prints the machines says that's it, it's done!


    Right, and some of those disposable printers are pretty pricey! There is a
    BIG jump from the $50 general purpose printers (that you can use any old ink
    on because you just throw them away when the heads are stuffed), and those
    that can produce quality prints to satisfy a photographer.


    >>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.

    >
    > The same applies to the higher cost printers though,
    > except of course there is generally no need to modify
    > them.


    You probably wouldn't want to if you've paid a few thousand dollars, but the
    ink is still bloody pricey, even IF it is less per ml than the printer
    manufacturers smaller cartridges.


    > I'm not sure that I'd agree that OEM inks are not beyond
    > comparison, simply because nobody else seems to want to
    > have a third part test their inks. But regardless of how
    > one views that, not all printing requires the claimed
    > benefits of OEM inks, such as fade resistance and in
    > particular the color fidelity. For example, printing
    > flyers or brochures hardly requires premium inks. It's
    > open to debate just which photographs do either!


    Agreed, but I really meant premium OEM inks Vs premium 3rd party inks.


    > 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.
    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.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 25, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 24, 10:29 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2011-10-24 18:17:57 -0700, Rich <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    > >news:2011102415041250073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

    >
    > >> On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA <> 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.

    >
    > > I don't know.  I remember the first black ink jets from Canon had large
    > > cartidges that cost about $25.00.  I would get about 500 typed sheets
    > > from one.  Average colour printer today gets about 20 full-bleed
    > > 8.5"x11" sheets.  That's about $3 a print, not including paper.  You can
    > > do 8x10's for that at local print shops, including paper. Ink rose
    > > dramatically in price as printer costs dropped.  Substitution, I'd say.

    >
    > If I were going to use a printer for general text printing, with or
    > without color, I would use a Laser printer.


    Cost: (roughly)

    Ink Jet: 10
    laser: 1
    Large photocopier (as printer): 0.03
     
    RichA, Oct 25, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 25, 12:22 am, isw <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >  RichA <> wrote:
    > > I doubt it.  But by weight, it costs more.

    >
    > Are you confusing "cost to make" with "how much people can be conned
    > into paying for it"?
    >
    > Isaac


    Most of the cost is in the electronic cartridges that cost more than
    they should to make because they engineer them to reject (in some
    cases) refills.
     
    RichA, Oct 25, 2011
    #9
  10. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA <> 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.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    Charles wrote:
    >
    > > "RichA" wrote in message
    > > news:...

    >
    > 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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Trevor, Oct 27, 2011
    #13
  14. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <> 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
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 27, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    On 10/24/2011 6:55 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "eatmorepies"<> wrote:
    >> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >> news:2011102415041250073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>> On 2011-10-24 13:50:14 -0700, RichA<> 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
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    On 10/24/2011 9:08 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "Floyd L. Davidson"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    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<> 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
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "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.
     
    Trevor, Oct 28, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    thanatoid Guest

    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
    news::

    > PeterN <> 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
     
    thanatoid, Oct 28, 2011
    #19
  20. (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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 28, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Graham

    Ink is ink is ink? Or no?

    Mike Graham, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    811
    Mike Graham
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    733
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 28, 2006
  3. Tony
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,187
    Larry
    Oct 5, 2004
  4. Artistry

    Rebel XT Black Costlier than Silver. Why?

    Artistry, Apr 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    506
    Ron Hunter
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. flbroker1
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    774
Loading...

Share This Page