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

    On 24.10.11 22:50, RichA wrote:
    > I doubt it. But by weight, it costs more.


    I have recently dumped my Epson Stylus pro 5000 after I have seen prints
    from a "ridiculously" cheap Brother MFC5980.
    It has only got 4 inks, but you would hardly see the difference on the
    prints.
    With Epson paper and cheap ink, the output is overwhelming.
    With less expensive photo paper the results are excellent too.

    I have bought that device and never regretted it.

    The ink tanks are large enough and accessible from the printer front
    (like my old Stylus Pro) the cartridges have got no chip.
    No-Name cartridges are available for less than 2€

    Last month I forgot a photo printout (Epson paper) in a shirt, which got
    a full wash at 60 °c. The photo came out of that treatment with a felt
    20% bleach but was still in good shape!

    ;-)

    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One mobile and two operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
    Laszlo Lebrun, Oct 28, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

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

    On 25.10.11 06:16, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > Bottled water costs more than gasoline.
    >


    Have you tried to order a bottle of gasoline in a good restaurant?

    SCNR

    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One mobile and two operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
    Laszlo Lebrun, Oct 28, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

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

    On 28.10.2011 04:35, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > The pro models however are much easier to operate, and
    > the difference in image quality is of debatable value.


    Anyhow I did not regret to have dumped my old insanely expensive Stylus
    Pro 5000 for a ridiculously cheap Brother MFC5840.

    The operation is the same: Ink tanks can be changed while printing from
    printer's front.
    (was important for me), Networking is included.

    The Brother never clogged in a year. The picture (on Epson paper) is
    better than from the Pro 5000.
    The Ink is extremely cheap, no names are available (needs recalibration).

    I bought the inks by 4x25 tanks @ around 1each (20ml) so I won't have
    to recalibrate for at least the next two years.

    You probably can't print cheaper.
    Caveat: it does not handle well heavy papers. > 240g :-(
    The paper drawer looks like very cheap plastic, but did not break, as I
    feared.



    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One mobile and two operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
    Laszlo Lebrun, Oct 29, 2011
    #23
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/25/2011 9:02 AM, RichA wrote:
    > 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.



    Again your factual basis for that statement, if?

    BTW where are the answers to my prior questions.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #24
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/27/2011 10:23 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 10/24/2011 6:55 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> 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?

    >
    > Infrequent use does lead to clogging issues, but it isn't related
    > to the size of the cartridge. A consumer printer using a 13ml
    > cartridge will clog just as fast as a commercial printer with 700ml
    > carts.
    >
    > In either case it's a very good idea to run at least one print
    > through it every week. But in practice the clogging issue varies,
    > in particular with relative humidity and perhaps with the amount
    > of fibers/dust in the environment and on the particular brand of
    > paper being used. So for some people it isn't much trouble and
    > for others it's a constant battle.
    >


    In theory you may be right. But, in practice I am going by complaints of
    users. I admit to not understanding the reason. But then I don't
    understand the reason my front windshield on my car frosts over, when
    the side don't.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #25
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/27/2011 5:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-10-27 14:14:00 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > $799 for a printer is cheaper!
    >
    > Perhaps in a World of $100-$200 inkjet printers, less expensive would be
    > a more appropriate description. ;-)
    >
    > ...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.
    >



    I have found it far less expensive to have my printing done at Costco.
    Every so often though, I am tempted to purchase a printer. I am looking
    at the R3000, which has replaced the 2880. It has a much improved feeder.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #26
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/27/2011 7:42 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "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.
    >
    >


    Actually less: the mistakes are on them.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #27
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/27/2011 9:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-10-27 16:42:10 -0700, "Trevor" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "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.

    >
    > Producing no more than 5-10 13x19 or 11x14 per month with my R2880 has
    > not been an issue.
    > It certainly was with my Canon i9900 which was always problematic and
    > never consistent with color.
    > I didn't know what truly great prints were until I made the change from
    > the Canon to the R2880.
    >


    Tell that to Floyd.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #28
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/29/2011 10:59 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 10/27/2011 9:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-10-27 16:42:10 -0700, "Trevor"<> said:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "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.
    >>>
    >>> Producing no more than 5-10 13x19 or 11x14 per month with my R2880 has
    >>> not been an issue.
    >>> It certainly was with my Canon i9900 which was always problematic and
    >>> never consistent with color.
    >>> I didn't know what truly great prints were until I made the change from
    >>> the Canon to the R2880.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Tell that to Floyd.

    >
    > His experience is not contradicted by what I've said. They align
    > rather closely.
    >


    Actually I was talking about the clogging issue. I agree that the toy
    printers are crap/ But, IMHO the 2880 is a fairly decent printer, that
    doesn't have the clogging issue that the 4880 has.

    BTW the R3000 uses ink cartridges that cost a lot more, 25.9 ml for
    about $27.




    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 29, 2011
    #29
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/29/2011 1:59 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 10/29/2011 10:59 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>> On 10/27/2011 9:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2011-10-27 16:42:10 -0700, "Trevor"<> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Producing no more than 5-10 13x19 or 11x14 per month with my R2880 has
    >>>>> not been an issue.
    >>>>> It certainly was with my Canon i9900 which was always problematic and
    >>>>> never consistent with color.
    >>>>> I didn't know what truly great prints were until I made the change from
    >>>>> the Canon to the R2880.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Tell that to Floyd.
    >>>
    >>> His experience is not contradicted by what I've said. They align
    >>> rather closely.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Actually I was talking about the clogging issue. I agree that the toy
    >> printers are crap/ But, IMHO the 2880 is a fairly decent printer, that
    >> doesn't have the clogging issue that the 4880 has.

    >
    > The 4880 has a clogging issue? That's interesting.
    > Mine doesn't. Of course any of them if not used will
    > eventually be clogged. That's a matter of the ink, not
    > the hardware. Clogging during normal use is a hardware
    > design issue, and yes newer designs continue to improve
    > over older designs.
    >
    > Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    > is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    > heads. If I let the printer sit for too long and it
    > does clog, here's what I do. Use some inexpensive
    > paper, or recycle a large sheet from the trash, start
    > printing something on it (ideally an image that doesn't
    > really require much ink, or maybe just has something
    > about 3/4ths of the way through), and when there is
    > enough of the paper extending out the front of the
    > printer to get ahold of it, lift it up at least an inch
    > or so and pour a judicious amount of isopropyl alcohol
    > onto the paper. The idea is the get the alcohol to
    > flood the paper surface far enough back that the printer
    > carriage travels through a significant puddle of alcohol
    > for several lines of printing.
    >
    > Let the page finish, or just reject the print job and
    > eject the paper, and then wait a while for the alcohol
    > to evaporate, and the printer is good to go. Actually,
    > while letting it dry a good idea is to turn if off and
    > manually move the carriage head out of the paper area,
    > and then use an alcohol soaked paper towel to wipe down
    > the area to the right of the paper area, where the head
    > sits when idle. That's the top of the waste tank
    > access, and it might have paper dust or fibers built up
    > in places that could allow some of it to be transfered
    > to the carriage bottom or the face of the heads. (To be
    > honest, that step is messy and probably not necessary on
    > the 4880. On the other hand, with an R1800 and similar
    > consumer printers that should be a daily routine before
    > any printing is started!)
    >
    > The most significant part is that it really cleans off
    > the bottom of the carriage and the surface of the heads.
    > It removes dried ink from lack of use, but it also
    > removes paper dust/fiber particles usually more or less
    > glued to the hardware with dried ink too. Which is to
    > say that unlike doing a "nozzle cleaning" routine, this
    > procedure really gets things clean rather than merely
    > sort of functional.
    >
    >> BTW the R3000 uses ink cartridges that cost a lot more, 25.9 ml for
    >> about $27.

    >
    > Well, it seems that R2880 cartridges are 11.4 ml, and
    > not the 13 ml that I calculated the previous numbers
    > for. Right now at BH Photo the prices are:
    >
    > PRINTER CARTRIDGE PRICE SIZE ML PER ML
    > ======= ========= ====== ======= ======
    > R3000 T157220 $24.99 25.9 $0.96
    > R2880 T096220 12.95 11.4 1.14
    >
    > So the R3000 ink is cheaper than the R2880 ink, just as
    > would be expected for a cartridge that is just over
    > twice as large.
    >


    Floyd, Thanks for the information.

    what mystifies me is why you deny you ever have a clog, and then go on
    to describe how you deal with them. Oh! Well. Your price compilations
    are helpful. And I still think it cheaper to use Costco. Since I matched
    their profile, I find the quality fine for my present needs, though I am
    not sure they use acid free paper and archival inks.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 30, 2011
    #30
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/30/2011 12:21 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 10/29/2011 1:59 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> The 4880 has a clogging issue? That's interesting.
    >>> Mine doesn't. Of course any of them if not used will
    >>> eventually be clogged. That's a matter of the ink, not
    >>> the hardware. Clogging during normal use is a hardware
    >>> design issue, and yes newer designs continue to improve
    >>> over older designs.
    >>>
    >>> Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    >>> is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    >>> heads. If I let the printer sit for too long and it
    >>> does clog, here's what I do.

    >
    >> Floyd, Thanks for the information.

    >
    > Information is useful, but you have read it carefully,
    > and understand what it is...
    >
    >> what mystifies me is why you deny you ever have a clog,

    >
    > That is your imagination, and has no relationship to what I
    > said.
    >
    >> and then go on
    >> to describe how you deal with them. Oh! Well.

    >
    > OH, my. Indeed. (Now pay attention to detail, because
    > I'm going to dump a bit more of it on you.)
    >
    > I said the 4880 I use does not have a "clogging
    > problem", and that is very clearly a fact. As I said,
    > with my 4880 clogging is just not really an "issue".
    >
    > I didn't say that I've never had a clog. In fact I've
    > used the cleaning method I describe twice in the past
    > year on my 4880, and that is exactly why I have not had
    > a problem or issue with clogging.
    >
    > I have twice accidentally printed on the right paper
    > with the wrong configuration. That's an operator error,
    > not a printer issue. And it caused clogging which would
    > also have resulted in a continued "issue" if it had not
    > been for correct maintenance.
    >
    > The problem was that a previous print job required very
    > high ink saturation, and I forgot to reset the print
    > driver configuration to the normal settings, and printed
    > something with a lot of black on Premium Glossy Photo
    > paper. Imagine, if you will, an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper
    > that is a veritable pool of black ink!
    >
    > Horrors, to put it mildly. Or, it was the first time.
    > I ran another piece of paper through the print after
    > resetting the saturation to where it should be, and by
    > the end of that paper the smearing had stopped. So all
    > was fine... until the next day when half the heads were
    > clogged. A regular nozzle clean routine worked, more or
    > less. But it was also clear that between occasional
    > smears and occasional clogging, there was a need for
    > serious cleaning. So the isopropyl alcohol routine was
    > used. (It's a basic proceedure that I've used on a
    > number of printers for several years.)
    >
    > I've had essentially the same thing happen a second
    > time; I didn't even hesitate on that one, and just
    > immediately gave it the works.
    >
    > Now, *that* is why I don't have a clogging *problem*.
    >
    >> Your price compilations
    >> are helpful. And I still think it cheaper to use Costco. Since I matched
    >> their profile, I find the quality fine for my present needs, though I am
    >> not sure they use acid free paper and archival inks.

    >
    > It might well be cheaper to use Costco. The question is
    > not if, but *when* and for *what*! You may print a
    > 16x20 every two or three months, and there is no doubt
    > Costco is more cost effective for that. If you print
    > two or three a day, Costco is not a great idea. If you
    > are super critical, and very likely to print 4 or 5
    > variations on something before getting one that
    > satisfies you, Costco is not as convenient as printing
    > it yourself.
    >
    > The point of course is that flat statements, such as
    > yours, without the detail to qualify what, where, when
    > and why just don't mean much.



    Please learn to read. I said there were clogging issues. You responded.
    "The 4880 has a clogging issue? That's interesting.
    Mine doesn't. Of course any of them if not used will
    eventually be clogged. That's a matter of the ink, not
    the hardware. Clogging during normal use is a hardware
    design issue, and yes newer designs continue to improve
    over older designs.

    Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    heads. If I let the printer sit for too long and it
    does clog, here's what I do........ "

    IOW you don't have a clogging issue, because you have a method of fixing
    the clog.

    As to Costco:
    You do the math.
    I do about six prints a month, either 12 x 12, or 12 x 18. Costco price
    $2.99. The cost of paper and ink are a tad more, but the rejects are on
    Costco, not me. Having said that, my rejects are not significant.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 30, 2011
    #31
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    On 10/30/2011 4:46 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 10/30/2011 12:21 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>> On 10/29/2011 1:59 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>> The 4880 has a clogging issue? That's interesting.
    >>>>> Mine doesn't. Of course any of them if not used will
    >>>>> eventually be clogged. That's a matter of the ink, not
    >>>>> the hardware. Clogging during normal use is a hardware
    >>>>> design issue, and yes newer designs continue to improve
    >>>>> over older designs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    >>>>> is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    >>>>> heads. If I let the printer sit for too long and it
    >>>>> does clog, here's what I do.
    >>>
    >>>> Floyd, Thanks for the information.
    >>>
    >>> Information is useful, but you have read it carefully,
    >>> and understand what it is...
    >>>
    >>>> what mystifies me is why you deny you ever have a clog,
    >>>
    >>> That is your imagination, and has no relationship to what I
    >>> said.
    >>>
    >>>> and then go on
    >>>> to describe how you deal with them. Oh! Well.
    >>>
    >>> OH, my. Indeed. (Now pay attention to detail, because
    >>> I'm going to dump a bit more of it on you.)
    >>>
    >>> I said the 4880 I use does not have a "clogging
    >>> problem", and that is very clearly a fact. As I said,
    >>> with my 4880 clogging is just not really an "issue".
    >>>
    >>> I didn't say that I've never had a clog. In fact I've
    >>> used the cleaning method I describe twice in the past
    >>> year on my 4880, and that is exactly why I have not had
    >>> a problem or issue with clogging.
    >>>
    >>> I have twice accidentally printed on the right paper
    >>> with the wrong configuration. That's an operator error,
    >>> not a printer issue. And it caused clogging which would
    >>> also have resulted in a continued "issue" if it had not
    >>> been for correct maintenance.
    >>>
    >>> The problem was that a previous print job required very
    >>> high ink saturation, and I forgot to reset the print
    >>> driver configuration to the normal settings, and printed
    >>> something with a lot of black on Premium Glossy Photo
    >>> paper. Imagine, if you will, an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper
    >>> that is a veritable pool of black ink!
    >>>
    >>> Horrors, to put it mildly. Or, it was the first time.
    >>> I ran another piece of paper through the print after
    >>> resetting the saturation to where it should be, and by
    >>> the end of that paper the smearing had stopped. So all
    >>> was fine... until the next day when half the heads were
    >>> clogged. A regular nozzle clean routine worked, more or
    >>> less. But it was also clear that between occasional
    >>> smears and occasional clogging, there was a need for
    >>> serious cleaning. So the isopropyl alcohol routine was
    >>> used. (It's a basic proceedure that I've used on a
    >>> number of printers for several years.)
    >>>
    >>> I've had essentially the same thing happen a second
    >>> time; I didn't even hesitate on that one, and just
    >>> immediately gave it the works.
    >>>
    >>> Now, *that* is why I don't have a clogging *problem*.
    >>>
    >>>> Your price compilations
    >>>> are helpful. And I still think it cheaper to use Costco. Since I matched
    >>>> their profile, I find the quality fine for my present needs, though I am
    >>>> not sure they use acid free paper and archival inks.
    >>>
    >>> It might well be cheaper to use Costco. The question is
    >>> not if, but *when* and for *what*! You may print a
    >>> 16x20 every two or three months, and there is no doubt
    >>> Costco is more cost effective for that. If you print
    >>> two or three a day, Costco is not a great idea. If you
    >>> are super critical, and very likely to print 4 or 5
    >>> variations on something before getting one that
    >>> satisfies you, Costco is not as convenient as printing
    >>> it yourself.
    >>>
    >>> The point of course is that flat statements, such as
    >>> yours, without the detail to qualify what, where, when
    >>> and why just don't mean much.

    >>
    >> Please learn to read. I said there were clogging issues. You responded.
    >> "The 4880 has a clogging issue? That's interesting.
    >> Mine doesn't. Of course any of them if not used will
    >> eventually be clogged. That's a matter of the ink, not
    >> the hardware. Clogging during normal use is a hardware
    >> design issue, and yes newer designs continue to improve
    >> over older designs.
    >>
    >> Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    >> is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    >> heads. If I let the printer sit for too long and it
    >> does clog, here's what I do........ "
    >>
    >> IOW you don't have a clogging issue, because you have a method of fixing
    >> the clog.
    >>
    >> As to Costco:
    >> You do the math.
    >> I do about six prints a month, either 12 x 12, or 12 x 18. Costco price
    >> $2.99. The cost of paper and ink are a tad more, but the rejects are on
    >> Costco, not me. Having said that, my rejects are not significant.

    >
    > Sheesh Peter, *you* need to learn to read!
    >


    Yup! Read it again Floyd

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 30, 2011
    #32
  13. Wolfgang Exler <> writes:

    > Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >>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 few month ago I bought a used Stylus Pro 4800 which uses the same
    > UltraChrom K4 ink like the Stylus Photo R2400. I bought refillable
    > cartridges for this printer and since that time I buy OCP inks for R2400 for
    > about 20 to 40 EUR per Liter, depending on the color.
    >
    > So, I reduce the ink cost of a photo printed to A4 size photo paper to about
    > 0.05 EUR


    Any reason to believe they're at all permanent on the papers you use?
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 31, 2011
    #33
  14. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-10-24 18:17:57 -0700, Rich <> said:


    >> 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.


    Of course. Razors and razor blades.

    That's why there are lots of third party inks, not all of them bad.
    Yes, you probably want to use calibration and profile your printer.
    But you'd also want that with original inks ... at least for
    photographs.

    > If I were going to use a printer for general text printing, with or
    > without color, I would use a Laser printer. The economics of printing
    > text with a laser printer over trying to do the same with a quality
    > inkjet printer is a no brainer.


    Even when you use third party inks?

    > As a matter of fact even getting a multi-purpose inkjet for home office
    > use is a misguided budgetary choice given the reasonable operating
    > costs of today's laser printers.


    How expensive are laser basd copy-print-scan-fax machines?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #34
  15. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Exler <> writes:


    >> I few month ago I bought a used Stylus Pro 4800 which uses the same
    >> UltraChrom K4 ink like the Stylus Photo R2400. I bought refillable
    >> cartridges for this printer and since that time I buy OCP inks for R2400 for
    >> about 20 to 40 EUR per Liter, depending on the color.


    >> So, I reduce the ink cost of a photo printed to A4 size photo paper to about
    >> 0.05 EUR


    > Any reason to believe they're at all permanent on the papers you use?


    Many printing tasks do not need decades of permanence. (Think soft
    proof, for example.)
    Enough printing tasks that profit from permanence can be reprinted
    (on then better machines) after fading becomes visible. (And for
    5 ct you can print a lot of photos again and again.)
    If you really want permanence, you'll probably go for the old
    chemical process anyway --- it's still more durable!

    Only for those tasks where all of the above isn't true you'd have
    to think about it at all. Which may be most of your printing
    jobs or basically none.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #35
  16. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    > Incidentally, one reason I don't have a clogging problem
    > is that I do have a very effective method of cleaning
    > heads. [...]


    That's fine, but I prefer using cleaning cartridges, and
    if that fails, easily removable print heads.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #36
  17. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    > 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!
    > The professional models have replacable waste ink tanks.


    Waste ink only gets generated under 2 circumstances:
    cleaning heads (lots) and printing borderless (whatever goes
    over the border).

    And if you design the waste ink space to commonly outlast the rest
    of the printer --- which I understand is what is done ---, worrying
    about it is quite pointless. I understand that normally driven
    cars in the US tend to rust through before the properly cared
    for engine fails ... and you're worrying about engine failure here.


    > 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.


    I've seen tests. They indicate that third party ink cartridges
    used to be worse than original cartridge (years ago) but the good
    ones are very close to originals now (and usually vastly cheaper,
    too). The only place where third party inks are consistently
    worse is where a print head is included in the cartridge and the
    cartridge is refilled.

    And that chipping has quite increased the costs of third
    party 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!


    Colour fidelity can be archived with nearly any ink.

    > 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.


    Assuming 'original' inks.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #37
  18. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    > That is not very logical. The life expectancy is
    > not something you necessarily want to push. The
    > question is how long before you do want to upgrade to
    > the latest model, and the answer to that might
    > reasonably about 5 years. Granted that there are huge
    > numbers of folks that keep them going for twice that,
    > and perhaps some who can't go more than 3 or 4 years.
    > But 5 years seems like a reasonable span for
    > calculations here.


    You need to calculate in at least
    - repair costs times probability of needing repairs
    - inflation and saving the money you didn't spend, conversely
    the loan you may need to take to spend the extra money you
    need.
    - future prices of ink
    - price the printer is sold for after 5 years, if it is sold
    - price the printer is sold for if you give up printing or
    photography for whatever reason times chance of that
    happening
    - risk of printing less/more than assumed amount times the money
    that costs or saves.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #38
  19. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2011-10-24 18:17:57 -0700, Rich <> said:

    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Of course. Razors and razor blades.
    >
    > That's why there are lots of third party inks, not all of them bad.
    > Yes, you probably want to use calibration and profile your printer.
    > But you'd also want that with original inks ... at least for
    > photographs.


    Depending on the use, you may care about longevity beyond when the print
    is in your own possession. Finding independent tests of random
    third-party ink plus paper combinations is mostly impossible. I'd be a
    bit scared of selling such prints to collectors.

    Before Epson's pigment line came out, I did use an Epson 1200 with MSI
    pigment inks, and did go through all the profiling and paper testing and
    such. The results were really quite good, and the prints I still have
    on display are holding up well so far (but it's not very long yet, a
    decade roughly).

    >> If I were going to use a printer for general text printing, with or
    >> without color, I would use a Laser printer. The economics of printing
    >> text with a laser printer over trying to do the same with a quality
    >> inkjet printer is a no brainer.

    >
    > Even when you use third party inks?


    I think so. Especially if it's cartridge refilling. Good photo-grade
    third-party inks aren't actually all that cheap -- except compared to
    manufacturer's consumer-size ink cartridges.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 1, 2011
    #39
  20. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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!
    >> The professional models have replacable waste ink tanks.

    >
    > Waste ink only gets generated under 2 circumstances:
    > cleaning heads (lots) and printing borderless (whatever goes
    > over the border).
    >
    > And if you design the waste ink space to commonly outlast the rest
    > of the printer --- which I understand is what is done ---, worrying
    > about it is quite pointless. I understand that normally driven
    > cars in the US tend to rust through before the properly cared
    > for engine fails ... and you're worrying about engine failure here.


    It varies. Here in Minnesota, where we use salt on the roads in the
    winter, definintely. In the desert Southwest, not so much -- though car
    repainting is much more common there than it is here. We rust, they get
    sandblasted.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 1, 2011
    #40
    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:
    654
    Mike Graham
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    605
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 28, 2006
  3. Tony
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,149
    Larry
    Oct 5, 2004
  4. Artistry

    Rebel XT Black Costlier than Silver. Why?

    Artistry, Apr 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    466
    Ron Hunter
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. flbroker1
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    724
Loading...

Share This Page