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. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > 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.)


    Very true. However, my only uses for photo-quality printing DO require
    permanence, at least in my own mind. And proofing for that printing
    requires identical results to the printing....

    > Enough printing tasks that profit from permanence can be reprinted
    > (on then better machines) after fading becomes visible.


    For prints held by yourself or immediate friends this is an option that
    is, I think, too often overlooked.

    I wouldn't be comfortable with it for prints I was selling commercially
    -- but I don't sell prints commercially (anywhere near often enough to
    matter). I suspect I, and others, are using standards higher than
    really necessary because we have aspirations (even if not serious).

    > (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!


    What's "5 ct"? Cents? Or hundred something? The context suggests it's
    a fair amount.

    Old chemical processes have been left in the dust long ago, per Wilhelm
    Imaging Research reports. (Well, some of the real exotics have merely
    been matched. And I never really liked the look of carbon color prints
    I've seen.) Want to be more specific and give a source?

    > 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.


    Yes, that's true.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 1, 2011
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Guest Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    Are pictures printed by a color laser printer permanent compared to a
    photo?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > 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
     
    Guest, Nov 3, 2011
    #42
    1. Advertising

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

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-11-01 09:07:39 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg


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


    > If you are prepared to forego color printing


    No way --- I'd then need a dedicated colour printing machine.

    > (you will still have a
    > color scanner) they can go as low as $135 as in this Panasonic example:
    > <
    > http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-KX-MB2010-Multi-Function-Laser-Printer/dp/B003SX0QYQ


    > or $349 in the case of this Brother MFC-7840W
    > < http://tinyurl.com/67hxc5g >


    US only, wrong paper size, no colour. Amazon TN360 Toner
    Cartridge apparently not an OEM cartridge.

    Obviously not for me.

    > They certainly are more economical to run for text prints than an
    > inkjet printer.


    Here's a page comparing per-page costs for a lot pf inkjet
    and laser printers.
    http://computer.t-online.de/drucker...-farblaser-und-laserdrucker/id_19972952/index

    For example, tha A3-multifunction inkjet costs 1ct per
    BW-page (A4). No laser in the test goes lower than 1ct, most
    cost more. True, on the average lasers are a bit cheaper per
    page --- but that is on the average, and even a 2ct advantage
    means 5000 pages per 100 EUR price difference.

    (beware, there's one error on the page: the BW and colour
    costs for the Canon Pixma MP980 got swapped around.)

    > These are just a few examples which are more than adequate to reduce
    > the costs of home office monochrome printing. There are others, and
    > there are color laser printers such as the Brother MFC-9840C @ $680.
    > < http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VLDQQ8/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk >


    $60 per 5000 pages black text ... Needs a lot of printing to
    break even.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 7, 2011
    #43
  4. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

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


    >> 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.


    If it's your business selling prints, it's a different story.


    >>> 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.


    Do you need photo-grade ink for general text printing?


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 7, 2011
    #44
  5. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

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



    >> (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!


    > What's "5 ct"? Cents? Or hundred something? The context suggests it's
    > a fair amount.


    Cents. 1/100 of an Euro. Which is what a cheap ink would
    approximately cost per photo.

    > Old chemical processes have been left in the dust long ago, per Wilhelm
    > Imaging Research reports. (Well, some of the real exotics have merely
    > been matched. And I never really liked the look of carbon color prints
    > I've seen.) Want to be more specific and give a source?


    Unfortunately, I'm not up to date with whatever accellerated
    aging method is in vogue now and how much it reflects reality
    and what realistic times are to be expected from such
    experiments, so I might have been wrong ...


    I've seen photographs from the 1860's and 1880's
    http://translate.google.com/transla...l=en&u=http://www.echo-muenster.de/node/50896
    (which predates modernity, but embodies it's spirit) which
    were in very good shape. And unlike accellerated aging which
    relies on theories on how the aging process would speed up,
    these were the real thing.

    I haven't yet seen 100 year old inkjet prints, since I haven't
    invented a time machine yet. :)

    I've seen what 7 decades of light can do to a photograph (the
    borders were hidden by the frame and thus show the difference),
    so it depends a lot on storage conditions. But I've also seen a
    print (on wood back) that's over 100 years and hasn't had archive
    conditions ... and is OK.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 7, 2011
    #45
  6. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

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

    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > If it's your business selling prints, it's a different story.


    Exactly.

    And, like most people here I suspect, I really do it so rarely that,
    rationally, I shouldn't worry about it much. I suppose it's one of
    those "aspirational" things. At least it'c cheaper than racing cars.

    >>>> 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.

    >
    > Do you need photo-grade ink for general text printing?


    No, but that's the only printer I have near my computer.

    Mostly I print on the one two floors up and run up to get the output.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 8, 2011
    #46
  7. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

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

    >
    >
    >>> (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!

    >
    >> What's "5 ct"? Cents? Or hundred something? The context suggests it's
    >> a fair amount.

    >
    > Cents. 1/100 of an Euro. Which is what a cheap ink would
    > approximately cost per photo.


    I've never used cheap inks, that's too low for me to register as a
    possible ink cost.

    >> Old chemical processes have been left in the dust long ago, per Wilhelm
    >> Imaging Research reports. (Well, some of the real exotics have merely
    >> been matched. And I never really liked the look of carbon color prints
    >> I've seen.) Want to be more specific and give a source?

    >
    > Unfortunately, I'm not up to date with whatever accellerated
    > aging method is in vogue now and how much it reflects reality
    > and what realistic times are to be expected from such
    > experiments, so I might have been wrong ...


    Henry Wilhelm is arguably the leading researcher on the topic; in fact
    he pretty much created the field of studying print permanence, starting
    with uncovering some of the bad Kodak problems back in the...70s?

    That said -- we don't know how accurate the accelerated testing is,
    because the materials haven't existed long enough to compare much.
    Accelerated testing is as much black art as science.

    > I've seen photographs from the 1860's and 1880's
    > http://translate.google.com/transla...l=en&u=http://www.echo-muenster.de/node/50896
    > (which predates modernity, but embodies it's spirit) which
    > were in very good shape. And unlike accellerated aging which
    > relies on theories on how the aging process would speed up,
    > these were the real thing.


    Yes, we got rather lucky with silver gelatine B&W photo.

    > I haven't yet seen 100 year old inkjet prints, since I haven't
    > invented a time machine yet. :)


    Yes, that's exactly the problem.

    > I've seen what 7 decades of light can do to a photograph (the
    > borders were hidden by the frame and thus show the difference),
    > so it depends a lot on storage conditions. But I've also seen a
    > print (on wood back) that's over 100 years and hasn't had archive
    > conditions ... and is OK.


    Yep. And exact materials weren't very standardized 70 or 100 years ago,
    so it's somewhat hard to be sure how the pictures you were looking at
    were even made.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 8, 2011
    #47
  8. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    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:
    > >>>
    > >>> 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.



    How is your R2880 doing, concerning clogs? My former inkjet (Epson "Stylus
    Photo 825") was absolutely horrid!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #48
  9. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    "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.



    My Hewlett-Packard "Photosmart D7160" (a 2006 model) has >never<
    had any clogs. I've been using it since late March of 2007, and
    have run about 1,400 sheets of plain paper through it. Plus, 5
    pieces of HP "Advanced Photo Paper" (4"x6" glossy) and 2 Avery
    "48850" label sheets.

    It doesn't matter how often (or infrequently) I print, nor do
    humidity or temperature conditions cause issues. The D7160 is
    a sturdy, heavy, reliable and attractive machine.

    Those positive attributes didn't quite apply to any of my
    earlier inkjets:

    DEC "DECcolorwriter 550ic"

    Canon "BJC-610"

    Epson "Stylus Photo 825"

    Of this group, the Epson was the worst, by far -- a
    genuine "clog hog" that made me swear off the brand,
    forever.

    Here's an excerpt from HP's "Ink twice" Web page, that
    I downloaded soon after buying the D716:

    HP Science of printing - Inkjet technology - Ink twice
    <http://h50140.www5.hp.com/eng/advisorycontent/generic/jan05/sop-ink-twice.asp?country=66>

    "HP's on-call mechanic

    For 12 years, HP has received an A+ rating from PC M
    agazine for printer reliability. A lot of that success
    has to do with the 'service station' technology that
    keeps your printer's engine running clean—and reduces
    pesky ink clogs.

    • The service station checks the microscopic nozzles
    to ensure they're clean and open.
    • If a print nozzle isn't working, the service station
    lets your printer compensate. (After all, there are
    300 nozzles on each cartridge.)
    • Your printer also uses an itsy-bitsy squeegee to
    wipe down the print head, removing dried ink spray
    and paper dust."

    Whatever HP is doing to reduce clogs...it works! As
    a bonus, the D7160 recycles the ink needed to clean
    its printhead, instead of "wasting" it.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #49
  10. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > 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.



    Hewlett-Packard inkjet cartridges have expiration dates.
    Whenever my "Photosmart D7160" warns me about the dire
    consequences of using one that's past its prime, I just
    tell it to shut up and keep printing!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #50
  11. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    Wolfgang Exler wrote:

    <deleted entire message for brevity>

    > Bei der Halbwertzeit von Digitalkameras dürfte diese Betrachtung
    > so interessant sein wie der berühmte Sack Reis in China.
    > Rudolf Uhlmann am 3 Sep 2003 in de.alt.rec.digitalfotografie



    Would you (or the other "Wolfgang") translate that into English,
    please?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #51
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > I haven't yet seen 100 year old inkjet prints, since I haven't
    > invented a time machine yet. :)


    <edited>

    Keep at it, old man! No problem can resist your technical prowess,
    despite how daunting it may appear to mere mortals.

    I expect a full report on inkjet print longevity (circa 2111), in
    the coming weeks. (While you're at it, please, bring back one of
    those 100-trillion-pixels digicams of the future.)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #52
  13. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2011-11-11 18:34:25 -0800, John Turco <> said:
    > >
    > >> Savageduck wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On 2011-10-27 14:14:00 -0700, PeterN <>
    > >>> said:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    > >>> 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.

    > >
    > >
    > > How is your R2880 doing, concerning clogs? My former inkjet (Epson
    > > "Stylus Photo 825") was absolutely horrid!

    >
    > I can report my R2880 has been clog free, and producing fine prints.
    > The Canon i9900 never clogged, but there were other issues regarding
    > color consistency which always left me dissatisfied.
    >
    > My more primitive Epson Stylus Color 860 can be best described as a
    > massive ink thrombus.



    Apparently, then, the more expensive Epson inkjets are better at
    avoiding clogs? My Stylus Photo 825 was clearance-priced at $69.98
    USD, in a local "Super Target" store; I'd grabbed it, on April 1,
    2004.

    [Hmmm...I should've noticed that it was April Fool's Day!]

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 21, 2011
    #53
  14. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    John Turco <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Exler wrote:


    > <deleted entire message for brevity>


    >> Bei der Halbwertzeit von Digitalkameras dürfte diese Betrachtung
    >> so interessant sein wie der berühmte Sack Reis in China.
    >> Rudolf Uhlmann am 3 Sep 2003 in de.alt.rec.digitalfotografie



    > Would you (or the other "Wolfgang") translate that into English,
    > please?


    http://translate.google.de/ gives a usable translation,
    though s/his/the/.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 1, 2011
    #54
  15. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does tominesilver?

    John Turco <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    > <heavily edited for brevity>


    >> I haven't yet seen 100 year old inkjet prints, since I haven't
    >> invented a time machine yet. :)


    > <edited>


    > Keep at it, old man! No problem can resist your technical prowess,
    > despite how daunting it may appear to mere mortals.


    > I expect a full report on inkjet print longevity (circa 2111), in
    > the coming weeks. (While you're at it, please, bring back one of
    > those 100-trillion-pixels digicams of the future.)


    You should have gotten those yesterday. If not, you're on
    the wrong branch of the timeline and will have to wait for
    the wave function to collapse, then you'll suddenly have
    gotten it (and used it etc.) some time ago.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 2, 2011
    #55
  16. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does to minesilver?

    George Kerby <> wrote:
    > On 11/30/11 6:17 PM, in article ,



    >> http://translate.google.de/ gives a usable translation,
    >> though s/his/the/.


    > You obviously don't remember your last time you ranted all of this awile
    > back?


    > Must be some powerful drugs...


    Ah, now you're at the stage of imagining things. Powerful drugs,
    indeed.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 6, 2011
    #56
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

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

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    > > John Turco <> wrote:
    > >> Wolfgang Exler wrote:

    > >
    > > <deleted entire message for brevity>
    > >
    > >> Bei der Halbwertzeit von Digitalkameras dürfte diese Betrachtung
    > >> so interessant sein wie der berühmte Sack Reis in China.
    > >> Rudolf Uhlmann am 3 Sep 2003 in de.alt.rec.digitalfotografie

    > >
    > > Would you (or the other "Wolfgang") translate that into English,
    > > please?

    >
    > http://translate.google.de/ gives a usable translation,
    > though s/his/the/.
    >
    > -Wolfgang



    C'mon, Wolfman...just tell me what it says!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Dec 22, 2011
    #57
  18. Re: Does printer ink really cost more to make than it does tominesilver?

    John Turco <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > > John Turco <> wrote:
    > >> Wolfgang Exler wrote:


    >> >> Bei der Halbwertzeit von Digitalkameras dürfte diese Betrachtung
    >> >> so interessant sein wie der berühmte Sack Reis in China.
    >> >> Rudolf Uhlmann am 3 Sep 2003 in de.alt.rec.digitalfotografie


    >> > Would you (or the other "Wolfgang") translate that into English,
    >> > please?


    >> http://translate.google.de/ gives a usable translation,
    >> though s/his/the/.


    > C'mon, Wolfman...just tell me what it says!


    Google too complicated for you?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 18, 2012
    #58
    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:
    711
    Mike Graham
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    649
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 28, 2006
  3. Tony
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,158
    Larry
    Oct 5, 2004
  4. Artistry

    Rebel XT Black Costlier than Silver. Why?

    Artistry, Apr 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    482
    Ron Hunter
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. flbroker1
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    743
Loading...

Share This Page