Printer consumables

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philc, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. philc

    philc Guest

    Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    suppliers in the UK?
    Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    cost of photobox for 6x4's.

    TIA
    philc, Sep 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sep 12, 8:26 am, philc <> wrote:
    > Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    > costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    > suppliers in the UK?
    > Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    > range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    > I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    > or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    > but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    > waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    > surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    > cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >
    > TIA


    Many PC magazines, in their product reviews and comparisions, list ink
    costs on printers. Also, Consumer Reports in their ratings of
    printers, usually includes this info.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Sep 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. philc

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:26:20 -0700, philc wrote:

    > Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    > costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    > suppliers in the UK?


    The new Kodak all-in-one units report a consummables cost 1/2 the
    competition.

    > Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    > range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    > I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    > or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    > but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    > waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    > surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    > cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >
    > TIA
    ray, Sep 12, 2007
    #3
  4. philc

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <> wrote:
    > Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    > costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    > suppliers in the UK?
    > Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    > range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    > I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    > or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    > but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    > waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    > surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    > cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >
    > TIA


    Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
    $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
    after doing 15 sheets.
    The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
    there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
    runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
    Rich, Sep 12, 2007
    #4
  5. philc

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <> wrote:
    >> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    >> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    >> suppliers in the UK?
    >> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    >> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    >> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    >> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    >> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    >> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    >> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    >> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >>
    >> TIA

    >
    > Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
    > $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
    > after doing 15 sheets.
    > The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
    > there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
    > runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.


    There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
    $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
    cost several thousand dollars.
    ray, Sep 12, 2007
    #5
  6. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

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


    AT the moment, the lowest cost for consumables is held by the new Kodak
    printers. The inks are pigment inks, which will probably last as long
    as any prints you buy at a photoprinter.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 13, 2007
    #6
  7. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >
    >> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <> wrote:
    >>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    >>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    >>> suppliers in the UK?
    >>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    >>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    >>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    >>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    >>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    >>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    >>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    >>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >>>
    >>> TIA

    >> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
    >> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
    >> after doing 15 sheets.
    >> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
    >> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
    >> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.

    >
    > There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
    > $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
    > cost several thousand dollars.
    >


    True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 13, 2007
    #7
  8. philc

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >ray wrote:
    >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <> wrote:
    >>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    >>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    >>>> suppliers in the UK?
    >>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    >>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    >>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    >>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    >>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    >>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    >>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    >>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >>>>
    >>>> TIA
    >>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
    >>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
    >>> after doing 15 sheets.
    >>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
    >>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
    >>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.

    >>
    >> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
    >> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
    >> cost several thousand dollars.
    >>


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


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

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

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Sep 13, 2007
    #8
  9. On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <>
    wrote:

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

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

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



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

    Olin McDaniel

    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
    Olin K. McDaniel, Sep 13, 2007
    #9
  10. philc

    Bob Williams Guest

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

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

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

    I agree with you, Paul.
    I buy generic ink cartridges for my Canon Pixma iP3000 for about 35% the
    cost of new cartridges. I print lots of 8x10s and don't give cost a
    second thought. Despite a lot of pooh-poohing of generic inks in
    magazines, by direct A-B comparisons, I have found very little if any
    difference between Generic and OEM inks. The problem is that generics
    are not available for most printers, especially those using pigment
    based inks. For my Super Shots, I have them printed at Costco ........
    mainly for increased longevity.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Sep 13, 2007
    #10
  11. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

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

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

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


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

    I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 13, 2007
    #11
  12. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

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

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

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


    Kodak is exploring just that marketing plan. However, the 'Gillette'
    plan (give away the razor, sell blades) has been a very successful plan
    for more than 100 years now. I don't expect it to disappear any time
    soon. It is great for those of us who print a few pages a month.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 13, 2007
    #12
  13. philc

    philc Guest

    On 12 Sep, 14:26, philc <> wrote:
    > Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
    > costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
    > suppliers in the UK?
    > Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
    > range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
    > I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
    > or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
    > but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
    > waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
    > surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
    > cost of photobox for 6x4's.
    >
    > TIA


    looks like im going to try the canon cp720 (£50 in-store in jessops),
    and the cartridge £18 for 108 in Amazon. Anybody got any experience
    with this printer?
    philc, Sep 13, 2007
    #13
  14. philc

    philc Guest

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

    >
    > > TIA

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


    Ron, do you know where i can find a price comparison table anywhere on
    the net?
    I've tried to find Kodak 10 x 15 Printer Dock media, but struggle to
    find it for <£0.30 per 6*4 print, whereas the canon works out at under
    17p per print.
    philc, Sep 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter <> wrote in
    news::

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

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

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

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

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


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

    John Passaneau
    John Passaneau, Sep 13, 2007
    #15
  16. philc

    philc Guest

    On Sep 13, 3:45 pm, John Passaneau <> wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote innews::
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Paul J Gans wrote:
    > >> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >>> ray wrote:
    > >>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    called into comets on the way home - they had the epson 240 for £70 a
    further 10% when ordering on-line. nearly £150 on amazon. the also
    had the paper for £23 for 150 sheets. quite surprised and placed my
    order.
    philc, Sep 13, 2007
    #16
  17. philc

    Paul J Gans Guest

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Sep 13, 2007
    #17
  18. philc

    Paul J Gans Guest

    John Passaneau <> wrote:
    >Ron Hunter <> wrote in
    >news::


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

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

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


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


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

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Sep 13, 2007
    #18
  19. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

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

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

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


    You should be able to find the information at the Kodak website. The
    printers cost more, but the cost of ink is about half the usual price
    for other printers.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 14, 2007
    #19
  20. philc

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John Passaneau wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Paul J Gans wrote:
    >>> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >>>>>

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

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

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


    John,
    You seem to have an irrational bias against an all-in-one printer.
    They print 8.5x11 just fine, and smaller, and slightly larger sizes as
    well. You don't HAVE to use the scan and copy features if you don't
    want to. The printers are a bit larger than comparable HP printers, for
    instance, but that is a matter of cosmetic design. I have two
    all-in-one printers, and they work quite as well as any single-purpose
    printer I have ever used, and have some convenience features as well.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 14, 2007
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?YW50aG9ueQ==?=

    Shared printer not found in add printer wizard

    =?Utf-8?B?YW50aG9ueQ==?=, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    967
    =?Utf-8?B?YW50aG9ueQ==?=
    Oct 31, 2004
  2. Tom Mix

    Help - Xerox C15 Printer printer

    Tom Mix, Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    575
    PC-Component.com
    Jul 13, 2003
  3. cromi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,998
    pcbutts1
    Oct 23, 2003
  4. A. J. Moss

    Outputing a printer spool file to a USB printer?

    A. J. Moss, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,587
    Brian
    Apr 13, 2004
  5. Save On Your Consumables

    , May 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
Loading...

Share This Page