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

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

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

  2. RichA

    Guest Guest

    so don't buy it.
     
    Guest, Oct 24, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Charles Guest

    "RichA" wrote in message

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

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

    eatmorepies Guest

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

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

    Trevor Guest

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

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 25, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

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

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

    Trevor Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    RichA Guest

    Cost: (roughly)

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

    RichA Guest

    Most of the cost is in the electronic cartridges that cost more than
    they should to make because they engineer them to reject (in some
    cases) refills.
     
    RichA, Oct 25, 2011
    #9
  10. Artist paints aren't terribly cheap. Top-quality printing ink isn't
    cheap. But I do suspect that ink cartridges are a pretty major profit
    center.

    What's *really* scary is the prices on cartridges for the big printers
    (4880 and up in Epson land). The idea of 11 cartridges in a printer,
    costing $100 each, is downright terrifying. (Per ml. of ink they're
    cheaper, of course, by quite a lot.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    If it provides better mileage, it might be worth the extra cost.
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    eatmorepies wrote:

    <deleted entire message for brevity>

    I just wanna know one thing: Why do you care how many pies anybody
    eats?
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Trevor Guest

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

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

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

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

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

    Yep, I made my decision not to buy any more inkjets. Cheaper to pay to have
    my prints done so someone else can justify the outlay.
    Nope, your figures are not TCO and assume no failures, which was what I
    said.

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

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

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 27, 2011
    #13
  14. I've sometimes printed with Epson three colour inks, and sometimes
    with cheaper 3rd party replacements, not always the same kind. The
    Epson inks have slightly better colour fidelity and dynamic
    range. I've left prints with both inks tacked to a wall which never
    gets any sun and is fairly shaded and dim except when the big compact
    fluorescent lights are on in the evening. After a year the Epson ink
    prints still look the same. The cheaper inks have all faded badly into
    a severe brownish/amber sunset or tungsten colour balance with much
    less dynamic range.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 27, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    But, if you use large capacity cartridges, and don'[t use them
    frequently, don't they have a clogging issue?
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Do you get the same quality image from the cheaper printer.
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    Street price 110ml %70 229ml $112.

    The 4880 comes with a full supply or the 110ml cartridges.
     
    PeterN, Oct 27, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Trevor Guest

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

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

    thanatoid Guest

    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
    Hmm. Even those printers used to print Abrams, teNeues or
    Taschen image collection books?

    So what are you saying? Make up your mind ;-)

    <snip>

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

    Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

    Sigh.

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

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



    --
    "Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at
    it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named
    Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found
    out that you had already stolen it."
    Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, around 1983
     
    thanatoid, Oct 28, 2011
    #19
  20. Ctein, for example, has said it in a column on The Online Photographer.
    He currently uses an Epson 9800 and a 3880, and also still does
    dye-transfer printing in the darkroom. He's more meaningfully fussy
    about print quality (not just picking nits) than pretty much any three
    other people I know, so that means a lot to me.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 28, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.