Printer consumables

On Sep 13, 3:45 pm, John Passaneau <w3... DeleteThis @arrl.net> wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphun... DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote innews:csWdnYaoA5D4d3XbnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Ron Hunter <rphun... DeleteThis @charter.net> 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.

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <philcu....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> 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