Kodak announces printer breakthrough

You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:40:05 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>
>> But isn't the print head built into the printer? Is there a
>> benefit to that long-term? Hope it would be a low-cost user
>> replaceable option.
>
> It probably is. If the print head was built into the ink
> cartridges, as is done with my HP carts, Kodak probably would
> have to charge quite a bit more than $10 and $15 for their
> cartridges. If the printers are like most, it only makes sense
> to replace print heads for very expensive printers. These new
> Kodaks aren't dirt cheap, but they're not particularly
> expensive either. Unless Kodak had *really* changed direction
> and will make head replacement simple and inexpensive,
> replacing the entire printer is probably almost as cost
> effective, and you end up with not just a new print head, but
> a completely new printer with a new warranty, and maybe a
> starter cartridge or two tossed in. Considering the much
> greater longevity of non-replaceable print heads, there should
> be enough savings from lower ink costs to pay for a new
> printer several times over if it comes to that.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

I read in an article that Kodak said they were able to charge
less for the ink because they did have a dedicated print head
built in to the printer itself.

My concern would be how that would affect quality.

I don't know which Epson or HP or Lexmark printers have built-in
print heads and which don't, so it's hard for me to judge.

But whatever Epson has done on the Epson Photo printers that I
have bought, I'm probably going to avoid them in the future
because I end up using a ton of ink just to get it "unclogged"
and working. It is extremely frustrating. Epson Photo 780
printed great stuff - when it printed. But it was just a money
pit of wasted ink.

> I can't seem to find the pictures of the ink cartridges I saw
> the other day, but it seemed that they did have the head
> built-in. Since I didn't examine the picture carefully, I
> could be mistaken, but I did get that impression.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Paul D. Sullivan <dudeboyz.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
> use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
> all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
> heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
> Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.

We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the Canon!
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

"Paul D. Sullivan" <dudeboyz DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in news:dxByh.3167
$yI1.973@trndny01:

> I read in an article that Kodak said they were able to charge
> less for the ink because they did have a dedicated print head
> built in to the printer itself.
>
> My concern would be how that would affect quality.
>
> I don't know which Epson or HP or Lexmark printers have built-in
> print heads and which don't, so it's hard for me to judge.
>
> But whatever Epson has done on the Epson Photo printers that I
> have bought, I'm probably going to avoid them in the future
> because I end up using a ton of ink just to get it "unclogged"
> and working. It is extremely frustrating. Epson Photo 780
> printed great stuff - when it printed. But it was just a money
> pit of wasted ink.
>
>> I can't seem to find the pictures of the ink cartridges I saw
>> the other day, but it seemed that they did have the head
>> built-in. Since I didn't examine the picture carefully, I
>> could be mistaken, but I did get that impression.
>
>
>

For Me the deal killer is that all that Kodak is putting out are
all in one printes. I don't want an all in one swiss army knife
printer. I want a photo printer, that works well, dosn't eat my
lunch in ink costs and is easy to use. So far the cost of ink from
Kodak is the only thing it has going for it. Also is the cost of ink
in the real world going to be that low. With all the colors in one cart
I will be dumping a lot of usable ink when I replace cart because I've
used up all the black. My photos often have a black background and I use
up black ink cart at a 2 to 1 rate over any other color in my current
printer. I hope it works for Kodak, but I don't think I'm buying one.

John Passaneau
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Mark² wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike
>>>>> the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to
>>>>> be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I
>>>>> should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink.
>>>>> But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use
>>>>> pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work
>>>>> best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed
>>>>> for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed?
>>>>>
>>>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>>>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous.
>>> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
>>> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
>>> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
>>> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
>>> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
>>> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and
>>> a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm
>>> not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's
>>> possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
>>> Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>
>> I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of
>> paper and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture
>> (down from $.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
>> IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
>> motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
>> not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
>
> Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
> Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
> That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
> That literally blasts the competition.
> The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for $19.99.
> Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That puts it head and
> shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or Epson in this segment for
> affordability.
>

It is very good news for everyone - unless you own or work in a photo lab.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

frederick wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>>>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>>>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike
>>>>>> the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to
>>>>>> be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I
>>>>>> should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink.
>>>>>> But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use
>>>>>> pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work
>>>>>> best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed
>>>>>> for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>>>>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous.
>>>> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
>>>> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
>>>> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
>>>> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
>>>> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
>>>> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and
>>>> a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm
>>>> not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's
>>>> possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
>>>> Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>
>>> I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of
>>> paper and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture
>>> (down from $.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
>>> IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
>>> motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
>>> not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
>>
>> Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
>> Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
>> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
>>
>> That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
>> That literally blasts the competition.
>> The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for
>> $19.99. Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That puts
>> it head and shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or Epson in
>> this segment for affordability.
>>
>
> It is very good news for everyone - unless you own or work in a photo lab.

I work for Kodak and I can't fathom how Kodak can think that they can
take market share from HP, Epson, & Canon printers. I for one will
never purchase a Kodak printer.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Michael Calverley wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>>>>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>>>>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since
>>>>>>> unlike the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows
>>>>>>> total costs to be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't
>>>>>>> include any paper, or I should more accurately say that there
>>>>>>> is no kit. You just buy ink. But since as you said, the new
>>>>>>> Kodak printers supposedly now use pigment based ink, will this
>>>>>>> ink have also been formulated to work best with existing Kodak
>>>>>>> print paper which presumably was designed for dye based ink? Or was
>>>>>>> that a point that *you* missed?
>>>>>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>>>>>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely
>>>>>> disastrous.
>>>>> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
>>>>> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
>>>>> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
>>>>> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
>>>>> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
>>>>> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best,
>>>>> and a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer
>>>>> life". I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do
>>>>> you think it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10
>>>>> cents each, as Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>>
>>>> I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of
>>>> paper and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture
>>>> (down from $.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
>>>> IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much
>>>> less motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk
>>>> for prints, not that I do this often, to save only a couple of
>>>> cents/picture.
>>>
>>> Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
>>> Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
>>> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
>>>
>>> That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
>>> That literally blasts the competition.
>>> The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for
>>> $19.99. Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That
>>> puts it head and shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or
>>> Epson in this segment for affordability.
>>>
>>
>> It is very good news for everyone - unless you own or work in a
>> photo lab.
>
> I work for Kodak and I can't fathom how Kodak can think that they can
> take market share from HP, Epson, & Canon printers. I for one will
> never purchase a Kodak printer.

I print serious stuff on high end, large format Epson printers. But for
small stuff, it wouldn't bother me a bit to find a solution that produced
stable (pigment ink), quick and inexpensive small prints...to keep my family
off my back (always asking for more 4x6 prints than I care to run through my
bug Epson). I'm not normally a fan of much from Kodak... I don't like
their cameras...and wasn't a big fan of their film, either. But These kind
of all-purpose ink-jets are open game. -If they can produce high quality
prints...or even as good as competing all-in-ones (which wouldn't be hard at
all...), I'll buy one simply for convenience & cost savings for non-serious
printing. The quality they produce remains to be seen... I'm just glad
someone is trying to buck the trend...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Michael Calverley wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>>>>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>>>>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike
>>>>>>> the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to
>>>>>>> be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I
>>>>>>> should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink.
>>>>>>> But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use
>>>>>>> pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work
>>>>>>> best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed
>>>>>>> for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>>>>>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous.
>>>>> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
>>>>> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
>>>>> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
>>>>> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
>>>>> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
>>>>> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and
>>>>> a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm
>>>>> not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's
>>>>> possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
>>>>> Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>>
>>>> I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of
>>>> paper and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture
>>>> (down from $.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
>>>> IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
>>>> motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
>>>> not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
>>>
>>> Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
>>> Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
>>> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
>>>
>>> That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
>>> That literally blasts the competition.
>>> The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for
>>> $19.99. Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That puts
>>> it head and shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or Epson in
>>> this segment for affordability.
>>>
>>
>> It is very good news for everyone - unless you own or work in a photo
>> lab.
>
> I work for Kodak and I can't fathom how Kodak can think that they can
> take market share from HP, Epson, & Canon printers. I for one will
> never purchase a Kodak printer.

Don't you think you should wait until you can actually evaluate a
production version of the printer. Don't let brand bias rule your
decisions to your detriment. Not wise.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Michael Calverley wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>>>>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>>>>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike
>>>>>>> the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to
>>>>>>> be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I
>>>>>>> should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink.
>>>>>>> But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use
>>>>>>> pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work
>>>>>>> best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed
>>>>>>> for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>>>>>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous.
>>>>> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
>>>>> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
>>>>> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
>>>>> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
>>>>> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
>>>>> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and
>>>>> a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm
>>>>> not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's
>>>>> possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
>>>>> Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>>
>>>> I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of
>>>> paper and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture
>>>> (down from $.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
>>>> IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
>>>> motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
>>>> not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
>>>
>>> Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
>>> Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
>>> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
>>>
>>> That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
>>> That literally blasts the competition.
>>> The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for
>>> $19.99. Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That puts
>>> it head and shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or Epson in
>>> this segment for affordability.
>>>
>>
>> It is very good news for everyone - unless you own or work in a photo
>> lab.
>
> I work for Kodak and I can't fathom how Kodak can think that they can
> take market share from HP, Epson, & Canon printers. I for one will
> never purchase a Kodak printer.
I can fathom it.
For the average punter, the cost of ink from HP/Epson/Canon is a painful
joke. If you read these forums, standard advice is to forget about
printing your own 6x4s - just send them to a lab - because of the crazy
price of ink. It looks like that situation may be about to change.
I wouldn't judge Kodak too harshly - just because they stuffed up the
sensor/filter on Leica's new toy doesn't mean that they get everything
wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:25:26 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

> Paul D. Sullivan <dudeboyz RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
>> use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
>> all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
>> heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
>> Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.
>
> We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
> Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the Canon!

Interesting. I hated the Canon BJC5000 so much I bought an Apollo (HP).
Later an Epson R320 - really like that Epson.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Was the Canon a good investment?

> We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
> Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the
> Canon!
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Paul D. Sullivan <dudeboyz.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> axed:
>
>> We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
>> Too bad Kodak didn't make these when we bought the Canon!
>
> Was the Canon a good investment?

Too soon to tell.

We are spending a lot less on ink. We run out of black and yellow first
but photo-cyan and photo-magenta cartridges hardly ever need replacing.
Also, Canon shares ink cartridges across a wide variety of printers, so
they are easier to find than our 780 4-color cartridge was.

The main advantage of the new Kodak printers is the pigment-based ink,
versus the dye-based ink in our Canon.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Greetings All,

I have completed some classes on the new printers, and I think you are going
to find that what was noted is true. The prints are excellent and the
printers are as well. Kodak has been working on its inks for several years
and has a great technology at this point. I am sure you will like them and
the results. As to the paper, I believe the paper that was released about a
year ago will be excellent in these printers. So, most of the Kodak paper
you might find on shelves will do the job and do it well. These printers
also add an element of protection which leaves the printer water resistant.
Very nice, and the prints will last as long as noted.

Following is information that you may find interesting. I will be reviewing
more and will be around to share on posted issues. Talk to you all soon.

From an article about this new release. "Actually, Kodak has been around
inkjet for about 15 years. In order to get into this business, you've got
to have unique talent, intellectual property portfolio, funding, strategic
partners and the path to the channels. Kodak has the unique ability as a
corporation to bring all of these elements to the table. The company's IP
portfolio is impressive, including over 1,000 patents in inkjet printing
alone. And over 900 more patents in image science. So we didn't approach
this project with empty pockets. We came with a rich portfolio, a very
strong team from both inside the company and of those we recruited. We were
able to acquire 65 engineers from other companies about mid-way into the
program."

This isn't a one-time deal. This inkjet technology could lead us down
several paths with a wide portfolio of products in the next five years.
Stay tuned.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"ASAAR" <caught.DeleteThis@22.com> wrote in message
news:l24is2p02smhoo115rjk539h971f897iqv@4ax.com...
> NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak
> announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the
> printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced.
> Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the
> ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow
> Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical
> 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any
> mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported.
> I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street
> Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on
> the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may
> have been announced too late to make it into these papers.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough