The REAL cost of OEM ink

Judging from info available on the web - from both Epson sites and others - Epson (as probably do the other major printer manufacturers - especially of pro models/equipment) obviously spends a lot of time and money considering putting ink (or other solutions) on media.

Here is a blurb from one Epson related article - it should be clear that researching performance on the atomic molecular level costs $ / time expertise that you probably won't find at 3rd party vendors.
from the article:

"The researchers actually found it relatively easy to improve on the ink's light fastness (its ability to maintain its chemical composition and color under lighted conditions). Similarly, it was not difficult to improve on the ink's gas fastness (its durability when exposed to naturally occurring gases like ozone, which cause ink to deteriorate over time).

"The real challenge came in maintaining or improving the ink's quality when modifying it to improve its overall durability," says Kitamura. "This was very difficult." Success was only achieved after the researchers significantly altered the ink's chemical structure at the atomic level, a process that resulted in the creation of new chemical compositions.

Kitamura explains that light and gases cause ink to deteriorate by leaching away electrons that form the bonds between the atoms of the ink's molecular structure. Over time, this leads to a breakdown of the chemical structure, resulting in fading colors.

To counter this, the researchers created new chemical formations by adding additional atoms to the dye's basic molecular structure, and then engineered the molecules into tight clusters. This not only strengthened the ink's atomic bonding, better protecting it from the effects of light and gases, but also improved the quality of the ink."


Looking at Epsom's technical and business plan - they're banking a lot on the peizo head technology for not only 'paper' printers, but for printing out LCD patterns, circuit patterns, et.al. That involves R&D science and engineering - investment - especially when tolerances are measured in microns, and the 'printer' is the size of a small warehouse. Paying a few cents more per print for Epson ink and the expertise that goes with it just re-enforces my faith in their product every time I produce a print. I'm sure the same is true with HP Canon et.al. -

--
e/tb contemplativeeye.com

Handymuss said:

I prefer to have a choice in anything I buy. This includes ink for
my printers.

Click to expand...

If you prefer to have choice in ink then don't buy Epson printers, it's that simple.

Handymuss said:

I really don't understand why people who post here get so worked up
about this issue. Why should YOU care what others do with the
printer THEY bought? Why do you care if others print with 3rd party
ink or not? The more competition there is on the ink side, the
better the OEM inks have to be. The higher price difference between
3rd party and OEM, the better off YOU the consumer will be, as LONG
as the printer maker doesn't lock you into OEM ONLY. Ooops. They
are trying their best to do that.

Click to expand...

People that use their printer for professional purposes get worked up because people like you don't comprehend that this is how Epson and other printer manufacturers make money, and how they fund future research and development. Businesses exist if they make profits, if they don't, they go bankrupt, that's Economics 101.

If you owned stock in these printer company's or owned your own company where your profits were dependant on the consumables for a product you developed, you might have a different opinion on this matter. If you watched someone develop cheap, sunstandard knockoffs of your consumables and offered them at a substantial discount from your consumables which destroyed your profit margins you might seek an injunction against your competition as well.

Since you're only a consumer, and only worried about your costs today and not the future impact of your decisions then you clearly can not appreciate the reason why professional printers support Epson's decision to pursue third party ink makers. We want Epson to continue to improve their technology and printers, and we're willing to pay for it.

Handymuss said:

In the meantime, I will continue to have the choice that I do, OEM or
3rd party. You can do as you like.

Click to expand...

Kodak is already addressing the market for people who are willing to sacrifice print quality and longevity for cheap ink, sounds like it's perfect for you.

no text duh.

You do have an option...don't buy an Epson printer. Go buy some other brand Lexmark or a Brother which I'm sure really don't care what ink you push through them. Me, I don't mind spending an extra 50 cents for an 11x14 print to ensure I have the best, longest lasting ink I can get.

bb_photo said:

... I think [the companies that make 3rd
party ink] would serve themselves
well if they offered test prints (you send them a file of your
choosing and they print on their machine) to help overcome the
skepticism.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't do it.

The concern with third party inks is not appearance but print longevity. Epson et al pay Wilhelm Imaging a small fortune to test their wares for fading from light, ozone, and water vapor on several papers and under various conditions. To my knowledge third party ink makers do not hire any independent testing labs.

I recall reading a Wilhelm report (on their web site) on third party inks that said they were about 10 years behind inks from the major printer makers in longevity.

--
JerryG

See my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1

psandham said:

My concern revolves around quality control. As I stated in another
post, I've had customers who have dealt with those who buy inferior
non-OEM inks that complain about the quality of print they bought
from that vendor.

If you're only printing for yourself, no problem. But don't come
crying to me when your prints start to fade and run in a couple of
years.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of theology in pro-OEM position about print fading, but very little hard evidence of problems. Whenever I've come across some, and prodded for more details, it generally turns out that it was dye-based inks some years ago. Give me a break! Even Epson had problems with their early dyes* .

I'm not going to support any and all non-OEM inks, but the pigment** inks produced by Image Specialists and resold by a number of number of retailers are in very wide use and I've not seen any reports, confirmed or otherwise, of fading problems, even in cases where people are trying to stress test them compared with OEM. By all means, if you choose to be cautious on your own accounts, please feel free to do so. But if you're going to ram this view down our throats., give us evidence of problems and details, not F.U.D. After all, OEM stored and displayed in unfavourable conditions will fade faster than you'd like.

psandham said:

I'm suggested that there is no market for producing printers without some
protection from 3rd party inks. If there were someone would break from the
pack and forge a new road. It's always been that way and always will be. The
market is efficient. It's probably too damn expensive to sell printers only.

Click to expand...

As a trained economist, I can state that the market is an oligopoly, and highly unlikely to be efficient. Competition makes a market "efficient" and that's what the manufacturers are trying to prevent, or at least minimise.

Brian D

Well said Brian.

For the life of me, I don't get the out cry towards 3rd party inks at all, or the willingness to accept a manufacturer(s) who try to lock you in to only purchasing their consumables. Some of you seem so willing to tell others what to do, how to print and refuse to accept anything other than the OEM line. Its just not acceptable!! How DARE you use anything in YOUR printer other than OEM!! And you DARE to sell those prints!! If your argument holds up about fading using non OEM inks, that would make your final product that much better, friends. You should be telling everyone to use 3rd party inks for prints. When their customers leave them and come to you, you get more business.

I have been told, don't buy Epson. Why do you care? In all my posts I have not been so arrogant as to tell someone else what to do. Feel free to buy whatever printer you desire. Sell your prints. Keep them. Throw them away. I don't mind. Mix up your own inks. Enjoy life. Don't get so worked up over what someone else does.

" Competition makes a market
"efficient" and that's what the manufacturers are trying to prevent,
or at least minimize."

This is my point exactly.
handymus

Brian_Downunda said:

psandham said:

My concern revolves around quality control. As I stated in another
post, I've had customers who have dealt with those who buy inferior
non-OEM inks that complain about the quality of print they bought
from that vendor.

If you're only printing for yourself, no problem. But don't come
crying to me when your prints start to fade and run in a couple of
years.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of theology in pro-OEM position about print fading,
but very little hard evidence of problems. Whenever I've come across
some, and prodded for more details, it generally turns out that it
was dye-based inks some years ago. Give me a break! Even Epson had
problems with their early dyes* .

I'm not going to support any and all non-OEM inks, but the
pigment** inks produced by Image Specialists and resold by a number
of number of retailers are in very wide use and I've not seen any
reports, confirmed or otherwise, of fading problems, even in cases
where people are trying to stress test them compared with OEM. By
all means, if you choose to be cautious on your own accounts, please
feel free to do so. But if you're going to ram this view down our
throats., give us evidence of problems and details, not F.U.D. After
all, OEM stored and displayed in unfavourable conditions will fade
faster than you'd like.

Brian_Downunda said:

I'm suggested that there is no market for producing printers without some
protection from 3rd party inks. If there were someone would break from the
pack and forge a new road. It's always been that way and always will be. The
market is efficient. It's probably too damn expensive to sell printers only.

Click to expand...

As a trained economist, I can state that the market is an oligopoly,
and highly unlikely to be efficient. Competition makes a market
"efficient" and that's what the manufacturers are trying to prevent,
or at least minimise.

Brian D

Click to expand...

It is amazing that whenever the question of third party inks is raised the same story that manufacturers sell the printers at virtually no profit is dragged up. Firstly there is no evidence for this whatever and even if it were true then the business model they have adopted would not make sense. Consumer printers are sold very cheaply some as low as 35 UKP but consumers do not use much ink as they do not print much.

If the cheap printer make the profit on the ink model was true I would expect epson to be delivering me a free 4800 because of the amount of ink I use. Sadly this has not happened. Indeed professional printers cost dramatically more than consumer printers despite the vastly greater amount of ink the professionals use.

It would be nice if anyone could provide any evidence that printer manufacturers sell printers at anything other than a healthy profit.

--
Brian

It sounds bad but I wonder how it compares to the consumables photography paid for processing color prints in a darkroom. I would bet that by the time you added up the chemicals, paper and any other print making stuff (not the hardware, we aren't talking the cost of the printer here just the ink and one should be considering paper here as well) they cost would be close to the same even during films most popular period. Also, lets not forget the cost advantage that a digital darkroom offers over a chemical one. You stand a much better chance of getting the perfect print the first with the digital darkroom than you do with the chemical. The EZ factor is also important to consider.

John
--
People of the United States. Send Bush a bra.
He is a boob and needs our support!™

Ontario, Canada

But your healthcare is great there, no?

--
pjs
'the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket'
pjs©1972

Logic tells me that Epson's sensible business model is to maximise the present value of the expected total profits (sum of up front printer cost plus ink and paper sales) per printer. There's no neccessary reason for them to make a profit on the printer alone, if they can force consumers to buy the consumables from them. And the fact that after rebates, in the US many of the lower level printers are effectivley free indicates their strategy.

However, it's in many ways a dangerous business model to pursue, as it makes them vulnerable to third parties coming in and selling alternative methods of fuelling the printer. As they have found. And it also runs the risk of alienating customers, who have long since forgotten the (low) intial price of the printer, but are forcibly reminded everytime the cartridges runs out that they are being gouged for ink. Especially as many of the ways that the printers are set up (requiring purging all carts when you just change one, for example) seem deliberately set up to use up more ink than is necessary. Brand loyalty is a very valuable commodity and one that is only too easily lost.

Personally I have no brand loyalty to Epson. If it's in my best interest to use third party inks and CISS I will. (and I do for personal printing) If I wanted to sell a print I'd outsource it to a pro lab and pass the costs on. The fading and longevity of that technology is well known!

As far as quality of CIS and other third party inks is concerned, well my experience is that up front colour is generally a very good match. As far as longevity is concerend, well I've had trouble with some images produced with just about every printing technology known to mankind, over thirty years of taking photographs. It's so dependent on environment, with subtle interactions between paper, ink, light and air exposure, I'm more inclined to rely on the ability to reprint as the likely method of saving images for the long term.

I can understand people being upset with Epson trying to stop 3rd party ink manufactures and using 3rd party ink just to shove it into the face of Epson...but I don't understand trying to save maybe 50 cents per print by using 3rd party ink when the entire photo package ( paper, ink, framing etc... ) cost upwards of $50. It's just not worth the risk ( premature image fading, printer clogging etc... ) to save so little.

..but I don't understand trying to save maybe 50

Harry Ogloff said:

cents per print by using 3rd party ink when the entire photo package
( paper, ink, framing etc... ) cost upwards of $50. It's just not
worth the risk ( premature image fading, printer clogging etc... ) to
save so little.

Click to expand...

If you disregard the upfront cost of the CIS unit (as low as $50) the savings are much larger than that. For example instead of $2.50 ink cost for an 11x14 you're looking at 25 cents. That's 90% savings and it makes it more likely you'll thumb tack an impressive looking 11x14 in your office cubicle for example. Not all prints are destined for the "full treatment" of framing etc etc. There's a definite non-monetary value in the freedom to print at will without worrying about the cost.

As far as printer clogging goes I don't really believe that has proven to be an issue. This forum is littered with anecdotes about printer clogs with both OEM and non-OEM inks.

One other nice advantage to low-cost non-OEM printing is that is easy to print out contact sheets to aid in organizing and not have to spend very much at all.

If one were to be printing flyers for an event that would also be a good low-risk use for them.

Here's another one....

Say I'm taking pictures of my 4 year old and the neighbor kids stop over....I snap a bunch of pictures of them also.

I'll print off 6 8x10's for the neighbors in a flash and only be out about $1.25 total....including paper since I bought a bunch of Kirkland glossy last year for about 12 cents each.

Well it appears like you have a different need for prints than I do. Personally, for snap shot type of prints that I am going to stick pins through and hang in my cubicle, I would go to Costco and get them printed. Can't beat that for price and quality. I print to either put into a portfolio which I display to friends and family or I print to hang on the wall. In either case, I'm more concerned about quality than cost. I figured out that it costs me about .75 cents per sq inch for ink using OEM inks and my Epson 4880 printer. This equates to about $3 for an 16x24 print. I just don't see myself cheaping out on one of the most critical steps of a photograph to save a buck. I guess you would.

Harry,

I'm thinking you meant .75 cents per square FOOT right? If it's per square inch, you need to find a new ink source. BTW, I agree with your philosophy. Why quibble over $1-2 per 16x24 print if it's something hanging on your wall for 20 years. The contrarian view is talking about saving 90% on snapshot prints that are hanging on the refrigerator.

This debate seems to be between those with different priorities so in the end it's a pointless thread.

Joe

Harry Ogloff said:

Well it appears like you have a different need for prints than I do.
Personally, for snap shot type of prints that I am going to stick
pins through and hang in my cubicle, I would go to Costco and get
them printed. Can't beat that for price and quality. I print to
either put into a portfolio which I display to friends and family or
I print to hang on the wall. In either case, I'm more concerned about
quality than cost. I figured out that it costs me about .75 cents per
sq inch for ink using OEM inks and my Epson 4880 printer. This
equates to about $3 for an 16x24 print. I just don't see myself
cheaping out on one of the most critical steps of a photograph to
save a buck. I guess you would.

Click to expand...

Harry Ogloff said:

Well it appears like you have a different need for prints than I do.
Personally, for snap shot type of prints that I am going to stick
pins through and hang in my cubicle, I would go to Costco and get
them printed. Can't beat that for price and quality.

Click to expand...

It's not that I never have a need for top-notch stuff. It's just that there are alot of lower-priority uses where non-oem fits the bill. My experience with Costco is that they screw up half my orders so I don't bother with them any more. Also, half the time they use Fuji crystal archive (which is just OK in my book) but the other times they use something called Konica 100 which is terribly flimsy paper.

Way more convenient either way just hitting the print button with no waiting.

Joe Marques said:

your philosophy. Why quibble over $1-2 per 16x24 print if it's
something hanging on your wall for 20 years.

Click to expand...

There no quibbling here. My point about low-priority uses doesn't really apply when you start getting into large prints like 16x24.

I find it hard to believe that you would be willing to look at the same 16x24 for 20 years. Surely "artistes" like yourself will create even greater works of art over that time period. Sorry to get a bit snippy but some of you guys are so dismissive of others. The world is much much larger than the "fine art" crowd believes.