Harry Ogloff
Member
Joe, I got it right...it is 0.75 cents a sq. inch. That's less tha 1 penny per sq. inch. That equates to $2.88 for a 16x24. I agree with you, different people have different priorities for their prints.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The REAL cost of OEM ink
- Thread starter mcmm
- Start date
Harry Ogloff
Member
And that is why there are all sorts of ink jet printers out there for snap shots that can take anykind of ink you choose to pour into them. Why buy a high quality "artsie" printer and then just use it for snap shots which you stick onto your fridge or pin to a cork board?
I also sell my prints so the people who buy them might actually want to look at them for 20 years. I don't want the print to fade and be the determining factor as when to replace the photo on the wall.
I also sell my prints so the people who buy them might actually want to look at them for 20 years. I don't want the print to fade and be the determining factor as when to replace the photo on the wall.
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Funny how much emotion you attach to a simple phrase about printing priorities. Never said I sold prints or was an artist. I would hang a portrait of MY family for 20 years but that probably never occured to you - too busy reaching for a reason to fight.
Joe
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Handymuss
Forum Enthusiast
There is no debate between OEM and 3rd party, but some think there is, and try to make it a battle.
The OP was talking about the high cost of OEM ink.
I didn't read a single post here that claimed that 3rd party ink is "better" than OEM. Less costly, but not better quality.
However, the "I only buy OEM" crowd continues to try and belittle anyone who dares to chose 3rd party ink. I wonder why? Are you that insecure that you need to care so much what other people chose to put into their printer?
Do you only buy OEM paper too? After all...that is what the printer maker made the printer FOR. Not 3rd party paper. I bet you like the wide choices of paper out there. I do. But then again, I only chose to print on folder paper. I kind of like the lines. The longevity! OMG! The prints last forever!
handymus
The OP was talking about the high cost of OEM ink.
I didn't read a single post here that claimed that 3rd party ink is "better" than OEM. Less costly, but not better quality.
However, the "I only buy OEM" crowd continues to try and belittle anyone who dares to chose 3rd party ink. I wonder why? Are you that insecure that you need to care so much what other people chose to put into their printer?
Do you only buy OEM paper too? After all...that is what the printer maker made the printer FOR. Not 3rd party paper. I bet you like the wide choices of paper out there. I do. But then again, I only chose to print on folder paper. I kind of like the lines. The longevity! OMG! The prints last forever!
handymus
Brian_Downunda
Forum Enthusiast
This comment gets to the heart of the debate IMHO. The OEM crowd have an unshakeable assumption that cheaper means lower quality. However IMHO price is not always a good indicator of quality. I've used OEM and what I would regard as quality non-OEM (Image Specialists pigment). If profiled, I couldn't say that there's any real difference at print time. And I haven't read any credible reports of fading, for other than dye inks. The OEM theologists, say that it might , perhaps even that it should (given the price), but show me evidence that it does . "Cheaping out" is a pejorative term unsupported by hard evidence. We care as much as you about our photos, and don't believe that we have compromised quality. But we've saved a lot of money.
And I have to agree with the benefits of bulk non-OEM ink in a CIS. I print a lot more now because I not worried about ink cost and that next cartridge which is getting low. If you print a lot, it adds up, and heaven knows, good paper is expensive enough.
Brian D
Is there a reason you keep posting here ? You say this thread is a waste, but count the number of times you've posted here ..... no one else has posted as much as YOU. Clearly, you are either a troll, or someone who has a personal vandetta against 3rd party ink users. Do you work for OEM ink producers ?
This is a good point, however, I think with the new 3rd party technologies, fading is just not an issue anymore. It was a big issue 5 years ago when I started using 3rd party inks, but lately (last 3 years) I've been impressed with Media street products.
I have posters I printed 3 years ago, hanging up in sunlit rooms (behind glass), that have shown no fading. Crisp and saturated as the day they came out of my printer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I truly believe the 3rd party guys have perfected the chemistry of inks.
I just hope 3rd party producers are reading this thread, because I really want them to jump on the K3 inkset, and produce high quality stuff for all of us. In the end, competition always produces the best & cheapest results.
mcmm
I have posters I printed 3 years ago, hanging up in sunlit rooms (behind glass), that have shown no fading. Crisp and saturated as the day they came out of my printer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I truly believe the 3rd party guys have perfected the chemistry of inks.
I just hope 3rd party producers are reading this thread, because I really want them to jump on the K3 inkset, and produce high quality stuff for all of us. In the end, competition always produces the best & cheapest results.
mcmm
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Any testing by authoritative sources to back this up, aside from your personal opinion?
3 years, that's an eternity for prints, wow. Oh, and you personally believe 3rd party makers have "perfected the chemistry". If you believe it, it must be so!
Best and cheapest? That's a common occurance. The best cars are the cheapest. The best food is the cheapest. You're a sharp guy.
Joe - "Mr. Nasty" to you tough guy (anonymous at that, big shock).
I'm sure I'm missing just as many points as you are but you and your crowd have such an attitude that grinds on me. Sure, I understand you don't mind paying a little extra for your family portrait and neither would I. The OEM/non-OEM argument is pretty broad ranging....from using an old R200 with non-oem to do snapshots, cubicle hangers, flyers, contact sheets etc etc to using your 4800(?) where the economics (larger ink tanks) are more OEM friendly.
I should clarify......I use an R1800 with OEM inks and I do sell prints. I have an R800 that I had set up with non-OEM inks that I used for low-priority stuff. Unfortunately I foolishly let is sit for 2 months with the power on so it's clogged. I haven't had the time to delve into correcting the problem yet.
re: "I have an R800 that I had set up with non-OEM inks that I used for low-priority stuff. Unfortunately I foolishly let is sit for 2 months with the power on so it's clogged."
Just put in a set of OEM carts and you should be ready to go :->
I use OEM since NONE of my prints would I consider "low" priority, even the proof sheets.
--
pjs
'the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket'
pjs©1972
Just put in a set of OEM carts and you should be ready to go :->
I use OEM since NONE of my prints would I consider "low" priority, even the proof sheets.
--
pjs
'the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket'
pjs©1972
thecameraguy
Senior Member
hi,
Ink is like gas...you pay as you go, the more you use, the more you pay...nothing wrong with that.
From a cost perspective, I frankly just dont get the point here...... is everyone here wallpapering their house with their prints or something?
My example.... my very first 13*19 print on my R1800... made one week ago
paper $1.75
ink (guess) $3.00
poster frame $16.00
art paper mount $0.75
cost.. $22.50, sold for $149,
My profit from ONE print almost paid for all the ink plus the 50 box of paper... if i sell four more i have the printer and all supplies for free.. make the ink $2 cheaper?...who cares.
Personally I HOPE Epson makes good money on their ink... like i also hope their lawsuits against CIS and ink suppliers are withheld because you can be sure that if they did not make good enough overall profits your printers will skyrocket in price......
regards
--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~
http://ramsden.smugmug.com/
Ink is like gas...you pay as you go, the more you use, the more you pay...nothing wrong with that.
From a cost perspective, I frankly just dont get the point here...... is everyone here wallpapering their house with their prints or something?
My example.... my very first 13*19 print on my R1800... made one week ago
paper $1.75
ink (guess) $3.00
poster frame $16.00
art paper mount $0.75
cost.. $22.50, sold for $149,
My profit from ONE print almost paid for all the ink plus the 50 box of paper... if i sell four more i have the printer and all supplies for free.. make the ink $2 cheaper?...who cares.
Personally I HOPE Epson makes good money on their ink... like i also hope their lawsuits against CIS and ink suppliers are withheld because you can be sure that if they did not make good enough overall profits your printers will skyrocket in price......
regards
--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~
http://ramsden.smugmug.com/
Brian_Downunda
Forum Enthusiast
I doubt this, as I've had this precise same sort of clog with OEM, and it's just as hard to clear.
I have the same attitude towards all my prints, and I've not seen evidence that I'm "cheaping out", or whatever the expression is, in using non-OEM. Only theology that claims I am, based on the assumption that cheaper is always worse.
Brian D
re: in the end, competition always produces the best & cheapest results.
as long as patents relating to heads formulations/process(es) are not violated. It's hard to see how anyone can match K3 ink set without doing just that since Epson - according to their financial reports - has so much tied up in the technology is protective of that.
--
e/tb contemplativeeye.com
as long as patents relating to heads formulations/process(es) are not violated. It's hard to see how anyone can match K3 ink set without doing just that since Epson - according to their financial reports - has so much tied up in the technology is protective of that.
--
e/tb contemplativeeye.com
Brian_Downunda
Forum Enthusiast
This is one of the least constructive posts that I've seen in a while. It seeks to discredit the previous poster's arguments by rubbishing the poster, and it misrepresents what he says about the benefits of competition.
Brian D
Brian D
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Tell me conscience of the forum, what do you make of this personal attack?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=26844330
It's okay with you because he supports your position?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=26844330
It's okay with you because he supports your position?
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Wow, someone doesn't understand SARCASM. :-> Too busy policing other peoples posts. You're proving to be quite a new addition to this forum.
Theology? Soooooooo serious. Can't imagine your approach to discussing meaningful issues about life. Give me 3rd Party Inks or Give Me Death!!!!
I guarantee you wouldn't want to do that in the US either---truly awful.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum