HP vs. Canon ink costs

oldabelincoln · Dec 1, 2003

While a number of interesting opinions about various related issues have come up, I'd like to get the thread back on topic.

The reason I posted was to see if my model for OEM ink costs made sense to others. PERIOD.

There are just too many variables to consider, and I didn't want this to turn into a discussion of everything that could possibly affect printing costs. Keeping a focus on ONE variable, ink costs, is the only point of the thread.

So, please,...
No advice on how to lower the cost of ink by refilling.
No advice on lowering paper costs here.
No comparisons with commercial processing.
No discussion about fading, clogging, or other issues.
No discussion of HP photo printing quality vs. Canon photo printing quality

No discussion of "you get what you pay for" - I'm trying to find out what I can afford to do.

I was looking to see if my model for ink costs between Canon i860 and i960 and HPs using 56, 57, and 58 carts made sense to other users, and, have I applied that model in a reasonable manner?

That's the topic.

Has anyone any comments about the topic?

= = = =
On the topic...

An earlier poster quite appropriately addressed Consumer Reports' lack of expertise in specialized issues like photo printers. If you can recall that far back, I had included CR's numbers on costs (which had some paper costs built in, unfortunately). I agree with that as a general assessment of CR, and I included CR's numbers on the notion that they probably ran off lots of prints on lots of cartridges, and that whatever they may or may not know about photo printing, they can certainly count things ok, and that's all you have to do in this case. The CR article was aimed at the novice, to be sure, but that doesn't mean they can't perform basics.

I'll stress again that I print photos infrequently, and had originally hoped to justify a dedicated photo printer on the basis of high quality. But I do print enough so that the cost per photo print is an issue. Watching the inks go down, down,down while performing some simple tests is what caused me to do my calculations. If my model is** reasonable, then I will likely switch to a Canon i860 ot i960.

If I can't justify an HP dedicated as a photo printer, the Canon would have to pick up day-to-day text and web site printing as well , hence the look at text ink costs as well as photo ink costs.

And yes, as a different poster pointd out, the HP 59 gray cart on the HP 7960 goes down faster than even the cmK cart, but I did not include it because I don't have enough information to build a model that compares ink costs for 8 color printing against ink costs for 6 or 4 color printing. For that I'd need information about exactly how each printer lays down ink. I have never seen such information anywhere, and guessing is pointless. I feel my model is built on questionable assumptions anyway, so it's best to keep it fairly simple, but if you know of a way to make the model more accurate, I'll be happy to go back to the drawing board.

If someone wants to run off 2 or 3 carts worth of prints on an HP and a Canon, great! I have only one printer and zero budget, which is why I built a model and asked about its sanity. It looks like the article on Tom's Hardware linked in an earlier post may well do such things - I'm going back to read it, and I greatly appreciate that post.

----
Abe

Drestin Black · Dec 1, 2003

Pov said:
Drestin Black said:

HP prints that are printed on that paper are not water resistant.
If you touch the print with damp fingers it will smudge. If you
sneeze on it it will leave white spoots. In many instances, from
humidity, the prints will stick to glass or album sleeves. That's
why I will not sell them. Rip people off if you like, I will not.

Click to expand...

With that logic, no one would be able to sell a watercolor
painting. Most photographs can be damaged by water, although I
agree with you that HP paper is more sensitive than most. I don't
think buyers expect to be able to get a photo wet and not have it
affected.

To the best of my knowledge watercolor's do not stick to glass, nor to album sleeves (as if someone puts watercolors into album sleeves).

The dye ink on non-pourous (as hp) will stick to glass and albm sleeves causing the sleeves to discolor, and changing the texture of the pictures. People will not expect that if you just say "not water resistant".

Pov said:
If your conscience still bothers you, then IMHO as long you
disclose to the buyer that they are not water resistant there
shouldn't be a problem.

Pov · Dec 1, 2003

Abe, your model has too many unkown variables to really provide an accurate estimate of print costs for each ink set. You admit yourself that you don't know how much ink is used for each print (and by the way many print drivers let you vary that). In fact, the amount of ink used probably varies widely for each print. Also, how do you compare cost on a per ml basis when in the case of HP, you have 3 ink colors in each cartridge and the entire cartridge has to be replaced when one color runs out, but Canon lets you replace each color individually? If you print a lot of pictures of sunsets, the red in the HP cartridge is going to run out well before the other inks, but you still have to replace the entire cartridge, discarding ink that you've already paid for.

If print cost bothers you that much, and other considerations such as quality and longevity are irrelevant, then do not buy an HP. It is far and away the most expensive. Canon would be considerably less expensive in the long run.

oldabelincoln said:
While a number of interesting opinions about various related issues
have come up, I'd like to get the thread back on topic.

The reason I posted was to see if my model for OEM ink costs made
sense to others. PERIOD.

There are just too many variables to consider, and I didn't want
this to turn into a discussion of everything that could possibly
affect printing costs. Keeping a focus on ONE variable, ink costs,
is the only point of the thread.

So, please,...
No advice on how to lower the cost of ink by refilling.
No advice on lowering paper costs here.
No comparisons with commercial processing.
No discussion about fading, clogging, or other issues.
No discussion of HP photo printing quality vs. Canon photo printing
quality
No discussion of "you get what you pay for" - I'm trying to find
out what I can afford to do.

I was looking to see if my model for ink costs between Canon
i860 and i960 and HPs using 56, 57, and 58 carts made sense to
other users, and, have I applied that model in a reasonable manner?

That's the topic.

Has anyone any comments about the topic?

= = = =
On the topic...

An earlier poster quite appropriately addressed Consumer Reports'
lack of expertise in specialized issues like photo printers. If
you can recall that far back, I had included CR's numbers on costs
(which had some paper costs built in, unfortunately). I agree with
that as a general assessment of CR, and I included CR's numbers on
the notion that they probably ran off lots of prints on lots of
cartridges, and that whatever they may or may not know about photo
printing, they can certainly count things ok, and that's all you
have to do in this case. The CR article was aimed at the novice,
to be sure, but that doesn't mean they can't perform basics.

I'll stress again that I print photos infrequently, and had
originally hoped to justify a dedicated photo printer on the basis
of high quality. But I do print enough so that the cost per photo
print is an issue. Watching the inks go down, down,down while
performing some simple tests is what caused me to do my
calculations. If my model is** reasonable, then I will likely
switch to a Canon i860 ot i960.

If I can't justify an HP dedicated as a photo printer, the Canon
would have to pick up day-to-day text and web site printing as well
, hence the look at text ink costs as well as photo ink costs.

And yes, as a different poster pointd out, the HP 59 gray cart on
the HP 7960 goes down faster than even the cmK cart, but I did not
include it because I don't have enough information to build a model
that compares ink costs for 8 color printing against ink costs for
6 or 4 color printing. For that I'd need information about exactly
how each printer lays down ink. I have never seen such
information anywhere, and guessing is pointless. I feel my model
is built on questionable assumptions anyway, so it's best to keep
it fairly simple, but if you know of a way to make the model more
accurate, I'll be happy to go back to the drawing board.

If someone wants to run off 2 or 3 carts worth of prints on an HP
and a Canon, great! I have only one printer and zero budget, which
is why I built a model and asked about its sanity. It looks like
the article on Tom's Hardware linked in an earlier post may well do
such things - I'm going back to read it, and I greatly appreciate
that post.

----
Abe

Drestin Black · Dec 1, 2003

PicOne said:
Sounding kinda angry...

I didn't mean to sound too argumentative, I really want to
understand how (and there are Lots and Lots of these posts) people
are using the "X000 prints I've done over the last few
weeks/months" ? I used "film" for comparison as I'm sure there's a
few people even lurking on DPR that have used film and might find
some relevance. For those young enough who've never loaded a
roll, you can ignore those references. A "long time" ago since you
used film I imagine is probably not more than 5 years ago given
where Digital was in 1998. I might hazard the guess that most of
most photographers experience has been with film over their
photo-taking life.

I'm old and retired homer, I've been taking pictures for many years on both. That time frame is a very long time since I probably have taken more digital pictures than I had in the rest of my life due to not having to waste pics on rolls. I take hundreds at a time.

PicOne said:
We are talking about Digital, and IMO this strongly lends itself to
argument that these images are optimized to be shared, stored and
"albumed" (is that a word) Digitally. For me it makes more sense
to give "digital albums" (eg. CD) to friends / family from which
they can share with others and/or print the ones they want. To
each his/her own.

If you noticed I said I do give cd's and do the prints for a courtesy. Just about everyone I know though would still rather have prints in an album on the coffee table though. Most stick the disks away somewhere. I have 3 programs for putting the pic's to disk with music, etc. and most do not even want them. They would rather hold an album in their hands than see them far away and less quality on tv. I keep ALL my pics on hard drives and disk. I have 4 hard drives (one for backup) and disk backups to boot.

PicOne said:
Just saying that for me, and I don't think I'm alone, I have no use
for hundreds/thousands of printed shots as I don't have the real
estate to handle. My organizational skills with "paper"-based
materials is also a limiting factor for me.

As for shots "sold" by a Pro -- I'm not a pro and don't sell them,
but I wouldn't think a print someone paid for would be packaged or
hung up so that people could sneeze on them. I haven't had the
problem with the sticking yet, although I do let prints dry for a
few days prior to sandwiching in plastic. Generally in album
sleeves, the sticking/smudging would only happen if you need to
remove or move the print that is touching the plastic -- I tend to
leave my photos in the albums.

I printed with HP's for years going to my s9000 (Even on photodisks before I had digital cameras) and I've had them get to where you can't hardly see the picks any more becajse the ink sticks, stains the sleeve, and kind of smudges around.

For framing I tend to use mattes

PicOne said:
to separate prints from the glass.

You can't really think that after investing time on computer
cropping, sizing, color correcting, etc... that it is then a better
use of my time to copy my finished files to a disk, hop in the car,
drive to a photomat (using gas), wait in line to make 2 prints and
then come home again? And that's for quality that's bound to be
lower than that from a 7960 or 960i.

I can print mine very cheap and the quality IS better on my s9000. I scanned negatives from a relatives recent mexico trip and my prints were noticibly better than the processed ones with more detail. I don't even like the idea of using oem ink in the canon for about 30 Cents or less for ink for a 4x6, but printing out on the HP for over 80 cents ink for a 4x6 just for ink is ridiculous. You could probably add about another 30 cents to each one if using their paper. 1.20 for a 4x6 is way too much, Especially for a couple pics out of a "roll". I don't get mine processed, but I know for a fact I could upload the couple of images to walmart or sams and get them processed for 24 cents each, then pick them up when you are in there so it's not the gas wasting, time onsuming problem you make out. Walmart uses the frontier so their processing is just as good as most and better than some.

I would not pay 2.40 for 2 4x6 (ink and paper hp) when I could have it done for 48 cents 4x6 very easily. That's doing all the adjustments and cropping before uploading them. It costs me about 8-9 cents for ink and paper to do a 4x6 so it's very much worth it whether it's a little or a lot.

Matt12 · Dec 1, 2003

.... read all these threads generated in 11 hours time.
Is there finally a consensus on the original subject? Who is cheaper?

oldabelincoln said:
I got an HP 9760 a few days ago, and love the photo quality. It's
a great printer.

But watching the alleged ink levels go down made me do a cost
calculation that looks even worse that the one in Consumer's
Reports of Sept 03. I'd like you all to check my logic here.

First, I'm trying to get the best possible photo quality while
still providing good text and web page print-out time. I do photos
infrequently, and although I'd like a dedicated photo printer with
very good photo print quality, the cost up front of the 7960 is
just barely bearable for my budget, and that means the operating
cost has got to be at least competitive with that of a lesser
printer such as the Canon i860.

The comparison here is with the 4 photo color Canon i860, against
the HP 7960. I'm not saying that I think the two are similar - the
HP is clearly a better photo printer, but it's also $150 more
expensive (twice the i860 cost!) and if I punt on the 7960 because
of ink cost, I'll probably go with an i860. But essentially we
can compare any Canon using BCI 6 carts with any HP using carts 57
and 58 using these numbers.

I'm comparing cost per ml of ink on the questionable assumption
that identical prints take identical amounts if the same number of
inks are used. I know this is probably not so, but it's a first
approximation.

I looked at costs of Canon brand and HP brand inks at Altex,
Amazon, and re-inks.com, just to have some modest cost comparisons
first. Amazon was, surprisingly, the lowest.

The numbers I used were:

Canon: BCI 6 C,Y,M, BK ea hold 15 ml, and ea cost $10,75, =
$0.66/ml each color
BCI 3e BK pigmented holds 26 ml and costs $10.44 = $0.42/ml text black

HP: HP 57 CMY cart holds 17 ml TOTAL, costs $28.44 = $1.67/ml each
for C,M,Y
HP 58 cmK cart holds 17 ml TOTAL, costs $21.59 = $1.27/ml each for
c,m,K
HP 56 pigmented bk cart holds 19 ml, costs $17.33= $0.91/ml text black

All the above are from Amazon and exclude tax and shipping.

If we assume that a given amount of black text uses the same ampunt
of pigmented black ink in both printers (possibly a decent guess),
HP pigmented black ink is somewhat more tha twice as costly as
Canon pigmented black ink.

The two printers handle color photos quite differently, and the
cost per ml of the colors depend upon the colors used (for HP,
where C is more expensive than c, for example). As a simplifying
assumption, I'll assume that for comparison, a given photo uses
.1ml each of only** C,M,Y, and K (photo black).

With that model, we get a cost of $0.27 for the Canon and $0.63 for
the HP. Whatever the actual amount of ink might be for a given
photo, the ratios are probably similar to these numbers

We can compare the Canon i960 with HP for 6 color photo printing if
we assume that a given print uses .1 ml of each of the 6 colors -
C,c,M,m,Y, and K. In that case, the Canon ink costs (assuming the
photo magenta and the photo Cyan also cost the same as other BCI -
6 inks) are $0.40 and HP is $0.88.

For text, the 6 color Canon i960 has to use its photo black, as it
lacks a pigmented black, and the cost is now up to $0.66 per ml
while HP is still $0.91/ml with a pigmented black available on all
the HPs.

Consumer Reports shows Canon "Photo cost" of $0.80/page (8x10
glossy) for the s530D, the i850, the i470D, and the S330, all of
which I believe use different inks. They show a "Photo cost" of
$1.10/page For HP 550, 7150, and 7550, all of which use the 57 and
58 carts for photos and the 56 carts for text (assuming appropriate
swaps are made).

Their "Text cost" per page is for ink of unspecified color and
plain paper of unspecified size. They give the Canon costs as -
S530D and i850 - $0.033; i470D and S330 - $0.052. The HPs
mentioned above were $0.062.

So - how does the logic here look to you all?

I'm not trying to argue in favor of one brand or another, just
trying to get a handle on my likely usage costs so that I can make
reasonable compromises. I know there are other issues like
clogging, paper costs, fading, redos, etc., but here I just want to
isolate ink costs with a reasonable model.
--
Abe

Pov · Dec 1, 2003

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Drestin Black said:
I don't even like the idea of using oem ink in the canon
for about 30 Cents or less for ink for a 4x6, but printing out on
the HP for over 80 cents ink for a 4x6 just for ink is ridiculous.
You could probably add about another 30 cents to each one if using
their paper. 1.20 for a 4x6 is way too much, Especially for a
couple pics out of a "roll". I don't get mine processed, but I
know for a fact I could upload the couple of images to walmart or
sams and get them processed for 24 cents each, then pick them up
when you are in there so it's not the gas wasting, time onsuming
problem you make out. Walmart uses the frontier so their
processing is just as good as most and better than some.

I would not pay 2.40 for 2 4x6 (ink and paper hp) when I could have
it done for 48 cents 4x6 very easily. That's doing all the
adjustments and cropping before uploading them. It costs me about
8-9 cents for ink and paper to do a 4x6 so it's very much worth it
whether it's a little or a lot.

UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian · Dec 1, 2003

Common consensus has always been that Canon is cheaper in regards to ink cost.

Print longevity, clogging, speed and other issues can be argued as well but this particular thread seems to be more about a user trying to justify his purchase by saying that the cost per print on his new beloved HP 7960 is closer to a Canon than people think. Or maybe I'm missing his point entirely (no offense) but it seems to me that ink cost is going to vary based on the type of printing done and its really not fair to compare a tri-color cartridge based machine to an individual color cartridge one.

mbryda · Dec 1, 2003

oldabelincoln said:
Has anyone any comments about the topic?

HP is most expensive
Lexmark is next most expensive
Epson is the middle of the road cost wise
Canon is the cheapest per page

These have been repeated ad nauseam in various places in print and the internet. Don't beat yourself up trying to justify the per print cost of the HP. It's the most expensive. Period. End of story. There's no amount of math that will make that fact disappear.

Canon is the cheapest per page. So are the mult-ink Epsons. Pick one of those if you are concerned with the cost of ink.

No need to come up with an ink usage model - everyone has and the HP is the most expensive.

Sorry if I sounded harsh, but if all you want are the cold hard facts, there they are. No need to reinvent the wheel with the HP ink usage - it will never come out to be the cheapest.

Drestin Black · Dec 1, 2003

The canon numbers I got from myself. I did an ink test some time ago and posted the results. Other's like WP did the same thing and wound up with about .80 + for an 8.5x11.

I can't seem to search ver well becalse it's been overloaded most of the time, but here's a link.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=6345810

Going by the ink prices and using 2 grey carts along with half each of the color carts it comes to about .80 a 4x6. That's just what I said and I have read several different times on here. I did add wrong though, I said .80 in ink and .30 for paper comes to 1.20 per 4x6. It actually comes to 110. per 4x6. My mistake. I did have both the .80 and .30 amounts listed though.

This link says pretty much the same thing.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=6236464

This amount works out about the same also, maybe even a little worse.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=6330153

The prices are based on retail ink prices for BOTH printers.

Pov said:
Drestin Black said:

I don't even like the idea of using oem ink in the canon
for about 30 Cents or less for ink for a 4x6, but printing out on
the HP for over 80 cents ink for a 4x6 just for ink is ridiculous.
You could probably add about another 30 cents to each one if using
their paper. 1.20 for a 4x6 is way too much, Especially for a
couple pics out of a "roll". I don't get mine processed, but I
know for a fact I could upload the couple of images to walmart or
sams and get them processed for 24 cents each, then pick them up
when you are in there so it's not the gas wasting, time onsuming
problem you make out. Walmart uses the frontier so their
processing is just as good as most and better than some.

I would not pay 2.40 for 2 4x6 (ink and paper hp) when I could have
it done for 48 cents 4x6 very easily. That's doing all the
adjustments and cropping before uploading them. It costs me about
8-9 cents for ink and paper to do a 4x6 so it's very much worth it
whether it's a little or a lot.

Click to expand...

rbmorse · Dec 1, 2003

2/3 of HP's earnings for Q4 2003 (just over $1.5B) came from the imaging and printing group. If you ever wondered why HP ink was so expensive, now you know.

Regards

oldabelincoln said:
I got an HP 9760 a few days ago, and love the photo quality. It's
a great printer.

But watching the alleged ink levels go down made me do a cost
calculation that looks even worse that the one in Consumer's
Reports of Sept 03. I'd like you all to check my logic here.

CB190510 · Dec 1, 2003

You must also keep in mind that technology changes:

...it could just be that the Canon i860 has new tech capabilities that everyone here is not taking into account.

here's a snip from Canon's press release,....and as you can see, maybe the dye-based ink used makes the prints last far longer than HP's! ?

"Key to the extraordinary flexibility of the i860 printer, ContrastPLUS features a dye-based photo-grade black ink tank for photo printing, delivering improved image contrast and overall sharpness, particularly when used on photo paper. The i860 Desktop Photo Printer also has a pigment-based black ink tank to achieve crisp, fast, high-quality black text."

I have to agree, ...Abe's original topic HAS been addressed, ...and Abe, you must know ....these forums are just that, ...FORUMS. It is a place to exchange ideas/experiences/opinions. Don't try to regulate it.

for all reading this, ....you can pick up the i860 at Beach Camera for $125, and if you purchase ie. a Canon A80, there's a $50 rebate from Canon. Since I'm picking up the A80, the printer nets to about $75! Even at $125, there's way too much bantering about the Canon versus the HP. For that kind of money, ....just go buy the Canon! We need not split so many 'hairs' over a $125 printer!!

CB

rbmorse said:
Regards

oldabelincoln said:

I got an HP 9760 a few days ago, and love the photo quality. It's
a great printer.

But watching the alleged ink levels go down made me do a cost
calculation that looks even worse that the one in Consumer's
Reports of Sept 03. I'd like you all to check my logic here.

Click to expand...

oldabelincoln · Dec 2, 2003

UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian said:
... but this particular thread seems to be more about a user
trying to justify his purchase by saying that the cost per print on
his new beloved HP 7960 is closer to a Canon than people think.

I think you'd better reread my initial post.

I find HP inks to be 2x to 3x the cost of Canon, and I'm just trying to find out if the assumptions behind that model are reasonable. I'm not trying to address the whole spectrum of issues, just trying to quantify what the conventional wisdom that "HP is the most expensive" might mean. Is it 2x Canon? is it 10x Canon? or what??

Or are you saying that the HP costs are actually worse than the 2 to 3X Canon that my model proposes?
--
Abe

oldabelincoln · Dec 2, 2003

CB190510 said:
Even at $125, there's way too much bantering about
the Canon versus the HP.

I could not agree more. Assertions of preference prove little.

CB190510 said:
For that kind of money, ....just go buy
the Canon! We need not split so many 'hairs' over a $125 printer!!

I'm not splitting hairs about anything, least of all the cost of a Canon that I think is an excellent value.

I'm not trying to figure out how much it will cost me in absolute dollars per year to run a Canon vs. an HP - I'd have to know exactly what I would be printing. But it would be useful to know if I would have to spend 2x as much to run an HP vs. a Canon. Or 4x. or 10x. Or whatever that number actually is. My model shows the HP ink used for a given print to be two to three times as expensive as the Canon ink for the same print, and I'm trying to find out if those numbers make any degree of sense, or if they are way off base. I KNOW HP is more expensive. My question is "how much more expensive?"
--
Abe

Drestin Black · Dec 2, 2003

oldabelincoln said:
While a number of interesting opinions about various related issues
have come up, I'd like to get the thread back on topic.

The reason I posted was to see if my model for OEM ink costs made
sense to others. PERIOD.

There are just too many variables to consider, and I didn't want
this to turn into a discussion of everything that could possibly
affect printing costs. Keeping a focus on ONE variable, ink costs,
is the only point of the thread.

So, please,...
No advice on how to lower the cost of ink by refilling.
No advice on lowering paper costs here.
No comparisons with commercial processing.
No discussion about fading, clogging, or other issues.
No discussion of HP photo printing quality vs. Canon photo printing
quality
No discussion of "you get what you pay for" - I'm trying to find
out what I can afford to do.

I was looking to see if my model for ink costs between Canon
i860 and i960 and HPs using 56, 57, and 58 carts made sense to
other users, and, have I applied that model in a reasonable manner?

That's the topic.

Has anyone any comments about the topic?

You seem to be getting your panties in a bunch over what people post in this thread (topicwise) because you seem to think you own it. This is a public forum and you do NOT own a thread just because you started it. If you cannot handle people discussing all aspects, then I suggest you do not participate or start your own forum.

That being said, I posted some numbers of ink usage for both canon and HP and that seems to not be what you are looking for. You seem to want to be told a certain thing, so just tell everyone what you want to be told/how you want to be convinced so you can read a post in your words that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

oldabelincoln said:
= = = =
On the topic...

An earlier poster quite appropriately addressed Consumer Reports'
lack of expertise in specialized issues like photo printers. If
you can recall that far back, I had included CR's numbers on costs
(which had some paper costs built in, unfortunately). I agree with
that as a general assessment of CR, and I included CR's numbers on
the notion that they probably ran off lots of prints on lots of
cartridges, and that whatever they may or may not know about photo
printing, they can certainly count things ok, and that's all you
have to do in this case. The CR article was aimed at the novice,
to be sure, but that doesn't mean they can't perform basics.

I'll stress again that I print photos infrequently, and had
originally hoped to justify a dedicated photo printer on the basis
of high quality. But I do print enough so that the cost per photo
print is an issue. Watching the inks go down, down,down while
performing some simple tests is what caused me to do my
calculations. If my model is** reasonable, then I will likely
switch to a Canon i860 ot i960.

If I can't justify an HP dedicated as a photo printer, the Canon
would have to pick up day-to-day text and web site printing as well
, hence the look at text ink costs as well as photo ink costs.

And yes, as a different poster pointd out, the HP 59 gray cart on
the HP 7960 goes down faster than even the cmK cart, but I did not
include it because I don't have enough information to build a model
that compares ink costs for 8 color printing against ink costs for
6 or 4 color printing. For that I'd need information about exactly
how each printer lays down ink. I have never seen such
information anywhere, and guessing is pointless. I feel my model
is built on questionable assumptions anyway, so it's best to keep
it fairly simple, but if you know of a way to make the model more
accurate, I'll be happy to go back to the drawing board.

If someone wants to run off 2 or 3 carts worth of prints on an HP
and a Canon, great! I have only one printer and zero budget, which
is why I built a model and asked about its sanity. It looks like
the article on Tom's Hardware linked in an earlier post may well do
such things - I'm going back to read it, and I greatly appreciate
that post.

----
Abe

Drestin Black · Dec 2, 2003

oldabelincoln said:
While a number of interesting opinions about various related issues
have come up, I'd like to get the thread back on topic.

The reason I posted was to see if my model for OEM ink costs made
sense to others. PERIOD.

There are just too many variables to consider, and I didn't want
this to turn into a discussion of everything that could possibly
affect printing costs. Keeping a focus on ONE variable, ink costs,
is the only point of the thread.

So, please,...
No advice on how to lower the cost of ink by refilling.
No advice on lowering paper costs here.
No comparisons with commercial processing.
No discussion about fading, clogging, or other issues.
No discussion of HP photo printing quality vs. Canon photo printing
quality
No discussion of "you get what you pay for" - I'm trying to find
out what I can afford to do.

I will say again. This is an open forum and you DO NOT** control what poeople post. It's up to YOU** to take what you need from what's posted. It's pretty damn arrogant to think you can control everyone else. You might be a big man in your invironment and be able to control what those around you do and think, but here you are nothing just like everyone else.

This forum was not created just for your benefit and people will** discuss all aspects on a thread to benefit themselves. Jeez. Get over yourself.

oldabelincoln said:
I was looking to see if my model for ink costs between Canon
i860 and i960 and HPs using 56, 57, and 58 carts made sense to
other users, and, have I applied that model in a reasonable manner?

That's the topic.

Has anyone any comments about the topic?

= = = =
On the topic...

An earlier poster quite appropriately addressed Consumer Reports'
lack of expertise in specialized issues like photo printers. If
you can recall that far back, I had included CR's numbers on costs
(which had some paper costs built in, unfortunately). I agree with
that as a general assessment of CR, and I included CR's numbers on
the notion that they probably ran off lots of prints on lots of
cartridges, and that whatever they may or may not know about photo
printing, they can certainly count things ok, and that's all you
have to do in this case. The CR article was aimed at the novice,
to be sure, but that doesn't mean they can't perform basics.

I'll stress again that I print photos infrequently, and had
originally hoped to justify a dedicated photo printer on the basis
of high quality. But I do print enough so that the cost per photo
print is an issue. Watching the inks go down, down,down while
performing some simple tests is what caused me to do my
calculations. If my model is** reasonable, then I will likely
switch to a Canon i860 ot i960.

If I can't justify an HP dedicated as a photo printer, the Canon
would have to pick up day-to-day text and web site printing as well
, hence the look at text ink costs as well as photo ink costs.

And yes, as a different poster pointd out, the HP 59 gray cart on
the HP 7960 goes down faster than even the cmK cart, but I did not
include it because I don't have enough information to build a model
that compares ink costs for 8 color printing against ink costs for
6 or 4 color printing. For that I'd need information about exactly
how each printer lays down ink. I have never seen such
information anywhere, and guessing is pointless. I feel my model
is built on questionable assumptions anyway, so it's best to keep
it fairly simple, but if you know of a way to make the model more
accurate, I'll be happy to go back to the drawing board.

If someone wants to run off 2 or 3 carts worth of prints on an HP
and a Canon, great! I have only one printer and zero budget, which
is why I built a model and asked about its sanity. It looks like
the article on Tom's Hardware linked in an earlier post may well do
such things - I'm going back to read it, and I greatly appreciate
that post.

----
Abe

Doug MacMillan · Dec 5, 2003

...on the head.

PicOne said:
1. If you're selling your work, the extra what -- $1/print isn't a
factor.
2. If the prints are for your own use, then a couple things:

... Folks who
say they print a lot more than this either have a ton of wall space
(ie. live in the Guggenheim) or are shoving them in boxes anyway.

I have been wrestling for over a year with upgrading my printer (HP 990cse, which was a gift). We've moved into a new house and there's lots of wall space to display my photos. Even with a generous amount of space, I don't see me displaying more than 30 of my photos at any one time, since I don't subscribe to using photos as wall paper (negative space is good). Unlike printing in a wet lab, my number of sheets to finished photo ratio is quite small.

PicOne said:
If I have a case of needing lots of prints, no matter the cost per
print, I probably would drive to the local Costco and order a batch
printing of all of the needed ones at a lower cost (than any of
these desktop models) and less wear n'tear on my personal machine.

I have decided that getting Costco or Sam's to print my snaps is much more cost effective. I'm pleased with the quality and I don't make a special trip, I just wait until I'm heading that way anyway and take my CD with me.

We remodeled our old house 14 years ago. I had an 8x10 darkroom built as part of the remodel. I had a complete darkroom, including two enlargers and a six foot darkroom sink, in storage. It was wonderful to set them up and use them again. In the intervening years, I didn't use the darkroom as much as I thought I would. When I think of the cost of building the space, heating and air conditioning it, I shudder at the per print cost I paid for my output. I think I can make a strong argument that even at the most expensive per print cost, printing with a digital darkroom is far cheaper per print than it ever was in the home wet lab.

I also matte and frame my own work. Even doing it myself, the cost of a print is a small fraction of the cost of the final product, a properly matted and framed photograph.

This is in no way meant to belittle the conern of the per print price, I'm just trying to put the real cost in perspective.

Doug

Search

HP vs. Canon ink costs

oldabelincoln

Active member

Drestin Black

Senior Member

Pov

Senior Member

Drestin Black

Senior Member

Matt12

Forum Enthusiast

Pov

Senior Member

UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian

Senior Member

mbryda

Senior Member

Drestin Black

Senior Member

rbmorse

Forum Enthusiast

CB190510

Member

oldabelincoln

Active member

oldabelincoln

Active member

Drestin Black

Senior Member

Drestin Black

Senior Member

Doug MacMillan

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts