Ink

[dug1]

<p>Can anyone explain to me why the ink for our printers cost as much as they do? I thought gasoline was bad but this is ridiculous!<br>

D</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Well you could go back to wetprinting, Ektacolor paper is only $35 for a hundred sheets of 8x10, and no ink required. :)</p>

<p>Ink is priced at what the market will bear. If you think small containers of ink are expensive, you should see the price of some specialty automotive finish materials, $300 plus for 2oz of dry pigment that you add to expensive paint.</p>

 

[grant_hagen]

<p> This is why printer manufacturers can sell printer for $50.00 and even give them away when you buy certain computers. They take a hit on the printer figuring that they'll make their money on the ink cartridges.<br>

I use ink refill kits and have probably spent about 1/4 over the past year what I would have spent on the manufacturers product. If I needed professional quality output from my inkjet, I might rethink this option, but the results are good enough for my current needs. If I suddenly needed a pro quality inkjet, I'd get one that could take a continuous inking system. Your cost per unit of ink goes down that way.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>razors and razor blades. inkjet printing is overall a pretty expensive way but those small consumer cartridges just keep sucking the money from your wallet. You need to move up to the larger cartridges and/or CIS to get the ink costs under control. And then you'll want to custom color profile the 3rd party inks.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>I understand that Epson spent a cool billion to build their ink manufacturing facilities. Think about it. </p>

[dug1]

<p>I think we can all complain about this subject until the cows come home, but we won't be getting anywhere. The real question is "where do we go from here?" A CIS system seems to be a logical answer, but, would quality be an issue? We could just shut up and accept it, like we have been. Stamp collecting might be another way to go............</p>

<p> </p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>If cost is an issue pay someone else to own and run the printers. Printing yourself in small sizes will *never* be cost-effective vs sending out to a lab like Costco or Winkflash.com. Maybe save your home printing for full letter size prints and up.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Try Epson 3800...will save money on ink, vs the smaller Epsons. However, it'll break the bank when I need more ink...$50 ea for 9 80ml inks...still, it's cheaper than a good new enlarger, not to mention the supplies, and way sharper (depending on file) and more controllable: better, cheaper.<br>

.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Well, the 4880 offers the chance to get ink even cheaper per ml because they offer the choice of 220 ml cartridges. Of course you'll drop a couple of thousand buying the 4880.</p>

<p>Quality doesn't always come cheap, you either pay for it, or do without it. Nobody claims that quality printing is inexpensive. </p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>You can use 4800 inks in your smaller pigmented Epson, but even at far lower prices/ml it's still cheaper to send it to a lab that does $.12 4x6 (for both paper and ink).</p>

[dug1]

<p>Thanks to all who responded. For some reason, I just had to vent my frustration.</p>