Digital BW, The Print

Most of these desktop units are throw away pieces of garbage, totally rinky dink junk. Half of these office printers that the designs are based on last a year or two at best and half the ink ends up in the waste tanks. The way they've gotten away with it is the obvious fact that the technology changes every year or so. But a lot of the rapid change is purposely built into the entire concept of the high tech industry itself; planned obsolescence. Only a small portion of this actually comes in the form of a solid improvement though. I'm not sure what works for Apple will necessarily continue to work for Epson however.  How many inksets does Epson have to support now, and manufacturer, and store? They are getting so mixed up now that half their new pressurized ink carts don't even function properly.  In terms of the large format, there is a huge failure rate now. A lot of their innovations cost us more than they are worth.

I just think if there was one or two models of a custom inkjet printer that was marketed to accept a wide variety of ink and a huge variety of third party media, instead of discouraging both, there might be market for it, IF the economy was better. 

Eventually the experimental independent side of photographers is going to come back in some form. One of the things that artists hate most is doing the same damn thing that everyone else is doing. I just hope it is in the form of a more flexible design, but not at the cost of a Roland or Mimaki. The technology is mature enough that I could see that happening eventually. Inkjet now is traditional photography and about 85% of the work is done this way now.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly right. On the other hand, for niche shops producing museum and gallery work, or successful individual artists doing their own printing, many might accept the price, but it would probably require something larger and more robust then the smaller desktops.
> The main point though, to me, is that the fine art photography community is now held hostage by the office machine marketplace. Sure Epson, Canon, and HP focus their efforts on us to some degree, but not primarily.
> The tools available to us before inkjet and digital were developed by, and for, photographers over centuries, literally. So our needs including a variety of options were met by a marketplace focused primarily on us. The printer we imagine... I suspect it would have found it's way to the marketplace somehow, at some price, because someone in tune with the photography community and it's needs primarily saw it as an opportunity instead of a burden.
> On the other hand, a 38xx, with a CIS and some of the great mono inkets we have now, pretty hot setup. But who knows how long solutions like that can remain available without at the least, software support.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington <cbabing3@> wrote:
> >
> > It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
> > that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
> > makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
> > printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
> > printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
> > had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
> > manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
> > the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
> > multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
> > at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
> > only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
> > making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)
> > 
> > I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
> > party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
> > dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
> > full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.
> > 
> > john wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > > First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> > > heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> > > good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> > > it won't spit at you.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________
> > 
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > 
> > http://www.eset.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>