Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

I just got an email from someone asking my opinion about K3 printers.
Ink costs with these printers are a big concern for many and it so
happened I just finished my end-of-year bookkeeping and was able to
look up some hard figures on costs.

This is part hobby, part business for me.  I sell prints from my web
site and through my church gift shop (I'm self employed, run a legal
home business, collect and pay sales tax, keep accurate records, etc).
I make lots of prints and give away more than I sell - gifts to
friends, projects for church, etc.  Most are 8x10-ish or less with
occasional 11x14s.

In 2007 I spent $412.68 on ink and paper (plus another $40 or so for
mat board, hinge tape and other incidentals).  About $236 of that was
for ink (I've had a 2400 for 28 months and ink cost has averaged
$19.65/month).  I took in $932.00 in print sales, so my business/hobby
is paying for itself.  

Suppose by using 3p inks and refilling carts I could reduce ink costs
by 75%.  My costs would be reduced by about $15/month, or $180/year.
Thinking about the advantages that K3 printing represents for me,
no clogs, fiddling with bad chips, leaky carts, cleaning syringes...is
that convenience, time savings and peace of mind worth $15 a month? 
Absolutely.  The 2400 has been a great investment.  I'm happy to pay
Epson for their inks for those advantages.  It's worth every penny. 

I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't help but think
that if I can make a profit even after giving away much of my work,
then for anyone who is selling even some prints prints the materials
costs should be covered, or at least greatly reduced.  I hope people
will apply some realistic thinking and do some number crunching and
estimating when considering this issue.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

>The 2400 has been a great investment.  I'm happy to pay
>Epson for their inks for those advantages.  It's worth every penny. 

In 100% agreement! No clogs, no problems, beautiful prints out-of-the-box.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>

Thanks, Clayton, for this interesting case study and coherent collection of data points.
--
Sam


On Tue Jan  1 14:40 , 'Clayton Jones' <cj@...> sent:

>Hello All,
>
>I just got an email from someone asking my opinion about K3 printers.
>Ink costs with these printers are a big concern for many and it so
>happened I just finished my end-of-year bookkeeping and was able to
>look up some hard figures on costs.
>
>[snip]
>
>Clayton
>
>
>Info on black and white digital printing at    
>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Very off topic, I have an 8x10 Pola Printer, this make 8x10 Polaroid prints
from 35mm slides
And an
8x10 Polaroid Film processor with film holder for sale.

They don¹t make these items any more and both are in great shape.
I used them for years creating 8x10 Polaroid image and emulsion transfers.

Please contact me off list if you¹re interested.
Hopefully, no one is offended by this post.
Thanks

David Aschkenas


daschkenas@...

-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Clayton, Bob Frost, et al: Thanks for giving me permission to go the easy  
route. I was so wedded to the idea of carbon pigment, so orthodox in my belief,  
that I struggled for years with UT7, a collection of printers, bad chips,  
syringes, bottles, a studio that looked like a weird intravenous hospital  ward, 
windex bottles all over, flashlights, syringes, leaks, paper towels by the  
Big Packs - beside rivers of  tears, tantrums, hysterics,  melt-downs and 
wasted time. 
 
The K3 is so easy and problem free, I  feel guilty over my  giddiness. Is it 
to printing what a point-and-shoot is to a "real"  camera?  It's too good to 
be true. Expensive, yes. It's worth every dime.  If you have to, economize 
somewhere else - drink cheaper booze.
Happy K3 to all,
          Arlene 



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

... 
> The K3 is so easy and problem free, ... Is it 
> to printing what a point-and-shoot is to a "real" camera?  

I have no doubt that most will opt for the OEM solutions, and they're 
not bad at all.  Our involvement with these 3rd party inks and 
approaches was mostly due to the impossiblility of getting good B&W 
prints with the OEM color inksets to begin with.

On the other hand, there still seem to be major gaps in the OEM 
coverage at both the entry level and purist ends of the spectrum.  

I suppose those of us who choose to pursue the non-OEM approaches will 
end up being in the "alterntaive processes" category of B&W printing.  
Maybe that will actually be an advantage for those who choose the road 
less traveled.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Same here, but with a 2100 .... agonies with MIS inks!!!

Perfect prints with Epson inks and nothing a cleaning cycle won't fix. And colour when I need it:)

I'm on a tight budget, but at least this way I'm producing prints reliably. Reliability counts for a lot - OEM inks are nothing to be ashamed of, although I confess to not being happy about filling the landfill with empty cartridges.

Richard

At 07:23 AM Thursday 1/3/2008, you wrote:
>The K3 is so easy and problem free, I feel guilty over my giddiness. Is it 
>to printing what a point-and-shoot is to a "real" camera? It's too good to 
>be true. Expensive, yes. It's worth every dime. If you have to, economize 
>somewhere else - drink cheaper booze.
>Happy K3 to all,
>Arlene 

--
Backroads Essay:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/TheBackroadsOfWarkworth
Greeting Cards available for purchase:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/GreetingCards
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
http://smallfield.vze.com

   "Why don't you write books people can read?" 
   --Nora Joyce to her husband James (1882-1941)

I think user-friendly is the better expression here. I really would  
hate to think that my time, education and aesthetic would be diluted  
by the analogy of a point-n-shoot.....  :D


> > The K3 is so easy and problem free, ... Is it
> > to printing what a point-and-shoot is to a "real" camera?



AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't wish to hijack a thread about the virtues of OEM, but I have a
related question.  This forum contains a lot of stories of clogs with
non-OEM and the 2100/2200.  Is there an opinion about whether the
R2400 with non-OEM is better / worse / the same than the 2100/2200?

F_P

Nothing wrong with that. So be it. They'll have to pry the Piezo K6
out of my cold dead hands before I ever give them up. Who what's to be
a total slave to Epson and their "Print Academy", not me. Neva.

john

> I suppose those of us who choose to pursue the non-OEM approaches will 
> end up being in the "alterntaive processes" category of B&W printing.  
> Maybe that will actually be an advantage for those who choose the road 
> less traveled.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Hello Arlene,

>...I struggled for years with UT7, a collection of printers, bad 
>chips, syringes, bottles, a studio that looked like a weird 
>intravenous hospital ward, windex bottles all over, flashlights, 
>syringes, leaks, paper towels by the Big Packs - beside rivers of  
>tears, tantrums, hysterics, melt-downs and wasted time. 

What a hilarious description! - got a great laugh out of that, thanks. 
But you know the old saying: the best humor is a reflection of truth.
This is funny because it hits home.  I'm going to print it out and
tack it to the wall.



Paul,

>I have no doubt that most will opt for the OEM solutions, and 
>they're not bad at all. Our involvement with these 3rd party inks 
>and approaches was mostly due to the impossiblility of getting good 
>B&W prints with the OEM color inksets to begin with.

>On the other hand, there still seem to be major gaps in the OEM
>coverage at both the entry level and purist ends of the spectrum.

>I suppose those of us who choose to pursue the non-OEM approaches 
>will end up being in the "alterntaive processes" category of B&W 
>printing.  Maybe that will actually be an advantage for those who 
>choose the road less traveled.
>---------------------------------------------

Very good description of where we are today.  I hope my comments are
not interpreted by readers to mean I think everyone should use OEM
ink.  Not at all.  Nor am I a shill for Epson.  I'm just calling
attention to a point of view that's seldom mentioned here, and which
may benefit some.

There are economies of scale at work here, and my example is surely
not applicable in other scenarios.  As Steve Karafyllakis said on the
phone today, for someone who is making a profession of selling prints
and relies on it, like any business they probably work on small profit
margins and ink costs could make a huge difference.  And if they are
making a business of it they accept any extra work that using 3P inks
may require.

My remarks are aimed at people who are selling prints on a smaller
scale, as a hobby or personal artistic endeavor, who need it to at
least pay for itself, and for whom time and hassle factor are
important.  My guess is there are a lot of us like that.  Anyone who
is depending on it for livelihood is in another ball game.

There are countless ways to be involved in this.  I hope my remarks
will stimulate some good thinking and cost/benefit evaluation, that's all.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm