How can I save on ink costs?

[Robert Montgomery]

How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.

 

[Don Phillipson]

How can I save on ink costs?
My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.
I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.

1. How is archival defined? This obviously involves paper
and storage methods as well as ink and years.
2. What are you now using for ink and paper? What cost
3. If we know the technical characters of the ink and paper
we might then know whether you are already saving as
much as you can.

 

[measekite]

How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I
need the ink to be archival.

If you want quality you have to pay for it. The Epson 3800 and the
Canon IPF models are better on ink than the Epson 2400

 

[Peter]

How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.

Obviously you can print in draft mode, or use one of the Inksaver
programs; however since you mention archival that may not be a option
for you.
The obvious thing is to only do a print run when you have many documents
to produce. That way you minimise the ink waste from clearing the print
head every switch-on. That can be quite a lot of ink if you print one a day.

 

[TJ]

1. How is archival defined? This obviously involves paper
and storage methods as well as ink and years.
2. What are you now using for ink and paper? What cost
3. If we know the technical characters of the ink and paper
we might then know whether you are already saving as
much as you can.

It also would help if we knew what the OP wanted to archive. Color
documents are one thing, B+W documents are another.

If the documents are that important, even with OEM "archival" ink, I'd
recommend storing a copies of the digital files on optical media, in a
different location than the original document, and I'd recommend
renewing that storage every few years. That is so the document can be
reproduced, if necessary. Remember to transfer the document to whatever
media replaces optical before you can't read it anymore, too. How many
old documents are now inaccessible because they reside on old floppies?

Paper documents are subject to more dangers than just fading, so you
need several layers of protection above and beyond the ink you use.

TJ

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I think some clarity is required in your statement.

I agree that Eposn has no monopoly on higher fade resistant inks, but
not all inks are created equal either. The 2400 uses a pigment colorant
ink in a resin base. To achieve that same longevity, a similar
formulation of ink is required, and if the person doesn't wish to make
or buy ink profiles, he may be best to stick with the OEM inks.

Regardless of the paper and ink combination, no currently marketed
inkjet dye inks have the longevity of quality pigment inks. Also, paper
type is a lesser issue with pigment inks, which tend to sit on top of
the paper rather than penetrate it.

Art

 

[tomm42]

How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.

If you want top image quality your printer is going to use
appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is.
Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said
then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in
Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and
storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very
public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS.
Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival",
is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a
document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the
longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as
pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to
test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall
apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So
archival is not a great term.
One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of
the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink
for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the
printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges.
It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user.
17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models.
I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work,
I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party
inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas.

Tom

 

[measekite]

Testing by Henry Wilhelm would tend to disagree with you. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and before you claim that you know
more than he does please review his resume at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html

- Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

Ah, the HP employee agrees with me on this one.

 

[measekite]

Obviously you can print in draft mode,

Who is going to print a photo in draft mode. That is ridiculous.

or use one of the Inksaver programs; however since you mention
archival that may not be a option for you.
The obvious thing is to only do a print run when you have many
documents to produce.

He is not printing documents. He is printing photos.

 

[Brian Adams]

It also would help if we knew what the OP wanted to archive. Color
documents are one thing, B+W documents are another.

If the documents are that important, even with OEM "archival" ink, I'd
recommend storing a copies of the digital files on optical media, in a
different location than the original document, and I'd recommend
renewing that storage every few years. That is so the document can be
reproduced, if necessary. Remember to transfer the document to whatever
media replaces optical before you can't read it anymore, too. How many
old documents are now inaccessible because they reside on old floppies?

Paper documents are subject to more dangers than just fading, so you
need several layers of protection above and beyond the ink you use.

TJ

Archival CD and DVD's are available with a 80-100 year life span, that is what
I would use..

 

[PhotoSci]

Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do. Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

 

[JonK]

There are some very good non-OM inks out there, but they tend to be
for commercial, large format printers. They also are not cheap, but
since they come in bulk, they are usually much less expensive to use
than the OM products. Most have not been tested by Wilhelm. Also Kodak
has adopted a different business model for their printers. Rather than
sell the printer at a loss and charge high prices for the ink, they
sell both at a reasonable mark-up. Tests by Quality Logic (sponsored
by Kodak) claim significant savings using the Kodak consumables, and
WIR says that print lifetime from their products are best in
class.

 

[TJ]

Archival CD and DVD's are available with a 80-100 year life span, that is what
I would use..

The media might last that long, but will there still be equipment around
that can read them in 100 years? I doubt it. If you had some of those
cylinders that Edison used in his original phonograph, could you play
them? How about a vinyl LP? An 8-inch floppy? Or even a 5-inch floppy?

TJ

 

[Robert Montgomery]

1. How is archival defined? This obviously involves paper
and storage methods as well as ink and years.
2. What are you now using for ink and paper? What cost
3. If we know the technical characters of the ink and paper
we might then know whether you are already saving as
much as you can.

I'm printing my color catalogs on Epson Photo Quality paper, using my
Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer.

I'm printing some of my color, archival art prints on Epson Velvet Fine
Art paper, again using my Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer. Those art
prints are supposed to last for over six decades without fading when
framed and displayed under glass, and I consider that to be archival.

Robert

 

[Robert Montgomery]

If you want top image quality your printer is going to use
appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is.
Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said
then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in
Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and
storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very
public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS.
Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival",
is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a
document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the
longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as
pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to
test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall
apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So
archival is not a great term.
One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of
the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink
for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the
printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges.
It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user.
17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models.
I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work,
I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party
inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas.

Tom

Thanks, Tom, etcetera.

Robert

 

[measekite]

Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do. Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

That is bullshit. The fly by nite ink vendors some of whom lurk and post
in this ng say this type of thing. They are the ones that need to be
watched and exposed.

 

[measekite]

There are some very good non-OM inks out there, but they tend to be
for commercial, large format printers. They also are not cheap,

like Pantone and that costs as much or more than Epson ink.

but
since they come in bulk, they are usually much less expensive to use
than the OM products. Most have not been tested by Wilhelm. Also Kodak
has adopted a different business model for their printers.

The Kodak printers are not that good. Basically you have Epson, Canon
and HP for printing phtotos.

 

[TJ]

Thanks, Tom, etcetera.

Robert

All our verbal gobbledygook boils down to a single point: Given your
requirements, we don't know of any way for you to save on ink costs,
other than finding somewhere to buy genuine Epson ink that's cheaper
than where you shop now. Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as
yours, so for us aftermarket ink is acceptable. I have a few prints that
were printed using aftermarket ink that have been displayed inside,
under glass, and I haven't noticed any fading yet. However, it hasn't
been one decade yet, let alone the six you require. Wilhelm's
accelerated tests have merit, but they extrapolate longevity from tests
under extreme conditions. That's all they CAN do. They can't give a true
picture of longevity under lower exposures, which could be different.
Nobody really knows, because nobody has had a chance to expose inkjet
prints to 100 years of real-world conditions. Wilhelm can make a good
educated estimate, but they don't KNOW. The same is true for the rest of
us.

We just don't know.

TJ

 

[tomm42]

Sure this is well known about Wilhelm, but still his firm is the only
outside firm that has publishable results. He receives money from
clients that of course include HP and Epson, he has to be paid to stay
in business. Canon it is said feels he charges too much for something
they do. But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results. There is a new group Annenburg (sp) Testing that is just
getting going, want to use a subscription model, test 3rd party as
well as commercial ink. Their current results are very scientific and
as a photographer not a scientist I find them a little dense. This is
how Wilhelm started his early test included 3rd party products. It is
encouraging that someone else is starting to do this, it is a
thankless job. I don't think Wilhelm is a shill at all but some who
needs funding to keep his work going.

Tom

 

[PhotoSci]

But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results.

Kodak's test conditions are based on over a quarter century of data
gathered in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed
technical journals. Those real-world measurements include seasonality
effects, full spectrophotometric analysis and real-time recording of
light, humidity, temperature and ozone. Consult the "Journal of
Imaging Science" for details. If others choose to use different
conditions, I believe they should point to refereed and journal-
published data to support their positions.