Photo printing - consummable costs

[Peter Balcombe]

Having recently acquired a nice new high resolution digital camera I am
looking for a suitable photo printer to partner it. I am primarily
interested in producing good quality 6 by 4 inch photos, and am not
overconcerned about other printing aspects as I use an ancient but highly
economical HP laserjet 5p for correspondence and also have a HP 840c if I
want to go to colour for letterheads etc (I don't usually bother). I don't
envisage using my photoprinter away from home so portability is not an issue
nor will I usually go above 6x4 although the facility to do so occasionally
would be nice.

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups
and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP but a
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results. He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

Peter

 

[Ron Cohen]

The iP4000 would be a good choice, but so is the iP5000. Try to find the
best online deal since eBay often isn't the least expensive route due to
excessive shipping charges most sellers tack on to the purchase price and
that the rebates have already been used. If you were in the US there are
some great deals available, but I don't know how good the prices are in GB.
I've had several Canon photo printers and my iP4000 is the one I prefer over
the others (s820 & i950). As to the ink issue, the iP4000 is quite frugal
when it comes to ink consumption. The printer isn't prone to clogging with
either OEM or third party ink which is usually very inexpensive. I'm sure
you are aware of the troll on this newsgroup who continually posts
misleading comments about third party inks. He posts false information and
claims that only OEM ink is safe, which is completely untrue. Canon printers
have tended to have a higher print head burnout rate than some Epson's, but
with moderate to even heavy usage I don't think you would see much
difference between Canon or Epson. The Pixma line appears to be more
reliable than previous models so I wouldn't worry too much about what the
salesman said. The main thing is to print something (a web page etc...)
every few days to prevent the printhead from drying out and that will
eliminate 99% of any clogging issues.

 

[Bill]

Having recently acquired a nice new high resolution digital camera I am
looking for a suitable photo printer to partner it. I am primarily
interested in producing good quality 6 by 4 inch photos,

If you want to print a lot of photos, the cost is way too high with OEM
ink (Canon/Epson/HP) and photo paper, costing between $1-2 each, some
even more.

The only cost effective way to print your own photos, is to refill your
ink cartridges and buy third-party photo paper. With those, you can drop
the 4x6 photo costs down to about 20-30 cents each.

And if you buy a decent 4-colour printer, you keep those costs at the
lowest end of the scale because you only need to refill 4 cartridges
instead of 6 or 8.

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups

That is apparently a good model, and it only uses 4 colours, keeping
costs down.

and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP but a
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results.

If you compare per cartridge page yield (not ink volume), you'll find
all of the big three companies have roughly the same ink costs. So yes,
the marketing hype is misleading.

also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker.

That seems to be true - the printheads do not last very long. Canon
printheads are rated up to a claimed 18,000 pages, but I've seen several
printheads that died long before that, as little as 3,000 pages.

However if you refill, replacement cost isn't as bad.

It's all a balancing act.

 

[Bernie]

Having recently acquired a nice new high resolution digital camera I am
looking for a suitable photo printer to partner it. I am primarily
interested in producing good quality 6 by 4 inch photos, and am not
overconcerned about other printing aspects as I use an ancient but highly
economical HP laserjet 5p for correspondence and also have a HP 840c if I
want to go to colour for letterheads etc (I don't usually bother). I don't
envisage using my photoprinter away from home so portability is not an issue
nor will I usually go above 6x4 although the facility to do so occasionally
would be nice.

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups
and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP but a
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results. He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

Peter

You should be very pleased with the Canon printer, and it is very
convenient to make your own prints. You will want to create a profile
for the printer and the paper you are using that will give the best
match between what you see on the screen and what you see in your prints.

But the cheapest way to make 4x6 prints is to do your printing at
Walmart, CVS, etc. You can bring in your files in machine readable
form, or even better, e-mail them in and pick them up. If you e-mail
your files the prints will be waiting for you when you go to pick them
up and cost less than doing it yourself.

Bernie

 

[Hecate]

Having recently acquired a nice new high resolution digital camera I am
looking for a suitable photo printer to partner it. I am primarily
interested in producing good quality 6 by 4 inch photos, and am not
overconcerned about other printing aspects as I use an ancient but highly
economical HP laserjet 5p for correspondence and also have a HP 840c if I
want to go to colour for letterheads etc (I don't usually bother). I don't
envisage using my photoprinter away from home so portability is not an issue
nor will I usually go above 6x4 although the facility to do so occasionally
would be nice.

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups
and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP but a
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results. He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

If all you want is 6x4 and the occasional say 10x8 then don't waste
your money on a photo printer. It's far more economic to get them
printed for you. I don't know what's available in the US (I'm in the
UK) but you can either use local stores, or upload to a Net site.
Either will prove much more wallet friendly than a photo printer for
the size you want.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[John Keiser]

I have an iP8500. It's great but I send most 6X4 snapshots to WalMart. 12
cents each + mailing or 20 cents if I pick up. Can't really beat that price
at home.

 

[Bob Headrick]

If you want to print a lot of photos, the cost is way too high with OEM
ink (Canon/Epson/HP) and photo paper, costing between $1-2 each, some
even more.

Your figures may be correct for 8x10" prints, but the original poster is asking
about 4x6 prints. Several manufacturers offer bundled paper/ink combinations
that offer 4x6 prints at less than $0.30 each. For example, see
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?product_code=Q7932AN#140.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Irwin Peckinloomer]

But the cheapest way to make 4x6 prints is to do your printing at
Walmart, CVS, etc. You can bring in your files in machine readable
form, or even better, e-mail them in and pick them up. If you e-mail
your files the prints will be waiting for you when you go to pick them
up and cost less than doing it yourself.

Bernie

and a lot of people said similar things ....

But, unless my math is really screwed up, it's costing me way less than
10 cents per 4x6 print on my Canon i960 with refill ink & non OEM paper.

Ink costs me 50 cents or less per refill, so thats $3 for all 6
cartridges. Assuming 100 4x6 prints per refill, that's 3 cents per
print. Good quality paper costs 8 cents for letter size, yielding 4x6 at
under 3 cents, so it's 6 cents a print for consumables. (Fry's GC paper
costs only 1.7 cents per 4x6, but results are not as good as OEM, but
still OK for throwaway snapshots) Even if I'm WAY off on my estimate of
number of prints, I'm still under 10 cents.

 

[measekite]

Having recently acquired a nice new high resolution digital camera I am
looking for a suitable photo printer to partner it. I am primarily
interested in producing good quality 6 by 4 inch photos, and am not
overconcerned about other printing aspects as I use an ancient but highly
economical HP laserjet 5p for correspondence and also have a HP 840c if I
want to go to colour for letterheads etc (I don't usually bother). I don't
envisage using my photoprinter away from home so portability is not an issue
nor will I usually go above 6x4 although the facility to do so occasionally
would be nice.

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000

This is about the best value and best choice. Canon ink costs about
$9.00 a cart at costco. Occassionally I have seen on sale and with
rebate the IP4000 for as low as $80.00 and frequently for $100. Canon
will release in August the IP4200, a 1 picoliter update to the IP4000
but noticeably slower with fewer nozzles but with reformulated ink. I
have not read any reviews on this printer. I have owned an IP4000 for
10 months and have not seen any problems with it. I do use Canon OEM
ink and I print on both Canon Photo Paper Pro and Costco/Kirkland Photo
Glossy (may be Ilford) and get great results all the way to 8.5x11.
The Costco paper appears to be almost as good and the Canon paper and
1/7 the cost.

for which I have seen good write ups
and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP but a
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results. He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

I would not recommend eBay. Costco has the best return policy. If you
are not happy just return it. They do not ask you for justifications.
Fry's have consistenly had the printer on and off sale frequently and
many times with exclusive rebate.

 

[measekite]

The iP4000 would be a good choice, but so is the iP5000. Try to find the
best online deal since eBay often isn't the least expensive route due to
excessive shipping charges most sellers tack on to the purchase price and
that the rebates have already been used. If you were in the US there are
some great deals available, but I don't know how good the prices are in GB.
I've had several Canon photo printers and my iP4000 is the one I prefer over
the others (s820 & i950). As to the ink issue, the iP4000 is quite frugal
when it comes to ink consumption. The printer isn't prone to clogging with
either OEM or

but is more prone to clogging with

third party ink which is usually very inexpensive. I'm sure
you are aware of the troll on this newsgroup who continually posts

truthful

comments about third party inks. He posts false information and
claims that only OEM ink is safe, which is completely untrue.

He posts truths about the lousy in vendors who refuse to tell you the
mfg/formulator of the ink you buy in the prefilled carts. People have
had clogging problems and went to another vendor who sold them the same
shit under a different label. It would be nice if there were branded
aftermarket ink sold across all retial channels including Staples,
Office Depot, Costco and online vendors like newegg etc.

Canon printers
have tended to have a higher print head burnout rate than some Epson's, but
with moderate to even heavy usage I don't think you would see much
difference between Canon or Epson.

Epson has a greater clogging problem with any ink including OEM when
used infrequently and guzzles ink doing all sorts of self testing to
keep their permanent ink head from clogging;

 

[measekite]

and a lot of people said similar things ....

But, unless my math is really screwed up, it's costing me way less than
10 cents per 4x6 print on my Canon i960 with refill

PRINTHEAD CLOGGING

ink & non OEM paper.

Ink costs me 50 cents or less per refill, so thats $3 for all 6
cartridges.

FOR NONAME UNBRANDED WHO KNOWS WHAT PRINT CLOGGING INK

Assuming 100 4x6 prints per refill, that's 3 cents per
print. Good quality paper costs 8 cents for letter size, yielding 4x6 at
under 3 cents, so it's 6 cents a print for consumables. (Fry's GC paper
costs only 1.7 cents per 4x6, but results are not as good as OEM, but
still OK for throwaway snapshots) Even if I'm WAY off on my estimate of
number of prints, I'm still under 10 cents.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES THAT CONTINUALLY PROFESS REFILLING CARTS. THE KIDS
WHO DO NOT HAVE A POT TO PISS IN AND THE OLD FARTS WHO HAVE A POT BUT
CANNOT PISS.

 

[Irwin Peckinloomer]

PRINTHEAD CLOGGING


FOR NONAME UNBRANDED WHO KNOWS WHAT PRINT CLOGGING INK

Measly doesn't realize (since he has no experience with bulk ink) that
my refill ink from alotofthings.com is branded (sentient) has a lot #
(which his OEM cartridges do not), and doesn't clog. He is right about
some aftermarket cartridges, but wrong about refill ink. Since the major
savings come from refilling, I see no sense in buying aftermarket
cartridges either.>

THERE ARE TWO TYPES THAT CONTINUALLY PROFESS REFILLING CARTS. THE KIDS
WHO DO NOT HAVE A POT TO PISS IN AND THE OLD FARTS WHO HAVE A POT BUT
CANNOT PISS.

I can't comment on this, since I don't have the detailed demographic
info that Measly must have to make that statement. I refill because I
don't like to waste money. Measly has stated that he doesn't need to
save money, IMHOP this makes him the biggest kind of fool I can imagine.

 

[measekite]

Measly doesn't realize (since he has no experience with bulk ink) that
my refill ink from .com is branded (sentient) has a lot #
(which his OEM cartridges do not), and doesn't clog. He is right about
some aftermarket cartridges




I can't comment on this, since I don't have the detailed demographic
info that Measly must have to make that statement. I refill because I
don't like to waste money. Measly has stated that he doesn't need to
save money, IMHOP this makes him the biggest kind of fool I can imagine.

 

[zakezuke]

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups

and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP buta
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results.He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

Why where ever you like. While I disagree with many of the PCWorlds
statements, I must disclose the fact that the Canon printers including
the ip4000 use thermal bubble jet technology... so there is some truth
to it running hotter as it uses heat to get the medium out of the
printhead and onto the paper. It *might* also be true that a canon
printhead might have a shorter life than piezo under ideal conditions.
This wasn't the reason I picked an epson r200 my first time around for
photo/cd printer. Conditions are not always ideal as if that gasket
gets knocked out of place your head will clog. In my experence so far
i've enjoyed better luck from the ip3000 and mp760 than the Epson r200,
but I must confess i've not had them long enough to judge accuracy...
the epson r200 failed after 6 months.

I can't actually speak for the "process" wasting ink, I can speak
directly for the epsons wasting ink. Those suckers spew much ink in
the cleaning process. When you route a tube from the rear of the unit
to a waste cup you can see it's spewing mililiters of ink on cartrages
that are only 13ml a piece.

While I found the epson's output to be far more spot on as far as color
rendering to the canon, and while I find the canon inks to be less
lightfast than the epsons... at present i'm sticking with the canon as
far as general purpose, cd printing, and photo printing. The way I
see it is this... while there is a good technical reason why the canon
can fail with normal use after 20,000 pages or so about 50/50 color
various sizes and normal text printing... in the grand scheme of things
this is a whole lot better than a printhead that buggers up if you look
at it funny. Not really a big issue if you are a light user who owns a
laser for the bulk of your printing.

As far as the cost... i've been told in the UK one might expect to
spend as much as £20 for an a3 print. I don't know the cost of your
a6 prints nor 4x6 but keep in mind that on the Canon you might expect
as many as 100-150 4x6 prints from a full set of bci-6 inks... or 55 if
you are printing at 100% yield CMYK based on the 280p @ 5% yield
(assuming memory serves me correctly)... i.e. photographs of gothic
churches at night. Work out the math based on what you spend and
see if home printing is still your bag.

 

[zakezuke]

I was thinking of a Canon PixMA IP4000 for which I have seen good write ups

and because Canon cartridges look noticeably cheaper than Epson or HP buta
guy at PCWorld has said this is misleading because Canon uses a different
print process to Epson which wastes less ink and produces better results.He
also said that because Canon printers run hotter they wear quicker. I have a
prejudice against Epson because I used to have a 600 model which was forever
blocking (finally apparently irretrievably) unless used daily.

Am I being sold a tale or not? When I buy it will probably be on Ebay in any
case.

Why where ever you like. While I disagree with many of the PCWorlds
statements, I must disclose the fact that the Canon printers including
the ip4000 use thermal bubble jet technology... so there is some truth
to it running hotter as it uses heat to get the medium out of the
printhead and onto the paper. It *might* also be true that a canon
printhead might have a shorter life than piezo under ideal conditions.
This wasn't the reason I picked an epson r200 my first time around for
photo/cd printer. Conditions are not always ideal as if that gasket
gets knocked out of place your head will clog. In my experence so far
i've enjoyed better luck from the ip3000 and mp760 than the Epson r200,
but I must confess i've not had them long enough to judge accuracy...
the epson r200 failed after 6 months.

I can't actually speak for the "process" wasting ink, I can speak
directly for the epsons wasting ink. Those suckers spew much ink in
the cleaning process. When you route a tube from the rear of the unit
to a waste cup you can see it's spewing mililiters of ink on cartrages
that are only 13ml a piece.

While I found the epson's output to be far more spot on as far as color
rendering to the canon, and while I find the canon inks to be less
lightfast than the epsons... at present i'm sticking with the canon as
far as general purpose, cd printing, and photo printing. The way I
see it is this... while there is a good technical reason why the canon
can fail with normal use after 20,000 pages or so about 50/50 color
various sizes and normal text printing... in the grand scheme of things
this is a whole lot better than a printhead that buggers up if you look
at it funny. Not really a big issue if you are a light user who owns a
laser for the bulk of your printing.

As far as the cost... i've been told in the UK one might expect to
spend as much as £20 for an a3 print. I don't know the cost of your
a6 prints nor 4x6 but keep in mind that on the Canon you might expect
as many as 100-150 4x6 prints from a full set of bci-6 inks... or 55 if
you are printing at 100% yield CMYK based on the 280p @ 5% yield
(assuming memory serves me correctly)... i.e. photographs of gothic
churches at night. Work out the math based on what you spend and
see if home printing is still your bag.

 

[zakezuke]

This is about the best value and best choice. Canon ink costs about

$9.00 a cart at costco. Occassionally I have seen on sale and with
rebate the IP4000 for as low as $80.00 and frequently for $100. Canon
will release in August the IP4200, a 1 picoliter update to the IP4000
but noticeably slower with fewer nozzles but with reformulated ink.
have not read any reviews on this printer. I have owned an IP4000 for
10 months and have not seen any problems with it. I do use Canon OEM
ink and I print on both Canon Photo Paper Pro and Costco/Kirkland Photo
Glossy (may be Ilford) and get great results all the way to 8.5x11.
The Costco paper appears to be almost as good and the Canon paper and
1/7 the cost.

Unless i'm mistaken, the person is in the UK. NTL address that sort of
thing.

Rule of thumb: "u after o except in America". Not a dead give away
but should give you cause to look at the orgin of the post to see if
they share a hemisphere with you.

While they do have costcos there... their prices for canon printers are
higher... I suspect due to the CD printing license fee and also they
get those nifty auto switching 100v-240v 50/60hz power supplies in
their printers. But i'm pretty sure the ip4200 isn't going to be sold
in the UK, not yet anyway. Keep in mind also that the cost of the new
ink for the ip4200 is going to be higher due in part to chips being
added, near as i'm aware bci-6 ink isn't an option. The last time I
looked they were as spendy as the Epson Ultra-chrome Pigmented inks.

But talking letter size and US prices is not helpful.

 

[measekite]

Why where ever you like. While I disagree with many of the PCWorlds
statements, I must disclose the fact that the Canon printers including
the ip4000 use thermal bubble jet technology... so there is some truth
to it running hotter as it uses heat to get the medium out of the
printhead and onto the paper. It *might* also be true that a canon
printhead might have a shorter life than piezo under ideal conditions.
This wasn't the reason I picked an epson r200 my first time around for
photo/cd printer. Conditions are not always ideal as if that gasket
gets knocked out of place your head will clog. In my experence so far
i've enjoyed better luck from the ip3000 and mp760 than the Epson r200,
but I must confess i've not had them long enough to judge accuracy...
the epson r200 failed after 6 months.

MY FRIEND TOLD ME THAT THE CANON IP4000 DOES PRODUCE SOMEWHAT BETTER
PHOTO RESULTS THAN THE EPSON R300. HE HAS AN EPSON R300. THIS IS HIS
3RD EPSON R300 ALL REPLACE UNDER THE WARRANTY. THE CD TRAY FAILED. THE
PRIMARY CRITERIA HE USED WHEN MAKING THE DECISION WAS THE ABILITY TO
PRINT CD/DVDs.

 

[mpx]

Forget about 6x4 prints. They are definietly too small, and have wrong
aspect ratio for digital camera (3:2 instead of 4:3). For the price of an
inkjet 6"x4" print using OEM supplies I get a 15x20 photolab print at 340
dpi on Kodak Royal material. This size definietly looks better, especially
for landscape photography, than those small prints. 6"x4" is just enough for
single object or a few objects, like one or few faces, a dog, or a child
photograph.

Besides, there are no longevity problems for lab photos. In inkjet world
Canons print quickly fading photos, HP photos on swellable polymer paper are
not waterproof, so a single drop of water can destroy your expansive print.
Epson photos made with pigment colorant ink last longer than these from
photolab, but the printer heads have a tendency to clog.

If you want using inkjet anyway I advice you to buy A4/Letter photo paper in
large packs and print 1 or 2 photos on each (or 4 13.3 x 10cm photos on
single A4 page). Buying larger paper and cutting it is cheaper than using
precut paper.

Also buying an inkjet printers check for driver availability. Canon provides
neither Windows 64 bit drivers, nor linux drivers, so you may end with
unusable printer after computer uprgade or OS change. Epson has both Windows
64 bit drivers and linux drivers for some models, hp has good linux drivers,
and plans (but doesn't deliver yet) to release Windows 64 bit drivers.

BTW. I was surprised to learn how cheap silver-halide paper is. They sell it
in rolls like 80m x 20cm for $25. Inkjet paper price is a rip-off.