Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IPF5000 for amature hobbyist printing  (Read 12933 times)
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« on: December 04, 2006, 08:32:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, my name is Tony.  This might be a long story but please read on.  I bought my 1st p&s digital camera in 2002 and not to far after that I bought an Epson Photo 890 printer.  Late in 2002 I decided to make calendars (year 2003) for gifts for relatives and made some using OEM ink.  That ended up being very expensive (to me) with ink running approx. $1 for an 8x10.  With the paper, ink, binding I think they ran between $20 and $25 per calendar.  Started reserching and found out about CIS systems.  Bought a CIS system for the printer and the following year (2004) the price for calendars dropped because ink went from $1 per page to around 5 cents per page.  I also enjoyed printing more because the cost was so much less.  I would print photo's just to see how they looked.  That got me through the year 2005.  I then bought a Canon i960 and instead of CIS just used refillable cartridges.  Ink costs were still low enough for me to continue enjoying printing.  Because the i960 was so much faster than the Epson the Epson was no longer used and finally the clogs were not clearable and was tossed  .  I have used the Canon i960 for 2006 calendars and when starting the 2007 calendars I started having printhead clogging issues.  I bought a Canon ip6000d as a backup just in time (because it used the same ink cartridges) and used that printer for the 2007 year calendars.  This year I have done approx 40 calendars with 13 photo's each. with print issues and reprints I have printed over 600 8x10's.

So, now I started reading about this Canon IPF5000 printer and it seems that ink costs are very low (close to my refillable dye ink system).  It would be nice to have pictures that relatives could pull off the calendar and hang/frame if they want but the dye ink photo's would fade during the month hanging.

Because of the rebate going on it peaked my interest about getting this printer.  I would not think about a 13" wide format printer because of ink costs.

Anyways, thanks for reading on my printing life and now I have a few questions.

First I use inexpensive paper (Kirkland professional glossy paper 8.5" x 11") to keep calendar costs down.

1-Has anyone used the inexpensive papers on there IPF5000 with good results?

The way I print (at this time) it might take years before all cartridges need replaced for the 1st time (according to LL update on ink usage)

2-Does there seem to be an in printer shelf life for pigment inks?

3-What is the maintenance cartridge for?

Well, thats it for now.  If I get the printer I will post about my experiences of going from a small format home printer to a much larger format and much different user interface.
Oh, for now I use Qimage to print.  I also now have an 8mp DSLR.  I know this printer is much more than I need at the time but maybe I will grow into it and start printing larger.  Again, at this time I am looking at this printer for low cost OEM pigment ink use on lesser grade paper than most of you.

Tony B.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2006, 09:43:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Your story is pretty typical for any hobbyist in any discipline. You get a cheap gadget thinking it'll do just fine. When you realize it won't, you get a better one but still chimp on spending money. This repeats until you've spent twice the money buying the end-all printer in the first place would've cost.

If it's any consolation I'm in the same boat (from Pixma ip3000 to i9900 and now considering the ipf5000).
Logged

Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2006, 10:01:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Feppe, I have been completely satisfied with the route I have taken up till now.  The printers I have used have treated me well.  At this time I am just looking into the low ink cost (pigment OEM) of a printer like this.  I do not really need the ability to print 17" wide prints at this time but I will not buy a 13" printer because of ink costs, using OEM pigment inks.
I know it seems kind of ridiculous to buy a $1500 printer to save money on ink but to me its the only way to go if you want to stick with OEM inks.

Did you use OEM ink with your i9900?  Because for me to enjoy printing I could not use OEM ink on a consumer printer because of costs.


Another question that people can guess at.  Any idea on printer life?  Will it last 5+ years.  I know its a new model but how long have people had there large format Epsons/Canons that are still running good.

Tony B.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2006, 10:13:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Tony B.,

I have several printers including the iPF5000. I also have a Canon i9900 (had two until just recently).

The iPF5000 is a wonderful printer IMO, in spite of the fact that the software and UI feels "rushed to market". I don't regret buying it in anyway, though I've not had it for long. The prints are wonderful if one takes steps to learn what to feed this printer.

All that being said, I would question the choice of a pigment ink printer for calendars, such as the iPF5000 or any number of others, because pigment inks tend to mar much more easily than dye based inks. This is particularly true in satin and gloss finished papers IMO.

I make note cards on the Canon i9900 and they are very durable. In contrast, I pulled a test print which was printed on the iPF5000 out from under a box of 11x17 paper and it scratched noticeably across the surface. The box on top was perhaps half full. I was being lazy and the print was a "throw away" anyway, but this is just an example of how pigment inks differ. Prints done on the i9900 can be drug out from this sort of thing and not show marks at all. Dye based inks tend to be more durable against scuffs and scratches.

I'm not saying that the Canon iPF5000 would be a bad choice, just suggesting a bit of caution regarding durability of pigment inks if you think that's an issue with your calendars. This might be especially important if one uses third party (non-Canon) papers.

I think I have some Kirkland paper around here and can make a print for the purpose of abusing it a bit, in order to see if it's an issue. But perhaps durability of the surface isn't really an issue and I'm over thinking things.

--
Dale
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2006, 10:19:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using Canon inks as my volume is quite low. I think I'll stick with them as I don't want to waste time fiddling with profiles. Besides, if my printing volume goes up drastically that will be the final impetus to get the ipf5000.
Logged

Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2006, 11:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Dale, thank for the information, I did not realize that the prints were not as durable.  I could guess that on matte paper they might be?  I would appreciate it if you would try a print using the Kirkland paper.  Also, if you do let me know if it is the made in USA or made in Switzerland paper.
I might have to take some paper to Pictureline or Inkjetart and see if they will print a couple samples off for me.

Also what do you mean by "The prints are wonderful if one takes steps to learn what to feed this printer."?  Do you mean the paper or the paper settings.

Thanks for your reply

Tony B.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2006, 11:51:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dale, thank for the information, I did not realize that the prints were not as durable.  I could guess that on matte paper they might be?  I would appreciate it if you would try a print using the Kirkland paper.  Also, if you do let me know if it is the made in USA or made in Switzerland paper.
I might have to take some paper to Pictureline or Inkjetart and see if they will print a couple samples off for me.

Also what do you mean by "The prints are wonderful if one takes steps to learn what to feed this printer."?  Do you mean the paper or the paper settings.

Thanks for your reply

Tony B.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Tony,

I'll be glad to run a print on the Kirkland paper and give it the ol' scratch and bend test.  You should keep it mind that I don't intend to use this paper with the iPF5000 and won't know the exact best paper settings for the paper. I'll also scratch a Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy page to see how it compares. The box of Kirkland paper that I have is marked "Made in Switzerland".

If you are close to Pictureline or IJA you may benefit from seeing the printer and it's process in person as part of your decision process. I bought my machine from Ken at Pictureline, but I looked at the printer's physical attributes at the Canon Service Center in Bangkok before ordering it.

In my comment:  "The prints are wonderful if one takes steps to learn what to feed this printer" I meant that printer really makes beautiful prints if one takes the time to work in a color-managed workflow, choosing good profiles, etc, and otherwise preparing the files in the best ways appropriate for the desired outcome. I should also add that this printer will also produce "good" prints without the meticulous preparation described. One just needs to find the paper settings that work for the media. Obviously, these qualitative terms are subjective, but I was impressed with the first couple of prints off of my machine (on Canon paper) with which I did no special prep to the files Ė just exported to the plug-in and printed.

Dale
Logged

Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2006, 12:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I printed a few prints using the Kirkland Professional Glossy paper at the request of Tony B. and I'd like to clarify, vis-a-vis my early post regarding "scratchability". While not as durable as a dye-based ink print, the prints on the Kirkland (rumored to be an Ilford paper) is more durable than some of the other papers I had tried in the iPF5000.

So far, among the papers that I have on hand, the paper most sensitive to mars and scratches is the Red River Polar Satin. RR UltraPro Satin and Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl are better. As is IJA Micro Ceramic Luster and Canon's PP Plus Glossy. All of these are softer than images printed on the Canon i9900 (to be expected), though the RR Polar Satin is softest in my comparison. I didn't "scratch and gouge" at any other papers as the OP requested info re. the Kirkland paper as an economical glossy paper.

Tony, you may find the results durable enough for your needs if you choose to use the 5000 with the Kirkland paper.

I'll mail these test prints to you as promised in the PM.

Dale
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 12:11:33 AM by DFAllyn » Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2006, 10:34:49 AM »
ReplyReply

You might consider the HP9180. I own an iPF5000 but spent this weekend helping my brother set up a 9180. because of the smaller size, lower initial cost, borderless printing and your typical use I would give it consideration.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2006, 02:12:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Marc, the problem with the 9180 is the same with the Epson 2400 and Canon pro9000 (and most likely the pro9500) is the ink costs would be to much for me.  I would buy the larger printer because it would bring down the ink costs.  I am waiting for the prints from Dale to see how they look.
Thanks for the information though.  Depending on the prints my decision might change towards the i9900 because I can use the inks I am using now, but lose the fade resistance of the Pigment printers.

Dale, if you see this, what numbers did the print log give you for ink usage when you printed on the kirkland paper (guessing 8x10 on the 8.5x11 page).

Thanks everyone so far.  It is still a very hard decision because I am not using a printer to make money with.  Maybe if I get the IPF5000, or another 17" wide or larger printer I might have to start thinking about it.

Tony B.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2006, 02:33:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dale, if you see this, what numbers did the print log give you for ink usage when you printed on the kirkland paper (guessing 8x10 on the 8.5x11 page).

Tony B.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tony,

Everything is covered up again (with drop cloths) as I get back to some remodel work, so I can't really conveniently get it right now. I can tell you that this printer is pretty frugal.

I still would not print calendar photos on it because of handling issues, but that's just me. I just drug the back of my index fingernail across a print that I did yesterday (on the Kirkland paper I did for you) and it left deep streak and an accumulation of ink at the end. Skin side of fingers aren't bad, it's the stuff with a bit of hardness to them that leaves obvious marks. Maybe I'm being picky, but just felt I should mention this characteristic of pigment inks and smooth papers.

I'll send some for you to pick at after they're fully dry.

Dale
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006, 03:24:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Marc, the problem with the 9180 is the same with the Epson 2400 and Canon pro9000 (and most likely the pro9500) is the ink costs would be to much for me.  I would buy the larger printer because it would bring down the ink costs.  I am waiting for the prints from Dale to see how they look.
Thanks for the information though.  Depending on the prints my decision might change towards the i9900 because I can use the inks I am using now, but lose the fade resistance of the Pigment printers.

Dale, if you see this, what numbers did the print log give you for ink usage when you printed on the kirkland paper (guessing 8x10 on the 8.5x11 page).

Thanks everyone so far.  It is still a very hard decision because I am not using a printer to make money with.  Maybe if I get the IPF5000, or another 17" wide or larger printer I might have to start thinking about it.

Tony B.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might be supprised with the more ink colors you have the less ink per print they use. So if the cartriges last for 6 months with your use or say one season of calendars, in the HP (at a reasonable price) is it worth having the iPF5000 inks sitting in your printer for several years? Also the iPF 5000 is 3 times the size of the HP! dont get me wrong I love my iPF 5000.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2006, 06:18:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Marc, that has been one of my concerns about how long the ink would be in the printer (also printer life-can it go 5+years).  I recently started going to local photo clubs (ok once so far) seeing if anyone would be interested in being able to have larger prints done for not much more than ink/paper costs (to keep my printer running more often).  None of my friends are into photography or printing as much as I am.
I thought I mentioned in my first post about the cost I would have had if using OEM Canon BCI-6 on my printing this past month or so.  I would guess I would have spent more than $1000 on BCI-6 cartridges printing the 600+ 8x10's that I have done.  Because of the refilling I do I have spent just over $100 for supplies.
I have heard that the extra colors in printers (red/green/etc) do not get used as much as the others and would probably not add much to the amount spent on ink.
I would guess that the Epson 2400, Canon pro9000/9500 and hp 9180 would all be close in ink costs and be the same or more than the BCI-6 ink because the cartridges cost is more.  Looking at my refilling kit it I have nine 4 oz bottles if ink (125ml)  I will go through 8 1/2 of them (I think I will have 1/2 bottle of yellow left)
That will basically be 8x130 (1040ml) or approx $600 if IPF5000 ink (that is if the IPF uses the same amount of ink per print as the Canon i960/ip6000d)

   OK, that number ($600) if even close to proper calculation might even be to much for me.  Will be interesting to see ink usage numbers from the prints Dale did.
But, still a lot less than the smaller format printers using OEM inks.

I am not worried about the space needed for the printer, I have a room set up at my house for my printing that would fit the bigger printers.
My biggest concerns is the low print usage from January-October, how long ink will last in the printer and how long the printer will last before a major repair (guessing print head issues first).

Thanks everyone for there input so far

Tony B.

I believe with ink costs I will either get Canon IPF5000 (or Epson 3800) if I want to go with pigment inks or I might have to start my larger printing with the Canon i9900 with refillable cartridges.


Quote
You might be supprised with the more ink colors you have the less ink per print they use. So if the cartriges last for 6 months with your use or say one season of calendars, in the HP (at a reasonable price) is it worth having the iPF5000 inks sitting in your printer for several years? Also the iPF 5000 is 3 times the size of the HP! dont get me wrong I love my iPF 5000.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2006, 09:36:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I am going crazy trying to figure out ink costs.

My quick calculation was based on my ink usage of my canon dye based printers (ip6000d and i960).  I used 950 ml of ink printing 600 8x10's.
If I figured the IPF5000 would use the same 950 ml it would cost $549.
all figures approximate.

Now, if I figure from Luminous Landscapes 6 month update I get completely
different numbers.

First on 75% coverage of 11x17 averaging .4 ml of ink I came up with $.0016 per sq. inch

2nd on 80% coverage of 17x22 that was using 1.2 ml of ink I came up with $.002 per sq. inch

Both of these numbers are close

Now if I use my 600 8x10's that is 48000 sq. inches using the LL numbers I get $77 using the 11x17 numbers and $96 using the 17x22 numbers.

Is there that much different in ink usage between a pigment ink printer and a dye based printer

or is the difference in the paper since I print on glossy papers and I would guess that LL uses fine art papers.

or does Marc's mentioning of more ink colors using less ink also apply to this.

Any ideas?

Tony B.
Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2006, 10:03:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I do not have the details to quantify or reference this -
I believe matte papers and glossy papers ink use will be different - and of course over time/volume any "small" difference will add up. And this does not even touch upon personal differences of saturation and on and on...
I expect the best we will come with is broad range of ink use for particular paper types - which will still be a useful thing. I go back and forth a lot between matte and glossy so not having yet develd into the report part of the printer software, I am not yet aware of how easy or hard analyzing the ink use maybe. Thanks to all those that are analyzing! I will get to it.
Gary

Quote
I am going crazy trying to figure out ink costs.

My quick calculation was based on my ink usage of my canon dye based printers (ip6000d and i960).  I used 950 ml of ink printing 600 8x10's.
If I figured the IPF5000 would use the same 950 ml it would cost $549.
all figures approximate.

Now, if I figure from Luminous Landscapes 6 month update I get completely
different numbers.

First on 75% coverage of 11x17 averaging .4 ml of ink I came up with $.0016 per sq. inch

2nd on 80% coverage of 17x22 that was using 1.2 ml of ink I came up with $.002 per sq. inch

Both of these numbers are close

Now if I use my 600 8x10's that is 48000 sq. inches using the LL numbers I get $77 using the 11x17 numbers and $96 using the 17x22 numbers.

Is there that much different in ink usage between a pigment ink printer and a dye based printer

or is the difference in the paper since I print on glossy papers and I would guess that LL uses fine art papers.

or does Marc's mentioning of more ink colors using less ink also apply to this.

Any ideas?

Tony B.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Sam25
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2006, 10:44:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am going crazy trying to figure out ink costs.

My quick calculation was based on my ink usage of my canon dye based printers (ip6000d and i960).  I used 950 ml of ink printing 600 8x10's.
If I figured the IPF5000 would use the same 950 ml it would cost $549.
all figures approximate.

Now, if I figure from Luminous Landscapes 6 month update I get completely
different numbers.

First on 75% coverage of 11x17 averaging .4 ml of ink I came up with $.0016 per sq. inch

2nd on 80% coverage of 17x22 that was using 1.2 ml of ink I came up with $.002 per sq. inch

Both of these numbers are close

Now if I use my 600 8x10's that is 48000 sq. inches using the LL numbers I get $77 using the 11x17 numbers and $96 using the 17x22 numbers.

Is there that much different in ink usage between a pigment ink printer and a dye based printer

or is the difference in the paper since I print on glossy papers and I would guess that LL uses fine art papers.

or does Marc's mentioning of more ink colors using less ink also apply to this.

Any ideas?

Tony B.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tony,

I recently received the ipf5000, and I have researched the costs involved to operate this printer. Cost was not my primary concern, quality was.

That said, itís still looks pretty economic to operate. While there are a lot of variables involved I have used the ink consumption data from Red River, and my own print logs to create an Excel print cost analysis sheet.

I believe that while my numbers are admittedly conservative they will be closer to the real world than some theoretical number. I have added 10% waste factor for ink, and roll paper. Remember there are head cleaning routines, and operator errors, etc.

I calculate an 8X10 on Ilford Classic smooth would nun about $1.20 each. This is based on a paper cost of $0.70 per 8.5 X 11 sheet and ink costs of $0.50. I calculate ink costs to be $0.0063 per square inch.

If you use roll paper you can get two prints per linear foot and reduce your costs to about $0.90 per 8 X 10 print.

Donít forget to amortize the cost of the printer. This could range from several dollars per print to well under a dollar per print based on volume.

Also you may find a need for a good rotary trimmer to trim those 8 X 10ís to the exact size. Again, more $$

Based on this, if we use $2000 for the cost of the printer, and amortize over two years, with an estimated 1200 prints per year for those two years. Your cost per 8 X 10 looks more like $1.73 each. The first year cost will be more like $2.56 each.

Where the large format printers come into their own is with the larger prints. Outside labs will run about $18.00 for a 16 X 24 on a standard satin / gloss paper. I calculate my cost at $4.40 without equipment amortization. Now your paying for the printer.

I hope this gives you some food for thought.

Sam
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2006, 11:42:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That said, itís still looks pretty economic to operate. While there are a lot of variables involved I have used the ink consumption data from Red River, and my own print logs to create an Excel print cost analysis sheet.

I believe that while my numbers are admittedly conservative they will be closer to the real world than some theoretical number. I have added 10% waste factor for ink, and roll paper. Remember there are head cleaning routines, and operator errors, etc.

I calculate an 8X10 on Ilford Classic smooth would nun about $1.20 each. This is based on a paper cost of $0.70 per 8.5 X 11 sheet and ink costs of $0.50. I calculate ink costs to be $0.0063 per square inch.

These cost estimates seem to vary all over the map.   From the very limited printing I have done (so far :-), I would estimate ink costs at about 1-1.2 ml per square foot.  At 58 cents per ml of ink, this would be 58-68 cents per square foot.  Add 10% and you have 64-75 cents per square foot.  Again, this is for ink only.  An 8X10 would then run 35-43 cents for ink only.  

Michael Reichmann had a MUCH lower figure, about half of my figures.  Don't know where he got it.  I would be interested to see your spreadsheet and detailed assumptions, for possible addition to the Wiki.

--John
Logged
Sam25
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2006, 12:19:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These cost estimates seem to vary all over the map.   From the very limited printing I have done (so far :-), I would estimate ink costs at about 1-1.2 ml per square foot.  At 58 cents per ml of ink, this would be 58-68 cents per square foot.  Add 10% and you have 64-75 cents per square foot.  Again, this is for ink only.  An 8X10 would then run 35-43 cents for ink only. 

Michael Reichmann had a MUCH lower figure, about half of my figures.  Don't know where he got it.  I would be interested to see your spreadsheet and detailed assumptions, for possible addition to the Wiki.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,

Thanks for your reply. My numbers and your numbers are not that far off. Please note my cost sheet is designed for my use, and is intended to be conservative. While not totally worst case, these are cost figures that I can rely on, for low production custom printing.

If I use your high-end figure of $0.75 per square foot for ink only. (I think some of the differences might be based on highest quality print, 12 pass, versus lowest, 6 pass printing), That would be $0.41 per 8 X 10. (8í X 10Ē equals 0.55 square feet). At $0.75 per sq ft multiplied by .55 would give us $0.42. If I add 10% I am at about $0.46 for ink. Add in the paper and we are at looking at $0.91 per 8X10. Our numbers look the same to me.

I learned a long time ago not to use best-case scenario data. Itís always too low.

I wanted to see how my anticipated real world cost would compare to out sourcing. I have found using my conservative calculations that I can print a 16X24 at home, and my consumables costs will be 70% to 75% lower than outsourcing.

The Excel spreadsheet is no work of art, but if you would like to look at it let me know the best way to send it. E-mail, or should I attach it here?

Sam
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2006, 07:48:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I just made 2 prints on the iPF5000 (glossy photo) both 11 x 17 (image aprox 10 x 15) about a square foot. One almost white .3 ml of ink and one almost black 1.5 ml of ink I'd use an average of .9ml per print so at full retail for the inks I get ink costs at about 55 cents per square foot. About 1700 11 x 17 prints per set of inks.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2006, 08:58:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the information Marc, doing a quick calculation a 10x15 print is 150 sq. inches at 55 cents, that puts cost on this small sample at $.004 per sq. inch (rounded up).  So an 8x10 is 80 sq inches  80x.004=  32 cents. 600 8x10's would be .32x600= $192.

So with this small sample it would be $192 of ink for 600 8x10's.

I know this is very subjective and depends on paper, coverage, photo's being printed and so on.

For my uses I could handle the $192 cost in ink.  I tried calling Inkjetart and they do not have a Canon IPF5000 at there store right now and Pictureline thought they would be to busy because of the holiday for me to go down there with 5-10 pictures (files) and have them printed out 8x10 on letter size Photo Paper Pro so I could get the information off of the status monitor to see how much ink a small run of my photos on similar paper that I print on (same paper setting) would be.  Oh well.

Quick run down (strickly ink costs) for 600 8x10 prints

Low side Luminous Landscape figures $74-$96-----$.002 per sq. inch
middle-Marc's figures ------------------$192---------$.004 per sq. inch
High-Sam's figures----------------------$276---------$.0058 per sq. inch

These are from me calculating what has been posted and there could be errors

Thanks again everyone so far for the information you have provided

Tony B.

Quote
I just made 2 prints on the iPF5000 (glossy photo) both 11 x 17 (image aprox 10 x 15) about a square foot. One almost white .3 ml of ink and one almost black 1.5 ml of ink I'd use an average of .9ml per print so at full retail for the inks I get ink costs at about 55 cents per square foot. About 1700 11 x 17 prints per set of inks.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad