Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Paper Cost: Rolls vs. Sheet  (Read 2742 times)
llama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72



WWW
« on: December 12, 2006, 04:05:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'm pondering my first printer purchase and have been trying to do the cost accounting between the B9180 at the low-end, the 3800 in the mid-range, and the iPF5000 at the top end.

While the discussion on ink costs seems to clearly favour the iPF5000, I'm having harder time with the paper argument.  www.shadesofpaper.com shows roll paper not being much cheaper than sheets.  For example:

Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308
640267-50I (17" x 22"- 50 Sheet Box)  $248.70  =  1.33 cents per sq. inch
10643273 (17 " x 39 Roll)  $106.80  =  1.34 cents per sq. inch

A similar result is found for Photo Rag Satin 310.

Obviously, this is making wonder whether it is worthwhile to bother with roll paper at all.

Can anyone let me know whether the pricing above is an anomaly or if it is normal?

Thanks!
Logged

dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2006, 04:09:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the main argument for rolls is the convenience, but you also have to factor in the inconvenience of having to flatten the damn things after printing.

- DL
« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 04:09:41 PM by dlashier » Logged

Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2006, 04:18:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Roll paper is meaningful if you print 16x24"  (or longer) rather than 16x20". Many papers are available in 17x22, so are too short for my needs.

Also, borderless printing is handled differently on different printers, but if one wants largest borderless prints on the iPF 5000, then roll stock will be needed.

--
Dale
Logged

Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2006, 04:18:09 PM »
ReplyReply

And then there's the inconvenience of trying to do a 16x24 on a 17x22 sheet...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
llama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2006, 04:24:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone.

I don't see myself going that large so the roll holder may not be key for me.

I don't know where I got the impression that rolls also saved $.

Thanks again.
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2006, 04:35:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks everyone.

I don't see myself going that large so the roll holder may not be key for me.

I don't know where I got the impression that rolls also saved $.

Thanks again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like the flexibilty of picking a paper size that fits my print size rather than trying to save a bunch of odd sized ends from roll prints.  It may cost a bit more, but it's worth the savings in hassel.
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2006, 09:26:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at a range of papers, and it seems like the manufacturer - supplied papers in hundred foot rolls are MUCH cheaper than the same paper in sheets (half the cost or less). Art paper in 39 foot rolls is basically the same price as the same paper in sheets. It seems like 17 inch roll paper is often priced at $100/roll, plus or minus, regardless of roll length! Sheet paper is more reliably priced by the square inch, so papers that come on long rolls see enormous savings.


                                        -Dan
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad