epson 4900 ready to order first inkset....?

[BrianWJH]

Kidding? How credible? Can you share access to that article? Would be fun to see.

I think this is the article mentioned:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/st_whatsinside_inkjet/

Brian.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Brian. OK, that's for HP dye-based inkset #22, and there's nothing in the article about how they derived these findings. Nevertheless.....when we're talking Epson 4900 or 3880 or equivalent Canon models, we're talking pigment inks. There's ink and there's ink. We don't know what the composition of Epson's Ultrachrome HDR inkset is, but whatever it is, there is a lot more than the ingredients that go into the price. These compounds need to be developed and tested. That requires people and laboratories and time. Then there is the manufacturing and packaging costs, to a consistent and high quality standard, so again probably lots of testing; then the manufacturer is entitled to some rate of return on its invested equity; then there is transportation, marketing, advertising, wholesalers' margins and retailers' margin, plus various taxes along the way. Note, I am not trying to defend any particular pricing practice - just saying there's a whole lot more going into the cost than the raw materials, whatever the percentage water content, and we consumers must pay for all that. It may also be true that the price of the ink subsidizes the up-front cost of the printers (the razor blade and carrier-provided cellphone business models), and this perhaps explains why 3rd party inks can be a lot cheaper than OEM inks - the 3rd party guys don't design, manufacture, market and warranty printers that need to be marketed at attractive enough prices for a large enough body of consumers to buy-in.

[Peter McLennan]

Kidding?

Not kidding.  Wish I was. 

Someone calculated that filling an average SUV fuel tank with inkjet ink from carts would exceed a hundred thousand dollars. I don't have a link for that calculation, but the math should be easy.

How credible? Can you share access to that article? Would be fun to see.

I notice on review that the article specifies dye inks.  Pigment inks might have a slightly higher specific gravity.

As for credibility, I have no references other than Wired's reputation.  This article is typical of a an every-issue column wherein they examine "What's Inside"  many common products.


http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/st_whatsinside_inkjet/

For ordinary consumers, usurious ink prices actually inhibit printing.  The extensive efforts by printer manufacturers to restrain, even prohibit, third party inks and cartridges points to the importance of ink prices to the business model.  A more honest approach would charge higher prices for the printers, thus allowing the consumers to use their machines for what they were designed for: Printing.

I also re-use my maintenance tanks.  It is an environmental and social insult to continually discard those easily re-used plastic components.

[Mark D Segal]

"Ordinary consumers"? I think one needs to look at the whole thing as a package. Think back to the days of the chemical darkroom if you wanted to make your own colour prints, or the cost of getting them printed at a decent lab. Today we are getting far superior results for far less cost in real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) terms when you add up both printer and consumables. So whether the pricing should be more weighted to consumables or hardware one can discuss forever, but the bottom line is that unless consumers somehow cover ALL the costs + profits right up the line from retailer to manufacturer, we wouldn't have all this wonderful stuff we are complaining about. :-) Are they making egregiously high profits on all this? You can always check Epson's annual reports, any SEC filings, or whatever other financial information they have available and decide. Of course you won't get much broken down by micro business unit, but you'll get some insight.

[Peter McLennan]

"Ordinary consumers"? I think one needs to look at the whole thing as a package. Think back to the days of the chemical darkroom if you wanted to make your own colour prints...

Absolutely.  I never considered equipping any of my darkrooms for colour for exactly that reason.  That and the fact that you'd work all night to make one print. 

Today we are getting far superior results for far less cost..

Also true.  I've said it elsewhere here: For many, many reasons, this is the Golden Age of Photography.

unless consumers somehow cover ALL the costs + profits right up the line from retailer to manufacturer, we wouldn't have all this wonderful stuff we are complaining about. :-)

Again, absolutely.  I have no problem paying for these wonders.  I recently paid over three large for a Nikon.  It's a superb photographic tool and I don't regret a penny of it.  If instead the camera cost $100 but every shot cost me $5, I wouldn't enjoy using it half as much.  It would stand in the way of its own use.  Just like those printers.

Are they making egregiously high profits on all this?

I don't know.  I do know that the cost of ink inhibits printing, which is just plain dumb, no matter how pretty the prints.  What if they halved the price of ink?  People would print twice as much and the printer people would make the same profits.  Everybody wins. Especially those who wish to print.  Probably we'd have fewer clogging problems, too.  : )

I do know that the endless stream of one-time-use plastic carts, each containing a thimbleful of ink, most of which are specific to single printers is egregious.  Ask retailers what they think of the amount of shelf space they need to assign to this unjustifiable practice.  We've all seen printers that retail for less than the cost of a single set of carts.  This is nonsense.  Nonsense, I tell you!  To the barricades! : )

[Mark D Segal]

You know Peter, there is another nasty little truth sort-of hiding under the surface: it could well be that printing on any scale is going the way of the Dodo bird (not Big Bird). More and more people are storing and sharing photos on devices and over the internet rather than printing them (which let's face it - is real work and needs to be mastered), and from what I'm reading and hearing from the retailers: demand for printing supplies is either stagnant or in decline - and I don't think this is on account of ink prices, because those prices have not changed much *in real terms* over the years - it's cultural and technological change. If it's true, a phenomenon of declining volumes is bad news for those of us who still think a *real* photograph is an impression on a piece of paper, because it means there will be an uphill battle to maintain the variety of supplies and costs we now have. Remember good film scanners?

[Peter McLennan]

it could well be that printing on any scale is going the way of the Dodo bird ... it means there will be an uphill battle to maintain the variety of supplies and costs we now have.

Sad news indeed.  I certainly wouldn't blame the high cost of materials for this, rather I'd blame the yawning gulf that exists between screen and print.  It's not an easy gulf to bridge, as most of us here know.

If there's one signal joy of photography, it's saying "WOW!" when we pull a new image out of the printer.  Long may it persist.

[enduser]

As Mark suggests, I'm sure ink prices subsidize printer prices. If you go to buy equivalently complex machinery for lab or factory use you will see much higher prices.

I still wonder about ink though.  The most highly refined and revered artist's colorants complete with a light fastness rating (typically BWI) are much cheaper than digital ink on a volumetric basis.

The ink's pigment is said to be about half the cost of manufacture and if we assume that 25% by weight of ink is pigment, and the most commonly used magenta pigment is quinacridone, which costs about $40 - $50 a kilogram, then the pigment in 130ml cart will weigh about 33 gm.  That is 0.033 x 50 in dollars, which is $1.65.

If that's half the materials cost then the full cost of 130ml is $3.30.  A cart might cost $10 giving a cost of $13.30 per filled cart ex factory.  Add reasonable margins of 80% to get to retail of $23.94. (Probably less since actual pigment is likely less than 25%). Current retail is around $79 for Canon that size.

(Price of pigment is out there for all to see, the 50% cost estimate is from a British Chemical Institute paper)