I just bought the Canon Pro 1000 for a, January, rebated $1000. It has a 17” carriage weighs 80# and is large enough to host twelve 80mL ink cartridges. Still a desktop printer it is 28” wide and 19” deep on your “desk.” A 12 pack of Pro 1000 ink is $700 and yields 960 mL of various inks for a, blended, cost of approx $ .73/mL.
The next down Canon Model is the Pro 100 which has approx 8mL of usable ink in each cartridge. The Pro 100 ink is about $1.25/mL. My Canon IPF 8400 is a monster size printer which takes 700mL tanks. A single tank costs almost $300 but the ink is only $ .42/mL. So ink costs between printer models can vary substantially.
I bought the Pro 1000 for its cut sheet utility. My 44” roll sheet printer is fiddly with cut sheets and less than very large prints from a roll tend to curl, The Pro 1000 is well made with the latest ink and print technology. That it costs some $100s more than a 13” printer is less important to me than ink cost over the long run.
Some time ago, when I still shot Canon, I got a 13” printer (dye ink) almost for free on a bundled rebate deal. That printer abruptly stopped working after a year or so I bought some another Canon camera and got a second “free” printer which stopped working after a year, How much money and hassle can you put into a free printer? SoI gave them away and ate the cost of used 8mL ink,
Shooters who spend $1000-1500, each, on a collection of fine lenses balk at a printer cost more than a few $100s. However, take the time to calculate the long term utility, of a larger carriage printer with better print quality and lower ink costs and you may discover value,
I am told by a professional landscape photographer (who admittedly is associated with Epson) that the the cost of materials per print is roughly 1:10 ink to paper. I have known him long enough and well enough to be confident that, despite his association, he is not deceiving me.
There are some nice papers out there that can help you keep costs down. I like cotton rag and favour Premier Art paper. Their 325 gsm Smooth Fine Art is very nice -- very close to Epson Hot Press Natural paper. Lots of people are happy with Red River papers too. I tried their Aurora Art Natural and didn't like it all, but that's just me.
Ink for me is cheap because I mix my own black and white inkset for my Epson 3880, so paper is definitely the major cost component.
waterden wrote:
I am told by a professional landscape photographer (who admittedly is associated with Epson) that the the cost of materials per print is roughly 1:10 ink to paper. I have known him long enough and well enough to be confident that, despite his association, he is not deceiving me.
I agree with this, especially if one prints on high quality paper. One also needs to take into account wasted ink on head cleaning...but paper costs highly out cost ink.
I cringe everytime I hear my Canon Pro-100 fire up and clean itself. I don't use it frequently so I would not be surprised if a small fraction of the ink actually finds its way onto paper. I only feed it aftermarket ink...
More important printing is done from rolls on my old, but still kicking it, IPF 8300 (knocks on wood). Dealing with curl can be a pain but I still prefer the convenience and savings from rolls.
Is there a visible quality difference between the Pro-1000 and your 8400?
Larger printers with larger ink tanks (eg Canon Pro1000 or larger) are more expansive. If you don't print a lot (ie use a lot of ink) the cheaper ink may not offset the extra initial cost when the printer eventually dies. And, inevitably, it dies with lots (because of larger tanks) of ink left unused. A half used set of large tank ink can easily be "worth" a few hundred dollars.
(Of course you might choose a larger printer for other reasons. But to choose it based solely on cost per mL of ink may not make economical sense in the long run.)
I think most people, myself included, buy larger printers for the ability to make larger prints, but the same printers make small prints too, and the lower ink cost is a benefit for all of them. The only caution regarding large cartridges is that if you don't print a high volume the ink can last longer than it's advisable to have it in the printer. If you can't use it all up within in a reasonable length of time (a few years) you should probably get smaller sized cartridges.
I agree with what others here have said -- ink costs next to nothing relative to paper, but it's all pretty cheap. A nice paper like Canson Platine Fiber Rag or Hahnemuhle Photo Baryta Silk in 17x22 inch size is around $120 for 25 sheets, or $4.80 per sheet. Adding $1 for OEM ink is more than generous, making a 16x20 print for under $6. I don't think anyone who pays thousands for cameras and lenses, and for the printer itself, could say that's expensive. Rolls are even cheaper per square inch, and of course can be used for larger prints or multiple smaller ones if you don't mind the task of cutting them apart and dealing with the curl.
There are a few Epson papers that come in 24x30 inch sheets. I wish all of them did because a nice flat print is so much easier to deal with after printing.
$3.49 per 16x24. That does not include ink used to do startup maintainance.
Depending on how you use the printer, startup maintenance ink can be a significant fraction of the amount used to make a few prints.
I believe Canon recommends leaving the printer on so it does not do an extensive maintenance when it starts up.
To get to 1:10 ratio, the paper needs to be $34.90 per 17x25 sheet. Your friend must be using some nice paper!
ink is cheap compared to a good paper. Lately, I've been using Moab silver and metallic paper, if I'm not using that then I'm either on Hahnemuhle or Epson artisan series.
I don't know about canon printers, but in epsons i buy ink that is marked "expired" but is still sealed.
$3.49 per 16x24. That does not include ink used to do startup maintainance.
Depending on how you use the printer, startup maintenance ink can be a significant fraction of the amount used to make a few prints.
I believe Canon recommends leaving the printer on so it does not do an extensive maintenance when it starts up.
To get to 1:10 ratio, the paper needs to be $34.90 per 17x25 sheet. Your friend must be using some nice paper!
Dave
My HP printers tell me how much ink I've used for a given print. Really depends a lot on the paper type ( glossy, matte, canvas ) and the image to be printed...but using Breathing Color papers, I get about a 5 to 1 ratio with the cost of paper versus ink. This is using 70ml ink cartridges. Using bigger cartridges, I can see this ratio go up.
Obviously if you are using cheap paper ( red river is cheap ), then that influences this ratio...but I'm very aware of OBA and longevity of papers and use them appropriately.
I'm paying about $230 for a 700ml Epson 9900 cart and about a buck and a quarter for the 350ml carts, quite a bit less than the Canon's quoted above and those carts last forever, even when they're on low ink warning. The problem with paper is that it's generally fair traded with identical list prices everywhere you shop. All I can say is that if you shop locally and know your salesperson you can probably get much better pricing. And of course, roll paper is quite a bit less expensive than sheet paper, if you don't mind trimming it yourself.
I like the Pro-100 and cost of entry is better than free with the bundled goodies and Canon's frequent promotions. However, I wanted bigger prints, pigment ink and lower running cost, so purchased the Pro-2000 last year. Even without the Christmas rebate I scored, this printer is a great deal. With a roll of Canon Pro Lustre, one square-foot of output comes to roughly $1 ($.60 paper, $.40 ink). There is a progressive ink cost for cleaning cycles but that's real life. At least I can turn off the beast for months at a time—no cleaning cycles, no clogged head.
Getting an estimate of printing costs is relatively easy.
Photos average about 1.5-2.0 ml/ft2. Individual photos will vary but the average over a range of prints is pretty stable, and is about the same for all ink jet printers capable of producing excellent photo prints. This depends a bit on the coating on the paper, but all the coatings used for high quality prints require about the same amount.
To get cost you also need to know the ink cost per ml. This is the hardest part since the ink cartridge manufacturers try to hide this cost, especially for the smaller capacity cartridges. Also, the ink remaining in the cartridge when the printer declares it empty is an issue. Larger capacity cartridges are more forthcoming with capacity information and the ink remaining in the cartridge when declared empty is less of an issue. As noted by Soundhound, the cost per ml declines rapidly as the cartridge capacity increases.
For example, at the $0.73/ml cost of the Canon 80ml cartridges, ink cost for prints is in the range $1.10/ft2 to $1.46/ft2. Red River got $1.30 in their tests which means their test print consumed ~1.8 ml/ft2, which is in the middle of the 1.5-2.0 range. The RR data also yields 1.9ml/ft2 for the Canon Pro-10, 1.60 ml/ft2 for the Epson P-800 and 1.54 ml/ft2 for the Epson P-600.
Given these figures you can compute ink cost of ~$2 per ft2 for small cartridge printers (13-26ml), ~$1.30 per ft2 for medium size cartridges (70-80ml) and ~$0.75 per ft2 for the largest cartridges (700ml). Note that this does not include ink consumption during startup or maintenance when not making prints. Those maintenance operations can increase ink cost significantly.
The photo papers I use are in the range of $1 to $2 per ft2. Consequently, I see ink cost about the same as paper cost for my Pro-1000. I looked around a bit to see how much the most expensive papers are. Even with printers that use the largest capacity cartridges and expensive paper I don’t see a way to get to 5:1 paper to ink cost, and 10:1 is way out of range.
It would be interesting to know which printers, ink cartridges, and papers are being used that give such large paper to ink cost ratios.
Given the lower cost of ink per ft2, what does it take to justify a more expensive printer? Consider an upgrade from Canon Pro-1000 to Pro-2100. The savings in ink cost using 700ml cartridges is about $0.55/ft2. The printer costs ~$1200 more. That means one needs to print ~2200 ft2 to break even. If you consider the life of the printer to be 5 years, that works out to about 3 16x24 prints per week. If you are making prints for sale, that is a small amount. If you are hanging them on your own wall, it's hard to see using that many prints.
There is also another problem. The printer has 12 cartridges and using 700ml cartridges there is 8400 ml of ink in the printer. At 1.8ml/ft2 that means you need to print 4667 ft2 to use all the ink in one ink load (assuming all the colors are used at exactly the same rate). That means break even calculated above occurs at about half a load of ink. In order for this to make sense you need to go through several ink loads over the life of the printer. If you are not a commercial operation, the printer upgrade cannot be justified by ink cost.
But let’s face it, photography as a hobby cannot be justified by a cost analysis. We do it, and we bear the cost, because we like it. Maybe you can justify a printer because you like to make you own large prints. That's how I justify my Pro-1000. Couldn't stretch it to a Pro-2100.
SoundHound wrote:
Shooters who spend $1000-1500, each, on a collection of fine lenses balk at a printer cost more than a few $100s. However, take the time to calculate the long term utility, of a larger carriage printer with the better print quality and lower ink costs and you may discover value,
Mileage varies. If you do not print images on a daily basis. A large amount of your ink will be flushed during head cleaning cycle done by you printer because of the time between prints. Printing daily does not waste ink. It still it cost some for the paper and ink used each day. I retired my Epson 4800 for I was no longer using roll paper and its heads were clogging from lack of use. I nor have a Canon Pixma Pro-10 for its heads can be removed cleaned and replaced. A set of ink cartridges cost $100 where the set of large Epson 4800 costs $400. If you do not have a large print volume doing your own print is expensive but rewarding and convenient. Paper and Ink cost more than the printer. If its not a business its a money pit.
No question that print costs mount. It seems the Canon printers sip less ink. Still the the sight of a “One Sheet” (40X60”) print coming out of my own printer exactly as I want it-eventually-is priceless.
Mr Mouse wrote:
Mileage varies. If you do not print images on a daily basis. A large amount of your ink will be flushed during head cleaning cycle done by you printer because of the time between prints. Printing daily does not waste ink. It still it cost some for the paper and ink used each day. I retired my Epson 4800 for I was no longer using roll paper and its heads were clogging from lack of use. I nor have a Canon Pixma Pro-10 for its heads can be removed cleaned and replaced. A set of ink cartridges cost $100 where the set of large Epson 4800 costs $400. If you do not have a large print volume doing your own print is expensive but rewarding and convenient. Paper and Ink cost more than the printer. If its not a business its a money pit. ...Show more →
Photography is not cheap period. I love having full control of my vision from when I press the shutter to processing the image to printing to framing. The final result knowing I made it all is priceless.
retrofocus wrote:
Yes as long as you are okay with the very thin paper choices.
Exactly one of the biggest reason I do my own printing. My HP printers come with built in spectrophotometer allowing me to make custom profiles for any paper type. I enjoy matching different paper types to the image to fully display the mood in the image.
