ink usage: 1440 vs 2880

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Justice
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Justice

I calculated the cost of ink for my photo prints by keeping track of ink use
(number of cartridges, size of prints) over a number of weeks. But that was
using 1440 dpi (Epson 2200). Now I have decided to go with 2880 dpi. Does
it use twice as much ink?
 
Basically, you are talking about ink density. So the denser the ink output
to the paper, the more ink will be used. Assuming printing the same size
photo on the same paper and using the same driver settings like Sharpness,
Photo Enhanced and so on.

Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in what it is costing you to
print a photo? Have you ever installed a fresh set of cartridges and then
chosen a photo and printed as many copies as the cartridges would allow?
This would be the only way to determine ink usage, and therefore ink cost
per page.
 
Absolutely not. Think about it... if it used twice the ink, the print
would be nearly twice as dark and a lot wetter when it came out of the
printer.

The 2880 mode increased the density of the dot locations, but lessens
the amount of ink laid down. It only increases the resolution in on
dimension. It greatly slows the printing process, and increases the
spooling time, but it may not show up as a real difference in the
quality for most photographic applications.

Do you see a clearly definable difference in the quality of the image?


Art
 
Kevin, That's not necessarily true. Think about it a minute. If the
droplet sized were the same, and there were suddenly twice as many dots
(in one direction in this case, versus 4 times as many had it been in
both directions) since the white of the paper between the dots is part
of the resultant color density, having twice as many dots with the same
volume of ink per dot would make a color just about twice as dark.
Since the same paper has the same dot gain and absorbency characteristics.

However, if the matrix was designed so that the dot "size" was reduced
to half the ink volume and twice as many were laid down in one direction
(in this case), all that would happen is there would be smaller dots and
a greater frequency of dots, increasing resolution without changing
apparent ink color density. In this case, we are speaking about such
tiny spacing that it would be difficult for the human eye to see the
difference, but there might be a slight be less "granularity" to the
image and gradient transition might be slightly improved. Mainly, the
print would take a lot longer to be printed. ;-)

Your testing procedure to determine the per print cost also has some
flaws in it, because printing the same print continually, will cause
inks to run out at different times, making it difficult to calculate
(and it may be unrealistic as well from a pragmatic point of view, as well.

If a person keeps track of the number of square inches he prints, and
the ink usage is spread out among the colors fairly evenly, one can make
an average guestimate of ink costs per print. However, it will all be a
bit sloppy in terms of the math.

Art
 
I do see a difference between 2880 and 1440, which is why I went to 2880. I
thought the drop size might get smaller - do you have evidence?
 
I sell my photos, so I need to know what they cost. Here's how I
calculated:

I printed many different pictures over a period of a few months (a
representative sample of the ones that sell) and kept track of how many of
each size. There are 7 ink cartridges. Some were replaced a number of
times, some not at all (e.g., light magenta and light cyan were replaced 3
times each, but cyan not at all). I added up all the ink used: Number
purchased plus estimating the use of the unreplaced cartridges. A printer
utility shows ink remaining (this is very rough, but those colors that were
not replaced add very little to the cost of the prints, so an estimate is
acceptable). It was then easy to calculate ink cost per square foot (or,
more practically, cost per 4x6 - $0.34, 11x14 - $2.18, etc.). But that was
at 1440 dpi. Now that I'm using 2880, I'd like to know if it costs 4 times
as much (double the density, if the droplet is the same size, in both
directions = 4x).

Another professional I know suggested a third party ink, MediaStreet. I
then calculated the projected cost with these inks. I had heard that the
Epson cartridges (for the 2200 printer) hold 1/2 ounce of ink. [If anyone
has a more accurate estimate, please let me know.] So it seemed that MS
inks cost about 20% as much as Epson. Of course, this is only after an
initial outlay of $300, but over many years, that would be be minimal. In
fact, using the above estimates, I have already saved money by switching to
MS ink in only 4 months.

But now I'm having trouble with the print quality with MS inks: Scuffing
caused by the exit rollers and "pizza wheel" marks by the pre-exit rollers
(the ones just after the print head). I believe this is because MS inks dry
slower (or are simply more fragile), so the prints are more vulnerable to
damage when they get to the rollers. I'm having a heck of a time trying to
solve the problems. I may have to go back to Epson inks.
 
Alan - Although it is certainly a good idea to know your costs when engaged
in any business, I would guess that an artist doesn't determine the price of
an oil painting based on the cost of the raw materials. In the final
analysis, the value is determined by the artistic merit of the product and
not the cost of the raw materials. Gold jewelry is a case in point.
Although the metal itself has intrinsic value, it represents a small part of
the sale price. Production printing of pictures from a kiosk or one-hour
print service probably has a fairly close correlation to material cost, but
the pictures you are selling, I presume, are sold primarily for their
artistic appeal. Thus, if your ink cost were $2.18 or $4.50, it still
represents a very small portion of the sale price of the product. It will,
however, affect your bottom line at the end of the year on an overall
business basis and is something to control if possible.

Alan Justice said:
I sell my photos, so I need to know what they cost. Here's how I
calculated:

I printed many different pictures over a period of a few months (a
representative sample of the ones that sell) and kept track of how many of
each size. There are 7 ink cartridges. Some were replaced a number of
times, some not at all (e.g., light magenta and light cyan were replaced 3
times each, but cyan not at all). I added up all the ink used: Number
purchased plus estimating the use of the unreplaced cartridges. A printer
utility shows ink remaining (this is very rough, but those colors that
were
not replaced add very little to the cost of the prints, so an estimate is
acceptable). It was then easy to calculate ink cost per square foot (or,
more practically, cost per 4x6 - $0.34, 11x14 - $2.18, etc.). But that
was
at 1440 dpi. Now that I'm using 2880, I'd like to know if it costs 4
times
as much (double the density, if the droplet is the same size, in both
directions = 4x).

Another professional I know suggested a third party ink, MediaStreet. I
then calculated the projected cost with these inks. I had heard that the
Epson cartridges (for the 2200 printer) hold 1/2 ounce of ink. [If anyone
has a more accurate estimate, please let me know.] So it seemed that MS
inks cost about 20% as much as Epson. Of course, this is only after an
initial outlay of $300, but over many years, that would be be minimal. In
fact, using the above estimates, I have already saved money by switching
to
MS ink in only 4 months.

But now I'm having trouble with the print quality with MS inks: Scuffing
caused by the exit rollers and "pizza wheel" marks by the pre-exit rollers
(the ones just after the print head). I believe this is because MS inks
dry
slower (or are simply more fragile), so the prints are more vulnerable to
damage when they get to the rollers. I'm having a heck of a time trying
to
solve the problems. I may have to go back to Epson inks.

--
- Alan Justice

Kevin said:
Basically, you are talking about ink density. So the denser the ink output
to the paper, the more ink will be used. Assuming printing the same size
photo on the same paper and using the same driver settings like
Sharpness,
Photo Enhanced and so on.

Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in what it is costing you
to
print a photo? Have you ever installed a fresh set of cartridges and
then
chosen a photo and printed as many copies as the cartridges would allow?
This would be the only way to determine ink usage, and therefore ink cost
per page.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Interesting. I thought that dot size was static, that is that it does not
change with resolution setting. You are saying that an inkjet printer
changes the size of the dots? A print at 1440 dpi does not use half the ink
of the same print at 2880 dpi?

I should have said that in trying to find a cost per print one should choose
a print that has a good balance of colors. In fact, one could make a test
print by simply designing a graphic that contains all the representative
colors of the cartridges used in the printer. Still a rudimentary way to
guess at print cost in any event.

Thanks for the information.
 
All current Epson printers use variable dot size, which varies both the
size of the dot based upon the density of the color required in that
particular location, as well as how the driver is set. The paper type
as well as the resolution selected also changes the dot size (well,
actually the dot volume since ink dots for inkjet printers are reported
in volume measurements).

The best evidence without resorting to Epson's service manuals, if your
own eyes... use a loupe and look.

Art
 
The cost of production is not necessarily a small part of the sale price.
That's true for matted, unframed prints. For example, MediaStreet ink is
0.6% of the direct selling price ($75, no commission) of a 16x20, and Epson
ink is 2.9%. But for note cards (with 4x6 prints: $3.25) the values are
2.1% and 10.6%. That gets significant with Epson ink. And for consignment
sales, that percentage can go to 17.7%. Just for ink! I'd be foolish to
just go on making cards if it turns out I get $3/hour to do so, not even
allowing for the time spent taking the pictures and cost of equipment, etc.

--
- Alan Justice

Burt said:
Alan - Although it is certainly a good idea to know your costs when engaged
in any business, I would guess that an artist doesn't determine the price of
an oil painting based on the cost of the raw materials. In the final
analysis, the value is determined by the artistic merit of the product and
not the cost of the raw materials. Gold jewelry is a case in point.
Although the metal itself has intrinsic value, it represents a small part of
the sale price. Production printing of pictures from a kiosk or one-hour
print service probably has a fairly close correlation to material cost, but
the pictures you are selling, I presume, are sold primarily for their
artistic appeal. Thus, if your ink cost were $2.18 or $4.50, it still
represents a very small portion of the sale price of the product. It will,
however, affect your bottom line at the end of the year on an overall
business basis and is something to control if possible.

Alan Justice said:
I sell my photos, so I need to know what they cost. Here's how I
calculated:

I printed many different pictures over a period of a few months (a
representative sample of the ones that sell) and kept track of how many of
each size. There are 7 ink cartridges. Some were replaced a number of
times, some not at all (e.g., light magenta and light cyan were replaced 3
times each, but cyan not at all). I added up all the ink used: Number
purchased plus estimating the use of the unreplaced cartridges. A printer
utility shows ink remaining (this is very rough, but those colors that
were
not replaced add very little to the cost of the prints, so an estimate is
acceptable). It was then easy to calculate ink cost per square foot (or,
more practically, cost per 4x6 - $0.34, 11x14 - $2.18, etc.). But that
was
at 1440 dpi. Now that I'm using 2880, I'd like to know if it costs 4
times
as much (double the density, if the droplet is the same size, in both
directions = 4x).

Another professional I know suggested a third party ink, MediaStreet. I
then calculated the projected cost with these inks. I had heard that the
Epson cartridges (for the 2200 printer) hold 1/2 ounce of ink. [If anyone
has a more accurate estimate, please let me know.] So it seemed that MS
inks cost about 20% as much as Epson. Of course, this is only after an
initial outlay of $300, but over many years, that would be be minimal. In
fact, using the above estimates, I have already saved money by switching
to
MS ink in only 4 months.

But now I'm having trouble with the print quality with MS inks: Scuffing
caused by the exit rollers and "pizza wheel" marks by the pre-exit rollers
(the ones just after the print head). I believe this is because MS inks
dry
slower (or are simply more fragile), so the prints are more vulnerable to
damage when they get to the rollers. I'm having a heck of a time trying
to
solve the problems. I may have to go back to Epson inks.

--
- Alan Justice

Kevin said:
Basically, you are talking about ink density. So the denser the ink output
to the paper, the more ink will be used. Assuming printing the same size
photo on the same paper and using the same driver settings like
Sharpness,
Photo Enhanced and so on.

Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in what it is costing you
to
print a photo? Have you ever installed a fresh set of cartridges and
then
chosen a photo and printed as many copies as the cartridges would allow?
This would be the only way to determine ink usage, and therefore ink cost
per page.

I calculated the cost of ink for my photo prints by keeping track of
ink
use
(number of cartridges, size of prints) over a number of weeks. But
that
was
using 1440 dpi (Epson 2200). Now I have decided to go with 2880 dpi.
Does
it use twice as much ink?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Any good business model suggests having a handle of your real costs to
determine your profit. The tax department also demands it. If a
printer, as an example is used for both personal and business us, it's a
lot easier once you know the approximate costs, which to bill for what
on taxes.

Art
Alan - Although it is certainly a good idea to know your costs when engaged
in any business, I would guess that an artist doesn't determine the price of
an oil painting based on the cost of the raw materials. In the final
analysis, the value is determined by the artistic merit of the product and
not the cost of the raw materials. Gold jewelry is a case in point.
Although the metal itself has intrinsic value, it represents a small part of
the sale price. Production printing of pictures from a kiosk or one-hour
print service probably has a fairly close correlation to material cost, but
the pictures you are selling, I presume, are sold primarily for their
artistic appeal. Thus, if your ink cost were $2.18 or $4.50, it still
represents a very small portion of the sale price of the product. It will,
however, affect your bottom line at the end of the year on an overall
business basis and is something to control if possible.

I sell my photos, so I need to know what they cost. Here's how I
calculated:

I printed many different pictures over a period of a few months (a
representative sample of the ones that sell) and kept track of how many of
each size. There are 7 ink cartridges. Some were replaced a number of
times, some not at all (e.g., light magenta and light cyan were replaced 3
times each, but cyan not at all). I added up all the ink used: Number
purchased plus estimating the use of the unreplaced cartridges. A printer
utility shows ink remaining (this is very rough, but those colors that
were
not replaced add very little to the cost of the prints, so an estimate is
acceptable). It was then easy to calculate ink cost per square foot (or,
more practically, cost per 4x6 - $0.34, 11x14 - $2.18, etc.). But that
was
at 1440 dpi. Now that I'm using 2880, I'd like to know if it costs 4
times
as much (double the density, if the droplet is the same size, in both
directions = 4x).

Another professional I know suggested a third party ink, MediaStreet. I
then calculated the projected cost with these inks. I had heard that the
Epson cartridges (for the 2200 printer) hold 1/2 ounce of ink. [If anyone
has a more accurate estimate, please let me know.] So it seemed that MS
inks cost about 20% as much as Epson. Of course, this is only after an
initial outlay of $300, but over many years, that would be be minimal. In
fact, using the above estimates, I have already saved money by switching
to
MS ink in only 4 months.

But now I'm having trouble with the print quality with MS inks: Scuffing
caused by the exit rollers and "pizza wheel" marks by the pre-exit rollers
(the ones just after the print head). I believe this is because MS inks
dry
slower (or are simply more fragile), so the prints are more vulnerable to
damage when they get to the rollers. I'm having a heck of a time trying
to
solve the problems. I may have to go back to Epson inks.

--
- Alan Justice

Basically, you are talking about ink density. So the denser the ink
output

to the paper, the more ink will be used. Assuming printing the same size
photo on the same paper and using the same driver settings like
Sharpness,
Photo Enhanced and so on.

Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in what it is costing you
to
print a photo? Have you ever installed a fresh set of cartridges and
then
chosen a photo and printed as many copies as the cartridges would allow?
This would be the only way to determine ink usage, and therefore ink cost
per page.


I calculated the cost of ink for my photo prints by keeping track of
ink

use

(number of cartridges, size of prints) over a number of weeks. But
that

was

using 1440 dpi (Epson 2200). Now I have decided to go with 2880 dpi.

Does

it use twice as much ink?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Epson printers vary the dot size, not only based upon driver setting
such as resolution and paper type, but also on each individual image.

The printer vary in how many dot sizes the head can produce. Some
produce up to 6 dot sizes (volumes) which some only do 4 or 3.
For example the SC900 which was the first big breakthrough in this
technology produced: 3, 10, 11, 19, 23 and 29 picolitre droplets.


Art
 
As Arthur Entlich stated in a previous post, the droplets' volumes are
adjusted according to the resolution. So the ink consumption is almost
stable in all resolutions. Ink consumption depends on only the *paper type*
(how much ink each type of paper could endure). More ink on photo glossy and
heavyweigt papers, less on inkjet quality paper, lesser on plain paper, and
more lesser on films. Make a test, print the same photo twice onto a page,
you will see the ink will wet the paper much. Of course according to the
specific inkjet printer and its ability to print different volume droplets,
the ink consumption is a little dependant on resolution too. But only a
small percentage. On some older measurements I did, I found about 10% more
consumption in 360fine instead of 360 resolution. And almost none difference
between 360fine and 720. Usually there isn't difference between higher
resolutions. I won't expect any difference between 1440 and 2880
resolutions, except if you see a visible difference on paper wetting.
All makes of inkjet printers today use at least three droplet volumes. They
advetise the smaller droplet size.

--
Yianni
(e-mail address removed) (remove number nine to reply)


--
 
....and something more. You can see a 10% difference in ink consumption if
you print on a plain paper (irrelevant to what paper you choose on printer
driver) and see on the back side. 10% more ink is visible (more wet and
seethrough effect).

--
 
Back
Top