The true cost of printing ink ?

[measekite]

What is this "after market" you mention? Sorry I am not a native
English speaker.

That is inferior ink that is repackaged and relabeled and resold by some
small vendor who will not tell you the mfg/formulator of what they are
selling because it is made by some you who in china or some 3rd world
place. Look at www.pcworld.com or www.pcmag.com or google whilhelm
labs and read the test results. Then you will know. And beware of many
in this news group who either work for or are associated with these
palces and will tell you that people who believe in OEM products are dumb.

 

[measekite]

"igfg" <igfg@hayu.nomail.org>

| > FWIW we go trough $75+ per month of EPSON ink at OEM cost. After
market <
| > $20 so we're ahead $50 per month. 12 months X 50= $600 in four years
| > that's $2400 and that's just one studio (we have several).
|
| What is this "after market" you mention? Sorry I am not a native English
| speaker.

Aftermarket is third party ink not sanctioned/approved by the printer
manufacture.

| Do you mean you use third party ink? If yes, of what brand?
| I am very interested, since you are a graphic arts studio!

Suppliers vary. Right now I'm holding ink by Ridisc and G&G in my hand.

Our standard printer are Epson and have been for years. We did a balance
test on using OEM (original equipment) and aftermarket ink over 12 to 18
months and found little difference in the work product. Also no noticeable
difference in the equipment failure rate. But I should qualify that last as
a very small sample.

All expenses included and assuming that the aftermarket in was somehow
reducing the functionality of the printers we save, on average, ~ $2000 per
year per studio.

We don't print archive work product so I have no knowledge of how long this
will last in the real world.

We print preliminary proofs on everyday stock for the most part.

We also print proofs for client approval but on better quality paper.

We also require printer galley proofs and have not noticed a significant
difference in what the printer sends and our client proofs. Perhaps I
should mention that we calibrate our displays, our printers and coordinate
these with the clients printers. But we did this with OEM ink as well as
there are variations there as well.

Grand kids print out tons of snap shots and so far no complaints in that
department.

Now there is a market for the junk ink. And snapshots are not photographs

 

[Frank]

measekite wrote:


----------all lies deleted--------------

Stop the lying meashershithead!
We're all sick and tired of your lies!
Frank

 

[Jim Ford]

Just to add that printer makers sanction only their own inks, mainly
for the huge profit it brings them.

It wouldn't surprise me if the printer makers didn't actually make the
inks for their machines. Ink manufacture is a specialised business and
has little in common with the electro mechanics of printers.

There may be relatively few inkjet ink makers, making and supplying ink
to the printer manufacturers to their specifications. This may also mean
(shock horror, measekite!) that they could also be making much of the
non oem inks that we use and love.

Jim Ford

 

[Frank]

That is inferior ink that is repackaged and relabeled and resold by some
small vendor who will not tell you the mfg/formulator of what they are
selling because it is made by some you who in china or some 3rd world
place. Look at www.pcworld.com or www.pcmag.com or google whilhelm
labs and read the test results. Then you will know. And beware of many
in this news group who either work for or are associated with these
palces and will tell you that people who believe in OEM products are dumb.

Liar!
Stop your lying!
Get a life.
Frank

 

[Printer Bob]

It wouldn't surprise me if the printer makers didn't actually make the
inks for their machines. Ink manufacture is a specialised business and
has little in common with the electro mechanics of printers.

There may be relatively few inkjet ink makers, making and supplying
ink to the printer manufacturers to their specifications. This may
also mean (shock horror, measekite!) that they could also be making
much of the non oem inks that we use and love.

In reality it's the major independant printing ink manufacturers that
make OEM ink for printer makers. But contracts stipulate they cannot
legally sell this "branded" ink to the general public or to the
aftermarket ink dealers. So they alter the formulas slightly, it's no
longer "branded" ink and it becomes "aftermarket" ink. Slight change in
formula (with no big name attachment) and huge savings for the general
public.

 

[The Inkman]

Today I paid over $40 for two dinky little ink cartridges. I bet the empty
cartridges cost no more than a $ or 2 to make, so why does the ink and
refilling cost so much?

It seems that the number of outfits refilling the cartridges is now becoming
an epidemic. Maybe that will bring the price down.

Could ink be bought in bulk, say in 4 or 6 oz bottles and then loaded into
the cartridges when needed, or is that task a difficult one? Undoubtedly
the ink has to be carefully protected from the air. Has anyone done this?

TIA

RF

If you use a lot of ink, one option to consider is a continuous ink
system. These are most suitable for printers that have "ink tanks"
such as Epson and Canon models and some selected HP models. We have
been selling these systems at The Ink Lab, www.theinklab.co.uk for
some years and have had a very good response. We also refill
cartridges and have been doing this successfully for years. Some
cartridges are easier to fill than others but all produce best results
if they are filled immediately they come out of the printer. I have a
Lexmark Printer at home and have reilled the same cartridge about five
or six times before the print head quality gets worn and the quality
becomes poor.

 

[Jim Ford]

In reality it's the major independant printing ink manufacturers that
make OEM ink for printer makers. But contracts stipulate they cannot
legally sell this "branded" ink to the general public or to the
aftermarket ink dealers. So they alter the formulas slightly, it's no
longer "branded" ink and it becomes "aftermarket" ink. Slight change in
formula (with no big name attachment) and huge savings for the general
public.

As I suspected. It's rather like the choice in a supermarket between
branded cornflakes like Kellogs and the supermarket's own brand - both
made by the same company, the difference being indistinguishable except
for the price and pretty packet.

Jim Ford

 

[NotMe]

Printer Bob wrote:

"igfg" <igfg@hayu.nomail.org>

| > FWIW we go trough $75+ per month of EPSON ink at OEM cost. After
market <
| > $20 so we're ahead $50 per month. 12 months X 50= $600 in four
| > years that's $2400 and that's just one studio (we have several).
|
| What is this "after market" you mention? Sorry I am not a native
| English speaker.

Aftermarket is third party ink not sanctioned/approved by the printer
manufacture.


Just to add that printer makers sanction only their own inks, mainly
for the huge profit it brings them.

Now if you think about that statement it is really dumb. What do you think they are in business for. Of course they want to sell their own ink. It is also best. And yes the price is very expensive.



| Do you mean you use third party ink? If yes, of what brand?

There are no brands. The relabeler will not tell you what they are selling so you do not know the brand (mfg/formulator)

| I am very interested, since you are a graphic arts studio!

Not using the best materials is like screwing the customer.

Suppliers vary. Right now I'm holding ink by Ridisc and G&G in my
hand.

Our standard printer are Epson and have been for years. We did a
balance test on using OEM (original equipment) and aftermarket ink
over 12 to 18 months and found little difference in the work product.
Also no noticeable difference in the equipment failure rate. But I
should qualify that last as a very small sample.

All expenses included and assuming that the aftermarket in was somehow
reducing the functionality of the printers we save, on average, ~
$2000 per year per studio.


If just 1,000 people in the world saved $2,000, that would be $2,000,000
out of printer maker's hands and into ours. And yet printer makers still
do not get the message to reduce the cost of ink.
That is because 90% of the people are smart enough to use OEM ink because they remember why they bought the printer to print photos in the first place.

Their greed is greater
than their guilt. They blindly rather lose it to aftermarket suppliers
than reduce the price accordingly so we wouldn't have to buy aftermarket
inks. Dumb!
Smart. If you look at their profits they are not losing anything.



We don't print archive work product so I have no knowledge of how long
this will last in the real world.

We print preliminary proofs on everyday stock for the most part.

We also print proofs for client approval but on better quality paper.

We also require printer galley proofs and have not noticed a
significant difference in what the printer sends and our client
proofs. Perhaps I should mention that we calibrate our displays, our
printers and coordinate these with the clients printers. But we did
this with OEM ink as well as there are variations there as well.

Grand kids print out tons of snap shots and so far no complaints in
that department.


None here either. Been printing pictures and what have you for friends
for many, many years to rave reviews. They marvel at the fact that I use
aftermarket inks and produce such beautiful, lasting results for a
pittance.

Poeple who look at their friends pictures will marvel at any snapshot but people who look at their friends photographs will not. It is like the people who used to marvel at their friends Kodak Brownie snapshots. Most have never heard of a Nikon, Leica or Canon.

 

[NotMe]

|
|
| igfg wrote:
| > NotMe wrote:
| >> FWIW we go trough $75+ per month of EPSON ink at OEM cost. After
| >> market <
| >> $20 so we're ahead $50 per month. 12 months X 50= $600 in four years
| >> that's $2400 and that's just one studio (we have several).
| >
| > What is this "after market" you mention? Sorry I am not a native
| > English speaker.
|
| That is inferior ink that is repackaged and relabeled and resold by some
| small vendor who will not tell you the mfg/formulator of what they are
| selling because it is made by some you who in china or some 3rd world
| place. Look at www.pcworld.com or www.pcmag.com or google whilhelm
| labs and read the test results. Then you will know. And beware of many
| in this news group who either work for or are associated with these
| places and will tell you that people who believe in OEM products are dumb.

I am in no way associate with a printer or ink manufacture. As to quality
or supposed inferiority ... I can only judge by hard real world experience.

Since I make my living from my imagoes I'm careful what I do and use.

Again hard world experience shows the variance in after market ink is on a
par with the variance in OEM ink. Few, including many professional artist
can tell the difference.

Which leads me to the conclusion that you, sir, are full of sh|t.

 

[NotMe]

"measekite" <

| > Grand kids print out tons of snap shots and so far no complaints in that
| > department.
| >
|
| Now there is a market for the junk ink. And snapshots are not photographs
|

I'll wager my grand kids are a bit better at the process of making 'snap'
shots than many would be professional photographers.

BTW many of the world's best photographers used very simple mechanical
cameras. It is not the tool but the quality of the artisan that makes the
difference.

I learned on a hand made pin hole camera. Can't get much simpler than that.
The person who taught me (in the 40s/50's) had been doing the art for more
than 60 years at that point. At the start of that process they made their
own plates.

 

[measekite]

It wouldn't surprise me if the printer makers didn't actually make the
inks for their machines. Ink manufacture is a specialised business and
has little in common with the electro mechanics of printers.

The company that did the enginneering and formulation and regulates the
quality is the real manufacturer. If they do outsource it and they have
control then they are the mfg. Now if they just purchase it like other
supplies then that is a different story and I know for a fact that they
do not do that. Not Canon, Not HP, and Not Epson.

 

[measekite]

Printer Bob wrote:

Jim Ford &lt;jaford@watford53.freeserve.co.uk&gt; wrote in news:VyMpi.1116$h11.715@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:



Printer Bob wrote:



Just to add that printer makers sanction only their own inks, mainly for the huge profit it brings them.



It wouldn't surprise me if the printer makers didn't actually make the inks for their machines. Ink manufacture is a specialised business and has little in common with the electro mechanics of printers. There may be relatively few inkjet ink makers, making and supplying ink to the printer manufacturers to their specifications. This may also mean (shock horror, measekite!) that they could also be making much of the non oem inks that we use and love.



In reality it's the major independant printing ink manufacturers that make OEM ink for printer makers.


Print Boob made a mistake.&nbsp; The formulator is the real mfg.&nbsp; Canon and others formulate their ink and control the mfg process to the design of their printer.


But contracts stipulate they cannot legally sell this "branded" ink to the general public or to the aftermarket ink dealers. So they alter the formulas slightly, it's no longer "branded" ink and it becomes "aftermarket" ink. Slight change in formula (with no big name attachment) and huge savings for the general public.

 

[measekite]

If you use a lot of ink, one option to consider is a continuous ink
system. These are most suitable for printers that have "ink tanks"
such as Epson and Canon models and some selected HP models. We have
been selling these systems at The Ink Lab, www.theinklab.co.uk for
some years and have had a very good response. We also refill

You do. You are a filthy rotten spammer. Smart people will not buy
from a spammer.

 

[measekite]

As I suspected. It's rather like the choice in a supermarket between
branded cornflakes like Kellogs and the supermarket's own brand - both
made by the same company, the difference being indistinguishable
except for the price and pretty packet.

No really. The supermarket does not formulate the corn flakes nor do
they regulate the quality. Now if their customers complain and they
sample they either will complain or change suppliers. And many
supermarket items are actually produced by more than one supplier all
packaged and labeled the same.

 

[measekite]

|
|
| igfg wrote:
| > NotMe wrote:
| >> FWIW we go trough $75+ per month of EPSON ink at OEM cost. After
| >> market <
| >> $20 so we're ahead $50 per month. 12 months X 50= $600 in four years
| >> that's $2400 and that's just one studio (we have several).
| >
| > What is this "after market" you mention? Sorry I am not a native
| > English speaker.
|
| That is inferior ink that is repackaged and relabeled and resold by some
| small vendor who will not tell you the mfg/formulator of what they are
| selling because it is made by some you who in china or some 3rd world
| place. Look at www.pcworld.com or www.pcmag.com or google whilhelm
| labs and read the test results. Then you will know. And beware of many
| in this news group who either work for or are associated with these
| places and will tell you that people who believe in OEM products are dumb.

I am in no way associate with a printer or ink manufacture. As to quality
or supposed inferiority ... I can only judge by hard real world experience.

Since I make my living from my imagoes I'm careful what I do and use.

Again hard world experience shows the variance in after market ink is on a
par with the variance in OEM ink. Few, including many professional artist
can tell the difference.

Which leads me to the conclusion that you, sir, are full of sh|t.

Real professionals will not even use OEM dye ink because of longevity.
Those real professionals produce their results using OEM pigmented ink,
more from Epson and some from Canon.

Now the people who buy fly by night ink sell their fly by night products
to their fly by night or even worse unknowingly customers.

 

[Frank]

No really. The supermarket does not formulate the corn flakes nor do
they regulate the quality.

No really! You wouldn't wan to bet your stupid ass on that would you?


Now if their customers complain and they

sample they either will complain or change suppliers. And many
supermarket items are actually produced by more than one supplier all
packaged and labeled the same.

Lies, all lies! Where do you get your lying misinformation from?
Give it up! You post nothing but lies.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Print Boob made a mistake. The formulator is the real mfg.

Wrong! The formulator is ...well...the formulator, not the manufacturer.

Canon and

others formulate their ink and control the mfg process to the design of
their printer.

Yes, they formulate the ink in concert with the manufacturer. The
manufacturer manufactures to their specs. It's called contract
manufacturing. Something you've denied existed for years.
You're really kind of stupid after all aren't you?
Frank

 

[Frank]

measekite wrote:

The company that did the enginneering and formulation and regulates the
quality is the real manufacturer.

No, that's impossible unless they own the manufacturing plant.
Most don't.

If they do outsource it and they have

control then they are the mfg.

No, only if they actually manufacturer it themselves can they be called
the manufacturer. It's really simple to understand if you pay attention.
This is all kind of difficult for you to follow isn't it?
Read more slowly.
Take notes and take breaks often.
Read everything at least twice.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Real professionals will not even use OEM dye ink because of longevity.

And you know this to be a fact because...you think thats
true...uhhh...you hope that's true to bolster your side of this
argument...uhh...you really have no idea but it sounds good?
Oh, I think the latter is the real truth.
Frank

oh, you don't think you're a "real professional" now do you?
That would be considered illegal in the most professional circles.
Frank