It looks like I'm paying Epson for the luxury of putting ink into the maintenance tank (which I also pay for!) instead of onto paper.
Just put in a new maintenance tank and thought it weighed a lot, so that's what I did, I weighed it, along with an empty & full ink cartridge:
Ink weight in full maintenance tank: 600g
Ink weight in full 220ml cartridge: 200g
Been through 3 to 4 full ink sets on this tank, so that's nearly a full ink cartridge "wasted" per set, or 12%. That works out at £50 per ink set going down the pan.
Is it me, or does that seem outrageous!
<Machine stays on all the time and I avoid the dreaded Ink Draining Power Clean>
Full Version: Epson 7800 Wasted Ink !!
The 4000 is worse. I've tracked cleaning vs ink on paper over the past couple of years and about 47% of total ink use goes to cleaning cycles.
Subsequent models have improved and when the next 17", roll paper, no ink swapping version comes out I'll probably bite.
Others have pointed out that you have to look at the all in costs in the context, not of a perfect world, but in the context of what your alternative is. I think the jury's still out on the economics of the HP and Canon models with the heads as consumables - if they get too clogged, you throw them out...
In any event now that Epson has some competition, the "invisible hand" will do what has to be done.
BTW, the power clean isn't necessarily all bad. I expended more than the cost of a power clean over a month about a year ago on individual cleaning cycles - it would work for a couple of days, then a monster clog again - eventually ran a power clean, and it was back to it's normal ink consumption appetite.
Subsequent models have improved and when the next 17", roll paper, no ink swapping version comes out I'll probably bite.
Others have pointed out that you have to look at the all in costs in the context, not of a perfect world, but in the context of what your alternative is. I think the jury's still out on the economics of the HP and Canon models with the heads as consumables - if they get too clogged, you throw them out...
In any event now that Epson has some competition, the "invisible hand" will do what has to be done.
BTW, the power clean isn't necessarily all bad. I expended more than the cost of a power clean over a month about a year ago on individual cleaning cycles - it would work for a couple of days, then a monster clog again - eventually ran a power clean, and it was back to it's normal ink consumption appetite.
QUOTE (Tim Gray @ Aug 10 2007, 07:59 AM)
The 4000 is worse. I've tracked cleaning vs ink on paper over the past couple of years and about 47% of total ink use goes to cleaning cycles.
Subsequent models have improved and when the next 17", roll paper, no ink swapping version comes out I'll probably bite.
BTW, the power clean isn't necessarily all bad. I expended more than the cost of a power clean over a month about a year ago on individual cleaning cycles - it would work for a couple of days, then a monster clog again - eventually ran a power clean, and it was back to it's normal ink consumption appetite.
Subsequent models have improved and when the next 17", roll paper, no ink swapping version comes out I'll probably bite.
BTW, the power clean isn't necessarily all bad. I expended more than the cost of a power clean over a month about a year ago on individual cleaning cycles - it would work for a couple of days, then a monster clog again - eventually ran a power clean, and it was back to it's normal ink consumption appetite.
Tim, up to yesterday my 4800 has used 32.8% of ink on all kinds of cleanings. Still too high, but better than than both your and my previous experience with the 4000. I've been using my 4800 since November 2005 and processed about 1600 sq. ft. of printed coverage through it. I agree with your observation about the usefulness of power-cleaning. Once the machine starts showing repeated clogs at short intervals, it is more economic to do a power clean than to keep de-clogging it with the usual cleaning cycles triggered from the utility. Epson recommends power-cleaning them every three months or so, depending on usage.
I am exactly on your wavelength about the up-grade criteria. Now is not a good time to change these machines.
QUOTE (Tim Gray @ Aug 10 2007, 05:59 PM)
The 4000 is worse. I've tracked cleaning vs ink on paper over the past couple of years and about 47% of total ink use goes to cleaning cycles.
47% !!!
That's a shocker
Crikey, I'll think I'll shut up with my measly 12% !
From your figures, what average rule of thumb (ink on paper, ignoring cleaning) do you use for ml per square inch/cm
I'm currently using a combined figure of 0.01 ml/cm2 for costing (number off web plus fudge factors!). Ink in UK for 7800 cost around UK-£0.25 per ml inc taxes.
Cheers
Chris
CJD,
On my Epson 4800, over the period November 2005 to yesterday, for the same 1600 sq. ft. I mentioned, the grand average without cleanings works out to 0.013 ml per sq. in. Of course, any one in business needs to add-in the overhead for both cleanings and waste prints. I've written articles and provided the model for doing this on this website. Once I include the cleaning experience I mentioned above, the combined ink usage is 1.01 ml per 54 sq. in., which equates to about 0.019 ml per sq. in. Then let us say 10% of your total output ends-up in the waste-basket for whatever reason, you need to divide this consumption by (1-wastage %), which would be (1-0.1) = 0.9, then, (0.019/0.9) = 0.021 ml per sq. in. including cleaning and wastage. Then I would add something on top of that to cover for the lack of certainty about whether future performance will be yet less efficient than current performance.
It remains nonetheless true that in the larger scheme of things, the cost of ink isn't what makes or breaks commercial photography. The value of time and the combined costs of other overheads, such as rent, transportation, equipment and utilities must swamp ink costs by quantums.
On my Epson 4800, over the period November 2005 to yesterday, for the same 1600 sq. ft. I mentioned, the grand average without cleanings works out to 0.013 ml per sq. in. Of course, any one in business needs to add-in the overhead for both cleanings and waste prints. I've written articles and provided the model for doing this on this website. Once I include the cleaning experience I mentioned above, the combined ink usage is 1.01 ml per 54 sq. in., which equates to about 0.019 ml per sq. in. Then let us say 10% of your total output ends-up in the waste-basket for whatever reason, you need to divide this consumption by (1-wastage %), which would be (1-0.1) = 0.9, then, (0.019/0.9) = 0.021 ml per sq. in. including cleaning and wastage. Then I would add something on top of that to cover for the lack of certainty about whether future performance will be yet less efficient than current performance.
It remains nonetheless true that in the larger scheme of things, the cost of ink isn't what makes or breaks commercial photography. The value of time and the combined costs of other overheads, such as rent, transportation, equipment and utilities must swamp ink costs by quantums.
I agree that wasted ink is a problem but to maybe put it into perspective, when I did traditional darkroom printing (up until last year) there was far more wasted photographic paper to get the kind of print that I could accept. Also printing chemistry was never kept between printing sessions except for selenium toner. So what I'm saying, is that money down the drain was an accepted part of traditional process as well.
So I just accept the high cost of digital ink and the not quite empty cartridges that I have to throw away, as well as the cleaning cycles, as part of the cost of doing business.
Michael
So I just accept the high cost of digital ink and the not quite empty cartridges that I have to throw away, as well as the cleaning cycles, as part of the cost of doing business.
Michael
QUOTE (blansky @ Aug 10 2007, 10:48 AM)
.............the not quite empty cartridges that I have to throw away, as well as the cleaning cycles, as part of the cost of doing business.
Michael
Michael
If you are talking about Epson 110 or 220 ml cartridges, I am given to understand that the left-over ink is above the volume stated on the package, and put there for safety. Needless to say we are paying for it, but we are still supposed to be getting the full stated volume from tank onto paper.
Hey Mark
Thanks for the top tips of ink usage. I think I remember seeing your info on the site - I obviously didn't utilise it that well.....
But thankfully (!!!) I don't have to earn a living from photography and sell prints just for the pleasure. (I'd starve very quicky if I had to try and live on it).
Cheers
Chris
Thanks for the top tips of ink usage. I think I remember seeing your info on the site - I obviously didn't utilise it that well.....
But thankfully (!!!) I don't have to earn a living from photography and sell prints just for the pleasure. (I'd starve very quicky if I had to try and live on it).
Cheers
Chris
QUOTE (blansky @ Aug 10 2007, 08:48 PM)
So I just accept the high cost of digital ink and the not quite empty cartridges that I have to throw away, as well as the cleaning cycles, as part of the cost of doing business.
For sure, it is small beer in the round of things, but it remains galling (to me anyway) when you actually feel the weight of that full maintenance tank!
But hey, it costs me US$160 to fill up my car, so I should stop worrying about a bit of ink!
QUOTE (MarkDS @ Aug 10 2007, 11:05 AM)
If you are talking about Epson 110 or 220 ml cartridges, I am given to understand that the left-over ink is above the volume stated on the package, and put there for safety. Needless to say we are paying for it, but we are still supposed to be getting the full stated volume from tank onto paper.
i use a chip resetter on my waste tank. prices vary from $12 to $50 for the resetter.
i cut out the plastic stuff at top of waste tank. then refill it with a sponge or paper towels.
on my epson 9600 went thru over 25000 sq/ft of material and ink but just one waste tank
just bought a new 7800 and my old chip resetter works on that tanks as well.
inks i use are only epson inks. inks that are left in empty cartiges which is about 2 ounces i use on my r1800 or retrans to a old 9800 cart. not shure what i will do with the empty cart on 7800. those are pressurized. got the printer 8-01-07
cart are 3/4 empty. monday ordering another set of cart.
my cost of printing. ink only 50% coverage .50 cents per ml full coverage is $1. per ml
when ever cleaned out waste tank it seemed like there was about 6 ot 7 ounces of ink in it.
my printers are used every day and at the most i would no a deep head cleaning my be 1 time every 5 to 7 months. i think i did a normal head cleaning maybe 3 times on my 9600. cant say i really have a problem with clogged heads.
a friend of mine has a 9600 and he uses gineric inks and is allways doing a head cleaning.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.