Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: TommyWeir on May 15, 2016, 10:56:39 am
-
Hi all, new member, enjoying the site tremendously.
I've been looking at getting back into printing and the focus here is greatly welcome. Been looking at the current offerings out there. I just won't have the funds or volume to justify a P800 or the Prograf 1000 and figure that a P600 or Pro-1 might be a more appropriate option for me, and use a service for larger prints.
I had been all on for a P600 but grew impressed at reports on Canon and the lack of clogging, approach to head replacement (I live in a rural area, service is... time-consuming). Given my likely low volume approach, this is a factor for me.
Wondering if people had any experience of both, from what I can see operating costs and print quality are much of a muchness.
And marginal I know but given the age of the Pro-1, I was wondering if Canon might add a 13" Prograf model and replace the Pro-1, thoughts?
Cheers
-
If you don't need more than a 13" carriage and are looking at alternatives, I suggest you look also at the Canon Pixma Pro-100. It is a dye-based printer, but the longevity of those dye inks is said to have improved tremendously over the past decade (I have no personal expertise to test that claim however.) The thing is that until May 29th you can buy one from B&H for a net price after rebate of $149. This is almost a giveaway. On that site, you will see it has 1100 reviews and nearly a five star rating. I recently saw output from it, and it's impressive. I have no first hand experience using it.
-
Thank you Mark, that's extraordinary. Live in the North West of Ireland actually. Here... cheapest would be €450 euro, or just over $500. No rebate here, I'm afraid.
-
Ah! Different sitrep. What pricing can you get on the Pro-1 over there?
-
The lowest for the Pro-1 is about USD 850. Cheapest P600 is USD 860. So price wise much the same.
Again the vouchers Canon USA offer don't apply.
-
I had been all on for a P600 but grew impressed at reports on Canon and the lack of clogging, approach to head replacement (I live in a rural area, service is... time-consuming). Given my likely low volume approach, this is a factor for me.
Wondering if people had any experience of both, from what I can see operating costs and print quality are much of a muchness.
Cheers
I currently have the P600, P400, Canon Pro-100, and Canon Pro-1 in house, and have been evaluating them for about a year. One thing I know for sure. Each one has a sweet spot where it would be the best choice, and each one has an achilles heel or two that can make it the worst choice depending on what type of media you most wish to print on and how frequently you print.
Here's my "executive summary" :)
Pro-1: Best in class for image quality. Slightly better than P600 due to very slightly better color gamut and the chroma optimizer. Truly stunning output, both color and B&W, but the other printers are certainly competitive in the print quality category. The Pro-1 is definitly a poor choice if you wish to print on fine art matte media due to huge page margin restrictions for which there are no practical work arounds. Also, absolutely by far and away the most expensive 13 inch printer to run if you use it infrequently. You can leave it for a few months and it will start up and run with amazing reliability, but you will pay a huge cost due to massive automatic cleaning cycles that the printer initiates with simple clock timer cycles based on days from last use. If you only use this printer once every couple of weeks or so, figure on several dollars of ink per letter-size print rather than approximately one dollar per 8x10" image size if you were to use the printer every day. That's how much ink goes down the waste tank to give endusers a perceived "clog-free" experience when this printer is not used daily. Aah, but the print quality...It's fantastic ;D
Pro-100: A wonderful choice and very enonomical choice if resin coated (RC) photo papers are what you mostly want to print on. Unlike the Pro-1, the Pro-100 is sparing on ink wastage even for the infrequent user. Even though a dye-based printer, longevity is better than traditional color chromogenic processes (traditional wet lab prints) on RC media. However, the dyes are not compatible with spray finishes, and that's a bit disappointing because I generally like to spray any prints I give to others for better handling durability and light fade resistance. Really nice B&W due to its three channels of photo gray inks, and truly wonderful color print quality on RC inkjet photo paper. This is its sweet spot. The Pro-100 has same margin constraints as the Pro-1 on fine art matte media, and no dedicated MK ink, so both image quality and versatility suffer when printing on matte media. Matte paper printing is not this printer's forte :(
P-600: I really like this printer. Great output and versatility printing on a wide range of media. After some initially concerning "autoclean" cycles when brand new and for several days after the first priming of the new printer, the autoclean freqency settles right down, and this printer is running very clog-free year round in my lab (which gets to 25-30% RH in winter months). PK to MK switch is more problematic and potentially wasteful than Epson specs claim, because the printer will refuse to do the PK/MK ink swap if any one of the ink channels are running low on ink. You have to discard them to proceed, and that can mean several dollars or more of wasted ink. Trying to put the low ink cartridges back in to the printer to reclaim that residual ink is a fool's errand, because the printer then needs to reprime itself, thus wasting more ink every time a cartridge gets replaced. Bottom line: A really great printer with great image quality if you can dedicate it primarily to just gloss/luster media or to matte media. If you routinely need to print on a variety of both matte and glossy media, the best solution is to bite the bullet and buy two units (or one P400 along with a P600), dedicating one unit to MK and one to PK printing (or the P400 to whatever you want) ;D
P-400: The sleeper in all of these discussions on "best printer" in the 13 inch class. I would heartily recommend it to photographers just wanting to get started in printmaking because it does nothing badly and just about everything pretty darn well. Serious printmakers will want to go upscale to P600/P800 models for better B&W output and slightly better image quality, but that said, the P400 comes the closest to the all-purpose printer for novice printers, IMHO. It even has some goodies (like best in class gloss optimizer) for advanced printmakers. Mine is running clog-free. No PK/MK ink swap issues, so you can go effortlessly between RC, matte, and fine art glossy luster papers at will. Has roll feed attachment, so it is competent with panorama printing that the Canon Pro 1 and Pro-100 printers can't do. The P400 does not have the sophistication of the P600 driver in terms of custom adjustments for thick papers and/or platten gap settings, or ink density limits, but my P400 nevertheless seems to handle all the media I've thrown at it with reasonable grace. Did I mention the gloss optimizer? This GO really excels with RC photo papers, and you can trick the printer into doing a second GO pass on fine art luster/glossy papers when the first pass isn't quite enough to eliminate all traces of gloss differential or bronzing, or with prints you've made on other pigment printers that don't have a GO option (like the P600)! Generic profiles for this printer tend to be made with "best photo" quality mode and they aren't very accurate if you switch to "Photo RPM" quality mode, but if you can make your own profiles or have some custom ones made using the Photo RPM mode, you will be rewarded with noticeably better photo quality. That's because the P400 does not have dedicated photo gray ink or light cyan or light magenta ink, so the RPM mode puts it into highest quality 5760x1400 dpi screening pattern which in turn helps overcome the lack of those light cyan and light magenta ink drops. A custom profile and Photo RPM setting brings the image quality on a par with the Canon Pro-100. P600 and Pro-1 still beat that quality level by some margin, not noticeable in a single stimulus viewing mode by the typical observer, but definitely noticeable to discerning viewers, particularly when making side-by-side comparisons to prints made on other printers in this 13 inch class.
I hope my summary helps others to make an informed decision on which 13 inch printer is best for them. The OP self selected as an infrequent user. That pretty much kills the Pro-1 for you, IMHO, all the others can handle low volume printing with reasonable grace, but it very important to also define what media type you really intend to use the most. The Pro-100 is great on RC and the most affordable, but P400 and/pr P600 are better choice if matte media is in your future and you also want better print longevity as well.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Awesome write-up. Thank you!
Can you speak to PRO-100 performance on gloss/lustre NON-RC papers (ie. barytas or just other non-RC)?
Any insight into the PRO-10 performance (guessing?)
-
What an extraordinary write-up. Thank you so much! Really useful.
I'll definitely check out the P400 and add it to the mix. I definitely love matte media. I think with infrequent use, like once a week a few prints, and matte media, I'll be looking at the Epson offerings more.
-
Awesome write-up. Thank you!
Can you speak to PRO-100 performance on gloss/lustre NON-RC papers (ie. barytas or just other non-RC)?
Any insight into the PRO-10 performance (guessing?)
The Pro-100 can make beautiful prints on non RC glossy/luster papers like many of the barytas. I haven't printed on a whole slew of them, but I do routinely use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, and the results with this paper printed on the Pro-100 were quite exceptional. Makes one truly understand why dyes still have a nice place in the inkjet market :) Spraying HN PhRagPearl with Lascaux fixative was the only spray finished combo that I would conclude was satisfactory with the Pro-100 dyes and will undoubtedly boost light and gas fade resistance, but even so, some loss in dmax and some color shifting occurred, so it was not the ideal result I had hoped for. I haven't found a spray yet that doesn't cause noticeable dye migration in the finished print. Epson Claria dyes suffer the same fate. The deep shadow values lose their richness and some colors like vivid reds can turn a little muddy-looking which no ICC profile is going to properly cancel out. But again, the uncoated "virgin" print quality on various non RC glossy/luster papers, albeit delicate in terms of handling, display, and storage, can be quite beautiful. I have no idea how much the dye stability takes a hit on these non OEM RC papers (it's on my to-do list to test here at Aardenburg), but I suspect the unvarnished light fade resistance will still be competitive with conventional chromogenic color papers. The synthetic dyes used on the Canon Pro-100, particularly the new black and photo grays, are less substrate sensitive than dye-based ink sets from earlier printer generations. They've come a long way, IMHO in terms of print longevity, but the latest pigment systems still handily outperform.
As for the Pro-10, I don't own it, but IMHO, it's a bit of a compromise to the Pro-1, with only 10 inks rather than the Pro-1's 12 ink channel arrangement. It very likely has all the Pro-1's annoying page margin limits on matte media plus huge ink wasting maintenance cycles with infrequent use since it is uses a thermal print head for pigment inks just like the Pro-1. It does add Wifi which is convenient for many and which the Pro-1 doesn't have, and the Pro-10 is also closer in the customary street price to the P600 than is the Pro-1. This pricing position in the Canon Pro Series lineup is the Pro-10's likely raison d'être to be in the Canon Pro series lineup. However, the 10 ink channel configuration sacrifices two of the Canon Pro-1's photo gray slots. B&W quality will take a hit compared to the Pro-1, but the Pro-10 is probably overall on par in image quality with the Epson P600, i.e., a little worse than the P600 on B&W print quality (the P600 has one more gray level) but possibly a little better on color prints due to the retained red and chroma optimizer channels. All and all, my guess it that the Pro-10 is arguably competitive with the P600 in its market positioning, but I'd personally go with the P600 due to the Canon Pro 1 and Pro-10 issues of excessive preemptive cleaning cycles under low use conditions, and absurdly restrictive matte media page margins that the P600 does not suffer from.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thank you for the follow-up information.
-
Thank you Mark, that's extraordinary. Live in the North West of Ireland actually. Here... cheapest would be €450 euro, or just over $500. No rebate here, I'm afraid.
If you're willing to take a chance, go to eBay, there are plenty of new in box units with the UPCs claimed for the rebate. I see some pro 100s for under 300 Euros shipped. Just make sure the ink and heads are included in the auction.
-
If you're willing to take a chance, go to eBay, there are plenty of new in box units with the UPCs claimed for the rebate.
Yep, got my pro-100 that way. It used to be a gamble that if it slipped through customs you could get a great bargain...if not, at least in France, anything could happen.
These days ebay have their own customs brokering deal and you know you in advance what you will pay: even if the shipping and customs doubles the price, you'll still come in 100€ or more under the local price (they still seem to be around 460€ here).
-
One item that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the ink cartridge capacity in the lower end canon and epson printers are very very small and can cause this type of purchase to turn out very expensive and frustrating when you are having to continually order new cartridges, assuming that the purchaser buys oem cartridges.
I only recently bought a new printer and opted for a Epson P800 as my last 2 printers were a Canon S900 and i9950, both had 13ml cartridges, I was also disappointed in Canon for not releasing drivers for the i9950 in the last few years, hoping Epson will support the P series for as long as I have th printer (fingers crossed).
Cheers, John
-
I just got a -100 and will almost certainly be going w/ PrecisionColor 3rd party inks since $16 per cart just isn't going to happen.
-
One item that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the ink cartridge capacity in the lower end canon and epson printers are very very small and can cause this type of purchase to turn out very expensive and frustrating when you are having to continually order new cartridges, assuming that the purchaser buy some cartridges.
Cheers, John
Hi John,
Yes, you are right to raise this issue. I didn't in my initial response because the O/P mentioned he would be a low volume user. For low volume users the upfront investment in bigger machines with large amounts of ink that just sit there under-used for long periods of time may make less sense than incurring the higher recurrent cost per ml of the smaller packaging formats. For a really low volume user, the latest generation of pretty long-lasting dye inks even in smaller tanks may make sense. But there is no question the unit price progression is heavily inversely related to cartridge size and something a prospective purchaser should take into account in the context of machine purchase cost and expected usage.
-
I just got a -100 and will almost certainly be going w/ PrecisionColor 3rd party inks since $16 per cart just isn't going to happen.
Is it really such a big deal? I get genuine ink for 12,90€/13ml cart. Weighing, I get around 12.5g out, so near enough 1€/ml. A pro-1000 or P800 uses 80ml carts which sell for about 55€ through the same channels... about 0,69€/ml. So on a 13x19 print, the difference is about 0,60€. Given that good RC paper in 13x19 is about 2€/sheet, or baryta 3€/sheet, it's not really a major factor.
-
Is it really such a big deal? I get genuine ink for 12,90€/13ml cart. Weighing, I get around 12.5g out, so near enough 1€/ml. A pro-1000 or P800 uses 80ml carts which sell for about 55€ through the same channels... about 0,69€/ml. So on a 13x19 print, the difference is about 0,60€. Given that good RC paper in 13x19 is about 2€/sheet, or baryta 3€/sheet, it's not really a major factor.
Hi Graham. let me support that perspective with only some qualification. I keep detailed print costings (to the extent practicable) and on the whole you are correct to observe that paper cost can outweigh ink costs by a substantial margin. And while using non-OEM inks may cost a bit less, it is, as you imply, a second-order difference in the grand scheme of printing costs. However, like so much else "it all depends". While ink consumption information for Epson printers at least up to and including 17" models has become a black box, Canon is going the opposite way providing detailed ink use and cost information for what is laid on paper (e.g. in the Pro-1000). Neither manufacturer will publish firmware producing information on ink consumption for maintenance. I happen to know that these costs can be substantial, depending; so when you go for an inclusive calculation of ink costs, and especially for those who print with cheaper papers, the balance of the equation between ink and paper costs can change. It would be reasonable to generalize that if you use small cartridges with pigment inks and need to do a lot of cleanings because of low usage, and you use cheap paper, the paper can cost more than the ink, and vice versa for the opposite set of conditions.
-
Indeed so, but my comment was in the context of the pro-100, which seems to have a low self-cleaning overhead. I assume the dye based inks are less prone to clogging that the pigment variety.
The same may not apply for the P600, or pro-10, but their cartridges are already bigger.
-
Indeed so, but my comment was in the context of the pro-100, which seems to have a low self-cleaning overhead. I assume the dye based inks are less prone to clogging that the pigment variety.
The same may not apply for the P600, or pro-10, but their cartridges are already bigger.
Yes I expect you would be correct about all that. So another trade-off to consider is the relatively expensive per unit costs for dyes versus low maintenance, compared with the pigments that may come in lower per ml cost but depending on usage, higher maintenance. When you think of it, it's difficult for consumers - numerous variables, some without adequate information, yet one wants to make an economical choice. One would need to model for machine cost, frequency and volume of usage, maintenance consumption, per print consumption, cartridge cost and time horizon just to get a realistic fix on comprehensive ink-per-print estimates. The modeling part isn't all that challenging for those who know their way around Excel and some arithmetic, but some of the key data is either unavailable or conjectural, which puts a damper on the whole thing. I think however we're coming from the same place suggesting that for low volume users the cost of ink should probably not be the determinative factor in a purchase decision.
-
Graham,
I hear what you're saying but your prices in Euros is not the same as what we do here in the US.
PRO-100 cart: $17 / 13mL = $1.31/mL
3880: $55 / 80mL = 0.70/mL
Assuming 1mL per 8.5x11 print, thats about $1.50-1.80 or so cost differential on every 13x19 sheet (which is my most common size). That's enough to make me want to look elsewhere for ink, at least in this particular case (I use OEM ink on my 3880)
-
Just to be clear, the longevity information I reported about the Canon Pro-100 is for the Canon CLI-42 OEM inks. I have not yet tested a dye-based third party ink set that comes anywhere close to the light fade resistance of the Canon Chromalife 100+ (differs from the older and much worse Chromalife 100 set) or the Epson Claria dye set used in Epson's 13 inch class Stylus 1410 printer. Essentially all third party dye sets are highly fugitive with respect to both light fastness and gas fade resistance even if they match initial OEM color and tone qualities. The PrecisionColor ink set for the Canon Pro-100 will no doubt meet the initial image quality parameters of OEM ink, but print longevity is anyone's wild guess.
cheers,
Mark
Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Just to be clear, the longevity information I reported about the Canon Pro-100 is for the Canon CLI-42 OEM inks. I have not yet tested a dye-based third party ink set that comes anywhere close to the light fade resistance of the Canon Chromalife 100+ (differs from the older and much worse Chromalife 100 set) or the Epson Claria dye set used in Epson's 13 inch class Stylus 1410 printer. Essentially all third party dye sets are highly fugitive with respect to both light fastness and gas fade resistance even if they match initial OEM color and tone qualities. The PrecisionColor ink set for the Canon Pro-100 will no doubt meet the initial image quality parameters of OEM ink, but print longevity is anyone's wild guess.
cheers,
Mark
Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark, I too was wondering about longevity with third party inks as I could not find say on the PrecisionColor website any mention of it. I would take this to mean they haven't invested in longevity testing. Is the "100+" in the name of the OEM ink marketing or do they have good reason to believe prints produced with those inks on certain papers would be archival for at least 100 years? Any idea?
-
Mark, I too was wondering about longevity with third party inks as I could not find say on the PrecisionColor website any mention of it. I would take this to mean they haven't invested in longevity testing. Is the "100+" in the name of the OEM ink marketing or do they have good reason to believe prints produced with those inks on certain papers would be archival for at least 100 years? Any idea?
I believe the "Chromalife 100" designation for Canon's OEM dye-based inks entered the picture (no pun intended) several years ago when Canon marketing folks learned from internal and WIR testing that dark album storage would be rated in excess of 100 years. Light fade resistance was rated by WIR to be on the order of about 24-29 years on select Canon media as I recall using the WIR standard 450 Lux-12hr per day average daily exposure assumption to calculate the display life. Unfortunately, the legacy WIR densitometric test still in use today has no color patches in test for max black and near black densities. The original ChromaLife 100 ink set therefore got a free pass on the black ink lightfastness performance, and it was pretty abysmal (please see ID#84 in the AaI&A Lightfade database for a good example of the ChromaLife 100 problem, and compare this result to ID#304 in order to see how much better the ChromaLife 100+ set is by comparison).
Canon quietly replaced this highly fade-prone black dye with the newer and much superior ChromaLife 100+ black dye, and to its credit rebadged the new ink set as "ChromaLife 100+ so that informed customers can easily tell the difference). This vastly improved black dye performance now also forms the basis of the 3 photo gray channels in the Canon Pro-100 printer. Third party dyes will be hard pressed to match the state-of-the-art Black dye molecule stability used in the ChromaLife 100+ ink set. Ditto for the other dye colors as well. The OEMs have come a long way in terms of both dye and pigment performance, but third party vendors as a general observation on my part can't match the R&D efforts that go into the OEM inks.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks for the clarification Mark.
-
I have heard from a so-called insider that HP have markedly improved their dye inks used in the various DesignJet LF printers.
-
I have heard from a so-called insider that HP have markedly improved their dye inks used in the various DesignJet LF printers.
The older HP Vivera dye inks had very good lightfastness properties when they were originally paired with HP branded and other swellable polymer media. This dye/media combination was the one that got rated over 70 year of display life in WIR testing and ushered in the first use of a "WIR Certified" seal on the package. However, swellable polymer media had all sorts of other humidity related issues and has been largely if not totally replaced by microporous papers. HP switched away from swellable media around 2011 (new media packages not getting a name change, but a label "instant dry" got added to the package designs). This transition left the HP printers like the Designjet series which used the "Vivera" dyes with far less light fade resistance on microporous media.
Epson Claria dyes were the first dye set to show that respectable light fade resistance could be achieved on microporous media, and Canon has followed suit with its continuing development of the ChromaLife 100/100+ dyes. That leaves the original HP Vivera dyes which were once best in class now lagging behind. Hence, it is very likely HP has also quietly continued development of better dyes for use in all dye-based office and photo printers. HP has also set a commendable precedent (Epson are you listening?) by retrofitting newer inks into older printers (photo printers that used HP57 cartridges got an upgrade to 57+, for example), but I haven't personally tested any new HP Vivera dyes recently, so I can't confirm whether the "so-called insider" is providing up to date info.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Okay... a bash at a spreadsheet. I hope it's clear enough in its thinking, conjectural elements abounding here. Am putting up in the hope that by parading my ignorance, you all feel free to fill me in!
A few notes:
- Parameters up top, the printer cost is more for info really.
- The ink per sq ft is a guide I've come across a few times, can be changed and values will shift.
- The total printed ink presumes (of course incorrectly) that all the ink is used at equal levels and speed. But variances are beyond my time and computational willingness, unless someone has a sensible suggestion.
- I figured 20% for waste (can be changed). I didn't add a cost in for wasted paper, which would actually be a higher cost than ink.
- Paper costs etc. are my local prices.
- Again, I limited it to two basic sizes of output, the print area rather than the paper area.
- You can change the no of prints per type of size and paper
- The total Ink used gets a conditional highlight in Numbers but the Excel conversion kills it, it should be less than the Actual Printed Ink amount calculated in the Parameters area.
- I read a guideline of 6 months for trouble free ink, so number of prints per week and associated costs might be of interest.
- The cost of paper you would use per set is computed.
- I wondered about offering a printing service for friends/colleagues of their own work, and worked out the levels to cover a full set of cartridges over the course of six months. Might help.
-
Okay... a bash at a spreadsheet. I hope it's clear enough in its thinking, conjectural elements abounding here. Am putting up in the hope that by parading my ignorance, you all feel free to fill me in!
A few notes:
- Parameters up top, the printer cost is more for info really.
- The ink per sq ft is a guide I've come across a few times, can be changed and values will shift.
- The total printed ink presumes (of course incorrectly) that all the ink is used at equal levels and speed. But variances are beyond my time and computational willingness, unless someone has a sensible suggestion.
- I figured 20% for waste (can be changed). I didn't add a cost in for wasted paper, which would actually be a higher cost than ink.
- Paper costs etc. are my local prices.
- Again, I limited it to two basic sizes of output, the print area rather than the paper area.
- You can change the no of prints per type of size and paper
- The total Ink used gets a conditional highlight in Numbers but the Excel conversion kills it, it should be less than the Actual Printed Ink amount calculated in the Parameters area.
- I read a guideline of 6 months for trouble free ink, so number of prints per week and associated costs might be of interest.
- The cost of paper you would use per set is computed.
- I wondered about offering a printing service for friends/colleagues of their own work, and worked out the levels to cover a full set of cartridges over the course of six months. Might help.
Tommy,
This is a rather more difficult exercise if one wants it to be truly useful, in the sense of having a modicum of accuracy for business purposes; if only for a rough rule of thumb out of personal curiosity, the accounting bar would be lower. The primary problem one runs into before getting into the conceptual stuff is lack of adequate data for estimating ink consumption for both prints and maintenance. Measuring ink for prints is not possible to do over the short term with the Epson P800, is available for the Canon Pro-1000, but neither of them are forthcoming with ink usage for maintenance and this can be a big deal - at least it has been for my 4900 and one hopes it will be less so for the P800, but it's a black box unless using an ink consumption inventory approach, which takes quite a period of usage and record keeping to build-up, absent transparency from the printer manufacturers. The assumptions you've made for ink usage, for lack of real information of course - I understand, are not reliable. Throughput tracking of actual printed coverage on a print-by-print basis is also important to make sure that the printed volume and the ink consumption match properly. To insure that investment cost is properly factored in, you need an algorithm that makes certain assumptions and calculations for per period machine depreciation and then allocates that depreciation over the volume printed per period, meaning that your spreadsheet needs date-sensitive formulae in the per print depreciation accounting, which would be more or less substantial depending on the cost of the printer relative to the periodic volumes printed. I know this doesn't give you a detailed walk-through on how to improve it - I can't do that here and data limitations probably limit the value of the exercise unless you want to get truly far more rigorous and sustain it over a long enough time period to build an inventory approach to ink usage. Hence, what you have done, with some fixing up, would provide a pro-tem rough rule of thumb that goes part of the way.
-
About as much as I can aim for given what I have... :-).
Thanks Mark.
-
Oh - I agree - not easy when basic information is unavailable or it takes a prolonged period to implement a workaround.