Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Site promises not kept  (Read 3936 times)

adri

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Site promises not kept
« on: July 22, 2018, 04:15:53 am »

Hello Kevin,

Observation: I frequently come across you writing that this and that camera or item will be reviewed soon, but then it never happens. I don't have the complete list, but a few cameras come to mind:

Sigma DP Quattro 0
Hasselblad X1D
Fujifilm GFX 50S

Perhaps too much focus on Sony these days indeed?

Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2018, 12:01:10 pm »

Hasselblad X1D .  https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-x1d-hands-review/

Fuji GFX 50 . https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-gfx-50s-sunday-road-trip/

DP Quatro . https://luminous-landscape.com/sigma-dp2-quattro-review/

and don't miss this one . . .  https://luminous-landscape.com/blooper-so-you-think-making-camera-review-videos-are-easy/

Right now we are putting finishing touches on Sony RX10iv, Sony 100-400mm with a9 and The Fuji X-h1 shooting in Chicago

Easy to find things by going to the search box and putting a word in the search.
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Stephen Scharf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2018, 10:57:12 pm »

Hello Kevin,

Observation: I frequently come across you writing that this and that camera or item will be reviewed soon, but then it never happens. I don't have the complete list, but a few cameras come to mind:

Sigma DP Quattro 0
Hasselblad X1D
Fujifilm GFX 50S

Perhaps too much focus on Sony these days indeed?

Thanks for this post. I've noticed was thinking exactly the same thing.

Include in that list the Fujifilm X-H1; ir'a been 4 months now. Good to hear from Kevin that something is in the works.

Logged

adri

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2018, 03:43:02 am »

Hasselblad X1D .  https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-x1d-hands-review/

Fuji GFX 50 . https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-gfx-50s-sunday-road-trip/

DP Quatro . https://luminous-landscape.com/sigma-dp2-quattro-review/

and don't miss this one . . .  https://luminous-landscape.com/blooper-so-you-think-making-camera-review-videos-are-easy/

Right now we are putting finishing touches on Sony RX10iv, Sony 100-400mm with a9 and The Fuji X-h1 shooting in Chicago

Easy to find things by going to the search box and putting a word in the search.

Thanks Kevin, but these are hands-on reviews, not full reviews, and the blooper video I never found funny because it kind of impresses us with a bias against the Sigma. Some professional photographers rave about the Sigma Quattro cameras (there have been many updates to the firmwares and the imaging software, b.t.w., since Michael's time). The Quattro Zero was never reviewed, b.t.w.

I would love to see your take on Hassy X1D vs. Fuji GFX.

Thanks for the links on the toyshop videos; that is most helpful.

A good article would be about the struggle between after market inkjet printer ink makers and the OEM's. It seems e.g. that Epson, via updates, is stopping these after market cartridges from being able to be used in their printers. In this way Epson can keep on selling their inks at crazy inflated prices. That strikes me as not very democratic! One little cartridge for the Epson P800 costs around $55! Aftermarket is about 1/2 price. If it voids the warranty, that should be choice of the end user, I think.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2018, 03:57:30 am »

Hi,

I would say that LuLa never used to be a "review" site, more about the owners sharing experience, interesting videos and stuff.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks Kevin, but these are hands-on reviews, not full reviews, and the blooper video I never found funny because it kind of impresses us with a bias against the Sigma. Some professional photographers rave about the Sigma Quattro cameras (there have been many updates to the firmwares and the imaging software, b.t.w., since Michael's time). The Quattro Zero was never reviewed, b.t.w.

I would love to see your take on Hassy X1D vs. Fuji GFX.

Thanks for the links on the toyshop videos; that is most helpful.

A good article would be about the struggle between after market inkjet printer ink makers and the OEM's. It seems e.g. that Epson, via updates, is stopping these after market cartridges from being able to be used in their printers. In this way Epson can keep on selling their inks at crazy inflated prices. That strikes me as not very democratic! One little cartridge for the Epson P800 costs around $55! Aftermarket is about 1/2 price. If it voids the warranty, that should be choice of the end user, I think.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2018, 04:54:42 am »

A good article would be about the struggle between after market inkjet printer ink makers and the OEM's. It seems e.g. that Epson, via updates, is stopping these after market cartridges from being able to be used in their printers. In this way Epson can keep on selling their inks at crazy inflated prices. That strikes me as not very democratic! One little cartridge for the Epson P800 costs around $55! Aftermarket is about 1/2 price. If it voids the warranty, that should be choice of the end user, I think.

Do you use OEM cameras?  Lenses?  Paper?  Printer hardware?

As a percentage of the cost of your print, the ink isn't the major component, but I never hear people looking for knock-off papers or fake-printers or trying to save cash on a Canikon copy.  Even the third party lenses get looked down upon by many.  All of those are worth far more than your ink.
Logged
Phil Brown

adri

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2018, 08:54:28 am »

Do you use OEM cameras?  Lenses?  Paper?  Printer hardware?

As a percentage of the cost of your print, the ink isn't the major component, but I never hear people looking for knock-off papers or fake-printers or trying to save cash on a Canikon copy.  Even the third party lenses get looked down upon by many.  All of those are worth far more than your ink.

Let's not bash those who use Voigtlander, Zeiss Batis, Nikon, Sigma ART, Canon L, etc. lenses on their Sony or other OEM brand cameras. Those who look down upon them are either ignorant, snobbish or scared.

Should we bash those who use Hahnemuhle, Museo, Canson, and other excellent papers?

Does Epson, Canon or HP actually make their own papers? I don't think so. So, even when their own name is on it, it's still a virtual "knock-off".

It's like Ibuprofen in the US; basically one factory makes it and sells it under all kinds of brand names. Ask my son; he has a Ph.>D in chemistry; he knows all about this.
Same in the shoe and textile industry. Makers of baking soda, etc.
So, let' s not kid ourselves.

When you can get excellent archival inks for half the price, that have no difference in color behavior, are just as stable, it's worth to explore them, especially if you print large and consume plenty of ink.

I actually don't even know if Epson makes their own inks; they may specify it precisely to a factory that does. This I don't know.

Smallest size I print (on Eppsn P800) is 13x19 inch, then 17x22 paper, then 17x51 panoramas. You need plenty of ink! A ful set of inks costs around $500.00. Peanuts? Sounds more like handing over gold nuggets.

Epson, Canon and other inkjet and laser printer makers know darn well that the real money is to made from the inks and toners (and some on the papers). Should we also buy OEM toner cartridges? At around $80 a piece? Even $40 is alreay a rip off.

B.t.w., I don't get good results with Epson's Coldpress Natural, no matter what settign or profile I try. When I use Brillaint paper, I get excellent results without any fuss. A very nice paper.

Many years ago, when I had an Epson turtle speed 3000, everyone om tne internet was warnign and saying that their non archival inks woudl fade terribly, espeiclaly on non archival. I can safely tell you that all the prints and test prints I made on different media, all look as good as the day they were printed.

I know, I had the book by Wilhelm on print testing, but they accelerate the aging, and I believe it's exactly this artificially induced acceleration that does more damage than the gradual passing of time. The real enemy of prints is smoke. Especially non-glossy media. I once had a failing chimney and there was smoke all over my studio, and then the framed prints of photos pritned on matte paper hanging on the walls are yellowed quite a bit.

Thnaks.'

Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4338
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2018, 11:13:18 am »

Does Epson, Canon or HP actually make their own papers? I don't think so. So, even when their own name is on it, it's still a virtual "knock-off".
They do not, but they do specify properties and manufacturing tolerances as they are ultimately responsible as the supplier.

Quote
When you can get excellent archival inks for half the price, that have no difference in color behavior, are just as stable, it's worth to explore them, especially if you print large and consume plenty of ink.
Somebody will need to do testing to demonstrate that the colors and stability are equivalent.  You also run a risk as use of 3rd party inks will void the warranty (this is a non-issue if the printer is out of warranty and still working fine.

Quote
I actually don't even know if Epson makes their own inks; they may specify it precisely to a factory that does. This I don't know.
Epson inks are protected by both patents and trade secrets.  One can get an idea of the ink composition by looking at the material safety data sheets but this does not provide one with the exact composition of compounds in the ink.  Ink cartridge design is also patent protected and one can do a search and see how they are constructed (one can also take them apart)

Quote
Smallest size I print (on Eppsn P800) is 13x19 inch, then 17x22 paper, then 17x51 panoramas. You need plenty of ink! A ful set of inks costs around $500.00. Peanuts? Sounds more like handing over gold nuggets.
Mark Segal who has done a number of printer reviews on LuLa has also written about ink consumption of some printers he has owned or reviewed.  Ink is expensive but if I recall correctly not as expensive as the paper one is using for printing.  If one is printing for sale, the cost of ink is irrelevant as it is passed on to the buyer.

Logged

adri

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2018, 12:22:37 pm »

They do not, but they do specify properties and manufacturing tolerances as they are ultimately responsible as the supplier.
Somebody will need to do testing to demonstrate that the colors and stability are equivalent.  You also run a risk as use of 3rd party inks will void the warranty (this is a non-issue if the printer is out of warranty and still working fine.
Epson inks are protected by both patents and trade secrets.  One can get an idea of the ink composition by looking at the material safety data sheets but this does not provide one with the exact composition of compounds in the ink.  Ink cartridge design is also patent protected and one can do a search and see how they are constructed (one can also take them apart)
Mark Segal who has done a number of printer reviews on LuLa has also written about ink consumption of some printers he has owned or reviewed.  Ink is expensive but if I recall correctly not as expensive as the paper one is using for printing.  If one is printing for sale, the cost of ink is irrelevant as it is passed on to the buyer.

Thank you, even though I know this already.

I still believe, despite passing the ink costs over to buyers of prints, that these inks are still too expensive. It probably comes to well over a $1000 per liter. Some say well over $10k per gallon. That really is kind of crazy. I still think it's highway robbery. This has nothing to do with who ultimately pays for it. It's a matter whether those inks are really that expensive to make. I agree that not all gasolines or motor oils are equally good, but nobody can produce equally good inks like OEMs can, strikes me as unrealistic.

I don't like the undemocratic idea of Epson coming up with printer updates that prevent after market inks to be used. Has nothing to do whether I would use them. It's a matter of principle. It's just not fair practice in a democratic world.

Yes, buyer beware. Those n on-EOM inks better not clog up your heads/lines!

According to www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p800-cost-per-print.html
a 13x19 print ink cost is $2.09
a 17x22 print ink cost is $3.09
thus a 17x51 panorama ink cost is around $5.75

Fair pricing? I personally think not. And I am not alone there.

Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4338
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2018, 12:28:55 pm »



Yes, buyer beware. Those n on-EOM inks better not clog up your heads/lines!

According to www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p800-cost-per-print.html
a 13x19 print ink cost is $2.09
a 17x22 print ink cost is $3.09
thus a 17x51 panorama ink cost is around $5.75

Fair pricing? I personally think not. And I am not alone there.
Price of paper is still higher than the ink costs you posted.  I print mainly on Moab Entrada Natural Rag.  17x22 inch sheets are about $4/sheet (I don't have a roll paper printer).  My other paper of choice Museo Silver Rag is even more expensive.  Is this fair pricing?
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2018, 06:48:31 pm »

How do you determine if it's fair or not?  You have already stated you don't even know who makes the ink.

If a photographer spends $10- to make a print and sells it for $500- is that "fair"?  What's a reasonable mark up?  Oh, the photog has spent money on other things like equipment, time, experience, expertise...yes, just like companies making inks.  Those who make specialist 3rd party inks (carbon, for example) are offering something very different and you'll find they're not particularly "cheap" compared to OEM inks.  OEM inks come with guarantees, support, precision, and so on.  This costs money.  Is it the right price?  Well, if it's being bought then it's the right price - if it's not then it's too expensive.

The notion that something is unfair or too expensive based on an arbitrary price point set by someone who has very little knowledge (by admission) of what's actually involved is hardly a reasonable benchmark, is it?

Buy whatever you want, of course, but as has been pointed out the ink costs less than the media.  Where are the complaints about the media being over prices?  I mean, it's just a piece of paper, isn't it?  Oh, that's right, it's not just a piece of paper and inks aren't just a liquid with some dye or pigment in it, either.
Logged
Phil Brown

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3915
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2018, 08:07:33 pm »

IMHO, the problem with printer manufacturers and their business model is environmental, not cost.

My Epson 9800 has two "maintenance tanks", storage units for inks pumped overboard during nozzle checks and cleanings.  Even those aren't re-usable!  They're chip protected to prohibit multiple use. These aren't magic technological secrets, they're plastic boxes with paper sponges! 

The global plastics problem is bad enough without this kind of single-use product being forced upon consumers.

I promised myself that if Epson produced a printer that took inks from bottles rather than carts, I'd buy one. So I did. Epson markets the "Eco Tank" printers that do exactly that, but for North America, only to the business market. 4 (dye) inks only.  I had to order my 6 ink model from overseas.  It works perfectly and uses no carts.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17226
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2018, 11:48:56 pm »

There are printers that can use third-party inks. Why not use them?

On a side note, as of when is business supposed to be democratic? Whatever that even means in this context - consumers voting on the “fair” price? They already do - voting with their wallets - they can buy or not at the current price.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2018, 08:20:01 am by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2018, 03:26:35 am »

There are printers that can use third-party inks. Why not use them?

Because they want all the benefits of the R&D that goes into the printer of choice, but they're worried about the minor of the costs of printing and think that any old company can make ink that's "just as good" even though when pushed no third party ink manufacturer will actually guarantee that other than the likes of the guys doing specialist sets such as I mentioned with carbon inks - they do actually stand behind their product fully and of course they are not as cheap as the super cheap knock-offs.

Now, the environmental consideration of getting rid of cartridges?  Yes, very valid and, as was noted there are now products that do that which is awesome.
Logged
Phil Brown

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2018, 05:51:32 am »

Because they want all the benefits of the R&D that goes into the printer of choice, but they're worried about the minor of the costs of printing and think that any old company can make ink that's "just as good" even though when pushed no third party ink manufacturer will actually guarantee that other than the likes of the guys doing specialist sets such as I mentioned with carbon inks - they do actually stand behind their product fully and of course they are not as cheap as the super cheap knock-offs.

Now, the environmental consideration of getting rid of cartridges?  Yes, very valid and, as was noted there are now products that do that which is awesome.


It always appeared to me that printers were used as loss-leaders.

That somebody can sell prints at five hundred bucks is great, for him, but irrelevant to the guy who just wants to enjoy his hobby. Whenever I have had to buy a new ink I feel convinced that the "empty" cartridge is anything but! The tied-in concept feels just as if Nikon forced you to buy Nikon film or cards. Nikon never made film, but it didn't hinder sales one iota. If anything, Kodachrome helped it along very nicely, thank you.

And how can one sensibly equate ink to print costs? My dead HP B 9180 had to remain switched on 24 hrs a day, and it ran a sequence just to stay workable, using up ink that never saw prints! As for most hobby users of that level of machine, it was not a tax-deductible part of a factory turning out mass prints; it was a now-and-then process where ink going down the tubes instead of onto your pictures does annoy, and the result is that every print that is made is that much more expensive because of the built-in wastage, necessary or otherwise.

Longevity is also a bit of a joke. Whose images are going to be important in a hundred years time? Other than some official documents that may have historical value, most of our stuff will be on a bonfire of our own vanities or churned up into cardboard for the next box of dog biscuits. I have a couple of colour snaps that I made on my first letter printer - an Epson of some kind - and they look as stable as they need be. Crappy, but still the same level of crappy.

The reality, I believe, is that we are being royally screwed.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2018, 06:31:48 am »

The reality, I believe, is that we are being royally screwed.

The thing about reality is that it's not dependent upon belief.
Logged
Phil Brown

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19651
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2018, 08:20:19 am »

The thing about reality is that it's not dependent upon belief.
+1.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2018, 09:44:40 am »

The thing about reality is that it's not dependent upon belief.

Ha, that's just what you believe! Got proof?

;-)
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2018, 09:51:41 am »

+1.


Now you're going all fuzzy mathematician on me!

Reality is most certainly subjective; were it otherwise, we'd all be thinking the same things as everybody else. Of course, that's not to say that many do not fall into that mould; but I won't press ahead on this - could get the padlocks out!

:-)

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Site promises not kept
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2018, 03:17:02 pm »

this thread seems to have wandered far off topic ...

Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up