Pigment Inks other than Epson

[John Camp]

These kinds of arguments never go anywhere, because none of us really know the long-term costs of producing ink, including research and development. However, my feeling is that Epson and Canon are ripping us off on ink. I have several office printers in various places, and most recently, I paid more than $141 on Amazon for a Canon cartridge for my Image Class black-only printer...

Another indication that ink prices are out of line is that Kodak took a different approach to marketing, which may be why Kodak isn't around so much anymore -- but in any case, they apparently tried to charge the full price for the printer, while charging the normal profit for pigmented inks -- and their inks are a fraction of the price of Epson and Canon.

So, I don't know the details, but there are some valid indications I think, that we're being overcharged...because they can.   

[Farmer]

If someone offers something at price A and the market pays price A, then price A is the correct price.

Additionally, larger companies have far more costs to cover than 3rd party specialists, for example (it's far more expensive to provide support and warranty and conduct R&D and safety testing and chemical testing and certification and environmental support and so on than to just provide relatively low volumes of ink to an existing market.

No doubt we could have lower ink prices, but then hardware prices would go up or support would go down or quality would go down and so on.

If you've read the details of the new PrecisionCore, for example, it's quoting making 2.5B decisions a second regarding ink firing in that technology and it's taken about 7 years to bring that idea to market. 

Let's look at it another way.  How much does it cost in materials (including electricity and so on) to make a fine art print for sale?  How much do good ones sell for?  Does everyone rely on a 5% marign?  No.  You pay (as a consumer) what you think something is worth to you and no more which is why some prints sell for more than others and some printers and ink sell for more than others.

Since you have a choice of alternatives (including different brands, different printing methods, out-sourcing, third-party consumables and other systems), you're hardly being forced to do anything and the cost of the ink and the capital costs of the printer, as always, represent only a portion of the total cost of printing (and in the case of ink, not even the largest portion).  As such, I'm not sure you can claim to being ripped off.

[enduser]

When there is a very small number of producers of a product, as with LF photo printers, market power overwhelmingly determines price.  It is naive to believe otherwise.

[Farmer]

Yes, but you're missing the point - photo pritning is the smallest portion of the use of these printers.  Proofing is the largest followed by sign and display and then print-for-pay and then professional photo printing a long way behind that.  They all use the same ink.  There is very strong competition amongst the "traditional" players in these markets (Canon, Epson, HP) and a number of alternatives outside of those markets (solvent is becoming viable, particularly for print-for-pay doing canvas, for example) which brings in Mutoh, Roland, Mimaki and others).

It's not so closed as you might think once you expand beyond the view of a photographer.

[Randy Carone]

So true, and Mutoh, Roland and Mimaki all use Epson heads.

[Farmer]

And their own inks in many cases (and the availability of refill or third-party solvent inks is much larger than for aqueous).

[chez]

I don't understand people being upset by thinking they are being ripped off by ink prices. You don't like Epson ink prices, get a 3rd party brand or do your printing at Costco. It's a free market, speak with your wallet.

I know the price I pay for my HP inks and I know in making a fine art print, the cost of the ink is very small relative to all other costs including my camera equipment, travel to locations and my time devoted to making the print from image capture to final framing. Am I going to chance using some fly-by-the-night ink manufacturer on my art when the savings would be pennies....not a chance.

[Damir]

Using information from international chemical journals we were able to calculate the cost of aqueous pigment inks used in LF machines.  We used typical margins at each stage and included cartridge costs. Our estimated was price about 25% of that widely charged for Canon iPF inks at the retail end of the chain.

We then did the same for similar liquid volumes sold where the components were identifiable and found some under, some over and some around the same as retail prices.  This doesn't prove our methods, but none  were so far from the retail price as printer ink.

When you buy a coffee in a cafeteria what goes in cost around 25% of what you pay for it!

[Peter McLennan]

If this story and the technique proves effective, I promise to end forever my rants against high prices for inkjet ink. 

Medical researchers in the UK claim to have printed with piezoelectric print heads (ie Epson) two types of retinal cells.  This technique promises to restore at least some sight to those affected with retinal damage. I can think of no higher calling for these technologies than restoring sight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25405542

[Wayne Fox]

Another indication that ink prices are out of line is that Kodak took a different approach to marketing, which may be why Kodak isn't around so much anymore -- but in any case, they apparently tried to charge the full price for the printer, while charging the normal profit for pigmented inks -- and their inks are a fraction of the price of Epson and Canon.

Kodak’s reduced ink costs were due to the fact they put a permanent head in the printer, so cartridges were ink only, much like pro level printers.  Most consumer printers combine the disposable “head” on the cartridge.

So the printer costs more because it’s more expensive to build (a permanent durable head vs a throw away head on each cartridge), and the ink is cheaper because it’s just ink.  As far as what happened to Kodak, that ship sailed long before they came out with that particular line of printers.

[Farmer]

If this story and the technique proves effective, I promise to end forever my rants against high prices for inkjet ink. 

Medical researchers in the UK claim to have printed with piezoelectric print heads (ie Epson) two types of retinal cells.  This technique promises to restore at least some sight to those affected with retinal damage. I can think of no higher calling for these technologies than restoring sight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25405542

Brilliant!