Printer stopped working - is it even worth trying to fix it or justbuy a new one?

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:28 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> When using pigmented ink it is even more important to use OEM ink since
>> pigmented ink in general carries a higher risk of clogging the printhead
>> so you want to make sure that you use the highest quality and that is
>> almost only made of OEMs. The only exception that I have discovered is
>> Pantone and ink from them probably costs more than OEM.
>
> That has not been my experience. You see, cheap aftermarket inks are
> actually dye rather than pigment, so as such they are not more likely
> to clog, they are LESS likely to clog, and actually might benefit
> operation by helping to dissolve residue. Hobbicolors for example at
> one point offered a dye ink for the pigmented canon black, but now
> they don't.
>
> So I'll agree you have to be really aware of the product that you are
> buying, and get some advice from others who have tested it, but I've
> not observed that Image Specalists ink. I've used over 12oz of their
> pigmented black, roughly equal to 13.64 cartridges. I'm still
> printing on my ip5200. OEM that would be $218 dollars plus tax. I
> bought it before the price went up, so about $24, plus shipping along
> with the color. This doesn't include the 4 oz of hobbicolor dye
> black I pushed though the printer.
>
> Let's presume the ink I use shortens the life of my printhead.
> Printheads are only $50, printers start about about $100. If my
> printer exploded today, it still would be cheaper and we're not even
> talking about the color ink I put through the Canon.
>
> Now Measkete, I can accept the longevity of dye is a serious
> consideration, and I fully support your quixotic crusade to inform the
> public that this is an issue with aftermarket dye inks. I can even
> accept that using a different ink would affect the printhead life.
> But Canons are only rated for 10,000 pages in the first place. Their
> printheads due burn out using OEM ink. If you have to replace the
> head after 3 cartridge changes of aftermarket ink, and the head is
> $50, IT'S STILL CHEAPER!.
>
> Keep in mind because of people like me, the manufacturers have an
> incentive of keeping YOUR cost of consumables down.
>
>
Your argument will slide right off his back. Measekite is a snob, smug
in the "knowledge" of his superiority. Elite people like him will never
accede to us common folk. He equates cost with quality, when really cost
is a poor measure to use. So, anything you do to save a buck or two is
automatically a bad thing to do, in his eyes. He thinks that the only
way to make something better is to throw more money at it.

He is to be pitied.

TJ

On Sep 29, 4:02 am, shakira <shakira.326b...@hardwarebanter.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
> I came to this forum to gather information about printer. I am going to
> buy a printer. Which one is best printer? Can you people suggest me one
> printer.


No we can't. There are a number of printers on the market, each with
their own beneifts and short comings.
If your budget is $100 to $150

[Canon]
I wouldn't recommend the new ip4600 at this time due to the fact that
they made the printhead smaller than the ip4500 and decreased the
yield on the cartridges so you end up spending more money.
I own the ip5200 and the ip4500 is a step up from mine, offering an
extra nozzle size. Canon is very good for text, great for photos, but
longevity of prints is rather sub par. CD printing can be enabled
with moderate ease if you order the tray for about $20-$25.

The MP830 and MP530 are on sale presently for $151 / $101 shipped from
buy.com. These are their all in one fax models featuring an auto
document feeder. This is a good value as normally you get thimble
sized cartridges, and these are their main stream models. The mp830 I
own and it's identical in print quality and printhead to my ip5200.
The mp530 has a smaller printhead so expect text and photos to take
slightly longer.

September/October is a good time to buy Canon as that's whent hey
release their new models, and the new model isn't really an upgrade.

Text printing on all these models floats at about 3c/page @ 5%
coverage. A given 26ml CLI-5 tank provides about 500-525 pages of
text and runs $16

Camera printing is accomplished through pictbridge on their lesser
models. Their mp830 has compliment of card slots.

I tend to lean toward Canon as offering on of the better general
purpose printers, but that may change depending on how well new HP
models do.

[HP]

The HP Photosmart D5460 looks very interesting, but as it's a new
model there isn't that much data about it. The best review in terms
of information is in German. It's presently onsale for $79.99 from
the HP store, and does qualify for free shipping.
http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel...nter_die_haube

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/Q8421A%2523B1H
I believe their big black is about 19ml and according to them provides
ink for 800pages, but the yield is not specified, but at least they do
document yields based on a documented test you can repeat. $28.99 for
800 pages is not a bad deal, floating at about 3.6c/page. This is
more than Canon's prior generation, but on par or less with their
current models within .25cents or so. HP text tends to be superb, and
is reviewed as such on druckerchannel. Prior models offered object
oriented printing, as is mixed images were rendered as text or
graphics. Canon is documented oriented, as in a document is either
plain paper or photo paper. I would have to see how it renders
documents, but this could represent an improvement for back text on a
DVD cover.

They suggest that using they claim their ink is lightfast up to 75
years.

CD printing is a standard feature on this model.

The AIO version is the C3680 which is priced at about $210 or so.

Most interesting is their switch to the Canon type design for
cartridges, simple two chamber tanks with metering by a prism.

Pictbridge is not supported on the D5460, but it does offer cardslots
including the obsolete huge CF. Personally I find card slots more
useful as if I travel with my camera, odds are I forget the cable.

[Kodak]

Their easy share series takes a $10 black cartridge with a yield of
about 400p @ 5% coverage, working out to be 2.5c/page. A color tank
is $15 but I don't have accurate data of it's yield. It uses black
and color pigments as well as a clear coat. They only offer all in
one units starting at $100 for their easyshare 5100. The new ESP 9 is
available on pre-order and features WIFI and an auto document feeder,
vs the old 5500 with document feeder but no wifi for $200
http://printers.kodak.com/

The big deal with Kodak is the cost of ink being among the lowest for
inkjets. 2.5c/page is on par with Canon 5 years ago. Most notable is
their use of pigmented ink, which will outlast dye on just about all
media.

What they don't seem to offer is samples of their prints. HP does on
a selection of models, Epson does on their prosumer models, Canon has
a http://www.trymyphoto.com/ where you can upload a print to be
printed on their pixma pro 9000 and 9500.

I can say NOTHING about the output from Kodak's printers, only the ink
is a good value for black.

[Epson]

Epson offers some very stellar photo printers. They also offer
document printers with serious longevity of printed pages. They don't
really offer a general purpose printer. CD printing is a stock
feature on the r280, which if it's anything like the r200 it's a
stellar photo printer even if the r200 was designed to be a disposable
wonder. They have a clearance site with refurbished printers which
come with a full set of ink for dirt cheap. As in $55 for the r280,
the all in one rx530 or rx595 for $85.

On Sep 29, 4:10 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> Your experience is immaterial. Just read all of the posts here. Besides,
> the fly by niters misrepresent their ink and many sell you dye and tell
> you it is pigment.

They "could", but inksupply doesn't. Hobbicolors near as I'm aware
doesn't.

It sounds like you have a case of the "could bees".


> You cannot trust any of them.

Inksupply.com always provided the product I asked for. Always pigment
for black. 90% less than OEM.


> If you buy OEM you do not need to be aware.

Yes you do, as you've said your self some OEM inks and printers are
more clog prone than others. You absolutely promote awareness of the
OEM options.


> Nobody really believes all that you say. You have even be in the business.

Oh noes, it's a conspiracy.

> You cannot compare the crappy results you got with OEM and also the risk
> of fading is greater

1) Results are not crappy
2) Faiding with pigmented ink is not an issue
3) Going with bulk ink reduces your print cost for black from 2.5c/
page to .25cent/page
4) You can compare the results just fine
> > If you have to replace the head
>
> By that time just get another one.

If you like, it rather adds to the waste buying printers every few
years.

But buying PRINTERS that result in explosion after the 3rd cartridge
change of aftermarket ink is cheaper.

>
> > after 3 cartridge changes of aftermarket ink, and the head is $50, IT'S
> > STILL CHEAPER!.
>
> It is not cheaper. You just spent less money but since you did not get
> anywhere near the same value it is not cheaper.


This is where I don't understand Measekite logic.

MIS cost for 12oz or 16 oz of ink - $30. About $8 shipping, but lets'
be fair and say $24 for 4oz ink bottles.
$54 or $38
13.6 cartridges 18.2 cartridges

Canon price
$217.60-$291.20 plus tax or shipping

Amount saved
$163.60 - $253.20

And this is just black, not color.

Savings
about 80% - 90% not including tax.

Not just cheaper, but very cheaper.

measekite wrote:

>
> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo equipment
> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the quality
> but you want it all.
>
>
The people who would spend that much on "photo equipment" comprise an
almost minuscule segment of the printer market. For the rest of us,
70-80% of the quality of a new printer is much more than adequate.

I'm curious... If the technology of a used printer isn't good enough for
you, why are you still limping along with that old Canon ip4000? It must
be getting 4 or 5 years old by now, and from the way you write it must
be nearly worn out from printing all those archival photos of yours. You
aren't getting the "advantages" of new technology if you persist in
using such old, outdated equipment, you know.

TJ

The Village Idiot wrote:
> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo equipment
> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the quality
> but you want it all.

I have way over $2k invested in photo equipment and after market ink
gives me 99% of the quality of OEM ink. You obviously don't know much
about photography because if you did you would know $2k doesn't get you
anywhere near "very good" equipment. I would rather spend money on
obtaining "very good" equipment than over priced ink that is no better
than the inexpensive, high quality third party ink I use. If you didn't
waste so much money on over priced OEM ink you might have some decent
photography gear yourself. But then you are the Village Idiot and you
prove it daily.

On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo equipment
> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the quality
> but you want it all.


You PRESUME we have a couple of thousand dollars in great photo
equipment. I'm still on film my self for the most part. I've not
made the leap to digital. I have a modest set of lenses for my Canon
t-70 and A-1. Still I find scans on CD to be adequate for my needs.
I'm not looking forward to upgrading to digital as unlike Pentax and
Nikon my lenses won't fit the new model, and it takes a while to get
really familiar with a lens. But needless to say it's nothing to
sneeze at.

You average consumer though doesn't own an slr, digital or otherwise.
Odds are they own a point and shoot model. There are some good ones
out there, esp that brand that uses Leica lenses. But really if
someone is investing "thousands" of dollars in photo equipment, odds
are they are not going to want the disposable a4 model with ink only
rated at about 30 years under glass, not when you upload .tifs to a
lab and get prints on fuji critical archive photographic paper for far
less. Still there is a demand for in house printing, you have the
prosumer models like the Pixma pro9000/9500, epson r1800/2400, or
models like the Epson Pro 4800. When buying the prosumer or consumer
models, you're going to be paying well over $1/ml. Going with the pro
model it's going to be $70 for 110ml or 63c/ml. That's OEM. 4.5x the
price but 10x the volume. Granted we are talking $2000+ printers, but
hey in terms of at least volume of ink, a set of 8 110ml cartridges
would be over $1000 in consumer cartridges, likely more as it is ultra
chrome.

But if what you said is true, then there wouldn't be a need for
companies like Media Street, and the simple fact of the matter is even
though the consumer models are bult as well as the wide pro models,
adding a bulk feeder is an attractive solution for a3+ and smaller
sizes.

So my point. You average person with a $100 printer DOESN'T HAVE
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN PHOTO EQUIPMENT. They have point and shoot
models and just want to print the **** picture. Quality of
aftermarket can be so close to being on par with OEM you have to see
the prints side by side to even tell the difference. Odds are
aftermarket doesn't have the print life OEM does, but Canon isn't the
choice if you want printlife. You go HP or Epson for that, even HP
and Epson dye inks are rated longer under glass than Canon's 30 years.

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo equipment
>> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the quality
>> but you want it all.
>
>
<snip>
>
> So my point. You average person with a $100 printer DOESN'T HAVE
> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN PHOTO EQUIPMENT. They have point and shoot
> models and just want to print the **** picture. Quality of
> aftermarket can be so close to being on par with OEM you have to see
> the prints side by side to even tell the difference. Odds are
> aftermarket doesn't have the print life OEM does, but Canon isn't the
> choice if you want printlife. You go HP or Epson for that, even HP
> and Epson dye inks are rated longer under glass than Canon's 30 years.
>
>
>
>
Quite right. Not only that, but "average" by definition is near the
middle of the range. (Not precisely in the middle - that's the "mean.")
That means for every person that has $2k of photographic equipment
there's at least an equal number of people who, like me, spent far less.

I own two digital cameras. One of them was purchased used from a nephew
after he upgraded to an SLR. It uses a now-scarce card type that's most
difficult to find. I managed to get six of these cards at a closeout
price on ebay. After I used the camera for a while, I realized I didn't
need most of those cards, so I put them back on ebay again. By that time
the scarcity had doubled the price, and I made enough profit to pay for
the camera, and a little besides. So that one wound up being free. The
other I picked up at a flea market for 50 cents. It needed a card and a
usb cable, which I again picked up on ebay for a total of about $15.
With the profit I made on the other camera cards, that meant I have two
working cameras that more than fulfill my wants for less than $10.

Why would I want a new printer with new technology? It doesn't fit with
the other things I have. I might as well be using a tired, old, worn-out
Canon ip4000. But then, I like what I see coming out of my HPs, so I'll
pass. From what I read here on this newsgroup, any Canon that has been
used as much as Measekite says his has been used without a printhead
replacement must be doing a terrible job. Apparently, he can't see the
deterioration because he believes that as long as he spends excessive
money on OEM ink, his prints HAVE to be good.

TJ

I'll put a different perspective on this slightly. I do own many
thousands of dollars of photo equipment, including film and digital and
lenses. I own a Hasselblad as well. I still use Epson printers that
are 5 years old, and some older for my prints. I do not get the state
of the art out of them, but guess what? No one cares because when they
see my images, people forget about or do not see that 10-15% difference
in potential print quality that "some people" can get out of their newer
printers. For one thing, a lot of people don;t know how to pre-process
their images so their images suffer even when printed on teh best
equipment out there, and secondly, the technical quality of the print
isn't what photography is really all about.

I worked for years in commercial color labs and most people can barely
identify color that approached accurate.

I suppose some people told Van Gogh his brush strokes and pallet knife
were too bold and thick. That he didn't use enough "finesse" in his
painting style (heck, he only sold one piece in his lifetime, and that
was a commissioned piece he hated) ... and I'm sure some people feel
Monet was too loose with his paints, and Seurat made the dots of his
pointillistic images too big (gee what kind of inkjet printer was he
using!).

Photographs are first and foremost an artform, and the printed image is
the artists interpretation plus the technology. I suppose it's great
when people fawn over the technical quality of the print, but I'd rather
they fawn over the aesthetics, like the story the image tells, the
emotional response they have, the composition, the capture of the light,
the color, etc., and that can happen, and in fact, it should be able to
happen with a print done on a 5 or 8 year old inkjet printer, and it has
and does.

We can get very caught up in the technology and the techniques of the
printing process, but that's not the process nor the art created. Sure,
a bad print can ruin an image, but a great print can't make a bad image
good, and the truth is a good image will be recognized as such even if
the print is 20% less than state of the art.

In the many years I have produced prints, I have never had a client even
suggest that the print quality was not good enough.

Art


If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo equipment
>> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the quality
>> but you want it all.
>
>
> You PRESUME we have a couple of thousand dollars in great photo
> equipment. I'm still on film my self for the most part. I've not
> made the leap to digital. I have a modest set of lenses for my Canon
> t-70 and A-1. Still I find scans on CD to be adequate for my needs.
> I'm not looking forward to upgrading to digital as unlike Pentax and
> Nikon my lenses won't fit the new model, and it takes a while to get
> really familiar with a lens. But needless to say it's nothing to
> sneeze at.
>
> You average consumer though doesn't own an slr, digital or otherwise.
> Odds are they own a point and shoot model. There are some good ones
> out there, esp that brand that uses Leica lenses. But really if
> someone is investing "thousands" of dollars in photo equipment, odds
> are they are not going to want the disposable a4 model with ink only
> rated at about 30 years under glass, not when you upload .tifs to a
> lab and get prints on fuji critical archive photographic paper for far
> less. Still there is a demand for in house printing, you have the
> prosumer models like the Pixma pro9000/9500, epson r1800/2400, or
> models like the Epson Pro 4800. When buying the prosumer or consumer
> models, you're going to be paying well over $1/ml. Going with the pro
> model it's going to be $70 for 110ml or 63c/ml. That's OEM. 4.5x the
> price but 10x the volume. Granted we are talking $2000+ printers, but
> hey in terms of at least volume of ink, a set of 8 110ml cartridges
> would be over $1000 in consumer cartridges, likely more as it is ultra
> chrome.
>
> But if what you said is true, then there wouldn't be a need for
> companies like Media Street, and the simple fact of the matter is even
> though the consumer models are bult as well as the wide pro models,
> adding a bulk feeder is an attractive solution for a3+ and smaller
> sizes.
>
> So my point. You average person with a $100 printer DOESN'T HAVE
> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN PHOTO EQUIPMENT. They have point and shoot
> models and just want to print the **** picture. Quality of
> aftermarket can be so close to being on par with OEM you have to see
> the prints side by side to even tell the difference. Odds are
> aftermarket doesn't have the print life OEM does, but Canon isn't the
> choice if you want printlife. You go HP or Epson for that, even HP
> and Epson dye inks are rated longer under glass than Canon's 30 years.
>
>
>
>
>

Good post Arthur. The first thing I look for when viewing a photograph
is the content. All the technical expertise and high dollar equipment
can't make up for bad content.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I'll put a different perspective on this slightly. I do own many
> thousands of dollars of photo equipment, including film and digital and
> lenses. I own a Hasselblad as well. I still use Epson printers that
> are 5 years old, and some older for my prints. I do not get the state
> of the art out of them, but guess what? No one cares because when they
> see my images, people forget about or do not see that 10-15% difference
> in potential print quality that "some people" can get out of their newer
> printers. For one thing, a lot of people don;t know how to pre-process
> their images so their images suffer even when printed on teh best
> equipment out there, and secondly, the technical quality of the print
> isn't what photography is really all about.
>
> I worked for years in commercial color labs and most people can barely
> identify color that approached accurate.
>
> I suppose some people told Van Gogh his brush strokes and pallet knife
> were too bold and thick. That he didn't use enough "finesse" in his
> painting style (heck, he only sold one piece in his lifetime, and that
> was a commissioned piece he hated) ... and I'm sure some people feel
> Monet was too loose with his paints, and Seurat made the dots of his
> pointillistic images too big (gee what kind of inkjet printer was he
> using!).
>
> Photographs are first and foremost an artform, and the printed image is
> the artists interpretation plus the technology. I suppose it's great
> when people fawn over the technical quality of the print, but I'd rather
> they fawn over the aesthetics, like the story the image tells, the
> emotional response they have, the composition, the capture of the light,
> the color, etc., and that can happen, and in fact, it should be able to
> happen with a print done on a 5 or 8 year old inkjet printer, and it has
> and does.
>
> We can get very caught up in the technology and the techniques of the
> printing process, but that's not the process nor the art created. Sure,
> a bad print can ruin an image, but a great print can't make a bad image
> good, and the truth is a good image will be recognized as such even if
> the print is 20% less than state of the art.
>
> In the many years I have produced prints, I have never had a client even
> suggest that the print quality was not good enough.
>
> Art
>
>
> If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
> I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
>
> http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
>
> IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When you invest in a couple of thousand dollars for great photo
>>> equipment
>>> (not the best but very good) you do not seek 70-80% or less of the
>>> quality
>>> but you want it all.
>>
>>
>> You PRESUME we have a couple of thousand dollars in great photo
>> equipment. I'm still on film my self for the most part. I've not
>> made the leap to digital. I have a modest set of lenses for my Canon
>> t-70 and A-1. Still I find scans on CD to be adequate for my needs.
>> I'm not looking forward to upgrading to digital as unlike Pentax and
>> Nikon my lenses won't fit the new model, and it takes a while to get
>> really familiar with a lens. But needless to say it's nothing to
>> sneeze at.
>>
>> You average consumer though doesn't own an slr, digital or otherwise.
>> Odds are they own a point and shoot model. There are some good ones
>> out there, esp that brand that uses Leica lenses. But really if
>> someone is investing "thousands" of dollars in photo equipment, odds
>> are they are not going to want the disposable a4 model with ink only
>> rated at about 30 years under glass, not when you upload .tifs to a
>> lab and get prints on fuji critical archive photographic paper for far
>> less. Still there is a demand for in house printing, you have the
>> prosumer models like the Pixma pro9000/9500, epson r1800/2400, or
>> models like the Epson Pro 4800. When buying the prosumer or consumer
>> models, you're going to be paying well over $1/ml. Going with the pro
>> model it's going to be $70 for 110ml or 63c/ml. That's OEM. 4.5x the
>> price but 10x the volume. Granted we are talking $2000+ printers, but
>> hey in terms of at least volume of ink, a set of 8 110ml cartridges
>> would be over $1000 in consumer cartridges, likely more as it is ultra
>> chrome.
>>
>> But if what you said is true, then there wouldn't be a need for
>> companies like Media Street, and the simple fact of the matter is even
>> though the consumer models are bult as well as the wide pro models,
>> adding a bulk feeder is an attractive solution for a3+ and smaller
>> sizes.
>>
>> So my point. You average person with a $100 printer DOESN'T HAVE
>> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN PHOTO EQUIPMENT. They have point and shoot
>> models and just want to print the **** picture. Quality of
>> aftermarket can be so close to being on par with OEM you have to see
>> the prints side by side to even tell the difference. Odds are
>> aftermarket doesn't have the print life OEM does, but Canon isn't the
>> choice if you want printlife. You go HP or Epson for that, even HP
>> and Epson dye inks are rated longer under glass than Canon's 30 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

On Sep 30, 7:10 am, Arthur Entlich <e-printerh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> I'll put a different perspective on this slightly. I do own many
> thousands of dollars of photo equipment, including film and digital and
> lenses. I own a Hasselblad as well. I still use Epson printers that
> are 5 years old, and some older for my prints. I do not get the state
> of the art out of them, but guess what? No one cares because when they
> see my images, people forget about or do not see that 10-15% difference
> in potential print quality that "some people" can get out of their newer
> printers. For one thing, a lot of people don;t know how to pre-process
> their images so their images suffer even when printed on teh best
> equipment out there, and secondly, the technical quality of the print
> isn't what photography is really all about.


Yes illustrates what I was trying to get at much better than I wrote.

For me, the main issue is learning curve on a new unit. Whether
artistic or technical, it's going to take at least 3 months to learn
the ins and outs of a new model. Longer to be truly proficient. And
yes, someone who does some pre-processing who's intimately familiar
with the particulars of a printer, the end result is going to be
better than your average point, shoot, and print on a newer model.

Above all else, consistency of output is paramount, being able to
reproduce your results.