On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Brian Yarvin wrote:
I think the ink is the major expense for most photographers.
Rolf:
Thank you once again for your long post. It was well worth reading.
No matter how I parse it out, I wind up spending more than a thousand dollars a year on ink.
The next step up is either bigger and heavier, messier, or even more expensive.
Back to the drawing board.
I too spend more than $1,000 a year on ink. If I can reduce the cost significantly it might be worthwhile but I have to consider how much time and effort I'm willing to expend trying to save a portion of that $1,000.
I already stated that for every day printing of invoices, letters etc. I use an Epson Workforce 600 which is pretty cheap to operate, it doesn't take much ink and I believe I only paid about $70 for the printer.
For colour prints I use and Epson R1800 and I am considering upgrading this to Epson 3880 or 4900. The R1800 has been a great printer and while the ink is on the expensive side the printer itself was very inexpensive. Often I print for my own satisfaction , most pictures are supplied to clients as digital files. I do however sell prints to enough clients to offset all my printing costs. A possible advantage of "overpaying" for ink is that our favorite printer manufacturer will continue to research and develop newer and better print technology. This is a benefit worth paying for.
Time is a limited resource and I for one can think of better uses for my time than trying to save a few bucks on printing.
David B
David Barr 519 846 8827
Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com
Click on the I LIKE button on the Facebook page too be kept informed of changes and updates in Photobar news. Add a comment, or start a discussion:
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment