inkjet printer ink usage (1 Viewer)

[RAH]

I have a question for all the inkjet printer experts out there - does an inkjet printer use MORE ink when it prints a dark image than when it prints a light one, or does it just use DIFFERENT ink?

For example, my first picture, of a cormorant in a pond, is generally pastel colored. My second image, of the Empire State Buiding at night, is very dark. Would the TOTAL amount of ink used to print each image (assuming same size, dpi, etc) be the same, or would the dark image use more?

Let's assume for this discussion that neither image has any pure whites or pure blacks - i.e. the color ink cartridges are used for every pixel.

To make it an even more basic question, I guess I could ask whether printing a one-color image that is say light pink would require more total ink than a one-color image that is dark maroon.

 

[Mono]

Darker pictures do use more ink, but you have to think of darker in terms of the indivdual inks used, usuallly Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. So a bright image with lots of sky will use lots of cyan ink, so it you print lots of landscapes you will use up lots of cyan. Similarly greens (leaves etc) also use up lots of cyan (and yellow). So if you are mainly printing off natural images it is better to get a printer that uses seperate CMY cartridges as the "empty" colour cartridges may contain lots of magenta.

Another thing to remember is that just because something looks black on the screen doesn't mean it will only use black ink to print, most "blacks" in photographs contain other colours, indeed it is often good to add colour to your blacks. Super-shiner is C50 M50 Y25 K100 and stands out much better than straight forward C0 M0 Y0 K100.

Hope that helps

Mono

 

[pe'rigin]

RAH,

Your colour density is built-up by the number of ink colours the printer has.

When you print it lays down a differed dot of colour on the paper, which gives you your shadow areas, so your black will contain magenta and cyan and yellow underneath. You’re not necessary using more black. In printing terms black is referred as (K), which means key. In theory we can get any colour of spectrum by using just three, black gives us the sharpness, and ‘Keys’ in the definition of the image.

With my printers I have lots of ink colours so I can get a wider colour range.

This is why with any printer you must get your image to its printer colour profile to get perfect results.


Brilliant night picture.

 

[RAH]

Mono, it helps a little, but I am trying to remove the question of how a printer is configured (1 color cartridge with 6 colors, 6 separate cartridges, etc) from the equation. I would like to know how much TOTAL ink (regardless of color) is being used in a dark vs a light image. Also, as I said, lets assume for argument that there are no pure blacks or whites.

 

[RAH]

pe'rigin, if I read your answer correctly then, the TOTAL amount of ink used will be essentially the same for a light vs a dark image, right?

Glad you like the night pic!

 

[mjmw]

As I understand it, you will use more ink in a dark print, irrelevant of the number of cartridges, dye or pigment ink etc.

Light is reflected off of the paper through the ink and the ink filters the light that reaches your eye so you see different colours. The more ink placed on a single small spot on the paper, the darker the tone (less bright) and the more colours placed in that spot, the darker the colour (to get ‘black’ you combine all ink colours - Cyan, Yellow and Magenta).

Therefore, your NY picture is mainly darks…so lots of ink (high density, less bright) and use of lots of colours (to get the darker colours).

Not sure that makes sense…really needs some pictures.

BTW, like the night pic too.

 

[pe'rigin]

RAH,

Try to think of it as if you are painting over a dark wall at home with white, it will take more than one coat of white to cover the wall, the same with ink, but the opposite in our senario..

A lighter colour wall, even less coats of white.

My printers lay down base colours of netural grey and blues, which build to get the density.

If I was printing your night shot, I would boost the blue (opposite of yellow), making the yellow richer and adding to the black density.

 

[RAH]

OK, thanks guys. I kind of figured a dark pic would use more ink, but I couldn't quite convince myself. So printing that night picture at 11x14 (Epson 1280) will blow my ink budget for the month!

 

[impotentspider]

RAH
Have you considered a continous ink system? If your finding certain colours running out quicker than others then it may be the way to go. I have the most basic of systems for my epson 810, I dont know about the longevity of prints but I do get very good results and my prints do quite well in camera club competitions so they cant be all that bad, and if they do fade I can always run another print off.

On a totally different subject, I see you hail from New Hampshire, can you offer any suggestions as what "not to miss" I'm coming over there later this year for a spot of leaf peeping.

 

[RAH]

I know someone who is using a continuous ink system with the Epson 1280 printer, using it for years for professional printing of large prints, so the printer is very sturdy and reliable. Unfortunately, I don't do enough printing to use such a system. I don't even do enough to keep the heads free-flowing without periodic cleaning.

As far as what is see in New Hampshire (often called "Cow Hampshire"), there 's the seacoast, which is very short (about 20 miles), but very picturesque. The state symbol, a rock formation called "The Old Man In The Mountain," alas fell into rubble a few years ago, so you shouldn't bother trying to see that. There are a lot of leaf peeping opportunities throughout the state. The Lake Winnipesaukee area (mid-state) is nice.

 

[impotentspider]

I know someone who is using a continuous ink system with the Epson 1280 printer, using it for years for professional printing of large prints, so the printer is very sturdy and reliable. Unfortunately, I don't do enough printing to use such a system. I don't even do enough to keep the heads free-flowing without periodic cleaning.

As far as what is see in New Hampshire (often called "Cow Hampshire"), there 's the seacoast, which is very short (about 20 miles), but very picturesque. The state symbol, a rock formation called "The Old Man In The Mountain," alas fell into rubble a few years ago, so you shouldn't bother trying to see that. There are a lot of leaf peeping opportunities throughout the state. The Lake Winnipesaukee area (mid-state) is nice.

Thanks fot that tit-bit RAH, Lake Winnipeasauke is now down on my list of places to read up on.

As for your print heads drying up....you should perform a head clean or run a test sheet through your printer at least once a week if it is not in use.

One other thing, this may be not your case but I have known several people who "avoided" using their printers in order to conserve ink specifically because of the cost of replacement cartridges, a continous system may sound expensive but will also take the worry out of "wasting" ink.
As an example I would use myself, I just printed off an image on a specifically cut length of panoramic paper (on a roll), unfortunately I cut the paper 1/2inch short, I am not particularly worried about the cost of the paper but had I not been using a continous ink system I would have seriously thought twice about printing the image again.

 

[RAH]

a continous system may sound expensive but will also take the worry out of "wasting" ink.

That's interesting, but surely you are wasting some money on a bad printing. Are you saying that the use of cartridges is more expensive because most of the cost is for the cartridges, not the ink? I kind of figured that a continuous ink system wouldn't save all that much because the ink was probably the primary expense, and just buying in bulk wouldn't save all that much. But you are implying that it could save a lot because of not buying all those throw-away cartridges. Right?

About NH, should have mentioned the Kancamagus Highway and the entire White Mountains area. Do a Google search and/or look here:
http://granitehighways.com/?page=kancamagus

 

[mjmw]

That's interesting, but surely you are wasting some money on a bad printing. Are you saying that the use of cartridges is more expensive because most of the cost is for the cartridges, not the ink? I kind of figured that a continuous ink system wouldn't save all that much because the ink was probably the primary expense, and just buying in bulk wouldn't save all that much. But you are implying that it could save a lot because of not buying all those throw-away cartridges. Right?

Primary expense in ink cartridges is the manufacturer mark-up - they sell the printers cheap but make on the ink cartridges. For example, the Epson R260 uses the latest Claria ink and head technology, if you shop around the printer costs about $85 with shipping...a full set of replacement inks costs $75 :h?:

A couple of years ago one of the major manufacturers made about 50% of their profits on ink alone. Kodak are bucking the trend with their recent entry into this market - they are selling the printer for a little more but claim a reduction in ink cost.

Buying a continuous system from a reputable supplier will give you ink with similar properties to the manufacturers own claims (that is hard wearing, long life) and can be significantly cheaper. I am looking at going this route in the near future (I have found several people online claiming that Epson tech support have recommended this route...although I doubt that is an official statement!).

One thing to think about though, a continuous system should be used regularly - a lot of people seem to print a test page every day to keep everything flowing well.

PS. Agree that the White Mountains are a must see, the lakes around Errol and over to Rangeley (Maine) are very nice too - try to start further north and follow the peak colour south.

 

[pe'rigin]

RAH,

In theory the more ink ducts you have the less volume of ink you’ll use. But, the printer costs a whole lot more than the average inkjet.

I think they’ve got us by the short and curlies whichever way you go.

You’ll have to do your sums and work out which is the most cost effective approach to printing your colour images and the final destination for those images.

I’ll always go for the refillable ink reservoirs.

 

[RAH]

I think they’ve got us by the short and curlies whichever way you go.

For sure!

 

[normjackson]

Having a larger selection of inks could use more ink, not less eg. the printer driver has the option to improve gradation in the final print by placing a large dot of light cyan instead of having no option but to place a much smaller dot of normal cyan.

 

[mjmw]

But, the printer costs a whole lot more than the average inkjet.

Sorry Pe'rigrin, don't understand that - can you explain what you mean please?

 

[pe'rigin]

Morning Mark,

The point was making, as you go up the model scale into the top range of printers they cost a heck more money than your normal desktop inkjet. They have us both ways, with the average printer, buying the model is cheap, but those cartridges are extortionate.

With the printers I have the models were never cheap to buy, but the ink cost is acceptable.

I’ve just got today a new pro-Canon printer, which I’m playing with at the moment. Cost wise, it’s a fraction of the outgoings of some of my other printers.

I do find it annoying that we are in a throw away society, if a printer is no longer compatible, we bin it.

 

[jeffm73]

Depending on what you do with your prints, the ink cost, and printer cost is a mute point. If you plan on selling your stuff, or even just displaying it around the house for others to enjoy, it's worth the extra money for both Printer, and inks.