From: Warren Block on
Tim Okergit <to(a)notme.com> wrote:
> On 07/26/2010 02:49 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>
>>> If you count only the consumables, it's $111 / 60 , so less that $2.
>>
>> Yes, if in fact you can get 60 8x10 prints. That seems really unlikely
>> to me. Even half of that still seems unlikely.
>
> What's the problem if you provide a good quality picture with good
> exposure, good contrast, good color?

I just don't think you will get anywhere near that many prints from a
standard set of ink.

And that's ignoring common problems like air bubbles or mini-clogs that
waste photo paper and need a nozzle cleaning that sucks lots of
expensive ink. Granted, the immediacy and control of printing your own
can be worth a lot, too.

It would be nice to have some definite numbers. Choose a printer. I
suggest the Epson R1900, which seems like a good price/performance break
and can handle up to tabloid size and panoramas; their web site has the
refurb R1900 with full ink for $379 US. See how many prints you can get
from a set of ink, and report it here, or at least let me know by email.

Come to think of it, the forums at dpreview.com ought to have someone
with serious photo print experience and recommendations.
From: Warren Block on
Tim Okergit <to(a)notme.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Warren noted this already. I got the Who's who wrong :)
>
> I hope you read what I wrote about PCL. From what Warren wrote, it seems
> that unless you want to send printer files to a print shop, which is far
> from necessary, PCL is perfectly all right.

To use a digital camera analogy: PostScript is the big-sensor DSLR, PCL
is the 4x6mm-sensor P&S. You can do good work with either, and they
both have tradeoffs. But one is more capable and costs more.