Lightjet printer for home use?

In article et,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote
\"_\"" wrote:
Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper
This is the really incredible thing!

I buy generic bulk ink at ~$30/litre and paper at
Costco at ~$0.10/sheet.

My impression is the printer companies are discounting
the price of printers to below manufacturing costs and so
_have_ to jack up the price of supplies 10x to compensate.
Companies that don't make printers can make a profit
selling just the ink at a reasonable price, thus cutting
the printer manufacturers out of their expected profit
stream.

I expect there will be a whole lot more 'chipping' going
on. h/p is probably working on a thermal jet head that
is so flimsy it wears out after one use, chip or no chip.

That's a fairly widely known, the cost to develop the printers
is huge. The price of most maker's ink is well beyond Dom P
in terms of price 30+ an oz......Gasoline and milk are bargains.

Without the high price for ink there would be no
printers.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

John wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


Why better than an ink-jet?

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper.

And far more permanent.

It is? Seems to me that paper (or more precisely papyrus) and ink have
survived intact for several thousand years. How old is the oldest "paper
and chemistry" print? And for that matter, how is ink not "chemistry"?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

The aniline dyes used on Papyrus have next to nothing in common
to the vegetable based dyes used in printers. Also from what I have heard
these dyes used in printers have salts to enable them to be sprayed
accurately- and those salts have known issues in the break down of the
papers they are sprayed on. Pigment inks may be a different matter
altogether. I have only had a pigment printer for awhile hopefully these
new prints will not see the issues experienced with my previous printer.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:56:56 -0400, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire.
dot com wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:25 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper


This is the really incredible thing!

And exactly why companies like HP and Canon have a huge vested
interest in promoting digital imaging. Canon is essentially where
Kodak was in 1975.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:05:25 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote
\"_\"" wrote:
Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper
This is the really incredible thing!

I buy generic bulk ink at ~$30/litre and paper at
Costco at ~$0.10/sheet.

My impression is the printer companies are discounting
the price of printers to below manufacturing costs and so
_have_ to jack up the price of supplies 10x to compensate.
Companies that don't make printers can make a profit
selling just the ink at a reasonable price, thus cutting
the printer manufacturers out of their expected profit
stream.

Actually most companies simply give away the printers and the ink is
pure profit. HP subsidizes their PC business with the profits from
their ink and toner sales. Dell works with Lexmark to sell their inks
which you have to buy direct from Dell. Of course Canon is another
huge player along with Epson.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:22:57 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

And far more permanent.

It is? Seems to me that paper (or more precisely papyrus) and ink have
survived intact for several thousand years.

Examples ? Under some conditions, such as in the Dead Sea area, some
inks may be somewhat stable. But we're talking about printing here. A
contrast of photographs made with traditional photographic processes
which are quite stable vs. the use of inkjet squirties on commonly
available media. Said images would be viewed on display under various
conditions none of which would favor inkjet prints.

How old is the oldest "paper
and chemistry" print?

177 years.

And for that matter, how is ink not "chemistry"?

It certainly is but the ink used in inkjets is hardly related to the
inks used for writing. The current crop of pigmented inks such as
those by Epson, may be a significant improvement over previous inks
used in ordinary inkjet printers but hardly compared to a properly
processed and toned B-&-W print. Much less a carbro or platinum print.

BTW and FWIW, the inks used in most older documents used carbon black
and gum which were mixed immediately prior to use. The most permanent
form of ink is a combination of ferrous sulfate, gallic acid and
tannin with water. The mixture is very faint in color but oxidizes and
becomes a very stable chemical called ferric tannate. Here's a good
way to make this very permanent ink :

http://www.chem.umn.edu/outreach/Card-MakeInk.html

Make Ink

Needed:

* Fine steel wool
* Kerosene
* White vinegar
* Tea bags
* Mucilage
* Water
* Several containers

Experiment:
Clean a wad of steel wool with kerosene and let it dry overnight. Put
the steel wool into a jar and cover it with vinegar. Set it in a pan
of water that is hot, but not boiling. Put four tea bags into half a
cup of water and boil. Let both solutions cool and then mix them in
equal amounts. Dip a finger into the mixture and mark a large X on a
newspaper page. It will gradually show up black.

Explanation:
The chemical reaction between the vinegar and iron produces hydrogen
ions and iron acetate. The tea yields tannin. When mixed, they produce
ferrous tannate, which is almost colorless. But, when exposed to air
and allowed to dry, ferrous tannate changes to ferric tannate (which
is black). In anywhere from three hours to a day, the color change in
the X should be complete. A little mucilage mixed with the newly
produced ink will allow it to flow from a pen as regular ink.


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:49:57 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:

I have only had a pigment printer for awhile hopefully these
new prints will not see the issues experienced with my previous printer.

Doing any testing ? Have densitometer, will measure fading.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

John wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:22:57 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

And far more permanent.

It is? Seems to me that paper (or more precisely papyrus) and ink have
survived intact for several thousand years.

Examples ?

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Fa...ll/Egypt/Turin
Papyrus/Harrell_Papyrus_Map_text.htm for one. Over 3000 years old and
it's the paper that's coming apart, not the ink.

Under some conditions, such as in the Dead Sea area, some
inks may be somewhat stable. But we're talking about printing here. A
contrast of photographs made with traditional photographic processes
which are quite stable vs. the use of inkjet squirties on commonly
available media. Said images would be viewed on display under various
conditions none of which would favor inkjet prints.

And you know this with certainty how?

How old is the oldest "paper
and chemistry" print?

177 years.

About a tenth of the age of the map to which I posted the link above and it
is far from the oldest written document known.

And for that matter, how is ink not "chemistry"?

It certainly is but the ink used in inkjets is hardly related to the
inks used for writing.

Oh? How are they different?

The current crop of pigmented inks such as
those by Epson, may be a significant improvement over previous inks
used in ordinary inkjet printers but hardly compared to a properly
processed and toned B-&-W print. Much less a carbro or platinum print.

And you know this how?

Sorry, but the simple fact is that the longevity of current production
inkjet prints in the real world is not known. They may last thousands of
years or be gone in ten.

Photography is a new art. Now, to some 177 years seems a long time, but it
is young compared even to oil painting, which itself is young compared to
other painting processes.

To assert on the basis of that experience that a photographic print made
today is going to last hundreds of years is simply wishful thinking.

BTW and FWIW, the inks used in most older documents used carbon black
and gum which were mixed immediately prior to use. The most permanent
form of ink is a combination of ferrous sulfate, gallic acid and
tannin with water. The mixture is very faint in color but oxidizes and
becomes a very stable chemical called ferric tannate. Here's a good
way to make this very permanent ink :

irrelevant ink formula snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
It certainly is but the ink used in inkjets is hardly related to the
inks used for writing.

Oh? How are they different?

Some inks contain very stable pigments, such as carbon (soot) or iron
sulphate. Many coloured inks are based on organic compounds which
decompose gradually, especially when exposed to sunlight. Cheap blue
fountain pen ink will fade after a few months if left in a sunny place.

High quality artist's paints use stable - often inorganic - pigments.
However inkjets (and indeed colour photographic paper) have certain
technical requirements which limit their choice of pigments or dyes.

Sorry, but the simple fact is that the longevity of current production
inkjet prints in the real world is not known. They may last thousands of
years or be gone in ten.

The longevity of art is studied a good deal, by museums and companies
manufacturing artist's materials.

-Tim

It is? Seems to me that paper (or more precisely papyrus) and ink have
survived intact for several thousand years.

Examples ?

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Fa...ll/Egypt/Turin
Papyrus/Harrell_Papyrus_Map_text.htm for one. Over 3000 years old and
it's the paper that's coming apart, not the ink.

And note that the inks used in those writings certainly wouldn't work
in an inkjet printer ;)

Under some conditions, such as in the Dead Sea area, some
inks may be somewhat stable. But we're talking about printing here. A
contrast of photographs made with traditional photographic processes
which are quite stable vs. the use of inkjet squirties on commonly
available media. Said images would be viewed on display under various
conditions none of which would favor inkjet prints.

And you know this with certainty how?

Hung a couple of Epson print on a wall in my home. No direct light.
Sunlight entered a bay window in the center of the front wall in the
room. Two identical prints made at the same time on the same system
were placed into park plastic bags that printing paper comes in. The
bags were placed into a printing paper box along with a desiccant.
After one day of drying out, I placed the box into our freezer for
keeping. 6 months later I opened the box and compared the prints and
was able to visibly see a significant difference in them. This was
done about 7 years ago and I don't believe the prints are still
around. Unfortunately the project was put aside when we relocated,

For a little more information you might check the following link:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/...2002_02_HW.pdf

How old is the oldest "paper
and chemistry" print?

177 years.

About a tenth of the age of the map to which I posted the link above and it
is far from the oldest written document known.

And what does this have to do with photography ? Not that I consider a
squirtie to be a photograph anyway. Unless you know of a printer using
the exact same formula ink used in that map, then your point is moot.

And for that matter, how is ink not "chemistry"?

It certainly is but the ink used in inkjets is hardly related to the
inks used for writing.

Oh? How are they different?

Is this a serious question ? Well for something so open-ended I'll
just refer to a page or two.

http://www.misterinkjet.com/inks.htm

" In addition to the chemical base and colorant, (inkjet) inks
also contain additives. Additives may include buffering agents for
control of the inks pH levels, resin for resilience, and humectants
for the prevention of evaporation. Other ingredients added to many
types of ink may include fungicides, surfactants, and biocides. Each
ink formula has a unique formulation of each additive, again causing
dramatic differences in the final outcome. "

In summation, inkjet inks are made to satisfy very different criteria
in contrast to those used in writing utensils. From storage to
delivery to application, they are completely unique.

The current crop of pigmented inks such as
those by Epson, may be a significant improvement over previous inks
used in ordinary inkjet printers but hardly compared to a properly
processed and toned B-&-W print. Much less a carbro or platinum print.

And you know this how?

Are you begging the obvious or just completely ignorant ?

Sorry, but the simple fact is that the longevity of current production
inkjet prints in the real world is not known. They may last thousands of
years or be gone in ten.

Advanced testing can give guidelines. 20 years for a squirtie print is
a reasonable expectation though it still falls well short of a decent
RA-4 print which has a stability of around 60 years on ambient
display. Of course none of these compare well with silver gelatin,
carbro, platinum or palladium prints which could theoretically last
until the base rots off.

Photography is a new art. Now, to some 177 years seems a long time, but it
is young compared even to oil painting, which itself is young compared to
other painting processes.

I think you mean the current stage of developed photographic image.
Photography has been around much longer. Mo-Ti documented the
recording of an image using a camera obscura 500 BC. It has often been
conjectured that some of the drawings on cave walls were the tracings
of images created by pinholes in the cave walls.

To assert on the basis of that experience that a photographic print made
today is going to last hundreds of years is simply wishful thinking.

Perhaps you can tell that to Henry Wilhelm ?

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

And you do need to learn to differentiate between the types of prints
and media. I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb by stating
that any properly processed silver gelatin print that has been toned
using a gold or sulfide toner will last beyond 200 years easily if
stored and displayed properly. I have several that are around 115
years old and were far from stored properly and I doubt that the
processing of prints in the late 1800's took any account of image
stability.