Picturemate - the real cost...

[JSR]

Epson printers have a bad rep for wasting ink.

I can tell you now that, with the Picturemate, you get wasted ink. Yep, that single cartridge has 6 colours in it and you're going to waste a lot of it. I've just finished my second cartridge and, using the SSC utility, discovered that it's got about 34% of ink left in it that I'm going to have to throw away. It's a wasted cost, and we should sue someone...

Cue violins with "hard done by" music...

Well, except that...

---

First, as no one is all that interested in the Picturemate these days, a history lesson -

Photo #119 - Status Monitor graphic turns yellow at 20% (the most used ink is Magenta which is at 20%).
Photo #122 - First warning, during printing, that the ink is under 20% (M is 19%)
Photo #140 - Second warning, the ink is now under 10% (M is 9%, C is 18%)
Photo #147 - Status monitor has yellow exclamation mark, states "Ink Low"
Photo #149 - Third warning, the ink is now under 5% (M is 4%, C is 14%)
Photo #157 - Status monitor states "Ink Out. There may not be enough ink remaining to print another page like the last page."

At this stage, ink levels are:

28% (K), 11% (C), 0% (M), 28% (Y), 54% (R), 50% (B)

There's no doubt that the PM would have printed a lot more before it ran out if I had something to print that didn't need C or M. My prints were, over the course of several weeks, mostly just normal photos (holiday snaps, photos of dog in garden, photos of people, that kind of thing) - I didn't do anything special to make the ink last longer. Some people recommend printing in batches but I didn't bother with any of that, I just printed when I wanted.

It'll be interesting to see what the new Picturemates are capable of achieving.

[Ian]

Re: Picturemate - the real cost...

I currently have a Picturemate 100 here, that's the one with dye-based inks. Not yet done a run-down test, but it's on the list of things to do.

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that your mix of pictures may not deplete the inks in the same way as others. Epson has to fill its single cartridge to cover all possibilities and that does mean a compromise. I was told that the design aim of the cartridge was to deliver enough ink to cover a typical set of 100 6x4 prints with a good margin of error. I know some people who have printed over 200 6x4s from a single cartridge. Of course Epson could have logged the number of prints and stopped the cartridge at 100, but that really would have justifiably raised hackles!

The PictureMate uses one large multi-ink colour cartridge, which fits neatly, saving space, in the base of the printer. You can see what I mean in my review from a couple of years back. Separate colour ink cartridges makes a lot of sense in theory, but I think Epson's hand was forced with the PictureMate as a) a single cartridge is much easier to handle, especially if you aren't an experienced printer user like us, b) the additional cost of accommodating multiple cartridges may have become uneconomical and, c) the compact nature of the PictureMate probably ruled out multiple cartridges anyway.

I, like you, am much more interested in the cost of printing at the bottom line. Obsession with pure ink consumption or ink wastage is not healthy in my view - you have demonstrated that although a fair bit of ink can end up wasted in a PictureMate cartridge, the final per print cost is remarkably good.

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Picturemate - the real cost...

Hi Ian

I appreciate that number of prints is dependent on type of photos. My 157 prints were about as average as I could be. If the bag you're into is printing a hundred photos of bright yellow sunflowers in a field, you might not get so many prints. Ironically, I've read posts from people saying that you'll only get over 100 photos if you only print light coloured photos - but that's actually wrong. Light colour photos will use a lot more of the yellow which will run out faster - because there's only one yellow. For red and blue shades, there are two colours for each. Theoretically, printing a lot of colourful photos with lots of reds and blues will produce more photos from the cart than one that just has light colours. (This isn't necessarily true of a PM that only has CMYK.)

I was surprised, though. Knowing the story behing the PM, I was expecting to get 100 prints - a maybe a few more because Epson stuck a few more sheets of paper in the box. I fully expected to be left with a bunch of leftover 6"x4" paper. What I didn't expect was to still be printing some 20 photos *after* the 35 extra I'd already printed.

There's a website that rallies the call for dye-sub printers (I think you know the one I mean) and in their comparison with the PM, they state that one of it's bad features is that you have an unknown "cost per print" - whereas with a dye-sub you get a "guaranteed" print cost of about 30p. In my mind, I'd rather "not know" what the cost of a print is, if that means I'm printing for 12.5p - that's verging on being competitive with the High Street. Ignorance saves the wallet loads of cash.

I'm forever in two minds about the newer range of 4-ink dye Picturemates. Not that I'm in the market for one (I only got my PM because it was cheap). A friend recently bought an HP bundle - the "HP Photosmart A433 Portable Photo Studio". She bought it because it's a camera and printer bundle that she can operate simply enough - like a "modern day Polaroid". I've had the advantage of being able to compare my original PM with the HP Photosmart A430 printer and, to be honest, the HP is utter pants. (Excuse my language.)

I had originally expected that a modern HP printer using dye inks - the much-touted Vivera inks - would produce prints that would far exceed an aging Picturemate that's a couple of years old. But the HP is an example of convenience over common sense. To start with, it *only* has a tri-colour cartridge. Just Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. What were HP thinking? The lack of a black lets the printer down enormously. It would probably cope well enough if it had that black in it, but without it... Well, let's put it this way, the happy snapper would be okay with the HP bundle but anyone who's even slightly discerning wouldn't touch it with barge pole. The dye prints from the HP are dull and lifeless, while the pigment prints from the PM are full of life and vibrancy. Oh, and don't talk to me about pizza wheel marks on the HP!

The only place the HP scores points is that it's capable of doing more accurate browns by default than the PM - but for everything else, the PM beats it hands down.

Also, we'd only printed about 20 photos from the HP and already the ink level was over 20% down. Never mind the 100-photo picture pack you can buy, she's going to be lucky to get 60 photos out of one ink cartridge. We're going to log prints when the next cartridge goes in (I don't like counting on the first cart of any printer) to get a more accurate comparison figure, so it'll be several months before we get a conclusive figure, but I don't have high hopes.

Back to the Picturemate, it's use of colours is virtually the same as for my R1800. The Cyan and Magenta are the most used with Black and Yellow coming up next and Red and Blue trailing some way behind. The difference is, the average cost-per-print for a 6"x4" from the R1800 is 26p, from the PM it's under half that. For me, the PM was a good investment. I'd still use the R1800 for best prints (that GOP is invaluable) but the PM is worth its weight in gold.

Incidentally, the first warning of ink depletion is given at 20% - around 120 prints. So I'm wondering if Epson just want to ensure you'll get the full 100 photos before you get your first warning - in the event that the naive feel the need to change the ink straightaway. That would make sense. Normally I wouldn't run my R1800 'til the ESM says "Ink Out", I would usually change inks after the 5% warning. In the case of the PM, that would bring the 157 prints down to 149 - still pretty good going.

JSR