Login  |  Register          Free Newsletter Subscription
industry leaders
Subscribe to Graphic Arts Monthly
Premedia Trends   


Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (6)


Ink jet printing is good business
January 5, 2008

I just finished running 28 posters for a local bank on my wide-format ink-jet printer. They will be put back-to-back in branches of the banks to promote something new... it’s the latest trend in banking. In the process, I used a good part of a roll of paper and a moderate amount of ink. I blanch when I have to order ink for this behemoth, as it has seven $100 cartridges of ink in its maw. I keep a complete set of those seven on-hand because there is no store I can run to when I run out. Staples and Office Depot don’t stock these inks, and I am far away from any big city. So, I have about $1,400 worth of ink in my office at all times. I also stock at least one extra roll of paper, at $200 per roll.

But, I feel all warm and fuzzy when I hand over 28 posters to my banker-client because ink-jet printing is good business. The out-of-pocket costs for the 28 posters are a bit hard to define due to the highly-variable ink usage. But, I can calculate the costs of paper, and I can approximate the costs of the ink, and when I add it up it’s a good business transaction. The profit margin can be excellent if you produce good work, handle it carefully, and deliver reliably, the ink-jet printing business is a great business.

There is a significant investment in the machinery and the computers to drive it. And, then there is the large cutting table and the X-Acto knives and big aluminum rulers and the self-healing table pad (a great product, by the way). When I add those costs together and calculate a cost-per-square-foot, and it’s still a good business proposition. This is not like buying printing presses and paper cutters and folders.

The ink-jet business is unquestionably a great business opportunity for graphic arts firms, but it can be a time-drain. Time is the kiler in ink-jet printing. To run the 28 posters at very high quality on my printer took hours, and hours and hours. Though I could devote a comptuer to driving the printer, I don’t (too cheap); I just let the computer I am using run the printer as a background task. It doesn’t tax the machine much, and I am only occasionally aware of any stammering or pauses caused by printing. The fact is that, once ripped, ink-jet jobs require only a moderate flow of information from the computer to the printer. The quality is superb, but at this moment in the timeline of technology, quality comes at the cost of time-to-print.

If you do the math on any of the popular large-format (48 inch) printers, you’ll see that it’s worthwhile to get one and produce ink-jet work for your clients. The ancillary costs are modest, and the profit margins are good. Buy a complete back-up supply of ink and paper, and buy a big aluminum ruler and a box of X-Acto knife blades – you’ll need them. You won’t need an armored car to take the profits to the bank, but you’ll be pleased with the profit margins.

Posted by Brian Lawler on January 5, 2008 | Comments (6)


January 8, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
dale commented:

You never mention what type of printer it is. Whose the manufacturer, is it solvent based? What was your total initial investment?




January 16, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
Brian Lawler commented:

Dale's questions are good. My printer is an Epson 9600. It prints up to 44-inch material. The initial cost was about $5,000 for the printer. The paper I prefer is called Luster, and it costs about $200 per roll for 100 feet. That translates to 55c per square foot for the paper. Ink is about $85 per cartridge for the 220 ml. cartridges. There are seven of them in there at all times. I have watched the long-term average consumption (as this changes with the artwork), and I figure the ink costs about 50c per square foot for photo and fine art printing. The Epson printer I use has water-based inks, so the material is unsuited to outdoor use, unless it is laminated. I run it with a Macintosh G5 tower, a machine that is also my production machine. It does not tax that machine much, though I am aware of the spooling while applications write a printer file to disk.




January 30, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
Michael RH commented:

What are your thoughts on the Canon Pixma Pro9500? Do you feel Epson is the best for graphic applications? I realize the Canon is a smaller format printer than your Epson, but just wanted your input. Thank you.




January 31, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
Brian Lawler commented:

The Canon printers are getting very good reviews. I have never used one, so this is based entirely on the comments of others. The color gamut is extraordinary (it has 12 ink cartridges). The prints are extraordinary. It certainly looks great. I was on the phone recently with a friend who makes his living in the fine art business. He tried the new HP, and ended up preferring the Epsons (9800 specifically) that he has been using. Unfortunately, we did not discuss the Canon printers. I will look into this further.




February 8, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
Michael RH commented:

I saw that George Lepp is on the Canon website using a Canon Printer. I would say that would be a good endorsement. Do you agree? Since I am already writing, I thought I would throw in another question to utilize your expertise. I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT, what type of lens would you recommed as a good second lens. I currently have the 18-55 mm that comes with the camera. Thank you for your time.




April 16, 2008
In response to: Ink jet printing is good business
Brian Lawler commented:

Michael's comment is a good one. If George Lepp says it's good – it's good. I have known George for many years, and have found that his endorsements are always valid.

I have seen, but have not operated the Canon printers. The results are gorgeous, and the extended color gamut is extraordinary.

On the second lens for the Rebel, that depends on what kind of photography you do. Unfortunately, Canon does not make a really wide zoom for that series of cameras (which would be my first choice).

I have the Canon 1ds, and three lenses: 17-40; 28-300, and a 100mm macro. That covers the range of photography I do (though I am salivating over that 400mm telephoto).





POST A COMMENT
Display Name or Registered Users Login Here.
Please restrict submissions to less than 7,000 characters (including any HTML formatting).

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:


Advertisement

Advertisements




linkExperts


About Us   |   Advertising Info   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   FREE Subscription   |   Industry Links   |   RSS
© 2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites