Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: cmox on August 22, 2007, 08:19:16 am
-
Today I received some ink cartridges and the invoice from my dealer... I was close to a coronary... the cocaine dealers in Colombia must go green with envy - Epson seems to make more money on ink than them
So, there are other ink systems for other printers but I havent seen a manufacturer for durable, highest quality inks for the 3800.
Any recommendations?
-
I'm not aware of any third-party ink systems for the 3800.
As an aside, Epson is in the ink (and paper) business, not the printer business. Even they say so. It has always been the case with these inkjets that in the long term one is paying for the consumables -- the ink and the paper -- which end up costing far more than the up-front cost of the printer itself. If you are dissatisfied with paying so much for the inks, I suggest you return the printer.
-
Well, I assume that you are not trying to wind us up and that this is a serious post. I find it amazing that anyone would shell out £1,000 for a dedicated photo inkjet printer and not bother to do a bit of basic research on what the running costs were first.
The R3800 should be quite a bit cheaper to run than my R2400, because the costs per ml are less in the bigger 3800 carts. I calculate my costs at an average of £0.70 per A4 print (say $1.40) on the R2400, printing only B/W. So if the best paper (Innova or Hahnemuhle, say) costs me £1.30 per A4 including post, my materials cost for a hand-printed selective enlargement is no more than £2 all-in. (In the USA substitute letter-size for A4 - your costs should also be slightly less because you have no VAT).
Two British pounds or $4 USD seems to me to be a fair cost for a fine print. Of course it would be nice if it were cheaper
John
-
If you want an ink-cheap printer the z3100 is a good one. It uses virtually no ink maintaining the heads. The epsons all waste large amounts of ink doing just that even when you see no head clogs. When the head does clog and you do a Power Clean you can watch the huge drop in all ink levels.
The z series also uses considerably less ink in the printing process.
-
Charles
I am sure that you are correct, but what exactly are your costs (in terms of A4 or letter-size sheet so that I can compare). Lots of people say that the HP B9180 is cheaper to run than my R2400, but no-one seems to post an accurate breakdown of costs. Mine are averaged over three months use and 170 A4 sheets (equivalent), and include three head cleans and five cartridge changes.
The more general point is - ink cost per cartridge is not important, it is the true cost per printed sheet which counts.
John
-
Today I received some ink cartridges and the invoice from my dealer... I was close to a coronary... the cocaine dealers in Colombia must go green with envy - Epson seems to make more money on ink than them
So, there are other ink systems for other printers but I havent seen a manufacturer for durable, highest quality inks for the 3800.
Any recommendations?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm totally surprised that you didn't know the costs of the inks before purchasing. I hope you didn't buy a whole set--not needed for a good long while (have you used up all your inks?). As I saw some of the blacks approach the lower end, I bought the 3 blacks--but still have only installed one and I use a LOT of black ink. I still haven't bought any colored inks--and because the tanks are nice and large, you have plenty of time to order them prior to them running out when they start to get near empty.
And--like others, I'm always amazed that people buy a printer without researching it. If you did--you had to know what the inks cost. Because the K3 inks are so good--I wouldn't consider using 3rd party inks--unlike when I considered them for the 2200 for mono prints (but went the QTR route instead with the Epson inks).
Diane
-
Because the K3 inks are so good--I wouldn't consider using 3rd party inks--unlike when I considered them for the 2200 for mono prints (but went the QTR route instead with the Epson inks).
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And with 3rd party inks, you loose the archival ink quality.
-
And with 3rd party inks, you loose the archival ink quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Got any hard data to back up that claim?
I have "third party" ink prints hanging in a sunny room and they show little if any fading after seven years.
My Epson 1160 and Epson 880, both running a CIS with MediaStreet inks, have performed perfectly for all of those seven years. I reckon I've saved over two thousand ink dollars.
So far.
-
Got any hard data to back up that claim?
I have "third party" ink prints hanging in a sunny room and they show little if any fading after seven years.
My Epson 1160 and Epson 880, both running a CIS with MediaStreet inks, have performed perfectly for all of those seven years. I reckon I've saved over two thousand ink dollars.
So far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I do not.
And on the opposite, the only claim I have about the "regular" inks are from Whilem Research. But I sell my prints and I sleep better with this claim than no claim at all.
-
Got any hard data to back up that claim?
I have "third party" ink prints hanging in a sunny room and they show little if any fading after seven years.
My Epson 1160 and Epson 880, both running a CIS with MediaStreet inks, have performed perfectly for all of those seven years. I reckon I've saved over two thousand ink dollars.
So far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It really depends upon the inks. There are archival inks available for some printers--for my 2200 I could choose Piezography, some Media Street I think, etc. --but one has to determine whether they are pigment or not for each printer--there's lots of info out there.
The biggie for me is that K3 inks are just so good--and no clogging. Why mess with a good thing? That's why I bought the 3800---for the wonderful mono printing. My 2200 is pigmented also--but the inks are not the K3 and monos are just not good without a RIP. You choose what you need for your own purposes.
To my knowledge, there are no 3rd party inks for the 3800--and because my results are so good (both prints and no clogging) I would not choose to even try them IF they were available.
Diane
-
~$4/ square foot of print. With the quality produced by the 3800, it's a great deal.
Steve
-
If you want an ink-cheap printer the z3100 is a good one. It uses virtually no ink maintaining the heads. The epsons all waste large amounts of ink doing just that even when you see no head clogs. When the head does clog and you do a Power Clean you can watch the huge drop in all ink levels.
The z series also uses considerably less ink in the printing process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It seems like a pretty far stretch to suggest purchasing a $3500 24" large format printer to replace a $1300 17" desktop printer to save ink "because of cleaning".
I would image it would take a very long time to save enough ink from the head cleaning of a 3800 to justify the z3100 (which also consumes some ink to stay clear, and eventually consumes the head because too many nozzles have failed. Yes, this may overall be lower in cost, but you can't pin the cleaning costs on the Epson without also allowing for these costs on the HP).
I'm not sure you would ever consume over $2300 worth of ink (nearly 5 full sets of ink) to just clear the heads, especially in a 3800 which is far less prone to clogging than it's bigger brothers.
It is true that the larger cartridges of the z3100, much like the larger cartridges of Epson and Canon printers will lower your ink costs, but that isn't because of head cleaning ... it's just cheaper per ml.
Hey, I don't know which is technology is better and "cheaper", using more ink to keep the head clean or designing heads with spare nozzles to use when one becomes too clogged, and replacing heads when too many nozzles become clogged.
I'm not sure it is worth discussion. I know one simple thing ...you can always get someone else to print a high quality print for less than you can print one yourself. If you choose to print it yourself, it isn't usually about saving money, it is about control. I can buy a really good 8x10 print for under two dollars, and the lab that produces it is making very good margins ... it costs them about 0.15 in paper and chemistry to make that print. No, it isn't inkjet, and to some it may not be "good enough" ... but it's pretty dang good.
If you choose to do it yourself, it probably isn't about saving money. You do it yourself because you want more control (different look, different paper, etc.) you want to know exactly what it will look like, believe you can get a higher quality print, or perhaps just because you don't want to wait a couple of days to get it. Whatever the reason, if you do your own prints, it probably isn't because you are trying to save money.
To the original poster ... if it is about money and you propose using a cheaper ink in your printer, you probably need to review your objectives, and consider if any printer is even appropriate. One of the reasons you buy an Epson K3 printer, or HPz3100 printer, is the inks themselves.
-
If you choose to do it yourself, it probably isn't about saving money. You do it yourself because you want more control (different look, different paper, etc.) you want to know exactly what it will look like, believe you can get a higher quality print, or perhaps just because you don't want to wait a couple of days to get it. Whatever the reason, if you do your own prints, it probably isn't because you are trying to save money.
To the original poster ... if it is about money and you propose using a cheaper ink in your printer, you probably need to review your objectives, and consider if any printer is even appropriate. One of the reasons you buy an Epson K3 printer, or and HPz3100 printer for that matter, is the inks themselves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that's how I see it. I know I haven't saved money LOL. But--I do have control from when I press the shutter button to when I have it matted and framed.
Diane
-
Well, I am the author of this question.
Of course, I did know before the purchase of the printer what the costs are. I love the quality and speed of this fine machine. Of course I know that Epson and all the other makers of printers make more money with ink and media than with the printer though I doubt that their business model does not allow them to make money with the printer hardware itself.
But there is one thing I had not known in advance: I print a lot more than expected, and because I have a number of exhibitions. At the moment I am preparing the next show - 110 images printed at maximum size, and I expect to sell a few prints, too. The sales will not cover the costs of the exhibition, so I already switched from original Epson paper to media from a company named Tecco, wonderful paper, especially the "Baryt" style that looks actually a lot better than my good old analog prints.
So, let's keep in mind what the original question is: "So, there are other ink systems for other printers but I havent seen a manufacturer for durable, highest quality inks for the 3800." I looked at mediastreet's site, and found nothing. Are there other options?
-
If you choose to do it yourself, it probably isn't about saving money. You do it yourself because you want more control (different look, different paper, etc.) you want to know exactly what it will look like, believe you can get a higher quality print, or perhaps just because you don't want to wait a couple of days to get it. Whatever the reason, if you do your own prints, it probably isn't because you are trying to save money.
Well, I do not know your lab, but here in central Germany you pay around 19 Euros (ca. 27 Dollars) for one print at my size which is "A2", the maximum media size you get here for the 3800. The quality is good, but not overwhelming. My prints are now much better and also much cheaper. But who says this was the final frontier? It is just like with the cameras and lenses: you always want something even better.
-
But there is one thing I had not known in advance: I print a lot more than expected, and because I have a number of exhibitions. At the moment I am preparing the next show - 110 images printed at maximum size, and I expect to sell a few prints, too. The sales will not cover the costs of the exhibition, so I already switched from original Epson paper to media from a company named Tecco, wonderful paper, especially the "Baryt" style that looks actually a lot better than my good old analog prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, I don't know of any 3rd party options at all for the 3800. Secondly--maybe you are a good candidate for one of the other Epsons--with roll paper and much larger ink carts which would cut down your ink costs. The 3800 is still a very hot printer, so you could consider selling it and 'trading up'. I can't remember if there is a 17" printer to be announced in Sept. or not--perhaps replacing the 4800.
Diane
-
Well, I do not know your lab, but here in central Germany you pay around 19 Euros (ca. 27 Dollars) for one print at my size which is "A2", the maximum media size you get here for the 3800. The quality is good, but not overwhelming. My prints are now much better and also much cheaper. But who says this was the final frontier? It is just like with the cameras and lenses: you always want something even better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not familiar with prices there, (although I would love to spend a few weeks there sometime). Currently very reputable color labs here in the states can produce high quality silver halide 16x20's for around $15 -$18. Quality is great, but yes, for many images the Epson/Canon/HP printers will be superior.
As far as costs, you may be right. Most photographic labs don't charge by the square foot, and thus a 16x20, which is equivalent to 4 8x10's, cost two to three times that the 4 8x10's. The reasons are probably justified (more expensive printer with slower output, etc.), but that means for large prints it makes doing it yourself more feasible ... at least from a pure material cost perspective.
Good luck with your show.
-
cmox, I think the short answer to your question is that these 3rd party inks aren't available for the 3800 yet. The 3800 is relatively new (less than 1 year old). I am not sure if 3rd party inks will ever become available for this printer, to be honest. You might try contacting some of the usual suspects and ask if they have plans for a 3800 release. Best of luck with your show.
-
Today I received some ink cartridges and the invoice from my dealer... I was close to a coronary... the cocaine dealers in Colombia must go green with envy - Epson seems to make more money on ink than them
So, there are other ink systems for other printers but I havent seen a manufacturer for durable, highest quality inks for the 3800.
Any recommendations?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have anybody tried to refill 80 ml cartridges from 110 ml or 220 ml (4800 and above)?
-
I would think it wouldn't work because of the pressurized system, but I haven't tried.
-
CMOX,
You might want to have a look at a thread that was posted on the LL Forum back on Nov 7, 2007, by Tyler Boley: http://www.luminouslandscape.com/forum/lof...php/t20648.html (http://www.luminouslandscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t20648.html)
I think it directly addresses the issue at hand. See also this page for Epson's statement: http://itc.epson.com/ (http://itc.epson.com/)
Rather than paraphrase what was stated above, I'll quote Jeff Schewe as I personally feel his comment addresses the meat of the issue:
"It's rather ironic that photographers, who benefit from copyright protection seem so willing to blow patents (the other form of intellectual property protected in the US) out of the water when it's not convenient to them...and make no mistake, this has NOTHING to do with undocumented, proprietary file formats for raw...neither Nikon nor Canon have ever claimed patents on their file formats (only the analog to digital systems in their cameras) and neither have ever gone after anybody (that I'm aware of) for reverse engineering nor decoding of those formats...
The matter is far more complicated than Jon Cone has made out...and if he's been using ink carts that violate Epson's patents, I can see why he's leading an attempt at trying to stop this ITC action. I can also see that users who like 3rd party inks might be upset, but if you read further you'll find that Epson main complaint isn't at people such as Cone (although he's been caught in the fight) but at low-end replacement ink suppliers and re-fillers who often sell shoddy and incompatible inks and carts that actually cause damage to the printers they are used in and then get off scott free when users complain to Epson about printer failing..."
Consider that 10 years ago, the state of the art printer was the IRIS printer that sold for over $115,000. It was a dye based printer that was used by the top print houses in the US, including Nash Editions. Thanks to significant resources Epson invested in producing a pigment ink replacement that would be affordable to the masses... the Epson printers entered the market. Had Epson attempted to recover the costs of R&D through the sale of their printers... the prices of these printers would have been out of reach to all but those with the deepest pockets. Epson chose to make the printers affordable and recoup their R&D costs through ink sales. And though there is a valid argument w/respect to the cost of ink lost due to cleaning cycles and/or blocked nozzles from using the printers in low humidity environments (or not using the printers at all for extended periods) the cost of making prints not to mention the control afforded by these amazing machines is still cheaper than having a lab print your images.
Epson has paid a bundle to individuals like Henry Wilhelm to test their products and provide estimates as to how long their inks will last under different conditions. Some of the smaller companies don't have the necessary financial resources to do this... so their estimates are somewhat unsubstantiated, unless of course you do side by side tests to determine which ink is better. Are you prepared to test third party inks alongside Epson's inks to determine how color gamut and permanence compares?
Permanence and color gamut matter to me. I also care about minimizing damage to my print heads as replacing a head is a costly affair. I like the idea of being able to download profiles from paper makers such as Moab, Crane, Epson and others that will allow optimum output from my Epson 9600 printer (using ultrachrome inks) on the papers made by these companies. You lose this when you use third party inks, to my knowledge. These profiles are free when you use Epson inks. Given that cost is such a concern for you... I doubt that you will be investing in profiling equipment to build your own profiles any time soon.
Just a few more points to consider in your effort to find answers to your question...
Lawrence
-
As an aside, Epson is in the ink (and paper) business, not the printer business. Even they say so. It has always been the case with these inkjets that in the long term one is paying for the consumables -- the ink and the paper -- which end up costing far more than the up-front cost of the printer itself. If you are dissatisfied with paying so much for the inks, I suggest you return the printer.
Yup. I always get a kick out of people who feel that expendable's should be lower in cost and that the printers themselves are too expensive. Going down memory lane, I recall my first digital printer, a USED Kodak XL-7700 cost me $9000 and each 10x10 print was about $3.50 in circa 1993 dollars.
-
Funny. I believe this is he only forum I frequent where 2 year old threads can suddenly be brought back to life. Most forums lock out responses after a few months of inactivity.
-
Well, I am the author of this question.
So, let's keep in mind what the original question is: "So, there are other ink systems for other printers but I havent seen a manufacturer for durable, highest quality inks for the 3800." I looked at mediastreet's site, and found nothing. Are there other options?
Lyson/Marrutt is developing a CIS for the Epson 3800: http://www.marrutt.com/3800-bulk.php (http://www.marrutt.com/3800-bulk.php)
I use a Lyson CIS + Photochrome inks for the Epson R1800 and couldn't be happier.
Regards
Albert
-
Got any hard data to back up that claim?
I have "third party" ink prints hanging in a sunny room and they show little if any fading after seven years.
My Epson 1160 and Epson 880, both running a CIS with MediaStreet inks, have performed perfectly for all of those seven years. I reckon I've saved over two thousand ink dollars.
So far.
Peter - is 'MediaStreet Inks' the vendor you've used that you've been so happy with that has saved you so much $$?
I print with my Canon IPF5100 large format printer and am about to invest the $900 to replace my inks... And yes, I researched these costs prior to purchasing the printer. Although I'm prepared to make the purchase, it never hurts to save $$! I'm happier with my Canon than my previous printer, the Epson 3800. I love the additional sizes that are now open to me, built-in callibration, NO clogged print heads, and Canon's superior tech support and customer service. Epson clearly has a problem with that model printer and does nothing for the customers who invested in those printers. I've been down this road 2x with Epson and have vowed it to be my last.
I think it goes without saying that any consumer who's willing to drop 2k in a printer must expect ink to cost quite a bit more than the $75 printer from Walmart!
Cheers!
Debbie
-
Goodness - this takes me back to about 2001 when I bought a new Epson SP 7000 and used MediaStreet Generations Elite. I chose that inkset because Wilhelm tested it and the fade resistance was very good.
http://mediastreetgroup.com/2001/10/ (http://mediastreetgroup.com/2001/10/)
However my clients noticed the metamerism that was common with this inkset and early pigment printers. So when Epson launched the Epson SP 9600 I immediately upgraded but stuck with the Epson inks. In the following six or so years I never had another metamerism complaint and I also had the peace of mind of the Wilhelm ESP 9600 test results.
I will not use third party inks or unbranded media again for my paying clients and I regard the credibility given by Wilhelm or Blue Wool scale tests as an important part of of my service offering. Unfortunately I am observing a trend here in the UK where potential clients are looking for lower prices but not questioning the credibility of papers and inks used. There are increasing numbers of providers who are using cheap inks and/or media and this could damage the reputation of the giclee industry. I don't have a problem with someone paying peanuts for a high-street canvas print of a digital snap but customers rarely know that what they are getting is not the same as a canvas print produced to the much higher standards as practiced by many of the users of this forum. There are almost no specific UK regulations that cover this area and I have already come across a horrific story of a giclee operation that operated just like the dodgy motor mechanics, builders, plumbers etc. I would really like to see a specific worldwide trade body that covers the production and sale of fine art prints whether giclee litho, lightjet or whatever technology. Attempts by national bodies like the FATG and manufacturers regional efforts such as Epson UltraGiclee and Epson Digigraphie are not enough in my view. With agreed international standards of production and sale, we can jointly raise and maintain our collective reputations and educate the buying public.
Any comments?
Cheers,
Ryan
Edit 1: Clarified a point or two.
Edit 2: Added Mediastreet link
-
Goodness - this takes me back to about 2001 when I bought a new Epson SP 7000 and used MediaStreet Generations Elite. I chose that inkset because Wilhelm tested it and the fade resistance was very good.
http://mediastreetgroup.com/2001/10/ (http://mediastreetgroup.com/2001/10/)
However my clients noticed the metamerism that was common with this inkset and early pigment printers. So when Epson launched the Epson SP 9600 I immediately upgraded but stuck with the Epson inks. In the following six or so years I never had another metamerism complaint and I also had the peace of mind of the Wilhelm ESP 9600 test results.
I will not use third party inks or unbranded media again for my paying clients and I regard the credibility given by Wilhelm or Blue Wool scale tests as an important part of of my service offering. Unfortunately I am observing a trend here in the UK where potential clients are looking for lower prices but not questioning the credibility of papers and inks used. There are increasing numbers of providers who are using cheap inks and/or media and this could damage the reputation of the giclee industry. I don't have a problem with someone paying peanuts for a high-street canvas print of a digital snap but customers rarely know that what they are getting is not the same as a canvas print produced to the much higher standards as practiced by many of the users of this forum. There are almost no specific UK regulations that cover this area and I have already come across a horrific story of a giclee cowboy that operated just like the dodgy motor mechanics, builders, plumbers etc. I would really like to see a specific worldwide trade body that covers the production and sale of fine art prints whether giclee litho, lightjet or whatever technology. Attempts by national bodies like the FATG and manufacturers regional efforts such as Epson UltraGiclee and Epson Digigraphie are not enough in my view. With agreed international standards of production and sale, we can jointly raise and maintain our collective reputations and educate the buying public.
Any comments?
Cheers,
Ryan
Edit 1: Clarified a point or two.
Edit 2: Added Mediastreet link
Ryan - thanks for your feedback. I admit that I've never used a generic ink, paper, accessory, etc.; I wonder if a good vendor actually exists, because I've never heard any success stories using generic inks. I'm curious if anyone will respond with positive feedback.
Sticking with my original plan, I'll drop the $900 for replacement ink. When I invested in my printer, I set aside the $ knowing what I was facing for replacement inks.
Thanks again for your response...
Cheers! Debbie
-
I would really like to see a specific worldwide trade body that covers the production and sale of fine art prints whether giclee litho, lightjet or whatever technology. Attempts by national bodies like the FATG and manufacturers regional efforts such as Epson UltraGiclee and Epson Digigraphie are not enough in my view. With agreed international standards of production and sale, we can joinlty raise and maintain our collective reputations and educate the buying public.
Any comments?
Way OT, but I'd like to take you up on your request for comment. The UK Fine Art Trade Guild (FATG) is also being discussed concurrently in another thread ("Hahnemuhle Sugarcane 300 GSM"), and so this whole notion of accreditation, test standards, conformance to standards, and who pays for all this testing is already on my mind. I can think of no other time in the history of art, and printmaking especially, that so much attention is being given to the quality of methods and materials and their subsequent impact on the durability of the work. Print longevity seems to come up often in photography and printing forum discussions, and I trust that is a sign that many take it seriously. Photographs in particular have the often unspoken intention and high expectations of purpose to permanently preserve an otherwise fleeting moment in time. I certainly try to encourage artists to seek out stable materials for their work, but to do so they need both general and product-specific information.
To get good print permanence information takes the involvement of many technical experts and the allocation of funding to do the research. It's a patch-work quilt of resources and content providers, and it can definitely use an injection of new thinking and approaches to the problems. I founded Aardenburg Imaging and Archives in 2007 to add another patch to the quilt.
There are two fundamental issues, IMHO. The first problem is establishing a more robust test methodology and rating system. The current industry-approved test methods are outdated and can seriously misrank the fading performance of multi-colorant inkjet technologies. However, they are generating highly flattering "years on display" ratings for the most recent product offerings, so the industry doesn't have a big incentive to change to new tests that might lower the scores. The FATG, to its credit, recognized that for fine art applications something closer to "just noticeable" fading was required at its product pass/fail limit rather than the more common industry-sponsored "easily noticeable fading" endpoints in test. However, the FATG light fastness test method relies on the Blue wool scale which has its own set of reliability and interpretation issues and at best produces only a single pass/fail result. The big problem with pass/fail standards is that two products, one marginally meeting the standard, and one passing with much performance to spare will be given the same figure of merit.
Problem number two: Paying for tests. Even if the ISO, for example, could create or adopt a great suite of print permanence tests (it hasn't yet but not for lack of trying), manufacturers could never be expected to apply the tests across all product lines. Part of this reality is self-serving (don't show the bad stuff), but part of it is the aggregate cost of testing. If print permanence tests were somehow mandated by law, many independent suppliers whose products we like so much would get squeezed unfairly because they would have a significantly greater financial burden of cross-platform testing compared to the OEM printer manufacturers. We must find other ways to share the financial burden of image permanence testing so that a more diverse set of materials can be get tested.
So, how can image permanence testing reach a wider spectrum of products that we would like to see tested? The best answer I could come up with for a practical broad-based testing initiative and knowledge base for today's digital imaging media was to implement the AaI&A digital print research program. Admittedly, AaI&A is the "new kid on the block", and the program is still in its infancy with a long way to go. But I have high hopes for it going forward. My hypothesis is that by using a superior open-source testing and evaluation method, giving lightfastness ratings that don't grossly oversimplify the whole "how long will it last" argument as is now the case in this industry, and by enabling participation at relatively low cost entry to all constituencies, we might just find a way to break out of the current rut. The way that the AaI&A program gathers samples from all members should ensure that it won't be constrained to a limited number of product combinations or get "highjacked" by self-serving marketing interests.
I have finished rebuilding the engine and transmission of lightfastness testing. I am eager to expand to other tests well. But for now, I really need many of my fellow printmakers to help me put the wheels on this bus. The individual subscription fees to the program are no where near enough to cover the true cost of even a single test, but a vibrant and growing membership should allow me to pool resources and achieve a materials and process diversity unmatched by any other print permanence testing program. That in turn may encourage manufacturers, distributors, and perhaps the museums and archives community as well to get more involved with the AaI&A digital print research program so that even more results can be made available to the general public. It could work! That's the idea, anyway.
best regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
Peter - is 'MediaStreet Inks' the vendor you've used that you've been so happy with that has saved you so much $$?
Debbie, the inks I use in my Epson 4800 are from MIS Associates at
www.inksupply.com
Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been offline. In the Waterpocket Fold in Utah, actually.
If I were selling prints on a regular basis, I might consider using OEM inks if only for peace of mind for the clients. For my own use, or for my personal portfolio, I have no concern with either image quality or longevity with third party pigment inks based on nearly a decade using them in several Epson printers.
Someone commented that the "free" profiles available for OEM inks are a good reason to stay with those products. In contrast, I paid $35 to Cathy's Profiles for my MIS K4 inks on my preferred matte paper and was delighted with the changes in image quality that resulted from this one-time cost.
If you haven't purchased your inks yet, Debbie, I invite further conversation on this topic. I print 17X22 images for a total cost per page of approximately US$5.00
-
Debbie, the inks I use in my Epson 4800 are from MIS Associates at
www.inksupply.com
Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been offline. In the Waterpocket Fold in Utah, actually.
If I were selling prints on a regular basis, I might consider using OEM inks if only for peace of mind for the clients. For my own use, or for my personal portfolio, I have no concern with either image quality or longevity with third party pigment inks based on nearly a decade using them in several Epson printers.
Someone commented that the "free" profiles available for OEM inks are a good reason to stay with those products. In contrast, I paid $35 to Cathy's Profiles for my MIS K4 inks on my preferred matte paper and was delighted with the changes in image quality that resulted from this one-time cost.
If you haven't purchased your inks yet, Debbie, I invite further conversation on this topic. I print 17X22 images for a total cost per page of approximately US$5.00
Hi Peter - thanks for your input...
I just recently located the calculators [via Excel spreadsheet] for cost of prints depending on your paper and ink, of course. I'm excited to try these out, as I've got several shots to print and need to provide a price.
Debbie
-
Just for your info.
InkRepublic now is shipping 3800 refillable cartridge system with the latest IRK4-nano inks.
http://www.inkrepublic.com/3800-iRefill.asp (http://www.inkrepublic.com/3800-iRefill.asp)
you can follow the instruction here and keep reusing your maintenance cart
http://www.inkrepublic.com/KnowledgeBase/3...irefill-faq.asp (http://www.inkrepublic.com/KnowledgeBase/3800-irefill-faq.asp)
This would bring down the cost to 10 cents each mil liter v.s. epson is selling 80ml at 55 dollars so it's about 70 cents per mil liter plus shipping.
The IRK4-nano inks according to InkRepublic should look as good as the OEM's.
-
If you want an ink-cheap printer the z3100 is a good one. It uses virtually no ink maintaining the heads. The epsons all waste large amounts of ink doing just that even when you see no head clogs. When the head does clog and you do a Power Clean you can watch the huge drop in all ink levels.
The z series also uses considerably less ink in the printing process.
and how much are 12 heads to replace?
-
I've been using 3rd party inks for several years with no negative effects in print quality and/or fading. Specifically, I've used Media Street pigment inks for the Epson 2200 and Epson 4000 and, more recently, Jon Cone's K3 equivalent pigment ink for the Epson 3800. The savings have been tremendous over the past few years and I've had absolutely no regrets.
-
In addition to inkjetrepublic, Jon Cone sell color ink and a CIS for the 3800.
See http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl?c=362672...arch=3800%20cis (http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl?c=362672&sc=24&category=&search=3800%20cis)
See Mark's AaI fade testing for the best data in that regard:
http://aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/...19kb2NfbGlzdC80 (http://aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4102c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80)
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com (http://www.PaulRoark.com)
-
When the 3000 and 1280 were the printers of choice, people had good reason to look for third party inks and delivery systems. Been there, done that. But with the arrival of the Epson K3 inks, no need to do such anymore with one caveat: Printing on matte/art stocks. Dye ink is still richer looking there, but I am not aware of any dye inks from the big three (Epson, HP, Canon) or the third party guys that offer any sort of real permanence.
-
When the 3000 and 1280 were the printers of choice, people had good reason to look for third party inks and delivery systems. ... But with the arrival of the Epson K3 inks, no need to do such anymore ...
It is certainly true that, from a B&W perspective, the K3 approach is a vast improvement over other OEM approaches. As such, the OEMs now have the bulk of the B&W market. However, if price -- for color or B&W -- or ultimate B&W quality are important factors, there are definitely reasons to use third party inks.
The price issue is obvious, and with http://aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/...19kb2NfbGlzdC80 (http://aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4102c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80) fade testing results you can find third party color inks that are both inexpensive and lightfast. Even with the 3800, which has been the most difficult printer for the third party vendors to get access to (perhaps until the 7900/9900), there are now options. The inkjetmall CIS, for example, can be filled with any third party ink.
For B&W, the OEM approaches still use lots of color and too few neutral channels for the best quality. No question that most casual B&W printers will be fine with the quality they achieve, but purists will not if they take a close look at what they are using for their "B&W" prints. Just take a quick look at the high resolution scan of a K3 "B&W" print highlight on page 1 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Lightfastness.pdf (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Lightfastness.pdf). The color inks are the sources of lots of compromises that I'm not willing to have in my fine art prints.
At least with B&W, the irony is that, in my view, the very best -- a 100% carbon image -- can also be the least expensive.
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf)
The dedicated B&W field is now much smaller than is was when I designed the UT2 inkset, but it still holds the high ground on several both quality and value fronts.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)