Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: goran on June 28, 2008, 08:32:08 am
-
I am planning to upgrade my Epson 1290 (=1280).
I am considering these printers: Epson 1400, R1900, R2400 and R2880.
1.)
I want a printer without cogging
(my 1290 clogs if not used every day and somtimes even then).
2.)
I want to use "pirat-ink".
( I never did that with 1290)
2a.)
With as good colors as OEM
2b.)
and with a longevity comparable to OEM.
3.)
I am from Sweden so I have to order INK from the UK.
ANY suggestion: PPRINTER + SOME GOOD PIRATE-INK.
/Goran Sweden
-
ANY suggestion: PPRINTER + SOME GOOD PIRATE-INK.
/Goran Sweden
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's funny though - I'd rather think that the "pirate" noun better applies to those who sell their stuff three times higher, just because of their brand.
Anyway, I'm glad of my InkJetFly BigFoot CIS (for a R1800). Colors are really good (you need to build custom profiles), and for longevity time will tell...
I live in France and bought it in the US without any problem (40$ shipping).
For the R1800, its only weaker point is in B&W : the lack of dedicated gray inks makes it harder to find true neutral tones, without metamerism.
Strong point : brilliant color prints on glossy or matte media. The gloss enhancer suppresses bronzing and gloss differential.
Useful, but could be improved : some decent panoramic potential (it lacks a built-in cutter, and as the driver has a quirk you need QImage beyond 1m20 length).
-
The problem with third party inks (that's how the "pirater ink men" - no tattoos involved - call themselves, that the canned ICC profiles won't work.
To get close to correct color, you need to handle known entities, like how the ink is applied by the printer, how the paper's own color affects them, etc...
If you have your own spectrometer, you can do your own profiles anyway, but if not...
And I wonder if third party inks are that good.
-
I stumbled upon this web site of an ink manufacturer from China. They even have inks for the relatively new HP Z3100 and Z2100. Has anyone used their ink?
http://www.ink4you.com/english/ (http://www.ink4you.com/english/)
-
ANY suggestion: PPRINTER + SOME GOOD PIRATE-INK.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=204160\")
That's an oxymoron like military intelligence...you may want to read up on 3rd party ink fading at [a href=\"http://www.wilhelm-research.com/]Wilhelm Research[/url]. Shame to buy a nice new printer then screw it up with bad inks...
-
what are you trying to accomplish with using third party ink? Only cost savings? If so, you should just look into buying a bigger printer with a better cost/ml cartridge. Think Epson 3800, 4880, Canon iPF5100, etc etc etc.
After all we invest in our camera gear, computer system, printer, software and time spend learning, why throw inexpensive and unreliable ink into the mix?
-
IANY suggestion: PPRINTER + SOME GOOD PIRATE-INK.
3rd-party inks are cheap, and may give good color with custom profiles, but expecting decent longevity from them is wishful thinking at best. You want to buy a Maserati and then try to run it on yak urine instead of the recommended gasoline. Stupid.
-
you may want to read up on 3rd party ink fading at Wilhelm Research (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=204276\")
A little side note : WIR's papers do seem to apply more on office depot-like inks, the cheapest of the cheap ones... It may well be that the ink4you link above falls into that segment, given their "scanned print" approach for demonstrating ink quality .
If we're talking about more serious ink manufacturers (like Lyson, Cone, Image-Specialists, InkJetFly, etc... their gamut is [a href=\"http://www.ripitgolf.com/ink_comparison.htm]not that bad[/url] btw), they're not in the scope of Wilhelm's tests AFAIK.
There is at least data available at Aardenburg Imaging (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4715c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80), concerning (among others Epson and Canon inks) MIS vs. Epson ink in a R1800 on Epson Luster and Red River UltraProGloss.
Executive summary : the MIS inkset (I've heard it was made by Image Specialists) performs very poorly on the Epson paper, but on the 3rd party paper it ages "only" about 2-3 times faster than OEM ink (much better results than with the Epson paper, which seems to have a specific aging issue with the MIS inkset, or rather vice-versa ).
Mileages vary wildly here, and furthermore it's up to everyone to sum up own conclusions from those raw figures.
And for the validity of feeding printers with 3rd party inks... (cling, the coin) I'll just sum the debate saying that in the particular case of an amateur (not selling prints), a CIS (and therefore, often 3rd party ink, even if it is not compulsory) is the only way to afford a desktop printer (the ones like the OP considers, with tiny & expensive cartridges).
For someone willing to invest a bit more, I fully agree that it is much sounder to go towards a pro printer with big OEM cartridges - and actually, a 3800 is as cheap or cheaper than a 2400/2880 if you consider the ink in it!
Oh yes, and to add a bit to Jonathan Wienke's image, it may be a bit more like cachaça in the Maserati's tank, rather than yak urine, in the best cases .
-
OK! I have made my decision
I have an Epson R2880 printer on order.
I am planning to turn to "pirate-ink" after the included ink is gone.
Are there any CIS or refillable cartridges to the R2880. ?
/Goran Sweden
-
OK! I have made my decision
I have an Epson R2880 printer on order.
I am planning to turn to "pirate-ink" after the included ink is gone.
Are there any CIS or refillable cartridges to the R2880. ?
/Goran Sweden
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try InkRepublic.com, they should have R2880 CIS or refillable carts soon or alrady has it.
I am testing 3800 CIS from them now. Extremely happy with this system and inks.
The ink levels are resettable, same as the waste ink level. System came with 16oz ink for each color, and it's about 70 - 75% saving comparing to oem's. Colors are identical to oem's, I cant tell the difference. I didn't apply any profiles.
-
3rd-party inks are cheap, and may give good color with custom profiles, but expecting decent longevity from them is wishful thinking at best. You want to buy a Maserati and then try to run it on yak urine instead of the recommended gasoline. Stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And your source for such definitive information is...?
Have you ever actually tried printing with third party inks?
Have you ever actually done any tests to see what fading occurs with those inks?
If the answer to either or both of these questions is "no", I respectfully suggest that calling third-party ink users "stupid" is out of line.
I've said it before here and I'll say it again. I have third-party ink prints hanging on my walls that show zero visible fading after nearly 10 years.
Unless I'm reading them wrong, the charts and data cited in the accelerated tests indicate that visible fading under normal household conditions may occur in 38 to 57 years.
By then, I won't care.
btw, they state that "normal household conditions" is twice the standard museum level
-
.....
1.)
I want a printer without cogging
(my 1290 clogs if not used every day and somtimes even then).
/Goran Sweden
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then don't get an Epson!
-
I think I will stick to OEM-ink.
MACWORLD:
( http://www.macworld.com/article/133625/200...2880.html?t=221 (http://www.macworld.com/article/133625/2008/05/epsonr2880.html?t=221) )
First Look: Epson Stylus Photo R2880 printer
.......
"The printhead in the R2880 is the same one found in the Stylus Pro printers, incorporating both an ink-repelling coating (also found in the R1900) designed to minimize clogged nozzles and a sensor that regularly checks the nozzles and maintains proper head alignment. According to Epson, the R2880 printhead also undergoes a precise colorimetric calibration at the factory, obviating the need for regular calibration of the printer"
.......
"we were able to print nearly twice as many photos using the same amount of ink on R2880 as we were able to do with the R2400, results that were even better than we had anticipated. While some of this can be directly related to the advanced ink-mixing technology in Radiance, I think that there’s probably more technological improvements under the hood that Epson isn’t specifically talking about"
.......
/Goran
-
I think I will stick to OEM-ink.
.......
"we were able to print nearly twice as many photos using the same amount of ink on R2880 as we were able to do with the R2400, results that were even better than we had anticipated. While some of this can be directly related to the advanced ink-mixing technology in Radiance, I think that there’s probably more technological improvements under the hood that Epson isn’t specifically talking about"
.......
/Goran
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=204964\")
I think that only competition forces manufacturers to address complaints of their customers about ink waste, there's no gain for manufacturers to reduce waste. Now we only have to figure out whether the ML ink price between the 2400 and 2880 carts isn't changed as well.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
.......
"we were able to print nearly twice as many photos using the same amount of ink on R2880 as we were able to do with the R2400, results that were even better than we had anticipated. While some of this can be directly related to the advanced ink-mixing technology in Radiance, I think that there’s probably more technological improvements under the hood that Epson isn’t specifically talking about"
.......
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=204964\")
See [a href=\"http://www.printerville.net/2008/05/26/first-look-at-epson-stylus-photo-r2880/]original review[/url], and note that there has been an erratum to this estimation (http://www.printerville.net/2008/06/04/some-ideas-about-measuring-ink-cartridge-life/) (see bottom of the page) :
We found that, contrary to our initial results, the R2880 and R2400 ink yields were actually pretty similar, with a slight edge to the R2880.
-
I've just finished a day-long battle with my Epson 4800. Clogging, of course. Three "auto" runs and several other techniques finally returned all the nozzles to normal operation, but I have a waste basket full of useless printed ink patches and a "waste" tank overflowing with "waste" ink. This is extremely annoying and extremely expensive.
A few months ago, as a test, I changed the 4800's black channel to MIS bulk ink and I've been doing some black-only printing as well as normal colour and Avanced BW printing with it since then. During the nozzle cleaning debacle of yesterday, guess which channel showed NO clogging whatsoever, before or after?
Right. Exactly. The MIS bulk ink black channel. It has shown zero clogging since it was installed.
As soon as the next accounting cycle comes around, I'm changing the rest of the printer over to all-MIS inks.
-
As soon as the next accounting cycle comes around, I'm changing the rest of the printer over to all-MIS inks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205010\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW I find the MIS inks to be better than the Epson ones at a fraction of the price. The customer service at MIS is also top notch.
-
Then don't get an Epson!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have 2 3800's, each about a year old. I have had one clog, easily cleared, once.
I have never had a clog with my r800. I had a 2400 for over 6 months and never had a clog.
My 11880 is now 9 months old, and has had 1 small clog in 1 channel that was easily cleared. (This printer sits for weeks at a time, then gets heavy use.)
A friend of mine has been running a 9880 for about 6 months now, and had one clog very early on, none since.
Clogged heads are certainly not the issue they once were.
-
With all due respect:
As a professional, I need concrete testing information on ink longevity and gamut before I can use it for prints that I sell. Antecdotal information is not adequate.
I do use some 3rd party inks, for proofing. But to make a blanket statement that one ink is better than another - or worse - with no data to back up it is meaningless.
Even Jon Cone acknowledges that the Epson inks are excellent:
Epson unarguably makes terrific inks that give chemists terrible headaches when they are charged with trying to come up with an ink that is as good as! We will honestly say that our inks are not better than Epson inks. But we can also honestly say that our inks are as close as possible to Epson Ultrachrome K3 in comparison to competing brands. We did come up with a great ink.
And Cone inks are unquestionably some of the best non-OEM inks out there.
I have looked at the avalilable data on most 3rd party pigment inks on the market over the last 8+ months. Most of them lack the type of data required to make an informed decision. Although many imply otherwise.
-
And your source for such definitive information is...?
Have you ever actually tried printing with third party inks?
Have you ever actually done any tests to see what fading occurs with those inks?
If the answer to either or both of these questions is "no", I respectfully suggest that calling third-party ink users "stupid" is out of line.
I've said it before here and I'll say it again. I have third-party ink prints hanging on my walls that show zero visible fading after nearly 10 years.
Great. Do you have the same image printed with OEM ink on the same paper exhibited under the same conditions for a comparison? Have you measured the colors of said prints with a spectrophotometer to verify that they haven't faded (DeltaE shift <1-2)? Is the inkset used to make those prints still on the market?
Wilhelm Imaging's tests are fairly apples-to-apples, and correlate reasonably well with my own observations of friends trying 3rd-party inks and having printer problems, reduced color gamut, and faster fading. If you've managed to find a 3rd-party ink that is cheaper than OEM, has comparable gamut and fade resistance, and doesn't cause clogging or other print problems, great. Just understand that is very much the exception rather than the rule.
-
Great. Do you have the same image printed with OEM ink on the same paper exhibited under the same conditions for a comparison? Have you measured the colors of said prints with a spectrophotometer to verify that they haven't faded (DeltaE shift <1-2)?
I don't mean to single you out for the Delta E remark suggesting 1-2 Delta E shift is important (I read this same conviction expressed on the colorsync users group list often). However, it is useful to put this "just noticeable difference" issue in an image reproduction perspective. 1 deltaE is regarded as a just noticeable difference (JND) when comparing two side-by-side colors subtending 2 degree angle and located on a neutral surrounding field. The closest real world example I can think of to this viewing condition is a repainted car door lined up directly against fender with original paint, and even this condition doesn't meet the 2 degree observer angle specification. In complex images, and even in side-by-side print viewing conditions (much less so when having to rely on memory of what a print used to look like) most people simply can't tell the difference between two prints that have average delta E values of 3 or more. There are some specific exceptions, notably B&W prints with tonal gradients fluctuating in hue and chroma only (not lightness) by 1-2 delta E. Then we can see the variations. That is why B&W prints are better served by inksets with two or three concentrations of photo gray inks. The photo gray inks confine the variations to lightnesss and not hue and chroma fluctuations.
If you disagree with me, then you will be failing even the best pigmented inkjet systems in the equivalent of 15 years or less on display (using the Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR) rated illumination extrapolation of 450lux/12 hours per day). Please see my website to review 20 samples of pigmented printer/ink/paper combinations that have already reached the 1-2 delta E average change over 30 color patches in just 30 megalux-hours of light exposure (equivalent to 15 WIR years on display).
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/acceleratedagingtests.html (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/acceleratedagingtests.html)
One final comment. There are a couple of papers in test that use a third party inkset. It is indeed showing much greater change than the OEM ink equivalents. However, the problem appears to be confined to just one colorant (yellow) so I can envision a third party inkset or a hybrid set put together by CIS users, probably a pigment ink set, that performs much better. We just have to keep testing to find it!
Mark McCormick
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
>Great. Do you have the same image printed with OEM ink on the same paper exhibited under the same conditions for a comparison? Have you measured the colors of said prints with a spectrophotometer to verify that they haven't faded (DeltaE shift <1-2)?
Spare me. I'm a photographer, not a tech groupie. I've spent over three decades earning my living with cameras from Spotmatics to Panaflexes. I know what I'm seeing. Besides, these picture are for me and are not for sale.
>If you've managed to find a 3rd-party ink that is cheaper than OEM, has comparable gamut and fade resistance, and doesn't cause clogging or other print problems, great. Just understand that is very much the exception rather than the rule.
I'm sorry, but I just can't accept second-hand un-referenced anecdotal disinformation. I prefer to test things myself. The inks I use are still available from MIS and MediaStreet. Both the printers running CIS and third-party inks still work perfectly after nearly ten years running "Yak urine" inks. I estimate my ink savings in the thousands of dollars. Besides, I see more ink clogs with my 4800 than with the other two printers running third-party inks.
Perhaps if I were selling the prints as archival images, "good for a hundred years", I'd have second thoughts, but I'm not. Perhaps I could offer a lifetime replacement guarantee, or perhaps I could supply two copies of the print, one to display and one to store in a freezer against the unlikely eventuality of visible fading. Even printing the images twice, I'd still be far ahead. And so would the customers.
Fear, uncertainty and doubt are what keeps the prices of ink jet inks usuriously high. I say test third-party inks yourself and make up your own mind. Re-stating what you think "everyone" says does nobody any good.
-
The findings of Wilhelm research (third party inks don't last as long) - all fake? Bribed by the printer manufacturers or actually run by the printer/oem ink manufacturers?
-
The findings of Wilhelm research (third party inks don't last as long) - all fake? Bribed by the printer manufacturers or actually run by the printer/oem ink manufacturers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, don't the Wilhelm research findings primarily, if not exclusively, research OEM inks against their respective OEM papers? And if so, what are the implications for those of us who choose to use. for example, 3rd party (non-Epson) papers with Epson inks?
-
I've downloaded WIR_Epson3rdParty2007_09_11.pdf from the Wilhelm Research site. Epson DuraBrite Ultra four-cartridge systems are compared with the following brands:
Office Depot
Calidad
Inkrite
Guang Zhou Yuan se
Sui-e
Certtone
OfficeMax
Comax
Esyink
Sepoms
InkStation
G&G
New Jet
The document is dated September 11, 2007 - not too long ago. Most of the third-party inks are dye inks. Prints were made on the Stylus Color C86, D68, C87 and C88+ printers.
The document WIR_iStar_Tutorial_No_4_2008_06_13.pdf dated June 13, 2008 is a tutorial explaining the use of i-Star software and uses Office Depot 57/58 inks with HP 57/58 inks as examples, using a HP Deskjet 6540 printer.
I did not find any references to MIS or Cone inks, probably because these were not tested.
I don't know how much WIR charges to test inks, but what if Jon Cone or MIS came up with a 10 dollar surcharge on each order to accumulate a "testing fund"? How many would be willing to pony up?
In the meanwhile, don't use any of the third-party inks listed above
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Also, don't the Wilhelm research findings primarily, if not exclusively, research OEM inks against their respective OEM papers? And if so, what are the implications for those of us who choose to use. for example, 3rd party (non-Epson) papers with Epson inks?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205658\")
Your question is an important one. In my own testing experience, I've seen different paper chemistries affect dye-based inkjet inks as much as 20 fold and pigment-based inks up to three fold. And its not just overall rate of fade that gets affected. It is what pure inks and what blends and at what density levels that can be adversely affected. Its also about the non linearity of change. Some combinations lose their pristine condition quickly but then settle down to continue aging at a slower rate of change. Others change slowly at first but then collapse quickly at a later point in time. And still others do exhibit linearity of fade over time. To know for sure, one essentially has to test each printer/ink/media combination of interest using some kind of standardized testing that looks at more than just one endpoint to categorize the print life.
Longevity data available today is either very anecdotal and impossible to compare in an apples-to-apples way with other data, or it is the product of industry sponsored independent testing. We really can't expect the OEMs or the independent labs that base their income on industry sponsored projects to test much more than the most common OEM printer/ink/media combinations. Many third party suppliers see no upside to this type of testing, and for those that do, they probably find it very difficult to justify the independent lab costs because they deal with so many more printer/ink/media combinations than the OEMs. Then too, we've got the whole area of research I'm personally very interested in, namely, the mixing and matching of well known and well regarded individual products by the consumer. For example, say an end-user elects to use Epson Exhibition Fine Art paper in his/her Canon ipfxxxx printer. Would either Canon or Epson sponsor such a test? Is it safe to extrapolate from test results available for "similar" papers and inks? Probably not. One really has to perform the testing.
My apologies now for overstepping the boundaries of forum etiquette by making a plug for my own research, but in the interest of full disclosure, I have recently established a light fade testing program that I hope will better address the diversity of printer/ink/media combinations. My idea is an end-user subscription model that places the funding burden directly on the membership and also has the audacity to ask them to submit samples for test without any guarantee that all samples will get tested! Yet with members submitting printer/ink/media combinations that I'd otherwise have a hard time obtaining on my own, I believe a lot of interesting results are going to come out of this approach. Time will tell if the program can gather the support needed from the photographic and printmaking community in order to survive. I hope so.
Mark McCormick
[a href=\"http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com]http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com[/url]
-
Isn't it that certain papers are simply not good to use for e.g. dye inks.
Those, that soak in the ink and instant dry them, actually lead to instant gas fading in dye inks.
So, choosing the right paper for the right ink seems to be a very important point of research.
-
Here is GKN's interesting links regarding the matching of papers and inks.
The dye printers give great results at the glossy end of the scale, but won't be as good on fine art papers as the pigment ink. Watch the paper recommendations closely and you'll get great results with the 9000. Here are two links to the Ilford info
http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie/correctpaper.pdf (http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie/correctpaper.pdf)
http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie...LERIE_MEDIA.pdf (http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie/PRINTING_WITH_GALERIE_MEDIA.pdf)
While all papers can be used with dye papers, it seems that the "Classic" papers are the optimal ones in their range for a dye based printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I, myself, will stay with OEM inks for the sake of ICC profiles and reliability.
Regarding papers, I hope B&H sold me the right stuff, and not those "poisonous" for dye inks.
-
Office Depot
Calidad
Inkrite
Guang Zhou Yuan se
Sui-e
Certtone
OfficeMax
Comax
Esyink
Sepoms
InkStation
G&G
New Jet
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Following up on this, why didn't Wilhelm choose any of these inks for his comparisons:
Lyson
MediaStreet
MIS
Cone
Did the non-OEM brands he tested pay to be included in his research?
There is one reference to Jon Cone on the WIR site that merely mentions him as one of the pioneeers who set up an Iris 3047 printer.
No comments, but does make one think.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Following up on this, why didn't Wilhelm choose any of these inks for his comparisons:
Lyson
MediaStreet
MIS
Cone
Did the non-OEM brands he tested pay to be included in his research?
There is one reference to Jon Cone on the WIR site that merely mentions him as one of the pioneeers who set up an Iris 3047 printer.
No comments, but does make one think.
Cheers,
Kumar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe they paid to be excluded
-
And maybe
Guang Zhou Yuan se
Sui-e
paid to be included so that they could then flood the US market with cheap ink.
They probably mark their ink "Tested by Wilhelm" while hiding the results of the test
But seriously, this "testing" leaves room for too many questions.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Following up on this, why didn't Wilhelm choose any of these inks for his comparisons:
Lyson
MediaStreet
MIS
Cone
Did the non-OEM brands he tested pay to be included in his research?
There is one reference to Jon Cone on the WIR site that merely mentions him as one of the pioneeers who set up an Iris 3047 printer.
No comments, but does make one think.
Cheers,
Kumar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205811\")
It is in the interests of Wilhelm and the big three printer companies to make the contrast between third party and OEM inks as high as possible. On that logic you can guess how the money flowed and what inks were selected.
For the more respectable third party ink distributors/manufacturers the picture is less B&W. You mentioned 4 but there are more: Staedtler Mars, Pantone, Van Son, etc. They have at least a pigment ink as well.
Of the 4 companies you mentioned, the first two had their inks tested by Wilhelm about 8 years ago. A Mediastreet Generations pigment ink version on Hahnemuhle (German Etching if I recall it correctly) with good test results (100 years) but Wilhelm at that time didn't have an Ozone test. There was a rumor then that MIS had the same ink chemistry. MIS had some testing done by RIT at that time. Meanwhile both companies have new pigment inks and there isn't more available that blue wool test results. Bulk ink source of MIS is Image Specialists that will have more outlets for its products.
Lyson had its dye inks tested by Wilhelm, their original dye ink was used on uncoated rag in Iris machines. I guess that was what Cone and Nash used in the early days though Ilford also had a good dye ink for the Iris. The Wilhelm test of the Lyson dye on uncoated Arches etc rag paper was for that period quite good but there were already other print systems that delivered better print properties than the Iris giclée prints. The next step was that Lyson more or less became the single distributor of Hahnemühle papers for the Iris and when the Epson 3000-9000 arrived on the scene shortly after that they made a fast translation of the Iris inks to the Epson + added HM paper rolls to their catalogue. That combination was also tested by Wilhelm and proved to be a disaster. Most likely the combination of the HM coating (probably Sihl developed) and the Lyson dyes was not ideal. Then finger pointing started and Lyson never tested inks by independent labs afterwards or at least the results were never published. The next tale from Lyson was that they had a new exclusive coating on the HM papers that solved the problem. It was never tested and practice showed no change. When asked HM denied any difference existed between what they sold and Lyson's distribution. Some friction between HM and Lyson about distribution of HM papers outside the Iris market was also becoming an issue. The Lyson pages on the fade properties of the Lysonic and Fotonic dye are embedded in a fog worse than London in the 1950's.
Cone's sources of ink have varied in time I think but one source mentioned Cone as a customer: Neomark in Taiwan. Today's Black and White (quad) inks from many sources are based on carbon pigments that have excellent fade properties in general. Their behaviour in the printers could vary however, rheology (clogging), ink settling being an issue as well if the volume of printing is too low and the printer is idle too often. Some companies have solved that problem better than others based on user messages. Lyson has/had some dye B&W inksets that should be avoided as well. Not just the fade and neutrality issues but metamerism was often reported by users.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Ernst,
Thanks for the detailed reply. As you say, the testing has more to do with money than anything else. At this point, with all the money coming in from the big three printing companies, I'm not sure WIR would even consider testing inks from MIS, Cone and Lyson. Perhaps Mark McCormick or someone else could be a credible alternative. Do you use any of the non-OEM inks yourself? I've used MIS B&W inks in a 1290, and am very happy with the prints.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Ernst,
Thanks for the detailed reply. As you say, the testing has more to do with money than anything else. At this point, with all the money coming in from the big three printing companies, I'm not sure WIR would even consider testing inks from MIS, Cone and Lyson. Perhaps Mark McCormick or someone else could be a credible alternative. Do you use any of the non-OEM inks yourself? I've used MIS B&W inks in a 1290, and am very happy with the prints.
Cheers,
Kumar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205906\")
The suggestion that money fixes the fade testing results of Wilhelm Research and other respectable labs is not what you should read in my message(s). Wilhelm isn't supported by government and has to do business to run the lab. His reputation has been excellent over the years and that isn't changed by the fact that testing costs money. It may have been cheaper in the past though when smaller third party (ink or paper) companies also hired WR lab for testing. I'm sure WR would like to test the better third party inks and papers if it was financed one way or another.
The business models of McCormick and the German Image Engineering are different to WR so far. The first is more consumer based though it will not be the average consumer that subscribes to the plan. The last has been paid by some German magazines so the testing could cover several paper/ink combinations that are unlikely to be tested by Wilhelm who is more restricted by what the companies like to see tested. There's also a difference between what is available in papers in Europe versus the US. IE didn't test third party inks so far (AFAIK), McCormick did.
So far there are no significant differences in ratings between the results of the "different" testing methods on ink/paper combinations that can be compared. A confirmation that the tests in general are valid. IE delivers more information on ozone fading that I can not find in WR's publications despite the fact that the test numbers should be available meanwhile. Too many "Still in test" texts for that in the result lists.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
It is in the interests of Wilhelm and the big three printer companies to make the contrast between third party and OEM inks as high as possible. On that logic you can guess how the money flowed and what inks were selected.
.....................
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ernst,
Perhaps it would be good to set aside the conspiracy theories - why speculate what is in whose interest? If all those third party manufactureres wanted to pay Wilhelm-Imaging to test their products without deviation from his standards and agreed to let him publish the results I very much expect he would do so. If one or more of these companies were to come forward with evidence that Wilhelm refused to test their products based on his own terms and conditions that would be another story, but I - at least - have not heard of such a circumstance.
-
I've just finished a day-long battle with my Epson 4800. Clogging, of course. Three "auto" runs and several other techniques finally returned all the nozzles to normal operation, but I have a waste basket full of useless printed ink patches and a "waste" tank overflowing with "waste" ink. This is extremely annoying and extremely expensive.
A few months ago, as a test, I changed the 4800's black channel to MIS bulk ink and I've been doing some black-only printing as well as normal colour and Avanced BW printing with it since then. During the nozzle cleaning debacle of yesterday, guess which channel showed NO clogging whatsoever, before or after?
Right. Exactly. The MIS bulk ink black channel. It has shown zero clogging since it was installed.
As soon as the next accounting cycle comes around, I'm changing the rest of the printer over to all-MIS inks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205010\")
The MIS Eboni matte black has been the one that was the most compatible with the Epson 10000. The issues that I had with the MIS 7600 ink were related to the Light Magenta (pigment settling, inconsistency in color per batch), Yellow (pigment settling) and the Photo Black in an Epson 9000 quad printer that clogged far more than the Eboni.
If it is the Eboni black that you like it may not be representative for the rest.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
It is in the interests of Wilhelm and the big three printer companies to make the contrast between third party and OEM inks as high as possible. On that logic you can guess how the money flowed and what inks were selected.
The suggestion that money fixes the fade testing results of Wilhelm Research and other respectable labs is not what you should read in my message(s). Wilhelm isn't supported by government and has to do business to run the lab. His reputation has been excellent over the years and that isn't changed by the fact that testing costs money. It may have been cheaper in the past though when smaller third party (ink or paper) companies also hired WR lab for testing. I'm sure WR would like to test the better third party inks and papers if it was financed one way or another.
SNIP>>
Ernst Dinkla
I'm not suggesting "fixing". I was reacting to the first statement, that MarkDS also referred to. If there's a comparison to be made between the lightfastness and other properties of OEM vs. non-OEM inks, why not test OEM inks against inks that claim to be as good as or better than OEM inks? Why test against inks from OfficeDepot and Guang Zhou Yuan se? I see this as comparing apples and oranges, and saying apples are redder and sweeter.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Ernst,
Thanks for the detailed reply. As you say, the testing has more to do with money than anything else. At this point, with all the money coming in from the big three printing companies, I'm not sure WIR would even consider testing inks from MIS, Cone and Lyson. Perhaps Mark McCormick or someone else could be a credible alternative. Do you use any of the non-OEM inks yourself? I've used MIS B&W inks in a 1290, and am very happy with the prints.
Cheers,
Kumar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I view AaI&A's mission as one of collecting and studying the image quality and image permanence characteristics of prints made in this era of digital printing. From my perspective, each and every one of the product combinations in use today has a chance of ending up in a museum or archive. I'm happy to test what my subscribers send me as much as I can and as often as I can. By spreading the costs of the research over a membership base, and giving the membership a large say in what gets tested, I have confidence that the program will remain free of the potential conflicts of interest that Ernst described so aptly in his detailed reply. The AaI&A light fade testing program is very much in its infancy, but yesterday I was very excited to receive another set of samples from a new member who is using Image Specialist inks for the Epson R1800. Because MIS inks are already in test and more are on the way from yet another subscriber, the "fading signatures" of the various ink sets on same and varying papers should be quite interesting!
Best regards,
Mark
-
Ernst,
Perhaps it would be good to set aside the conspiracy theories - why speculate what is in whose interest? If all those third party manufactureres wanted to pay Wilhelm-Imaging to test their products without deviation from his standards and agreed to let him publish the results I very much expect he would do so. If one or more of these companies were to come forward with evidence that Wilhelm refused to test their products based on his own terms and conditions that would be another story, but I - at least - have not heard of such a circumstance.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205934\")
I think Wilhelm will like to test anyone's ink if it is commercially possible. No doubts or speculation there. But the problem for Wilhelm and the big three is that for five years or something like that only the big three inks and papers are tested and the results are good but there are no longer any independent lab results at the other side of the balance to give more meaning to the test results. That isn't in Wilhelm's interests if he wants to attract new customers and it will not satisfy him either in his quest for better photo media that he started more than 30 years ago. So the bad ones got their test.
Testing inks and papers that may fall somewhere in between the bad and the good ones and finance that testing by the big three and Wilhelm is far less likely to happen as it may cut in the big three's market share when a third party ink scores somewhere in between or almost equal. In that case ink users could make the decision that 20 years less fade resistance is good enough for their prints.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
I've downloaded WIR_Epson3rdParty2007_09_11.pdf from the Wilhelm Research site. Epson DuraBrite Ultra four-cartridge systems are compared with the following brands:
Office Depot
Calidad
..
OfficeMax
Comax
...
G&G
New Jet
I think that test was done for PC Magazine, or one of the other popular low-end rags.
The intent was to test inks that are commonly used by the low priced refillers. I have seen folks on one board, for example, going on about how good the G&G inks are. They are also quite popular on Ebay.
The other inks you mention are less popular/populist inks, and more often used by the relatively well informed, who have to do more work to use them than buy the cheap pre-filled/refilled cartridges.
They still lack meaningful publisherd data on longevity (for the most part), though one has published a wool test rating. Another has publsihed some kind of wierd bleach test.
Lyson referred to some vague, unpublished testing when their Cave Paint inks came out a few years ago. I e-mailed them repeatedly asking for details, but never received a response. It also took some detective work to find out that their pigments also included some dyes.
Ozone tests are even harder to find. And so the story goes.
Cone in particular has made a decent effort to document longevity, gamut, and to provide ICC profiles, the big three in my mind for the non-OEM inks if they hope to compete.
Mark is doing great work - thank you! As is Wilhelm. And Ernst's experience and contribution are always welcome. Thank you folks!
Best,
Michael
-
I think Wilhelm will like to test anyone's ink if it is commercially possible. No doubts or speculation there. But the problem for Wilhelm and the big three is that for five years or something like that only the big three inks and papers are tested and the results are good but there are no longer any independent lab results at the other side of the balance to give more meaning to the test results. That isn't in Wilhelm's interests if he wants to attract new customers and it will not satisfy him either in his quest for better photo media that he started more than 30 years ago. So the bad ones got their test.
Testing inks and papers that may fall somewhere in between the bad and the good ones and finance that testing by the big three and Wilhelm is far less likely to happen as it may cut in the big three's market share when a third party ink scores somewhere in between or almost equal. In that case ink users could make the decision that 20 years less fade resistance is good enough for their prints.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ernst,
The fact that non-big3 ink makers don't contract with him (or for that matter any other reputable, known arms'-length service) to test their products isn't a problem for Wilhelm or for the big-3 - it's a problem for the consumers who purchase them because while they save some money they're gambling with the unknown. But fine, for all those folks out there who use these products and like them - so be it - who's to say they shouldn't go on doing what they are happy with. Speaking personally though, I wouldn't recommend untested products to other people, because I wouldn't use them myself. Permanence is one of the hallmarks of the photographic process - not for all purposes of course - but to the extent it matters people can decide what chances to take.
I think the discussion meandered into this area because one of the OP's stated parameters was using non-OEM ink and respondents quite legitimately questioned that parameter. Well, the issues are known, only the qualities of the properly tested products are really known within the limits of those tests, and from that point on, it is, as so often the case, "caveat emptor".
-
Is it reliable to buy remanufactured ink cartridges?
When I googled "Canon Pixma Pro 9000 OEM ink" I came across this one.
http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f (http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f)
Do you think this is genuine Canon ink in there?
And do you think it is advisable to buy remanufactured inks?
What about refilling?
Remanufactured cartridges and refilling empty cartridges seem to be the only way to reduce cost and stay in the high quality area.
I just wonder if doing so doesn't introduce other risks that isn't worth the money you save (better spend the time on increasing business).
-
Ernst,
The fact that non-big3 ink makers don't contract with him (or for that matter any other reputable, known arms'-length service) to test their products isn't a problem for Wilhelm or for the big-3 -
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205983\")
It is/was a problem for WR + the big 3 as well. For several reasons. The impression by the public that WR is bought by the big 3 because he only tests their inks right now is not good for either party. The non existence of any independent test results for the many third party inks isn't really disqualifying them but leaves the impression that they could be as good but are not tested because WR doesn't want to or WR is too expensive. And as written before if Wilhelm only tests inks that are good without any negative results a kind of inflation happens on the good test results. The issue of fading drops from the agenda.
With IE and Mark McCormick testing media from a wider range of suppliers the last is less likely to happen. Competition is good for the ink buyer and keeps the labs alert to improve their methods. The ink manufacturer also has to cope with differences in the testing methods and can not adapt his inks to just one lab that has the authority right now.
This market is still in its infancy especially on ink volume. The growth of inkjet printing in the graphic industry was sketched not so long ago by someone from RIT who estimated that inkjet will be the main print technology around 2050 and offset will be a niche technology then. Right now the inkjet industry is happy to claim 1% of that volume in 5 years time which is already many times more than the existing inkjet volume is right now. With that perspective there is work enough for any lab.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
It is/was a problem for WR + the big 3 as well. For several reasons. The impression by the public that WR is bought by the big 3 because he only tests their inks right now is not good for either party. The non existence of any independent test results for the many third party inks isn't really disqualifying them but leaves the impression that they could be as good but are not tested because WR doesn't want to or WR is too expensive. And as written before if Wilhelm only tests inks that are good without any negative results a kind of inflation happens on the good test results. The issue of fading drops from the agenda.
With IE and Mark McCormick testing media from a wider range of suppliers the last is less likely to happen. Competition is good for the ink buyer and keeps the labs alert to improve their methods. The ink manufacturer also has to cope with differences in the testing methods and can not adapt his inks to just one lab that has the authority right now.
This market is still in its infancy especially on ink volume. The growth of inkjet printing in the graphic industry was sketched not so long ago by someone from RIT who estimated that inkjet will be the main print technology around 2050 and offset will be a niche technology then. Right now the inkjet industry is happy to claim 1% of that volume in 5 years time which is already many times more than the existing inkjet volume is right now. With that perspective there is work enough for any lab.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who is "the public" and who amongst them has this impression? I'm part of "the public" and I don't have that impression. Some other may, but fine - maybe they can change their minds once they understand the facts.
I don't know who this authority from RIT is, but inkjet and offset are completely different technologies catering to different purposes and markets, so the statement baffles me.
I don't understand the statistics you are trying to convey or their relevance. Labs only get work which manufacturers bring to them regardless of the size of the market - so yes, you are correct to the extent there is much potential business in all this, but so what? I come back to my premise that the main problem using non-OEM inks is the relative scantiness of reliable data - about several aspects. So it is <caveat emptor> until those manufacturers spend what they need to spend to provide the same quality of information that is available for some of the OEM materials. I think that's just applied common sense, and not a statement to pass judgment on the inks, the manufacturers or the testers.
-
Is it reliable to buy remanufactured ink cartridges?
When I googled "Canon Pixma Pro 9000 OEM ink" I came across this one.
http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f (http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f)
Do you think this is genuine Canon ink in there?
And do you think it is advisable to buy remanufactured inks?
What about refilling?
Remanufactured cartridges and refilling empty cartridges seem to be the only way to reduce cost and stay in the high quality area.
I just wonder if doing so doesn't introduce other risks that isn't worth the money you save (better spend the time on increasing business).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there you have it - all these questions - and they are good questions. Like I said elsewhere, unless the people providing these products pay a competent and independent third party to test them and publish results, you just don't know. Maybe it's a huge bargain, but maybe there are hidden and not so hidden consequences. By the time enough experience of users accumulates, the market - and perhaps you as well - will be on to something else that is newer and better. It evolves quickly.
And what you wonder about the value of the risks relative to the value of the savings is also a valid consideration. You know the savings, but you don't know the risks, so it is hard to put a size, value and probability of occurance to that risk, therefore impossible to quantify. But you can look at it this way: what is the percentage of the cost of ink relative to the price you can attract for a print? As much as 2%? Or 5%? And if you could cut that cost by say 50%, by how much has your margin actually increased? Is it really significant considering that time is money, and the time involved coping with the potential additional risk is a pure "crap-shoot"? People in business make judgments that at some point the value of the known is worth more than that of the unknown.
If I had information at a comparable level of quality as that which comes from Henry Wilhelm telling me that I could use some non-OEM brand of ink having the same qualities for half the price, I would go for it. But I haven't seen that yet, so I don't. But of course, everyone's mileage may vary. I'm just a risk-averse guy.
-
Who is "the public" and who amongst them has this impression? I'm part of "the public" and I don't have that impression. Some other may, but fine - maybe they can change their minds once they understand the facts.
I don't know who this authority from RIT is, but inkjet and offset are completely different technologies catering to different purposes and markets, so the statement baffles me.
I don't understand the statistics you are trying to convey or their relevance. Labs only get work which manufacturers bring to them regardless of the size of the market - so yes, you are correct to the extent there is much potential business in all this, but so what? I come back to my premise that the main problem using non-OEM inks is the relative scantiness of reliable data - about several aspects. So it is <caveat emptor> until those manufacturers spend what they need to spend to provide the same quality of information that is available for some of the OEM materials. I think that's just applied common sense, and not a statement to pass judgment on the inks, the manufacturers or the testers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206016\")
Read the mailing lists of Digital B&W, Epson Wide Format and more and you will see the opinion on WR's activities is split half half. See the recent threads here about third party inks. As long as there is no testing done outside the big 3's catalog you will not wipe that impression away, you will see people use inks that are lower in price and not tested. I have tried to convince people that integrity can exist in a commercial setup and that the tests by the big 3 only is understandable given the commercial base of WR but I'm sure it would be a lot easier to convince people when there is a third party ink tested once in a while.
It baffles everyone. You have not been to the Drupa 2008, it was called the inkjet Drupa even before it started. Dual sided web and sheet inkjet printers (called presses there) with assembled heads that cover the full width of the paper in HP's case 36" maximum width. Check HP Inkjet Web Press and that was just one example of what was on show. Screen, Fuji, Océ, Kodak, Epson, possibly 15 companies with machines aimed at that market of mailers, short run newspapers, labels. That's what you can expect for that first 5 year. There are still 2 halls just for Heidelberg and a smaller one for Man Roland, a large booth for KBA and several booths for Japanese offset machine manufacturers but everyone is impressed by the wide spread of new inkjet presses and inkjet technology integrated in offset presses.
What remains of printing has to be adapted to the internet and inkjet fits that more than any other system right now.
I may have seen at most 5-10 silkscreen printing machines spread over the Drupa where in the past there would have been large booths of Svecia, Argon, Thieme and some Japanese and US manufacturers. A niche industry in 10 years time after the appearance of the first (eco)solvent inkjet printers.
Off topic in this thread but inkjet is now everywhere in the non-graphic industry as well. Biochemical arrays for medical testing, medicine production, skin creation, rapid prototyping, OLED LCD display building. What we do is just a tiny, now almost traditional part of inkjet printing.
Competition between labs can only exist when there is enough demand for their activities. Not counting some labs that use blue wool scale, xenon chambers and no up to date methodologies, we had just three labs WR, RIT and in theory Fogra. Of the last two enough essays on the subject appeared but hardly any published testing of available inkjet inks and papers. Wilhelm's publications are until recently the only practical source for inkjet printer users. His commercial model however limits the spread of testing. That isn't good for the industry and it isn't good for Wilhelm's quest to improve the quality of the media in the industry. It is a good thing that other initiatives appeared and there will be a market big enough to support them.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
My only concern is with the comparison tests, in which WIR compares OEM inks with el cheapo inks, and then an impression is created that all non-OEM inks are of poor quality. I do not know who specified the inks to be tested. If it was the OEMs, then they missed a chance to prove that MIS, Lyson and Cone inks are crap. Or perhaps the OEMs know that they aren't crap, and it's only a matter of marketing spin to tar every non-OEM manufacturer with the same brush. If it was WIR, they missed a chance to be more credible.
I also find this odd: Many of us use non-OEM papers, but are religious about using OEM inks. Who has independently tested these ink/paper combinations? And how come we're willing to ignore the fact that there aren't too many such tests for the myriad permutations and combinations?
Also, are paper manufacturers getting their products tested by WIR?
Kumar
-
My only concern is with the comparison tests, in which WIR compares OEM inks with el cheapo inks, and then an impression is created that all non-OEM inks are of poor quality. I do not know who specified the inks to be tested. If it was the OEMs, then they missed a chance to prove that MIS, Lyson and Cone inks are crap. Or perhaps the OEMs know that they aren't crap, and it's only a matter of marketing spin to tar every non-OEM manufacturer with the same brush. If it was WIR, they missed a chance to be more credible.
I also find this odd: Many of us use non-OEM papers, but are religious about using OEM inks. Who has independently tested these ink/paper combinations? And how come we're willing to ignore the fact that there aren't too many such tests for the myriad permutations and combinations?
Also, are paper manufacturers getting their products tested by WIR?
Kumar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206143\")
You can only guess who decided what. It still doesn't say a bit about the quality of the inks in between. For that Aardenburg is the best source right now.
With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here. For me so far Image Engineering and the German magazines ColorFoto, C't, Fine Art Printing have been sources for checking the OEM ink and third party paper combinations. An older ColorFoto article for the 3 OEM pigment inks and about 60 papers and the July issue with Epson OEM + about 40 papers.
There have been paper manufacturers like Hahnemuhle that had some papers tested by Wilhelm with OEM ink. Again about 8 years ago though.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here.
Ernst Dinkla
And the comparison test I referenced here says that most of the non-OEM inks were dye inks...
I will look at the German sources you referenced.
Kumar
-
But you can look at it this way: what is the percentage of the cost of ink relative to the price you can attract for a print? As much as 2%? Or 5%? And if you could cut that cost by say 50%, by how much has your margin actually increased?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it's just a matter of fact : for people selling prints for a living, saving a few bucks on a print's ink and billing a few hundred ones after that doesn't make much sense... (at least until it's proved that 3rd party inkset are indeed better than OEM ones!)
As far as I can see, the main audience of 3rd party inks is amateurs, who have to watch the costs of their hobby more thoroughly (particularly if they can't afford, for size or investment reason, serious printers with big cartridges : those desktop printers reallly DO need a CIS) - and who may not have as high requirements for permanence as pros do, btw.
-
I think it's just a matter of fact : for people selling prints for a living, saving a few bucks on a print's ink and billing a few hundred ones after that doesn't make much sense...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206154\")
There has been a time that pro printers had to look elsewhere for inks with sufficient gamut, acceptable degree of metamerism, black Dmax and fade resistance. Before the Epson UCs arrived that combination wasn't available in other inksets than what Mediastreet, MIS etc delivered. Epson couldn't, Lyson, Staedtler, Van Son, Dico didn't have the right combination either. The 3000, 9000, 7000, 5000, 7500, 9500, 10000CF, 10000 dye, 5500 inksets suffered one way or another and the Roland pigment inksets (HiFi included) were not that better in gamut. The same lack of the right inks happened when quality B&W inkjet printing was explored. Again third party manufacturers bridged that gap. So your observation may be correct right now but that has not been the case some years ago. There were good reasons next to economy to load third party inks on an Epson. With the arrival of the 9800 K3 soon followed by the inksets and printers from HP and Canon the landscape changed and using OEM inks became much more attractive, especially with the HP Z3100 that is frugal on ink as well.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Read the mailing lists of Digital B&W, Epson Wide Format and more and you will see the opinion on WR's activities is split half half. See the recent threads here about third party inks. As long as there is no testing done outside the big 3's catalog you will not wipe that impression away, you will see people use inks that are lower in price and not tested. I have tried to convince people that integrity can exist in a commercial setup and that the tests by the big 3 only is understandable given the commercial base of WR but I'm sure it would be a lot easier to convince people when there is a third party ink tested once in a while.
It baffles everyone. You have not been to the Drupa 2008, it was called the inkjet Drupa even before it started. Dual sided web and sheet inkjet printers (called presses there) with assembled heads that cover the full width of the paper in HP's case 36" maximum width. Check HP Inkjet Web Press and that was just one example of what was on show. Screen, Fuji, Océ, Kodak, Epson, possibly 15 companies with machines aimed at that market of mailers, short run newspapers, labels. That's what you can expect for that first 5 year. There are still 2 halls just for Heidelberg and a smaller one for Man Roland, a large booth for KBA and several booths for Japanese offset machine manufacturers but everyone is impressed by the wide spread of new inkjet presses and inkjet technology integrated in offset presses.
What remains of printing has to be adapted to the internet and inkjet fits that more than any other system right now.
I may have seen at most 5-10 silkscreen printing machines spread over the Drupa where in the past there would have been large booths of Svecia, Argon, Thieme and some Japanese and US manufacturers. A niche industry in 10 years time after the appearance of the first (eco)solvent inkjet printers.
Off topic in this thread but inkjet is now everywhere in the non-graphic industry as well. Biochemical arrays for medical testing, medicine production, skin creation, rapid prototyping, OLED LCD display building. What we do is just a tiny, now almost traditional part of inkjet printing.
Competition between labs can only exist when there is enough demand for their activities. Not counting some labs that use blue wool scale, xenon chambers and no up to date methodologies, we had just three labs WR, RIT and in theory Fogra. Of the last two enough essays on the subject appeared but hardly any published testing of available inkjet inks and papers. Wilhelm's publications are until recently the only practical source for inkjet printer users. His commercial model however limits the spread of testing. That isn't good for the industry and it isn't good for Wilhelm's quest to improve the quality of the media in the industry. It is a good thing that other initiatives appeared and there will be a market big enough to support them.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ernst,
On the inkjet market, if you are saying it's in full-flight and taking over every function in which it excels, we agree. And that market growth of course opens broader flexibility for new approaches to product testing and other things to develop.
But let's look at where we are at now.I've belonged to several of these Yahoo Lists dealing with Epson printers, wide format, etc. Sure they all have some good folks and useful stuff, but I think rigorous filtering of such material for objectivity is really important. I'll leave it at that.
I agree with you that it would be nice to see the picture more balanced with a broader range of rigorous product testing, but there is no public service function doing this for us, so yes, it is a commercial model; but that model is only limited by the refusal of various parties to pay for having their products tested. You are right, for the reasons you state, to date WIR has been about the only game in town of any real use to consumers. And yes, at least one other is appearing. For the work to be done, of course it takes time, effort and resources, so someone has to pay somehow; time will tell whether we get a "model" more conducive to broader testing. Until then, I'll stick with tested products.
-
You can only guess who decided what. It still doesn't say a bit about the quality of the inks in between. For that Aardenburg is the best source right now.
With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here. For me so far Image Engineering and the German magazines ColorFoto, C't, Fine Art Printing have been sources for checking the OEM ink and third party paper combinations. An older ColorFoto article for the 3 OEM pigment inks and about 60 papers and the July issue with Epson OEM + about 40 papers.
There have been paper manufacturers like Hahnemuhle that had some papers tested by Wilhelm with OEM ink. Again about 8 years ago though.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ernst,
As far as I know, the key issues with the papers are whether or not they contain acid, whether or not they contain OBAs, their tint and how well the surfaces are constructed for reflectance and ink absorption. I've probably missed a few parameters under the hood. And the variety of new papers just keeps growing. I'm interested to know how well set-up the various magazines you quote are to do rigorous and reliable testing of these new papers with OEM inks.
I also think Kumar has a good point - we take an apparently good quality paper from Ilford or Hahn, for example, look at its characteristics, make inferences about its long-term stability from those characteristics and proceed to use it. Maybe we do that more readily than with inks, because ink is a soup whose contents and their implications we just don't know, but when a paper maker tells us there are no OBAs and no acid and they have a long-standing reputation for quality products, it is already useful information and experience; but I too would like to see up-to-date rigorous testing of these products by independent third parties.
-
Ernst,
I'm interested to know how well set-up the various magazines you quote are to do rigorous and reliable testing of these new papers with OEM inks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206170\")
It's Image-Engineering that does or supervises the testing for the magazines.
Dietmar Wüller who is on the same ISO committee(s) Henry Wilhelm and Mark McCormick attended.
[a href=\"http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/staticpages/index.php/Contact.html]http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...hp/Contact.html[/url]
if faces and degrees count, in Germany they count :-)
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
The non-OEM manufacturers are starting to understand what is required for us to have full confidence in their products. I don't knwo if you all saw this press release from February:
*********************************
http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78 (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78)
HARMAN PHOTO PAPERS UNDERGO WILHELM TESTING
14th February 2008
Leading imaging specialist to demonstrate the print permanence of its entire range
To give the global photographic community total reassurance as to the archival properties of its papers, HARMAN technology has submitted its entire HARMAN PHOTO range to the Certified Image Permanence Testing Program run by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR). This move will enable consumers to make immediate side-by-side comparisons between the longevity of HARMAN PHOTO products and those of other well-known manufacturers. ........
Specifically, WIR is testing HARMAN PHOTO’s MATT FB Mp, MATT FB Mp WARMTONE and GLOSS FB AL papers - all of which benefit from a Baryta base enabling them to offer prints with greater detail, increased definition and a wider tonal range. The papers are being tested with Epson UltraChrome K3 with Vivid Magenta pigment inks, Canon LUCIA pigment inks, and HP Vivera pigment inks using representative Epson, Canon, and HP professional printers. Upon completion, WIR will post comprehensive test results on the WIR website, and also make the data available to HARMAN PHOTO and ultimately the papers’ end-users. HARMAN PHOTO meanwhile will begin to use the WIR Certification Seal. [/b]
*************************************************
That last line is interesting. It raises a bit of a question for Mark McCormick that I had meant to bring up on another forum. That is, the importance of clearly defining his "brand", and of maintaining ownership and integrity of all of the details of the brand.
Just look at the recent fights over the definiton of "organic" in the US, with the large conglomerates wanting to allow up to 5% toxic waste in a product labelled as "organic."
Best,
Michael
-
]HARMAN PHOTO meanwhile will begin to use the WIR Certification Seal. [/i][/b]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206199\")
What I had seen on Harman's site was a woolly page on blue wool testing.
I missed this announcement.
Together with Epson's Traditional PP it will be the only fiber/baryta papers tested by Wilhelm. Many are already using that paper variety.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
It's Image-Engineering that does or supervises the testing for the magazines.
Dietmar Wüller who is on the same ISO committee(s) Henry Wilhelm and Mark McCormick attended.
http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...hp/Contact.html (http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/staticpages/index.php/Contact.html)
if faces and degrees count, in Germany they count :-)
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ernst, interesting. Not as detailed reports as those from WIR, but his results for Epson Premium Lustrer & K3 inks are similar to Wilhelm's for unframed displayed prints. However he does not specify the display conditions for his tests. He says he does not use flourescent lighting and the lighting he uses will cause the longevity estimates to be relatively shorter than others; whereas Wilhelm does use flourescent lighting - of a very specific kind. One begins to wonder - and as the number of testing facilities and reports grow, we can expect to be exposed to more and more conflicting and ambiguous results leading to where? With one game in town, you have no choice - just use it. With three games in town there will be three different stories to contend with, and who knows who's right? A role for the ISO to standardize all the procedures and criteria? Are these guys working to that objective?
-
The non-OEM manufacturers are starting to understand what is required for us to have full confidence in their products. I don't knwo if you all saw this press release from February:
*********************************
http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78 (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78)
Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for pointing out that, Michael.
Kumar
-
Ernst, interesting. Not as detailed reports as those from WIR, but his results for Epson Premium Lustrer & K3 inks are similar to Wilhelm's for unframed displayed prints. However he does not specify the display conditions for his tests. He says he does not use flourescent lighting and the lighting he uses will cause the longevity estimates to be relatively shorter than others; whereas Wilhelm does use flourescent lighting - of a very specific kind. One begins to wonder - and as the number of testing facilities and reports grow, we can expect to be exposed to more and more conflicting and ambiguous results leading to where? With one game in town, you have no choice - just use it. With three games in town there will be three different stories to contend with, and who knows who's right? A role for the ISO to standardize all the procedures and criteria? Are these guys working to that objective?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206224\")
White papers enough on the site:
[a href=\"http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/whitepaper_printertest2.0_engl.pdf]http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...est2.0_engl.pdf[/url]
ISO drafts are at least a guide for the 3 methods of testing discussed here. The problem is that it is so hard to reach a consensus on the ISO definition, at least Mark McCormick has mentioned that. Image Engineering uses an economic light source with a better continuous spectrum as I understand it, there will be more differences.
Yes, the testing is more comparable to the bare bulb test of Wilhelm. There is enough correlation between the WIR and IE results, exceptions are the Fuji Crystal and Cibachrome. I do not see a conflict between testing methods, instead of that more confirmation of test results. The ozone test results are interesting and the RC papers show good properties there. Wilhelm has far less test results on ozone fading. In recent tests published in ColorFoto more fiber papers were included and the fading of OBA in different paper varieties was not seen as problematic with one exception. The more information we get the better it is.
I buy a copy of ColorFoto sometimes or downlaod a test report (approx 3 Euro) when I forget to buy the magazine. Weight, thickness, Dmax without CM, with the paper manufacturers profile, with a custom profile (3 numbers, a bit overdone to my taste), Lab number for the paper color, whiteness/reflection at 440 Nm, light fading, ozone fading and some remarks on how it behaves in the printer and what media presets to use. There are some things in the article itself that I think are incorrect but in general the quality of information is good.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
As far as I can see, the main audience of 3rd party inks is amateurs, who have to watch the costs of their hobby
True. And high-volume commercial operations, for whom ink costs can be significant.
Large carts (as on my 4800) offer some relief, but MIS inks, for example, offer an additional nearly four-fold savings in ink costs. If you like making large prints (and that's why I bought a 17" printer) and you're paying for your own ink, third-party inks make good sense. A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues and if one insists on hanging unprotected prints in direct sunshine, one should be prepared to re-print occasionally. At a quarter the cost, I can do just that.
My expensive, framed Cibachrome prints, supposedly relatively immune to fading, are toast after a few years in a bright room. And I mean toast. My MediaStreet ink prints, hanging in the same room, fared much better.
After I change over the 4800 to MIS, I might be singing a different tune, but at least I'll have tried and tested myself.
I promise I'll sing the tune (whatever the melody) here. : )
-
A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you have a spetrometer, that's a way to go.
But if you don't, you're dependent on ICC profiles of ink/paper combinations. And this on top of possible quality issues like fading, clogging, and lower quality cartridges.
I'd love to save money, but the price of saving seems a bit hight to me.
-
A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues and if one insists on hanging unprotected prints in direct sunshine, one should be prepared to re-print occasionally.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206338\")
A good profile doesn't solve a low gamut of an inkset or an unbalanced gamut. The reason I loaded and unloaded the Staedtler pigment inks for an Epson within a month. It doesn't solve a low black Dmax either. Generations was available with two varieties of Matte Black ink. One with an additional black dye to give better Dmax but that one was also more prone to fading.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
True. And high-volume commercial operations, for whom ink costs can be significant.
Large carts (as on my 4800) offer some relief, but MIS inks, for example, offer an additional nearly four-fold savings in ink costs. If you like making large prints (and that's why I bought a 17" printer) and you're paying for your own ink, third-party inks make good sense. A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues and if one insists on hanging unprotected prints in direct sunshine, one should be prepared to re-print occasionally. At a quarter the cost, I can do just that.
My expensive, framed Cibachrome prints, supposedly relatively immune to fading, are toast after a few years in a bright room. And I mean toast. My MediaStreet ink prints, hanging in the same room, fared much better.
After I change over the 4800 to MIS, I might be singing a different tune, but at least I'll have tried and tested myself.
I promise I'll sing the tune (whatever the melody) here. : )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter, yes, ink costs can be "significant", but you have to see them in relation to all their other costs and to revenues. It's only when you look at the second-order impact of the savings between one inket and the other relative to the potential incremental and consequential costs in the overall context of a cash-flow statement would it begin to emerge whether a particular inkset makes commercial sense.
The profile can only be helpful to the extent that you custom-create it from patches made with that inkset, and even then, of course it cannot invent any qualities which the ink may not have, whether OEM or other.
Needless to say, "chacun a son gout", but once I've made a print I don't want to think of reprinting it again in my lifetime. What my children or grandchildren do with it will be up to them. But if you are selling fine-art photographs, if you believe in disclosure, the last thing you want to have to tell your customers is that they may start fading after X (untested therefore unknown number of) years, so come back for a re-print if you experience this issue. This isn't an argument for necessarily only using OEM materials, but it is one for using materials whose characteristics have been examined by arms' length experts, or are otherwise well enough known.
-
but MIS inks, for example, offer an additional nearly four-fold savings in ink costs. If you like making large prints (and that's why I bought a 17" printer) and you're paying for your own ink, third-party inks make good sense.
Why stop there?
I was using a dye ink from OCP for proofing. Cost was about $27 per quart/liter. A set of 6 inks was $167 shipped.
It was a suposed Claria match dye ink. They actually had some OK longevity test results - supposedly, because they did not share the actual data. No ozone testing which is critical for dye. I still want to test them myself.
The cheapest pigment inks run about $100 a liter. With the dye there was actually better gamut than the pigments, plus no problems printing on glossy. I used Premium Semi-Gloss as my standard proofing paper at $.28 per square foot. So an 18x24 was about $.93, a 24x36 was $1.86
I used those for proofing only, on my Epson 7600. I still had a 7880 for final prints. But the cost of ink was only $.03 per ml for my dye prints.
I pulled the dye when I was able to get some Epson K2 for $65 for 3 liters - cheaper than the dye. That was a very "niche" opportunity though, not easily replicated.
-
Needless to say, "chacun a son gout", but once I've made a print I don't want to think of reprinting it again in my lifetime. What my children or grandchildren do with it will be up to them. But if you are selling fine-art photographs, if you believe in disclosure, the last thing you want to have to tell your customers is that they may start fading after X (untested therefore unknown number of) years, so come back for a re-print if you experience this issue. This isn't an argument for necessarily only using OEM materials, but it is one for using materials whose characteristics have been examined by arms' length experts, or are otherwise well enough known.
It is definitely a sound argument for an informed choice. None of us can know with certainty how are prints will be regarded in the future. A lot of it has to do not with our personal likes and dislikes, rather with the content in our photographs. Some will become extremely interesting to children, grandchildren, and total strangers. Some will be deemed irrelevant and not worth preserving. Much has been written in the conservation literature about "artist's original intent". The closer my photographs are to the way I printed them and saw them, the better the odds that future generations will be able to interpret my intent. Image permanence is very important. I am not cynical about the possibility that digital files can survive well into the future and be "readable" and consequently reprintable. However, the systems that those files will be opened with, if indeed they are openable, and the aesthetics of future custodians of those image files will not necessarily recreate the appearance of what I saw on my vintage turn of the 21st century monitor. Only my prints will serve as a guide to what I saw and how I chose to print that subject matter. And they will only do that if they retain some semblance of their original reproduction quality. One's choice of materials, and one's advice to friends, family, and clients on how best to preserve that original vision are fundamentally important.
Mark McCormick-Goodhart
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
Interesting quote:
"The only way to maximize a print’s fade resistance is to ensure that all components are tested together."
From this web page:
http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php (http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php)
-
There is another interesting quote from this site.
"With photo-quality inkjet printers now widely used for the commercial production of images, many third-party ink companies have introduced bulk-ink feed devices that provide a continuous ink supply (CIS) to the printer, eliminating the need to change cartridges. The potential reduction in consumable costs is enormous, equaling about a 70% savings over buying original cartridges. These devices are bad-mouthed by printer manufacturers because they take away a valuable revenue stream, and are claimed to be unreliable, difficult to install, and, worse yet, damage the printer. In some cases, this is true; there are some poorly made systems out there. However, I believe that a welldesigned bulk feed system can actually increase the printer’s reliability. The reason a printer requires several cleaning cycles after a cartridge change is because of air ingress into the print head.
Here are some tips when choosing a bulk ink feed system. First, find out if the system comes with pre-primed ink cartridges. A lot of these systems are supplied empty (the ink is sold separately), and the user must first fill the cartridges using syringes or a small suction pump.
Second, determine if installing the system requires any major modifications to the printer. Awell-designed system shouldn’t require any hole drilling or cutting of the printer covers. (Remember, you may one day need to return the printer for warranty repair.) Finally, don’t consider a bulk ink feed attachment unless you regularly do a fair amount of printing. If you only do a couple of prints a week, these systems are not for you since the ink in the reservoirs will go out-of-date before you use it. A good rule of thumb is, if you use more than a cartridge set each week, a bulk feed will save you money and work reliably. "
This is an article, written by the president of a third party ink suppliere (Lyson). It doesn't really sound fishy.
If anybody finds something fishy, point it out.
I don't have enough experience to judge this, and stay with original inks and quality paper as for now.
But, upon reflection, ink is not rocket science. What is important, is the knowledge about how a certain ink and a certain type of paper react. As long as you don't have this information, any ink is worthless, no matter if third party or OEM.
-
I also found this.
I personally do not trust any inhouse testing, and don't (yet!) have the experience to judge it.
But maybe someone can tell if it is of the category "bogus and BS".
-
The reason a printer requires several cleaning cycles after a cartridge change is because of air ingress into the print head.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is factually incorrect. None of my Epson professional prints have required cleaning cycles after cartridge changes, nor is there a technical reason why they should. The printers are designed to prevent ingress of air into either the lines or the printhead as a result of changing cartrdiges. If it happens, something else is wrong. Air bubbles can appear in the lines because of repeated cleaning cycles(unrelated to caartridge changes) and there are recommended procedures for avoiding this.
-
But, upon reflection, ink is not rocket science.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, not rocket-science, but the big three developers expend mega-bucks in R&D, testing and process control on each new inkset and paper they bring to market. Most of us don't know the numbers or the chemistry, but I wouldn't under-rate it.
-
This is factually incorrect. None of my Epson professional prints have required cleaning cycles after cartridge changes, nor is there a technical reason why they should. The printers are designed to prevent ingress of air into either the lines or the printhead as a result of changing cartrdiges. If it happens, something else is wrong. Air bubbles can appear in the lines because of repeated cleaning cycles(unrelated to caartridge changes) and there are recommended procedures for avoiding this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just to make sure, your quote was not my comment, but from an article I quoted.
Regardings third party, as I said, I'm avoiding them for them moment. This also goes for lenses.
-
There is another interesting quote from this site.
This is an article, written by the president of a third party ink suppliere (Lyson). It doesn't really sound fishy.
If anybody finds something fishy, point it out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe not fishy, but can it be truly objective? What would you expect this person to say, that 3rd party inks are lousy?
-
Just to make sure, your quote was not my comment, but from an article I quoted.
Regardings third party, as I said, I'm avoiding them for them moment. This also goes for lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know you referenced it to source.
And me too, me too on inks and lenses.
-
And me too, me too on inks and lenses.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206771\")
If all inks were tested as well as lenses are tested I wouldn't mind to use one when it tests well. That test should include the image quality, paper and printer compatibility, consistency in ink batch color, fading aspects etc. I do not think we will ever see third party ink tests like that.
I've referred to ColorFoto for ink/paper tests, their lens testing isn't bad either:
[a href=\"http://www.colorfoto.de/Uebersicht/Bestenliste-Objektive_425915.html]http://www.colorfoto.de/Uebersicht/Bestenl...ive_425915.html[/url]
That Sigma EX 2,8/70 mm Macro and the Tamron AF 2,8/28-75 mm reappear in the ranking several times as the top performers per camera model/sensor. User reports reflect the same experience on a variety of camera systems. Photozone confirms the test results in their tests. I've no hesitation to buy lenses like the two mentioned.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
If all inks were tested as well as lenses are tested I wouldn't mind to use one when it tests well. That test should include the image quality, paper and printer compatibility, consistency in ink batch color, fading aspects etc. I do not think we will ever see third party ink tests like that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. I think, as you mention, consistency is a really important variable as well. I had bad luck with a Sigma 12~24 zoom - some copies are excellent and some leave much to be desired. So I took a chance and got one of the latter - and returned it. Confirmation of quality from several independent sources really helps, so your references are useful.