Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome  (Read 7388 times)

printbreakr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome
« on: August 02, 2015, 04:10:03 pm »

Of all the third party inks I've looked at, Vermont PhotoInkjet, a company owned by a man named Jon Cone, which sells ink on its website Inkjet Mall seem to publish the most detail about the quality of their inks. I have not yet used these inks. The inkjetmall.com website describes the ConeColor Pro inkset in pretty good detail. As far as I have seen, this is the only company that provides (their own, potentially biased) longevity tests, comparing their products to Epson OEM inks.

I have seen a fair bit of discussion online about the Piezography system for Black & White printing but have found little in the way of independent reviews of their color inks.

I'm wondering if anyone who has used the ConeColor Pro pigment inks and Epson's Ultrachrome pigment inks would be willing to describe their experiences and opinions on ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome?
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285
Re: ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2015, 04:54:58 pm »

See ID #s 276-279 in the AaI&A light fade test results database. Two media printed with the ConeColor Pro ink compared directly in test to same two media printed with Epson OEM ink. A truly independent test of the ConeColor ink light fade resistance versus Epson OEM, with sample submissions by interested AaI&A members, and not paid for by anyone except AaI&A plus some donations from the printmaking community that visits the Aardenburg website.

As for initial image quality, ie., color gamut is similar, but bronzing, differential gloss, and dmax a little bit poorer. For many endusers the initial image quality results would be a very reasonable price/performance trade-off. As for light fade resistance, you need to decide for yourself how important it is to you personally, but OEM is clearly superior by a significant margin, and that's saying a lot given how poor Epson's K3 yellow pigment is/was. Hopefully, the new Epson HD yellow has fixed this weak yellow issue. However, Conecolor has more light fade issues than just the yellow pigment quality to contend with.

As for clogging and other print head reliability issues, I have no idea, but it wouldn't be a serious financial gamble to switch to ConeColor inks if you are only experimenting with a consumer/prosumer model or older/mostly obsolete wide format machine.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: August 02, 2015, 07:03:11 pm by MHMG »
Logged

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2015, 05:07:44 pm »

Somehow I don't think you are going to beat the OEM makers for longevity with a 3rd party ink.  One of the two longevity testers on here may know better.  I see Mark above has already responded.

I do know my 3rd party inks do not hold up well in bright sunlight against the OEM maker's ink out in the back yard.  I've had stuff fade in as little as 2 days outside on a pole, while the OEM beside it is still looking good after two months even with rain, sprinklers, sun, and 100+ F. heat beating on them both.  I'd rather subject the prints to the worst possible scenario that placing them under a lamp inside and extrapolating the results to make a claim of lasting a week to 100-200 years.  If it fades in a couple of days outside, that's telling enough for me if the OEM is still holding up well against a 3rd party ink.

Fwiw, I have a cheap portable printer in my arsenal called an Epson Charm.  Makes 4x6 prints only.  The thing turns out some really nice prints on location and I thought for a long time it was a pigment ink only to find out it was their Claria dye ink.  I've left prints from it outdoors and indoors and they still look freshly printed.  My third party inks have faded badly, even though I used the same glossy Epson paper in both printers (i.e. The Charm, and the 3880 with non-OEM.).

I suspect Epson, with their new HD ink being even blacker in the P-series than the inks in the 3880, has made the ink particles even finer and packed tighter to produce that higher D-max black.  That should keep them from fading a bit better too.  No doubt their newest formula is under a very tight licensing too that probably will be hard for the 3rd parties to come by.

Somewhere down the road I may suck out some P-series ink carts and feed it into one of the other 3880's and see how that experiment goes.

SG
Logged

printbreakr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: ConeColor Pro vs Epson Ultrachrome
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2015, 10:01:16 pm »

See ID #s 276-279 in the AaI&A light fade test results database. Two media printed with the ConeColor Pro ink compared directly in test to same two media printed with Epson OEM ink. A truly independent test of the ConeColor ink light fade resistance versus Epson OEM, with sample submissions by interested AaI&A members, and not paid for by anyone except AaI&A plus some donations from the printmaking community that visits the Aardenburg website.

As for initial image quality, ie., color gamut is similar, but bronzing, differential gloss, and dmax a little bit poorer. For many endusers the initial image quality results would be a very reasonable price/performance trade-off. As for light fade resistance, you need to decide for yourself how important it is to you personally, but OEM is clearly superior by a significant margin, and that's saying a lot given how poor Epson's K3 yellow pigment is/was. Hopefully, the new Epson HD yellow has fixed this weak yellow issue. However, Conecolor has more light fade issues than just the yellow pigment quality to contend with.

As for clogging and other print head reliability issues, I have no idea, but it wouldn't be a serious financial gamble to switch to ConeColor inks if you are only experimenting with a consumer/prosumer model or older/mostly obsolete wide format machine.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Hi Mark,

It took me some time to fully grasp AaI&A testing results. There is a learning curve, but once I got it, I realized how informative the testing is. The ConeColor Pro results are quite disappointing and quite contradictory to what is advertised on the Inkjet Mall website. I would definitely be concerned about the longevity of such a print.

I'm now looking into some of the brands that did better like IJF and Cave Paint.

Thanks for the wonderful resource.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up