Pigment Inks other than Epson

[Peter McLennan]

Epson sells a six-ink, refillable-cart tank system in Asia.  Users refill the carts from squeeze bottles. 

Google "Epson L800"

If it was available here in North America, I'd have one in a heartbeat.

[cottagehunter]

I am not a person who makes money off of my photography or printing. Yes I do some shows but I certainly haven't recovered my expenses of an Epson 7900 or the ink refills but even though I use 3rd party inks for my artisan printers, as I print out 35 calendars for friends and family, using 51 cartridges at 11ml ea. I just printed a 13 x 18 print using epson cold bright on my Epson 7900 using Epson inks.
paper cost was $ 4.20   and ink came to $1.58  for a total tax in cost of $6.53 so I don't see where the savings will be using 3rd party inks.
Maybe its just me but I like to save money as much as the next person

Pierre

[chez]

Epson sells a six-ink, refillable-cart tank system in Asia.  Users refill the carts from squeeze bottles. 

Google "Epson L800"

If it was available here in North America, I'd have one in a heartbeat.

That printer is a low cost consumer oriented system, not in the same leagues as the 3880 or 4900.

[Peter McLennan]

Of course not.  It's limited to letter size, for one thing.   The point is, it can be done. I'd still have one in a heartbeat.

And what exactly does "consumer oriented" mean? We're all consumers.

[chez]

Of course not.  It's limited to letter size, for one thing.   The point is, it can be done. I'd still have one in a heartbeat.

And what exactly does "consumer oriented" mean? We're all consumers.

That means the level of quality and consistency is not the same as a professional oriented printer.

[MHMG]

Suggesting that third party inks result in decreased image quality is something I'd like to see proven rather than intimated.  My experience is otherwise.  My 40" prints impress the heck out of me and everyone who sees them.  In nearly a decade of hanging in a sunny room, I see zero fading.  In the same environment, several framed Cibachromes faded to uselessness in a few years.

Mark's statement "BTW, high OBA content in any media usually kills meeting the UKFATG specification no matter what inks you use" indicates that, at least for longevity, the media plays a more important role than the inks.

Well, to clarify, I think choosing both inks and media wisely are important goals for printmakers who truly care about their craft, but the weight of the print permanence problem still probably tilts in favor of  choosing a good ink set first. I say this because most printmakers will be printing on numerous media but mainly using one printer and ink set at a time. Choosing a bad ink dooms even the best media to substandard results, but use of multiple media offers the prospect that some prints will be good if a good ink has been chosen.  In other words, if you use a good ink set but simply choose media randomly, on price, surface aesthetics, or whatever, without regard or access to any objective research on media stability, not all your prints are statistically likely to exhibit poor stability over time, whereas choosing a lesser quality ink set pretty much guarantees sub standard results on all media.

As for all the well reasoned arguments about why print permanence really doesn't matter anymore or matters only to varying degrees under varying circumstances, I do think this forum in particular has already pretty much covered all that ground and done so with gusto . Print permanence only matters when it eventually matters. I've learned over the years that evangelizing the need for print permanence is like admonishing teenagers about the dangers of smoking. If the effort helps a few to avoid mistakes they will later come to regret then I believe it's worth it, but one shouldn't expect many to listen.

best,
Mark

[Peter McLennan]

That means the level of quality and consistency is not the same as a professional oriented printer.

Oh!  So you've actually seen and used this printer?  Excellent! Tell us more.

[chez]

Oh!  So you've actually seen and used this printer?  Excellent! Tell us more.

I don't need to use it to know it's target market...and that is not fine art that sells for hundreds if not thousands of dollars with the expectations of the art being in the same condition tens of years from now. The difference between professional and consumer grade products is quality, durability ad consistency. When I print out a photo 2 years apart on the same printer, I want the two photos to look identical. Professional equipment, and that includes the ink and paper, assure this whereas consumer equipment, again including ink and paper have much more lenient tolerances resulting less ability to control the quality of the end result.

Each system has their place, but please don't think a consumer system and process will achieve professional results.

[Farmer]

The landfill issue is one being addressed by many companies - as one example:

https://www.epson.com.au/prographics/recyclingprogram/registration.asp

At no cost to the end user, your used cartridges will be collected and recycled and not go to landfill.  I'm sure other companies have similar programs - people just need to make use of them.  I wonder how many third party providers offer such a service?  Possibly some?  Obviously refill options avoid it to a very large extent anyway, but many third party options are just cartridges, too.

http://global.epson.com/SR/environment/vision/vision2050_index.html

At least some of the price paid for ink is being used to deal with it in an environmentally responsible way.  I have no idea what portion, but it's worth thinking about.  And, again, I'm sure this is not restricted to just one company.

[Peter McLennan]

but please don't think a consumer system and process will achieve professional results.

That is a common, but misguided perception.  Again, my experience differs from your opinion. 

I am a (retired) Director/Cameraman.  In addition to several decades of Hollywood cinematography using "professional" cameras from the likes of Panavision and Arriflex, I've traveled and worked in over fifty countries and earned considerable income using "consumer" cameras and camcorders.  One client alone paid me over $100K for my "consumer camera" work and was delighted enough with the results that he continued to hire me.  The LuLa videos are shot on "prosumer" and consumer cameras and I hear few complaints about the image quality of those productions.  With cameras as with printers, it's more about the content and the user's ability than it is about the hardware.

Nobody's expecting "fine art" (whatever that is), multi-thousand dollar prints from the Epson L800, a six-ink, letter-size printer.  What I expect is a printer that produces satisfactory results at a price per page that encourages, rather than inhibits printing.  When the price of a set of carts for a printer exceeds the cost of the printer, something's wrong.  And I think we know what's wrong.

As for cart recycling, I see this offer as a political, rather than practical move, driven in part by government eyebrow-raising in Europe over cart disposal issues.  Printer manufacturers won't even service printers at my location, let alone pick up used carts. (of which I have none)  Besides, it seems to me that used cart recycling would be problematic due to the difficulties in extracting the remaining inks from the plastic components.  Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to not require the carts to be disposable?  It can be done, it is being done and it should be done.

I don't sell prints, not even 40" canvases.  I'm past that.  I give them away to friends and family and bask in their enjoyment.  For that reason, I'd like to keep my costs as low as I can, and if Epson marketed the L800 in North America, I'd be first in line.  Not so that I can sell thousand-dollar prints from my D800, but so that I can make satisfactory, everyday prints economically and responsibly.

[chez]

That is a common, but misguided perception.  Again, my experience differs from your opinion. 

I am a (retired) Director/Cameraman.  In addition to several decades of Hollywood cinematography using "professional" cameras from the likes of Panavision and Arriflex, I've traveled and worked in over fifty countries and earned considerable income using "consumer" cameras and camcorders.  One client alone paid me over $100K for my "consumer camera" work and was delighted enough with the results that he continued to hire me.  The LuLa videos are shot on "prosumer" and consumer cameras and I hear few complaints about the image quality of those productions.  With cameras as with printers, it's more about the content and the user's ability than it is about the hardware.

Nobody's expecting "fine art" (whatever that is), multi-thousand dollar prints from the Epson L800, a six-ink, letter-size printer.  What I expect is a printer that produces satisfactory results at a price per page that encourages, rather than inhibits printing.  When the price of a set of carts for a printer exceeds the cost of the printer, something's wrong.  And I think we know what's wrong.

As for cart recycling, I see this offer as a political, rather than practical move, driven in part by government eyebrow-raising in Europe over cart disposal issues.  Printer manufacturers won't even service printers at my location, let alone pick up used carts. (of which I have none)  Besides, it seems to me that used cart recycling would be problematic due to the difficulties in extracting the remaining inks from the plastic components.  Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to not require the carts to be disposable?  It can be done, it is being done and it should be done.

I don't sell prints, not even 40" canvases.  I'm past that.  I give them away to friends and family and bask in their enjoyment.  For that reason, I'd like to keep my costs as low as I can, and if Epson marketed the L800 in North America, I'd be first in line.  Not so that I can sell thousand-dollar prints from my D800, but so that I can make satisfactory, everyday prints economically and responsibly.

Then you have met your printer...you are exactly the type of customer this printer and inks were developed for. Now I do sell my prints and there is no way I would use ink or papers that are not proven to stand the time. No chance...that would be a disservice to my customers. That is why there are professional grade printer, inks and papers and consumer grade. If I calculate the actual cost of creating a print for sale, the ink costs are not even relevant.

[Farmer]

As for cart recycling, I see this offer as a political, rather than practical move, driven in part by government eyebrow-raising in Europe over cart disposal issues.  Printer manufacturers won't even service printers at my location, let alone pick up used carts. (of which I have none)  Besides, it seems to me that used cart recycling would be problematic due to the difficulties in extracting the remaining inks from the plastic components.  Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to not require the carts to be disposable?  It can be done, it is being done and it should be done.

They're turned into e-plastic and the process isn't problematic enough to prevent it being done.  One of the issues with CIS systems is that they are messy and prone to air exposure.  The largest users of ink in the large format area, far and away, are print-for-pay, sign and proofing.  These operators typically don't want to be pouring ink into containers or risk contamination.  Home users, to look at the other side of the model, similarly don't want to risk spilling ink anywhere which is why a product like the 800 is clearly a test case to see what the acceptance levels are like and how to make it a more friendly process.

There's also the issue of getting the ink to the consumer.  Somewhere along the way, it has to be stored - if not in a cartridge then in a bottle or a bladder and so on.  The weaker the container, the higher the risk of damage or contamination and the container still needs to be dealt with at some point.

If you area isn't serviced by a program like the one I mentioned above, you may want to contact vendors and ask them why not?

[enduser]

Using information from international chemical journals we were able to calculate the cost of aqueous pigment inks used in LF machines.  We used typical margins at each stage and included cartridge costs. Our estimated was price about 25% of that widely charged for Canon iPF inks at the retail end of the chain.

We then did the same for similar liquid volumes sold where the components were identifiable and found some under, some over and some around the same as retail prices.  This doesn't prove our methods, but none  were so far from the retail price as printer ink.

[chez]

Using information from international chemical journals we were able to calculate the cost of aqueous pigment inks used in LF machines.  We used typical margins at each stage and included cartridge costs. Our estimated was price about 25% of that widely charged for Canon iPF inks at the retail end of the chain.

We then did the same for similar liquid volumes sold where the components were identifiable and found some under, some over and some around the same as retail prices.  This doesn't prove our methods, but none  were so far from the retail price as printer ink.

Using the cost of a CD I can buy at my local Staples, the margin software companies make selling their software puts the ink suppliers to shame. We must not forget the cost of R&D that goes into both the printer technology and ink developments. It is very naive to just use the cost of raw materials as a measuring stick.

[Wayne Fox]

Using information from international chemical journals we were able to calculate the cost of aqueous pigment inks used in LF machines.  We used typical margins at each stage and included cartridge costs. Our estimated was price about 25% of that widely charged for Canon iPF inks at the retail end of the chain.

We then did the same for similar liquid volumes sold where the components were identifiable and found some under, some over and some around the same as retail prices.  This doesn't prove our methods, but none  were so far from the retail price as printer ink.

Of course you are just guessing and  making assumptions on just what it takes to encapsulate the pigments as well as manage the quality control and package the results in to pressurized cartridges. But even if the costs are in that neighborhood, margins required to maintain a profitable and sustainable company are amazingly variable, the companies don't just sell ink.  I guess even if the 25% were true, that doesn't necessarily mean they are rolling in cash from this product line.  As I said, if it was that cheap to make, I think one of them would have price slashed the price on inks for market share.  This isn't a case of a monopoly here so the fact that one doesn't substantially undercut the prices of another seems to indicate there's more to it than us on the outside think there is.

As far as the "consumer" vs Pro printers, many consumer printers are dye based which fall well short of longevity standards now set by pigment based ink sets.  Those that might be pigment based sport ink costs substantially higher than pro level printers which feature large ink capacities.  A few high end "consumer" grade printers are quite capable, but will fall apart quickly if pushed too hard.

[Schewe]

I wonder if Epson and Canon get their inks from the same place?

Do you have any clue how printers work? If you did, you wouldn't ask the question...Canon & HP use thermal heads (called "bubble jet" where the ink is heated to generate the ink droplet), Epson uses piezoelectric technology (google both) which uses no heat. The chemistry differences in the inks are huge between the ink/print head types.

And no, you really need to understand both physics and chemistry to understand that developing non-EOM inks with large color gamut and print longevity is neither easy nor cheap. Cheap inks are, well cheap for a reason...less R&D, less testing, lower quality control...some 3rd party inks can cause clogging or print head damage. Certain niche 3rd party inks are indeed useful–the Cone B&W inks is a prime example...but I would argue that switching a printer to Cone B&W inks isn't a cheaper alternative...the expense to switch is considerable and the workflow is pretty funky unless you employ the QuadTone RIP from Roy Harrington...

The physics of laying ink on paper to make continuous tone photographs is not simple and easy–far from it. I think you need to develop a more respectful attitude regarding the efforts of Epson, Canon & HP for the milestones in printmaking they have achieved...to assume they are simply out to rip you off belittles their efforts.

[sjgh]

"The physics of laying ink on paper to make continuous tone photographs is not simple and easy–far from it.".

I wouldn't be so impressed. Yes it may have been novel a few years back now it's a matter of refining, manufacturing and marketing and new advances are happening rather slowly. We don't sit and marvel at the advancement of what goes into a new cellphone, tv or automobile. Last year's advances are already history today. I think because of the nature of the market in high-end printers as any other appliance  the manufacturers can command a premium today because of competition, volume of units etc. If tomorrow say Samsung decided to focus on this market and came out with 24" printers for consumers at a price point of say $700, Epson/Canon would find a way to lower their prices. When I buy a lens - a hunk of glass and metal from Canon for say 2K, I always go in my head "really how much did it really take to put this together".

[Ernst Dinkla]

If tomorrow say Samsung decided to focus on this market and came out with 24" printers for consumers at a price point of say $700, Epson/Canon would find a way to lower their prices. When I buy a lens - a hunk of glass and metal from Canon for say 2K, I always go in my head "really how much did it really take to put this together".

The Epson 9000 44" just before 2000 cost me approximately 15K Euro (the Euro didn't exist yet and the guilder bought then what a Euro does now). It came with 660 ML ink. Compare that to the wide format prices of today with say 6000 ML of ink aboard. Canon and HP already changed the market, the saturation of the market and the economic climate did the rest. Epson diversifies its printer palette, HP partly went out of this market. Océ was bought by Canon. So I do not see Samsung entering this market. Besides that I never had much luck with printers from brands like Brother and Samsung, lasers or inkjets :-) Ricoh is a more interesting company as it has capable inkjet head technology but I think they are wise enough to stay out of this market.

For lenses you wouldn't buy a Samsung one either, even if it has Schneider Kreuznach written on the rim.  For lenses you have at least some reliable testing reports where a 2K Canon may not deliver 2K in quality. DXO, PhotoZone, ColorFoto. The wide format inkjet market does not know similar testing facilities. Flaar certainly isn't and many printer reviews touch only the surface of the machines.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Nobody's expecting "fine art" (whatever that is), multi-thousand dollar prints from the Epson L800, a six-ink, letter-size printer.  What I expect is a printer that produces satisfactory results at a price per page that encourages, rather than inhibits printing.  When the price of a set of carts for a printer exceeds the cost of the printer, something's wrong.  And I think we know what's wrong.

The L800 is as much a marketing scheme in Indonesia as selling cheap printers with small expensive cartridges is in the rest of the world. The market is different there and Epson adapts with an OEM CIS. If you check the size of the bottles etc then you can find similar alternatives for an exterior CIS in printer models here that have the carts separated from the inkjet heads and feed through tubes to that head. But that "CIS" is integrated in the printer. Larger carts and ink cheaper per ML. The Epson B310, B510, several HP Officejet models and there are more. With a print quality that you probably could accept given your comments so far. You pay a little more for the printer but you get larger carts with a lower ML price. Sturdier build too. You can get refillable third party carts for them if that reduces the environmental impact and the impact on your wallet. Of course you must be sure that the third party dye manufacturing plants in China are ecologically sound. Check as well that the printer is not arriving earlier at the scrapheap than when loaded with the OEM cartridges.

The European measures on the use of cartridges are hardly effective in practice. Printer manufacturers did lip service and emphasized their (new) efforts on the intake of used carts.  That's all. What percentage goes that route is unknown. The consumer printer's carts mass versus ink content is not changed much, there still are chips on the carts. Carts are declared empty or expired that still contain a high percentage of ink. It is the third party recycling that does most on the environmental impact of printer use. I think a company like OCP in Germany is also controlled enough by the German authorities that its manufacturing, in Germany at least, is ecologically sound.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[HSakols]

The physics of laying ink on paper to make continuous tone photographs is not simple and easy–far from it. I think you need to develop a more respectful attitude regarding the efforts of Epson, Canon & HP for the milestones in printmaking they have achieved...to assume they are simply out to rip you off belittles their efforts.

Jeff,
I'm sorry if I have come across as disrespectful.  It certainly is not my intention to belittle anyone.  Yes, I asked some pointed questions, but in hopes of better understanding what it entails.  Maybe bringing up the Epson  lawsuit was a low blow, considering that it is old news.  I understand your frustration of someone asking who really does not understand what the technology fully entails.  I do appreciate the fact that thanks to Epson, I have been able to make my own archival prints at home.  And I do see myself upgrading to yet another Epson printer that may in the end be just easier to use.  I asked because, I have gotten very different messages on this topic in the past and just wanted to understand what is going on.  There are people that won't use a Sigma lens because it is the wrong brand, regardless of results.  I'm just trying to understand fanboy vs what is real.  It sounds like this is not the case when it comes to printing.  I appreciate your insight.  Yes to really know I would have to switch myself and see if I'm happy with the results.  However, I'm probably not going to do that because, my real job won't allow time for that. Yes, maybe I did come across as flinging dung but at least there was some discussion.  Happy printing!

He is afraid to ask is ashamed of learning.