Do you use OEM cameras? Lenses? Paper? Printer hardware?
As a percentage of the cost of your print, the ink isn't the major component, but I never hear people looking for knock-off papers or fake-printers or trying to save cash on a Canikon copy. Even the third party lenses get looked down upon by many. All of those are worth far more than your ink.
Let's not bash those who use Voigtlander, Zeiss Batis, Nikon, Sigma ART, Canon L, etc. lenses on their Sony or other OEM brand cameras. Those who look down upon them are either ignorant, snobbish or scared.
Should we bash those who use Hahnemuhle, Museo, Canson, and other excellent papers?
Does Epson, Canon or HP actually make their own papers? I don't think so. So, even when their own name is on it, it's still a virtual "knock-off".
It's like Ibuprofen in the US; basically one factory makes it and sells it under all kinds of brand names. Ask my son; he has a Ph.>D in chemistry; he knows all about this.
Same in the shoe and textile industry. Makers of baking soda, etc.
So, let' s not kid ourselves.
When you can get excellent archival inks for half the price, that have no difference in color behavior, are just as stable, it's worth to explore them, especially if you print large and consume plenty of ink.
I actually don't even know if Epson makes their own inks; they may specify it precisely to a factory that does. This I don't know.
Smallest size I print (on Eppsn P800) is 13x19 inch, then 17x22 paper, then 17x51 panoramas. You need plenty of ink! A ful set of inks costs around $500.00. Peanuts? Sounds more like handing over gold nuggets.
Epson, Canon and other inkjet and laser printer makers know darn well that the real money is to made from the inks and toners (and some on the papers). Should we also buy OEM toner cartridges? At around $80 a piece? Even $40 is alreay a rip off.
B.t.w., I don't get good results with Epson's Coldpress Natural, no matter what settign or profile I try. When I use Brillaint paper, I get excellent results without any fuss. A very nice paper.
Many years ago, when I had an Epson turtle speed 3000, everyone om tne internet was warnign and saying that their non archival inks woudl fade terribly, espeiclaly on non archival. I can safely tell you that all the prints and test prints I made on different media, all look as good as the day they were printed.
I know, I had the book by Wilhelm on print testing, but they accelerate the aging, and I believe it's exactly this artificially induced acceleration that does more damage than the gradual passing of time. The real enemy of prints is smoke. Especially non-glossy media. I once had a failing chimney and there was smoke all over my studio, and then the framed prints of photos pritned on matte paper hanging on the walls are yellowed quite a bit.
Thnaks.'