Inkjetcarts ink

[enduser]

A week or so ago Shark_II said they had used these inks for some time and no problems.  Now at my local supplier's price for genuine carts the saving for each one is about $60.  (I work in Oz).

My question is who else has used these inks over a reasonable period?  Obviously the risk is early print-head death, but at such a saving it pays for a new head about every 8 cartridges.  The heads only need to last longer than this and it has saved some costs.  If the heads crack-up earlier, then no deal.

If only some definitive info from a few users was available.

I know the cost per print is small compared with the final selling price but a successful business is one that minimizes every possible cost.

[Mark D Segal]

Personally I wouldn't feed any of that stuff through my Epson professional printer. It's just not worth the cost and the risk. What can any one know about the manufacturing consistency of those inks and their permanence? Any one done any batch to batch performance evaluation, or any accelerated light-fading tests on them that you know of? Too much time goes into the preparation of my files to be bothered saving a few bucks on materials not fully certified and backed by the printer manufacturer and tested by independent, reputable third parties. This is about more than a simplistic trade-off between the cost of a print-head and the saving on ink carts.

[Shark_II]

Here goes the FUD again by someone that knows NOTHING about the question asked.  Nothing at all.  More regurgitated "Net Knowledge" and NO experience.

It's just not worth the cost and the risk.

Yes, it is.  And if you actually used the stuff instead of offering opinions on a subject about which you are totally ignorant, you would know that too.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can pay both my house and car notes every month and have money left over with the savings in using this ink.  And as the OP pointed out, every few carts saves you the cost of a printhead even if the inks DID clog faster, which they do not.

I have been using those inks for over a year, also pointed out in a thread you read because you posted your no-experience FUD there too.

As for light fastness, my year-long "window" tests were enough for me.  Also mentioned in that thread.  If you only used materials some 3rd party testing company "approves" you would have never printed on about 3/4 (or more) of the materials out there.

What can any one know about the manufacturing consistency of those inks and their permanence?

Read above.

Any one done any batch to batch performance evaluation, or any accelerated light-fading tests on them that you know of?

Read above.

Too much time goes into the preparation of my files to be bothered saving a few bucks on materials not fully certified and backed by the printer manufacturer and tested by independent, reputable third parties.

Read above.

Tom

[ippolitois]

I have run Image Specialist Inks through my 2200 for years  and now though 4000 for a year and a half. I have prints dating back to 2006 with IS inks and the only issue I have is the paper that I used. I can see yellowing around the borders of the paper yet the colors of the inks are as if I printed them yesterday. I love luster papers and only now am I learning about OBA and it's effect on my prints. I have learned from reading LL that the paper is more important than the inks used if longevity is a primary concern. If you look at the data on AR's website, you"ll quickly see that the same ink on different papers has a profound effect on longevity. I believe that the Inkjetcarts ink is Image Specialist inks and I would not hesitate to use them. One power cleaning cycle using OEM inks is the equivalent of $200 based on 18% used to perform the cleaning. A complete head and damper replacement costs under $1000.00. With IS inks, it cost $25.00 to do a power cleaning cycle. The math isn't that hard to do.

Unless you are doing museum type printing, I would definitely use reputable 3rd party inks. There is a lot of FUD about them, but having used both OEM and 3rd party inks, the difference is negligible and the color matching is surprising very good. I use Imageprint and their profiles work as if I'm using OEM inks. Please keep in mind that I don't use a spectro to measure fidelity of the colors in my prints, and damn close is good enough for me.   The bad news is that they both clog the printer the same way, only it costs far less to unclog it using 3rd party inks. The savings of doing several power cleanings using 3rd party inks would pay for a complete head and damper system replacement.

If your so concerned about longevity, offer a life time guarantee to replace the photos in the event they fade or deteriorate to the point of no return.

I would stay away from Made in China inks though as I am dubious of anything coming from their.

Hope this helps.

Paul
 

[Mark D Segal]

Here goes the FUD again by someone that knows NOTHING about the question asked.  Nothing at all.  More regurgitated "Net Knowledge" and NO experience.

Yes, it is.  And if you actually used the stuff instead of offering opinions on a subject about which you are totally ignorant, you would know that too.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can pay both my house and car notes every month and have money left over with the savings in using this ink.  And as the OP pointed out, every few carts saves you the cost of a printhead even if the inks DID clog faster, which they do not.

I have been using those inks for over a year, also pointed out in a thread you read because you posted your no-experience FUD there too.

As for light fastness, my year-long "window" tests were enough for me.  Also mentioned in that thread.  If you only used materials some 3rd party testing company "approves" you would have never printed on about 3/4 (or more) of the materials out there.

Read above.

Read above.

Read above.

Tom

The length of your experience using this material is inadequate to come to definitive conclusions one way or another on matters of print longevity or their long-term impacts on print heads, which depending on the printer can be very expensive items to replace. My position is based on risk avoidance, not on any particular knowledge of the materials at hand, which I expressly claim to have no experience with, on purpose. Much as you think these materials are fine, it would be great if they were tested by independent third-party experts equipped to do that work professionally.

And mind your manners. If you want to present opposing views based on knowledge and experience that's fine, but if you want to start insulting other members by calling them "ignorant", that falls outside the boundaries of generally accepted decorum on this website.

[John R Smith]

And mind your manners. If you want to present opposing views based on knowledge and experience that's fine, but if you want to start insulting other members by calling them "ignorant", that falls outside the boundaries of generally accepted decorum on this website.

Absolutely correct. Alternative views are one thing, and welcomed, but abuse is not.

John

[Mark D Segal]

I would add just one point about the "math" and another about the risks one takes. I'll hazard a statement here, based on my professional proclivities, that the results of the "math" depends on the numbers you feed it into. I'd like to ask enduser what size carts he/she's talking about at what comparative prices for OEM versus 3rd party and what printheads he/she's replacing. Printheads on Epson professional printers for example are not user-replaceable. So in the case of Epson printers you pay not only for the printhead, which is a large fraction of the value of the printer, but also any labour and transportation costs associated with the replacement plus the value of your down-time and any other costs of the nuisance involved. You see, "the math" can get a little complicated once we drill down into specifics, where as usual, the devil is in the details.

Without adequate professional testing of 3rd party materials, it's hard to quantify the probability of occurrence of the risks associated with their usage, whereas the costs of an incident are quite calculable. The elementary value of a risk is the probability of occurrence times the value of its impact. So when one can't evaluate a risk, but one knows the potential cost of an incident, one may be well-advised not to run that risk. On top of all that, using 3rd party inks in an Epson professional printer voids the warranty for any related damage. That's "Clause 1" in the section of the Service Plan titled "What the Warranty Does not Cover" (my 4900 for example).

So yes, for certain printers under certain well-defined conditions, 3rd party inks may be a tolerable risk. For others it is most likely not. I hope that clarifies the basis of my original comments, and this will draw to a close my involvement in the matter.

[Wayne Fox]

I know the cost per print is small compared with the final selling price but a successful business is one that minimizes every possible cost.

That certainly is a trait of a good business, but in all decisions it's a case of does the savings have negative ramifications.  If indeed these inks are wearing out print heads, maybe that's a clue that maybe they aren't that good? We've repaired 2 epson printers recently who have switched to 3rd party inks, and one was so gummed up with ink it wasn't worth fixing.  I'm not saying they are all bad, but I'm with Mark ... I'm not going to risk my printer to find out, since the ink just isn't that significant in the overall costs of producing a print - unless you are just giving your work away.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can pay both my house and car notes every month and have money left over with the savings in using this ink. 

That's an amazing amount of printing - seems you should be making so much money that a car and house payments are no big deal anyway.  I assume your clients know what you are doing (sorry your year in the window test isn't very credible).  I find ink to be almost a negligible cost in relation to the paper itself .. it's just not enough to worry about. 

[Shark_II]

The length of your experience using this material is inadequate to come to definitive conclusions one way or another on matters of print longevity or their long-term impacts on print heads...

Baloney.  Three printers run all day every day for over a year.  "Inadequate" experience?  It is HILARIOUS that you are claiming *I* do not have enough experience to post what I did when YOU have none at all... nil, zip, nada.  Yet you did not hesitate to express an opinion based on fantasy instead of fact.

There is no inkhead monster under the bed kiddies.  You can sleep soundly no matter what the FUD spreaders post.

My position is based on risk avoidance, not on any particular knowledge of the materials at hand

Bingo.  Yet you have zero basis for establishing the fact there is a risk at all.  No facts, none, nada, zip... again.

On top of all that, using 3rd party inks in an Epson professional printer voids the warranty for any related damage. That's "Clause 1" in the section of the Service Plan titled "What the Warranty Does not Cover"

Wrong again.  Sigh.  Don't believe everything you read from printer manufacturers.  The use of third party ink cannot void your warranty in the US.  This has been known for years, ever since the Magnuson-Moss warranty act was placed into law.

Just one reference (there are hundreds more):

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states: “No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name” (15 U.S.C.A. 2302). While you may receive a warning that the [third party] ink you are using may void your warranty, this is not true. Unless the product will not function correctly without a product or service provided by the manufacturer, it is illegal for the manufacturer to suggest that use of [third party ink] cartridges will render your printer warranty void.


So how about ringing in with some facts, eh?  Instead of running around screaming the sky is falling, just post some actual first hand negative experience with Inkjet Specialists ink and lets see the facts.

Next FUD spreader:

That's an amazing amount of printing - seems you should be making so much money that a car and house payments are no big deal anyway. 

Yes, it is.  Many liters a month.  And yes, the materials we are providing are very profitable.  And only poor people think money is of no concern and fortunately I am not poor... but thanks for your concern, quite touching really.  Since you do not seem to be selling enough prints for ink costs to bother you, I will return your generous concern with the fervent hope your business picks up.  Keep working at it and I am sure it will... eventually.

I assume your clients know what you are doing (sorry your year in the window test isn't very credible).

I don't care if you think it is credible or not.  And my clients know exactly what I am doing... providing them with prints that WAY outlast their previous materials in some display environments considered very tough on prints.

Tom

[Wayne Fox]

Next FUD spreader:
Yes, it is.  Many liters a month.  And yes, the materials we are providing are very profitable.  And only poor people think money is of no concern and fortunately I am not poor... but thanks for your concern, quite touching really.  Since you do not seem to be selling enough prints for ink costs to bother you, I will return your generous concern with the fervent hope your business picks up.  Keep working at it and I am sure it will... eventually.

Tom

As far as business picking up ... thanks for your concern there, don't need any business to pick up.  I've been retired since 2005, and retired not because of age but because I no longer need a way to make money. (the little camera store in my signature is just a little business I bought to pass some time and stay involved .. who really ever retires). 

But indeed if you are using liters of ink, then the total dollar amount you save may be a significant number to you, but as a percent of the total cost of making a print is still pretty insignificant unless you discount the work substantially (nothing wrong with that model and indeed may require penny pinching).  However, that's not where most of those here on LuLa are coming from - they tend to be concerned with ultimate quality and less with saving a few cents on each individual print.

As far as your legal opinion, while it is true using 3rd party inks does not invalidate an Espon warranty, if the printer is damaged by those inks and needs repaired, the cost of that repair is not covered by the warranty.  This is explicit in the warranty.

Glad 3rd party inks work out for you, but to advocate them so heavily ... just not sure why.  There are two very valid sides to this and  there are plenty of experiences out there which are the opposite of yours. Anyone going down this path does need to do their homework and move carefully.  Could be what you are printing and your clientele are completely different than many, which affects decisions of cost of goods vs quality.  No clue what you are printing with all that ink.

[Alistair]

A week or so ago Shark_II said they had used these inks for some time and no problems.  Now at my local supplier's price for genuine carts the saving for each one is about $60.  (I work in Oz).

My question is who else has used these inks over a reasonable period?  Obviously the risk is early print-head death, but at such a saving it pays for a new head about every 8 cartridges.  The heads only need to last longer than this and it has saved some costs.  If the heads crack-up earlier, then no deal.

If only some definitive info from a few users was available.

I know the cost per print is small compared with the final selling price but a successful business is one that minimizes every possible cost.

Having used ink from Inkjetcarts and MIS, I believe Inkjetcarts ink is made by Image Specialists and is identical to that distributed by MIS and others. I have used this ink in a number of Epson printers for some years. My observations:

1. It is not a threat to print heads. It clogs no more than OEM Epson inks.
2. The MK ink (branded Eboni by MIS) is wonderful stuff. Never clogs and gives good Dmax for an MK.
3. Color inks have less bronzing than earlier Epson K2 inkset, but not K3 or later.
4. Color inks have less gloss than all Epson OEM inksets.
5. Color inks have visibly reduced gamut compared to OEM ink Epson K3 and K3 Vivid (and likely HD although I do not have any printers using HD inkset).
6. Tends to produce banding in 1.5pl printers.

So I tend to use the Eboni for BW MK work and make dilutions of it for my own purposes. Very cost effective. The colour inks I only use for low value work. For quality color prints I stick to OEM ink. In the UK I pay around £40-£50 for 220ml OEM carts and at this price the IS ink is not really much cheaper when VAT and shipping from the US is factored in. I spend part of the year in NZ and it is a different story altogether. Aus is probably similar; even though the currency is strong imported items are mysteriously expensive.

You mention head replacement so are you using a Canon or HP printer and you mention AUD60 for OEM ink which sounds quite competitive depending upon cartridge size. What printer are you using and what cart size does AUD60 buy you?

As an aside, my youngest, bless her, has recently grown out of the embarrassing habit of shouting "BUM!" at her granny. I see some folk here are yet to grow out of this type of thing.

[enduser]

Firstly, my apologies for a post which has brought about some heated discussion.

My equipment are Canon ipF6100 24" printers which use 130ml carts.  Where I live the OEM carts are sold to me by a Canon agent for $120, (which is $US about $127, but I'll just use Aussie dollars because we're doing comparisons here.)  Injetcarts will sell their cart, same volume  for $43, and $10 more for postage to me, which totals $53.  That's a saving on each cart I buy from them, instead of Canon, of $67.

Now the price of a new printhead is around $450, so I am in front after 8 Inkjetcarts.  Every cart after that before the head(s) give out is $67 off the price of a head when I need one.  Of course, we know about bronzing, metamerism, profiling etc etc, but it is only head life which we consider the issue in this case.  Because we print on many materials we have to deal with color matching, bronzing etc  whatever heads we use.

So it is quantitative info from users that we are seeking.  Thanks to everyone for a lively debate though.

[Farmer]

As an aside, my youngest, bless her, has recently grown out of the embarrassing habit of shouting "BUM!" at her granny. I see some folk here are yet to grow out of this type of thing.

May your youngest always enjoy good health for the lesson rendered in her name :-)

[michael]

Less heat, more light, please. Especially Mr. Shark.

Michael

[ippolitois]

Firstly, my apologies for a post which has brought about some heated discussion.

My equipment are Canon ipF6100 24" printers which use 130ml carts.  Where I live the OEM carts are sold to me by a Canon agent for $120, (which is $US about $127, but I'll just use Aussie dollars because we're doing comparisons here.)  Injetcarts will sell their cart, same volume  for $43, and $10 more for postage to me, which totals $53.  That's a saving on each cart I buy from them, instead of Canon, of $67.

Now the price of a new printhead is around $450, so I am in front after 8 Inkjetcarts.  Every cart after that before the head(s) give out is $67 off the price of a head when I need one.  Of course, we know about bronzing, metamerism, profiling etc etc, but it is only head life which we consider the issue in this case.  Because we print on many materials we have to deal with color matching, bronzing etc  whatever heads we use.

So it is quantitative info from users that we are seeking.  Thanks to everyone for a lively debate though.

Enduser,

Your math is is very sound. As for long term use, I  have used Image Specialist ink for at least 5 years and have had no issues. I spoke the the chemist at IS before I invested in 3rd party inks and he essentially to told me there is no real mystery to ink making. I also had some experience many years ago making ink for many applications and the master chemist once told me that is wasn't rocket science. We had to make sure certain parameters had to be met such as viscosity, flow, etc, etc... He told me that ink science was not a new technology. I'm not a chemist, but he was.

If your cost is 1/10 that of the OEM, the savings over time will be quite significant and should not be dismissed as a business concern. Some here have stated that the cost of ink is a small portion of the overall cost of the print, but I disagree. If you're printing for institutions that are willing to pay a premium price for a product, I wouldn't hesitate in using te best of the best. However, compared to the OEM, the savings over time will certainly help with the car and house payments. Some of us are not yet retired, nor in a position to retire, and running a photography business is quite a challenge in the digital age. Everything is price driven with little concern about quality and skill.

I have purchased my IS inks from this source: http://home.eol.ca/~mikling/index.html With the saving on inks, I'm spending it on papers that hopefully will give better permanence. My clientele don't care about D-Max and gamut. They just want a nice photo to hang on the wall.

Paul

[KenBabcock]

I would be interested in knowing how this ink compares to G&G in a 3rd party shootout.

I've tested G&G for many years, mainly for my own personal printing or for those clients that don't want to pay a premium for Epson inks.  Absolutely no fading or shifts in colour after 5 years - both coated canvas and non-coated.  Based on my personal experience with G&G vs. original Epson, I'd feel very comfortable printing with G&G in all my printers.

I guess it all depends on what the client wants, but even if these 3rd party inks don't last for 100 or so years like Epson claims, who cares?  In reality, for the average person who leaves the same print on their wall for literally decades?  I think I'd be happy with 10 or so years.  If your print fades after 50 or 60 years call me and I'll print another

[Shark_II]

But indeed if you are using liters of ink, then the total dollar amount you save may be a significant number to you, but as a percent of the total cost of making a print is still pretty insignificant unless you discount the work substantially...

Actually, at what we do, we are considered in the top third price-wise.  So yes, if that is considered "discounting", then we discount.

Glad 3rd party inks work out for you, but to advocate them so heavily ... just not sure why. 

Disclaimer:  I have NOTHING to do with Inkjetcarts or Image Specialists businesses at all.  I am  customer only.  Just wanted to post that (again) in case anyone was wondering.

But to answer Wayne directly:  The advocacy issue is this.  It absolutely sets my hair on fire to see all the misinformation put out by people that know NOTHING about third party inks... never used them, never tested them, never did anything but pontificate and spread FUD about all the "risks" that they know nothing about!

Plus, I love a good argument.

  No clue what you are printing with all that ink.

I am not going to post what business I am in, Shark II is the name of my offshore fishing boat, but we print two different print sizes... 24x48 and 24x72.  That is it now although in the past there were a couple of other sizes.  We use a considerable amount of ink.  We buy in one-liter jugs.  These prints are displayed in pre-configured display units with various lighting conditions ranging from 100% fluorescent, 100% incandescent, to full daylight and a mix of the three.

Tom

[ippolitois]

I guess it all depends on what the client wants, but even if these 3rd party inks don't last for 100 or so years like Epson claims, who cares?  In reality, for the average person who leaves the same print on their wall for literally decades?  I think I'd be happy with 10 or so years.  If your print fades after 50 or 60 years call me and I'll print another

I would love to be around another 50 years to provide those reprints!!!

Paul

[KenBabcock]

I just think people get too hung up on the longevity issue.  Of course I don't want my prints to fade after only a few years, but 10 - 20 years is more than enough for the average person.

Who cares if Epson inks last 100+ years?  None of us will be around to see anyway.  I'm not sure if I even trust these accelerated tests that say they will last that long.  I like to go by real world experience.  So far that has outdone Wilhelm who stated G&G ink fades in 6 months or a year (can't remember their exact test result).  My real world prints have lasted 5 years exposed in direct sunlight with and without being coated without a shift at all.

[Mark D Segal]

I said I was finished with this thread, but this is becoming more civil and interesting, so I decided to come back in - on the longevity aspect. I'm not ready to dismiss this matter as lightly as some here. Photography has sought *permanence* almost from the start. How to make images last in their original state for many decades was a subject of intensive research since the invention of the medium in the 1800s. It was largely achieved with the silver gelatin print, and perhaps earlier. It is considered by many as one of the treasured qualities of good photographs. I don't for a moment think this is important for every photograph anyone has ever made - far from it - but in principle, its importance should not be under-valued. I - and I know I am no where near alone in this - appreciate photographs of my grand-parents taken in the early 20th century, or photographs of places I lived in or visited showing how they looked a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, and what has happened to them over the years. This is an important aspect of visual history. I hope my grand-children and even their children, when they are adults, will appreciate some of the inkjet prints I make today. Some of these things become family heirlooms that get transmitted from generation to generation. The most important ones end-up in museums and other conservation archives for a reason. So is longevity an issue? Yes it is. Even though some may not think so, many others do.

That established, we turn to the question of today's inks and paper. The test results we get from sites such as Wilhelm-Imaging and Aardenburg are the best indicators we have, regardless of whatever shortcomings the methodologies may necessarily entail. It's not that any of us will be around in a 100 years to know how a print displayed on perhaps four generations of fridge doors compares with an identical one kept in dark storage, and even if the one in dark storage still looks like it would have the day after it was printed. You see the issues, so something else that gives more immediate answers is needed, regardless of whether or not it is spot-on accurate. I think it's better to trust the best we have rather than fly in the dark with no radar. And five years on the fridge door won't cut it either. I have prints from Epson printers on the fridge door for over that time period - the OBAs have faded, but the prints look fine. Means nothing in terms of archival properties.