Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Printer + pirate-INK suggestion  (Read 21734 times)
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2008, 07:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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

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
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1624


« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2008, 10:56:50 PM »
ReplyReply

>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.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2008, 01:10:52 AM »
ReplyReply

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?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 01:11:37 AM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
drwillie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2008, 07:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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?
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2008, 09:15:50 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2008, 10:31:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]


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]
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2008, 05:43:03 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2008, 05:44:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is GKN's interesting links regarding the matching of papers and inks.

Quote
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...LERIE_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.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 05:46:02 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2008, 06:43:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2008, 11:22:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2008, 11:49:30 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2008, 06:34:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]

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]
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2008, 07:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2008, 09:47:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]


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]
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2008, 09:54:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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/
[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.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2008, 10:10:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]

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]
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2008, 10:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ernst Dinkla,Jul 6 2008, 11:47 PM
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
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2008, 10:14:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2008, 10:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]

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]
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2008, 12:58:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad