Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Printer + pirate-INK suggestion  (Read 22904 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2008, 02:17:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ernst,

The fact that non-big3 ink makers don't contract with him (or for that matter any other reputable, known arms'-length service) to test their products isn't a problem for Wilhelm or for the big-3 - it's a problem for the consumers who purchase them because while they save some money they're gambling with the unknown. But fine, for all those folks out there who use these products and like them - so be it  - who's to say they shouldn't go on doing what they are happy with. Speaking personally though, I wouldn't recommend untested products to other people, because I wouldn't use them myself. Permanence is one of the hallmarks of the photographic process - not for all purposes of course - but to the extent it matters people can decide what chances to take.

I think the discussion meandered into this area because one of the OP's stated parameters was using non-OEM ink and respondents quite legitimately questioned that parameter. Well, the issues are known, only the qualities of the properly tested products are really known within the limits of those tests, and from that point on, it is, as so often the case, "caveat emptor".
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
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2008, 02:56:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it reliable to buy remanufactured ink cartridges?

When I googled "Canon Pixma Pro 9000 OEM ink" I came across this one.

http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f

Do you think this is genuine Canon ink in there?

And do you think it is advisable to buy remanufactured inks?

What about refilling?


Remanufactured cartridges and refilling empty cartridges seem to be the only way to reduce cost and stay in the high quality area.

I just wonder if doing so doesn't introduce other risks that isn't worth the money you save (better spend the time on increasing business).
Logged

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

Posts: 2850


« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2008, 03:31:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ernst,

The fact that non-big3 ink makers don't contract with him (or for that matter any other reputable, known arms'-length service) to test their products isn't a problem for Wilhelm or for the big-3 -
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is/was a problem for WR + the big 3 as well.  For several reasons. The impression by the public that WR is bought by the big 3 because he only tests their inks right now is not good for either party. The non existence of any independent test results for the many third party inks isn't really disqualifying them but leaves the impression that they could be as good but are not tested because WR doesn't want to or WR is too expensive. And as written before if Wilhelm only tests inks that are good without any negative results a kind of inflation happens on the good test results. The issue of fading drops from the agenda.

With IE and Mark McCormick testing media from a wider range of suppliers the last is less likely to happen. Competition is good for the ink buyer and keeps the labs alert to improve their methods. The ink manufacturer also has to cope with differences in the testing methods and can not adapt his inks to just one lab that has the authority right now.

This market is still in its infancy especially on ink volume. The growth of inkjet printing in the graphic industry was sketched not so long ago by someone from RIT who estimated that inkjet will be the main print technology around 2050 and offset will be a niche technology then. Right now the inkjet industry is happy to claim 1% of that volume in 5 years time which is already many times more than the existing inkjet volume is right now. With that perspective there is work enough for any lab.


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: 6945


WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2008, 04:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is/was a problem for WR + the big 3 as well.  For several reasons. The impression by the public that WR is bought by the big 3 because he only tests their inks right now is not good for either party. The non existence of any independent test results for the many third party inks isn't really disqualifying them but leaves the impression that they could be as good but are not tested because WR doesn't want to or WR is too expensive. And as written before if Wilhelm only tests inks that are good without any negative results a kind of inflation happens on the good test results. The issue of fading drops from the agenda.

With IE and Mark McCormick testing media from a wider range of suppliers the last is less likely to happen. Competition is good for the ink buyer and keeps the labs alert to improve their methods. The ink manufacturer also has to cope with differences in the testing methods and can not adapt his inks to just one lab that has the authority right now.

This market is still in its infancy especially on ink volume. The growth of inkjet printing in the graphic industry was sketched not so long ago by someone from RIT who estimated that inkjet will be the main print technology around 2050 and offset will be a niche technology then. Right now the inkjet industry is happy to claim 1% of that volume in 5 years time which is already many times more than the existing inkjet volume is right now. With that perspective there is work enough for any lab.
Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who is "the public" and who amongst them has this impression? I'm part of "the public" and I don't have that impression. Some other may, but fine - maybe they can change their minds once they understand the facts.

I don't know who this authority from RIT is, but inkjet and offset are completely different technologies catering to different purposes and markets, so the statement baffles me.

I don't understand the statistics you are trying to convey or their relevance. Labs only get work which manufacturers bring to them regardless of the size of the market - so yes, you are correct to the extent there is much potential business in all this, but so what? I come back to my premise that the main problem using non-OEM inks is the relative scantiness of reliable data - about several aspects. So it is <caveat emptor> until those manufacturers spend what they need to spend to provide the same quality of information that is available for some of the OEM materials. I think that's just applied common sense, and not a statement to pass judgment on the inks, the manufacturers or the testers.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2008, 04:28:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it reliable to buy remanufactured ink cartridges?

When I googled "Canon Pixma Pro 9000 OEM ink" I came across this one.

http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.90770/.f

Do you think this is genuine Canon ink in there?

And do you think it is advisable to buy remanufactured inks?

What about refilling?
Remanufactured cartridges and refilling empty cartridges seem to be the only way to reduce cost and stay in the high quality area.

I just wonder if doing so doesn't introduce other risks that isn't worth the money you save (better spend the time on increasing business).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, there you have it - all these questions - and they are good questions. Like I said elsewhere, unless the people providing these products pay a competent and independent third party to test them and publish results, you just don't know. Maybe it's a huge bargain, but maybe there are hidden and not so hidden consequences. By the time enough experience of users accumulates, the market - and perhaps you as well - will be on to something else that is newer and better. It evolves quickly.

And what you wonder about the value of the risks relative to the value of the savings is also a valid consideration. You know the savings, but you don't know the risks, so it is hard to put a size, value and probability of occurance to that risk, therefore impossible to quantify. But you can look at it this way: what is the percentage of the cost of ink relative to the price you can attract for a print? As much as 2%? Or 5%? And if you could cut that cost by say 50%, by how much has your margin actually increased? Is it really significant considering that time is money, and the time involved coping with the potential additional risk is a pure "crap-shoot"? People in business make judgments that at some point the value of the known is worth more than that of the unknown.

If I had information at a comparable level of quality as that which comes from Henry Wilhelm telling me that I could use some non-OEM brand of ink having the same qualities for half the price, I would go for it. But I haven't seen that yet, so I don't. But of course, everyone's mileage may vary. I'm just a risk-averse guy.
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: 2850


« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2008, 03:21:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who is "the public" and who amongst them has this impression? I'm part of "the public" and I don't have that impression. Some other may, but fine - maybe they can change their minds once they understand the facts.

I don't know who this authority from RIT is, but inkjet and offset are completely different technologies catering to different purposes and markets, so the statement baffles me.

I don't understand the statistics you are trying to convey or their relevance. Labs only get work which manufacturers bring to them regardless of the size of the market - so yes, you are correct to the extent there is much potential business in all this, but so what? I come back to my premise that the main problem using non-OEM inks is the relative scantiness of reliable data - about several aspects. So it is <caveat emptor> until those manufacturers spend what they need to spend to provide the same quality of information that is available for some of the OEM materials. I think that's just applied common sense, and not a statement to pass judgment on the inks, the manufacturers or the testers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Read the mailing lists of Digital B&W, Epson Wide Format and more and you will see the opinion on WR's activities is split half half. See the recent threads here about third party inks. As long as there is no testing done outside the big 3's catalog you will not wipe that impression away, you will see people use inks that are lower in price and not tested. I have tried to convince people that integrity can exist in a commercial setup and that the tests by the big 3 only is understandable given the commercial base of WR but I'm sure it would be a lot easier to convince people when there is a third party ink tested once in a while.

It baffles everyone. You have not been to the Drupa 2008, it was called the inkjet Drupa even before it started. Dual sided web and sheet inkjet printers (called presses there) with assembled heads that cover the full width of the paper in HP's case 36" maximum width. Check HP Inkjet Web Press and that was just one example of what was on show. Screen, Fuji, Océ, Kodak, Epson, possibly 15 companies with machines aimed at that market of mailers, short run newspapers, labels. That's what you can expect for that first 5 year. There are still 2 halls just for Heidelberg and a smaller one for Man Roland, a large booth for KBA and several booths for Japanese offset machine manufacturers but everyone is impressed by the wide spread of new inkjet presses and inkjet technology integrated in offset presses.
What remains of printing has to be adapted to the internet and inkjet fits that more than any other system right now.

I may have seen at most 5-10 silkscreen printing machines spread over the Drupa where in the past there would have been large booths of Svecia, Argon, Thieme and some Japanese and US manufacturers.  A niche industry in 10 years time after the appearance of the first (eco)solvent inkjet printers.

Off topic in this thread but inkjet is now everywhere in the non-graphic industry as well. Biochemical arrays for medical testing, medicine production, skin creation, rapid prototyping, OLED LCD display building. What we do is just a tiny, now almost traditional part of inkjet printing.

Competition between labs can only exist when there is enough demand for their activities. Not counting some labs that use blue wool scale, xenon chambers and no up to date methodologies, we had just three labs WR, RIT and in theory Fogra. Of the last two enough essays on the subject appeared but hardly any published testing of available inkjet inks and papers. Wilhelm's publications are until recently the only practical source for inkjet printer users. His commercial model however limits the spread of testing. That isn't good for the industry and it isn't good for Wilhelm's quest to improve the quality of the media in the industry. It is a good thing that other initiatives appeared and there will be a market big enough to support them.


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: 656


WWW
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2008, 05:21:13 AM »
ReplyReply

My only concern is with the comparison tests, in which WIR compares OEM inks with el cheapo inks, and then an impression is created that all non-OEM inks are of poor quality. I do not know who specified the inks to be tested. If it was the OEMs, then they missed a chance to prove that MIS, Lyson and Cone inks are crap. Or perhaps the OEMs know that they aren't crap, and it's only a matter of marketing spin to tar every non-OEM manufacturer with the same brush. If it was WIR, they missed a chance to be more credible.

I also find this odd: Many of us use non-OEM papers, but are religious about using OEM inks. Who has independently tested these ink/paper combinations? And how come we're willing to ignore the fact that there aren't too many such tests for the myriad permutations and combinations?

Also, are paper manufacturers getting their products tested by WIR?

Kumar
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2850


« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2008, 05:46:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My only concern is with the comparison tests, in which WIR compares OEM inks with el cheapo inks, and then an impression is created that all non-OEM inks are of poor quality. I do not know who specified the inks to be tested. If it was the OEMs, then they missed a chance to prove that MIS, Lyson and Cone inks are crap. Or perhaps the OEMs know that they aren't crap, and it's only a matter of marketing spin to tar every non-OEM manufacturer with the same brush. If it was WIR, they missed a chance to be more credible.

I also find this odd: Many of us use non-OEM papers, but are religious about using OEM inks. Who has independently tested these ink/paper combinations? And how come we're willing to ignore the fact that there aren't too many such tests for the myriad permutations and combinations?

Also, are paper manufacturers getting their products tested by WIR?

Kumar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can only guess who decided what. It still doesn't say a bit about the quality of the inks in between. For that Aardenburg is the best source right now.

With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here. For me so far Image Engineering and the German magazines ColorFoto, C't, Fine Art Printing have been sources for checking the OEM ink and third party paper combinations. An older ColorFoto article for the 3 OEM pigment inks and about 60 papers and the July issue with Epson OEM + about 40 papers.

There have been paper manufacturers like Hahnemuhle that had some papers tested by Wilhelm with OEM ink. Again about 8 years ago though.


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: 656


WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2008, 06:11:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here.

Ernst Dinkla

And the comparison test I referenced here says that most of the non-OEM inks were dye inks...

I will look at the German sources you referenced.

Kumar
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2008, 06:53:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But you can look at it this way: what is the percentage of the cost of ink relative to the price you can attract for a print? As much as 2%? Or 5%? And if you could cut that cost by say 50%, by how much has your margin actually increased?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it's just a matter of fact : for people selling prints for a living, saving a few bucks on a print's ink and billing a few hundred ones after that doesn't make much sense... (at least until it's proved that 3rd party inkset are indeed better than OEM ones!)

As far as I can see, the main audience of 3rd party inks is amateurs, who have to watch the costs of their hobby more thoroughly (particularly if they can't afford, for size or investment reason, serious printers with big cartridges : those desktop printers reallly DO need a CIS) - and who may not have as high requirements for permanence as pros do, btw.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 07:02:20 AM by NikoJorj » Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2850


« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2008, 07:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think it's just a matter of fact : for people selling prints for a living, saving a few bucks on a print's ink and billing a few hundred ones after that doesn't make much sense...


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There has been a time that pro printers had to look elsewhere for inks with sufficient gamut, acceptable degree of metamerism, black Dmax and fade resistance. Before the Epson UCs arrived that combination wasn't available in other inksets than what Mediastreet, MIS etc delivered. Epson couldn't, Lyson, Staedtler, Van Son, Dico didn't have the right combination either. The 3000, 9000, 7000, 5000, 7500, 9500, 10000CF, 10000 dye, 5500 inksets suffered one way or another and the Roland pigment inksets (HiFi included) were not that better in gamut. The same lack of the right inks happened when quality B&W inkjet printing was explored. Again third party manufacturers bridged that gap. So your observation may be correct right now but that has not been the case some years ago. There were good reasons next to economy to load third party inks on an Epson. With the arrival of the 9800 K3 soon followed by the inksets and printers from HP and Canon the landscape changed and using OEM inks became much more attractive, especially with the HP Z3100 that is frugal on ink as well.


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: 6945


WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2008, 08:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Read the mailing lists of Digital B&W, Epson Wide Format and more and you will see the opinion on WR's activities is split half half. See the recent threads here about third party inks. As long as there is no testing done outside the big 3's catalog you will not wipe that impression away, you will see people use inks that are lower in price and not tested. I have tried to convince people that integrity can exist in a commercial setup and that the tests by the big 3 only is understandable given the commercial base of WR but I'm sure it would be a lot easier to convince people when there is a third party ink tested once in a while.

It baffles everyone. You have not been to the Drupa 2008, it was called the inkjet Drupa even before it started. Dual sided web and sheet inkjet printers (called presses there) with assembled heads that cover the full width of the paper in HP's case 36" maximum width. Check HP Inkjet Web Press and that was just one example of what was on show. Screen, Fuji, Océ, Kodak, Epson, possibly 15 companies with machines aimed at that market of mailers, short run newspapers, labels. That's what you can expect for that first 5 year. There are still 2 halls just for Heidelberg and a smaller one for Man Roland, a large booth for KBA and several booths for Japanese offset machine manufacturers but everyone is impressed by the wide spread of new inkjet presses and inkjet technology integrated in offset presses.
What remains of printing has to be adapted to the internet and inkjet fits that more than any other system right now.

I may have seen at most 5-10 silkscreen printing machines spread over the Drupa where in the past there would have been large booths of Svecia, Argon, Thieme and some Japanese and US manufacturers.  A niche industry in 10 years time after the appearance of the first (eco)solvent inkjet printers.

Off topic in this thread but inkjet is now everywhere in the non-graphic industry as well. Biochemical arrays for medical testing, medicine production, skin creation, rapid prototyping, OLED LCD display building. What we do is just a tiny, now almost traditional part of inkjet printing.

Competition between labs can only exist when there is enough demand for their activities. Not counting some labs that use blue wool scale, xenon chambers and no up to date methodologies, we had just three labs WR, RIT and in theory Fogra. Of the last two enough essays on the subject appeared but hardly any published testing of available inkjet inks and papers. Wilhelm's publications are until recently the only practical source for inkjet printer users. His commercial model however limits the spread of testing. That isn't good for the industry and it isn't good for Wilhelm's quest to improve the quality of the media in the industry. It is a good thing that other initiatives appeared and there will be a market big enough to support them.
Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ernst,
On the inkjet market, if you are saying it's in full-flight and taking over every function in which it excels, we agree. And that market growth of course opens broader flexibility for new approaches to product testing and other things to develop.

But let's look at where we are at now.I've belonged to several of these Yahoo Lists dealing with Epson printers, wide format, etc. Sure they all have some good folks and useful stuff, but I think rigorous filtering of such material for objectivity is really important. I'll leave it at that.

I agree with you that it would be nice to see the picture more balanced with a broader range of rigorous product testing, but there is no public service function doing this for us, so yes, it is a commercial model; but that model is only limited by the refusal of various parties to pay for having their products tested. You are right, for the reasons you state, to date WIR has been about the only game in town of any real use to consumers. And yes, at least one other is appearing. For the work to be done, of course it takes time, effort and resources, so someone has to pay somehow; time will tell whether we get a "model" more conducive to broader testing. Until then, I'll stick with tested products.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2008, 08:31:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can only guess who decided what. It still doesn't say a bit about the quality of the inks in between. For that Aardenburg is the best source right now.

With pigment inks the compatibility with papers is a lot less deciding than with dye inks but you have a point here. For me so far Image Engineering and the German magazines ColorFoto, C't, Fine Art Printing have been sources for checking the OEM ink and third party paper combinations. An older ColorFoto article for the 3 OEM pigment inks and about 60 papers and the July issue with Epson OEM + about 40 papers.

There have been paper manufacturers like Hahnemuhle that had some papers tested by Wilhelm with OEM ink. Again about 8 years ago though.
Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ernst,

As far as I know, the key issues with the papers are whether or not they contain acid, whether or not they contain OBAs, their tint and how well the surfaces are constructed for reflectance and ink absorption. I've probably missed a few parameters under the hood. And the variety of new papers just keeps growing. I'm interested to know how well set-up the various magazines you quote are to do rigorous and reliable testing of these new papers with OEM inks.

I also think Kumar has a good point - we take an apparently good quality paper from Ilford or Hahn, for example, look at its characteristics, make inferences about its long-term stability from those characteristics and proceed to use it. Maybe we do that more readily than with inks, because ink is a soup whose contents and their implications we just don't know, but when a paper maker tells us there are no OBAs and no acid and they have a long-standing reputation for quality products, it is already useful information and experience; but I too would like to see up-to-date rigorous testing of these products by independent third parties.
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: 2850


« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2008, 09:15:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ernst,

 I'm interested to know how well set-up the various magazines you quote are to do rigorous and reliable testing of these new papers with OEM inks.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's Image-Engineering that does or supervises the testing for the magazines.
Dietmar Wüller who is on the same ISO committee(s) Henry Wilhelm and Mark McCormick attended.

[a href=\"http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/staticpages/index.php/Contact.html]http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...hp/Contact.html[/url]

if faces and degrees count, in Germany they count :-)


Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2008, 10:14:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The non-OEM manufacturers are starting to understand what is required for us to have full confidence in their products.  I don't knwo if you all saw this press release from February:

*********************************

http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78


HARMAN PHOTO PAPERS UNDERGO WILHELM TESTING
14th February 2008
Leading imaging specialist to demonstrate the print permanence of its entire range

To give the global photographic community total reassurance as to the archival properties of its papers, HARMAN technology has submitted its entire HARMAN PHOTO range to the Certified Image Permanence Testing Program run by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR). This move will enable consumers to make immediate side-by-side comparisons between the longevity of HARMAN PHOTO products and those of other well-known manufacturers. ........

Specifically, WIR is testing HARMAN PHOTO’s MATT FB Mp, MATT FB Mp WARMTONE and GLOSS FB AL papers - all of which benefit from a Baryta base enabling them to offer prints with greater detail, increased definition and a wider tonal range. The papers are being tested with Epson UltraChrome K3 with Vivid Magenta pigment inks, Canon LUCIA pigment inks, and HP Vivera pigment inks using representative Epson, Canon, and HP professional printers. Upon completion, WIR will post comprehensive test results on the WIR website, and also make the data available to HARMAN PHOTO and ultimately the papers’ end-users. HARMAN PHOTO meanwhile will begin to use the WIR Certification Seal.
[/b]

*************************************************

That last line is interesting.  It raises a bit of a question for Mark McCormick that I had meant to bring up on another forum.  That is, the importance of clearly defining his "brand", and of maintaining ownership and integrity of all of the details of the brand.  

Just look at the recent fights over the definiton of "organic" in the US, with the large conglomerates wanting to allow up to 5% toxic waste in a product labelled as "organic."      

Best,
Michael
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2850


« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2008, 10:40:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
]HARMAN PHOTO meanwhile will begin to use the WIR Certification Seal. [/i][/b]


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I had seen on Harman's site was a woolly page on blue wool testing.
I missed this announcement.

Together with Epson's Traditional PP it will be the only fiber/baryta papers tested by Wilhelm. Many are already using that paper variety.


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: 6945


WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2008, 11:57:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's Image-Engineering that does or supervises the testing for the magazines.
Dietmar Wüller who is on the same ISO committee(s) Henry Wilhelm and Mark McCormick attended.

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...hp/Contact.html

if faces and degrees count, in Germany they count :-)
Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ernst, interesting. Not as detailed reports as those from WIR, but his results for Epson Premium Lustrer & K3 inks are similar to Wilhelm's for unframed displayed prints. However he does not specify the display conditions for his tests. He says he does not use flourescent lighting and the lighting he uses will cause the longevity estimates to be relatively shorter than others; whereas Wilhelm does use flourescent lighting - of a very specific kind. One begins to wonder - and as the number of testing facilities and reports grow, we can expect to be exposed to more and more conflicting and ambiguous results leading to where? With one game in town, you have no choice - just use it. With three games in town there will be three different stories to contend with, and who knows who's right? A role for the ISO to standardize all the procedures and criteria? Are these guys working to that objective?
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
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 656


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2008, 01:00:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The non-OEM manufacturers are starting to understand what is required for us to have full confidence in their products.  I don't knwo if you all saw this press release from February:

*********************************

http://www.harman-inkjet.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=78

Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for pointing out that, Michael.

Kumar
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2850


« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2008, 04:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ernst, interesting. Not as detailed reports as those from WIR, but his results for Epson Premium Lustrer & K3 inks are similar to Wilhelm's for unframed displayed prints. However he does not specify the display conditions for his tests. He says he does not use flourescent lighting and the lighting he uses will cause the longevity estimates to be relatively shorter than others; whereas Wilhelm does use flourescent lighting - of a very specific kind. One begins to wonder - and as the number of testing facilities and reports grow, we can expect to be exposed to more and more conflicting and ambiguous results leading to where? With one game in town, you have no choice - just use it. With three games in town there will be three different stories to contend with, and who knows who's right? A role for the ISO to standardize all the procedures and criteria? Are these guys working to that objective?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


White papers enough on the site:

[a href=\"http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/whitepaper_printertest2.0_engl.pdf]http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...est2.0_engl.pdf[/url]

ISO drafts are at least a guide for the 3 methods of testing discussed here. The problem is that it is so hard to reach a consensus on the ISO definition, at least Mark McCormick has mentioned that. Image Engineering uses an economic light source with a better continuous spectrum as I understand it, there will be more differences.

Yes, the testing is more comparable to the bare bulb test of Wilhelm. There is enough correlation between the WIR and IE results, exceptions are the Fuji Crystal and Cibachrome. I do not see a conflict between testing methods, instead of that more confirmation of test results. The ozone test results are interesting and the RC papers show good properties there. Wilhelm has far less test results on ozone fading. In recent tests published in ColorFoto more fiber papers were included and the fading of OBA in different paper varieties was not seen as problematic with one exception. The more information we get the better it is.

I buy a copy of ColorFoto sometimes or downlaod a test report (approx 3 Euro) when I forget to buy the magazine. Weight, thickness, Dmax without CM, with the paper manufacturers profile, with a custom profile (3 numbers, a bit overdone to my taste), Lab number for the paper color, whiteness/reflection at 440 Nm, light fading, ozone fading and some remarks on how it behaves in the printer and what media presets to use. There are some things in the article itself that I think are incorrect but in general the quality of information is good.


Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1690


« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2008, 10:57:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As far as I can see, the main audience of 3rd party inks is amateurs, who have to watch the costs of their hobby


True.  And high-volume commercial operations, for whom ink costs can be significant.  

Large carts (as on my 4800) offer some relief, but MIS inks, for example, offer an additional nearly four-fold savings in ink costs.  If you like making large prints (and that's why I bought a 17" printer) and you're paying for your own ink, third-party inks make good sense.  A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues and if one insists on hanging unprotected prints in direct sunshine, one should be prepared to re-print occasionally.  At a quarter the cost, I can do just that.

My expensive, framed Cibachrome prints, supposedly relatively immune to fading, are toast after a few years in a bright room.  And I mean toast.  My MediaStreet ink prints, hanging in the same room, fared much better.

After I change over the 4800 to MIS, I might be singing a different tune, but at least I'll have tried and tested myself.  

I promise I'll sing the tune (whatever the melody)  here.  : )
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad