Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Printer + pirate-INK suggestion  (Read 23615 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2008, 12:27:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A good profile should solve most if not all of the gamut issues
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you have a spetrometer, that's a way to go.

But if you don't, you're dependent on ICC profiles of ink/paper combinations. And this on top of possible quality issues like fading, clogging, and lower quality cartridges.

I'd love to save money, but the price of saving seems a bit hight to me.
Logged

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

Posts: 2911


« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2008, 06:41:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A good profile doesn't solve a low gamut of an inkset or an unbalanced gamut. The reason I loaded and unloaded the Staedtler pigment inks for an Epson within a month.  It doesn't solve a low black Dmax either. Generations was available with two varieties of Matte Black ink. One with an additional black dye to give better Dmax but that one was also more prone to fading.


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: 7126


WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2008, 09:18:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.  : )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Peter, yes, ink costs can be "significant", but you have to see them in relation to all their other costs and to revenues. It's only when you look at the second-order impact of the savings between one inket and the other relative to the potential incremental and consequential costs in the overall context of a cash-flow statement would it begin to emerge whether a particular inkset makes commercial sense.

The profile can only be helpful to the extent that you custom-create it from patches made with that inkset, and even then, of course it cannot invent any qualities which the ink may not have, whether OEM or other.

Needless to say, "chacun a son gout", but once I've made a print I don't want to think of reprinting it again in my lifetime. What my children or grandchildren do with it will be up to them. But if you are selling fine-art photographs, if you believe in disclosure, the last thing you want to have to tell your customers is that they may start fading after X (untested therefore unknown number of) years, so come back for a re-print if you experience this issue. This isn't an argument for necessarily only using OEM materials, but it is one for using materials whose characteristics have been examined by arms' length experts, or are otherwise well enough known.
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
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2008, 02:47:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.†

Why stop there?

I was using a dye ink from OCP for proofing.  Cost was about $27 per quart/liter. A set of 6 inks was $167 shipped.

It was a suposed Claria match dye ink.  They actually had some OK longevity test results - supposedly, because they did not share the actual data. No ozone testing which is critical for dye. I still want to test them myself.  

The cheapest pigment inks run about $100 a liter.  With the dye there was actually better gamut than the pigments, plus no problems printing on glossy. I used Premium Semi-Gloss as my standard proofing paper at $.28 per square foot. So an 18x24 was about $.93, a 24x36 was $1.86

I used those for proofing only, on my Epson 7600. I still had a 7880 for final prints.  But the cost of ink was only $.03 per ml for my dye prints.

I pulled the dye when I was able to get some Epson K2 for $65 for 3 liters - cheaper than the dye. That was a very "niche" opportunity though, not easily replicated.  
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 02:48:51 PM by mmurph » Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2008, 09:30:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Needless to say, "chacun a son gout", but once I've made a print I don't want to think of reprinting it again in my lifetime. What my children or grandchildren do with it will be up to them. But if you are selling fine-art photographs, if you believe in disclosure, the last thing you want to have to tell your customers is that they may start fading after X (untested therefore unknown number of) years, so come back for a re-print if you experience this issue. This isn't an argument for necessarily only using OEM materials, but it is one for using materials whose characteristics have been examined by arms' length experts, or are otherwise well enough known.


It is definitely a sound argument for an informed choice.  None of us can know with certainty how are prints will be regarded in the future. A lot of it has to do not with our personal likes and dislikes, rather with the content in our photographs. Some will become extremely interesting to children, grandchildren, and total strangers. Some will be deemed irrelevant and not worth preserving. Much has been written in the conservation literature about "artist's original intent". The closer my photographs are to the way I printed them and saw them, the better the odds that future generations will be able to interpret my intent. Image permanence is very important. I am not cynical about the possibility that digital files can survive well into the future and be "readable" and consequently reprintable. However, the systems that those files will be opened with, if indeed they are openable, and the aesthetics of future custodians of those image files will not necessarily recreate the appearance of what I saw on my vintage turn of the 21st century monitor.  Only my prints will serve as a guide to what I saw and how I chose to print that subject matter. And they will only do that if they retain some semblance of their original reproduction quality. One's choice of materials, and one's advice to friends, family, and clients on how best to preserve that original vision are fundamentally important.

Mark McCormick-Goodhart
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2008, 01:10:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting quote:

"The only way to maximize a printís fade resistance is to ensure that all components are tested together."

From this web page:

http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php
Logged

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

Posts: 1009


« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2008, 01:13:32 AM »
ReplyReply

There is another interesting quote from this site.

"With photo-quality inkjet printers now widely used for the commercial production of images, many third-party ink companies have introduced bulk-ink feed devices that provide a continuous ink supply (CIS) to the printer, eliminating the need to change cartridges. The potential reduction in consumable costs is enormous, equaling about a 70% savings over buying original cartridges. These devices are bad-mouthed by printer manufacturers because they take away a valuable revenue stream, and are claimed to be unreliable, difficult to install, and, worse yet, damage the printer. In some cases, this is true; there are some poorly made systems out there. However, I believe that a welldesigned bulk feed system can actually increase the printerís reliability. The reason a printer requires several cleaning cycles after a cartridge change is because of air ingress into the print head.
Here are some tips when choosing a bulk ink feed system. First, find out if the system comes with pre-primed ink cartridges. A lot of these systems are supplied empty (the ink is sold separately), and the user must first fill the cartridges using syringes or a small suction pump.
Second, determine if installing the system requires any major modifications to the printer. Awell-designed system shouldnít require any hole drilling or cutting of the printer covers. (Remember, you may one day need to return the printer for warranty repair.) Finally, donít consider a bulk ink feed attachment unless you regularly do a fair amount of printing. If you only do a couple of prints a week, these systems are not for you since the ink in the reservoirs will go out-of-date before you use it. A good rule of thumb is, if you use more than a cartridge set each week, a bulk feed will save you money and work reliably. "

This is an article, written by the president of a third party ink suppliere (Lyson). It doesn't really  sound fishy.

If anybody finds something fishy, point it out.

I don't have enough experience to judge this, and stay with original inks and quality paper as for now.

But, upon reflection, ink is not rocket science. What is important, is the knowledge about how a certain ink and a certain type of paper react. As long as you don't have this information, any ink is worthless, no matter if third party or OEM.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 01:18:42 AM by The View » Logged

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

Posts: 1009


« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2008, 01:27:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I also found this.

I personally do not trust any inhouse testing, and don't (yet!) have the experience to judge it.

But maybe someone can tell if it is of the category "bogus and BS".
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2008, 08:06:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The reason a printer requires several cleaning cycles after a cartridge change is because of air ingress into the print head.

.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is factually incorrect. None of my Epson professional prints have required cleaning cycles after cartridge changes, nor is there a technical reason why they should. The printers are designed to prevent ingress of air into either the lines or the printhead as a result of changing cartrdiges. If it happens, something else is wrong. Air bubbles can appear in the lines because of repeated cleaning cycles(unrelated to caartridge changes) and there are recommended procedures for avoiding this.
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: 7126


WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2008, 08:11:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But, upon reflection, ink is not rocket science.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, not rocket-science, but the big three developers expend mega-bucks in R&D, testing and process control on each new inkset and paper they bring to market. Most of us don't know the numbers or the chemistry, but I wouldn't under-rate it.
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: 1009


« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2008, 01:42:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is factually incorrect. None of my Epson professional prints have required cleaning cycles after cartridge changes, nor is there a technical reason why they should. The printers are designed to prevent ingress of air into either the lines or the printhead as a result of changing cartrdiges. If it happens, something else is wrong. Air bubbles can appear in the lines because of repeated cleaning cycles(unrelated to caartridge changes) and there are recommended procedures for avoiding this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just to make sure, your quote was not my comment, but from an article I quoted.

Regardings third party, as I said, I'm avoiding them for them moment. This also goes for lenses.
Logged

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

Posts: 2960



WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 09, 2008, 02:39:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is another interesting quote from this site.


This is an article, written by the president of a third party ink suppliere (Lyson). It doesn't really  sound fishy.

If anybody finds something fishy, point it out.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe not fishy, but can it be truly objective?  What would you expect this person to say, that 3rd party inks are lousy?
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 09, 2008, 04:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just to make sure, your quote was not my comment, but from an article I quoted.

Regardings third party, as I said, I'm avoiding them for them moment. This also goes for lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I know you referenced it to source.

And me too, me too on inks and lenses.
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: 2911


« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2008, 04:15:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And me too, me too on inks and lenses.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If all inks were tested as well as lenses are tested I wouldn't mind to use one when it tests well. That test should include the image quality, paper and printer compatibility, consistency in ink batch color, fading aspects etc. I do not think we will ever see third party ink tests like that.

I've referred to ColorFoto for ink/paper tests, their lens testing isn't bad either:

[a href=\"http://www.colorfoto.de/Uebersicht/Bestenliste-Objektive_425915.html]http://www.colorfoto.de/Uebersicht/Bestenl...ive_425915.html[/url]

That Sigma EX 2,8/70 mm Macro and the Tamron AF 2,8/28-75 mm reappear in the ranking several  times as the top performers per camera model/sensor. User reports reflect the same experience on a variety of camera systems. Photozone confirms the test results in their tests. I've no hesitation to buy lenses like the two mentioned.


Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2008, 07:22:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If all inks were tested as well as lenses are tested I wouldn't mind to use one when it tests well. That test should include the image quality, paper and printer compatibility, consistency in ink batch color, fading aspects etc. I do not think we will ever see third party ink tests like that.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. I think, as you mention, consistency is a really important variable as well. I had bad luck with a Sigma 12~24 zoom - some copies are excellent and some leave much to be desired. So I took a chance and got one of the latter - and returned it. Confirmation of quality from several independent sources really helps, so your references are useful.
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
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad