Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: American Inkjet Systems  (Read 3675 times)
Mike Sellers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


WWW
« on: September 28, 2013, 01:32:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone tried the UltraMax inks from this company? They seem to have an expanded gamut.
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2013, 05:45:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Mike- I have ordered their starter kit of refillable carts and "wide gamut standard pallet" replacement inks for my 7600. This set does not require their (expensive) RIP. Anyway, I wish I could report but I have not received the kit yet. I will report back once I receive the system get it installed.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
Mike Sellers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2013, 09:04:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks John. Looking forward to read your findings.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2013, 09:38:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Any word on the performance of these inks?

I'm currently waiting on a second-hand Roland SJ540v or SJ545 (with heating element) to come along at the right price, in order to run them.
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2013, 01:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I have all I need to do the ink changeover but I have about 1/4 reading on the carts in there right now so will wait until I get lower. As soon I have done the deed I'll report back.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2013, 03:06:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually they've been around a long time, I even recall a mono quad set years back. As far as I'm concerned longevity issues remain simply claims until they have some tests going at Aardenburg. I see none. Marc is the only credible source for useful longevity info any more..
Tyler
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2013, 06:53:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Rather than just making a broad statement like this, why not spend a bit of time explaining the evidence for why Aardenburg is "the only credible source for useful longevity info"? That would be far more useful.

By the way, after becoming a member I took a look at a few reports for different printer/paper/ink combos at Aardenburg. As far as I can see, each test has a sample size of 1, so nothing can be reliably concluded from any of these individual tests. However, impractical it might be to replicate the longevity tests at least 10 times, better yet 30 times, replication is an absolutely essential part of any experiment. If you don't replicate you have no idea how big is the signal to noise ratio in the data and therefore can conclude nothing. Multiple tests across ink, paper and printer types can be used to make general statements about the longevity of say OEM inks versus 3rd party, or dye versus pigment.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2013, 08:40:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Rather than just making a broad statement like this, why not spend a bit of time explaining the evidence for why Aardenburg is "the only credible source for useful longevity info"? That would be far more useful.

By the way, after becoming a member I took a look at a few reports for different printer/paper/ink combos at Aardenburg. As far as I can see, each test has a sample size of 1, so nothing can be reliably concluded from any of these individual tests. However, impractical it might be to replicate the longevity tests at least 10 times, better yet 30 times, replication is an absolutely essential part of any experiment. If you don't replicate you have no idea how big is the signal to noise ratio in the data and therefore can conclude nothing. Multiple tests across ink, paper and printer types can be used to make general statements about the longevity of say OEM inks versus 3rd party, or dye versus pigment.

I posted a reply earlier today, but on further reflection, I concluded my response wasn't particularly helpful. So, I'm attempting a more thoughtful answer now. Suffice to say, I welcome 100% replicates when I get them and there are numerous examples of full replicates in the database. There are also many many partial replicates in the AaI&A database (e.g., same paper and ink set but different printer model, same paper and printer but different ink set, same printer/ink/media but one sample coated and one without said coating, etc.). Partial replicates are doubly important because they often provide much additional insight into where variability and real differences actually occur.  I also rely on many paired comparison studies (for example, working with AaI&A members to produce third party ink samples on same printer and paper batch where the AaI&A member volunteers to first print with OEM ink before making the switch to third party). Paired comparisons techniques are a well known testing methodology to help identify variability from real differences and to maintain ongoing confidence in the entire testing program. There are also many internal controls and checks during the whole testing process. These checks and balances are too numerous to mention in detail, but they start even before testing. Each sample print not only has the 30 patch test target to go into testing, but also a much larger 900+ color target I use to verify that sample submissions are achieving acceptable initial image quality before proceeding with light fade testing.  You'd be surprised how many amateurs fail to achieve good initial image quality with chosen third party inks or third party papers simply because they don't know how to evaluate ICC profile performance and often choose to substitute profiles that aren't matched to the chosen printer/ink/media combination. When initial quality is suspect, I reject those sample submissions, and indeed often offer to help those members correct the deficiencies by building them a custom profile at no charge. All testing labs have this kind of sample uncertainty, not just AaI&A, because more often than not, independent labs are not contracted to actually print the samples and even if they are, they can't always be certain the correct materials have been received.  In this regard, AaI&A's willingness to test for the printmaking community and  willingness to test replicates and partial replicates not simply relying on vendors for the sample submissions is probably the best way to keep the entire program honest.

As for interpretation and gaining insight from the published test results, yes, AaI&A members need to take time to study the AaI&A database and the supporting documents as a whole in order to draw more meaningful conclusions. I have so far resisted dumbing down the test results to simple "years of life" fade ratings. Such scores tend to give false assurances about print longevity in the real world because the effects of varying real world light levels on print life are huge. Nevertheless, I will keep searching for clearer ways to present to the public what is undoubtedly a pretty complex story about print durability and print longevity. On that note, I have decided to bow out of participating in the LULA forums for a while in order to redouble my efforts at more website tutorials and other ways to better tell the story of modern digital print permanence.  First on my agenda is to better automate the report generation and add graphs to each report that will more quickly reveal the non linear fading nature of many of these digital print systems. Next, I want take the AaI&A website beyond just a repository for comprehensive light fade test results.


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 12:24:52 PM by MHMG » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888


« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2013, 09:23:18 AM »
ReplyReply


By the way, after becoming a member I took a look at a few reports for different printer/paper/ink combos at Aardenburg. As far as I can see, each test has a sample size of 1, so nothing can be reliably concluded from any of these individual tests.


Whether your remark aims at the consistency of the testing done or at the consistency of media/ink quality control by the manufacturer is unclear to me.

1/ There is correlation in the results between tests done by Aardenburg Imaging, Wilhelm Research and Image Engineering despite some differences between the three testing methods.

2/ At Aardenburg there are tests done on the same paper where one ink differs and the results are identical, HP Z3100<>Z3200.

3/ Different generations of inks (Epson, Canon) that show either identical or very similar results, at Wilhelm and Aardenburg.

4/ Color shift of the paper base itself that shows identical results in many tests (with different inks) at Aardenburg.

There is one constancy in the tests done: third party color inks are behind in fade resistance. In both dye and pigment ink categories. For quad inks the difference is less obvious. So to justify the use of an untested third party pigment ink by questioning the reliability of the independent testing done on other inks may not be a good approach ...... if fade resistance is on your list of priorities.

There was a time that third party inks had better fade resistance than OEM inks, more than ten years ago the Epson 9000 dye ink had to be replaced by Mediastreet's Generations "hybrid" pigment ink to get some fade resistance and still keep some gamut. The other choices then were dye inks from Lyson and Van Son that promised the world but did not deliver.  Or a pigment ink from Staedtler that had no gamut. Wilhelm Research testing later confirmed our bad experience with the Lyson Fotonic. The first OEM pigment inks were not ideal either (gamut) but the generations after that exceeded the quality of third party inks, the more when Canon and HP joined the party with pigment inks. I have been through that experimentation phase 10-15 years ago. Since then I have seen new third party inks appear with "Nano" technology, Blue Wool ratings, Xenon and Florida testing and more. I have not heard of one that exceeds HP  Vivera pigment ink in practice and in independent testing. That is my ink now.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2013, 01:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark- Thank you for your thoughtful response (it was much more useful that the first one).

Ernst- Please do not interpret my comments as "justify(ing) the use of an untested third party pigment ink by questioning the reliability of the independent testing done on other inks". This was not my intention at all. Re. your first comment, it should be unclear to you because it is unclear. Sources of variation are many and you mention only two. Careful experimental design can tease apart the various sources and estimate the contributions to the overall variance in the results. Re. your other comments, I agree that correlation of results between labs is meaningful. Results are almost never "identical" and two "identical" results doesn't say much more that a sample size of 1 does.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2013, 01:50:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I should have said, the only credible source I've come across in 15 years of intensive work with inkjet materials. I'll ask, who else is there? Point me to them and I'll check them out. Aardenburg is unbeholden to any manufacturer, has tested ink and substrate materials relevant to real artists and printers rather than simple OEM combo offerings, including many of interest to advanced niche workers.
More importantly I've never seen them state an ink, paper, or combo as "archival", now a meaningless marketing term. or even say a given setup will last "x" number of years, another dead give-away of questionable intent.
It seems after all the smoke has cleared, if we accept that accelerated fade testing is useful (what else can we do?) then the only credible conclusions are that a given combination of materials, in a given environment, will change in "this" fashion in "this" amount of time. And that info is helpful in countless ways, not only in how we choose materials, but how we care for the art once made.
Perhaps my statement was a bit overly adamant, but I think Mark speaks for his work on a regular basis far better than I can, and has conducted his work impressively, and the results have been enormously valuable to myself and many others. I can recall no challenge of merit to his approach or results. If you can point me to more sources of relevant similar work, I'll definitely make use of it.
Tyler

quick edit- I didn't mean to hijack the thread. AIS inks may have excellent longevity but I wish they were in for testing. Also, longevity is not always all users' priority, including my own under certain circumstances. I do hope we hear more about these inks
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 02:42:00 PM by TylerB » Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2013, 02:38:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I have all I need to do the ink changeover but I have about 1/4 reading on the carts in there right now so will wait until I get lower. As soon I have done the deed I'll report back.

John, if you want to print out the AaI&A color target on your choice of media with this remaining OEM ink, and then repeat on the same batch of paper(s) once you've got the OEM ink fully flushed and UltraMax inks installed, I'd be happy to receive these paired sets and test them side-by-side.  Funds aren't there at the moment to start more tests, but that issue will resolve itself sooner or later, and then we can start to discuss this interesting third party ink set with a little more facts on hand than just mere speculation.

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2013, 06:04:53 PM »
ReplyReply

That sounds like progress! Thank you Mark. I will do that. I imagine I will do the changeover just before Christmas so I should probably wait and do the before-after pair back to back.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2013, 10:37:39 AM »
ReplyReply

[...] I have decided to bow out of participating in the LULA forums for a while in order to redouble my efforts at more website tutorials and other ways to better tell the story of modern digital print permanence.  First on my agenda is to better automate the report generation and add graphs to each report that will more quickly reveal the non linear fading nature of many of these digital print systems. Next, I want take the AaI&A website beyond just a repository for comprehensive light fade test results.
That sounds great! Many thanks for your work, Mark.

<Hijacking of the hijacked part of the thread>
BTW, do you think it would have any interest to add some low-end dyes, namely canon ix6550 CMYKK Chromalife100+ and OCP inks, to the database?
</Hijacking>
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
cengell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2013, 08:03:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello all, I have used Scott from AIC inks and i am very happy with the really low clogging and his cleaning solution is awesome! I would agree the you do need to make your own profile and I think there is a bigger gamut than Epson and with much less clogging and cost.

What I would tell anybody is call up Scott and talk to him and tell him what you want to print and ask for print samples from him and once you see the print samples WOW he came up with Lime Green ink and a few others as I am using not the normal yellow but a golden yellow and I get some awesome reds!

Call him and you can believe what he says as I have talked to him allot and have built up a trust as he has not set me wrong.

Christopher
Logged
abeofRD
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2013, 05:38:40 PM »
ReplyReply

That sounds like progress! Thank you Mark. I will do that. I imagine I will do the changeover just before Christmas so I should probably wait and do the before-after pair back to back.

Hi John,

Have you done the change over to AIS inkjet system, I am interested to see your outcome.
Logged
John Chardine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2013, 07:14:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I made the changeover a couple of days ago. All went well except that I had no idea the supplied carts breathe through a hole at the top which has a stopper in it. The stopper has to be removed or ink will just get sucked back towards the carts.

I have not done any exhaustive test-printing but I ran one print which turned out very slightly on the magenta side. this might be a one-off or a consistent trend with the new inks. I may have to profile the papers I use and go from there.
Logged

____________________
John
www.chardinephoto.ca
abeofRD
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2013, 07:44:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I made the changeover a couple of days ago. All went well except that I had no idea the supplied carts breathe through a hole at the top which has a stopper in it. The stopper has to be removed or ink will just get sucked back towards the carts.

I have not done any exhaustive test-printing but I ran one print which turned out very slightly on the magenta side. this might be a one-off or a consistent trend with the new inks. I may have to profile the papers I use and go from there.

Good to hear that you made the changeover waiting to follow your experience.

Thanks for sharing
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2014, 05:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I made the changeover a couple of days ago. All went well except that I had no idea the supplied carts breathe through a hole at the top which has a stopper in it. The stopper has to be removed or ink will just get sucked back towards the carts.

I have not done any exhaustive test-printing but I ran one print which turned out very slightly on the magenta side. this might be a one-off or a consistent trend with the new inks. I may have to profile the papers I use and go from there.

Any luck with the new inkset? What RIP are you using?

If you've got it up and running, could I commission you to do a few test prints on various papers to submit to Aardenburg for longevity testing?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad