Having said that, I am quite sure the better quality 3rd party ink
manufacturers can pay for the same tests Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark do
should they wish to prove the quality of their inks. The 3rd party ink
manufacturers make a minor fortune (not speaking of the distributors,
who sell them under dozens of brand names) so they could afford this,
although it would add to the costs of the product.
1. Aftermarket inks will last longer than executives at Hewlett Packard.
Plus, I have never understood the relativity of ink fade to the average
user. This person doesn't sell prints to anyone and keeps a digital
file the print was made from on his computer. Last time I checked
DIGITAL FILES DON'T FADE!!!! If the print that was made does fade then
JUST PRINT ANOTHER ONE!!!! If a family member wants a print I just
email them a digital file I took straight from the camera and they print
the photo on their own inkjet printer or get one made at Walmart the
next time they shop there. All this concern over fading is nothing but
over hype and marketing ploys. Prints mean nothing to me regarding my
personal collection of photographs. It is the digital files that I go
to great measures to protect. The old family photographs I cherish have
been scanned and stored on the computer and when I print them out they
look as good, and after some digital processing can even look better
than, the original.
All this talk about ink fade and print longevity isn't worth the effort
spent talking about it. It is irrelevant to 99% of the population.
Anyone that is really concerned with print fading should buy a good
scanner and have redundant backups of all their important digital files.
Taliesyn said:Entirely logical and practical. No use spending thousands on snap shots
that can be reproduced any time in the future, should the need arise.
Which for me has never occurred after years of aftermarket use.
Ink fade worries? None. On the other hand, watch how fast your MONEY
will FADE BUYING OEM inks. How much was that amount again you quoted...
"4,297,546.00 I'll save over my lifetime of using AM inks." Yikes!
Who's got their hand on YOUR wallet?
Once the issue of fading has been put in its proper place and the fact
that the savings made from buying the first set of after market
cartridges pays for a BRAND NEW PRINTER what reason is left to NOT buy
after market ink? I have run more $1.70 after market cartridges
through our MP780 and iP4000 printers the last 1.5 years than I can
count. They both still use the original print heads. I don't think I
got lucky and bought the rare "super printer" that occasionally comes
off Canon's production line. Ours are likely no better or worse than
99.9% of the ones that Canon builds for everyone else.
Bob said:In fairness, Wilhelm's tests are pretty good, overall, and shouldn't
be ignored for the information they do provide
[snip]
Having said that, I am quite sure the better quality 3rd party ink
manufacturers can pay for the same tests Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark
do should they wish to prove the quality of their inks. The 3rd party
ink manufacturers make a minor fortune (not speaking of the
distributors, who sell them under dozens of brand names) so they could
afford this, although it would add to the costs of the product.
I believe there is certainly a reason the 3rd party folks would not want
the testing done - they do not sink the $millions into development of
lightfast inks and papers as it is not a marketing priority for them,
perhaps with the exception of Lyson who does have their products tested
by Wilhelm. A manufacturer is not going to enter a race that they know
they will lose badly.
- Bob Headrick
Nice try Ron but no cigar. As most readers of my post would immediatelyRon said:To quote you Frank....(see your post below). "let's say....[etc]".
This is merely hearsay on your part. Where is your proo?. Where are
your facts, as you previously asked me, re: your below post?
Cheers
from Ron Downunder.
*snip*
Or let’s say an ink manufacturer in the Far East has multiple ink
factories that manufacturer ink to certain specifications given to
them by one of the majors. They're doing 'contract manufacturing'.
Their agreement states that they cannot sell the same ink to anyone
else. But they make more ink than the major called for and are
selling it "out the back door" so to speak.
If tested, both inks would product exactly the same results. The
distributor who buys the inks "out the back door" would never want to
have the ink tested. Nor would the manufacturer.
Now knowing the reputation and their proclivity for bending the rules
of patents, proprietarily and intellectual property in this part of
the world, I believe this behavior is both common and rampant.
Just one real reason why you’ll never see after market inks from that
part of the world tested alongside the majors.
Frank
ascertain I'm speculating albeit with a very high degree of probability.
In other words, I'm probably correct in my assumption.
Frank
Arthur said:The problem is we just don't know if the reason is the cost of the
testing, or that they know or expect their inks would fail them.
Arthur said:Nice try Frank, but don't demand "proof" and facts if you can't supply
them yourself. What's good for the goose...
Proof and facts usually don't begin with "Let's say..." or "I'm
probably correct in my assumption".
Art
Nice try Ron but no cigar. As most readers of my post wouldRon said:To quote you Frank....(see your post below). "let's say....[etc]".
This is merely hearsay on your part. Where is your proo?. Where are
your facts, as you previously asked me, re: your below post?
Cheers
from Ron Downunder.
*snip*
Or let’s say an ink manufacturer in the Far East has multiple ink
factories that manufacturer ink to certain specifications given to
them by one of the majors. They're doing 'contract manufacturing'.
Their agreement states that they cannot sell the same ink to anyone
else. But they make more ink than the major called for and are
selling it "out the back door" so to speak.
If tested, both inks would product exactly the same results. The
distributor who buys the inks "out the back door" would never want
to have the ink tested. Nor would the manufacturer.
Now knowing the reputation and their proclivity for bending the
rules of patents, proprietarily and intellectual property in this
part of the world, I believe this behavior is both common and rampant.
Just one real reason why you’ll never see after market inks from
that part of the world tested alongside the majors.
Frank
immediately ascertain I'm speculating albeit with a very high degree
of probability.
In other words, I'm probably correct in my assumption.
Frank
Look at the Logan Simplex 750 for about $230.00. What printer did youRon said:I am at the stage where I'm contemplating purchase of a wide format pigment
ink printer to print photos for sale. Also thinking about doing my own
framing and mat cutting etc.
In providing the best service to my potential customers I would not use any
after market inks.
Even though there are many pro labs around, there still
is the niggling question of how well/regularly do they calibrate their
pinters/equipment etc.?
Trouble is I am still not assured, re: the longevity/quality of aftermarket
inks - if they were of the same quality I would purchase it by the gallons
and utilize a CIS.
CD's and DVD's certainly do lose data, some more readily than others. The
storage of digital data is far from secure/certain. Heat/electromagnetic
radiation/dye used/speed of burning data to the medium etc all have some
form of influence.
Cheers all
Ron from Downunder.
P.S. Took the most incredible photo of an Australian echnida, while out in
the bush the other day. He was feeding voraciously on an ant's nest. Took
several pictures of him from about a foot away, while he coyly peered at me.
They usually tuck themselves up into a ball and extend their numerous spines
when they feel they are under threat.
The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:
Cheers
Ron from Downunder.
G'day mates,
There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>
Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire
<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>
Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>
Cheers, Phred.
Interesting thought...Epson, HP, Canon, etc. may very well avoid payingArthur said:I'm not sure this is completely accurate. Companies like Canon, Epson,
HP, et al, not only spend millions on developing ink sets, they also
make Billions on selling them. The smaller manufacturers of the higher
end inks probably could afford to buy Wilhelm's services at $15,000 per
test, but it would bite into their bottom line or force increased
pricing. They are trying to keep competitive with the majors, after all.
The majors also have a captive market that keeps their costs lower
(every printer they produce goes out with a set of cartridges to begin
with) and they attempt to protect that market with their incessant
attempts to confound 3rd party production via technologies and lawyers.
There are definitely two sides to this debate. Using the same argument
you presented, companies like HP, et al, should be willing to pay the
cost of having the better quality 3rd party inks tested to prove they
are inferior, if that is the case. Yet, to date, Wilhelm has only tested
low end "junk" inks which we all knew were not up to most of the OEM inks.
Art
Arthur said:Nice try Frank, but don't demand "proof" and facts if you can't supply
them yourself. What's good for the goose...
Proof and facts usually don't begin with "Let's say..." or "I'm probably
correct in my assumption".
Art
Nice try Ron but no cigar. As most readers of my post wouldRon said:To quote you Frank....(see your post below). "let's say....[etc]".
This is merely hearsay on your part. Where is your proo?. Where are
your facts, as you previously asked me, re: your below post?
Cheers
from Ron Downunder.
*snip*
Or let’s say an ink manufacturer in the Far East has multiple ink
factories that manufacturer ink to certain specifications given to
them by one of the majors. They're doing 'contract manufacturing'.
Their agreement states that they cannot sell the same ink to anyone
else. But they make more ink than the major called for and are
selling it "out the back door" so to speak.
If tested, both inks would product exactly the same results. The
distributor who buys the inks "out the back door" would never want
to have the ink tested. Nor would the manufacturer.
Now knowing the reputation and their proclivity for bending the
rules of patents, proprietarily and intellectual property in this
part of the world, I believe this behavior is both common and rampant.
Just one real reason why you’ll never see after market inks from
that part of the world tested alongside the majors.
Frank
immediately ascertain I'm speculating albeit with a very high degree
of probability.
In other words, I'm probably correct in my assumption.
Frank
Once the issue of fading has been put in its proper place and the fact
that the savings made from buying the first set of after market
cartridges pays for a BRAND NEW PRINTER what reason is left to NOT buy
after market ink? I have run more $1.70 after market cartridges through
our MP780 and iP4000 printers the last 1.5 years than I can count. They
both still use the original print heads. I don't think I got lucky and
bought the rare "super printer" that occasionally comes off Canon's
production line. Ours are likely no better or worse than 99.9% of the
ones that Canon builds for everyone else.