It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron
  • Start date Start date
R

Ron

G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that
aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester
stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not
trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but
the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one
who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers.
This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I
had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have
disappointed you all.

Cheers
Ron from Downunder
 
Ron said:
G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that
aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester
stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not
trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but
the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one
who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers.
This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I
had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have
disappointed you all.

Cheers
Ron from Downunder
Click to expand...
Great news huh? Well maybe not.
You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming
the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the
money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a
lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You
can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that
a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their
(over priced) oem ink carts right?
Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography
magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might
jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues?
You think?

Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but
"fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally
printed"....
Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually
meaningless.
If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks,
then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks.
BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok?
Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography
magazine, ok mate?
Only meashershithead believes that kind of bullshit!
Frank
 
Great news huh? Well maybe not.
You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming
the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the
money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a
lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You
can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that
a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their
(over priced) oem ink carts right?
Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography
magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might
jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues?
You think?

Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but
"fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally
printed"....
Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually
meaningless.
If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks,
then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks.
BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok?
Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography
magazine, ok mate?
Only meashershithead believes that kind of bullshit!
Frank
Click to expand...

frankly speaking! 8^)
 
Frank said:
Great news huh? Well maybe not.
You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming
the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the
money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a
lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You
can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that
a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their
(over priced) oem ink carts right?
Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography
magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might
jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues?
You think?

Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but
"fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally
printed"....
Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually
meaningless.
If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks,
then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks.
BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok?
Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography
magazine, ok mate?
Only meashershithead believes that kind of bullshit!
Frank
Click to expand...

I must admit it came across pretty much as you have pointed out
 
Now now there Frank. Dont attack me old mate. I posted here in good faith.
Keep a civil tongue in your head. I get photos that I sell professionally
printed because I own a canon pixma 8500 which, even with canon inks (dye
based) are known to fade over time. OK!!

I quote from magazine, 'Photo Review Australia', Spring 2006, page 9, with
the heading 'NEWS'. You still with me Frank?

Under sub heading 'ALTERNATIVE INKS SLAMMED' I quote directly:

"Testing by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR) has revealed that the permanence
of prints made with third-party inks ("aftermarket" in the US parlance} is
"far inferior" to prints made with the inks from printer manufacturers. The
results of recent tests can be downloaded from
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html. The study which was
carried out in the USA, examined a range of store-branded inkjet cartridges,
cartridges refilled at franchise refill shops and other "aftermarket" ink
sets, along with third-party inkjet photo papers. The photos printed with
the aftermarket products were submitted to exactly the same testing regime
as those printed with the inks and papers from printer manufacturers Canon,
Epson, HP and Lexmark. Whenever possible, WIR matched the highest grade of a
brand of photo paper with the same brand of ink cartridge. Permanence
ratings of less than four months were found for several products, compared
with ratings of more than 23 years for the most basic products from inkjet
printer manufacturers and more than 70 years for the most durable of the
manufacturers' ink/paper combinations.

"As a group, the aftermarket inks and premium photo papers in this study had
among the lowest WIR display-permanence ratings of any products ever tested
by our lab," said Henry Wilhelm, WIR's president and founder.

Wilhelm suggests consumers purchasing third-party inks and photo papers may
be quite unaware to the limitations of the products they are buying because
hitherto there has been no scientific evaluation of theses products."

As you can now see Frank I am not, to quote your below post: "Don't hide
behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography
magazine, ok mate?"

Quite frankly Frank if these posts 'push your buttons' then you have a
serious attitude problem. I have extensively printed with third party inks,
loaded my own cartridges, on numerous occasions etc. I would never sell my
photos to a paying customer with these inks.

Cheers all

Ron from Downunder.
 
Ron said:
G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that
aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones.
Click to expand...

Thats Absolutely TRUE
The official tester
stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Thats True also.
I am not
trying to start a flaming war.
Click to expand...

You are posting what about a dozen of the faithful in this ng do not
want to hear since they either work, are associated with, or somehow
favor the relabelers who do not disclose the brand of crap they thrust
upon the unknowning. In addition to what you say these generic inks
also clog printers. If you read posts for a while here you will read
about people who have clogged heads. Some of these will keep on using
the junk and get clogged heads again and maybe even ruin the printer.
But some of these posters just point out how much they saved. Of course
they will have to reprint all of their stuff and the results they get do
not look up to the quality of the OEMs.

If you sell your prints (very expensive) the Canon 5000 Professional
17"wide pigmented 12 ink printer is probably the one that gives the best
results and very good logevity. Longer than your lifetime if you were
just born.
 
This is their rebuttal. But the intelligent people realize that you did
not only read magazines but tried and testing the who knows what your
self and confirmed all of the reviews. Now you see what I mean.

A major part of the profit of Nikon comes from selling overpriced Camera
and they do not make printers.


And a major part of Chevron profits comes from selling overpriced gas.

He wants to give good customer service to his customers.

He can't because the relabelers will not disclose to hime who the
mfg/formulator is.

Remember do not listen to the liars who have an association with the
relabelers. They are like the fundamentalists religous zealots. And
the jerk(s) use foul language.
 
Ron said:
Now now there Frank. Dont attack me old mate. I posted here in good faith.
Keep a civil tongue in your head.
Click to expand...

Even if he got it away from the place where the sun don't shine I doublt
if he could be civil. For you disagreed with him. You got what you
should expect.
I get photos that I sell professionally
printed because I own a canon pixma 8500 which, even with canon inks (dye
based) are known to fade over time. OK!!
Click to expand...

The wide carriage 17" Canon Pro5000 12 pigmented cart printer ink is
estimated to last 100 years without fading.
I quote from magazine, 'Photo Review Australia', Spring 2006, page 9, with
the heading 'NEWS'. You still with me Frank?
Click to expand...

SOCK IT TO HIM
Under sub heading 'ALTERNATIVE INKS SLAMMED' I quote directly:

"Testing by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR) has revealed that the permanence
of prints made with third-party inks ("aftermarket" in the US parlance} is
"far inferior" to prints made with the inks from printer manufacturers. The
results of recent tests can be downloaded from
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html.
Click to expand...

I read that also and it is true.
The study which was
carried out in the USA, examined a range of store-branded inkjet cartridges,
cartridges refilled at franchise refill shops and other "aftermarket" ink
sets, along with third-party inkjet photo papers. The photos printed with
the aftermarket products were submitted to exactly the same testing regime
as those printed with the inks and papers from printer manufacturers Canon,
Epson, HP and Lexmark. Whenever possible, WIR matched the highest grade of a
brand of photo paper with the same brand of ink cartridge. Permanence
ratings of less than four months were found for several products, compared
with ratings of more than 23 years for the most basic products from inkjet
printer manufacturers and more than 70 years for the most durable of the
manufacturers' ink/paper combinations.

"As a group, the aftermarket inks and premium photo papers in this study had
among the lowest WIR display-permanence ratings of any products ever tested
by our lab," said Henry Wilhelm, WIR's president and founder.

Wilhelm suggests consumers purchasing third-party inks and photo papers may
be quite unaware to the limitations of the products they are buying because
hitherto there has been no scientific evaluation of theses products."
Click to expand...

They are aware but want to print in denial. All they care about is
paying less money but they do not realize that they are not saving
anything at all. As a matter of fact one yo yo posted that he saves
thousands of dollars and does not mind if he has to reprint his prints.
And the mentality does not differentiate if they graduated high school
or college.
As you can now see Frank I am not, to quote your below post: "Don't hide
behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography
magazine, ok mate?"

Quite frankly Frank if these posts 'push your buttons' then you have a
serious attitude problem.
Click to expand...

You are very smart to have figured that out so fast.
 
Ron wrote:
--------snip the quip--------------

It's official!
Only that piece of shit moron meashershithead believes that kind of
bullshit!

Good'day mate!
Frank
 
Ron wrote:
______________snip___________________



Well golly gee, guess what! WIR is PAID to conduct ink test for guess
who...All of the major ink/printer manufacturers. Epson, Canon, HP et al.
You don't suppose for one second that they have any influence over the
outcome do you? You don't think they actually chose the after market
inks (maybe even give them to him?) they pay him to test do you?
Oh but they do!
Not very cricket of them is it.

Also I don't see in his article where he tested any after market inks
I've ever used.

You see, only an idiot like meashershithead believes that kind of bullshit!

G'day mate!
Frank
 
Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically. I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them. The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.
 
Thanks Measekite. I am holding off until Canon release their pixma pro 9500
10 ink pigment tanks A3+ printer. Should be a great printer when they
finally release it.

Cheers

Ron from Downunder
 
G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that
aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester
stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not
trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but
the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one
who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers.
This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I
had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have
disappointed you all.
Click to expand...

I read in a magazine that people had been abducted by aliens, with
great details from some of the abductees.
I read in another that several people had met Elvis since he died.
Because it's printed in a magazine and some guy says so, does it make
it true?
 
1. Do you sell enlarged photos printed on your home printer using
aftermarket inks?

2. Have you also searched various user groups of home printers for serious
photographers, and seen the issues they have had with stuffed printing heads
and fading prints?

3. Have you read the the link that I posted previously? If so then
scientifically refute it.

Personally I could'nt care less what type of ink you print with. But if you
were selling your work professionally and if I knew it was printed with
cheap aftermarket ink I wouldnt touch it with a forty foot pole. If you are
happy using it for your own personal photo printing then good for you.

I have been there and done the aftermarket ink use and I would never ever
sell professionally photos from those inks.

Cheers

Ron
 
Ron said:
Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically. I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them. The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.
Click to expand...
If I were in the business of selling photos for "hundreds of dollars"
I'd have them professionally printed, too. I wouldn't use ANY
combination of home printer/ink/paper for such prints. Home inkjets just
don't have the capability to produce that level of work. BTW, I've seen
professionally-printed material fade in a few days of direct sunlight.

But aftermarkets do have their place. If, like most printers, some 90%
of your prints aren't meant to last for more than a few years, stored
away in a file or an album, or used for throwaways like brochures or
flyers, then aftermarket inks, plain paper, and home printers are fine.
If you want something to last long enough to look new to your
great-grandchildren, don't use inkjets.

Oh, and before Measekite warns you about me and my posts, I'm a farmer,
and I know little about the professional photography business. However,
I DO know this: In January 2004 I printed an enlargement of a photo of
my brother to display at his funeral. I used an Epson Stylus Color 800
printer, Office Max photo paper he had given me for Christmas less than
two weeks before, and the ink I happened to have in the printer, the
cheapest "compatible" aftermarket ink cartridges I could find on the
Internet. After the funeral, my mother hung the framed photo on her
bedroom wall. When that photo fades, I will happily print another for
her. However, it still looks as good to me today as it did when I
printed it.

TJ
 
TJ said:
If I were in the business of selling photos for "hundreds of dollars"
I'd have them professionally printed, too. I wouldn't use ANY
combination of home printer/ink/paper for such prints. Home inkjets just
don't have the capability to produce that level of work. BTW, I've seen
professionally-printed material fade in a few days of direct sunlight.

But aftermarkets do have their place. If, like most printers, some 90%
of your prints aren't meant to last for more than a few years, stored
away in a file or an album, or used for throwaways like brochures or
flyers, then aftermarket inks, plain paper, and home printers are fine.
If you want something to last long enough to look new to your
great-grandchildren, don't use inkjets.

Oh, and before Measekite warns you about me and my posts, I'm a farmer,
and I know little about the professional photography business. However,
I DO know this: In January 2004 I printed an enlargement of a photo of
my brother to display at his funeral. I used an Epson Stylus Color 800
printer, Office Max photo paper he had given me for Christmas less than
two weeks before, and the ink I happened to have in the printer, the
cheapest "compatible" aftermarket ink cartridges I could find on the
Internet. After the funeral, my mother hung the framed photo on her
bedroom wall. When that photo fades, I will happily print another for
her. However, it still looks as good to me today as it did when I
printed it.

TJ
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention - and this is for your information, Measekite - that
I had purchased the printer a year before at a church sale for one
dollar. When I got it home I found it completely clogged - with Epson
OEM ink.

TJ
 
Ron said:
Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically.
Click to expand...

He does not have an open mind. You need that to follow your suggestion.
I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them.
Click to expand...

That makes you a real professional.
The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are also a good businessman.
 
I have already mentioned this source many times along with many other
sources. These people have something to gain by refuting this. It is
like posting to a wall.
 
Back
Top