It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior

[Michael Johnson, PE]

I am in no way a troll. If I could find a viable high quality alternative
long lasting ink that did not clog/ruin my printing head then I would
utilize it.

Here are a few quotes from the relatively few posts you have made in
this newsgroup:

"G'day from Downunder. The pixma 8500 prints CD labels very simply and
beautifully. I do it on a regular basis. Above posters were correct re:
canon A3 printers costing considerably more than the 8500 here in
Australia. The BCI6 cartridges refill, at home, very easily - and I
have never had a clogged malfunctioning head." <May 3, 2006>

"G'day from Downunder. The pixma 8500 prints CD labels very simply and
beautifully. I do it on a regular basis. Above posters were correct re:
canon A3 printers costing considerably more than the 8500 here in
Australia. The BCI6 cartridges refill, at home, very easily - and I
have never had a clogged malfunctioning head." <April 29, 2006>

"G'day mate. I have the canon pixma 8500 printer. It is a superb
printer. The cartridges are the BCI 6 series and they are not chipped.
Easy to refill with bulk ink. Just take your time doing it and make sure
that you seal the hole you use to insert the ink in properly." <April
25, 2006>

"Many photographic printing shops/labs would use/refill their own inks.
How do you think they can print at the costs they print at? It would
not be viable for them to purchase genuine new cartridges plus pay off
their printers plus pay their wages plus pay their rents etc. In fact
many use CIS systems." <May 3, 2006>

A couple of months go by, you read a magazine article and then become a
shill for OEM ink suppliers? Why is clogging a problem for you now and
not on May 3rd of this year? I find it hard to believe that from
reading one magazine article you were overcome with the desire to
"inform" us about the poor quality of compatible ink. You obviously
don't read this newsgroup much or you would know that nearly all of us
have made up our minds on the subject long ago. Your opinion is, by
far, the minority one here. After reading your few postings under your
current email address I tend to think you are more of a troll than not.

D'day.

 

[measekite]

If you are selling photos for hundreds of dollars a piece and are
printing them at home then I don't see you as much of a
"professional". I don't care if you print them with OEM or compatible
inks. I think you are ripping off your customers.

I read all of his posts and I do not think he asked for any opinions
about his qualifications from any doe doo's in this ng.

snip

Want to know my test? "I" look at pictures

We all do.

snip

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

Exactly what were your test parameters?

Michael I certainly have not praised aftermarket inks. My experiments with
them have found them to be vastly inferior and unreliable. Why do you think
I take photos that I sell to a professional printing laboratory that uses a
machine that costs several hundred thousand dollars?

 

[Frank]

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

Then why do you give a shit about after market inks if you all of your
professional photos are being printed by a professional printer?
This statement alone make you a troll.
Just like meashershithead.
Frank

 

[measekite]

I am in no way a troll. If I could find a viable high quality alternative
long lasting ink that did not clog/ruin my printing head then I would
utilize it.

Gee, I thought I had a copywrite on the above statement. ;-)

I have said that repeatedly over the past year but it just goes on deaf
ears. Or if the ears are not deaf the brain is dead.

I used refilling to print documents, letters etc and to trial it for photos,
and found that photos faded rapidly. I have used supposedly best quality
inks from Germany, which made a shocking cyan cast throughout some of my
sample photos which could not be removed or adjusted out - these inks were
sold by one of Australia's largest ink cartridge refill franchises. When I
told him about the problem the seller gave me a blank look - no refund.

The generic relabeled ink industry is totally unprofessional. I do not
know of one that fully discloses everything prominently on their website.

Also
have used inks that were imported from the USA

I understand what you are saying but I would have said that the ink is
reimportated from the USA via China.

and up to this point have not
found anything that I would professionally print photos to sell.

I am certainly not happy when I have to pay $25 AUD for 1 ink canon
cartridge. My printer requires 8 cartridges.

I feel the same way. Pretty soon the nut cases will accuse me of being
you . No No I got it backwards they will accuse you of being me.

 

[measekite]

You use compatible ink in your Canon iP8500 and have praised it.

I do not believe he ever said that. It must be a typical generic
fabrication.

Now you read an article in a magazine and change your mind that
easily? I'm starting to smell a troll.

Ask me what I smell in this ng.

As for proven alternatives, just ask about any poster here that uses
compatible ink.

He was already warned about the church of the latter day inkie stinkies.

I use compatible cartridges from Tyler Martin and find them to be
excellent and a great value.

That is just another name for 12 company that sells something they will
not disclose under a variety of names.

We have prints using compatible ink that are over three years old that
look just fine.

People also like ugly girls but they think they look fine

If I kept them on the dashboard of ny truck

Your drive a truck. Now I understand

I doubt they would but then neither would ones printed with OEM ink or
ones developed on photographic paper. Also, if I did leave it on the
dashboard of my truck and it did fade, so what. I can print another
up any time I want.

Ah now the cost doubles. More ink and more paper. Time is not worth much.

As could you or any other person with a photo printer.

What is your real reason for starting this thread? My guess is you
like negative attention.

I think he is very very postive in everything I read to date.

 

[measekite]

Measekite, I think that is another reason why they have delayed the release
of the pro9500 because of the clogging problems with the pigment inks.

That is always a possibility but if the are using Lucia inks in a
similar printhead to the Big Expensive 12 color 5000 and they are not
having clogging problems with that then I am not sure. The carts in the
5000 are extra large so they may be having some supply problems in
getting smaller carts for the 9500. In any event I would not consider
getting one for the first 6 months after they are released.

 

[TJ]

I feel the same way. Pretty soon the nut cases will accuse me of being
you . No No I got it backwards they will accuse you of being me.

Wouldn't dream of it. He's a much better writer than you are.

TJ

 

[TJ]

He does not live on a farm. It is known that pigmented print results
can last without fading for over 100 years and longer if framed behind
glass. Wet process prints can fade in less time. Most peple who buy
professional prints have them framed behine glass and the more expensive
ones will use museum glass.

Anybody with any sense who buys a photo to be framed behind museum glass
won't buy one that's been printed on a home printer.

Accelerated testing procedures have their place, but I'd be careful when
applying the results to the Real World. Nobody REALLY knows that
pigmented inks will last 100 years, because they've been around for far
less than that. Manufacturers used to claim that Home-recorded CDs would
last 100 years or more, but we now know that isn't the case unless great
care is taken with their storage. It's been said that floppy disks will
only last a few years, yet I have many 5 1/4 inch disks for my old Atari
130XE 8-bit computer that still work just fine after 20 years of
storage. The Real World has a way of screwing up the reports of
"evaluations."

These tests always remind me of the research done many years ago to try
to find what caused cancer. Rats would be exposed to mega-dosages of
this and that - dosages that had no meaningful real-world human
counterpart. One diet sweetener comes to mind, where the rats were given
dosages that would equate to humans drinking 2,000 cans of soda a day
for 50 years, or something like that. The rats would get cancer, and the
list of "causes" grew and grew. Eventually, though, we learned that the
experimental model was flawed - all we really proved was it's
ridiculously easy to get rats to develop cancer.

Ron see what I mean

Yes, Ron, by all means take a look. I don't sell my prints. I don't work
for an ink or printer company, I'm self-employed - have been since the
age of 12. At 57, I must be one of the "old farts" Measekite is talking
about in another post to this thread, set in my ways, mind closed
because I trust personal experience over a couple of magazine reports.
Unlike him/her/it, I'm not so arrogant as to think that everything I
decide to print should be cluttering up the environment for the next 100
years. Many of the things I print will be destroyed after they've served
their purpose, in less than a year. Most of the rest will be unneeded
after less than 10 years. The few things I want to last longer than
that, I'll get professionally done and store them accordingly. What need
do I have of 100-year ink?

very

OK, I'll amend this. I know next to nothing about the photography
business. That doesn't mean I don't know anything about business or
customer service and it doesn't mean I'm blind. I know what I see with
my own eyes.

This is one of their logic statements. Well Ron tell your customer that
when the photo fades to ship it back to you at your expense and you will
take the frame apart and print another one and then ship it back to them
also at your expense and see how much money you make. :'(

Again, this wasn't a professional job. There was no time for a
professional, and really no need. I scanned a memorable 4 x 6-inch
snapshot of my brother, then printed an 8 x 10 for display. Maybe it was
because I was looking at my brother enjoying himself, but it looked
great at the time, and it still does.

In NO way do I think that Ron should start printing photos he's selling
to customers for "hundreds of dollars" at home with the cheapest ink he
can find. In fact I started my original post with a statement to that
very effect. (Look at the quoted part of my post. You'll see it.) The
way Ron runs his life and business is up to him. The way I run mine is
up to ME.
TJ

 

[frank]

In truth, as TJ (and everyone else) already knows, nobody really gives a
shit about either of you.
Frank

 

[OldNick]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:02:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"

I have no opinion about which inks are best. I don't know Ron from a
bar of soap. I have no vested interest besides having to use ink in
arguing the case.

But AAAARGH! Maybe you can't see the fading in your inks because you
are blind!

I quote from Ron about 3 posts back. Asterisks are mine:
"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."

He then repeated this in a later post in response to your ignorant
attack on him for selling photos from a home printer!.

You use compatible ink in your Canon iP8500 and have praised it. Now
you read an article in a magazine and change your mind that easily? I'm
starting to smell a troll.

Then you attacked him about using ink in a printer he never owned.
Then when corrected you simply rephrased it to include the printer you
should have read properly in the first place. You say he praised 3rd
party stuff, and then suddnely changed his mind. Now here I am not
sure, but can you quote his praise? I tend toward Ron right now,
reading your ignorant way of posting.

What is your real reason for starting this thread? My guess is you like
negative attention.

You seem unable to give any other sort, no matter what his reasons.

BTW. In a later post you hit him with a real beaut! "What are your
test parameters?" They were not his test....get it?

 

[Ron]

Dear me...how paranoid some of you are. If you do a google on this group you
will see that in the past I was initially very supportive/pro aftermarket
inks and refilling my own. I thought that highlighting a recent study, that
I came across, would be informative to many on this newsgroup and would
provide a warning/caution for anyone contemplating printing to
archival/commercial standards etc. First and foremost don't misquote me. I
DO NOT PRINT PHOTOS FOR SALE ON A HOME PRINTER, at this stage. After I sell
more framed/enlarged photos then I will contemplate purchasing an upmarket
epson (?2400 model) or one of the to be released canon A3+ printers, after
seeing how it performs, how prints hold up to sunlight etc. Letting some of
you guys into a little secret: many pro photographers print on top of the
line home printers, such as the epson 1800 and the epson 2400 etc., at
home/place of business. They are extremely fussy in the printer they choose
and the papers they print on. They don't use after market inks (except for a
wedding photographer, who quickly learned his lesson after being hassled big
time for faded prints - he reverted very quickly back to the original ink
cartridges). Furthermore, these photographers, calibrate their monitors and
their printers for the optimum results. I could not care less what ink
anyone uses in their printers. My post was to warn/caution others that if
you want quality, long lasting prints then stick to the vendors original
inks. If there was a consistent, very high quality aftermarket ink that did
not fade and did no damage to my print head I would knock you guys over in
the rush to purchase it in the gallons.

I have turned a hobby (commenced photography 3 years ago, without a lesson
in my life) into a viable concern. My first exhibition received rave
reviews. I am passionate about my hobby and what I am selling should be of
the highest quality/value that I can provide and give lasting enjoyment to
the purchaser.

So, settle down all. We live and learn. What may serve one persons' purpose
may be totally inappropraite for another person. 'Different strokes for
different folks'.

 

[Ron]

Thanks for clarifying the below OldNick.

Cheers

Ron

 

[Ron]

I have lived and learned a lot since then Michael. I have a folder full of
A4 photos, protected from sunlight - printed on 'supposedly the best
aftermarket inks' that show fading already.

Any reputable pro that prints with inferior inks would soon revert back to
original inks after being hassled by aggro customers waving faded photos in
their faces. Have a look on numerous other forums of photographers (who sell
their work) advising against using aftermarket inks.

To reiterate, what inks you use is your choice. I have travelled down that
road, and for my purposes, selling quality enlarged photographs it's a no
brainer.

Cheers all

Ron from Downunder

 

[Ron]

Measekite I think that is why canon has prolonged the release date to work
on creating a top quality pigment ink that does not clog the printheads. If
the about to be released dye based ink did not suffer from fading, over
time, then that also would be a top printer. At this stage still hedging my
bets.

I am not overly concerned about the irate responses to my posts. I am a
Vietnam veteran and have been a psychiatric nurse for 30 years. This mob are
pussies compared to the people I work with

Cheers

Ron from Downunder.

 

[measekite]

Anybody with any sense who buys a photo to be framed behind museum
glass won't buy one that's been printed on a home printer.

That is a real dumb farmer statement. You go to an art show and you see
framed photos. You do not know what museum glass or any other kind of
glass is and you know nothing technical about phtography. You see the
artwork you like and some of the ones you like does not have any
reflections and the artwork looks better. It costs about $50.00 more
and you are on vacation so what the hell you just buy it. You do not
ask what it was printed with. You do not ask what camera and lense took
the picture. You do not ask what paper it was printed on. All you know
is you liked it.

Maybe it was a picture of Old MacDonals Farm. Or it was a photo of a
chicken and you just love chicken.

Accelerated testing procedures have their place, but I'd be careful
when applying the results to the Real World. Nobody REALLY knows that
pigmented inks will last 100 years,

And no adult really cares since you are not going to live that long and
neither are your offspring.

 

[measekite]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:02:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"

I have no opinion about which inks are best. I don't know Ron from a
bar of soap. I have no vested interest besides having to use ink in
arguing the case.

But AAAARGH! Maybe you can't see the fading in your inks because you
are blind!

The generic ink trolls are blind. They cannot see anything except what
they think they save that most do not.

I quote from Ron about 3 posts back. Asterisks are mine:
"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."

He then repeated this in a later post in response to your ignorant
attack on him for selling photos from a home printer!.

Oh Yeah -- Sock it to them. Notice now that a few posters a telling the
truth the crankie generic ink trolls are scurrying into the wood work.

Then you attacked him about using ink in a printer he never owned.
Then when corrected you simply rephrased it to include the printer you
should have read properly in the first place. You say he praised 3rd
party stuff, and then suddnely changed his mind. Now here I am not
sure, but can you quote his praise? I tend toward Ron right now,
reading your ignorant way of posting.

Sock it to em Sock it to em Oh Yeah

You seem unable to give any other sort, no matter what his reasons.

Thats just what they do

BTW. In a later post you hit him with a real beaut! "What are your
test parameters?" They were not his test....get it?

They never will cause they have some kind of an interest in protecting
the relabelers.

 

[measekite]

Dear me...how paranoid some of you are.

That what I have been saying and now others are beginning to believe me.

If you do a google on this group you
will see that in the past I was initially very supportive/pro aftermarket
inks and refilling my own.

I told you then that it was probably a mistake but it took you some time
and some additional research. But that is ok. In the beginning I was
hoping that what the trolls were saying was correct but after reading
many many reputable reviews from very reputable sources like yourself I
agree.

However, if I had a very high printload and I was able to find generic
ink carts that had a reasonable life as to fading and I could get at
least a year out of a printer before it clogged I might be able to
justify it economically if the inital print quality was near OEM so I
could at least say it was acceptable. But here almost two years later
that is not the case. Plus I really do not want to support
unprofessional companies that will not even tell me what I am buying.
Why if you have a problem with Vendor A's crap and you go to buy a
different label from Vendor B you might be getting the same exact thing
and have more problems.

I thought that highlighting a recent study, that
I came across, would be informative to many on this newsgroup

These trolls already knew about that and they twisted the report and
denied the results because it conflicted with their religious views.

and would
provide a warning/caution for anyone contemplating printing to
archival/commercial standards etc.

You just gotta be kidding

First and foremost don't misquote me. I
DO NOT PRINT PHOTOS FOR SALE ON A HOME PRINTER, at this stage. After I sell
more framed/enlarged photos then I will contemplate purchasing an upmarket
epson (?2400 model)

That is not a good choice if you plan on printing glossy, pearl and matt
papers because you will use about $75.00 of ink you need to purge out of
the print and that is for a one way trip. Read the comparison between
the IFS 12 color Canon and the 4800 Epson. The only bad thing on the
Canon is that it will only print borderless prints (according to the
Canon site) on roll paper. I wish that was not the case but I cannot
see me spending $2,000 on a printer.

The soon to be released Pro9500 might be an answer but it will not print
a 16x20.

or one of the to be released canon A3+ printers, after
seeing how it performs, how prints hold up to sunlight etc. Letting some of
you guys into a little secret: many pro photographers print on top of the
line home printers, such as the epson 1800 and the epson 2400 etc.,

While the 1800 does not use the somewhat better K3 inks that the 2400
uses and the b/w prints may not be quite as good the nice thing about
the 1800 is the gloss optomizer and the fact that you do not have to
swap out and purge black ink to switch from glossy paper to matte. And
what you would use for Pearl, Luster, and Semigloss I do not know. I
think that the PRo 9500 Canon might be a worth competitior especially if
they use the new Canon Lucia inks.

However the jury is still out on the CLI inks of the Pro9000 at to
archival worthyness. I am sure the results are as stunning as tyhe
i9000 that it replaces.

at
home/place of business. They are extremely fussy in the printer they choose
and the papers they print on. They don't use after market inks (except for a
wedding photographer, who quickly learned his lesson after being hassled big
time for faded prints -

I am glad he got what he deserved. Now I have a friend who uses and
Epson dye printer and he uses aftermarket inks and we argue all of the
time about this. His view is that even though the results are not as
good as Epson inks he finds them acceptable and does not care about the
fading. He will just reprint. As for the clogging he is able to run
cleaning cycles and has been fortunate in getting it unclogged. He
knows some of his cost saving are plowed back into declogging the machine.

He is a professional wedding photographer but he uses an outside lab to
print his professiopnal work. I have seen results on the walls of his
home and the print quality is not that great and I do notice fading.
Initially the colors are not as vibrant.

he reverted very quickly back to the original ink
cartridges). Furthermore, these photographers, calibrate their monitors and
their printers for the optimum results. I could not care less what ink
anyone uses in their printers. My post was to warn/caution others that if
you want quality, long lasting prints then stick to the vendors original
inks. If there was a consistent, very high quality aftermarket ink that did
not fade and did no damage to my print head I would knock you guys over in
the rush to purchase it in the gallons.

That is what I am hoping for. You did forget one thing. The carts are
now chipped and patented and the gernic companys need to figure this out
legally even if they had great ink which they do not. I for one to not
like the mess and inconvenience of refilling but would consider generic
carts if they were cheap enought and had the quality you mention.

I have turned a hobby (commenced photography 3 years ago, without a lesson
in my life) into a viable concern. My first exhibition received rave
reviews. I am passionate about my hobby and what I am selling should be of
the highest quality/value that I can provide and give lasting enjoyment to
the purchaser.

Good for you

So, settle down all. We live and learn. What may serve one persons' purpose
may be totally inappropraite for another person. 'Different strokes for
different folks'.

The one thing you forgot to mention is that some of these poster must be
lying because what they say is totally impossible.

 

[measekite]

I have lived and learned a lot since then Michael. I have a folder full of
A4 photos, protected from sunlight - printed on 'supposedly the best
aftermarket inks' that show fading already.

Any reputable pro that prints with inferior inks would soon revert back to
original inks after being hassled by aggro customers waving faded photos in
their faces. Have a look on numerous other forums of photographers (who sell
their work) advising against using aftermarket inks.

Which forums are these. I would like to read about them.

To reiterate, what inks you use is your choice. I have travelled down that
road, and for my purposes, selling quality enlarged photographs it's a no
brainer.

Thanks to people like you who have posted here and were driven off by
the trolls I was able to not make that mistake. It was tempting but I
finally came to me senses.

 

[measekite]

Measekite I think that is why canon has prolonged the release date to work
on creating a top quality pigment ink that does not clog the printheads. If
the about to be released dye based ink did not suffer from fading, over
time, then that also would be a top printer. At this stage still hedging my
bets.

I am not overly concerned about the irate responses to my posts. I am a
Vietnam veteran and have been a psychiatric nurse for 30 years. This mob are
pussies compared to the people I work with

What I fail to understand is that with absolute proof put right in their
face they continue to preach their diatribe and deny that the sun is
shining at high noon. Are these people mental cases or just religious
fundamentalists.