Real-world ink longevity test, Part 2

[TJ]

Many of the customers at my open-air farm market are local people that
we've known for years, and they often inquire about our activities in
the off-season. I've created a small display of vacation photos, and
placed them on a counter where those who wish to view them, can. Even
with customers we haven't known for years, it reinforces our coveted
family farm image, and aids in sales.

The photos I print for the display are printed on plain paper, using the
same aftermarket ink I described in a previous thread, in an HP PSC 2110
printer. They are put inside transparent plastic sign holders, and
placed on a counter. They are in a partially shaded area, receiving full
sun for about five hours a day and shade for six hours. They are put
away if it rains, but sometimes that doesn't happen as quickly as it
might. That's the reason for using plain paper and aftermarket ink - the
display conditions aren't conducive to long-term storage.

Noticeable fading and color shift occur after about a week, quicker in
hot weather. But, it's a simple matter to print replacements, and
they're cheap. I'm curious, though... How long would HP OEM inks hold up
under these conditions? My guess would be not much longer - for the
standard dye-based inks for this printer, anyway - but never having
wanted to waste the money to do a test, I wouldn't know from personal
experience.

TJ

 

[tomm42]

Many of the customers at my open-air farm market are local people that
we've known for years, and they often inquire about our activities in
the off-season. I've created a small display of vacation photos, and
placed them on a counter where those who wish to view them, can. Even
with customers we haven't known for years, it reinforces our coveted
family farm image, and aids in sales.

The photos I print for the display are printed on plain paper, using the
same aftermarket ink I described in a previous thread, in an HP PSC 2110
printer. They are put inside transparent plastic sign holders, and
placed on a counter. They are in a partially shaded area, receiving full
sun for about five hours a day and shade for six hours. They are put
away if it rains, but sometimes that doesn't happen as quickly as it
might. That's the reason for using plain paper and aftermarket ink - the
display conditions aren't conducive to long-term storage.

Noticeable fading and color shift occur after about a week, quicker in
hot weather. But, it's a simple matter to print replacements, and
they're cheap. I'm curious, though... How long would HP OEM inks hold up
under these conditions? My guess would be not much longer - for the
standard dye-based inks for this printer, anyway - but never having
wanted to waste the money to do a test, I wouldn't know from personal
experience.

TJ

Given the conditions HP inks from a B9180 on photo paper would
probably last you a season. HP designjet dye inks HPDJ 900, 1300 maybe
a season. HP OEM dye inks from a little letter sized desktop not much
longer than what you have. But you will definitly do better with the
pro type printers, and the prints would look a lot better. I really
gag over prints done on plain paper, just awful.

Tom

 

[Burt]

Many of the customers at my open-air farm market are local people that
we've known for years, and they often inquire about our activities in the
off-season. I've created a small display of vacation photos, and placed
them on a counter where those who wish to view them, can. Even with
customers we haven't known for years, it reinforces our coveted family
farm image, and aids in sales.

The photos I print for the display are printed on plain paper, using the
same aftermarket ink I described in a previous thread, in an HP PSC 2110
printer. They are put inside transparent plastic sign holders, and placed
on a counter. They are in a partially shaded area, receiving full sun for
about five hours a day and shade for six hours. They are put away if it
rains, but sometimes that doesn't happen as quickly as it might. That's
the reason for using plain paper and aftermarket ink - the display
conditions aren't conducive to long-term storage.

Noticeable fading and color shift occur after about a week, quicker in hot
weather. But, it's a simple matter to print replacements, and they're
cheap. I'm curious, though... How long would HP OEM inks hold up under
these conditions? My guess would be not much longer - for the standard
dye-based inks for this printer, anyway - but never having wanted to waste
the money to do a test, I wouldn't know from personal experience.

TJ

I don't have personal experience with HP inkjets, but, if I remember
correctly, Willhelm's evaluations rated HP OEM dye-based inks as much
better than Canon's and close to the Epson pigment-based inks for fade
resistance. Someone please correct me if this is not right.

 

[Burt]

Given the conditions HP inks from a B9180 on photo paper would
probably last you a season. HP designjet dye inks HPDJ 900, 1300 maybe
a season. HP OEM dye inks from a little letter sized desktop not much
longer than what you have. But you will definitly do better with the
pro type printers, and the prints would look a lot better. I really
gag over prints done on plain paper, just awful.

Tom

If you do nothing else, consider buying inkjet matte paper that has a proper
coating for producing excellent inkjet prints. One of the best I have used
is Staples photo supreme double sided matte paper which is presently on sale
two-for-one. I have purchased it on rare occasion for about $2 a pack of 50
sheets. Our Sunday paper includes ads from the big box office supply
stores - if your paper does the same you can watch for that sale item to
come up and buy several pack.

 

[TJ]

I guess it is OK for you to use crap since you do not really care about
quality. I am quite sure after reading this that you get what you pay for.

I'm so glad I have your permission. I can now wipe my brow in relief.

Now that is being cheap.

Nope. It's just that an OEM test of this sort is very low on my list of
spending priorities. Tell you what, though - if you pay the health
insurance bill I got the other day, I'll spring for the cost of a couple
of OEM carts for an extensive test. Or maybe my next gasoline delivery -
that should be about 200 gallons. How about the property tax bill I
should be getting next week?

TJ

 

[Jim Ford]

If you do nothing else, consider buying inkjet matte paper that has a proper
coating for producing excellent inkjet prints. One of the best I have used
is Staples photo supreme double sided matte paper which is presently on sale
two-for-one. I have purchased it on rare occasion for about $2 a pack of 50
sheets.

As usual in 'Rip off U.K.' we pay through the nose for photographic
supplies - £7 ($14) for 25 sheets of Staples Photo Supreme, gloss or satin!

Jim Ford

 

[Burt]

As usual in 'Rip off U.K.' we pay through the nose for photographic
supplies - £7 ($14) for 25 sheets of Staples Photo Supreme, gloss or
satin!

Jim Ford

Generally, Glossy or satin finish papers cost more than inkjet coated matte
paper. I have used several brands, including Epson, Kodak, and Staples.
Any one of these produces better, more saturated photo prints than plain
paper. I don't know if any stores in the UK run periodic sales, but that is
what I would look for. The paper I mentioned, Staples photo supreme double
sided paper, sells for about $12 for 50 sheets when not on sale. I like
this particular paper because the weight is a reasonably stiff card stock
and is suitable for greeting cards printed on bothsides. I also bought some
Kodak matte paper when our local Costco carried it. I use it for other
projects that don't require the heavier weight stock. Unfortunely, Costco
only carried it for a short time. It was a great buy.

 

[Al Bundy]

I guess it is OK for you to use crap since you do not really care about
quality. I am quite sure after reading this that you get what you pay for.> . But, it's a simple matter to print replacements, and they're cheap.

Now that is being cheap.

Some of us really don't care about quality. We care more about
production cost. A newspaper only needs to last a short time for
example. I'm buying Chinese dye based ink for $1/oz. and the stuff is
working great in Canon printers. I do have some very old pictures that
have not faded noticeably, but they don't see any sun either. OEM ink
would not help me in any way that I can see.

 

[measekite]

Many of the customers at my open-air farm market are local people that
we've known for years, and they often inquire about our activities in
the off-season. I've created a small display of vacation photos, and
placed them on a counter where those who wish to view them, can. Even
with customers we haven't known for years, it reinforces our coveted
family farm image, and aids in sales.

The photos I print for the display are printed on plain paper, using
the same aftermarket ink I described in a previous thread, in an HP
PSC 2110 printer. They are put inside transparent plastic sign
holders, and placed on a counter. They are in a partially shaded area,
receiving full sun for about five hours a day and shade for six hours.
They are put away if it rains, but sometimes that doesn't happen as
quickly as it might. That's the reason for using plain paper and
aftermarket ink - the display conditions aren't conducive to long-term
storage.

Noticeable fading and color shift occur after about a week, quicker in
hot weather

I guess it is OK for you to use crap since you do not really care about
quality. I am quite sure after reading this that you get what you pay for.

 

[measekite]

tomm42 wrote:

On Aug 30, 8:56 am, TJ <[email protected]> wrote:



Many of the customers at my open-air farm market are local people that we've known for years, and they often inquire about our activities in the off-season. I've created a small display of vacation photos, and placed them on a counter where those who wish to view them, can. Even with customers we haven't known for years, it reinforces our coveted family farm image, and aids in sales. The photos I print for the display are printed on plain paper, using the same aftermarket ink I described in a previous thread, in an HP PSC 2110 printer. They are put inside transparent plastic sign holders, and placed on a counter. They are in a partially shaded area, receiving full sun for about five hours a day and shade for six hours. They are put away if it rains, but sometimes that doesn't happen as quickly as it might. That's the reason for using plain paper and aftermarket ink - the display conditions aren't conducive to long-term storage. Noticeable fading and color shift occur after about a week, quicker in hot weather. But, it's a simple matter to print replacements, and they're cheap. I'm curious, though... How long would HP OEM inks hold up under these conditions? My guess would be not much longer - for the standard dye-based inks for this printer, anyway - but never having wanted to waste the money to do a test, I wouldn't know from personal experience. TJ --



Given the conditions HP inks from a B9180 on photo paper would probably last you a season. HP designjet dye inks HPDJ 900, 1300 maybe a season. HP OEM dye inks from a little letter sized desktop not much longer than what you have. But you will definitly do better with the pro type printers, and the prints would look a lot better. I really gag over prints done on plain paper, just awful.


But you do not understand him.  It costs less. ha ha ha


Tom

 

[zakezuke]

I don't have personal experience with HP inkjets, but, if I remember
correctly, Willhelm's evaluations rated HP OEM dye-based inks as much
better than Canon's and close to the Epson pigment-based inks for fade
resistance. Someone please correct me if this is not right.

Vivera inks were tested by Willhelm.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8450.html

They were rated at being pretty stellar using swellable polymer
papers. Not so well on other papers.

 

[TJ]

Vivera inks were tested by Willhelm.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8450.html

They were rated at being pretty stellar using swellable polymer
papers. Not so well on other papers.

I just read the report, and I noticed two things:

First, Page 3 and Page 4 are identical. Obviously, Wilhelm isn't infallible.

Second, no tests were done on plain-paper prints displayed under
plastic, outside, in partial shade. In fact, no tests on any kind of
paper were done under those conditions.

I maintain my position on using less expensive materials for this
purpose. If prints are to be placed in a position where the chance of
destruction is relatively high, using top-quality materials is
economically foolish.

TJ

 

[measekite]

I'm so glad I have your permission. I can now wipe my brow in relief.



Nope. It's just that an OEM test of this sort is very low on my list
of spending priorities. Tell you what, though - if you pay the health
insurance bill I got the other day, I'll spring for the cost of a
couple of OEM carts for an extensive test. Or maybe my next gasoline
delivery - that should be about 200 gallons. How about the property
tax bill I should be getting next week?

TJ

This much I am sure. Like all of us when you buy gas or insurance you
do it by bending over.

 

[measekite]

Some of us really don't care about quality. We care more about
production cost.

I agree with you. It seems the user who purchase crap ink from the
unprofessional webbers who refuse to disclose what you are getting all
do not care about quality. That is ok and when they admit that is the
case I can respect them. But it is the church goers and the evangalists
that get me goat. The holier than thou types.It is like Forgive me I
have sinned and then they says this every day.

A newspaper only needs to last a short time for
example. I'm buying Chinese dye based ink for $1/oz. and the stuff is
working great in Canon printers.

Now Now. You just inferred you do not care about quality.

I do have some very old pictures that
have not faded noticeably, but they don't see any sun either. OEM ink
would not help me in any way that I can see.

I guess you cannot see better quality

 

[zakezuke]

I maintain my position on using less expensive materials for this
purpose. If prints are to be placed in a position where the chance of
destruction is relatively high, using top-quality materials is
economically foolish.

That is a perfectly reasonable position.

The only alternatives I can think of

1) Use pigment inks, plain / matte paper. Epson has cheap printers
which use pigment ink which actually will provide good protection from
fading. We are talking $50 for a referb c88. There is also
aftermarket ink for this model.
2) Use more expensive paper.
3) Spray your prints

But I don't see OEM dye based in as being a stellar investment. I'm
sure it'll be less prone to fading but for plain paper I don't see it
being worth 2x to 9x the cost.

 

[Burt]

That is a perfectly reasonable position.

The only alternatives I can think of

1) Use pigment inks, plain / matte paper. Epson has cheap printers
which use pigment ink which actually will provide good protection from
fading. We are talking $50 for a referb c88. There is also
aftermarket ink for this model.
2) Use more expensive paper.
3) Spray your prints

But I don't see OEM dye based in as being a stellar investment. I'm
sure it'll be less prone to fading but for plain paper I don't see it
being worth 2x to 9x the cost.

I would still consider looking for coated matte inkjet paper on sale. I
have also read that matte paper prints are more stable than other photo
papers. That plus the more vivid prints.

 

[zakezuke]

I agree with you. It seems the user who purchase crap ink from the
unprofessional webbers who refuse to disclose what you are getting all
do not care about quality. That is ok and when they admit that is the
case I can respect them. But it is the church goers and the evangalists
that get me goat. The holier than thou types.It is like Forgive me I
have sinned and then they says this every day.

I really don't think there is an issue with the users of this group
who use aftermarket ink. People like my self who have had a positive
experience share it with others. I don't pretend that the stuff I use
stands up to OEM for longevity but for my main application, which is
for CD/DVD labeling... it's most adquate.

I guess you cannot see better quality

That's the thing... in many cases you can't actually see a quality
difference. You really can't. And the links you flood the group
with, for pigment text printing there isn't much real world
difference.

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

zakezuke wrote: my main application, which is

for CD/DVD labeling... it's most adquate.

I'm interested in printing on my CDs. I buy coated CD blanks because
with the white coating, they're easier to read and also easy to write on
with water-based felt tip pens.

What kind of printer do you use and/or recommend. I'm in the USA, so
that could be an issue as well in terms of corporate rights to the
process. I'm interested in a used printer.

Thanks.

Richard

 

[zakezuke]

On Sep 1, 1:15 pm, Richard Steinfeld

I'm interested in printing on my CDs. I buy coated CD blanks because
with the white coating, they're easier to read and also easy to write on
with water-based felt tip pens.

What kind of printer do you use and/or recommend. I'm in the USA, so
that could be an issue as well in terms of corporate rights to the
process. I'm interested in a used printer.

I use a Canon. I'm also in the USA. CD printing on the canon isn't
an issue with consumer corporate rights, but rather it seems Canon
doesn't want to shell out money to Philips to sell it here with the
feature.

But right now you have a few options
1) Epson for $100 you can get the r280 which supports CD printing
off the bat. Note not the r260. The epson store offers referb models
under $100 which sport the eature.
I found this epson class to be a steller photo printer, but I did
have some issues with it when I started to hit the 400 cd mark.
Others have enjoyed greater luck. As a photo printer it's pretty
stellar.
Rather low entry cost. at least offered in the r2xx/3xx and r8xx
series as well as at least one all in one unit. The Epson store
offers referb units often costing the same or less than the cost of
OEM ink. It's strength IMHO was white text on a black background.

2) HP - They entered the market rather late, so the software options
are more limted, HP D5160 is the only model i'm aware of, I don't
know if it'll take the #96 tank.
I already had a model selected, so I have less objective data on
this model. It takes the older #90 series of cartridges (head on the
cartridge/multi color), rather than the new #02 ink tank series. On
the other hand, the 3 multi color tank models like the hp 8750
reviewed better than the newer 6 tank models.
This model at least can take a pigment black cart for your text
printing, whether it can use that on CDs is an interesting question.
I like HP's object oriented printed, as in it understands this block
is a batch of text, this block is a graphic image. Lowest entry
cost. I see this model for only $50 in some circles, a MSRP of
$100ish.

3) Canon - Canon is an early player in this market, the feature is
disabled on US models but it's easily enabled.
This is what I selected after my first failure with the r200 and
I found my self mucking with the printer more than I was actually
printing. My CD count was over 800 before I had issues and I had
already upgraded to another model.
Near as I'm aware, Canon offers the most models. The ip3300 is
the base entry level which is a decent general purpose printer (ip3500
soon to be released). The ip4300/4500 is a stellar general purpose
printer with decent text and great photo printing. They have all in
one units as well including the the sub $250 ip830 with fax and
document feeder.
While my canon experience has been positive, I can't say I'm
ultra critical of canon's driver development, paper support, and the
simple fact that there has not been much improvement with the ink it
self over the past 10 years. I'm also critical of their multifunction
printers in the fact that there really isn't a well thought out
software suite, and fax support is limited. What I am pleased about
is the ease of refilling, though disgruntled over the chips, and the
fact that unlike the Epson you can remove and replace the head.
You'll have to add $20 to $30 to the base price of a Canon to
enable cd printing in the US. It's strength was text.
The entry cost varies depending on the season, new tends to be a
better deal than used esp with issues like chipped tanks. But still
the ip3500 seems to float at about $80 presently, the ip4300 also at
$80 to $100 making way for the newer ip4500 model. The ip4500 seems
to be stuck at about $130, but this model class tends to hover $80-
$100.

It's hard to advice you one way or the other without knowing anything
about what your needs are. I went with the canon. Ease of refilling
was a must. It was the only general purpose printer at the time.
While a replacement head is 2/3 the value of the machine, by the time
it's an issue you'd be wise to at least consider a new model, or
consider it cost of operation about $2 above and beyond each cartridge
change, and if you get beyond 10 changes each color it's a bonus.
I've seen about 13 - 16 my self, others as high as 20.

 

[Burt]

nonsensical BS, and then "But it is the church goers and the evangalists
that get me goat." Then, more nonsense.

Praise the Lord - I thought I was on the printer newsgroup, but I see that
I've stumbled onto the Church of InkyStinky Lies Chat Room. Praytell,
brother Troll, did they "get your goat' to perform an animal sacrifice?

Frankly, Ankystanky, no one wants your goat, or your misinformation,
or...you.

a sensible
reply