The true cost of printing ink ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Red Fox
  • Start date Start date
Ray said:
I do a fair amount of printing and in an effort to keep down printing
costs I have tried aftermarket ink. I noticed that photographs that I
printed and hung on the wall unprotected started looking pretty bad in
a couple of months. Being a retired engineer I enjoy testing. I
bought G&G, Atlas Copy, MIS, and Inktec ink. The control were BCI6
and CLI8 ink from Canon. I printed color stripes at 25, 50, 75, and
100% saturation of cyan, magenta, yellow and black on Epson, Canon,
Costco, and Kodak paper. Gray scale provides a quick check for color
match. Since below 80% gray is printed with color ink, the closer it
is to gray the better the match.

The printed samples were exposed to a 5 watt UV lamp for up to 4 hours
with half of each sample exposed. The other half was protected. The
worst samples were almost colorless after 4 hours. I then compared
the samples to check relative fading. The Canon CLI8 ink was less
than twice as fade resistant as compared to the BCI6. The next best
performer was MIS which faded about 20 times faster than the CLI8 ink.
The other inks faded somewhat worse, with different colors fading
most. MIS had the best color match, G&G was pretty bad on the cyan.
Except for the Kodak paper which did poorly there was not too much
difference in the paper. I rated them Canon worst, Costco next, and
Epson Premium Glossy the best.

So my solution is one printer for throw away's which I refill with MIS
ink, and one printer with CLI8 ink for photos. I have prints with the
CLI8 ink that have been hung for a year that look as good as recently
printed ones and MIS prints of the same vintage that look truly
horrible because of fading and color shift.

From my tests and those posted on Nifty Forum I have not seen any
aftermarket ink that is any near as fade resistant as the Canon. I
would love to be proven wrong.

I have the samples that I tested and could post them when I come back
from my 6 month vacation in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Hey, what ever floats your boat.
YMMV as it is said.
Frank
 
[email protected] wrote:





I have a Canon IP5000. I have tried a number of aftermarket inks. While the color match is not too bad I have yet to find one that has fade resistance of the Canon product. I refill for my non critical work. Can you tell me of a bulk ink that has fade resistance that is comparable to Canon?- Hide quoted text -



Ray, Please tell me your results on which aftermaket ink you actually tried. I want to know how your aftermarket ink result were. I'm specifially looking for comparing OEM ink with aftermarket for PHOTOS only. I know somebody who tried Hobbicolors and they have very easy system with virgin catridges included, excellent price, excellent customer service, however the photos make a person with black hair look like grey hair. I'm looking for another vendor. Right now I'm leaning towards somebody who sells Image Specialist. Stan


If you want the very best aftermarket ink then look at Pantone.  Their ink may be as close in quality to Canon as there is.
 
Ray wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:13:52 -0000, [email protected] wrote:







I have a Canon IP5000. I have tried a number of aftermarket inks. While the color match is not too bad I have yet to find one that has fade resistance of the Canon product. I refill for my non critical work. Can you tell me of a bulk ink that has fade resistance that is comparable to Canon?- Hide quoted text -



Ray, Please tell me your results on which aftermaket ink you actually tried. I want to know how your aftermarket ink result were. I'm specifially looking for comparing OEM ink with aftermarket for PHOTOS only. I know somebody who tried Hobbicolors and they have very easy system with virgin catridges included, excellent price, excellent customer service, however the photos make a person with black hair look like grey hair. I'm looking for another vendor. Right now I'm leaning towards somebody who sells Image Specialist. Stan



I do a fair amount of printing and in an effort to keep down printing costs I have tried aftermarket ink. I noticed that photographs that I printed and hung on the wall unprotected started looking pretty bad in a couple of months.


I have done the same thing with my Canon IP4000 using OEM ink.  My prints, some hanging in a kitchen and others in a bright room show no sign of fading in over 6 months.


Being a retired engineer I enjoy testing. I bought G&G, Atlas Copy, MIS, and Inktec ink. The control were BCI6 and CLI8 ink from Canon. I printed color stripes at 25, 50, 75, and 100% saturation of cyan, magenta, yellow and black on Epson, Canon, Costco, and Kodak paper. Gray scale provides a quick check for color match. Since below 80% gray is printed with color ink, the closer it is to gray the better the match. The printed samples were exposed to a 5 watt UV lamp for up to 4 hours with half of each sample exposed. The other half was protected. The worst samples were almost colorless after 4 hours. I then compared the samples to check relative fading. The Canon CLI8 ink was less than twice as fade resistant as compared to the BCI6. The next best




performer was MIS which faded about 20 times faster than the CLI8 ink.

Why do many know it alls deny these facts.


The other inks faded somewhat worse, with different colors fading most. MIS had the best color match, G&G was pretty bad on the cyan. Except for the




Kodak paper which did poorly

Here that Ron


there was not too much difference in the paper. I rated them Canon worst, Costco next, and Epson Premium Glossy the best. So my solution is one printer for throw away's which I refill with MIS ink, and one printer with CLI8 ink for photos.


That makes sense.  Use low grade ink for stuff you do not care about and the good Canon stuff for photos that are meaningful.  As long as the crap ink does not clog your printer.


I have prints with the CLI8 ink that have been hung for a year that look as good as recently printed ones and MIS prints of the same vintage that look truly horrible because of fading and color shift.


Now that is purtie interesting.


From my tests and those posted on Nifty Forum I have not seen any aftermarket ink that is any near as fade resistant as the Canon. I would love to be proven wrong.

You will not be.  Now that forum is made up of relabelers and their followers.


I have the samples that I tested and could post them when I come back from my 6 month vacation in Hawaii.


I really believe what you are telling us.
 
measekite said:
I have done the same thing with my Canon IP4000 using OEM ink. My
prints, some hanging in a kitchen and others in a bright room show no
sign of fading in over 6 months.


Why do many know it alls deny these facts.


Here that Ron


That makes sense. Use low grade ink for stuff you do not care about and
the good Canon stuff for photos that are meaningful. As long as the
crap ink does not clog your printer.


Now that is purtie interesting.

You will not be. Now that forum is made up of relabelers and their
followers.


I really believe what you are telling us.
Click to expand...


Maybe you two should get a room, huh?
Frank
 
measekite said:
If you want the very best aftermarket ink then look at Pantone. Their
ink may be as close in quality to Canon as there is.
Click to expand...

So you think canon is the best ink?
Of course you do. So why don't any...any...of the real professional
photographers use it, huh?
Well meashershithead...you stupid moron...care to answer that question?
Frank
 
I didn't see the cartridge before I bought the printer and I did not
mind a dinky cartridge - it's the high cost for that cartridge that
bugged me.
Click to expand...

You should have also researched the cost of replacement ink cartridges when
you bought the printer, and realised that the larger the ink-tak, the
better the value, as is the head-in-printer systems.
 
Yes, I 'hear' but the paragraph below your reference seems to indicate otherwise?


Ray wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:13:52 -0000, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

I have a Canon IP5000. I have tried a number of aftermarket inks.
While the color match is not too bad I have yet to find one that has
fade resistance of the Canon product. I refill for my non critical
work. Can you tell me of a bulk ink that has fade resistance that is
comparable to Canon?- Hide quoted text -
Ray,
Please tell me your results on which aftermaket ink you actually
tried. I want to know how your aftermarket ink result were. I'm
specifially looking for comparing OEM ink with aftermarket for PHOTOS
only.

I know somebody who tried Hobbicolors and they have very easy system
with virgin catridges included, excellent price, excellent customer
service, however the photos make a person with black hair look like
grey hair. I'm looking for another vendor. Right now I'm leaning
towards somebody who sells Image Specialist.

Stan



I do a fair amount of printing and in an effort to keep down printing
costs I have tried aftermarket ink. I noticed that photographs that I
printed and hung on the wall unprotected started looking pretty bad in
a couple of months.
I have done the same thing with my Canon IP4000 using OEM ink. My prints, some hanging in a kitchen and others in a bright room show no sign of fading in over 6 months.

Being a retired engineer I enjoy testing. I
bought G&G, Atlas Copy, MIS, and Inktec ink. The control were BCI6
and CLI8 ink from Canon. I printed color stripes at 25, 50, 75, and
100% saturation of cyan, magenta, yellow and black on Epson, Canon,
Costco, and Kodak paper. Gray scale provides a quick check for color
match. Since below 80% gray is printed with color ink, the closer it
is to gray the better the match.

The printed samples were exposed to a 5 watt UV lamp for up to 4 hours
with half of each sample exposed. The other half was protected. The
worst samples were almost colorless after 4 hours. I then compared
the samples to check relative fading. The Canon CLI8 ink was less
than twice as fade resistant as compared to the BCI6. The next best


performer was MIS which faded about 20 times faster than the CLI8 ink.
Why do many know it alls deny these facts.

The other inks faded somewhat worse, with different colors fading
most. MIS had the best color match, G&G was pretty bad on the cyan.
Except for the

Kodak paper which did poorly Here that Ron

there was not too much
difference in the paper. I rated them Canon worst, Costco next, and
Epson Premium Glossy the best.

So my solution is one printer for throw away's which I refill with MIS
ink, and one printer with CLI8 ink for photos.
That makes sense. Use low grade ink for stuff you do not care about and the good Canon stuff for photos that are meaningful. As long as the crap ink does not clog your printer.

I have prints with the
CLI8 ink that have been hung for a year that look as good as recently
printed ones and MIS prints of the same vintage that look truly
horrible because of fading and color shift.

Now that is purtie interesting.

From my tests and those posted on Nifty Forum I have not seen any
aftermarket ink that is any near as fade resistant as the Canon. I
would love to be proven wrong.
You will not be. Now that forum is made up of relabelers and their followers.

I have the samples that I tested and could post them when I come back
from my 6 month vacation in Hawaii.

I really believe what you are telling us.
 
Ron Baird wrote:

Yes, I 'hear' but the paragraph below your reference seems to indicate otherwise?


The Canon factory representative told me never to use Kodak paper in their machine because I would get substandard result.  They also told me that if I choose not to use Canon paper I would get great results with Epson paper.  Epson is their main competitor, not to mention HP.  And the Epson paper has been great.


"measekite" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...



Ray wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:13:52 -0000, [email protected] wrote:







I have a Canon IP5000. I have tried a number of aftermarket inks. While the color match is not too bad I have yet to find one that has fade resistance of the Canon product. I refill for my non critical work. Can you tell me of a bulk ink that has fade resistance that is comparable to Canon?- Hide quoted text -



Ray, Please tell me your results on which aftermaket ink you actually tried. I want to know how your aftermarket ink result were. I'm specifially looking for comparing OEM ink with aftermarket for PHOTOS only. I know somebody who tried Hobbicolors and they have very easy system with virgin catridges included, excellent price, excellent customer service, however the photos make a person with black hair look like grey hair. I'm looking for another vendor. Right now I'm leaning towards somebody who sells Image Specialist. Stan



I do a fair amount of printing and in an effort to keep down printing costs I have tried aftermarket ink. I noticed that photographs that I printed and hung on the wall unprotected started looking pretty bad in a couple of months.


I have done the same thing with my Canon IP4000 using OEM ink.  My prints, some hanging in a kitchen and others in a bright room show no sign of fading in over 6 months.


Being a retired engineer I enjoy testing. I bought G&G, Atlas Copy, MIS, and Inktec ink. The control were BCI6 and CLI8 ink from Canon. I printed color stripes at 25, 50, 75, and 100% saturation of cyan, magenta, yellow and black on Epson, Canon, Costco, and Kodak paper. Gray scale provides a quick check for color match. Since below 80% gray is printed with color ink, the closer it is to gray the better the match. The printed samples were exposed to a 5 watt UV lamp for up to 4 hours with half of each sample exposed. The other half was protected. The worst samples were almost colorless after 4 hours. I then compared the samples to check relative fading. The Canon CLI8 ink was less than twice as fade resistant as compared to the BCI6. The next best




performer was MIS which faded about 20 times faster than the CLI8 ink.

Why do many know it alls deny these facts.


The other inks faded somewhat worse, with different colors fading most. MIS had the best color match, G&G was pretty bad on the cyan. Except for the




Kodak paper which did poorly

Here that Ron


there was not too much difference in the paper. I rated them Canon worst, Costco next, and Epson Premium Glossy the best. So my solution is one printer for throw away's which I refill with MIS ink, and one printer with CLI8 ink for photos.


That makes sense.  Use low grade ink for stuff you do not care about and the good Canon stuff for photos that are meaningful.  As long as the crap ink does not clog your printer.


I have prints with the CLI8 ink that have been hung for a year that look as good as recently printed ones and MIS prints of the same vintage that look truly horrible because of fading and color shift.


Now that is purtie interesting.


From my tests and those posted on Nifty Forum I have not seen any aftermarket ink that is any near as fade resistant as the Canon. I would love to be proven wrong.

You will not be.  Now that forum is made up of relabelers and their followers.


I have the samples that I tested and could post them when I come back from my 6 month vacation in Hawaii.


I really believe what you are telling us.
 
I can't and wouldn't even if I could for a number of reasons. 1) I
don't use Canon printers, so I don't know their ink suppliers OEM or 3rd
party.

Also, Canon OEM dye inks were notoriously poor for fading problems for
many years. I don't know if those formulations were improved upon.

As policy, I have stopped providing any recommendations of 3rd party
inks (or OEM for that matter) because many of them are formulated in
varying manufacturing plants, and I have seen enough cases of color
variance and other characteristics from OEM and 3rd party inks made in
different locales that I no longer feel comfortable suggesting brands.

My approach is to suggest that buyers of any ink should ask the vendor
if it is warranted against clogging, color variation and fading in
writing. Buy inks from companies who have a reputation to defend and
who can be harmed by bad publicity due to bad customer service and/or
ink performance.

Art
 
Just to be pedantic, I'm joking about the pomegranate being grown in
Canada, however, I'm not about the other product.

From some web site:

POMEGRANATE
Punica granatum L.
Punicaceae
Common Names: Pomegranate, Granada (Spanish), Grenade (French).

Related Species: Punica proto-punica.

Origin: The pomegranate is native from Iran to the Himalayas in northern
India and was cultivated and naturalized over the whole Mediterranean
region since ancient times. It is widely cultivated throughout India and
the drier parts of southeast Asia, Malaya, the East Indies and tropical
Africa. The tree was introduced into California by Spanish settlers in
1769. In this country it is grown for its fruits mainly in the drier
parts of California and Arizona.

So, it grows closer to you than I ;-)

Art
 
The fade resistant ink components are more costly. In fact, the
colorants are the most costly part of the ink, although they don't use a
lot (the colors are highly concentrated).

It wouldn't cost a great deal extra in the big picture to add a more
stable colorant to the inks, but if you are buying low end inks, every
penny saved increases profits and since it isn't obvious right away that
an ink will fade, it isn't given a lot of consideration.

Many of the older inks, even OEM weren't very stable.

Art
 
I respect your diligence toward finding some answers about the 3rd party
inks, which unfortunately do not often get proper testing done. I think
you answer "some" of the questions, partly.

The main problem I see with your testing design, beyond that it only
tests for UV lighting and there are many environmental influences, is
the use of a UV lamp. Is it a "black light" or an unfiltered white light
with high UV content (like a sunlamp). Which frequency of UV does it
contain? UV is a pretty wide spectrum, which is why they can be
referred to as long wave and short wave UV.

The other problem is that there is a point that accelerated aging goes
too far, and cannot accurately represent real world conditions.

For instance, exposing a print to 25% humidity for years is way
different than submerging the print in water for a minute.

Exposing a print to 50 degrees F for 10 years isn't the same as exposing
it to 500 degrees for a year. (Most paper ignites at about 450 degrees F).

On a relative basis there may be something to be gleaned from your test,
but I think we need to be careful.

Art
 
Arthur said:
The other problem is that there is a point that accelerated aging goes
too far, and cannot accurately represent real world conditions.

For instance, exposing a print to 25% humidity for years is way
different than submerging the print in water for a minute.

Exposing a print to 50 degrees F for 10 years isn't the same as exposing
it to 500 degrees for a year. (Most paper ignites at about 450 degrees F).

On a relative basis there may be something to be gleaned from your test,
but I think we need to be careful.
Click to expand...

As long as you look at his results in a comparative way, everything
should be OK - it just tells which ink will last (it doesn't say for how
many years). I was a bit surprised when I saw such big differences
between inks.
 
I agree that any form of accelerated life testing is not totally
accurate. But I feel mine has some validity since I got very good
correlation between my simple limited test with "hang it on the wall
and look at in 6 months" test. While all variables were not tested, a
product that does poorly in UV and has superior performance in all
other variables will still be unacceptable. From what I have read
light exposure is probably the dominate, real world, failure mode.

My UV source is a 5 watt broad spectrum lamp. It produces some ozone
as a by product, so the test is a UV / ozone test. While I agree that
humidity vs. running water is not totally valid I did put a sample
under hot (140 degree) running water for a minute. Most of the papers
are micropourous and did well. Kodak paper is a polymer? paper and
the ink tended to run off. There was more variability in paper than
in on the water torture test.

Still my quest is to find an aftermarket ink whose performance in the
"hang it on the wall test" comes even close to the Canon Chromalife
100. I do the limited accelerated life testing so I don't have to
wait a year so see the results. With my UV lamp 1 hour equals about 6
months of wall test.

Your constructive criticism is welcomed.
 
Ray,
thanks for your post. So MIS is the best ink. According to another
person, they believe that MIS is image Specialist ink. If that is
true, then you can get a better price at http://home.eol.ca/~mikling/Equipment.html.

Also, I agree with your 2 printer set up. One for disposable prints
and one for photos. Just in case you wanted to know, EBAY tends to
carry the cheapest prices for Canon OEM ink. I've seen some for $6.50
a color shipped. However, it varies according to the bid. I think
you can easy buy 1 color for less then $8.00 shipped.

A vacation in Hawaii for 6 months. It's okay, you don't have to be
that modest. I'm assuming you have a second house and Hawaii. That's
awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks,
stan
 
Ray said:
I agree that any form of accelerated life testing is not totally
accurate. But I feel mine has some validity since I got very good
correlation between my simple limited test with "hang it on the wall
and look at in 6 months" test. While all variables were not tested, a
product that does poorly in UV and has superior performance in all
other variables will still be unacceptable. From what I have read
light exposure is probably the dominate, real world, failure mode.

My UV source is a 5 watt broad spectrum lamp. It produces some ozone
as a by product, so the test is a UV / ozone test. While I agree that
humidity vs. running water is not totally valid I did put a sample
under hot (140 degree) running water for a minute. Most of the papers
are micropourous and did well. Kodak paper is a polymer? paper and
the ink tended to run off. There was more variability in paper than
in on the water torture test.

Still my quest is to find an aftermarket ink whose performance in the
"hang it on the wall test" comes even close to the Canon Chromalife
100. I do the limited accelerated life testing so I don't have to
wait a year so see the results. With my UV lamp 1 hour equals about 6
months of wall test.
Click to expand...

Try Pantone. They are supposed to be a first class company.
 
Ray,
thanks for your post. So MIS is the best ink. According to another
person, they believe that MIS is image Specialist ink. If that is
true, then you can get a better price at http://home.eol.ca/~mikling/Equipment.html.
Click to expand...

Why believe. Call them up and ask they who's ink are they selling.
Oh, ha ha ha not he he he, I forgot they will not tell you. Well you
can believe that OEM ink is OEM ink.
Also, I agree with your 2 printer set up. One for disposable prints
and one for photos.
Click to expand...
If you have a heavy printload then that is a good way to go. Most
likely you can get a few cart changes before the printhead clogs and if
the printload is heavy then that reduces the risk of a head clog to
begin with and one does not have to worry much about quality and fading.
Just in case you wanted to know, EBAY tends to
carry the cheapest prices for Canon OEM ink.
Click to expand...

I do not have confidence in Pay Pal so I do not use Ebay.
I've seen some for $6.50
a color shipped. However, it varies according to the bid. I think
you can easy buy 1 color for less then $8.00 shipped.
Click to expand...

You might as well go to reputable Costco and buy for $9.00 a cart.
 
Dear Ray,

I agree that any form of accelerated life testing is
not totally accurate. But I feel mine has some
validity since I got very good correlation between
my simple limited test with "hang it on the wall
and look at in 6 months" test. While all variables
were not tested, a product that does poorly in
UV and has superior performance in all other
variables will still be unacceptable. From what I
have read light exposure is probably the
dominate, real world, failure mode.

My UV source is a 5 watt broad spectrum lamp.
It produces some ozone as a by product, so the
test is a UV / ozone test. ....
Your constructive criticism is welcomed.
Click to expand...

Ozone is applied to rubber compounds also, to accelerate aging. It
has been found that humidity control is also important in such
testing... if you are in an area that the humidity varies widely. You
might find variance in ink performance with documents immersed in 90%
vs. 10% humidity environments too.

UV exposure "capacity" is only important / critical if you have to
print stuff that needs to retain color after spending hours in high UV
environments. So "failed is failing UV exposure" might be a bit
extreme.

David A. Smith
 
measekite said:
Why believe. Call them up and ask they who's ink are they selling.
Oh, ha ha ha not he he he, I forgot they will not tell you. Well you
can believe that OEM ink is OEM ink.


If you have a heavy printload then that is a good way to go. Most
likely you can get a few cart changes before the printhead clogs and if
the printload is heavy then that reduces the risk of a head clog to
begin with and one does not have to worry much about quality and fading.



I do not have confidence in Pay Pal so I do not use Ebay.



You might as well go to reputable Costco and buy for $9.00 a cart.
Click to expand...


Do you look in the mirror when you talk to yourself?
Just wondering....
Frank
 
Arthur Entlich said:
The fade resistant ink components are more costly. In fact, the colorants
are the most costly part of the ink, although they don't use a lot (the
colors are highly concentrated).

It wouldn't cost a great deal extra in the big picture to add a more
stable colorant to the inks, but if you are buying low end inks, every
penny saved increases profits and since it isn't obvious right away that
an ink will fade, it isn't given a lot of consideration.

Many of the older inks, even OEM weren't very stable.

Art
Click to expand...
(snip)

One of the Nifty-Stuff Forum participants did talk to one of the very
reliable non-OEM ink vendors who sells a good quality Canon ink set
identified by the manufacturer. He aknowledged that they could make the ink
more fade resistant, but that they would have to increase the cost. Their
perspective was that an increase in cost would decrease their marketability.
Although many of us would be glad to pay more for better fade resistant bulk
refill ink as long as it still represented a considerable savings over OEM
inks, he felt that the majority of people who buy his ink would go to
another vendor who offered less fade resistant ink at a lower price.

While I'm on this subject I would reiterate my view that our resident troll,
Measekite, does this newsgroup a great disservice by calling all non-OEM
inks "junk" or "crap." While these inks, when subjected to accelerated fade
tests, do exhibit faster fading, in the real world, if the images last as
long as you want them to, these inks are suitable for your use. I have
prints hanging on my wall in frames or stored in albums that are four years
old and still look great. The good ones don't clog printers any more than
OEM inks would. In addition, all ink sets have somewhat different color
characteristics, but some deliver print results that are absolutely equal in
quality to OEM inks without "tweaking" printer settings. Others may require
a custom profile which can be obtained easily for well under $100.

All of this arguement revolves around what inks are suitable for any
individual's needs. My 10 year old Toyota Camry suits my needs quite well.
A Porsche owner might regard it as "crap," but I get everywhere I have to go
in great comfort and in an extremely reliable car. When I drove my 1960
Porsche roadster for 15 years I did enjoy it a great deal, but I've "been
there - done that" and am just as happy with my present car. Bottom line -
enjoy using what your needs dictate and don't criticize what others find
suitable for their needs.
 
Back
Top