A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old March 24th 05, 01:17 AM
Bob O`Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arthur Entlich wrote:

However, head failures with Epsons are statistically rare, and
certainly their print heads have a longer life span than any other
inkjet printer. I almost daily hear from people who are running 8 to
10 year old Epson inkjet printers. That is very rare with other
brands, because, they fail due to breakdown, or the technology is so
inferior relative to current output that no one bothers using them.
Epson's very first color inkjet came out at 720 x 720 dpi output,
which even today give a reasonable nearly photographic output on good
inkjet paper.


My brother still uses my old Stylus Color 400.
Probably just barely often enough to keep it going.
That is, he uses it when he wants color.
When his Epson dot-matrix LQ-something (around 18 years old) won't do.

I bought the SC400 for $99 (refurbished), in 1998 I think, figuring it would
make a good stopgap while I decided what "real" color printer I wanted.
But it did so well I didn't bother upgrading for about five years.

I only ever bothered with a handful of "photo" prints, but on quality
Epson paper,
they were quite impressive. Practically amazing in 1998, from a "cheap"
printer.


Bob
  #122  
Old March 24th 05, 01:54 AM
Bob O`Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Further, and much more to the point, cars don't produce an end product
using expendable like a printer does (other than pollution from
gasoline), so it's a very poor analogy.



Ah, but there you may be just slightly mistaken...

Much of the highest regarded "fine art" in the world
is done in oils.

....and that makes it not entirely different from
what my Mazda B-2000 has done in the driveway.



Bob
  #123  
Old March 26th 05, 01:22 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What can I say, other than, you would? ;-)

Art

measekite wrote:

I think that Taliesyn made sense and was clearly understood.

  #124  
Old March 26th 05, 02:04 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The reason I was very clear to indicate which ink and which paper is to
avoid any confusion or misleading anyone. I also mentioned using Epson
ink and Epson paper in some situations.

I should probably have also mentioned, in fairness, that those prints
were done with 4 color Epson printers (CMYK), which I am a big advocate
of, because they avoid the low dye load color sets which tend to be more
fugitive.

Probably the best solution in discussion specific to longevity is to
mention both the ink being used and the paper type and brand.

Regarding inks, I absolutely agree that branded product can change its
supplier and content. And not just 3rd party, although they are much
more likely to do so and not test the product thoroughly, but also OEM.
Epson changed their ink supplier or at least the factory (changed
country of origin) several times, and the color of the inks changed. I
have seen Epson ink cartridges and inks made in Mexico, USA, Japan,
China and other countries. The Chinese inks specifically had differing
colors.


Art


measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

I exclusively used Epson inks on all my Epson printers for about 4
years, and they are my oldest prints. I actually moved to 3rd party
only after Epson moved to chipped cartridges, on principle. I still
have about 10 or 15 Epson ink cartridges which are being used for
certain applications, where I need results with dye inks which are
repeatable. I never have reported on my 3rd party ink prints as "Epson
prints" in terms of longevity or color, because that would be totally
unfair and dishonest. We do need to dot the 'i's when discussing
longevity, as best we can.

Interestingly, my Epson OEM ink prints done on Tektronix papers, some
of which are nearly 8 years old now, and exposed to relatively high
indoor lighting, show only mild cyan fade in lighter areas.



As I understand what is being said is that the Epson/Tektronix
combination is not a real Epson print. The real Epson print, according
to some people, is the Epson print produced with Epson ink on Epson
paper that DID fade. Maybe we can put this to rest by saying Epson CP
or Canon CP print; the CP standing for compatible.


The same prints done on Epson photo paper (the glossy stuff) faded
pretty badly in about 18 months (cyan failure) in medium-high
lighting, however, the Epson matte paper has held up well. Some older
HP matte paper did not work well with the Epson inks, in terms of
longevity, but I have no idea how it compares to current HP papers.

"Compatible" inks can vary massively from their OEM counterparts.



Are you also inferring that since they vary in results, they can also
vary in quality and can also clog the print head. If that is the case
you need to be very careful when choosing 3rd party inks. You also
never know that a Supplier Named ink can come from various
mfg/formulators and can also vary from batch to batch. Even if from the
same mfg, they can independently change their formulation and or quality
or they can change their supplier of raw materials. The OEM monitor
this very closely with very tight specifications as they are trying to
maintain a level of quality and consistency.

It would not be fair to equate them in terms of any characteristics
other than that they may both work in the same printer.

Art


measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.

When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.




If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party
Canon compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to
your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are producing
prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints, including
yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party
inks and many different brands of paper. To me, if the inks and
papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible, then they are
representative of the OEM and should share the majority of the same
characteristics.


It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
call it a 'Canon print' in this context.

Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to
the print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink
surface with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the
surface.

All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be
framed with glass directly on the surface of the print.

So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably
within about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting
were, to the best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with
Canon inks and papers, and were not under glass or otherwise
adulterated.




Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade,
that might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the
pigment inks.



Art


Brian Potter wrote:

As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer,
it's still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
shortcomings. There
will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.

BPotter




Kennedy McEwen spouted in
news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
@kennedym.demon.co.uk:


In article , Taliesyn
writes

Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?


Your facts!


In article , Taliesyn
writes

I have an 8x10 Canon print





then

In article , Taliesyn
writes

and I don't use Canon
papers nor inks.





By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need
be discussed.




  #125  
Old March 26th 05, 02:10 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of
any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously, even
with OEM.

Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any
warranty they offer.

Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough
variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results.

Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy
with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they
should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use.


Art

measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon
OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality
and purity?




That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well. There
are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing from a
certified testing agency or anything like that so you really never know
what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from a supplier
that put their name on the product you will never know if the next batch
is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the exact same
formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as being
Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of compatibility and
others are tightly compatible. Identifying the ones on the fringes is
not easy.


I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since
they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to
last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without
failures.

I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.

Art


  #126  
Old March 26th 05, 02:15 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are probably nearly the same number of coffee types and methods of
roasting as there are teas. Ask my wife... our house is filled with
different coffee devices, and she has probably tried a good 100 or more
blends and types of coffee beans before coming up with her "favorite".

Although I can certain taste the difference, I rarely drink coffee, so I
can't get too involved in the whole thing. ;-) I just seem to get stuck
buying all the contraptions.

Art

measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
qualities differ within each tea, as well.



That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)


  #127  
Old March 26th 05, 02:39 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If memory serves from my university human anatomy course, the species
does tend to have one "brain". Numerous lobes, a couple of hemispheres,
but only one brain. ;-)

Art


In article , measekite
writes


If you had a brain place in your head it would be lonesome.

  #128  
Old March 26th 05, 07:36 PM
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Arthur Entlich wrote:

Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of
any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously,
even with OEM.


But OEM is more tightly controlled since they have million riding on a
reputation.


Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any
warranty they offer.



Try and collect a warranty from a noname made overseas. Most of the so
called brands are just names given to brand X by dealers or resellers
except for Formulabs, Dyson and companies like them. Those exceptions
seem to offer better consistency. However, most of the industry can
vary each time they go out for bid.


Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough
variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results.

Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy
with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they
should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use.


Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for
3rd party ink.



Art

measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the
Canon OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same
quality and purity?





That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well.
There are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing
from a certified testing agency or anything like that so you really
never know what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from
a supplier that put their name on the product you will never know if
the next batch is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the
exact same formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as
being Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of
compatibility and others are tightly compatible. Identifying the
ones on the fringes is not easy.


I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too,
since they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are
expected to last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3
months without failures.

I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.

Art


  #129  
Old March 29th 05, 11:43 AM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree, clogging complaints should "finger" the ink used, if it can be
identified, or it should at least be referred to as not being OEM...

Art

measekite wrote:




Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for
3rd party ink.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photo Papers For Epson 2100 John Printers 4 December 1st 04 11:09 PM
Epson Photo Stylus printers connected to print server on router Dan Printers 12 January 18th 04 03:07 PM
A3 photo printers ? Guillaume Dargaud Printers 0 January 16th 04 06:28 PM
Is Epson Stylus Photo 820 still a good choice? Carmen Printers 20 October 21st 03 03:58 AM
User review of the Epson C43SX/UX hm Printers 1 August 22nd 03 06:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.