Refill inks permanence test

Hendo wrote:

There are no aftermarket ink that can outperform the OEM as far as
image longevity. If you are looking for the best quality at any price
there is only 1 choice the OEM.

Where aftermarket inks outperform the OEM is in price. Quality pre
filled cartridges can cost as much as 70% less than the OEM, and 90%
less for bulk ink.

I use a CISS on my Epson R300. when I first bought it I sold the OEM
cartridges, and purchased 3.5 liters of ink, 500 mg for each colour and
1 liter for the black. I recently purchased my second batch of ink.

The OEM black cartridge cost about $20.00 and contains about 15 ml of
usable ink. the bulk black ink I purchased cost about $50.00 and
contains 1000 ml. that's a savings of more than $1250.00 on the black
cartridge alone. I took the extra money and bought a R800, sold the OEM
cartridges and bought a CISS and some bulk pigment ink.

Actually you can use the Krylon photo fixative aerosol spray Matt or
glossy) and the prints will last just as long as the oem inked ones do.
Frank

Frank wrote:

Actually you can use the Krylon photo fixative aerosol spray Matt or
glossy) and the prints will last just as long as the oem inked ones do.
Frank
I use the krylon uv-resistant clear acrylic on the cds/dvds and the
krylon preserve on the photos and i get a water -resistant,fade,and
smudge resistant finish.

John H. wrote:



Frank wrote:


Actually you can use the Krylon photo fixative aerosol spray Matt or
glossy) and the prints will last just as long as the oem inked ones do.
Frank

I use the krylon uv-resistant clear acrylic on the cds/dvds and the
krylon preserve on the photos and i get a water -resistant,fade,and
smudge resistant finish.


i have test this. the problem is it changes the finnish of the photo to
something that resembles that linen finnish that the cheapo photo labs
used to give as an option. it make your photos very drug store looking
but if you use generic ink that you might as well use it.

John H. wrote:


Frank wrote:


Actually you can use the Krylon photo fixative aerosol spray Matt or
glossy) and the prints will last just as long as the oem inked ones do.
Frank

I use the krylon uv-resistant clear acrylic on the cds/dvds and the
krylon preserve on the photos and i get a water -resistant,fade,and
smudge resistant finish.


Krylon® Paper Finishes Preserve It® Digital Photo & Paper Protectant is
acid-free and will not change the color of your digital photos.
Frank

Burt wrote:


Check out the Nifty-Stuff Forum project on ink permanance. Admittedly not
as well controlled as Willhelm's, but still some good info on some of the
inks that refillers are using. While Canon OEM ink did have more fade
resistance to the UV source that was used in the evaluation, the
differential in fade resistance between the OEM and aftermarket refill inks
tested wasn't as extreme as was mentioned in this post. BTW, my well
protected prints with Canon MIS refilled carts on Kirkland Glossy photo
paper look beautiful after two years. They are framed behind glass and are
not in direct sunlight. Prints in albums have fared as well.



The very first photo I ever printed on photo paper was an 8 x 10
enlargement of one of my brother, printed on January 5, 2004 for his
funeral/calling hours the next day. I used an Epson Stylus Color 800
with cheapie generic "compatible" cartridges. I don't remember where I
got them, but it was on the Internet and they were the cheapest carts I
could find at the time. The paper was from a pack of Staples Photo paper
he had given me for Christmas two weeks before. After the funeral my
mother framed the print behind glass and hung it on her bedroom wall.
It's been there ever since, and looks as good today as the day it was
printed.

That is my longevity test, and it's ongoing. IMHO you can't get a true
longevity test unless you actually wait until the print fades. Anything
else is just an estimate, and subject to errors of assumption.

Check back with me in another 10 years, and I'll let you know if there's
been any change in my brother's photo.

TJ

whatcartridge.com wrote:
If you are in any way interested in printing quality photos on your
inkjet, you should know about Wilhelm Imaging Research.

.....


Recently he tested third party inks from several common suppliers -
including Island Inkjet, Carrot Ink, Staples, Office Depot, Office Max,
Caboodle Cartridge and Cartridge World. These were either third party
or refilled cartridges.


I read this article a month or two ago. It's a great article and Wilhelm
has made good contributions. However, when people who are very critical
customers, such as the artist Neil Slade, discuss their practical,
discerning use of aftermarket inks, the brands that Wilhelm mentioned
are not considered. Every mention I've seen about Staples ink says that
it's junk (and overpriced junk, too). The only reloading ink that I saw
at Fry's recently, was "one size fits all," and at quite a stiff price
considering that the kit was from China. And the store manager told me
that if I didn't like the ink, I was the stuckee ("If you open it, you
can't return it.").

I don't think that we can expect good quality from sellers named "Ike's
Ink Madhouse," "Inkhouse Insanity," "Cartridges R Us," "Ink-o-rama," and
"Inkjet Whoopie! ('Trust us: we've sold billions of cartridges')"

Slade likes MIS ink (not IMS one-size-for-all that Costco used to sell),
Computer Friends, and Inkgrabber (for reloads). Slade uses Canon
printers. It's really too bad that Wilhelm didn't test the more serious
of these ink sources.

I recently ordered three cartridges from Inkgrabber for my two HP
machines. So far, I'm pleased with the quality and certainly the price.
My only complaint is that they shipped it in a paper bag -- and that, to
me, is disrespectful and potentially serious.

Too bad that Wilhelm didn't try better products -- I trust his research;
too bad that the sample wasn't what we in this group would want to hear
about.

Richard

Wilhelm group is commissioned by the OEM's. You don't bite the hand
that feeds you.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:35:51 -0400, Taliesyn
wrote:

Richard Steinfeld wrote:
whatcartridge.com wrote:


Too bad that Wilhelm didn't try better products -- I trust his research;
too bad that the sample wasn't what we in this group would want to hear
about.


Incomprehensible "Wilhelm" doesn't follow this newsgroup, otherwise he
would have discovered that no one here uses the inks he was wasting his
time testing.

Prints are apparently interrogated under "450 lux" light for "12 hours
per day." Admittedly I don't know how bright that is, but it just may be
a torture test. My images are subjected to normal room light, away from
direct sun. Special projects are kept away in dark drawers and shelves.
They're in perfect condition after several years.

-Taliesyn


I did my own fade test. I printed shaded color bars and pictures on
various papers with Canon ink and MIS ink. I put them in a west
facing window for 6 months. The Canon ink on either Canon or
Epson paper was the clear winner. There was little fading and
the gray bar remained gray. The MIS was slightly worse, it faded
uniformly, so color balance was still good. The biggest variable
was in the paper. Canon and Epson were best, Cotsco was
somewhat worse, Konica was considerably worse, HP and
Canon matte were pretty bad. On the latter the mengenta bar
was almost gone so color balance was poor.

The Epson paper I use is their Premium Glossy Photo paper.
It has a nicer looking surface than the Kirkland and when it
goes on sale at office depot at 2 for 1 it is about $25 for 100
sheets, not that much more expensive than the Kirkland.
So for my money I am using Epson Premium and MIS ink.

ray wrote:

I did my own fade test. I printed shaded color bars and pictures on
various papers with Canon ink and MIS ink. I put them in a west
facing window for 6 months. The Canon ink on either Canon or
Epson paper was the clear winner. There was little fading and
the gray bar remained gray. The MIS was slightly worse, it faded
uniformly, so color balance was still good. The biggest variable
was in the paper. Canon and Epson were best, Cotsco was
somewhat worse, Konica was considerably worse, HP and
Canon matte were pretty bad. On the latter the mengenta bar
was almost gone so color balance was poor.

The Epson paper I use is their Premium Glossy Photo paper.
It has a nicer looking surface than the Kirkland and when it
goes on sale at office depot at 2 for 1 it is about $25 for 100
sheets, not that much more expensive than the Kirkland.
So for my money I am using Epson Premium and MIS ink.

Good choice...MIS ink is amazing aftermarket ink and works great on
Epson paper.

Taliesyn wrote:
Richard Steinfeld wrote:
whatcartridge.com wrote:


Too bad that Wilhelm didn't try better products -- I trust his
research; too bad that the sample wasn't what we in this group would
want to hear about.


Incomprehensible "Wilhelm" doesn't follow this newsgroup, otherwise he
would have discovered that no one here uses the inks he was wasting his
time testing.

Prints are apparently interrogated under "450 lux" light for "12 hours
per day." Admittedly I don't know how bright that is, but it just may be
a torture test. My images are subjected to normal room light, away from
direct sun. Special projects are kept away in dark drawers and shelves.
They're in perfect condition after several years.

450 Lux sounds bright, all right, but don't know why he doesn't keep it
on 24/7; it's all projection and interpretation anyway. I suppose
there's reciprocity failure in these tests, or one could see exposing a
photo to 5,000 Lux for 2 minutes and determine how many decades the
image will last.

Is there real meat to the allegations he's funded by the Epsons and
Canons and HPs of the world?

--
John McWilliams