Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500?

Arthur Entlich wrote:

snip



All are too high with Epson and HP more expensive than Canon


Quality 3rd party inks may be reasonable for some to take advantage
of. There are some reliable ink manufacturers producing inks for Epsons.


Just curious if you have identified any mfg/formulators of pigment inks
for the R800/1800 series.


ink selection (pigment, dye, dye sub, etc)




Pigment is supposed to last longer.

It does last loneger when it comes to inkjet inks, especialy next to
some specific dye inks used for photos.

waterproof output



My friend and I were able to wash the Epson and Canon Prints and see
the ink in the water.


Paper is more at issue in most cases, relative to how it is coated, as
to whether it becomes waterproof. When seeking waterproof documents
when not using microporous papers (bond papers) waterproof text may
require a pigment ink to keep that ink on the paper without bleeding.



ability to print reasonably on bond paper



All are reasonable



Pigment inks do a better job overall on non-specialized papers.

Yes

No, but I don't own either printer, and most people who have them seem
to be sticking with Epson, at least for now. These printers use several
"new" colors (red, and a quite violet blue), which will take time to
formulate accurately for the driver to profile well.

Art

measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

snip



All are too high with Epson and HP more expensive than Canon


Quality 3rd party inks may be reasonable for some to take advantage
of. There are some reliable ink manufacturers producing inks for Epsons.


Just curious if you have identified any mfg/formulators of pigment inks
for the R800/1800 series.

There is an excellent reason why Kodak uses a different light level
than Henry Wilhelm and his customers for whom he does testing. Kodak
has conducted studies in homes around the world starting in 1987,
measuring light levels, temperature, humidity and (since the
introduction of ink jet), ozone in the places where people actually
said they displayed or stored their photos. They did continuous, not
just spot measurements (which can vary by more than 5X during the day).
They measured over seasons. And they did full spectral measurements
(not just "lux" which measures only the visible spectrum). All told,
they gathered more than 100,000 light measurements (and a half million
total measurements). The data was published in peer-reviewed journals,
with methodology explained so that other scientists could see and
reproduce the data. Then they subjected real prints and film strips to
those measured conditions and compared them with their predictive
testing. No other company or testing lab has done anything close.

It was the results of these tests (still on-going--the most recent ones
were presented at the April, 2005 international Archiving Conference)
that led Kodak to formulate their testing protocols.

It's important to use real world conditions to predict fade--if you
don't, other factors, like thermal fade , thermal yellowing,
ozone-induced fade, etc. could be the limiting factors on how long your
print will last. Like so many things in life, balance is critical.