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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Ray.....Please share your experience with aftermarket ink.
Hi Ray,
I think we are in agreement that forms of accelerated testing provide some type of relative data points which can be helpful in categorizing materials. In fact, all accelerated testing, should it be accepted as a valid methodology, is based upon correlation. I am always concerned about "reciprocity failure" or testing that might push beyond the threshold of the materials being tested. For instance, if the test is too harsh it may not be providing an accurate method for testing real life potential. You are correct that UV produces considerable ground ozone, so that adds another variable. Creating a correlation between the accelerated and slower more real life test provides even more data, and from you comments there seems to continue to be a good correlation, which further suggests you test could have reasonable veracity. Thanks again for commenting further on this matter, and keep up your testing. I always find aging tests of interest and informative Art Ray wrote: 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. On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:20:39 GMT, Arthur Entlich wrote: 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 Ray wrote: On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:13:52 -0000, 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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Low cost CD printing ..... which printer is ok? | baker | Printers | 1 | June 26th 05 04:01 AM |
Low Cost Drive Image Option For Cloning Windows NT 4.0. True Image Server Is Expensive | Bobby Fischler | Storage (alternative) | 4 | August 19th 04 03:27 AM |
Good color/composite doc Printing AND Cost-Effective B&W Printing in ONE Printer? | Glum Sp | Printers | 0 | October 1st 03 12:35 AM |
Cost of printing? | Bob Hosid | Printers | 16 | September 8th 03 05:44 PM |
Cost of printing | Gary | Printers | 4 | June 30th 03 03:59 AM |