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

The true cost of printing ink ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old August 3rd 07, 11:55 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,229
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM.


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