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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that
aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Ron wrote:
G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder Great news huh? Well maybe not. You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their (over priced) oem ink carts right? Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues? You think? Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but "fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed".... Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually meaningless. If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks, then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks. BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok? Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate? Only measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Frank |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Great news huh? Well maybe not. You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their (over priced) oem ink carts right? Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues? You think? Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but "fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed".... Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually meaningless. If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks, then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks. BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok? Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate? Only measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Frank frankly speaking! 8^) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Frank wrote:
Ron wrote: G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder Great news huh? Well maybe not. You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their (over priced) oem ink carts right? Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues? You think? Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but "fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed".... Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually meaningless. If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks, then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks. BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok? Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate? Only measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Frank I must admit it came across pretty much as you have pointed out -- Paul (This sky, too, is folding under you) ------------------------------------------------------ Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Now now there Frank. Dont attack me old mate. I posted here in good faith.
Keep a civil tongue in your head. I get photos that I sell professionally printed because I own a canon pixma 8500 which, even with canon inks (dye based) are known to fade over time. OK!! I quote from magazine, 'Photo Review Australia', Spring 2006, page 9, with the heading 'NEWS'. You still with me Frank? Under sub heading 'ALTERNATIVE INKS SLAMMED' I quote directly: "Testing by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR) has revealed that the permanence of prints made with third-party inks ("aftermarket" in the US parlance} is "far inferior" to prints made with the inks from printer manufacturers. The results of recent tests can be downloaded from http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html. The study which was carried out in the USA, examined a range of store-branded inkjet cartridges, cartridges refilled at franchise refill shops and other "aftermarket" ink sets, along with third-party inkjet photo papers. The photos printed with the aftermarket products were submitted to exactly the same testing regime as those printed with the inks and papers from printer manufacturers Canon, Epson, HP and Lexmark. Whenever possible, WIR matched the highest grade of a brand of photo paper with the same brand of ink cartridge. Permanence ratings of less than four months were found for several products, compared with ratings of more than 23 years for the most basic products from inkjet printer manufacturers and more than 70 years for the most durable of the manufacturers' ink/paper combinations. "As a group, the aftermarket inks and premium photo papers in this study had among the lowest WIR display-permanence ratings of any products ever tested by our lab," said Henry Wilhelm, WIR's president and founder. Wilhelm suggests consumers purchasing third-party inks and photo papers may be quite unaware to the limitations of the products they are buying because hitherto there has been no scientific evaluation of theses products." As you can now see Frank I am not, to quote your below post: "Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate?" Quite frankly Frank if these posts 'push your buttons' then you have a serious attitude problem. I have extensively printed with third party inks, loaded my own cartridges, on numerous occasions etc. I would never sell my photos to a paying customer with these inks. Cheers all Ron from Downunder. "Frank" wrote in message ... Ron wrote: G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder Great news huh? Well maybe not. You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their (over priced) oem ink carts right? Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues? You think? Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but "fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed".... Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually meaningless. If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks, then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks. BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok? Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate? Only measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Frank |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Ron wrote: G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. Thats Absolutely TRUE The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. Thats True also. I am not trying to start a flaming war. You are posting what about a dozen of the faithful in this ng do not want to hear since they either work, are associated with, or somehow favor the relabelers who do not disclose the brand of crap they thrust upon the unknowning. In addition to what you say these generic inks also clog printers. If you read posts for a while here you will read about people who have clogged heads. Some of these will keep on using the junk and get clogged heads again and maybe even ruin the printer. But some of these posters just point out how much they saved. Of course they will have to reprint all of their stuff and the results they get do not look up to the quality of the OEMs. If you sell your prints (very expensive) the Canon 5000 Professional 17"wide pigmented 12 ink printer is probably the one that gives the best results and very good logevity. Longer than your lifetime if you were just born. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Ron wrote: Now now there Frank. Dont attack me old mate. I posted here in good faith. Keep a civil tongue in your head. Even if he got it away from the place where the sun don't shine I doublt if he could be civil. For you disagreed with him. You got what you should expect. I get photos that I sell professionally printed because I own a canon pixma 8500 which, even with canon inks (dye based) are known to fade over time. OK!! The wide carriage 17" Canon Pro5000 12 pigmented cart printer ink is estimated to last 100 years without fading. I quote from magazine, 'Photo Review Australia', Spring 2006, page 9, with the heading 'NEWS'. You still with me Frank? SOCK IT TO HIM Under sub heading 'ALTERNATIVE INKS SLAMMED' I quote directly: "Testing by Wilhelm Imaging Research (WIR) has revealed that the permanence of prints made with third-party inks ("aftermarket" in the US parlance} is "far inferior" to prints made with the inks from printer manufacturers. The results of recent tests can be downloaded from http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html. I read that also and it is true. The study which was carried out in the USA, examined a range of store-branded inkjet cartridges, cartridges refilled at franchise refill shops and other "aftermarket" ink sets, along with third-party inkjet photo papers. The photos printed with the aftermarket products were submitted to exactly the same testing regime as those printed with the inks and papers from printer manufacturers Canon, Epson, HP and Lexmark. Whenever possible, WIR matched the highest grade of a brand of photo paper with the same brand of ink cartridge. Permanence ratings of less than four months were found for several products, compared with ratings of more than 23 years for the most basic products from inkjet printer manufacturers and more than 70 years for the most durable of the manufacturers' ink/paper combinations. "As a group, the aftermarket inks and premium photo papers in this study had among the lowest WIR display-permanence ratings of any products ever tested by our lab," said Henry Wilhelm, WIR's president and founder. Wilhelm suggests consumers purchasing third-party inks and photo papers may be quite unaware to the limitations of the products they are buying because hitherto there has been no scientific evaluation of theses products." They are aware but want to print in denial. All they care about is paying less money but they do not realize that they are not saving anything at all. As a matter of fact one yo yo posted that he saves thousands of dollars and does not mind if he has to reprint his prints. And the mentality does not differentiate if they graduated high school or college. As you can now see Frank I am not, to quote your below post: "Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate?" Quite frankly Frank if these posts 'push your buttons' then you have a serious attitude problem. You are very smart to have figured that out so fast. I have extensively printed with third party inks, loaded my own cartridges, on numerous occasions etc. I would never sell my photos to a paying customer with these inks. Cheers all Ron from Downunder. "Frank" wrote in message m... Ron wrote: G'day all. I was reading in a recently released photography magazine that aftermarket inks are far inferior to the branded ones. The official tester stated that fading of prints will occur in a short period of time. I am not trying to start a flaming war. I have extensively used aftermarket inks but the results are now in. The guy whom was quoted in the article is the one who extensively conducts print lifes of printers and various print papers. This is of some concern to me as I sell prints of my photos, fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed. Sorry if I have disappointed you all. Cheers Ron from Downunder Great news huh? Well maybe not. You referenced a "recently released" photography magazine without naming the actual magazine. You're aware that most magazines survive on the money paid to them by their advertisers, right mate? You probably saw a lot of ads from Epson, Canon, HP, et al, in that magazine, right? You can also realize by reading the annual report from these companies that a major part of their profits are derived from the selling of their (over priced) oem ink carts right? Now you don't actually think that a "recently released" photography magazine would say anything good about after markets inks cause it might jeopardize and endanger their future because of lost ad revenues? You think? Then you state that 'I have extensively used after market inks" but "fortunately I had the foresight to have my prints professionally printed".... Well Ron, your own statements are rather conflicting and actually meaningless. If you have a personal opinion concerning the use of aftermarket inks, then please state it. Especially if you actual do use aftermarket inks. BTW, be sure and name the inks, your printer and the paper you use, ok? Don't hide behind some unidentifiable 'recently released" photography magazine, ok mate? Only measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Frank |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Ron wrote:
--------snip the quip-------------- It's official! Only that piece of **** moron measher****head believes that kind of bull****! Good'day mate! Frank |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior
Ron wrote:
______________snip___________________ Well golly gee, guess what! WIR is PAID to conduct ink test for guess who...All of the major ink/printer manufacturers. Epson, Canon, HP et al. You don't suppose for one second that they have any influence over the outcome do you? You don't think they actually chose the after market inks (maybe even give them to him?) they pay him to test do you? Oh but they do! Not very cricket of them is it. Also I don't see in his article where he tested any after market inks I've ever used. You see, only an idiot like measher****head believes that kind of bull****! G'day mate! Frank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson C88 - what aftermarket inks? | Arthur Entlich | Printers | 1 | July 20th 06 11:04 PM |
Troll | Richard Steinfeld | Printers | 61 | June 21st 06 12:06 PM |
Refill inks permanence test | whatcartridge.com | Printers | 40 | June 12th 06 03:09 AM |
3rd Party Ink - PC World Excerpts | measekite | Printers | 113 | July 2nd 05 05:05 PM |
Dye vs Pigment | Patrick | Printers | 22 | May 29th 05 09:44 PM |