It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior

Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically. I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them. The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.


"Frank" wrote in message
...
Ron wrote:
--------snip the quip--------------

It's official!
Only that piece of **** moron measher****head believes that kind of
bull****!

Good'day mate!
Frank

Post your source Frank, otherwise what you are saying is mere
hearsay/innuendo. I suggest that anyone interested read this about Wilhem's
background: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html

Cheers
Ron.

"frank" wrote in message
...
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

Thanks Measekite. I am holding off until Canon release their pixma pro 9500
10 ink pigment tanks A3+ printer. Should be a great printer when they
finally release it.

Cheers

Ron from Downunder


"measekite" 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.


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

1. Do you sell enlarged photos printed on your home printer using
aftermarket inks?

2. Have you also searched various user groups of home printers for serious
photographers, and seen the issues they have had with stuffed printing heads
and fading prints?

3. Have you read the the link that I posted previously? If so then
scientifically refute it.

Personally I could'nt care less what type of ink you print with. But if you
were selling your work professionally and if I knew it was printed with
cheap aftermarket ink I wouldnt touch it with a forty foot pole. If you are
happy using it for your own personal photo printing then good for you.

I have been there and done the aftermarket ink use and I would never ever
sell professionally photos from those inks.

Cheers

Ron

"milou" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:57:37 +1000, "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.


I read in a magazine that people had been abducted by aliens, with
great details from some of the abductees.
I read in another that several people had met Elvis since he died.
Because it's printed in a magazine and some guy says so, does it make
it true?

Ron wrote:
Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically. I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them. The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.


If I were in the business of selling photos for "hundreds of dollars"
I'd have them professionally printed, too. I wouldn't use ANY
combination of home printer/ink/paper for such prints. Home inkjets just
don't have the capability to produce that level of work. BTW, I've seen
professionally-printed material fade in a few days of direct sunlight.

But aftermarkets do have their place. If, like most printers, some 90%
of your prints aren't meant to last for more than a few years, stored
away in a file or an album, or used for throwaways like brochures or
flyers, then aftermarket inks, plain paper, and home printers are fine.
If you want something to last long enough to look new to your
great-grandchildren, don't use inkjets.

Oh, and before Measekite warns you about me and my posts, I'm a farmer,
and I know little about the professional photography business. However,
I DO know this: In January 2004 I printed an enlargement of a photo of
my brother to display at his funeral. I used an Epson Stylus Color 800
printer, Office Max photo paper he had given me for Christmas less than
two weeks before, and the ink I happened to have in the printer, the
cheapest "compatible" aftermarket ink cartridges I could find on the
Internet. After the funeral, my mother hung the framed photo on her
bedroom wall. When that photo fades, I will happily print another for
her. However, it still looks as good to me today as it did when I
printed it.

TJ

TJ wrote:
Ron wrote:
Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically.
I have previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with
aftermarket inks and I would in no way sell a photo for several
hundred dollars printed with them. The last thing I need are numerous
complaints and angst from customers with fading prints. A printed,
nicely framed photo that retains its colour in someone's house often
leads to more sales.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.


If I were in the business of selling photos for "hundreds of dollars"
I'd have them professionally printed, too. I wouldn't use ANY
combination of home printer/ink/paper for such prints. Home inkjets just
don't have the capability to produce that level of work. BTW, I've seen
professionally-printed material fade in a few days of direct sunlight.

But aftermarkets do have their place. If, like most printers, some 90%
of your prints aren't meant to last for more than a few years, stored
away in a file or an album, or used for throwaways like brochures or
flyers, then aftermarket inks, plain paper, and home printers are fine.
If you want something to last long enough to look new to your
great-grandchildren, don't use inkjets.

Oh, and before Measekite warns you about me and my posts, I'm a farmer,
and I know little about the professional photography business. However,
I DO know this: In January 2004 I printed an enlargement of a photo of
my brother to display at his funeral. I used an Epson Stylus Color 800
printer, Office Max photo paper he had given me for Christmas less than
two weeks before, and the ink I happened to have in the printer, the
cheapest "compatible" aftermarket ink cartridges I could find on the
Internet. After the funeral, my mother hung the framed photo on her
bedroom wall. When that photo fades, I will happily print another for
her. However, it still looks as good to me today as it did when I
printed it.

TJ

I forgot to mention - and this is for your information, Measekite - that
I had purchased the printer a year before at a church sale for one
dollar. When I got it home I found it completely clogged - with Epson
OEM ink.

TJ

Ron wrote:
I suggest that anyone interested read this about Wilhem's
background: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html

Cheers
Ron.

Sorry Ron, but he is well known in the professional industry. He is a
shill, a plant for the the majors who pay his way. Otherwise he wouldn't
exists.
P.S. everyone has already known this for years.
Cheers.
Frank

Ron wrote:

Frank I suggest you read the study and then refute it scientifically.


He does not have an open mind. You need that to follow your suggestion.

I have
previously mentioned that I have printed extensively with aftermarket inks
and I would in no way sell a photo for several hundred dollars printed with
them.


That makes you a real professional.

The last thing I need are numerous complaints and angst from customers
with fading prints. A printed, nicely framed photo that retains its colour
in someone's house often leads to more sales.



It sounds like you are also a good businessman.

Cheers all.

Ron from Downunder.


"Frank" wrote in message
m...


Ron wrote:
--------snip the quip--------------

It's official!
Only that piece of **** moron measher****head believes that kind of
bull****!

Good'day mate!
Frank

I have already mentioned this source many times along with many other
sources. These people have something to gain by refuting this. It is
like posting to a wall.

Ron wrote:

Post your source Frank, otherwise what you are saying is mere
hearsay/innuendo. I suggest that anyone interested read this about Wilhem's
background: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html

Cheers
Ron.

"frank" wrote in message
m...


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

Do you know if that 9500 will use Lucia inks as well. That is what
Canon calls the inks for the Pro 5000. While I am tempted to look into
that printer as well I think the Pro9000 would be better for me.

I know that dye printers make for more vivid glossy prints that are
better quality initially than pigmented inks and they should last long
enough since I do not intend to sell them. I know that if you print
matte and sell your prints apigmented ink may be better.

But what do you use for inbetween. Paper like Ilford Pearl, for
instance. I know if looks good with dye ink (Classic) better than
Ilford Smooth Pearl but that will not work for Pigment. Ilford Smooth
Pearl is what Ilford recommends for pigmented ink but I wonder if you
have the glossy problem with that paper and Smooth Pearl. Pearl is like
an eggshell.

I have read that if you use pigmented ink and what the very best print
you should use some kind of matte paper with no glossiness. What has
been your experience with paper?

Ron wrote:

Thanks Measekite. I am holding off until Canon release their pixma pro 9500
10 ink pigment tanks A3+ printer. Should be a great printer when they
finally release it.

Cheers

Ron from Downunder


"measekite" wrote in message
t...


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