It's Official - aftermarket Inks much inferior

Ron, it is quite apparent that you do not know who you are posting with
on this newsgroup. These people, some of them work and/or have a
financial interest in generic ink resellers aka known as relabelers.
Others have some other interest in protecting these unprofessional
companies who just use the word compatible (it really only means that
the ink will squirt through the heads and the carts shoud physically fit
the printer.

They have no eye to measure print quality and they lie about everything
else. They all but will not admit have problems with clogged printheads
and fading but they are focused on thinking they are saving money and on
how the OEMs are screwing them on ink.

The only point they have is that OEM ink is really overpriced. What the
industry needs is a generic ink mfg/formulator that can make prefilled
carts and sell them in all venues (online and in stores) for under $5.00
that has the print quality, faded resistance, of the OEM and will have
no greater risk of printhead clogging than OEM. Then you will see OEMs
adjust their prices.

If you notice that lower priced printers (under $200) are subsidized by
high ink prices but the wide format printers are not cheap. Ink is
still overpriced for these and so is the large sized paper.

While digital DSLR cameraa are coming down they are still way overpriced
compared to their film counterparts. I would like to see the Nikon DX
and the Canon 5D under $500 and the cheaper DSLRs around $300 like the
film cameras but that will never happen.

The main thing is that there are a core group of posters that are aka
like religious fundamentalists that will refute anything you say that
makes sense and will twist any reviews to their liking. They have
swelled heads and big egos. Some are high school kids and others are
just old farts stuck in their ways.

If you look at reviews in PC World, PC Magazine and other sources they
all say the same thing. I hope you keep following this ng as it is nice
to post with someone who makes some sense.

Ron wrote:

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?

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.


He does not live on a farm. It is known that pigmented print results
can last without fading for over 100 years and longer if framed behind
glass. Wet process prints can fade in less time. Most peple who buy
professional prints have them framed behine glass and the more expensive
ones will use museum glass.


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.


Ron see what I mean


Oh, and before Measekite warns you about me and my posts, I'm a farmer,

Moo

and I know

very

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.


This is one of their logic statements. Well Ron tell your customer that
when the photo fades to ship it back to you at your expense and you will
take the frame apart and print another one and then ship it back to them
also at your expense and see how much money you make. :'(

However, it still looks as good to me today as it did when I printed it.

TJ

TJ wrote:

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

That explains everything

for one dollar. When I got it home I found it completely clogged -
with Epson OEM ink.

TJ

Ron wrote:

A TROLL!!!

Lou

Ron wrote:
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

You're posting an opinion based on your personal preference. But I'm
still confused by your original post that you use after market inks but
you have your prints done (printed) professionally.

What exactly does comparing a home/business printer using after market
inks have to do with paying a professional printer to print your prints?
I and most others done see any point at all in making that comparison.
Especially since most who post in this ng are not, repeat, not,
professional photographers or printers?

Frank

p.s. Only our local imbecile moron ****wit idiot and oem stooge, who has
NEVER, EVER used after market inks, and will suck up to anyone who
knocks them, enjoys drooling over your little rants.
Loser he is.

Cheers!

Ron wrote:

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

You want it, you got it!

From Consumer Reports July 2006...

..."We did find some exceptions. Office Depot cartridges for
Hewlett-Packard printers, the top-selling brand, matched HP ink for
photo quality and trimmed 20 cents off the cost of an 8x10-inch photo.
Staples cartridges for Canon printers and Epson-compatible inks from
online suppliers Carrot Ink and PrintPal matched the photo quality of
the printer makers’ cartridges at slightly lower cost."

G'day mate!
Frank

Thus spake milou:
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?

No it doesn't. However, it's a fact of human existence that we tend to be a
lot less discriminating with stuff we agree with than stuff we don't. A
while back, PC Pro (UK) published quite an extensive article on inkjet
printers & their running costs - taking into account the cleaning cycle for
each model. They also rubbished one particular brand for high running costs
& poor quality results. This magazine regularly carries adverts from the
main manufacturers so I don't buy the accusation that if the OEM's
participate in any way in a survey that the results /must/ be skewed.
Impartiality is a very illusive goal which just ain't always obtainable & is
also no guarantee of quality or accuracy when it is.

My reaction to the article is rather contradictory. On one hand it sounds
very plausible but delving a little deeper, it tends to be very black or
white in that it treats all the 3rd party inks as being equally bad &
without really comparing the main brands with each over regarding quality
but only longevity. I certainly don't trust the manufacturers who have tried
on tricks like rejecting a previously unused cartridge beyond its use by
date or cartridges that still have substantial amounts of ink left but are
indicated as being empty etc. The branded cartridges have also come under
scrutiny from consumer protection organisations more often than is probably
wise for the likes of Epson, Canon & HP et al.

One think in the article's favour was the willingness to attribute
differences of opinion quite openly as in the case of Kodak disagreeing
regarding the test methodology.

I picked up a digital photo magazine a couple of hours ago for a quick
browse which mentioned 3rd party black inks for use in some up-market A2+
printers without batting an eyelid - would they do so without some knowledge
or a 2nd thought to the likes of future advertising by the main players? My
suspicion is that these manufacturers *are* overcharging so only have
themselves to blame for such a flourishing 3rd party market. Capitalism is
so damned cynical!

--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!

Paul B wrote:

Thus spake milou:


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?



No it doesn't. However, it's a fact of human existence that we tend to be a
lot less discriminating with stuff we agree with than stuff we don't. A
while back, PC Pro (UK) published quite an extensive article on inkjet
printers & their running costs - taking into account the cleaning cycle for
each model. They also rubbished one particular brand for high running costs
& poor quality results. This magazine regularly carries adverts from the
main manufacturers so I don't buy the accusation that if the OEM's
participate in any way in a survey that the results /must/ be skewed.
Impartiality is a very illusive goal which just ain't always obtainable & is
also no guarantee of quality or accuracy when it is.

My reaction to the article is rather contradictory. On one hand it sounds
very plausible but delving a little deeper, it tends to be very black or
white in that it treats all the 3rd party inks as being equally bad &
without really comparing the main brands with each over regarding quality
but only longevity. I certainly don't trust the manufacturers who have tried
on tricks like rejecting a previously unused cartridge beyond its use by
date or cartridges that still have substantial amounts of ink left but are
indicated as being empty etc. The branded cartridges have also come under
scrutiny from consumer protection organisations more often than is probably
wise for the likes of Epson, Canon & HP et al.

One think in the article's favour was the willingness to attribute
differences of opinion quite openly as in the case of Kodak disagreeing
regarding the test methodology.

I picked up a digital photo magazine a couple of hours ago for a quick
browse which mentioned 3rd party black inks for use in some up-market A2+
printers without batting an eyelid - would they do so without some knowledge
or a 2nd thought to the likes of future advertising by the main players?


I can give the following statement some credit.

My
suspicion is that these manufacturers *are* overcharging so only have
themselves to blame for such a flourishing 3rd party market. Capitalism is
so damned cynical!

If you are selling photos for hundreds of dollars a piece and are
printing them at home then I don't see you as much of a "professional".
I don't care if you print them with OEM or compatible inks. I think
you are ripping off your customers.

Besides here is a quote from a post you made on March 6th of this year:

"I bought a big bottle of black ink to use with my BJC6000 over
three years ago and it is still producing absolutely fine results with
a ip3000. No clogging, no nuthin' but good results."

No mention of fading in this response even after using the same bottle
of compatible ink for three years. Now you read an article in a
photography rag (we all know everything they write is beyond reproach)
and you are suddenly an OEM ink convert?

Want to know my test? "I" look at pictures "I" printed three years ago
and see no noticeable fading and then I grab a calculator and figure up
all the cash I have saved buying compatible ink and I am more than
satisfied with the results. This is a MUCH BETTER test than any I can
get from a photography rag that are really whores for their advertisers
who just happen to be OEM ink suppliers from the printer manufacturers.

Canon, Epson, HP, Lexmark etc. just love people like you.

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.


"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

Ron, I think that you must have come into this group only lately.
Wilhelm's report was published previously in the US, and has already
been discussed at length right here.

Further, excellent reports have been done on the Web by at least one
professional photographer who has been able to give good justifications
for using specific ink sources -- note my use of the word "specific."

Wilhelm made a big fundamental mistake in his method: he selected his
aftermarket ink indiscriminately. Or so it would seem. Many regulars in
this group are serious photo printers who mostly use Canon printers.

None of these people would ever consider using the aftermarket inks that
Wilhelm tested -- Wilhelm only tested garbage ink!

As in many other cases in which the free market prevails (not like the
de-facto situation with computer printer manufacturers who skirt
American laws against restriaint of trade), the aftermarket ink
marketplace contains a range of products. As is normal in Capitalism
when it's fair and balanced, the buyer is free to choose between
products that range from excellent to awful.

Wilhelm chose only the awful.

Let me recommend to you that you ask right here for recommendatations
from serious photo printers -- recommendations from people who have had
excellent experiences with their aftermarket inks. They'll be happy to
share with you the names of excellent inks that they've used. A few of
these folks have been quite diligent in doing their own fading tests
under conditions that come close to rivaling Wilhelm's.

You may find that you can save yourself some money and still provide
excellent results for your clients. I'll admit, though, that in some
cases in which we decided (among ourselves here) that the OEM inks were
superior in longevity to all the independents, I'd probably be inclined
to go OEM myself when it came to photos I was selling -- I feel that I'd
have an obligation to give them the best. But I believe that there have
been some cases in which the aftermarket product is actually superior.

I have had some experience with photography myself, and when I worked at
a large college, I had lunch every day with the photography instructors
-- all of whom were seasoned advertising professionals. I found a lot to
respect, especially concerning their knowledge of their tools.

I know of one aftermarket ink company ("Universal") who told me that
they have been selling their ink and photo paper to the US Navy, which
chose their combination for durability under nautical conditions.
Interestingly, the fellow I spoke with said that he sees little point in
spending the money on his own company's paper unless I had a special
need for it.

Anyway, the point of this is: don't generalize before doing your own
research -- the research in this case being right here in this newsgroup.

I have no personal axe to grind he I don't use a Canon printer, and
in my own world, there's little sense in printing photos on my inkjet
printers (two HPs). However, I have bought refilled cartridges and have
begun to refill my own. Mostly, unlike Wilhelm, I've used supplies that
have been specifically recommended either by people here or by the
aforementioned photographer (whose name has escaped me).

I have nothing against HP's materials (but note that at least 60% of the
company's profits come from ink and toner!!!!). Their ink's great. A
Mercedes Benz is a great car, too; only I'm not wealthy enough to keep
it maintained.

Richard