How can I save on ink costs?

wrote:
Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do. Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

That is bull****. The fly by nite ink vendors some of whom lurk and post
in this ng say this type of thing. They are the ones that need to be
watched and exposed.

JonK wrote:
There are some very good non-OM inks out there, but they tend to be
for commercial, large format printers. They also are not cheap,
like Pantone and that costs as much or more than Epson ink.
but
since they come in bulk, they are usually much less expensive to use
than the OM products. Most have not been tested by Wilhelm. Also Kodak
has adopted a different business model for their printers.
The Kodak printers are not that good. Basically you have Epson, Canon
and HP for printing phtotos.
Rather than
sell the printer at a loss and charge high prices for the ink, they
sell both at a reasonable mark-up. Tests by Quality Logic (sponsored
by Kodak) claim significant savings using the Kodak consumables, and
WIR says that print lifetime from their products are best in
class.

Robert Montgomery wrote:
tomm42 wrote:
On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery info-bl...@northern-data-
tech.net wrote:
How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.


If you want top image quality your printer is going to use
appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is.
Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said
then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in
Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and
storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very
public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS.
Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival",
is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a
document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the
longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as
pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to
test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall
apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So
archival is not a great term.
One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of
the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink
for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the
printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges.
It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user.
17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models.
I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work,
I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party
inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas.

Tom

Thanks, Tom, etcetera.

Robert

All our verbal gobbledygook boils down to a single point: Given your
requirements, we don't know of any way for you to save on ink costs,
other than finding somewhere to buy genuine Epson ink that's cheaper
than where you shop now. Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as
yours, so for us aftermarket ink is acceptable. I have a few prints that
were printed using aftermarket ink that have been displayed inside,
under glass, and I haven't noticed any fading yet. However, it hasn't
been one decade yet, let alone the six you require. Wilhelm's
accelerated tests have merit, but they extrapolate longevity from tests
under extreme conditions. That's all they CAN do. They can't give a true
picture of longevity under lower exposures, which could be different.
Nobody really knows, because nobody has had a chance to expose inkjet
prints to 100 years of real-world conditions. Wilhelm can make a good
educated estimate, but they don't KNOW. The same is true for the rest of
us.

We just don't know.

TJ

Sure this is well known about Wilhelm, but still his firm is the only
outside firm that has publishable results. He receives money from
clients that of course include HP and Epson, he has to be paid to stay
in business. Canon it is said feels he charges too much for something
they do. But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results. There is a new group Annenburg (sp) Testing that is just
getting going, want to use a subscription model, test 3rd party as
well as commercial ink. Their current results are very scientific and
as a photographer not a scientist I find them a little dense. This is
how Wilhelm started his early test included 3rd party products. It is
encouraging that someone else is starting to do this, it is a
thankless job. I don't think Wilhelm is a shill at all but some who
needs funding to keep his work going.

Tom

On May 7, 9:55 pm, wrote:
Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do. Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

On May 8, 10:11*am, tomm42 wrote:
But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results.

Kodak's test conditions are based on over a quarter century of data
gathered in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed
technical journals. Those real-world measurements include seasonality
effects, full spectrophotometric analysis and real-time recording of
light, humidity, temperature and ozone. Consult the "Journal of
Imaging Science" for details. If others choose to use different
conditions, I believe they should point to refereed and journal-
published data to support their positions.

TJ wrote:
Robert Montgomery wrote:
tomm42 wrote:
On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery info-bl...@northern-data-
tech.net wrote:
How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I
need
the ink to be archival.


If you want top image quality your printer is going to use
appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is.
Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said
then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in
Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and
storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very
public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS.
Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival",
is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a
document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the
longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as
pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to
test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall
apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So
archival is not a great term.
One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of
the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink
for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the
printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges.
It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user.
17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models.
I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work,
I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party
inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas.

Tom

Thanks, Tom, etcetera.

Robert

All our verbal gobbledygook boils down to a single point: Given your
requirements, we don't know of any way for you to save on ink costs,
other than finding somewhere to buy genuine Epson ink that's cheaper
than where you shop now.
Finaly, that is what I have been saying all along.
Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as yours, so for us
aftermarket ink is acceptable.
Yours is not demanding at all. Draft mode is good enough for what you
do. And with an HP printer with an integrated printedhead the only
thing you need to worry about is a cart leaking. It does happen and
that if it happened would ruin your printer. But getting used printers
for $20 you really have nothing to loose if you want to spend the time
fooling around with refilling.
I have a few prints that were printed using aftermarket ink that have
been displayed inside, under glass, and I haven't noticed any fading yet.
If you put them under cement you would never see any fading.
However, it hasn't been one decade yet, let alone the six you require.

Wilhelm's accelerated tests have merit,

but they extrapolate longevity from tests under extreme conditions.
That's all they CAN do. They can't give a true picture of longevity
under lower exposures, which could be different. Nobody really knows,
because nobody has had a chance to expose inkjet prints to 100 years
of real-world conditions. Wilhelm can make a good educated estimate,
but they don't KNOW. The same is true for the rest of us.

We just don't know.

TJ

measekite wrote:


TJ wrote:

Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as yours, so for us
aftermarket ink is acceptable.

Yours is not demanding at all. Draft mode is good enough for what you
do. And with an HP printer with an integrated printedhead the only
thing you need to worry about is a cart leaking. It does happen and
that if it happened would ruin your printer. But getting used printers
for $20 you really have nothing to loose if you want to spend the time
fooling around with refilling.

Good to know I have your approval. I can sleep tonight, secure in that
knowledge.

I have refilled HP carts many times and have yet to see one leak if the
job is done properly. And unless it's a top-of-the-line model, if you're
spending $20 on a used printer you're spending at least twice what you
should. Printers depreciate in value even faster than cars and
computers, especially the newer ones with chipped cartridges. But I
guess a guy whose only measure of value is the price of something
wouldn't know that.

TJ

Kodak and several other inkjet testers decided to use a different
standard when testing their inkjet output results for longevity. They
weren't very up front about it, and it wasn't necessarily the best
testing procedure considering what most people use for display conditions.

I am speaking specifically for inkjet products not their silver halide
materials. Kodak has also been sited before for not being more
forthright with the fading qualities of their film products. Early E-6
processed film was awful in terms of longevity under dark keeping, and
C-41 films (and the earlier c-21 process) were also quite poor. Many
lawsuits came from that when original commercial films were disappearing.

Anyway, although I question Wilhelm's testing due to his close
association with some inkjet companies, I think his older film work was
valuable.

Art



wrote:
On May 8, 10:11 am, tomm42 wrote:
But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results.

Kodak's test conditions are based on over a quarter century of data
gathered in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed
technical journals. Those real-world measurements include seasonality
effects, full spectrophotometric analysis and real-time recording of
light, humidity, temperature and ozone. Consult the "Journal of
Imaging Science" for details. If others choose to use different
conditions, I believe they should point to refereed and journal-
published data to support their positions.

wrote:
Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do.

How would you know which tests are quickest to do? Are you an expert on
scientific lightfastness testing?


Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

Robert

On May 10, 10:39*am, Robert Montgomery info-bl...@northern-data-
tech.net wrote:

How would you know which tests are quickest to do? Are you an expert on
scientific lightfastness testing?


Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But you don't have to be to make that
assertion. Just read the literature, starting with the Journal of
Imaging Science.