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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, head failures with Epsons are statistically rare, and certainly their print heads have a longer life span than any other inkjet printer. I almost daily hear from people who are running 8 to 10 year old Epson inkjet printers. That is very rare with other brands, because, they fail due to breakdown, or the technology is so inferior relative to current output that no one bothers using them. Epson's very first color inkjet came out at 720 x 720 dpi output, which even today give a reasonable nearly photographic output on good inkjet paper. My brother still uses my old Stylus Color 400. Probably just barely often enough to keep it going. That is, he uses it when he wants color. When his Epson dot-matrix LQ-something (around 18 years old) won't do. I bought the SC400 for $99 (refurbished), in 1998 I think, figuring it would make a good stopgap while I decided what "real" color printer I wanted. But it did so well I didn't bother upgrading for about five years. I only ever bothered with a handful of "photo" prints, but on quality Epson paper, they were quite impressive. Practically amazing in 1998, from a "cheap" printer. Bob |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Further, and much more to the point, cars don't produce an end product using expendable like a printer does (other than pollution from gasoline), so it's a very poor analogy. Ah, but there you may be just slightly mistaken... Much of the highest regarded "fine art" in the world is done in oils. ....and that makes it not entirely different from what my Mazda B-2000 has done in the driveway. Bob |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
What can I say, other than, you would? ;-)
Art measekite wrote: I think that Taliesyn made sense and was clearly understood. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
The reason I was very clear to indicate which ink and which paper is to
avoid any confusion or misleading anyone. I also mentioned using Epson ink and Epson paper in some situations. I should probably have also mentioned, in fairness, that those prints were done with 4 color Epson printers (CMYK), which I am a big advocate of, because they avoid the low dye load color sets which tend to be more fugitive. Probably the best solution in discussion specific to longevity is to mention both the ink being used and the paper type and brand. Regarding inks, I absolutely agree that branded product can change its supplier and content. And not just 3rd party, although they are much more likely to do so and not test the product thoroughly, but also OEM. Epson changed their ink supplier or at least the factory (changed country of origin) several times, and the color of the inks changed. I have seen Epson ink cartridges and inks made in Mexico, USA, Japan, China and other countries. The Chinese inks specifically had differing colors. Art measekite wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: I exclusively used Epson inks on all my Epson printers for about 4 years, and they are my oldest prints. I actually moved to 3rd party only after Epson moved to chipped cartridges, on principle. I still have about 10 or 15 Epson ink cartridges which are being used for certain applications, where I need results with dye inks which are repeatable. I never have reported on my 3rd party ink prints as "Epson prints" in terms of longevity or color, because that would be totally unfair and dishonest. We do need to dot the 'i's when discussing longevity, as best we can. Interestingly, my Epson OEM ink prints done on Tektronix papers, some of which are nearly 8 years old now, and exposed to relatively high indoor lighting, show only mild cyan fade in lighter areas. As I understand what is being said is that the Epson/Tektronix combination is not a real Epson print. The real Epson print, according to some people, is the Epson print produced with Epson ink on Epson paper that DID fade. Maybe we can put this to rest by saying Epson CP or Canon CP print; the CP standing for compatible. The same prints done on Epson photo paper (the glossy stuff) faded pretty badly in about 18 months (cyan failure) in medium-high lighting, however, the Epson matte paper has held up well. Some older HP matte paper did not work well with the Epson inks, in terms of longevity, but I have no idea how it compares to current HP papers. "Compatible" inks can vary massively from their OEM counterparts. Are you also inferring that since they vary in results, they can also vary in quality and can also clog the print head. If that is the case you need to be very careful when choosing 3rd party inks. You also never know that a Supplier Named ink can come from various mfg/formulators and can also vary from batch to batch. Even if from the same mfg, they can independently change their formulation and or quality or they can change their supplier of raw materials. The OEM monitor this very closely with very tight specifications as they are trying to maintain a level of quality and consistency. It would not be fair to equate them in terms of any characteristics other than that they may both work in the same printer. Art measekite wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed. When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring. If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party Canon compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are producing prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints, including yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party inks and many different brands of paper. To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the majority of the same characteristics. It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly call it a 'Canon print' in this context. Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface. All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed with glass directly on the surface of the print. So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated. Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade, that might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the pigment inks. Art Brian Potter wrote: As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too. BPotter Kennedy McEwen spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9 @kennedym.demon.co.uk: In article , Taliesyn writes Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"? Your facts! In article , Taliesyn writes I have an 8x10 Canon print then In article , Taliesyn writes and I don't use Canon papers nor inks. By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be discussed. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of
any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously, even with OEM. Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any warranty they offer. Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results. Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use. Art measekite wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality and purity? That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well. There are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing from a certified testing agency or anything like that so you really never know what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from a supplier that put their name on the product you will never know if the next batch is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the exact same formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as being Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of compatibility and others are tightly compatible. Identifying the ones on the fringes is not easy. I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without failures. I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you. Art |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
There are probably nearly the same number of coffee types and methods of
roasting as there are teas. Ask my wife... our house is filled with different coffee devices, and she has probably tried a good 100 or more blends and types of coffee beans before coming up with her "favorite". Although I can certain taste the difference, I rarely drink coffee, so I can't get too involved in the whole thing. ;-) I just seem to get stuck buying all the contraptions. Art measekite wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water, it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas, flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the qualities differ within each tea, as well. That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-) |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
If memory serves from my university human anatomy course, the species
does tend to have one "brain". Numerous lobes, a couple of hemispheres, but only one brain. ;-) Art In article , measekite writes If you had a brain place in your head it would be lonesome. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Entlich wrote: Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously, even with OEM. But OEM is more tightly controlled since they have million riding on a reputation. Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any warranty they offer. Try and collect a warranty from a noname made overseas. Most of the so called brands are just names given to brand X by dealers or resellers except for Formulabs, Dyson and companies like them. Those exceptions seem to offer better consistency. However, most of the industry can vary each time they go out for bid. Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results. Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use. Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for 3rd party ink. Art measekite wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality and purity? That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well. There are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing from a certified testing agency or anything like that so you really never know what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from a supplier that put their name on the product you will never know if the next batch is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the exact same formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as being Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of compatibility and others are tightly compatible. Identifying the ones on the fringes is not easy. I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without failures. I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you. Art |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
I agree, clogging complaints should "finger" the ink used, if it can be
identified, or it should at least be referred to as not being OEM... Art measekite wrote: Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for 3rd party ink. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photo Papers For Epson 2100 | John | Printers | 4 | December 1st 04 10:09 PM |
Epson Photo Stylus printers connected to print server on router | Dan | Printers | 12 | January 18th 04 02:07 PM |
A3 photo printers ? | Guillaume Dargaud | Printers | 0 | January 16th 04 05:28 PM |
Is Epson Stylus Photo 820 still a good choice? | Carmen | Printers | 20 | October 21st 03 03:58 AM |
User review of the Epson C43SX/UX | hm | Printers | 1 | August 22nd 03 06:36 PM |