David,

I read a lot where people buy third party ink for Epson printers. I understand when output from printers demand large volume, but I have to wonder from what I read about the Epson printers getting clogged heads if that savings is worth the risk. If I understand it right Canon printers can have their print heads changed, but Epson printers have to be sent in for repair. All I know is many times to save a little you end up spending a lot. Monte Johnson.

David, re our discussion of BW printing, is there a problem with MIS UT2 inks that you're aware of?

I buy Epson inks and paper from www.atlex.com
about 1/3 cheaper than b&h and adorama.
If you are selling your prints, you will want the best possible quality and the cost is passed on to the customer. If you are printing for your own amusement, how much do you really print? For 4x5 snap shots, it costs me 50 cents to print at home and 30 cents or less on line.

Ronk,

I have not used any ink except the epson ink on my R800. All I can say is doing 8+10 on Epson paper with Epson ink has made very nice prints. Many of which I have showed to the the people at the camera shop and they feel they exceed the ones done in the photo lab. I do not know what my cost is per print, i think somewhere around $3.00. Monte Johnson.

Bill,

Any problems can be avoided with a little discipline. Always turn the printer OFF when not actually printing. Never let the printer sit for more than a few days without running a print or two through it. And check the nozzles regularly and if there are any that are not printing run the cleaning cycle.

Thanks, David. That's pretty much the way I do it now....

Definitely the cleaning cycle.
Monte, I figure that my print costs are at $2.00 using Epson Premium Glossy and Epson inks in my 925. I would like to try Epson Lustre surface, but Epson say that the 925 doesn't support its use.
I find it totaly absurd to spend 50 cents for a 4x5 when I can get it done for 30 cents and printed on Kodak Endura paper @ Mpix.

Ronk,

You are referring to something that is very individual and a matter of personal choice. I am maybe just the opposite of where you are at. Over my lifetime I made some 1.5 million photographs, and today maybe 1% is worth printing, from my perspective. And when I do print I make a 12x18 inch image on 13x19 paper that costs between $5 and $8 per sheet, and get 25-50 prints per inkset that costs $120.

Enthusiast photography from what I have observed writing to the audience for over 30 years is a collection of really diverse people. And there is no ctiteria or authority that says any one is superior or inferior to another, what's good for the goose may be bad for the gander. However we all may exerience some distance between aspiration and achievement, and all I try to do when I can is help people close that gap when they want to.

David, what I am saying is that the individual has to ask himself why are the pictures being taken and how are they to be used. If you are trying to save money by using third party inks that may clog the printer, not hold up over time and other problems, why bother with all of that to save a few pennies; either do it properly or go the online printing route.
Kodak endura is a very nice paper.

Ronk,

I brought the subject up because a photographer is not really saving if the final product is not equal, and some may not be aware that 3rd party inks do not and cannot provide equal value in any dimension whether it is reliable printer performance, color managed print matching or in some cases equivalent print life. In other words ink costs can be reduced by using 3rd party inks compared to printer brand inks, but at what other costs in a lesser final product. The old saw applies: you usually get what you pay for = pay less get less.

I would rather photographers be aware up front than have to learn the hard way.

Having an outside lab do printing has always been to me a bad compromise, that in the old days of film and color printing could not be avoided. With B&W I always did my own printing and rarely had a client dissatisfied with the print result, but having to rely on a lab for color printing was rarely satisfactory even using the best pro labs available. Someone else's idea of what is a good print was usually disappointing. And the experience of having to get jobs re-printed was never a pleasant prospect, and happened all too often.

I think that is why since the digital darkroom has been available doing one's own color printing is so popular, it allows you to produce prints to your own expectations and requirements, not someone else's.

Gentlemen,

I have been testing third party inks for Epson printers for several years, without much success. Now we have two new pigmented ink sets that exhibit the performance of Epson on Epson matte photo paper. Image Specialists and American Ink Jet have some good looking formulations that do not plug the nozzles. The delta E values are approximately 1 and the black desity is equal to Epsons. Both ink sets appear to have been made with the Cabot pigmented dispersions. Formal testing is being conducted at the Texas A&M, Kingsville, digital imaging lab and expect to see a formal test report from them soon.

Alchemist

Quote:
Ronk,

I brought the subject up because a photographer is not really saving if the final product is not equal, and some may not be aware that 3rd party inks do not and cannot provide equal value in any dimension whether it is reliable printer performance, color managed print matching or in some cases equivalent print life. In other words ink costs can be reduced by using 3rd party inks compared to printer brand inks, but at what other costs in a lesser final product. The old saw applies: you usually get what you pay for = pay less get less.

I would rather photographers be aware up front than have to learn the hard way.

Having an outside lab do printing has always been to me a bad compromise, that in the old days of film and color printing could not be avoided. With B&W I always did my own printing and rarely had a client dissatisfied with the print result, but having to rely on a lab for color printing was rarely satisfactory even using the best pro labs available. Someone else's idea of what is a good print was usually disappointing. And the experience of having to get jobs re-printed was never a pleasant prospect, and happened all too often.

I think that is why since the digital darkroom has been available doing one's own color printing is so popular, it allows you to produce prints to your own expectations and requirements, not someone else's.

Alchemist,

I notice that you limit the comparison to matte paper printing. I would assume then that the inks are not resin encapsulated pigments, which is an Epson patent. And one reason for that unique property of Epson K3 Ultrachrome inks is that it makes their inks applicable to resin-coated papers. By consumer choice, considerably more printing is done on RC-type papers than fiber-based matte papers. So, I would have to ask do you think users of the new Epson printers should be satisfied with such a limitation? And can you really match Epson print performance without infringing on Epson patents?

David,

Yes,

The pigments are in a monmer dispersion added by the formulator. It is possible to avoid patent infringement, but as an long time ink formulator (and photographer, started on Graflex) the patents will probably not hold up to legal challange because of prior art.

I have not completed my testing on the gloss papers yet, so I do not report results that are incomplete. These results will be subject to pier review unlike some of the expert results we see published in magazines today. But the very preliminary results, L*a*b*color, gamut, bleed, dry time, abrasion resistance, on semi gloss and gloss look to be equal to Epson's. The preliminary archivability studies that I have done, at 5000 lux/day, look very good. I am waiting for the A&M lab results which will be available by years end, before drawing any firm conclusions.

No, one should not be satisfied with inks that only work on matte media. Most of the fine art prints that I see in the galeries in LA, Santa Fe, or Houston lately see to be on matte. This has been caused by the poor performance of the earlier Epson inks on the resin coated papers.

Alchemist

Quote:
Most of the fine art prints that I see in the galeries in LA, Santa Fe, or Houston lately see to be on matte. This has been caused by the poor performance of the earlier Epson inks on the resin coated papers.

****

All the work I've had in galleries and shows has been printed on matte paper because I prefer it to RC paper, especially for B&W. I suspect I'm not alone. It has nothing to do with ink, and everything to do with the look and feel of the medium.

Bill,

None of the leading galleries and museums have ever found resin-coated papers acceptable and that policy has been in place long before there was any thing like an Epson printer. No one wants to invest in art that has no assurance the substrate it is on will last, and there is no reliable evidence or test that provides any assurance resin-coated paper will last. However the International Standards Organization does test fiber-based paper and an archival rating can be obtained.

Just because Wilhelm Research tests ink on resin-coated paper and finds the ink will last for a long period of time based on accelerated conditions imposed by the tests, does not establish whether the resin-coated paper supporting the ink will actually survive that long.

I would agree with you Bill about the look and feel of a fine 100% rag content fine art paper compared to any resin-coated paper. Unfortunately younger photographers who grew up with RC preference is expressed in the sales figures that greatly favor the RC products. Have you ever noticed when you have stopped for coffee on the road at a greasy spoon the well past middle age waitress is still wearing her hair in the same style that was popular when she was in high school!

You may have confidence you can avoid a patent infringement suit. But if the ink does mimic Epsons patented product, you can be pretty sure the producer of that ink will be in court before very long. And your company better have very deep pockets because it will really not matter if Epson wins or looses the suit, if your company cannot afford the battle, Epson wins. And, it was reported not long ago Epson did win against a 3rd party ink maker who was selling ink for Epson printers.

What puzzles me is why an ink company would want to make ink for someone elses printers. Wouldn't the better solution to selling ink be to also make and sell printers for your ink? You don't have to reply to that question - the answer is obvious.

David,

You are correct about Epson being willing to take an after market ink manufacturer to court. I was diposed for several days, back in the 90's when Epson filed against the company is was working for. Most of their claims were found to be invailed, but the money to prove it were very costly and development schedules for new products were delayed and the market oppertunities gone.

As you imply the big bucks in the business come from the supplies operations. When I worked for Xerox printer division, over twenty years, all profits came from supplies (90%) and service, not the sale of printers.

A point of information, Rhom & Has, Kodak, Ilford and Cabot, along with several other pigmented dispersion developers have those product protected by worldwide patents. Most of these products are all available to aftermarket ink manufacturers. Most high quality pigmented inks use this technology and do not infringe Epson patents.

Alchemist

Alchemist,

So that readers are not confused. I referred to the Epson K3 Ultrachrome inks as resin encapsulated pigment inks. However you are using a different terminology "pigmented dispersion developers". Obviously the terms refer to different things.

I use an Epson printer converted to using all-black pigment inks to make B&W prints. The inks I use are uncoated pigment inks, which are actually dilutions of the same basic carbon black traditional pigment inks. For B&W printing these inks perform superbly producing a Dmax even higher than any tradition silver-based photographic paper (fiber-base) I have used.

So regarding the inks you are referencing, in practical lay terms just what are you talking about?

David,

I have to be careful, the hypo has taken it's toll over the years. Pigmented dispersion and using the word developer can have a different meaning here. I use the word developer as the company who invented and manufactures these pigmented dispersions. Some of the dispersion manufacturers suspend their pigment particles in an acrylic monomer and by co-valent bonding have a particle surrounded by the resin. This technology has been known to the ink industry since prior to the second world war.

Yes, I too use a four shades of gray/black pigmented inks in my Epson 3000 for B&W prints that come close to silver prints in desity and tonal range. These pigments are dispersed in acrylic monomer, surfactant, pyrrolidone, DEG, algecide and RO water. If you do not add a resin you will not get any antiflaking properties. Many, but not all, pigmented dispersions are supplied with the black pigment dispersed in a resin. So the only thing unique about K3 is that the particles are coated/encapsulated like some toner particles for laser printing. Mechanical encapsulation versus chemical bonding of surface charged carbon modified molecules. Both types, when properly formulated, can produce excellent results, or when as some Pacific rim companies do poorly produce head clogging and unaccepable image quality.

Regards,

Alchemist

Alchemist,

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously you chose your words carefully. As I understand your statement the process and result that Epson uses and has patented in the K3 Ultrachrome inks is NOT the same as what you are representing, but you are asserting that they are possibly comparable.

David,

There is no question, that quality after market ink manufacturers, can make inks that offer performance equal to the OEM. Sometimes, when combined with the proper after market high quality media, they will offer performance superior to that of the OEM inks and media. These ink maufacturers will do so by not infringing the OEM patents.
They will use the patented dispersions from the likes of Cabot, Rohm & Haas, or several other chemical companies. Most of the recent litigation we read about is from the low cost Pacific rim manufacturers or US and European companies that use their products to maximize profits. You get what you pay for and high quality ink is usually priced within 20% of the OEM, unless you are using bulk systems.

It just seems that the magazine publications always seem to find the poor after market product to evaluate. Could it be due to the amount of advertising dollars they receive from the OEMs? Good quality Cibachrome prints outlast the OEM inkjet prints in any unbiased studies, but we never hear that mentioned much anymore. I will still keep my color darkroom open, but I must admit that I curently do 80% of my prints on my Epson printers. It is cleaner, faster, and a whole lot less painful on the back.

Regards,

Alchemist

I am sure that EPSON has Patents on there inks. I am also sure that those patented ink can and have been formulated arond to get comparabe results with problaly a wider Gamet and tighter Delta E in comparison to the OE ink set.

To date I have not seen any Off shore pigmented inks measure up to either OEM or domestic aftermarket ink sets.

Cheep ink is just a market price point without regard to Quality, compatability, and consistancy.

I agree with Alchemist than their is Prior art to stop EPson winning lawsuits but they will still file if necessary.

Usualy the top Aftermarket inks are actually more forgiving due to the varied systems that end users demand/want them to preform.

Don't assume that all the aftermarket suppliers are just trash. They want the best possible image and longevity for the endusers.

MD
Perfectink

MD - Perfectink,

I surely hope the quality of the ink you are extolling is much better that the quality of your prose.

I assume you have a bug about written text to comment in such fashion. If it makes you feel better go ahead and continue, I am a big boy.

I r a gaduate, and lernt my leters in skul. Polease be so kund and git r dun.