It sounds very much like the replacement cartridge did not seat properly after all and the flow of black ink is not as it should be. Very likely the printer is not damaged, but you may need to obtain another new black ink cartridge and be very careful it is inserted correctly and seats properly.

Janet,

Several things may be causing your printing problem. When your husband removed the cartridge (assume it is an original Epson Black) and reinstalled the cartridge air may have been traped under the screen on the carriage and in the cartridge itself. Generally several cleaning cycles will fix that one. A second possiblity is that the air vent tap on the cartridge top was not properly removed. This could be due to a faulty heat seal or just forgetting to remove it. This will not allow the cartridge to vent to the atmosphere and will cause the printhead to get erractic supplies of ink; not printing and blobs of it. I have three C86s and have not witnessed this problem when new Epson original cartridges are installed.

Alchemist

Alchemist, what is the "air vent tap," and where is it located? When I installed the new cartridge, the on-screen instructions I followed mentioned nothing about removing any type of seal, cover, etc. I simply took the cartridge out of the vacuum-sealed package and installed it. I just checked the manual, and it doesn't indicate anything needs to be done to the cartridge after taking it out of the package. Can you explain this to me?

By the way, I received a response to my problem today from Epson's technical support. However, it was a "form letter" type response that gave me no help whatsoever! So I *really* appreciate those of you who are giving me your thoughts. Hopefully, I'll get this figured out yet!

Janet,

There is no tape to remove on Epson C86 cartridges. When you described a problem at first installing the new catridge, then removing it and re-installing, it might be possible the seal that allows the ink to flow was first broken irregularly, off center and now part of that seal is blocking the flow of ink. That is why I suggested putting in a fresh, new cartridge may clear things up.

Yup, you have pushed an air bubble into the ink feed lines of the printer. The air bubble is only eleminated by purging the lines of the air and having a continious ink supply to the nozzles. With the cost of the cartridges I would just buya replacement and learn a lesson to follow the instructions to the letter.

There are a few methods to recover the cartridge but a drool of ink can result.

Thanks, David, for your good advice, and thanks to all who responded to my post. I bought a new black cartridge and we installed it. I then printed out a black-only page and a full-color page, and replacing the cartridge appears to have corrected the problem quite nicely. I did notice some very faint banding in the color page, but one more head cleaning seems to have taken care of that.

I appreciate this forum (and Shutterbug magazine). Epson, with their automated replies, gave me no help at all. The suggestions of David and others allowed me to resolve my problem. Thanks!!!

I am happy to report I just cleaned the vent tube on my Epson C86 and it cleared up the problem of lines missing in my printed pages. I tried new ink, multiple cleaning cycles without results. I then opened it up and cleaned the vent tube and viola it works! Thanks to whomever posted this as a fix for this printer.

I am wondering where I can learn how to open up my Epson C86 and clean the "vent tubes." Unfortunately I installed generic cartridges and I have ink all over the place, sometimes printing big blobs and other times not printing at all.

I've voided the warranty with the generic inks, so now would just like to save the printer if I can.

Any thoughts would be a great help.

Thanks much.

To do a proper cleaning job without doing real damage, you just about have to buy cleaning cartridges from a reputable source like MIS Associates, and then a new Epson inkset to finish flushing out the system. By the time you have done all of this you will have probably spent in materials including paper enough to buy another C-86 printer. If you check the cost of one complete C-86 Epson inkset, the actual cost for a typically discounted price for the printer does not amount to twice that. In other words the ink supplied with a new C-86 is worth about half what the printer costs - its a very cheap printer! Just buy another C-86 and only put Epson ink in it and it should provide reliable service for many reams of paper.

Hello,

I bought a C86 a month ago. I have to replace the black ink cartridge soon as the red light is flashing. I have an OEM cartridge (TO43120) and intend to use this cartridge this time.

By cruising the Web, I see that non-OEM cartridges are available from suppliers such as Atlantic and others and at about one-quarter the cost of an Epson cart. I've been wondering about buying non-OEM carts in the future.

In a post to Janet, who was having trouble with her C86, someone replied that using non-OEM carts caused him problems

In general the non-OEM cartridges inks are not as good as
the OEM Epson ones. The ink generally is not as archival as the OEM ones, and yes, they may jam your printheads.

I have used several brands of non oem cartridges in several of my C86 printers. The ones made in China, with one exception those made by Nine Star, are generally very inferior to Epsons Durabrite inks. Nine Star and DCI, England make a good quality replacement when looking for color match and archivability on photo papers. DCI cartridges are no longer being imported for sale in the US, but suppliers may still have existing inventories. Nine Star cartridges are sold under several brand names, two of which Consumers Reports found very acceptable in their September issue.

Your warranty can not be voided in the US, for just using non oem supplies. But if the OEM can prove to the courts that the non oem ink cartridge damaged the printer, then they can be allowed to not pay for the portion of the repair caused by that supply. Your warranty will still apply, for the full period, for all other repairs. I have been on the OEM side of the business when the courts made this ruling and speak from detailed first hand knowledge of this situation. The oems want you to purchase their supplies because that is where they make their money, not on the very small profits they make off the printer sales.

Alchemist

Alchemist,

I will not dispute what you have posted you believe to be true to the best of your knowledge.

But, that does not alter the fact a great many of the problems of jet clogging and poor print performance reported on this forum, and more I get in e-mail addressed to Digital Help in Shutterbug, are associated with using 3rd party inks.

And finally, and not so much relative to the Epson C-86 because it is just a 4 color utility printer and not specifically intended to be a photo printer, the use of 3rd party inks may not have a significant affect on print photo image quality.

However, Epson and other printer manufacturer inks are patented products, so 3rd party inks if they were exact copies would be in patent violation. So they must be different to an extent. Thus in critical photographic use to obtain color managed print matching the 3rd party inks would require having custom calibrated profiles made to achieve the same level of matching provided by the manufacturer's profiles.

But of even greater significance to serious photographers is another issue entirely. Over quite a few years now Epson has led in R&D providing photographers with printers specifically designed to produce optimum photo image reproduction quality. In other words Epson has invested heavily in research that supports our photographic interests. If we want to continue to have that kind of support and commitment by Epson in the future should we not support Epson by purchasing their ink??? Or should we just buckle to greedy self-interest and get the cheapest ink possible, and shoot ourselves in the foot by lessening the incentive for Epson to continue to invest development resources supporting photography for even better products in the future???

Adding to David's comments:
A few weeks ago I got a blurb from Forbes that Epson won a big Patent infringement suit against several Chinese and other manufacturers and suppliers of cartridges. The settlement included a cease and desist order so I don't expect to see them around much longer.

Adding to Dave's comments:

Fade resistance is likely to be a BIG unknown when using non-Epson ink in Epson printers, or for that matter, using any ink from a different brand than the printer's. The fade resistance is know for at least a good number of same-brand printer-ink-paper combinations and I doubt if that is the case for off-brand inks and papers. Buyer beware!

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net

Gentlemen,

I attempted to be specific in answering the ladies question.

Having worked in inkjet printer development for over 20 years I would be the first to accept that the OEMs provide inexpensive printers, below develpment cost. Tooling, development, manufacturing, and marketing costs are recovered by 800% profits in sales of supplies.
Not all after market inkjet cartridges violate oem patents, although most manufactured in China do. The Nine Star product for the C86 printer does not violate any Epson patents. I just completed a detailed patent review of the designs and ink formulations. The DCI ink has better archivability than the Formulabs ink used by Nine Star.

Durabrite ink technology ink not unique, like the newer K3 inks appear to be. Although there are several prior uses of polymer encapsulated pigments inks going back to the 1950's. \

Now for the archivability and ICC profiles for these after market inks, work is published on some formulations and ICC profiles are available from other sites and high quality ink manufacturers. Yes these profiles are different that the Epson ones but they are just as accurate.

I purchase OEM supplies for new printers and use them until identifying a non OEM paper and ink combination, that offer better quality and archivability at more economical pricing. This testing is verified in a major university laboratory, subject to pier review, no just on my say so.

Regards,

Alchemist

Alchemist,

Regarding fade resistance or achivability: "work is published on some formulations" just isn't specific enough for those people interested in this information. Any more details would be helpful.

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net

Alchemist,

What you say in this last post largely confirms the argument I was making for supporting Epson by buying their ink.

The C-86 is essentially a utility printer that can make a decent photographic image print. So, less serious and committed photographers motivated largely by cost differences may find your argument reasonable.

But for serious dedicated photographers who buy a printer primarily for reproducing photographs, the facts you provide argue in favor of the idea of supporting the printer maker by buying their ink even though more costly because you are supporting a business model that brings you new and better printers for photography. And, if not enough photography users support a company like Epson and their business model, high performance, more advanced, better performing photo printers may not be available in the future.

So what you are advocating is cheaper is better regardless of the consequences to the future.

David,

You seem to ignore the fact that the Alchemist directly answered the womans question about non oem cartridges. You seem to be on Epsons payroll.

David

Without Epson's very high investment in R&D photographers would not have both superior quality inkjet photo printers, and at a price that is affordable to individual photographers. It makes no sense to me to starve the goose that lays the golden eggs just to be cheap about buying ink.

BTW repeat your charge to the managers at Epson, it would give them a good laugh because I am about the most difficult and independent writer they have to deal with and I give them a pretty hard time when they are pitching me on a new product.

Mr. Brooks gets free printers and supplies from Epson so I would assume that his bias runs VERY deep against non OEM product. You dont see him spitting on his gravy train.

He is so biased to this fact that he believes that NO non OEM product could ever rise up to or over OEM standards. That is just SOOO wrong. The Quality Aftermarket Inkmakers have to actually make ink with wider color gamets, larger rheology variants, and compatibilty tests to be able to work in a wider range of end sites than EPSON could even imagine.

Some people think the finished product is the best it can be, others think it is just the start of something better.

The Lawsuits were for patent imfringement of design and a few ink patents. If any aftermarket ink company copies ink and design then yes sue them to the full extent of the law.

To say that they are junk is to say that you are so brainwashed to use only GM approved parts, Ford Convertable tops, and Intel processors without looking at alternatives.

Mr. Brooks, Open your eyes to the fact that your Epson's Lackey in many ways.

Unless your an Ink Chemist and have formulated ink for 20+ years then just limit your remarks to what you actually do for a living and not what is obviously is out of your field of educational studies.

You spout the marketing lines very well for Epson. Did you cut and paste them from emails?

So easy to hide behind anonymity and launch personal attacks. Who, exactly, do YOU represent?

Apparently you didn't read Mr. Brooks article in the February issue about converting an Epson printer to dedicated B&W use with third-party inks. Of course, that was before the release of the 2400 and 4800, but if he were really the lackey you accuse him of being, would he have written the article at all?

I could go on, but I have a limited time for idiots and you've just used it all up.

In a way I could wish what you said about free printers and ink were true, especially after just getting a package of Epson ink that cost me $250 I get the loan of a new printer for testing and either send it back or get an invoice for purchase. Sorry I don't do ANY printing that is not for testing purposes, like work I am currently doing on a new printer calibration and profiling system. Even if Epson did provide printers free it would be of no value to me because I don't make prints except for test and evaluation.

If your ink is so good why don't you manufacture your own printers to use it? There is a word for 3rd party ink makers like yourself: parasite.

Mr. Anonymous,

Your unsubstantiated claims and accusations are inappropriate on this forum. I may not always agree with David Brooks, but I respect his integrity. If you can't behave, then goodbye.

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net

Quote:
In a way I could wish what you said about free printers and ink were true, especially after just getting a package of Epson ink that cost me $250 I get the loan of a new printer for testing and either send it back or get an invoice for purchase. Sorry I don't do ANY printing that is not for testing purposes, like work I am currently doing on a new printer calibration and profiling system. Even if Epson did provide printers free it would be of no value to me because I don't make prints except for test and evaluation.

If your ink is so good why don't you manufacture your own printers to use it? There is a word for 3rd party ink makers like yourself: parasite.

I have to agree with David here. I have done a lot of beta testing for both Jobo and Ilford in the past, for both wet process and ink jet papers and equipment. i.e. I did some extensive test on Ilfords ink jet papers when they first came out. They supplied the paper, but I supplied both my time (extensive) and the ink and printer. Believe me, the ink costs were quite extensive, and the amounts of paper I received never came close to covering my out of pocket costs.

Dave,

I think that idea that the press in particular got lots of freebies came from the 70's when some camera companies did give a new model camera to members of the press. But the very few times that happened the company always engraved your name on the camera, I think to prevent you from selling it! But that was 30 years ago, and things have changed. The only people who get freebies from photo companies these days are the "celebrities" of the profession, people who can readily afford to buy the stuff anyway.

Gentlemen,

I been out of the country since my last post, but I must repeat my original posting which several folks seem to be unable to digest. The member asked about alternate inkjet cartridges for the C86 and warranty issues. I provided information about both. The opinions are not to the best of my belief, they are results based on testing with three seperate printers, Mac OS and Windows XP operating systems, and MacBeth Color Eye measurements. Three cartridges of each were tested along with three oems on each printer, on mat, semi-gloss, and gloss papers. These are industry standards for making comparison testing, note casual observations made on one evaluation printer. You would be surprised how much difference there is from printer to printer. The warranty position is matter of legal opinion by the US Federal court system. Patent analysis is very specific, since that is part of my business, and not uneducated comments.

That said I do appreciate the OEM developments in digital quality printers and if you carefully read my comments I stated that I use OEM ink and paper until I find an alternatives that provide better color gamit and archivability, then I will switch. The rest of this on-going discussion seems to be missing those points; answers to specific questions posted. Let's rise above the non-professional stuff.

Alchemist

Correction to last posting!

I left out "more ecconomical ink and paper", when talking about the gamit and archivability of these non-oem supplies. Sorry about not proofing my last posting. Still recovering jet lag.

Alchemist

Alchemist,

Interesting test results. Where are they published?

Alchemist,

So that we all may "rise above the non-professional stuff", the term is gamut, not gamit.

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net

Bill,

Those tests that we just completed were done for a major retail chain. The results will be available in the first quarter of 2006, on their website. With their permission I will send them to the Imaging Science Journals and then post them on several sites, hopefully also this one.

Alchemist

TO everyone saying we should buy OEM ink to support epson rather than because it is better I think you guys are crazy.

Your arguments are total BS because if epson needed more R&D dollars they could raise the printer price. They don't need to overcharge for the same ink these aftermarket schmucks are selling. And lets get something straight here, its not like epson isn't making enough money and it too poor to afford R&D, give me a break. I'd cut off my left tit if the epson ink cartridges, even including R&D costs exceeded 1% of the MSRP. Think about it, if an aftermarket company can afford to manufacture, market, sell and make a hefty enough profit to enter the business off of them, you mean to tell me that epson isn't just plain ripping you off? Give me a break.

You guys may know your stuff about colors and pictures and stuff but you seem to know little about economics.

Anyway, I have a C86 printer from epson and after a while it starts getting bands, etc and I have to change the cartridges even though 1/2 the ink is left. So, eventually I figured out it is much cheaper not to buy the epson stuff but to go aftermarket since tons of the ink is being thrown out anyway. I need to get a cheap replacement because they made something about the printer, donno if its the cartrdge or what, so shitty that it doesn't last anway.

And like you said, you only print these things for tests, try using them in real life. Print a page or two then wait a month and try again. On an almost brand new cartridge you'll get a shitty print and have to change it again.

Thats all I have 2 say becuase your comments pissed me off and you don't know what your talking about on this printer, I own one and you have probably only used it a couple times right out of the box to do yhour review.

[Deleted by moderator]

This type of language has no place on this forum - express your opinions but keep it clean please.

This kind of language has no place on this forum. Please clean up your act or leave us alone.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer