My EcoTank dilemma

[Paul Houle]

I have an Epson EcoTank ET-4760 printer which I use to print photographs, art reproductions and pictures of anime characters. Almost everything I print has a front side and also a 'back side' with commentary and a QR code.

I like the printer in most respects and think the print quality is fine, operating costs are low, etc. I've got the minor complaint that the paper feeding mechanism is finicky (I have no trouble w/ 60 pound paper but anything heavier or lighter than that has trouble feeding, particularly refeeding to print both sides.)

I strongly hate mattes and frames. It drove me crazy that I got a large number of framed images from my parents that left lots of glass in my house. It was such a liberation when I broke them all down and took paper out.

So my practice is about maximizing what I can do with bare unprotected prints.

I made the discovery recently though that the EcoTank printer ink is terribly fugitive. Wilhelm research says the prints fade in 1 year but I've got one location in my house where anime art (supposedly more robust than photos) gets seriously faded in 6 months.

Matte prints are the center of what I do but I like glossies too. 4x6 was my favorite format when I started but I am printing a lot of 5x7s now that I print my own photographs more. I am also a big fan of 8x8 bright paper squares I get at Michaels.

This used to be my favorite paper:

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/matte-photo-paper-4x6-120-sheets

but right now I believe it fades worse than anything else I've tried. (With limited evidence)

I am within sight of needing more ink and considering my next move and would love to get some opinions, hopefully backed by fact. Here are options I'm mulling over.

(1) Live with it. My operating costs are low. I can cover enough of my office wall to change the radiative transfer characteristics with 8x8 prints with a material budget under $30 including adhesives. I can put prints up and take prints down quickly with BluTack and have no damage problems. (Though I am still perfecting the process to solve curling problems.)

(2) Optimize it. I think I could get better life with other papers or some treatment. No way am I framing though.

(3) Third-Party Ink. I'm sure there is some ink I could put in the printer that would perform better. I could end up going from the frying pan to the fire, however. I print a lot of borderless prints and need the ink to not cause problems with that. If I do experiment with inks I know I'm going to put blood, sweat and tears into it and might end up printing hundreds of prints and spending a lot of time and money. To keep my printing habit going I think I want to buy another printer to have a daily driver while I experiment on my current printer.

(4) A different printer. I am comfortable with small-format. I want to quit fighting with the pick roller and feed straight through. Everything I print is two sided but it would take a lot for me to trust a duplexer with diverse papers. I am looking for some intersection of print quality, lightfastness, and low material cost. I'm not convinced a six color printer is much better than a four color printer.

Any thoughts or facts?

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I have an Epson EcoTank ET-4760 printer which I use to print photographs, art reproductions and pictures of anime characters....

I strongly hate mattes and frames....

So my practice is about maximizing what I can do with bare unprotected prints.

I made the discovery recently though that the EcoTank printer ink is terribly fugitive....

Matte prints are the center of what I do but I like glossies too...

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/matte-photo-paper-4x6-120-sheets

... fades worse than anything else I've tried....

...

Third-Party Ink. I'm sure there is some ink I could put in the printer that would perform better....

(4) A different printer....

Any thoughts or facts?

One of the Epson printers using DuraBrite pigment ink might be a better bet. There are even one or more that are 'tank' printers, or can be refilled with genuine Epson DuraBrite ink from something much bigger than typical small-printer ink cartridges. See the ones that take the R12X ink, evidently the WF-R4640, WF-R5690, and WF-R5190.

I find it unlikely that there's a third-party ink for your ET-4760 that's substantially more fade-resistant. In every real scientific test (Aardenburg, Wilhelm, or similar) of third-party ink I've seen, it has faded far faster than the corresponding OEM ink.

 

[Gesture]

Keep an eye on Precision Colors to see when it may offer a pigment ink set for the ET-8550. Ken Lee has been running pigment ink in an ET-8550, as reported on Jose Rodriguez's Sunday YouTube videos.

It's no secret that the Epson piezo print heads can handle multiple inks. For example, there are dozens of videos on YouTube on converting Epson printers to sublimation ink. Can't do the same thing with thermal ink jet printers.

Once you've got your initial investment met, I'd consider converting to third party pigment ink and profiling. There is some risk, as pigment ink does clog more easily, although after years of doing this my impression is that the print head design is also a factor in clogging.

What I don't care for is that Epson isn't very forthcoming about what type of ink (pigment or dye) is in the different positions of its EcoTank printers. And this is definitely the future for Epson, from small home printers to huge office printers.

Looks like those WorkForce printers with pigment ink packs ar discontinued, even this one:

WorkForce Pro ET-8700 EcoTank All-in-One Supertank Printer

 

[Fazal Majid]

I have the ET-16600, which has pigment inks, including for color. The cheaper models have dye inks, or in some cases pigment black and dye CMY.

I think expecting the paper to compensate for dye inks' inherent lack of longevity is a lost cause. You'd need swellable polymer paper that englobes the ink to protect it, but it seems most of them were discontinued, possibly because people who care about permanence have all switched to pigment inks.

Another option would be to laminate the prints.

--
Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)

 

[A Owens]

You will end up with clogs and reduced gamut if you try to convert to pigments in that printer. Landfill if you change it for another. Unless you are selling prints or producing priceless masterpieces, just rotate what you have on your wall using the paper that works best for you and the printer. You could try various laminates and/or sprays but they will change the surface texture and look of your work and require yet more stuff and fapping about.

 

[Paul Houle]

It looks like Eco Tank Pro and Photo Eco Tank printers are backordered everywhere so I can't be in much of a hurry. (I think I have a few months of runway left before getting more ink, but if I could get something now that might tilt my decision.)

How do you feel about the quality of the prints made by the ET-16600? I haven't seen reputable reviews of it.

I notice Epson has a third line of Ecotank prints, the "EcoTank Photo" which uses the Claria ET dye ink instead of the DuraBright pigment ink. Wilhelm research seems to think the Claria ET ink in cartridges is relatively good for permanence but that DuraBright is a better. An example of an EcoTank Photo printer is the ET-8550. Any thoughts about that one?

 

[Fazal Majid]

How do you feel about the quality of the prints made by the ET-16600? I haven't seen reputable reviews of it.

It's a CMYK printer, so don't expect state-of-the-art fine-art quality, but most laymen will find it entirely acceptable. I mostly use it to print A3 maps or small posters on 160–200gsm plain paper that are then laminated. The quality is perfectly fine for that application.

I notice Epson has a third line of Ecotank prints, the "EcoTank Photo" which uses the Claria ET dye ink instead of the DuraBright pigment ink. Wilhelm research seems to think the Claria ET ink in cartridges is relatively good for permanence but that DuraBright is a better. An example of an EcoTank Photo printer is the ET-8550. Any thoughts about that one?

People who have the ET-8550 seem to be happy with it. It's a step closer to the supertank fine art printer, but not there yet (it really adds just two inks, a mid-gray and photo black). I'd give it a wide berth just because of the dye ink, and I have my doubts about the Wilhelm methodology.

 

[Roditch]

Hi What do you think about the archival - how many years under glass inside a normal room - of the Epson ET-18100. Good enough to sell? I see conflicting reports. Some say the Claria inks are 80 years under glass. I see aardenburg say around 10 years but depends on paper. One paper Canson was 66 years with premium art spray. If you had to choose between the 18100 and the 16600 for selling prints would it be an easy decision for you. many thanks

 

[Fazal Majid]

if I were selling prints, I would grit my teeth and pay Epson or Canon's extortionate (cartridge) pigment ink fine art printers. The ET-16600 is not up to fine art standards, and dye inks are just not durable enough for an ethical seller.

I don't trust accelerated-aging print permanence tests, they can only provide an upper bound for longevity, but unanticipated factors could severely reduce real-life durability. IIRC two decades ago Wilhelm had to embarrasingly retract findings because they hadn't accounted for ozone.

 

[Gesture]

Good post. As someone who has in a box somewhere the very first study and catalog from Wilhelm, East Street Gallery, I agree. In fact, he still owes me a hard copy of a box that was many years in development! Eventually, it was posted online.