Refilling Epson P5000

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Alexey Senior Member • Posts: 1,272
Refilling Epson P5000

I am about to get Epson p5000 printer without ink.  I have lots and lots of old K3 ink that I am successfully using to successfully refill the same generation HD-ink printers (P600 and P800 without need for any additional proofing).   Should I be able to refill p5000 with the same ink?  I also have some green and orange HDR inks.  Do you think there would be any issues using these inks in P5000?

Can someone recommend reliable and affordable refillable carts?  Thanks so much in advance!

Nikon Coolpix P5000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
OP Alexey Senior Member • Posts: 1,272
Re: Refilling Epson P5000

Any help or advice on refilling p5000 would be tremendously appreciated.

Keith Cooper
Keith Cooper Veteran Member • Posts: 3,201
A better place to try?
2

Alexey wrote:

Any help or advice on refilling p5000 would be tremendously appreciated.

My suspicion is that given the markets the P5000 is aimed at, it does not attract those worried about ink costs. Personally I'd never consider refills etc, but you could try the forums at:

https://www.printerknowledge.com

Lots more 'economy minded' printer users there

-- hide signature --

bye for now
Keith Cooper

 Keith Cooper's gear list:Keith Cooper's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
OP Alexey Senior Member • Posts: 1,272
Re: A better place to try?
1

Thanks, Keith! I’ll check on those forums as well.

I read somewhere most professional level printers, on the level of 4800-4900 and above are being refilled. Why woulfd P5000 be any different? From what I understand, very few professional users outside of US, Some EU countries and Japan use OEM inks and higher-level printers are actually intended to run on non-oem inks. The losses of ink sales are supposedly factored into the price of higher-end printers. I would bet that most of professional Epson printers around the world run on third-party inks.

The only advantage of OEM inks is longevity. Print longevity is important for artists and individuals printing family photos. But is the difference in fade-resistance between 20 and 80 megalux hours truly important for most commercial printers (who print for clients, rather than themselves) over huge cost savings?

On the other hand, I would expect a lot more prosumer printers, like p600, p700, and p800 to run on OEM inks, as artists are using these printers to print their few precious works, rather than printing en masse for the clients.

I used to print photos with the highest-end commercial printers in NYC. These were the same places that most on this forum know and that most wedding photographers use. 5-10 years down the line, most of those prints are badly faded. I doubt that any of these top brand-name ever used OEM inks. If this happens with top NYC printers, I doubt the rest of the world’s commercial printers are any better. So why wouldn’t a professional-level printer like p5000 be designed to handle third-party inks if that’s what most of the world is using?

Am I wrong in my statements above?

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 7,602
Re: A better place to try?
2

I read somewhere most professional level printers, on the level of 4800-4900 and above are being refilled.

And I read somewhere that survivors were found aboard the R.M.S. Titanic:

But I'd take any such claims with a lot of salt.

From what I understand ... higher-level printers are actually intended to run on non-oem inks.

That seems extremely unlikely. Why would Epson (or Canon or HP) design its higher-end printers to run on some other ink? As long as they run well on OEM ink, clogging badly and/or otherwise failing with third-party ink would almost seem to Epson etc. to be a feature, not a bug.

The losses of ink sales are supposedly factored into the price of higher-end printers. I would bet that most of professional Epson printers around the world run on third-party inks.

The only advantage of OEM inks is longevity.

Anecdotally, it appears to me that OEM inks are involved in a far lower rate of clogging and similar, compared to third-party inks. However, I can't tell you the relative causal importance of the inks themselves, refilling procedures, and/or third-party cartridges sometimes used.

Also, lack of color-matching can be an issue with non-OEM inks.

I used to print photos with the highest-end commercial printers in NYC. These were the same places that most on this forum know and that most wedding photographers use. 5-10 years down the line, most of those prints are badly faded.

Color photos used to be predominately printed with a 'wet' process i.e. RA-4, producing 'C prints'. If displayed in a way that subjects them to much light exposure, they tend to fade fairly quickly. Fuji Crystal Archive paper was (is) a big improvement in this regard, but the basic problem isn't about the lab but the materials themselves.

I doubt that any of these top brand-name ever used OEM inks.

And I bet that the top photo printers in NYC predominately use OEM inks for their top-quality photo prints.

Am I wrong in my statements above?

Can I get $100 down on, 'yes'?

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 9,351
Re: Refilling Epson P5000
5

There's always someone trying to rationalize using cheap ink in a pro printer, and you're welcome to do so if you wish to produce a substandard print to sell to unsuspecting clients.

But there are also those of us who take pride in their work and prefer to produce the highest quality prints we can.

My question is why do you want to take the chance of damaging the head on a very nice printer just to save a few pennies on ink? Even buying outdated OEM ink is better than using 3rd party.

 mike earussi's gear list:mike earussi's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art +2 more
OP Alexey Senior Member • Posts: 1,272
Re: Refilling Epson P5000

Thanks for all the interesting replies.  It is not a topic I’ve thought much about.  So, my statement above on non-oem inks may well be wrong.  But it’s a strong gut feeling that most prio-level Epsons around the world are used with non-oem inks.  This is also based on talking with several professional printers in Eastern Europe and Asia, who assured me that they and their colleagues never considered buying OEM inks.  I am happy to be prrsuaded otherwise or hear more opinions from those in the know.

I, personally, only ever used oem inks in my printers.  Even though I used K3 in HD machines. (For me, printing on and maintaining several pro-level printers is purely a hobby and charity, into which i invested tens of thousands and made 0 from it so far).

But if I was a professional printer and lived in a country with much lower living standards (as most countries are), how would it be reasonable for me to pay hundreds of dollars for each cartridge and to charge several follars for each print?  This, in a world, where most people live on only a few dollars per day?

Printers in third world countries still use professional Canon and Epson prointers.  But what are the chances most of them are paying hundreds of dollars per cartridge?

mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 9,351
Re: Refilling Epson P5000
2

Those of us who live in the U.S. are spoiled. We don't realize how much easier it is to obtain papers and inks that others find difficult or even impossible to get. Also our prices may be a lot less than in other countries.

If you're selling into an economically challenged market you work with what you got. Just be sure to warn your customers that the prints may fade within a few years.

The best solution is to buy outdated inks (where possible) instead of 3rd party as (in the U.S.) there's not much difference in price and at least you know the ink was made for the printer.

 mike earussi's gear list:mike earussi's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art +2 more
sjstremb
sjstremb Contributing Member • Posts: 607
Re: A better place to try?

I totally agree with all the points the contrarian makes. I would only use third party inks in a P5000 if I was willing to risk a terminal head clog and had much lower standards for color consistency and color management. Worth mentioning I am on my second P5000 and have owned Epson 4000, and 48000 and prior to retiring ran a digital lab at a University photography program. I see this as a classic penny wise pound foolish errand.

 sjstremb's gear list:sjstremb's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X70 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Nikon D850 +21 more
Gesture Forum Pro • Posts: 10,057
Re: A better place to try?

Did the University get special pricing on printers and the inks?

Petruska Veteran Member • Posts: 9,272
There are many P5000 refillable cartridges available.
3

The set if not cheap and the cartridge chips are not re-settable, you must buy/use single use chips, which again are not cheap.

I sort of disagree with other posters here about 3rd party inks.  Inkjetmall (Cone) inks are great quality.  Yes they fade slightly faster than OEM, but the quality is there.  They won't clog your print head any more than OEM.  Color matching to OEM is excellent.  They have the same polymer encapsulated pigment particles as OEM,  In fact,, they are more glossy than OEM which helps a lot with satin/luster/glossy prints.  I have prints made with Inkjetmall ink that are over 10 years old and don't see any fading to the eye.

I must admit that I now run OEM inks extracted from Epson large format printer cartridges using refillable cartridges in my Epson R2880, R3000, P600 printers.  These extracted OEM inks are currently a lot cheaper than Inkjetmall inks, but if the cheap (Ebay) large format cartridge supply dries up I have no problem going back to Inkjetmall inks.  A lot of people just like to print but can't afford the OEM ink prices, they also may not care much about fading, 3rd party inks are for them.

Good luck in your quest!

Bob P.

Gesture Forum Pro • Posts: 10,057
Re: There are many P5000 refillable cartridges available.
1

Good thought, Bob.

In my limited experience, I consider Photo Black the Universal Black.  As papers have matured, couldn't Epson and Canon have settled on a Hybrid Black?

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 7,602
Fading with third-party inks
4

I sort of disagree with other posters here about 3rd party inks. Inkjetmall (Cone) inks are great quality. Yes they fade slightly faster than OEM ....

Album / dark storage is one thing, but for prints left on display and/or otherwise exposed to light, even those Cone inks fade much faster than OEM, at least if you believe the Aardenburg tests (and Precision Colors inks faded even faster, sometimes much faster). For those who aren't familiar, the Aardenburg results are reported in a light dose of megalux-hours, with one result for the point where at least 10% of the colors have faded to a degree Aardenburg rates significant, and another result for the point where at least 50% of the colors have faded to a degree Aardenburg rates significant. The higher the megalux-hours reported in the test, the more fade-resistant the print.

Aardenburg tests found that the Cone color inks faded between 4 and 5 times as fast as the corresponding Epson pigment inks. For ConeColorPro inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson R3000, the results were 11 and 15 megalux-hours, respectively (test #278). For Epson K3 + Vivid Magenta inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson 3880 (same inkset as R3000), the results were 54 and 67 megalux-hours, respectively (test #279).

And Cone actually came out looking quite good in comparison to another big name in third-party inks. Direct comparisons getting progressively worse for third-party inks:

Aardenburg tests found that the Precision Colors pigment inks faded 6 times as fast as the corresponding Canon pigment inks. For Precision Colors PC29 inks on Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag paper in a Canon Pro-1, the results were 8 and 11 megalux-hours, respectively (test #328). For Canon Lucia (PGI-29) inks on Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag paper in a Canon Pro-1, the results were 47 and 66 megalux-hours, respectively (test #331).

Aardenburg tests found that the Precision Colors dye inks faded between 25 and 48 times as fast as the corresponding Canon dye inks. For Precision Colors PC42 inks on Canon LU-101 Pro Luster paper in a Canon Pro-100, the results were 1.2 and 2.3 megalux-hours (not a typo: one-point-two and two-point-three), respectively (test #326). For Canon ChromaLife 100+ inks on Canon LU-101 Pro Luster paper in a Canon Pro-100, the results were 57 and 57 megalux-hours (yes, same for both), respectively (test #304).

Aardenburg tests found that the Precision Colors pigment inks faded more than 70 times as fast as the corresponding Epson pigment inks. For Precision Colors PCK3HD inks on Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag paper in an Epson P800, the results were 1.3 and 1.7 megalux-hours (not a typo: one-point-three and one-point-seven), respectively (test #327). For Epson UltraChrome HD inks on Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag paper in an Epson P600 (same inkset as P800), the results were 95 and 122 megalux-hours, respectively (test #330).

And about dye versus pigment: the Aardenburg tests found that even the best third-party pigment inks tested (Cone) were only about as fade-resistant as the genuine Epson Claria dye inks, and much less fade-resistant than genuine Canon ChromaLife 100+ dye inks; and some of the third-party pigment inks faded much faster than even the genuine Epson Claria dye inks.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
Petruska Veteran Member • Posts: 9,272
Very true what you state about fading.........
3

A lot of users on this forum are just hobbyists and ink costs mean a lot to them so 3rd party inks are the best way for them. Plus most likely fading doesn't mean much. If they want to keep a special print for a long time use a lab for some of the prints.

Yes most of my prints using Injetmall (Jon Cone) inks are over 10 years old and stored in albums and have no fade at all. I ran a real world fade test with Cone vs OEM Epson inks with prints on a wall for 1 year. No fade in either. I was the one that supplied Aardenburg with the R3000 Cone ink test print samples.

Now here is something to think about - Inkjetmall's main customers are Epson large format printer users. Usually these large format people are printing to sell and they use 3rd party ink. Look at Jon Cone's custom print services, his client list is some of the best photographers, his print prices are extremely high.........he uses his own inks!

Do we really know if the many labs out there use OEM ink or is it 3rd party?

Bob P.

jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Re: Very true what you state about fading.........
1

Petruska wrote:

....Yes most of my prints using Injetmall (Jon Cone) inks are over 10 years old and stored in albums and have no fade at all. I ran a real world fade test with Cone vs OEM Epson inks with prints on a wall for 1 year. No fade in either........

I also conducted my own real world fade test of Cone inks.  My control print was stored in the dark.  My duplicate test print was placed about 18" away from a 100 watt light bulb that was on an average of more than 12 hours a day.  After a few months, I left for an extended travel shoot and I placed the test print in a West facing window where it received a few hours a day of direct sunlight.  After my trip the print went back next to the light bulb.  After a year or so of testing I could see absolutely no difference between the test and control prints and I lost interest and stopped the experiment.  Needless to say, the light intensity for the test print was many, many times harsher than typically hanging on a wall even in a bright room.  In addition most framed prints would be behind glass or acrylic glazing which would greatly reduce UV exposure.

The Inkjetmall webpages also include fade data for their K3 equivalent inks.  As I remember the test data showed roughly a 50 year life when hung in normal lighting even without glazing.  If true archival storage is desired, the print paper and acid free storage containers can be more important than the ink.  At least that is the case for pigment inks.  Cheap dye inks are a whole different issue.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +6 more
Gesture Forum Pro • Posts: 10,057
Re: Very true what you state about fading.........

Impressive.  18" from a 100 watt bulb would be hot also?

Thanks for sharing.

jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Re: Very true what you state about fading.........

Gesture wrote:

Impressive. 18" from a 100 watt bulb would be hot also?

Thanks for sharing.

No, heat rises.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +6 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 7,602
Light & time -> fading

Yes most of my prints using Injetmall (Jon Cone) inks are over 10 years old and stored in albums and have no fade at all. I ran a real world fade test with Cone vs OEM Epson inks with prints on a wall for 1 year. No fade in either........

I also conducted my own real world fade test of Cone inks. My control print was stored in the dark. My duplicate test print was placed about 18" away from a 100 watt light bulb that was on an average of more than 12 hours a day. After a few months, I left for an extended travel shoot and I placed the test print in a West facing window where it received a few hours a day of direct sunlight. After my trip the print went back next to the light bulb. After a year or so of testing I could see absolutely no difference between the test and control prints and I lost interest and stopped the experiment. Needless to say, the light intensity for the test print was many, many times harsher than typically hanging on a wall even in a bright room. In addition most framed prints would be behind glass or acrylic glazing which would greatly reduce UV exposure.

The Inkjetmall webpages also include fade data for their K3 equivalent inks. As I remember the test data showed roughly a 50 year life when hung in normal lighting even without glazing. If true archival storage is desired, the print paper and acid free storage containers can be more important than the ink. At least that is the case for pigment inks. Cheap dye inks are a whole different issue.

Obviously there are major issues of YMMV. Obviously whether / how a print is framed can make a huge difference. But just to put the data I presented into a context more familiar to most people: IIRC, the Wilhelm 'years' rating for light exposure--whose methodology differs substantially from Aardenburg's methodology in various ways--are based on an average light exposure of 450 lux for 12 hours per day, 365 days per year. At that rate, 10 years = 19.7 mega-lux hours. The figures are proportional, so e.g. the ConeColorPro inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson R3000 ones of 11 and 15 megalux-hours would correspond to about 6 and 8 years under 'Wilhelm exposure' conditions but using the Aardenburg fading thresholds.

And again, this is for (1) noticeable fading (2) with fairly bright light exposures. And of course, glass that filters out a substantial fraction of the UV light tends to protect from fading, and AFAIK even typical ordinary window glass often does that.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Re: Light & time -> fading

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

Yes most of my prints using Injetmall (Jon Cone) inks are over 10 years old and stored in albums and have no fade at all. I ran a real world fade test with Cone vs OEM Epson inks with prints on a wall for 1 year. No fade in either........

I also conducted my own real world fade test of Cone inks. My control print was stored in the dark. My duplicate test print was placed about 18" away from a 100 watt light bulb that was on an average of more than 12 hours a day. After a few months, I left for an extended travel shoot and I placed the test print in a West facing window where it received a few hours a day of direct sunlight. After my trip the print went back next to the light bulb. After a year or so of testing I could see absolutely no difference between the test and control prints and I lost interest and stopped the experiment. Needless to say, the light intensity for the test print was many, many times harsher than typically hanging on a wall even in a bright room. In addition most framed prints would be behind glass or acrylic glazing which would greatly reduce UV exposure.

The Inkjetmall webpages also include fade data for their K3 equivalent inks. As I remember the test data showed roughly a 50 year life when hung in normal lighting even without glazing. If true archival storage is desired, the print paper and acid free storage containers can be more important than the ink. At least that is the case for pigment inks. Cheap dye inks are a whole different issue.

Obviously there are major issues of YMMV. Obviously whether / how a print is framed can make a huge difference. But just to put the data I presented into a context more familiar to most people: IIRC, the Wilhelm 'years' rating for light exposure--whose methodology differs substantially from Aardenburg's methodology in various ways--are based on an average light exposure of 450 lux for 12 hours per day, 365 days per year. At that rate, 10 years = 19.7 mega-lux hours. The figures are proportional, so e.g. the ConeColorPro inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson R3000 ones of 11 and 15 megalux-hours would correspond to about 6 and 8 years under 'Wilhelm exposure' conditions but using the Aardenburg fading thresholds.

And again, this is for (1) noticeable fading (2) with fairly bright light exposures. And of course, glass that filters out a substantial fraction of the UV light tends to protect from fading, and AFAIK even typical ordinary window glass often does that.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +6 more
jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Re: Light & time -> fading

jrkliny wrote:

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

the ConeColorPro inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson R3000 ones of 11 and 15 megalux-hours would correspond to about 6 and 8 years under 'Wilhelm exposure' conditions but using the Aardenburg fading thresholds.

Before you accept any such conclusions, I suggest you look at the original data and protocols.  First, has the method been validated?  The most basic approach is to do replicate testing on samples from the same inks, papers and testing methods.  This establishes whether results of the testing methods and equipment are reproducible.  Next are quality control specimens included with each test batch?  Again quality control materials would include samples of a material previously tested numerous times to establish statistical measures of variability.  Finally does the "researcher" understand the very basics of method validation and quality control or do they argue that neither is necessary?  Answers to these questions are what motivated me to look at "real life" fade testing even though I did not have access to calibrated light sources and measuring devices.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads