3rd Party pigments and testing.

[migla9]

Forgot InkJetFly:

http://www.inkjetfly.com/information.php?info_id=14

There's no information about how these figures were derived, but neither is there any claim that they're not in the same ballpark as oem. I know that a few months ago, Leo only had informal longevity results but was expecting to have lab results in Q2 of this year. Still, it would be nice to see some details. As for gamut, here is someone who did some gamut comparisons of OEM, IJF and IR inks. Again, they are not "vastly inferior" and, in fact, in some areas are better than oem:

http://www.ripitgolf.com/ink_comparison.htm

 

[T.Garrett]

but you did misunderstand him. I asked him to clarify it. He has told me that 3rd party "dye" ink does not last as long as OEM dye ink. However, pigment ink is at least equal to OEM pigment.
In my case, I found the dye ink photos holding up just as long at the ones done
with OEM ink.
Tom

 

[Doug Walker]

Again, they are not "vastly inferior" and, in fact, in some areas are
better than oem:

http://www.ripitgolf.com/ink_comparison.htm

For those that aren't that concerned about print longevity then don't waste your time on this thread.

Its not my responsibility to defend what someone else says about their products. Nowhere did I say anything was "vastly" inferior to anything else. In fact it is you who are now making unsubstantiated claims about 3rd party inks being better than OEM. So where is your proof? Instead of wasting your time flaming me why don't you contact the 3rd party ink resellers/mfgs. for yourself and tell us all what they have to say? Or better yet why haven't any of them chimed in here to set the record straight? Hmmm!!!! Believe me, they are watching this thread as evidenced by another email to me indicating so.

There are no tests anywhere that compare 3rd party inks to MFG's OEM inks. Until there is, I have no option but to rely on what a 3rd party ink supplier has told me. In reviewing his email he did indicated he was referring to dye ink. As far as pigment ink, who knows.

As far as the Epson 1400, it was the 1400 that originally prompted me to post the absolutely phenomenal longevity achieved by Epson's Claria High Definition inks. This is substantiated by Wilhelm research and is only 5% different than the Epson 1800's pigment inks on Epson Premium Glossy paper (according to Wilhelm). I've said this before, THIS IS REALLY BIG NEWS FOR DYE INKS. Should I say that again? THIS IS REALLY BIG NEWS FOR DYE INKS. 98 yrs. framed under glass as tested by Wilhelm. That is the only dye ink I know of that claims to last that long. And, there is the advantage of freedom from clogging as posted by many, many users of Epson pigment ink printers.

--
Doug Walker

 

[Doug Walker]

but you did misunderstand him. I asked him to clarify it. He has
told me that 3rd party "dye" ink does not last as long as OEM dye
ink. However, pigment ink is at least equal to OEM pigment.
In my case, I found the dye ink photos holding up just as long at the
ones done
with OEM ink.
Tom

Tom,

I know you are a straight shooter and are only interested in providing honest results with the intent of moving along support for good CIS systems (as am I). I did review the email sent to me and he was referring to dye inks. But, I don't know how you can conclude that any pigment ink from any 3rd party supplier is equal to OEM pigment inks. There are no such tests that confirms this. Just hanging a photo on the wall for a couple of years does not constitute a valid test. There is no doubt in my mind that pigment inks will last longer than dye inks (in general) but it's also hard to argue that Epson's Claria Hi-Definition DYE inks are just another run of the mill dye ink since Wilhelm Research rated them within 5% longevity of Epson 1800 pigment inks on Premium Glossy paper. As I've posted elsewhere THIS IS REALLY BIG NEWS FOR DYE INKS. By contrast, Wilhelm Research rated the Epson 1280 dye inks at 9 years! The 1400 is the replacement for the 1280 so moving up just one model nets you an 11 times increase in print longevity using DYE inks!! This is unheard of. Kudos to Epson for it's attention to dye inks!!

So the question I have is; if 3rd party dye inks only last 1/3 of OEM are we talking 3 yrs. or 33yrs.? Big difference don't you think?

By contrast, the HP Photosmart Pro B9180 pigment inks are rated at > 200 yrs. framed under glass on HP paper according to Wilhelm Research. That's twice the longevity of the Epson 1800's pigment inks. So another question is where do 3rd party pigment inks fit into that result? Are we to conclude from the general comments from others that 3rd party pigment inks are just as good as "ANY" OEM pigment ink? Common sense says NO and I think those comments are irresponsible and misleading. There appears to be a valid reason why OEM inks cost so much. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

With all that said, you'd think I was anti-CIS and 3rd party inks. Nothing could be further from the truth. With a good top coat like Print Guard (spray can) for low volume printing or Krystal TopKote for high volume printing, 3rd party CIS systems come into their own are way cheaper than OEM inks. The top coating adds longevity and removes the worry about whether that expensive print you sold will hold up over time.
--
Doug Walker

 

[migla9]

Nowhere did I say anything was "vastly" inferior to
anything else.

That's right, you didn't. That sentence was talking about relative gamuts, something that didn't even come up in your posts. My remarks were more in response to the various other threads that claim that non-oem inks are "vastly inferior". Sorry if this appeared to be directed at you personally.

In fact it is you who are now making unsubstantiated
claims about 3rd party inks being better than OEM. So where is your
proof?

Um, there was a colon at the end of my sentence followed by a link? That link went to an article comparing gamut maps of Epson OEM ink vs. IJF vs. InkRepublic. In the maps, you can see where Epson inks are better and where one of the others is. For example, IJF is better than EPSON in the green area, IR is worse than Epson in the red/magenta. What is unsubstantiated?

Instead of wasting your time flaming me why don't you contact
the 3rd party ink resellers/mfgs. for yourself and tell us all what
they have to say?

I'm not flaming you. You said there were no performance claims from 3rd party suppliers and I provided links to the ones that I could find. I was actually surprised to find as much as I did once I started digging a little.

Or better yet why haven't any of them chimed in
here to set the record straight? Hmmm!!!!

Because they're concerned that any direct comments from them will be construed as commercial advertising and self-promotion that is against forum rules.

There are no tests anywhere that compare 3rd party inks to MFG's OEM
inks.

I thought I provided links to several sets of results, some even from Wilhelm.

Until there is, I have no option but to rely on what a 3rd
party ink supplier has told me. In reviewing his email he did
indicated he was referring to dye ink. As far as pigment ink, who
knows.

According to Tom's post, that same 3rd party supplier said "However, pigment ink is at least equal to OEM pigment".

Once again, sorry if you took it personally. I'm just tired of reading many posts that say I must not care about quality or longevity of my work if I use CIS or non-oem ink. I'm just trying to present as much info as I can to show they're not necessarily inferior.

 

[Doug Walker]

Nowhere did I say anything was "vastly" inferior to
anything else.

That's right, you didn't.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Instead of wasting your time flaming me why don't you contact
the 3rd party ink resellers/mfgs. for yourself and tell us all what
they have to say?

I'm not flaming you. You said there were no performance claims from
3rd party suppliers and I provided links to the ones that I could
find. I was actually surprised to find as much as I did once I
started digging a little.

Until Wilhelm Research has something to say about current 3rd party inks vs. OEM inks I have nothing to say.

Or better yet why haven't any of them chimed in
here to set the record straight? Hmmm!!!!

Because they're concerned that any direct comments from them will be
construed as commercial advertising and self-promotion that is
against forum rules.

That's total BS. If 3rd party inks were superior to OEM inks in any way that would be HUGE NEWS and the 3rd party ink suppliers would be the first to gloat about this - everywhere. There is HUGE money to be made ink. In fact, dpreview would be the first to post a link to this claim by any 3rd party ink supplier.

According to Tom's post, that same 3rd party supplier said "However,
pigment ink is at least equal to OEM pigment".

Yes, I have been in contact via email with Tom but, while a nice guy, he is just another user like the rest of us. His experience of hanging a photo on the wall for 2 years does not constitute a valid test of 3rd party pigment inks. I look to Wilhelm Research for that. They are bound, sooner or later, to test some of these 3rd party inks. I just hope the 3rd party suppliers are ready for this.

Once again, sorry if you took it personally. I'm just tired of
reading many posts that say I must not care about quality or
longevity of my work if I use CIS or non-oem ink. I'm just trying to
present as much info as I can to show they're not necessarily
inferior.

Where did I say you must not care about quality or longevity? In fact, I've been saying just the opposite with all of my posts. Maybe you should read my posts COMPLETELY before making such assumptions.

This is becoming way too time consuming to straighten out those that choose to interpret what I say as something other than what I said. I will continue to clarify to those that insist on misquoting me just what my intended posts represent.

--
Doug Walker

 

[Vlada]

I'm just tired of reading many posts that say I must not care about quality or
longevity of my work if I use CIS or non-oem ink. I'm just trying to
present as much info as I can to show they're not necessarily
inferior.

For the past 3 years, none of my clients complain about the quality I give to them.
They cant even tell the difference.

YES, I am using 3rd party inks and I am using InkRepublic R1800 CIS. Do my clients care? most of them dont.
They are confident with the quality and performance delivered by my IR CIS.

 

[Doug Walker]

I'm just tired of reading many posts that say I must not care about quality or
longevity of my work if I use CIS or non-oem ink. I'm just trying to
present as much info as I can to show they're not necessarily
inferior.

For the past 3 years, none of my clients complain about the quality I
give to them.
They cant even tell the difference.
YES, I am using 3rd party inks and I am using InkRepublic R1800 CIS.
Do my clients care? most of them dont.
They are confident with the quality and performance delivered by my
IR CIS.

Vlada,

Thanks for your post,

I'm sure your clients are very happy with what you supply. I'm also sure that 3rd party inks, intelligently used, are a good solution to high priced OEM inks. I'm just trying to filter through what can be substantiated and what is just opinion. It's becoming clearer to me that OEM inks along with OEM papers achieve the best possible results in terms of longevity and print clarity at the cost of a higher price. 3rd party inks offer an alternative to those that complain about the cost of OEM inks but at reduced performance at least in terms of longevity that can't, as of yet, be defined since there are no definitive tests on 3rd party inks by a reputable organization like Wilhelm.

With all that said, I'm still a supporter of 3rd party inks and I'm willing to apply a top coat to bring back the longevity lost with 3rd party inks in order to achieve an overall reduced cost. In fact, I'm currently in email contact with one of the best 3rd party ink suppliers to make this happen for my Epson 1400. I hope everything goes well.
--
Doug Walker

 

[T.Garrett]

but you did misunderstand him. I asked him to clarify it. He has
told me that 3rd party "dye" ink does not last as long as OEM dye
ink. However, pigment ink is at least equal to OEM pigment.
In my case, I found the dye ink photos holding up just as long at the
ones done
with OEM ink.
Tom

Tom,
I know you are a straight shooter and are only interested in
providing honest results with the intent of moving along support for
good CIS systems (as am I). I did review the email sent to me and he
was referring to dye inks.

" One of the top 3 3rd party ink suppliers told me 3rd
party CIS inks only last, at best, about 1/3 as long as OEM inks"
Doug, your quote says CIS inks which I assume would include both dye
and pigment.

But, I don't know how you can conclude
that any pigment ink from any 3rd party supplier is equal to OEM
pigment inks. There are no such tests that confirms this. Just
hanging a photo on the wall for a couple of years does not constitute
a valid test. There is no doubt in my mind that pigment inks will
last longer than dye inks (in general) but it's also hard to argue
that Epson's Claria Hi-Definition DYE inks are just another run of
the mill dye ink since Wilhelm Research rated them within 5%
longevity of Epson 1800 pigment inks on Premium Glossy paper. As I've
posted elsewhere THIS IS REALLY BIG NEWS FOR DYE INKS. By contrast,
Wilhelm Research rated the Epson 1280 dye inks at 9 years! The 1400
is the replacement for the 1280 so moving up just one model nets you
an 11 times increase in print longevity using DYE inks!! This is
unheard of. Kudos to Epson for it's attention to dye inks!!
So the question I have is; if 3rd party dye inks only last 1/3 of OEM
are we talking 3 yrs. or 33yrs.? Big difference don't you think?

I haven't and I don't think anyone on this thread has really been
concerned about dye inks. True, Claria inks are a great breakthrough
but expensive. That's ok for those of you who can afford them.
While I don't sell prints I do the best I can afford to get good longevity;
Therefore, I use 3rd party PIGMENT inks. No there's no formal testing
and there probably won't be anytime soon because of what is reported to
be a very high cost. I believe my supplier to be honest and giving the
best information he has available and I know of several people on this
forum who have used their pigment inks for some time and done some
testing on their own. Phillipos to name one. Besides, I love to print and
I would not be able to print much if I had to pay OEM prices.

By contrast, the HP Photosmart Pro B9180 pigment inks are rated at

200 yrs. framed under glass on HP paper according to Wilhelm

Research. That's twice the longevity of the Epson 1800's pigment
inks. So another question is where do 3rd party pigment inks fit into
that result? Are we to conclude from the general comments from others
that 3rd party pigment inks are just as good as "ANY" OEM pigment
ink? Common sense says NO and I think those comments are
irresponsible and misleading. There appears to be a valid reason why
OEM inks cost so much. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

In most cases that is true but certainly not in every case!
I don't think it's wise to believe everything you hear. On the other
hand I think it's foolish to ignore multiple testimonials from users
who have done testing of their own and used the product for a reasonable
period of time and are completely satisfied with it.
Doug I don't believe you are guilty of this but what I'm really ticked
about are people like the guy who started this thread who is absolutely
positive that 3rd party CIS and Inks are of absolutely no value and those
who choose to use them a flaming idiots!! I could care less what kind of
ink anyone chooses to use but I believe it is unkind and unethical to bad-
mouth someones product when they cannot produce evidence to back it up.
Not only does it harm the supplier but it probably causes some would be
users to back away from it even though they may not need 100 yr. longevity.
Tom

With all that said, you'd think I was anti-CIS and 3rd party inks.
Nothing could be further from the truth. With a good top coat like
Print Guard (spray can) for low volume printing or Krystal TopKote
for high volume printing, 3rd party CIS systems come into their own
are way cheaper than OEM inks. The top coating adds longevity and
removes the worry about whether that expensive print you sold will
hold up over time.
--
Doug Walker

 

[Shifter]

You've both missed the whole point of the thread.
...or I missed it from all the blah-blah-blah from you two.

Use OEM inks if you are serious about your prints especially when
selling them.

 

[Zone8]

I have used what you call 3rd party inks for many years (were PrintRite in Epsons - far better than the original Epsons in terms of no-clogging - the Epson inks almost clogged from the word GO but I had to switch from PR because Epson threatened them due alleged patent infringements on the cartridge design) and I sell my prints, with a warantee - that's how confident I am of their quality.

As a point of interest, when I first got a Canon i9950 in the UK just before I moved, I also obtained a second set of original Canon cartridges. I purchased also online a set of inks from (then) Abitech (now http://www.internetink.co.uk/ ) which came post free even to Spain.

I put some sample A4 prints out in the strong sunlighting - no change with the Abitech inks, even after 3 days exposure. The Canon ones noticeably faded within an hour or so, so I ordered more from Abitech for a special book project (some 4,000 pages of 9x7 on A4 B+W on acid-free coated inkjet card).

I now have a CIS from Kyson (pigmented inks) and am perfectly happy with the quality produced.

There are many "claims" that OEM inks are best but that is not my experience in terms of what I have used over the years, although some are well formulated but must be used on specified related papers. As for waiting for tests by Willhelm - they are not just tests - they are paid-for tests so very unlikely they will test anything unless paid to so do - after all, it is a commercial company that has to pay its staff and presumably, make a profit. I am also unhappy at some of their methods (as a member of the Association of Historical and Fine Art Photographers which is predominantly concerned with longevity of image life within museums and national art galleries, mainly in the UK) - I will not expand on that other than to say the standards are the highest of all)
--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston

 

[enduser]

Well, after many posts, no one has come up with a test for 3rd party pigments.

And no, "test" doesn't mean something has hung on a wall somewhere and doesn't seem to have faded.

By "test" I mean recognised procedures, either Wilhelm, ISO, ASTM or similar. It's done for commercial inks and the colorants my artist friends use. Why not for us.

 

[Zone8]

Well, after many posts, no one has come up with a test for 3rd party
pigments.

And no, "test" doesn't mean something has hung on a wall somewhere
and doesn't seem to have faded.

By "test" I mean recognised procedures, either Wilhelm, ISO, ASTM or
similar. It's done for commercial inks and the colorants my artist
friends use. Why not for us.

Somehow, you seem to have missed the point that such tests have to be paid for by the producers. They are not randomly selected for testing - there is a commercial side of such tests.

If a watercolour was tested in bright sunlight, it would fade quite rapidly. On that basis, anyone who hangs a watercolour painting in strong lighting is somewhat an idiot.

If a print - and it has to be on the right base material (= at least acid free), as many "papers" are the cause of accellerated ageing! - can stand a couple of days in strong sunlight, believe me it is unlikely it will fade for many years in normal or even bright room display lighting. I have some prints on watercolour paper that have been on display for over 8 years and there is no sign of any fading whatsoever. I have, however, found other prints made at the same time on the plastic sort-of photo-like materials faded within a year, so clearly whilst the dyes (at that time) could be perfectly stable, they could be affected by the choice of "paper" that had ingrediants that could effectlively fade those dyes.

In my book, using pigmented inks on high quality watercolour acid-free paper gives a permanence that does not need to be tested and I am perfectly happy to offer prints with a full warantee.

--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston

 

[Mark McCormick]

There are many "claims" that OEM inks are best but that is not my
experience in terms of what I have used over the years, although some
are well formulated but must be used on specified related papers. As
for waiting for tests by Willhelm - they are not just tests - they
are paid-for tests so very unlikely they will test anything unless
paid to so do - after all, it is a commercial company that has to pay
its staff and presumably, make a profit.

Correct, so the majors play the game to their advantage while the third parties rarely submit samples for testing. An obvious conclusion to jump to is that the third party ink suppliers know that longevity of their product is not up to par based on internal testing so why submit to an independent lab to hang out the dirty laundry? Well, I can think of other valid reasons why third parties wouldn't test. First, they usually do not have as large a research budget as the OEMS, and the cost of testing can be prohibitive. Second, they have a built in competitive disadvantage with respect to longevity testing because they are trying to make a generic ink that will retrofit into more than one printer model. Thus, while an OEM only has to commission an independent laboratory to test one new printer model with a modest selection of OEM papers, a third party would have to test its ink in multiple combinations of printers plus multiple combinations of OEM and third party papers. The combinations become enormous and thus the costs. Besides, many otherwise well informed people seem to think "Well, if its pigmented ink, it is probably OK on a lot of different papers!" That's a big leap of faith. I sympathize with third party vendors in bearing the costs they would incur if they really tried to get the testing done properly, meaning on all of the combinations of printers and papers that their customer base is likely to use. Bottom line: does a third party vendor say nothing or does it make sweeping generalizations about longevity with an incomplete test matrix to back it up. I guess I'd opt to say nothing rather than bend the truth.

I am also unhappy at some
of their methods (as a member of the Association of Historical and
Fine Art Photographers which is predominantly concerned with
longevity of image life within museums and national art galleries,
mainly in the UK) - I will not expand on that other than to say the
standards are the highest of all)

I truly wish you would expand on this. I'm very interested in your point of view on this matter.

I think it is important for people concerned about print longevity to understand that predicted display life is not only highly variable due to environmental issues, but also upon what criterion one chooses for failure. If a photograph reaches the predicted "end of life", does it disappear in a cloud of smoke, or does it still have information content that may be of value even if it doesn't look exactly like it did the day it was made? Sitting in front of me at the moment is a 19th century albumen print made from one of the Matthew Brady studios wet collodion negatives. It has faded and yellowed over the years, but it is worth far more today than it was back then. By Wilhelm Imaging gray balance endpoint criteria standards this print reached its end of "display life" a long time ago, but I can emphatically state that I have no intention of throwing it away. The issue of endpoint criteria in tests that attempt to predict "end of life" is therefore not a trivial question. Tolerance to changes in a print is both image and application dependent. For example, it seems reasonable to hold a much higher standardfor a professional color photo I paid a lot of money for, than say, for the inexpensive photos I stick on my refrigerator. One's endpoint criteria set is therefore every bit as important to discussions of longevity as the environmental assumptions when one is trying to make "life expectancy" predictions. In my own research, I am therefore abandoning endpoint specifications and "display life" predictions in favor of color and tonal accuracy scores vs accumulated exposure. With a relatively simple table, the end user can then relate the accuracy scores to a predicted display time that better reflects his or her own environmental conditions.

I'd also very like to hear your views because I am currently working on a real world image permanence testing protocol that will hopefully allow third party materials to get tested just as easily as OEM products. That's why this thread has been of such interest to me.

--
Mark McCormick
http://aardenburg-imaging.com

 

[enduser]

I know you have an interest in ink characteristics, Mark, and your comments in the past have educated me quite a bit.

My reason for posting this topic comes about from my enduring desire to give customers a good product. I can't see the reason in saving a couple of dollars on ink, involving a print which might sell for, say, $100. What's the point? Well it seems that many people do want to save as much as they can, and some even state improved gamut as well.

I don't dispute savings, I don't even dispute the possibility of wider gamuts, but in my comparative tests of inks, the 3rd party ones I have tested don't last as long. They don't just fade faster, they change color too.

To be absolutely frank, I'd love to just open the top of a cartridge and pour more ink in, but the ink I was going to do this with, sold by a major US supplier who said it would be as good as original ink, well, it just wasn't as good - by a big margin.

Ive done some comparisons with pigment and dye and been disappointed. HP Vivera dye and Epson Dura Brite Ultra pigment are orders of magnitude ahead of the 3rd parties I tested.

Where do I go from there? I ask if any 3rd party pigments have been tested. If you use a known control sample to test against, it costs almost nothing. Why haven't the big 3rd party makers done a control test of their ink against the majors, on the same paper, at the same time?

Let me give an example. I printed an image twice on canvas. One was Epson pigment ink, the other HP Vivera dye. I had been told that a specific coating should give the HP a similar life to the Epson pigment.

Each image was cut in half, one half of each sent to dark-storage. The other two halves share a window facing the sun's path across the sky. They are getting equal exposure by switching left-to-right every 5 days.

After three months of this, getting so hot they have distorted and curled badly, there is as yet no visible difference from their dark-storage partners. 3rd party pigments I tested went awol in three weeks, and a Vivera copy in four.

It's cheap and effective comparative performance testing, well known in industry for all sorts of products.

 

[Mark McCormick]

My reason for posting this topic comes about from my enduring desire
to give customers a good product. I can't see the reason in saving
a couple of dollars on ink, involving a print which might sell for,
say, $100. What's the point? Well it seems that many people do
want to save as much as they can, and some even state improved gamut
as well.

Many people agree with your position. Personally, I don't use any third party inks because I just don't want the headaches if those inks mess up my printer. However, it is also clear that many people feel they have had good luck with third party inks and have saved a lot of money. If I can engage that group of users to supply samples printed with some imaging targets I provide, then perhaps we can collectively find a way to make image permanence data available for products that otherwise just don't get tested.

I don't dispute savings, I don't even dispute the possibility of
wider gamuts, but in my comparative tests of inks, the 3rd party ones
I have tested don't last as long. They don't just fade faster, they
change color too.

I don't disagree. It is a prevalent result with many dye base formulations. Moreover, one of the tricks that various manufacturers have used to offer colorful pigment formulations is to market a product they sell as pigmented ink when actually it is a hybrid, containing both dye and pigment. I'm aware of at least one clever manufacturer that has tuned the proportions so that initial color gamut meets or exceeds OEM pigment offering, while still yielding pretty good image permanence test scores. The dye-pigment blend has then been engineered to hang in there just above the endpoint criteria used to predict "end of life" while the colorful gamut declines fairly quickly. What that means is that the product can almost fail very quickly, but still not officially fail the test for quite some time so the the test score seems pretty reasonable. But in reality, that isn't as good a performance as a fully pigmented set usually offers.

Ive done some comparisons with pigment and dye and been disappointed.
HP Vivera dye and Epson Dura Brite Ultra pigment are orders of
magnitude ahead of the 3rd parties I tested.

Epson and HP have invested a lot of money to get that result. However, it is possible at least some third party inksets may come close, or at least close enough to represent a good cost/performance ratio.

Where do I go from there? I ask if any 3rd party pigments have been
tested. If you use a known control sample to test against, it costs
almost nothing. Why haven't the big 3rd party makers done a control
test of their ink against the majors, on the same paper, at the same
time?

I'm sure some have, but it is hard to get a handle on the data, and of course, many people feel that independent testing is the only legitimate way to avoid at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Let me give an example. I printed an image twice on canvas. One was
Epson pigment ink, the other HP Vivera dye. I had been told that a
specific coating should give the HP a similar life to the Epson
pigment.

Each image was cut in half, one half of each sent to dark-storage.
The other two halves share a window facing the sun's path across the
sky. They are getting equal exposure by switching left-to-right
every 5 days.

After three months of this, getting so hot they have distorted and
curled badly, there is as yet no visible difference from their
dark-storage partners. 3rd party pigments I tested went awol in
three weeks, and a Vivera copy in four.

Many artists run the type of comparative window test you describe. I believe it is a pretty reasonable approach to screen the real bad apples from the good stuff, but when the differences become more subtle, this type of "kick the tires" test has some very real limitations. For example, as you noted, temperature and humidity variables are uncontrolled, so the final result, although representing one harsh environment, may not necessarily extrapolate well to more benign indoor conditions where reciprocity law failure, plus real world humidity and air pollution factors will contribute more significantly to the results.

It's cheap and effective comparative performance testing, well known
in industry for all sorts of products.

That it is!

--
Mark McCormick
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

 

[Dominic.Chan]

If I can engage that group of users to supply samples
printed with some imaging targets I provide, then perhaps we can
collectively find a way to make image permanence data available for
products that otherwise just don't get tested.

I am sure many people, myself included, will be happy to supply samples. However, one party will have to do all the testing, unless the test environment can be easily (and inexpensively!) duplicated.

After three months of this, getting so hot they have distorted and
curled badly, there is as yet no visible difference from their
dark-storage partners. 3rd party pigments I tested went awol in
three weeks, and a Vivera copy in four.

I don't believe the pigment ink tested by "enduser" is representative of the pigment ink used by the majority of people here.

For example, as you noted, temperature and humidity
variables are uncontrolled, so the final result, although
representing one harsh environment, may not necessarily extrapolate
well to more benign indoor conditions where reciprocity law failure,
plus real world humidity and air pollution factors will contribute
more significantly to the results.

Even for controlled tests such as Wilhelm's, real life results may be compleletely different. I believe Wilhelm "rating" for the BCI-6 inks used to be about 25 years, not that different from the Chromalife 100 inks (30 years), and yet some people have experienced fading in a matter of weeks or months.

 

[hbx2004]

Hi,

I'm not a pro, so I use cheap Canon iP5000 ... with original ink and paper, of course.

In regard of ink testing... The only site I've found so far (except WR), is:
http://www.druckerchannel.de/index.php
They've done pigment ink tests (OEM vs 3rd party) for Epson D88:
http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel.php?ID=1896

-and the conclusion is, that almost none (except Pelikan) can't match OEM quality.... where Pelikan is almost of the same price as Epson ink.
There may be other ink/printer tests on that site, though.

Anyway, my personal opinion is... I can imagine, that testing inks made by WR can be expensive. Still, if some 3rd party maker would be sure they can compete with OEM ink, they would provide some proof. Ink is becoming a huge market, so some reputable test would be very worth paying -if results would compete with OEM ink.

Another situation could be, that 3rd party manufacturers don't feel need to proof something -they allready have enough buyers (because of lower prices). And many owners of cheap(er) printers don't know or care about differences -or don't even print after trying printer (because local labs are cheaper).

Besides, above german site has quite active forum, where I read Canon threads mostly. And what I'm reading there, I'll stay with original ink for now.

Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

 

[Mark McCormick]

Even for controlled tests such as Wilhelm's, real life results may be
compleletely different. I believe Wilhelm "rating" for the BCI-6
inks used to be about 25 years, not that different from the
Chromalife 100 inks (30 years), and yet some people have experienced
fading in a matter of weeks or months.

Right, the issue in that case was gas fading not light fading. Canon mainly improved the resistance to gas fading with the Chromalife ink set. The gas fading behavior of these materials is not a tested variable in a light fade test. In fact, the air is sometimes carbon and hepa filtered to reduce confounding of the light fade characteristics with air pollution effects. The result, as has been noted many times in this forum, is that real world behavior and controlled test behavior don't always agree, and the disagreement can at times be rather embarrassing to the testing parties and to the manufacturers. Also, it should be noted that Canon marketing took the liberty to imply 100 year permanence in the Chromalife name by referring to dark keeping properties in an album. With Kodak, Epson, Canon, and HP all making various claims of 100 year life, but based on vary different storage and display assumptions, it is no wonder the typical customer has no clue as to what the real product differences truly are. Albums, for example, are very effective for the most part at reducing Ozone penetration into the prints by serving as a physical barrier and also by eliminating air movement over the print. Refrigerator art, an amazingly common family application, well, that's a different assumption altogether. My children used to kill the prints on the refrigerator with soda can spray and greasy fingers faster than the light or ozone got to them!

--
Mark McCormick
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

 

[migla9]

lIf I can engage that group of users to supply samples
printed with some imaging targets I provide, then perhaps we can
collectively find a way to make image permanence data available for
products that otherwise just don't get tested.

Mark, I would be more than happy to print some samples and send them to you. Just drop me a note offline. I'm currently using MIS pigment inks on an 1800 and mostly use Red River Ultra Pro Gloss paper, although I'm willing to obtain whatever else might be useful. The more data we have, the better, no matter what direction the results go.

In an earlier post, I had some links (see below) to test data comparing a few 3rd party inks to oem. I know these are nowhere as extensive as WIR testing and are somewhat dated, but it strikes me they have a least some hard data. Do you have any comment about the legitimacy of these tests?

http://mycusthelp.com/MEDIASTREET/FILEXFER/issue_55/Delta_E%20Measurements%20UC%20Vs%20G6.pdf
http://www.inkrepublic.com/members/inks/fadepig.pdf
http://www.inksupply.com/fading.cfm