AfterMarket Inks Unreliability

[Ron]

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

 

[measekite]

With some in this ng they will swear it is night at high noon to further
their cause. They do not beleive in hard facts like the following for
it will hurt their pocketbook.

 

[LBW]

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo
group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

Who buys quality aftermarket ink from Office Supply Companies? Wilhelm is
using some really bad inks. This is what happen with amateurs who don't
know where to buy the good stuff. LBW

 

[Burt]

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

I see that you are again referencing the same Wilhelm data that you quoted
more than a month ago. Nothing new here except starting a new thread with
the same old info. Everything that could have been said on the subject was
said on your previous thread. Do we really have to rehash the same old crap
again??????????? Do we really have to give our resident troll another
soapbox to stand on???????

Those of us who use the better quality bulk refill third party inks know the
benefits and potential negatives. For my purposes it is ABSOLUTELY
RELIABLE. It hasn't harmed my printers, makes beautiful prints, and is
great for photos, greeting cards and other projects that are not meant to be
archival. If I wanted to sell my prints I certainly wouldn't use dye-based
inkjet printers. Although pigment-based printers are reputed to have more
fade resistance, I would do the same as you - go to a custom lab.

Bottom line? You've used the same data to support another thread that is a
blanket condemnation with an inflamatory title.

 

[Impmon]

I see that you are again referencing the same Wilhelm data that you quoted
more than a month ago

[snip]

don't feed the troll. Use filter feature if you can.

The old saying goes: you get what you pay for. Cheap crap ink = cheap
crap quality. Paper quality also matters a lot.

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

Is it getting lonely downunder? I guess you need to come here for some
attention, even if it is negative? I'm just going to have to bugger you
off to my kill file. There is only one other person from this newsgroup
in there but you two should get along fabulously.

 

[TJ]

Is it getting lonely downunder? I guess you need to come here for some
attention, even if it is negative? I'm just going to have to bugger you
off to my kill file. There is only one other person from this newsgroup
in there but you two should get along fabulously.

They have so far.

TJ

 

[measekite]

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo
group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

The following is an example of someone claiming it is night at high
noon. I wonder what his interest in the whole thing is... Now he
claims to be a professional. A real professional uses only OEM ink.
And most but not all will use Epson printers (2400 and up for most) over
Canon (at the present time --- the Pro 9500 is not shipping and the 17"
12 cart 5000 is a couple of grand) even thought they may like the output
of Canon dye better (more vivid and sharper as many claim) because of
the archival quality of the Epson ultrachrome ink.

And not even the serious amateur photographers will use the generic
stuff since they want better fadability and the best looking results to
go along with their expensive DSLR systems.

It is the tinkerers and hobbyists along with the plants and relabeler
associates that make all of the claims here about the generic stuff.
And they are very quick to spout off their false claims when they are
presented with hard facts from reliable sources.

Who buys quality aftermarket ink from Office Supply Companies? Wilhelm is
using some really bad inks.

Oh year they are all bad

 

[measekite]

snip


The old saying goes: you get what you pay for. Cheap crap ink = cheap
crap quality. Paper quality also matters a lot.

Oh Yeah Now that says something. And of course OEM is priced too high
but like you say you get what you pay for.

 

[measekite]

Nice to see you are learning to top post. Maybe soon you will get the
ink message also.

Is it getting lonely downunder? I guess you need to come here for
some attention, even if it is negative? I'm just going to have to
bugger you off to my kill file. There is only one other person from
this newsgroup in there but you two should get along fabulously.

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo
group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

 

[measekite]

They have so far.

TJ

And I thought he was lying low. Soon he will be snowed in instead of
just snowed.

 

[frank]

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

Why doesn't he test top quality after market inks, huh? Could it be that
his testing is paid for by the majors who use his results to promote
their inks?
Only clueless morons and idiots who are too stupid to understand this
believe his "research" [sic] and are scared into buying only oem ink.
That's their problem.
Frank

 

[Frank Arthur]

With some in this ng they will swear it is night at high noon to further
their cause. They do not beleive in hard facts like the following for it
will hurt their pocketbook.

Show me a single "hard fact" in anything written below.
Do you know what a fact is?

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

 

[Frank Arthur]

As the President of the AMIIC- the After Market Ink Investigative Committee
the results of the investigation shows:

1. Aftermarket inks will last longer than executives at Hewlett Packard.
2. While true that AM (After Market) inks inly last 125 years, brand names
may last 126 years.
3. We stand behind the 125 year guarantee and offer a $1000 reward to
any print fading brought into our offices in 2131.
4. In the meantime you will save $4,297,546.00 in AM inks over the
125 years you are making prints.

The President AMIIC

Frank Arthur

 

[Taliesyn]

As the President of the AMIIC- the After Market Ink Investigative Committee
the results of the investigation shows:

1. Aftermarket inks will last longer than executives at Hewlett Packard.
2. While true that AM (After Market) inks inly last 125 years, brand names
may last 126 years.
3. We stand behind the 125 year guarantee and offer a $1000 reward to
any print fading brought into our offices in 2131.
4. In the meantime you will save $4,297,546.00 in AM inks over the
125 years you are making prints.

I had NO IDEA there was an AMIIC president! But I am deeply touched by
the honesty of your investigative committee ;-).

You know, those figures are probably smack on accurate - especially the
last one. So who cares if my prints fade in 125 instead of 126 years.
The prints I make AREN'T worth the $4,297,546.00 I'll save over my
lifetime of using AM inks. NO ONE'S prints are worth that much to begin
with!

-Taliesyn

 

[measekite]

I had NO IDEA there was an AMIIC president! But I am deeply touched by
the honesty of your investigative committee ;-).

You know, those figures are probably smack on accurate - especially the
last one. So who cares if my prints fade in 125 instead of 126 years.
The prints I make AREN'T worth

very much

snip

 

[Michael Johnson, PE]

I had NO IDEA there was an AMIIC president! But I am deeply touched by
the honesty of your investigative committee ;-).

You know, those figures are probably smack on accurate - especially the
last one. So who cares if my prints fade in 125 instead of 126 years.
The prints I make AREN'T worth the $4,297,546.00 I'll save over my
lifetime of using AM inks. NO ONE'S prints are worth that much to begin
with!

Plus, I have never understood the relativity of ink fade to the average
user. This person doesn't sell prints to anyone and keeps a digital
file the print was made from on his computer. Last time I checked
DIGITAL FILES DON'T FADE!!!! If the print that was made does fade then
JUST PRINT ANOTHER ONE!!!! If a family member wants a print I just
email them a digital file I took straight from the camera and they print
the photo on their own inkjet printer or get one made at Walmart the
next time they shop there. All this concern over fading is nothing but
over hype and marketing ploys. Prints mean nothing to me regarding my
personal collection of photographs. It is the digital files that I go
to great measures to protect. The old family photographs I cherish have
been scanned and stored on the computer and when I print them out they
look as good, and after some digital processing can even look better
than, the original.

All this talk about ink fade and print longevity isn't worth the effort
spent talking about it. It is irrelevant to 99% of the population.
Anyone that is really concerned with print fading should buy a good
scanner and have redundant backups of all their important digital files.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

In fairness, Wilhelms tests are pretty good, overall, and shouldn't be
ignored for the information they do provide

Most people who buy 3rd party inks, tend to buy the cheap junk, so the
testing was a reasonable assumption. However, I'll agree that he
probably was inspired to do this particular crop due to the sponsorship
by the large manufacturers. I would actually like to know who covered
the cost for these tests, since he charges something like $15,000 per
ink and paper combo, and I doubt the 3rd parties involved covered the cost.

Having said that, I am quite sure the better quality 3rd party ink
manufacturers can pay for the same tests Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark do
should they wish to prove the quality of their inks. The 3rd party ink
manufacturers make a minor fortune (not speaking of the distributors,
who sell them under dozens of brand names) so they could afford this,
although it would add to the costs of the product.

Art

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo
group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

Why doesn't he test top quality after market inks, huh? Could it be that
his testing is paid for by the majors who use his results to promote
their inks?
Only clueless morons and idiots who are too stupid to understand this
believe his "research" [sic] and are scared into buying only oem ink.
That's their problem.
Frank

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Did he claim they were "facts"?

For one thing, he was just the messenger, quoting another author.
Secondly, since no inkjet printers, let alone inks have been around for
78, let alone 108 years, these tests are based upon accelerated aging
processes, which are factual within their context, but can't be
considered factual in terms of the actual long term results.

Art

With some in this ng they will swear it is night at high noon to further
their cause. They do not beleive in hard facts like the following for it
will hurt their pocketbook.

Show me a single "hard fact" in anything written below.
Do you know what a fact is?

Ron wrote:

The following post was a recent post from a member of the aus.photo group:

Cheers
Ron from Downunder.


G'day mates,

There's an article in a recent edition of _The Age_ that may interest
some of you. See: <http://tinyurl.com/lbz4p> or, in full:
<http://www.theage.com.
au/news/cameras--videos/photos-fade-with-cheap-ink/2006/09/26/11590365
39214.html#>

Photos fade with cheap ink
Terry Lane
September 28, 2006
LiveWire

<quoting a bit>
The Wilhelm Imaging Research Institute ... has recently tested
a range of alternative inks from the big office supply companies
in the US.
[...]
Wilhelm found that where, for instance, Hewlett-Packard inks
used with HP Premium Plus Photo Paper produce prints that last
73 years under standard illumination, the cheap inks faded in
five months or, at the most, six years. HP 95 and 99 photo
cartridges produce prints with a life expectancy of 108 years.
With the cheap inks the life of a print is 4.6 years at best.
</quoting>

Get the full results (PDF) from Wilhelm Imaging Res. Inst. at:
<wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/hardcopy.html>

Cheers, Phred.

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

Last time I checked

DIGITAL FILES DON'T FADE!!!! If the print that was made does fade then
JUST PRINT ANOTHER ONE!!!! If a family member wants a print I just
email them a digital file I took straight from the camera and they print
the photo on their own inkjet printer or get one made at Walmart the
next time they shop there. All this concern over fading is nothing but
over hype and marketing ploys.
............


All this talk about ink fade and print longevity isn't worth the effort
spent talking about it. It is irrelevant to 99% of the population.
Anyone that is really concerned with print fading should buy a good
scanner and have redundant backups of all their important digital files.

That's what _you_ think, Michael.

It depends on the digits that you use. If you use genuine IBM, Eagle, or
Hewlett-Packard bytes, they will oulast any relabeled or generic data.
Wilhelm's tests prove that generic data loses its effectiveness under
extended exposure under ultraviolet light. On the other hand, as is
well-known, entire novels written in authentic CPM have stood the test
of time, as anyone can easily see when they open the original files on
their Windows or McIntosh computers.

Always demand, when buying a computer, that the salesman certify that
all the digits are authentic and the manufacturer's originals. Accept no
substitutes! Listen carefully to what he answsers, because he may
attempt to use a subterfuge.

Take it from me; I know what I'm talking about. I am a graduate of MIT
(Mishkeite Institute of Twitology).