I don't wish to sound rude, Ron, but while you've been making blanket
statements about whether refiller inks or OEM Canon inks have greater value
you have disregarded the ongoing message, supported by Wilhelm's work, that
Epson's pigment-based inks are the most fade resistant. I have seen posts
on this NG for over two years that reinforce that message. Although I no
longer use Epson printers, it is my understanding that the 1280 and 2200
have been the hands-down choice for photograpers and graphic artists who
sell their prints. Since I haven't kept up with the Epson product line I
don't know if newer printers in the Epson line have replaced these units. I
have read, many times that anyone selling prints should either use Epson
pigment-based printers or should use a custom photo lab to produce the best,
longest lasting prints. Arguing the difference between Canon OEM and
refilled carts for fade resistance doesn't answer the basic question which
is, should you be selling prints produced on Canon printers by either
product.
I choose to use Canon printers and refill my cartridges because they
produce beautiful prints that last long enough for my enjoyment and do so at
the least possible cost. My prints in albums or framed under glass and not
in direct sunlight are still beautiful after two years. There are
compelling reasons to refill with the best quality bulk inks that are
available, and there are also reasons to use OEM inks only. Which product
one decides to use depends on the desired end product. These printers and
inks are just tools to achieve a personal desired result and are not holy
items unto themselves.
I share Frank's negative feelings about your blanket "put-down" of refilling
of Canon carts and your lack of understanding regarding Measekite's history
on this newsgroup. A reasoned approach about aftermarket inks is that if
you've tried them and they suit your needs they are a valid product to
purchase. Your tag line at the end of your posts doesn't adequately explain
your decision to not use them for finished prints that you sell, as you've
explained in past posts. You also explained, some time ago, that you would
continue to use them during the editing phase prior to your final prints.
If I understood you correctly, you qualified your use of OEM inks and felt
that there was also value to using aftermarket inks as well. Measekite, on
the other hand, has never tried them but has given a blanket condemnation of
the products and their vendors. Apparently you missed the libelous
diatribes he conducted for over a year against several good vendors and the
profane insults against anyone (and their mothers and sisters) who
countered his misinformation that all non-OEM inks would ruin your printer.
You also may have missed (your good fortune) his baby-talk, uppercase,
page-after-page babbling when others presented well thought out counters to
his one-track erroneous message. In a more temperate way, he still delivers
the same purposeful lies. He also parrots magazine reviews and other
people's findings, from their personal experience, as his own. I expect
that this is what Frank was miffed about. Unfortunately, you are judged by
the company you keep - you know - birds of a feather. Because MK, through
his unpleasant troll behaviour and untruths, basically hijacked this NG for
over a year, most of us have killfiled him.
Many people have discussed the use of spray fixatives over the two years
I've participated in this NG. If you want a more studied evaluation of the
spray fixatives, check out the Nifty-Stuff Forum, primarily a group of
people who delve into more detail about aftermarket inks and their use and
share solutions to problems one might encounter. There was a reasonably
good comparative evaluation of OEM Canon ink, Epson pigment-based ink, and
several non-OEM canon inks when exposed to the same UV light for a measured
period of time. As I recall, it also included images that had been
protected with a fixative spray. This evaluation was not done under the
strict laboratory conditions that Wilhelm used, but it was done by an
individual who has access to precise instruments for measuring fading
response. While this is not the definitive study one would like to have, it
does have value in determining relative fade resistance of the products
tested.
