Dumb Paper and Ink questions (Epson 785)

[Alan Browne]

....I just tried Kodak Premium Picture (satin) paper on an Epson 785EPX.
I do not like the results at all. Results in an uneven texture in the
ink with ~ 1mm "circles" of ink on the paper. From a couple feet away
it is hardly noticeable ... but very different up close compared to the
Epson glossy photo paper. Are all Kodak papers like this?



....Carts. Ouch, don't they go by quick! Question is... are the "cheap"
refill kits able to give the same quality image as the "Epson" carts.
(T008 in this case). Has anyone done a serious comparison?



Thanks in advance,
Alan.

 

[Tony1that matters]

If you don't carefully match polymer coating of papaer to ink fastness and
drying time things get hairy and pool on the surface.
Cheap cart's maybe not . But yup it can be done.
Tony

 

[Safetymom123]

Kodak papers are made for thermal printers which Epson is not. You may need
to play with settings. Personally I prefer OEM inks but others will tell
you how they love aftermarket inks.

 

[buck]

Kodak papers are made for thermal printers which Epson is not. You may need
to play with settings. Personally I prefer OEM inks but others will tell
you how they love aftermarket inks.

Epson 785 EPX prints well on most glossy paper if it is set to glossy
FILM instead of glossy PAPER (for me at least). I only set it to glossy
PAPER if Im using Epson Paper (which I seldom do)

To correct some miss-information:

KODAK sells LOTS of different paper for INKJETS not just for their own
printers (thermal), that said, I have YET to get any good results with
any of their paper... I dont know what inkjet printer they are making it
for, but it shows poor performance for me with:

HP PhotoSmart 7350 and 7550 and 130
Epson Photo 785 EPX
Epson Photo 825
Canon S820
Canon i950

I re-fill all the carts for the above printers using ink specific for
each printer from www.inksupply.com which is MIS Associates and a cart
re-setter from the same source.

Properly re-filling EPSON cartridges is NOT for the faint hearted or the
lazy or for anyone not handy with tools (or for anyone not wanting ink
on their fingers). Re-filling Epson carts is ONLY for people (like
myself) who have LOTS of time to spend preparing the carts (sucking out
the foam in the sponge every other time you refill) and measuring the
amount you put into the cart.

Until I got my newest printer (Canon i950) I would ONLY consider using
the Epson Stylus Photo series for finished prints. I have MANY prints
from both the Epson original inks and the re-fill inks. I cant tell
them apart unless I look on the back where I always list the printer
used the ink used, and the paper used, as well as the date printed.

I use a number code so the back isnt messy with notes..1,1,1,3,1 would
be the Epson 785 printer (first digit) MIS Associates ink (second digit)
Red River paper (3rd digit) January 2003 (last 2 digits). The same
picture done with Epson ink would be 1,E,1,3,1.

Since I only use either OEM inks or inks from MIS Associates and 2
brands of paper, the number codes are easy to keep track of.

I stop short of telling people they SHOULD re-fill, but I have had GREAT
results since I started using products from my current source.



Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:30:33 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

=>
=>
=>....I just tried Kodak Premium Picture (satin) paper on an Epson 785EPX.
=> I do not like the results at all. Results in an uneven texture in the
=>ink with ~ 1mm "circles" of ink on the paper. From a couple feet away
=>it is hardly noticeable ... but very different up close compared to the
=>Epson glossy photo paper. Are all Kodak papers like this?

The paper-ink combination is crucial for print quality,
colour balance, and longevity. paper is quite complex
chemically, and so is ink. The two react with each other,
and even though the reaction is very slight, it's enough to
affect all those properties.

=>....Carts. Ouch, don't they go by quick! Question is... are the "cheap"
=>refill kits able to give the same quality image as the "Epson" carts.
=>(T008 in this case). Has anyone done a serious comparison?

Short answer: for printing docs and pix for short-term use,
3rd party inks are OK. If you want durability, no.

For comparisons, see:
www.wilhelm-research.com

Very interesting and informative site.

 

[Alan Browne]

Kodak papers are made for thermal printers which Epson is not. You may need
to play with settings. Personally I prefer OEM inks but others will tell
you how they love aftermarket inks.

The Kodak paper I have is marked 'for all injet printers'.

 

[Alan Browne]

Buck, thanks for the very informative reply.

See the reply from Wolf ... he has a link to a test report that is scary
wrt 3rd party.

My printing is mainly photographic ... so it looks like I'm enslaved to
Epson for the time being. I'll just make smaller proofs and work harder
at the color matching profiles.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

[Alan Browne]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:30:33 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

For comparisons, see:
www.wilhelm-research.com

Very interesting and informative site.

Yes, it is. thanks, Alan.

 

[Safetymom123]

Have you tried the paper yet? I talked with a Kodak engineer and this is
what he told me. I also printed on Epson and Kodak and got a much better
print using Epson paper. Cost is the same so why would I sacrifice quality?

 

[buck]

Buck, thanks for the very informative reply.

See the reply from Wolf ... he has a link to a test report that is scary
wrt 3rd party.

My printing is mainly photographic ... so it looks like I'm enslaved to
Epson for the time being. I'll just make smaller proofs and work harder
at the color matching profiles.

Cheers,
Alan.

There are links to websites that will tell you whatever you want to
hear...

I not only use 2nd party inks, I sell the prints (and have been for
several years).. I simply tell my customers to keep the prints under
glass or plastic and out of the sun.. That is the same care you should
give ANY PHOTO!!!

Do you think I would recomend an ink to a stranger if I hadn't been
using it for a while???

Ive got some prints that are VERY old as ink jet prints go... cant tell
you dates as I wasnt dating them at the time, but Ive got a print
hanging on my living room wall (NOT UNDER GLASS but framed) of a 13 year
old girl holding the lead to a horse... She got married after GRADUATING
college and just celebrated her 1st aniversary..

The reason I mention this particular photo is that the print from which
it was scanned is hanging on the oposite wall and the PRINT has faded
MORE than the copy.. I suspect it gets a few more minutes of sun every
week.

This inkjet print was printed on a BJC 600e (when the printer was new)
and it was printed with my very first batch of MIS inks.

The important factor in this issue is THE PAPER.. If you use good paper
your prints will last a VERY long time..

I do own ONE EPSON printer that has never had a re-filled cart in it...
it has had just as many clogs as the others and doesn't print any
prettier. As Enya says "Only Time" will tell if the prints from it last
longer...

Its not so much a matter of MONEY as it is a matter of practicality. If
you get good (or great) results with re-filled carts, why waste money on
cartridges you could be spending on high quality paper????

If some arsefargle wants to tell you that 2nd party inks are a bad
thing, then fine, buy factory carts, but keep in mind I have no interest
in any ink, paper, or printer company, and only speak from experience. I
have been using inkjet printers since the very first ones came on the
market, and I stuck with factory ink for a LONG, LONG time for ALL
brands of printers, as the 2nd party inks were mostly a rip off and
would destroy the printheads on early machines.

I do know that the company I buy ink from has been making ARCHIVAL ink
and selling ARCHIVAL quality paper since BEFORE Epson came up with thier
pigmented inks, so I stay with experience.


Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:21:40 -0400, buck wrote:

=>I do know that the company I buy ink from has been making ARCHIVAL ink
=>and selling ARCHIVAL quality paper since BEFORE Epson came up with their
=>pigmented inks, so I stay with experience.
=>
=>
=>Larry Lynch
=>Mystic, Ct.

Well, well, after all that rant we finally get to the
point: archival inks on archival paper. Matched to each
other, even. Well, of course!

And just how many of the 3rd party refill inks available
cheap are archival quality, do you think? And you know as
well as I do that different archival papers have different
chemistry, so the ink and paper must be matched. Which is
exactly what your supplier (not you, please note) has done,
and which HP and other printer mfrs do also. (Sidebar:
chemistry matches are also an issue for water colour
artists, etc.)

Most people who want to save money don't understand what
incompatibilities they risk when they buy the cheapest ink
and cheapest paper they can get. That's why articles such
as the one you ranted against are important. Wilhelm
typically tests different ink-paper combos, and notes
differences in longevity, which in some cases are huge (and
often are surprising, considering the sources of both.)

 

[Alan Browne]

There are links to websites that will tell you whatever you want to
hear...

I not only use 2nd party inks, I sell the prints (and have been for
several years).. I simply tell my customers to keep the prints under
glass or plastic and out of the sun.. That is the same care you should
give ANY PHOTO!!!

Indeed. However, as the test goes it is not the single result, but the
comparative result that is revealing. In my industry, accelerated
lifecycle testing is used to ensure that parts will last for 20+ years
in service, or to at least determine service replacement cycles for the
part. The method used in the described test is a form of accelerated
lifecycle test. So, seeing an epson ink rated for nearly 100 years, v.
a replacement ink that goes 20 or so (or much less per the tests) then
that says a lot to me.

Do you think I would recomend an ink to a stranger if I hadn't been
using it for a while???

Frankly, I have no idea. I'm not trying to sleight you here, but
unfortunately, the NG's are full of people who say just about anything
for reasons too often based upon wishful thinking.

Ive got some prints that are VERY old as ink jet prints go... cant tell
you dates as I wasnt dating them at the time, but Ive got a print
hanging on my living room wall (NOT UNDER GLASS but framed) of a 13 year
old girl holding the lead to a horse... She got married after GRADUATING
college and just celebrated her 1st aniversary..

Yes, there are always war stories of a sample of one or three. There
are people who have smoked 2 packs a day for 65 years and can still
climb a hill...

The reason I mention this particular photo is that the print from which
it was scanned is hanging on the oposite wall and the PRINT has faded
MORE than the copy.. I suspect it gets a few more minutes of sun every
week.

Exactly, and enforces the validity of the accelerated lifecycle tests in
the article.

This inkjet print was printed on a BJC 600e (when the printer was new)
and it was printed with my very first batch of MIS inks.

The important factor in this issue is THE PAPER.. If you use good paper
your prints will last a VERY long time..

I very much doubt it is only the paper or only the ink. All factors
need to be considered.

I do own ONE EPSON printer that has never had a re-filled cart in it...
it has had just as many clogs as the others and doesn't print any
prettier. As Enya says "Only Time" will tell if the prints from it last
longer...

....I've had 0 clogs to date, but I do a small color print on ordinary
paper to keep the nozzles 'dry' once a week. And clogging is not my
main issue (I've never had the problem, so I'm lucky so far...). Image
longevity is.

Its not so much a matter of MONEY as it is a matter of practicality. If
you get good (or great) results with re-filled carts, why waste money on
cartridges you could be spending on high quality paper????

The future has been forecast by an industrial method. I have more faith
in that, than in, with all due respect, warstories and opinion.

If some arsefargle wants to tell you that 2nd party inks are a bad
thing, then fine, buy factory carts, but keep in mind I have no interest
in any ink, paper, or printer company, and only speak from experience. I
have been using inkjet printers since the very first ones came on the
market, and I stuck with factory ink for a LONG, LONG time for ALL
brands of printers, as the 2nd party inks were mostly a rip off and
would destroy the printheads on early machines.

I am skeptical about claims that 3rd party parts will ruin OEM machines,
that is an obvious thing for them to do. But the qualities of the inks
can only be determined over time.

I do know that the company I buy ink from has been making ARCHIVAL ink
and selling ARCHIVAL quality paper since BEFORE Epson came up with thier
pigmented inks, so I stay with experience.

That is a very good and strong point. I'll look up MIS Associates but
their absence from the tests is curious as well. The other side of this
issue of course is that the engineers who design the print heads have to
take into account the inks they will be blowing down the nozzles.

Last night I sold 4 prints to a client from my printer. I do not want
customers to say to me (or more importantly anyone else) that my product
faded in 10 years after they paid good money for it. (Photography is a
pasttime from which I make some sales, but not my living. In any case I
don't want to sell a shoddy product).

Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[buck]

=>I do know that the company I buy ink from has been making ARCHIVAL ink
=>and selling ARCHIVAL quality paper since BEFORE Epson came up with their
=>pigmented inks, so I stay with experience.
=>
=>
=>Larry Lynch
=>Mystic, Ct.

Well, well, after all that rant we finally get to the
point: archival inks on archival paper. Matched to each
other, even. Well, of course!

And just how many of the 3rd party refill inks available
cheap are archival quality, do you think? And you know as
well as I do that different archival papers have different
chemistry, so the ink and paper must be matched. Which is
exactly what your supplier (not you, please note) has done,
and which HP and other printer mfrs do also. (Sidebar:
chemistry matches are also an issue for water colour
artists, etc.)

Most people who want to save money don't understand what
incompatibilities they risk when they buy the cheapest ink
and cheapest paper they can get. That's why articles such
as the one you ranted against are important. Wilhelm
typically tests different ink-paper combos, and notes
differences in longevity, which in some cases are huge (and
often are surprising, considering the sources of both.)


--
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?
(Garrison Keillor)
<just one w and plain ca for correct e-mail address>

You will note that at no time did I say the ink I used was CHEAP!

It is MUCH less expensive than buying factory cartridges, but it isnt
CHEAP.. Cheap usually comes along with the "one size fits all" companies
that claim thier ink is good for all inkjets.


The Ink I use is LESS than $10 (US) per 8 oz. bottle. That means if Im
really clumsy and use a whole ounce of each color to refill a five color
Epson Cartridge, it cost me $6.25 to re-fill. This is a significant
savings if Im using three or four (or 5) cartridges a week.(the five
color carts are about $12 apiece in my neck of the woods, unless on
sale, when they go for $9.99)

I agree that the Wilhelm article is important, but it shouldn't scare
people away from using high quality products. Thats what I rant about,
the use of the article as a "scare tactic" when it actually is only a
statement of facts.

There are companies all over the place hawking ink cheaper than the one
I use... Im not tempted..been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

I thought (perhaps wrongly) it was implicit in what I said that "THERE
AINT NO FREE RIDES" but there are some less expensive trips.

My entire motive for using inkjet technology is profit driven.. the
money I save buy using re-fills enables me to replace my printers
without wincing or cringing when they die. (or when models with big
improvements come along)

It has been my experience that both the Epsons I have used wear out at
about the same rate whether using factory ink or (high quality) re-fill
ink. The same can be said for the Canon printers.

The HP line is a different story, every time you replace the cart, you
replace the print-head, so they tend to wear out the paper feed
mechanism. I must admit that the early HP printers were the reason I got
into refilling to begin with (HP 500c, & 550c were the first ones I re-
filled).

Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[buck]

That is a very good and strong point. I'll look up MIS Associates but
their absence from the tests is curious as well. The other side of this
issue of course is that the engineers who design the print heads have to
take into account the inks they will be blowing down the nozzles.

Last night I sold 4 prints to a client from my printer. I do not want
customers to say to me (or more importantly anyone else) that my product
faded in 10 years after they paid good money for it. (Photography is a
pasttime from which I make some sales, but not my living. In any case I
don't want to sell a shoddy product).


Cheers,
Alan

I don't make my living at it either, but I do sell a lot of prints in
the summer. I do most of my printing is done "on-site" at the event
that I am photographing (usually a 3 or 4 day horse show), and I make a
fair profit. I also tell my customers what the Paper/Ink company claims
as a life for their product, and I tell them to take it with a grain of
salt, and to take very good care of the prints and to consider them
delicate, and "Oh, buy the way, here are your photos on cdrom (blanks
are VERY INEXPENSIVE) so you can get more prints made at the photo shop
down the road should you care to.

If a fellow will part with folding green for an ink jet print, the least
I can do is burn the picture (pictures) to a 10 or 20 cent blank and put
it in a sleeve for him. What I'm selling is my Photography (people tell
me I'm good at it) the prints are just a sideline. The prints are meant
to "get my work out there" where they generate appointments for
sittings, and wedding coverage ect. Most of that work is done with film.
(it works too! Kind of like getting paid to advertise!)

Someone once told me that the difference between a good photographer and
a great one is about 10 rolls of film a day... Sooooooo true.

With the advent of good quality >5 megapixel cameras and inexpensive
memory sticks (et al) taking 30 to 50 shots to get THAT ONE PICTURE is a
snap, pocket-book wise.


Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:13:07 GMT, buck wrote:

=>The HP line is a different story, every time you replace the cart, you
=>replace the print-head, so they tend to wear out the paper feed
=>mechanism. I must admit that the early HP printers were the reason I got
=>into refilling to begin with (HP 500c, & 550c were the first ones I re-
=>filled).

Yeah, but those early HP printers are built like trucks.

 

[buck]

Yeah, but those early HP printers are built like trucks.

The HP 550c that I bought many, many years ago is on the desk of the son
of a friend, still cranking out the occaisional color page.

I did hear that he has recently begun to have problems locating
cartridges for it.

Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct

 

[Alan Browne]

Have you tried the paper yet? I talked with a Kodak engineer and this is
what he told me. I also printed on Epson and Kodak and got a much better
print using Epson paper. Cost is the same so why would I sacrifice quality?

Have you lost your wheels madame? Yes I tried it. Yes it sucked. Yes
it is marked "FOR INK JET PRINTERS" NI, it is not marked for thermal
printers. Clear 'nuff?