How can I save on ink costs?

[measekite]

All our verbal gobbledygook boils down to a single point: Given your
requirements, we don't know of any way for you to save on ink costs,
other than finding somewhere to buy genuine Epson ink that's cheaper
than where you shop now.

Finaly, that is what I have been saying all along.

Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as yours, so for us
aftermarket ink is acceptable.

Yours is not demanding at all. Draft mode is good enough for what you
do. And with an HP printer with an integrated printedhead the only
thing you need to worry about is a cart leaking. It does happen and
that if it happened would ruin your printer. But getting used printers
for $20 you really have nothing to loose if you want to spend the time
fooling around with refilling.

I have a few prints that were printed using aftermarket ink that have
been displayed inside, under glass, and I haven't noticed any fading yet.

If you put them under cement you would never see any fading.

However, it hasn't been one decade yet, let alone the six you require.

 

[TJ]

TJ wrote:

Yours is not demanding at all. Draft mode is good enough for what you
do. And with an HP printer with an integrated printedhead the only
thing you need to worry about is a cart leaking. It does happen and
that if it happened would ruin your printer. But getting used printers
for $20 you really have nothing to loose if you want to spend the time
fooling around with refilling.

Good to know I have your approval. I can sleep tonight, secure in that
knowledge.

I have refilled HP carts many times and have yet to see one leak if the
job is done properly. And unless it's a top-of-the-line model, if you're
spending $20 on a used printer you're spending at least twice what you
should. Printers depreciate in value even faster than cars and
computers, especially the newer ones with chipped cartridges. But I
guess a guy whose only measure of value is the price of something
wouldn't know that.

TJ

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Kodak and several other inkjet testers decided to use a different
standard when testing their inkjet output results for longevity. They
weren't very up front about it, and it wasn't necessarily the best
testing procedure considering what most people use for display conditions.

I am speaking specifically for inkjet products not their silver halide
materials. Kodak has also been sited before for not being more
forthright with the fading qualities of their film products. Early E-6
processed film was awful in terms of longevity under dark keeping, and
C-41 films (and the earlier c-21 process) were also quite poor. Many
lawsuits came from that when original commercial films were disappearing.

Anyway, although I question Wilhelm's testing due to his close
association with some inkjet companies, I think his older film work was
valuable.

Art

 

[Robert Montgomery]

Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do.

How would you know which tests are quickest to do? Are you an expert on
scientific lightfastness testing?

Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

Robert

 

[PhotoSci]

How would you know which tests are quickest to do? Are you an expert on
scientific lightfastness testing?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But you don't have to be to make that
assertion. Just read the literature, starting with the Journal of
Imaging Science.