OEM Versus Hobbicolors ink in Canon Pixma: THE TESTS

[BD]

Hey, all.

Recently had a rather discouraging experience with my first attempt at
using Hobbicolors ink.

Background:

I have a second-hand Canon Pixma iP5000, which _had_ a fresh set of OEM
ink.
I also have a *new* iP4000, which is still on its first set of OEM ink.

Prior to the 5000 running dry, I was finding that all print results
between the two models were extremely comparable. I've been using
Epson, Canon and Kingston Glossy Photo paper.

Of the three paper types, I find that Canon paper sucks, as I can see
track marks from the pinwheels in the printer on the surface of the
paper. Kingston is the current preference, because the output is good,
and it's CHEAP.

So:

Swapped in some Hobbicolors ink over the past few days. I noticed
IMMEDIATE and, I dare say, dramatic differences in the output. Colors
do not appear as saturated, and the absorption (?) looks coarser on
close examination.

I grabbed a test image, and printed a Color and a BW printout on both
printers. Settings are all the same (Glossy Photo paper, taken from the
Cassette, with high quality - borderless).

I've tried to make this as 'clean' a comparison as possible, ruling out
all extraneous variables. One thing I have _not_ done is a straight
swap, putting the Hobbicolors in the 4000.

For what it's worth, I just did one more print with Canon paper (all
out of the Epson), and the results are the same as with the Kirkland.
So it would seem that in the context of Hobbicolors ink, Canon /
Kirkland paper is not a significant variable. There does appear to be
slightly less banding in the printout, but as far as the color
representation and 'graininess', it's the same.

ALSO: prior to running this test, I did at least 8 full page prints on
the new ink. That should satisfy any 'flushing' requirements for the
changeover from OEM to aftermarket.

Anyway.

The results can be seen in this zip file (it's about 1.2MB):

http:members.shaw.ca/robertrd/printtests.zip

I also included the source file I printed from.

TEST 1: Color
Printer: Canon Pixma IP4000 (new)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: OEM

TEST2: Color
Printer: Canon Pixma IP5000 (used)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: Hobbicolors

TEST3: Greyscale
Printer: Canon Pixma IP4000 (new)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: OEM

TEST4: Greyscale
Printer: Canon Pixma IP5000 (used)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: Hobbicolors

Observations:
-Colors in Hobbicolors print are less saturated.
-Absorption looks grainier on close examination
-GREYS LOOK GREEN!!!!!! WTF?!

I'd appreciate any comments.

BD

 

[BD]

Yeah, I knew I'd screw something up.

http://members.shaw.ca/robertrd/printtests.zip

 

[art]

Hey, all.

Recently had a rather discouraging experience with my first attempt at
using Hobbicolors ink.

Your experience is not much different from mine. I have not tried
hobbicolors ink. I tried Inktec and got color match worse than your
hobbicolors experiment. G&G ink comes close to matching, but the ink
cartridges leaked in the printer and alotofthings.com never answered a
query to their support. MIS inks also come close to matching the
Canon ink. Your greenish grays are from the magenta not being
matched. For my test prints I use 25, 50, 75, and 100% saturated
cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. The gray test strips show the
mismatch most easily because at less than 80% saturation gray is
printed using only color inks. The other factor to consider is the
longevity of the ink. I did accelerated UV testing that shows that
the above mentioned inks fade up to 25 times faster than the Canon
Chroma Life 100. I have read similar fading problems with hobbicolor
inks. If you are doing throw away type printing the MIS ink is not
pretty good. If you don't want to reprint your photos on a regular
basis stick with Canon. If you are interested I can post my fading
tests.

 

[frank]

Hey, all.

Recently had a rather discouraging experience with my first attempt at
using Hobbicolors ink.

Background:

I have a second-hand Canon Pixma iP5000, which _had_ a fresh set of OEM
ink.
I also have a *new* iP4000, which is still on its first set of OEM ink.

Prior to the 5000 running dry, I was finding that all print results
between the two models were extremely comparable. I've been using
Epson, Canon and Kingston Glossy Photo paper.

Of the three paper types, I find that Canon paper sucks, as I can see
track marks from the pinwheels in the printer on the surface of the
paper. Kingston is the current preference, because the output is good,
and it's CHEAP.

So:

Swapped in some Hobbicolors ink over the past few days. I noticed
IMMEDIATE and, I dare say, dramatic differences in the output. Colors
do not appear as saturated, and the absorption (?) looks coarser on
close examination.

I grabbed a test image, and printed a Color and a BW printout on both
printers. Settings are all the same (Glossy Photo paper, taken from the
Cassette, with high quality - borderless).

I've tried to make this as 'clean' a comparison as possible, ruling out
all extraneous variables. One thing I have _not_ done is a straight
swap, putting the Hobbicolors in the 4000.

For what it's worth, I just did one more print with Canon paper (all
out of the Epson), and the results are the same as with the Kirkland.
So it would seem that in the context of Hobbicolors ink, Canon /
Kirkland paper is not a significant variable. There does appear to be
slightly less banding in the printout, but as far as the color
representation and 'graininess', it's the same.

ALSO: prior to running this test, I did at least 8 full page prints on
the new ink. That should satisfy any 'flushing' requirements for the
changeover from OEM to aftermarket.

Anyway.

The results can be seen in this zip file (it's about 1.2MB):

http:members.shaw.ca/robertrd/printtests.zip

I also included the source file I printed from.

TEST 1: Color
Printer: Canon Pixma IP4000 (new)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: OEM

TEST2: Color
Printer: Canon Pixma IP5000 (used)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: Hobbicolors

TEST3: Greyscale
Printer: Canon Pixma IP4000 (new)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: OEM

TEST4: Greyscale
Printer: Canon Pixma IP5000 (used)
Paper: Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper
Ink: Hobbicolors

Observations:
-Colors in Hobbicolors print are less saturated.
-Absorption looks grainier on close examination
-GREYS LOOK GREEN!!!!!! WTF?!

I'd appreciate any comments.

BD

I too noticed a slight color difference when switching from Canon oem to
Hobbicolor. In fact, the Hobbicolor results were exactly what I saw on
the screen, not so with the Canon oem. So I'm much more pleased with the
truer results of Hobbicolor than with the Canon oem.
Frank

 

[Yianni]

Your test is very interesting for me.
The problem is definately the magenta. Colors are far away.
Also, if you notice, there is banding in the magenta with the hobbicolors
inks. I don't think banding comes from clogged nozzles, most possible the
magenta ink don't have suitable chemical/physical properties for this
printhead/cartridge combination. You can blame magenta.

Also the oem inks print with a remarkable magenta cast (or it's the
scanner?). If the oem printed well, the hobbicolors ink would be more far
away...

 

[Yianni]

If you use the hobbicolors cyan and yellow, and the oem magenta, you will be
see the same results as oem (at least for color accuracy).

 

[Yianni]

Are you interested on sending you a color set to test it? Of course free of
any charge, 40ml each color, anywere in the world you are. It's from a
totally different ink manufacturer. If yes, please reply directly to my
email (removing the number 9 after the mailbox).

 

[zakezuke]

I'd appreciate any comments.

If you could link to the test images you used I think I might have an
idea.

But at present I can say with absolute certainty that the ip3000 and
mis ink did much better than this for greyscale. Unlike the ip4000 it
doesn't have a dye black and a mix of the three colors = black.

 

[Yianni]

A mistake. After examining the two scans more carefully, it seems there are
differences to cyan too.

 

[BD]

If you could link to the test images you used I think I might have an
idea.

I'd posted a link to the images:

http://members.shaw.ca/robertrd/printtests.zip

The source image is there, as are scans of several tests.

 

[BD]

A mistake. After examining the two scans more carefully, it seems there are
differences to cyan too.

It's all very frustrating.

Is my situation 'unique' here? Or am I just demanding more from these
inks than most people...? Seems to me that 'grey' should not come out
looking 'green...' I hear so much good press about Hobbicolors, and yet
on the first try I'm - really disappointed. ;-(

 

[frank]

It's all very frustrating.

Is my situation 'unique' here? Or am I just demanding more from these
inks than most people...? Seems to me that 'grey' should not come out
looking 'green...' I hear so much good press about Hobbicolors, and yet
on the first try I'm - really disappointed. ;-(

One other thing, I use only Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy (4 x 6), and
for 13 x 19 borderless I use only Canon Photo Paper Pro.
The results will probably be different than those produced by Kirkland
paper.
I am very satisfied with my printing results using Hobbicolor refill ink
in my Canon i9900 printer. I have not purchased an oem cart for years
and don't even intend to do so.
Frank

 

[BD]

The results will probably be different than those produced by Kirkland

paper.

Perhaps. But not different enough to compensate for what I'm seeing,
I'll warrant.

I do want to make aftermarket ink work here, so I may try the 'Pro'
Canon paper. But at this point I'm rather discouraged.

 

[frank]

Perhaps. But not different enough to compensate for what I'm seeing,
I'll warrant.

I do want to make aftermarket ink work here, so I may try the 'Pro'
Canon paper. But at this point I'm rather discouraged.

Well, when I first got the i9900 (about 3 yrs ago) I was having a lot of
problems with color matching what I saw on my Sony GDM-F520 monitor and
what was being printed out. It didn't match. I tried many different ICC
to correct the problem and I tried other after market ink and was more
satisfied, but not entirely. Finally I settled on Hobbicolor as it was
giving me the very best match of screen to print.
Many who own i9900's have complained about the screen to print mis-match.
I found my solution.
Frank

 

[BD]

I found my solution.

I still need to educate myself somewhat on ICC profiles. Oh well...

 

[Tony]

Perhaps. But not different enough to compensate for what I'm seeing,
I'll warrant.

I do want to make aftermarket ink work here, so I may try the 'Pro'
Canon paper. But at this point I'm rather discouraged.

I cannot add much to this except to relate a recent experience.
We have a supplier of ink and paper, both aftermarket, excellent quality inks
(I don't use this forum to sell anything so will not disclose the
manufacturer). They formulate and make their own inks, cartridges and photo
paper and export to many countries. We recently had a problem with their ink on
their photo paper both formulated for a series of Canon printers. The result
was absolutely awful, on asking their advice they responded quickly (as they
always do). Apparently their paper is formulated for Canon OEM ink and is not a
match for their own ink, this is a deliberate marketing decision and has to do
with the thickness of the coating on the photo paper. Their inks on Canon paper
are great, their paper with Canon inks is great, their paper with their inks is
just dreadful. Interesting how complex the technology can be isn't it?
Tony

 

[BD]

just dreadful. Interesting how complex the technology can be isn't it?

Quite. ;-)

**One thing that I haven't really thought about here is ICC profiles. I
am still kind of in Primary School as regards such stuff. I wonder if
looking at making a new color profile for the printer when using the
aftermarket ink would be of any value.

 

[Burt]

Quite. ;-)

**One thing that I haven't really thought about here is ICC profiles. I
am still kind of in Primary School as regards such stuff. I wonder if
looking at making a new color profile for the printer when using the
aftermarket ink would be of any value.

Grandad35, a participant on the Nifty-stuff forum, has discussed custom
profiles and has one for his i9900 Canon printer with Formulabs inks from
Alotofthings. You would need to calibrate your monitor accurately as well.

 

[BD]

Grandad35, a participant on the Nifty-stuff forum, has discussed custom
profiles and has one for his i9900 Canon printer with Formulabs inks from
Alotofthings. You would need to calibrate your monitor accurately as well.

Yes, I'd been considering buying one of those Eye One devices or
something in that ilk.

What kind of gets me (and I concede I don't know the first thing about
how ink is formulated) is that... OEM ink is not a moving target. What
was BCI-6 cyan two years ago is BCI-6 cyan today. We're talking about
creating three different colors, and a black. So I am forced to wonder
what it is that makes it such a challenge to accurately emulate OEM
color gamuts. You'd think that trial and error over time could allow
ink formulators to 'dial in' each color over time, to near perfect
accuracy.

But I guess I'm looking at it from the same perspective as
color-matching paint... which, it would seem, someone at my local
hardware store can do pretty well, without a whole huge amount of
experience or education - just an 'eye' for the effects that a change
in a primary color can have on the final color balance.

So - asking this not as a facetious jab, but a genuine lack of
understanding of what's involved - what is it that makes it so hard to
balance or emulate three little colors?

BD

 

[frank]

Yes, I'd been considering buying one of those Eye One devices or
something in that ilk.

What kind of gets me (and I concede I don't know the first thing about
how ink is formulated) is that... OEM ink is not a moving target. What
was BCI-6 cyan two years ago is BCI-6 cyan today. We're talking about
creating three different colors, and a black. So I am forced to wonder
what it is that makes it such a challenge to accurately emulate OEM
color gamuts. You'd think that trial and error over time could allow
ink formulators to 'dial in' each color over time, to near perfect
accuracy.

But I guess I'm looking at it from the same perspective as
color-matching paint... which, it would seem, someone at my local
hardware store can do pretty well, without a whole huge amount of
experience or education - just an 'eye' for the effects that a change
in a primary color can have on the final color balance.

So - asking this not as a facetious jab, but a genuine lack of
understanding of what's involved - what is it that makes it so hard to
balance or emulate three little colors?

BD

Well let me ask another interesting question:
how come when I first got my i9900, using the supplied canon oem ink and
canon paper, I could not get an accurate, color matched printout of what
I was seeing on the screen?
Frank