Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Compatible is a very slippery word to be meaningless, especially with
inks, which are not regulated by anyone.

Art


measekite wrote:

> OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
> printer.
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> In article <O4WdnSF9vqT0_6PfRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
>> <bpotter@thebar.net> writes
>>
>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>>> still
>>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer
>> on Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print -
>> and I suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered
>> trade name being used to describe it as such!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's a
but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water, it
will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
qualities differ within each tea, as well.

There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to make a cyan dye colorant.
Why do you think Epson, for instance, has reformulated their cyan dye so
many times. Years ago, when some of the earlier pigment and pigmented
inks were being designed, I recall companies like Lyson issuing new dye
and pigment sets about once every two months. The dyes and pigments had
numbers and often only one color was altered. Compatible can mean just
about anything.


Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:57:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible,
>>> then they are representative of the OEM and should share the majority
>>> of the same characteristics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
>> inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
>> mean that their cartridges fit the printer.
>>
>>
>>
> I am not speaking of compatible cartridges. I am speaking of compatible
> inks. If you refill a Canon brand cartridge it is most obvious that it
> fits the Canon printer. If the ink has the same characteristics then it
> is compatible. It needs to have the same characteristics so it will
> function PROPERLY with the Print Head. That does not mean there may be
> small variations with some differential in quality.
>
>> --
>>
>> Hecate - The Real One
>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I exclusively used Epson inks on all my Epson printers for about 4
> years, and they are my oldest prints. I actually moved to 3rd party
> only after Epson moved to chipped cartridges, on principle. I still
> have about 10 or 15 Epson ink cartridges which are being used for
> certain applications, where I need results with dye inks which are
> repeatable. I never have reported on my 3rd party ink prints as "Epson
> prints" in terms of longevity or color, because that would be totally
> unfair and dishonest. We do need to dot the 'i's when discussing
> longevity, as best we can.
>
> Interestingly, my Epson OEM ink prints done on Tektronix papers, some
> of which are nearly 8 years old now, and exposed to relatively high
> indoor lighting, show only mild cyan fade in lighter areas.

As I understand what is being said is that the Epson/Tektronix
combination is not a real Epson print. The real Epson print, according
to some people, is the Epson print produced with Epson ink on Epson
paper that DID fade. Maybe we can put this to rest by saying Epson CP
or Canon CP print; the CP standing for compatible.

>
> The same prints done on Epson photo paper (the glossy stuff) faded
> pretty badly in about 18 months (cyan failure) in medium-high
> lighting, however, the Epson matte paper has held up well. Some older
> HP matte paper did not work well with the Epson inks, in terms of
> longevity, but I have no idea how it compares to current HP papers.
>
> "Compatible" inks can vary massively from their OEM counterparts.

Are you also inferring that since they vary in results, they can also
vary in quality and can also clog the print head. If that is the case
you need to be very careful when choosing 3rd party inks. You also
never know that a Supplier Named ink can come from various
mfg/formulators and can also vary from batch to batch. Even if from the
same mfg, they can independently change their formulation and or quality
or they can change their supplier of raw materials. The OEM monitor
this very closely with very tight specifications as they are trying to
maintain a level of quality and consistency.

> It would not be fair to equate them in terms of any characteristics
> other than that they may both work in the same printer.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.
>>>
>>> When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
>>> their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
>>> print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party
>> Canon compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to
>> your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are producing
>> prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints, including
>> yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party
>> inks and many different brands of paper. To me, if the inks and
>> papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible, then they are
>> representative of the OEM and should share the majority of the same
>> characteristics.
>>
>>>
>>> It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
>>> call it a 'Canon print' in this context.
>>>
>>> Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
>>> accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to
>>> the print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink
>>> surface with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the
>>> surface.
>>>
>>> All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
>>> course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be
>>> framed with glass directly on the surface of the print.
>>>
>>> So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably
>>> within about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting
>>> were, to the best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with
>>> Canon inks and papers, and were not under glass or otherwise
>>> adulterated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
>> far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade,
>> that might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the
>> pigment inks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Potter wrote:
>>>
>>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer,
>>>> it's still
>>>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>>>> There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
>>>> stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>>> shortcomings. There
>>>> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>>>>
>>>> BPotter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in
>>>> news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
>>>> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your facts!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> then
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't use Canon
>>>>>> papers nor inks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need
>>>>> be discussed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> As it is, I have a heck of a time keeping up with current transfers to
> media. I have literally changed storage devices and media a good
> dozen times in the last 15 years, and I would literally have to hire
> someone just to do that work. It is a tremendous waste of time, which
> I am pleased to say my several 100 thousand slide image collection
> doesn't require... well, except for a dozen or so rolls of Agfa slide
> film that is fading).

My Primary backup is to a hard drive. That has not changed in years.
From their I go to DVD. It seems to work for me. Hard Disk media is
the fastest and cheapest. Using a removable hard disk bay will give you
endless capacity. I would double backup. I have this automated every
night when I am sleeping.

>
> I think I went through 4 different versions of Syquest drives and
> disks that didn't have compatible formats. Between the floppies, zips,
> and other optical storage...
>
> I'm now getting ready to more to DVD, but I trust it even less than
> earlier technologies, because each disk hold so much data.
>
> And besides, this is all bogus. My point was simply that the original
> black and white silver photo can last hundreds of years and needs no
> "backup" or methods to up-tech them.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations
>>> old, and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.
>>>
>>> As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid,
>>> they are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed
>>> dye and pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally
>>> thousands of years of historical data to draw from. We have cloth
>>> and paintings from back as far as cave paintings, including
>>> manuscripts, illuminations, oil and water color images, and so on to
>>> provide much of the information.
>>>
>>> Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may
>>> have a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the
>>> environment that will change how all these things respond, but
>>> baring any major disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests
>>> as a back up, we can make some pretty reasonable interpolations
>>> about the relative aging processes of different dyes and pigments.
>>> It isn't perfect, but it also isn't a complete guess.
>>>
>>> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage
>>> data we use currently will not last and the software and reading
>>> devices will become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to
>>> procure. That is where the print really shines, because it only
>>> requires light to view.
>>> Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will
>>> fade away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already
>>> does in a matter of years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
>> readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720
>> came out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy
>> and then to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity
>> there will always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never
>> fade and you can archive it forever.
>>
>>>
>>> How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
>>> say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
>>> their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your
>>> estate, or shred all your images because they don't want to be
>>> bothered with them.
>>>
>>> However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the
>>> materials, but more by historic precedence and value.
>>>
>>> In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each
>>> of us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to
>>> be generating.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper,
>>>>> not to mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't
>>>>> it just make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't
>>>>> fade for 100 years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses
>>>>> more ink in cleaning cycles to do so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
>>>>> consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its
>>>>> useful life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen
>>>> any prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper
>>>> and Epson ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how
>>>> about 50 years. I even doubt if you have see result that are even
>>>> 20 years old? Tests are simulations.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
>>>>> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years
>>>>> old from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30
>>>> years old and they have faded.
>>>>
>>>>> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they
>>>>> would have been gone long before now.
>>>>>
>>>>> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence
>>>>> of image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some
>>>>> maintenance issues still being worked out, but considering that
>>>>> for literally under $100 a person can own a printer that produces
>>>>> full color photo quality prints that are waterproof and last over
>>>>> 90 years,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
>>>> years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.
>>>>
>>>>> we've come a long way.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
>>>>> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
>>>>> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the
>>>>> waste ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs
>>>>> are frozen at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in
>>>>> my book, but a good start as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
>>>>> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and
>>>>> few maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer
>>>>> may be inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in
>>>>>> that case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think
>>>>>> that Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will
>>>>>> have a tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't
>>>>>> matter and the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper
>>>>>>>>> jams,
>>>>>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast
>>>>>>>>> operation, fantastic
>>>>>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have
>>>>>>>>> collected over a 100
>>>>>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost
>>>>>>>>> their magenta
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about
>>>>>>>> the mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>>>>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is
>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
> fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon
> OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality
> and purity?


That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well. There
are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing from a
certified testing agency or anything like that so you really never know
what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from a supplier
that put their name on the product you will never know if the next batch
is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the exact same
formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as being
Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of compatibility and
others are tightly compatible. Identifying the ones on the fringes is
not easy.

>
> I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since
> they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to
> last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without
> failures.
>
> I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.
>
> Art
>
> Brian Potter wrote:
>
>> Canon inks and compatible inks are virtual clones of each other with
>> only minute differences. Paper has a larger variation, but still must
>> be compatible with Canon produced papers. It may be better or it may
>> be worse. Water is NOT compatible with Vodka. If you don't believe me
>> try brewing your tea with Vodka. Enjoy your strange brew because
>> neither it nor your logic holds any water.
>>
>> BPotter
>>
>>
>>
>> "GEO" Me@home.here wrote in news:423efab9.8962826@news.ucalgary.ca:
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter <bpotter@thebar.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
>>>> still a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make
>>>> it. There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
>>>> stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>>> shortcomings. There will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact
>>>> too.
>>>> BPotter
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> then
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
>>> coffee.
>>>
>>> Regardless whether I use vodka or water.
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Compatible is a very slippery word to be meaningless, especially with
> inks, which are not regulated by anyone.


I agree. I am sure your ink supplier uses that word "compatible" as well.

>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
>> printer.
>>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> In article <O4WdnSF9vqT0_6PfRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Brian Potter
>>> <bpotter@thebar.net> writes
>>>
>>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer,
>>>> it's still
>>>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon
>>> printer on Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon
>>> print - and I suspect that Canon would strongly object to their
>>> registered trade name being used to describe it as such!
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
> what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
> a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
> it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
> connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
> flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
> qualities differ within each tea, as well.

That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)

>
> There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to make a cyan dye colorant.
> Why do you think Epson, for instance, has reformulated their cyan dye
> so many times. Years ago, when some of the earlier pigment and
> pigmented inks were being designed, I recall companies like Lyson
> issuing new dye and pigment sets about once every two months. The
> dyes and pigments had numbers and often only one color was altered.
> Compatible can mean just about anything.
>
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:57:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible,
>>>> then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
>>>> majority of the same characteristics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
>>> inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
>>> mean that their cartridges fit the printer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am not speaking of compatible cartridges. I am speaking of
>> compatible inks. If you refill a Canon brand cartridge it is most
>> obvious that it fits the Canon printer. If the ink has the same
>> characteristics then it is compatible. It needs to have the same
>> characteristics so it will function PROPERLY with the Print Head.
>> That does not mean there may be small variations with some
>> differential in quality.
>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <9NR%d.54410$ZO2.20400@edtnps84>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>As it is, I have a heck of a time keeping up with current transfers to
>media.

Forget it Art. He is a juvenile tosser that has only seen one or two
generations of media change and really hasn't a clue what he is posting
about at all.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:09:43 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>>Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
>>inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
>>mean that their cartridges fit the printer.
>>
>>
>>
>I am not speaking of compatible cartridges. I am speaking of compatible
>inks. If you refill a Canon brand cartridge it is most obvious that it
>fits the Canon printer. If the ink has the same characteristics then it
>is compatible. It needs to have the same characteristics so it will
>function PROPERLY with the Print Head. That does not mean there may be
>small variations with some differential in quality.
>

Rubbish!

The ink can be *completely different* as long as it works with the
printer.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:16:39 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
>> what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
>> a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
>> it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
>> connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
>> flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
>> qualities differ within each tea, as well.
>
>That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)
>
And what type of coffee? Mocha? Java? Kenyan? Arabica beans? Rustica
beans? It's no different to tea in that there are lots of varieties
and lots of different blends.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:56:32 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
wrote:


>Further, and much more to the point, cars don't produce an end product
>using expendable like a printer does (other than pollution from
>gasoline), so it's a very poor analogy.
>
It's also a poor analogy because putting different inks in a printer
can be compared to putting in different fuel. And not all petrol is
the same, not least to say what would happen if you put diesel in a
petrol engine ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <XW%%d.414$zl.168@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
>>what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
>>a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
>>it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
>>connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
>>flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
>>qualities differ within each tea, as well.
>
>That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)
>
If you have only ever drink it in the USA then I would even question
whether it really is COFFEE!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <fbS%d.54663$ZO2.15454@edtnps84>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes
>They might now, considering the prints may both look better and last
>longer if NOT printed with their inks and papers.

Even when better, Canon have been known to prosecute for misuse of their
trade name, as are most major companies.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:09:43 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>Sorry, but that's cobblers. Different manufacturers formulate their
>>>inks differently. One is not equal to the other. Compatible can just
>>>mean that their cartridges fit the printer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I am not speaking of compatible cartridges. I am speaking of compatible
>>inks. If you refill a Canon brand cartridge it is most obvious that it
>>fits the Canon printer. If the ink has the same characteristics then it
>>is compatible. It needs to have the same characteristics so it will
>>function PROPERLY with the Print Head. That does not mean there may be
>>small variations with some differential in quality.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Rubbish!
>
>The ink can be *completely different* as
>

>long as it works with theprinter.
>
>
That is exactly the definition of compatible; at least in the US

> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> However, head failures with Epsons are statistically rare, and
> certainly their print heads have a longer life span than any other
> inkjet printer. I almost daily hear from people who are running 8 to
> 10 year old Epson inkjet printers. That is very rare with other
> brands, because, they fail due to breakdown, or the technology is so
> inferior relative to current output that no one bothers using them.
> Epson's very first color inkjet came out at 720 x 720 dpi output,
> which even today give a reasonable nearly photographic output on good
> inkjet paper.

My brother still uses my old Stylus Color 400.
Probably just barely often enough to keep it going.
That is, he uses it when he wants color.
When his Epson dot-matrix LQ-something (around 18 years old) won't do.

I bought the SC400 for $99 (refurbished), in 1998 I think, figuring it would
make a good stopgap while I decided what "real" color printer I wanted.
But it did so well I didn't bother upgrading for about five years.

I only ever bothered with a handful of "photo" prints, but on quality
Epson paper,
they were quite impressive. Practically amazing in 1998, from a "cheap"
printer.


Bob
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Further, and much more to the point, cars don't produce an end product
> using expendable like a printer does (other than pollution from
> gasoline), so it's a very poor analogy.


Ah, but there you may be just slightly mistaken...

Much of the highest regarded "fine art" in the world
is done in oils.

....and that makes it not entirely different from
what my Mazda B-2000 has done in the driveway.



Bob
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:08:03 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <XW%%d.414$zl.168@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
><measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
>>>what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
>>>a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
>>>it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
>>>connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
>>>flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
>>>qualities differ within each tea, as well.
>>
>>That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)
>>
>If you have only ever drink it in the USA then I would even question
>whether it really is COFFEE!

LOL!

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

What can I say, other than, you would? ;-)

Art

measekite wrote:

> I think that Taliesyn made sense and was clearly understood.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The reason I was very clear to indicate which ink and which paper is to
avoid any confusion or misleading anyone. I also mentioned using Epson
ink and Epson paper in some situations.

I should probably have also mentioned, in fairness, that those prints
were done with 4 color Epson printers (CMYK), which I am a big advocate
of, because they avoid the low dye load color sets which tend to be more
fugitive.

Probably the best solution in discussion specific to longevity is to
mention both the ink being used and the paper type and brand.

Regarding inks, I absolutely agree that branded product can change its
supplier and content. And not just 3rd party, although they are much
more likely to do so and not test the product thoroughly, but also OEM.
Epson changed their ink supplier or at least the factory (changed
country of origin) several times, and the color of the inks changed. I
have seen Epson ink cartridges and inks made in Mexico, USA, Japan,
China and other countries. The Chinese inks specifically had differing
colors.


Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I exclusively used Epson inks on all my Epson printers for about 4
>> years, and they are my oldest prints. I actually moved to 3rd party
>> only after Epson moved to chipped cartridges, on principle. I still
>> have about 10 or 15 Epson ink cartridges which are being used for
>> certain applications, where I need results with dye inks which are
>> repeatable. I never have reported on my 3rd party ink prints as "Epson
>> prints" in terms of longevity or color, because that would be totally
>> unfair and dishonest. We do need to dot the 'i's when discussing
>> longevity, as best we can.
>>
>> Interestingly, my Epson OEM ink prints done on Tektronix papers, some
>> of which are nearly 8 years old now, and exposed to relatively high
>> indoor lighting, show only mild cyan fade in lighter areas.
>
>
> As I understand what is being said is that the Epson/Tektronix
> combination is not a real Epson print. The real Epson print, according
> to some people, is the Epson print produced with Epson ink on Epson
> paper that DID fade. Maybe we can put this to rest by saying Epson CP
> or Canon CP print; the CP standing for compatible.
>
>>
>> The same prints done on Epson photo paper (the glossy stuff) faded
>> pretty badly in about 18 months (cyan failure) in medium-high
>> lighting, however, the Epson matte paper has held up well. Some older
>> HP matte paper did not work well with the Epson inks, in terms of
>> longevity, but I have no idea how it compares to current HP papers.
>>
>> "Compatible" inks can vary massively from their OEM counterparts.
>
>
> Are you also inferring that since they vary in results, they can also
> vary in quality and can also clog the print head. If that is the case
> you need to be very careful when choosing 3rd party inks. You also
> never know that a Supplier Named ink can come from various
> mfg/formulators and can also vary from batch to batch. Even if from the
> same mfg, they can independently change their formulation and or quality
> or they can change their supplier of raw materials. The OEM monitor
> this very closely with very tight specifications as they are trying to
> maintain a level of quality and consistency.
>
>> It would not be fair to equate them in terms of any characteristics
>> other than that they may both work in the same printer.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.
>>>>
>>>> When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
>>>> their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
>>>> print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party
>>> Canon compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to
>>> your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are producing
>>> prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints, including
>>> yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party
>>> inks and many different brands of paper. To me, if the inks and
>>> papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible, then they are
>>> representative of the OEM and should share the majority of the same
>>> characteristics.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
>>>> call it a 'Canon print' in this context.
>>>>
>>>> Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
>>>> accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to
>>>> the print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink
>>>> surface with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the
>>>> surface.
>>>>
>>>> All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
>>>> course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be
>>>> framed with glass directly on the surface of the print.
>>>>
>>>> So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably
>>>> within about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting
>>>> were, to the best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with
>>>> Canon inks and papers, and were not under glass or otherwise
>>>> adulterated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
>>> far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade,
>>> that might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the
>>> pigment inks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian Potter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer,
>>>>> it's still
>>>>> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
>>>>> There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly
>>>>> stick with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
>>>>> shortcomings. There
>>>>> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>>>>>
>>>>> BPotter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in
>>>>> news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
>>>>> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your facts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I don't use Canon
>>>>>>> papers nor inks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need
>>>>>> be discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of
any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously, even
with OEM.

Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any
warranty they offer.

Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough
variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results.

Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy
with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they
should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use.


Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
>> fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the Canon
>> OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same quality
>> and purity?
>
>
>
> That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well. There
> are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing from a
> certified testing agency or anything like that so you really never know
> what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from a supplier
> that put their name on the product you will never know if the next batch
> is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the exact same
> formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as being
> Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of compatibility and
> others are tightly compatible. Identifying the ones on the fringes is
> not easy.
>
>>
>> I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too, since
>> they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are expected to
>> last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3 months without
>> failures.
>>
>> I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.
>>
>> Art
>>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There are probably nearly the same number of coffee types and methods of
roasting as there are teas. Ask my wife... our house is filled with
different coffee devices, and she has probably tried a good 100 or more
blends and types of coffee beans before coming up with her "favorite".

Although I can certain taste the difference, I rarely drink coffee, so I
can't get too involved in the whole thing. ;-) I just seem to get stuck
buying all the contraptions.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> It also doesn't mean the variations are only small. You have no idea
>> what dyes they are using, which is a main issue in longevity. That's
>> a but like saying as long as I brew a tea the same way and use water,
>> it will taste like any other tea. Well, don't tell that to a tea
>> connoisseur. There are hundreds of types of black and green teas,
>> flavored and scented teas, herbal teas, mixed teas, and then the
>> qualities differ within each tea, as well.
>
>
> That why we drink COFFEE in the USA ;-)
>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If memory serves from my university human anatomy course, the species
does tend to have one "brain". Numerous lobes, a couple of hemispheres,
but only one brain. ;-)

Art


> In article <LWM%d.136$zl.4@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
> <measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>
>> If you had a brain place in your head it would be lonesome.
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Yes, the problem of consistency in inks is a problem with 3rd party of
> any brand and for any printer brand, and, as mentioned previously,
> even with OEM.

But OEM is more tightly controlled since they have million riding on a
reputation.

>
> Your only real safeguard is the reputation of the ink company and any
> warranty they offer.


Try and collect a warranty from a noname made overseas. Most of the so
called brands are just names given to brand X by dealers or resellers
except for Formulabs, Dyson and companies like them. Those exceptions
seem to offer better consistency. However, most of the industry can
vary each time they go out for bid.

>
> Ink manufacturing isn't quite rocket science but there is enough
> variability in the formulations to allow for quite a range of results.
>
> Once again, when people discuss issues such as fading, color accuracy
> with drivers, color casts on color ink produced monotone prints, they
> should always mention the ink involved and the paper in use.

Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for
3rd party ink.

>
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> On what are you basing this statement, may I ask? Do you know for a
>>> fact that Canon compatible inks use the same dyes in them as the
>>> Canon OEM inks? The same solvents, the same percentages, the same
>>> quality and purity?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That is the issue. And that applies to Epson 3rd party as well.
>> There are no standards, standards adherence, official quality testing
>> from a certified testing agency or anything like that so you really
>> never know what you are getting. Even if you have had good luck from
>> a supplier that put their name on the product you will never know if
>> the next batch is from the same mfg or even if it is if it is the
>> exact same formulation. I guess being a Clone is not the same as
>> being Compatible. And even then some are on the fringes of
>> compatibility and others are tightly compatible. Identifying the
>> ones on the fringes is not easy.
>>
>>>
>>> I guess that means all one time recordable CDs are the same too,
>>> since they all use a similar technology. Funny how some are
>>> expected to last for 100 years and other barely make it through 3
>>> months without failures.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid if anyone is using watery logic, its you.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I agree, clogging complaints should "finger" the ink used, if it can be
identified, or it should at least be referred to as not being OEM...

Art

measekite wrote:


>
>
> Don't forget about print head clogging when mentioning a Name/Source for
> 3rd party ink.
>
>>
>>
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS