BCI-6 Ink Comparison

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Richard

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
974
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For those interested in how well some other popular inks compare to
Canon BCI-6 inks as tested by a user go to these Dpreview forum
messages and read through the comments starting here:

Color matching:
http://tinyurl.com/3junx

and here:

Fade results:
http://tinyurl.com/54woa

I found it an interesting read as this user took the time to actually
run some comparison tests.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Richard wrote:

> For those interested in how well some other popular inks compare to
> Canon BCI-6 inks as tested by a user go to these Dpreview forum
> messages and read through the comments starting here:
>
> Color matching:
> http://tinyurl.com/3junx
>
> and here:
>
> Fade results:
> http://tinyurl.com/54woa
>
> I found it an interesting read as this user took the time to actually
> run some comparison tests.
>

Are those the silly swab tests? Since when is a Q-tip a reasonable
facsimile of a printer? Not only that, the reaction between a specific
brand of paper will react differently with each ink tested. I see that
with my printers and inks all the time. One will give a more magenta
red than the other, for example.

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

Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>
>> For those interested in how well some other popular inks compare to
>> Canon BCI-6 inks as tested by a user go to these Dpreview forum
>> messages and read through the comments starting here:
>>
>> Color matching:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3junx
>>
>> and here:
>>
>> Fade results:
>> http://tinyurl.com/54woa
>>
>> I found it an interesting read as this user took the time to actually
>> run some comparison tests.
>>
>
>Are those the silly swab tests? Since when is a Q-tip a reasonable
>facsimile of a printer? Not only that, the reaction between a specific
>brand of paper will react differently with each ink tested. I see that
>with my printers and inks all the time. One will give a more magenta
>red than the other, for example.
>
>-Taliesyn

Of course paper and ink combinations are of _prime_ importance! Yet
many hear would tell you that it makes no difference since the inks
are cheaper and they can not _see_ any real difference.
Or perhaps you take issue with the poor performance of the third party
inks because of the test methods? Well how about Wilhelm-Research?
Do you respect his opinions? He performed the research for this
article: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp
or http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf

Silly swab tests or in depth testing, the test results
tend to show that OEM inks matched with appropriate papers in the
majority of cases are _not_ matched in color accuracy _OR_ longevity
by third party inks and cheap papers. Yet, buyers of inkjet printers
are very often told the myth that third party inks are just as good
when, in fact, very few third party inks offer any real quality.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I guess the many of the people on this forum are using those few inks
that are of real quality including Taliesyn .
Richard wrote:

>Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>For those interested in how well some other popular inks compare to
>>>Canon BCI-6 inks as tested by a user go to these Dpreview forum
>>>messages and read through the comments starting here:
>>>
>>>Color matching:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/3junx
>>>
>>>and here:
>>>
>>>Fade results:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/54woa
>>>
>>>I found it an interesting read as this user took the time to actually
>>>run some comparison tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Are those the silly swab tests? Since when is a Q-tip a reasonable
>>facsimile of a printer? Not only that, the reaction between a specific
>>brand of paper will react differently with each ink tested. I see that
>>with my printers and inks all the time. One will give a more magenta
>>red than the other, for example.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>
>Of course paper and ink combinations are of _prime_ importance! Yet
>many hear would tell you that it makes no difference since the inks
>are cheaper and they can not _see_ any real difference.
>Or perhaps you take issue with the poor performance of the third party
>inks because of the test methods? Well how about Wilhelm-Research?
>Do you respect his opinions? He performed the research for this
>article: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp
>or http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf
>
>Silly swab tests or in depth testing, the test results
>tend to show that OEM inks matched with appropriate papers in the
>majority of cases are _not_ matched in color accuracy _OR_ longevity
>by third party inks and cheap papers. Yet, buyers of inkjet printers
>are very often told the myth that third party inks are just as good
>when, in fact, very few third party inks offer any real quality.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Unfortunately Wilhelm tested three canon aftermarket inks that I have never
seen mentioned in any of the forums or newsgroups.. Wish he would have
tested MIS, Alotofthings Formulabs, Inkgrabber, Computer Friends, and
hobbicolor inks. Several of these have been compared by Neil Slade - maybe
not scientifically, but a reasonable "clinical trial."

"Richard" <PhotoAm@unospam.net> wrote in message
news:nb0q215ucga06grchaqijpvfvle1lu5dhn@4ax.com...
> Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>> For those interested in how well some other popular inks compare to
>>> Canon BCI-6 inks as tested by a user go to these Dpreview forum
>>> messages and read through the comments starting here:
>>>
>>> Color matching:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3junx
>>>
>>> and here:
>>>
>>> Fade results:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/54woa
>>>
>>> I found it an interesting read as this user took the time to actually
>>> run some comparison tests.
>>>
>>
>>Are those the silly swab tests? Since when is a Q-tip a reasonable
>>facsimile of a printer? Not only that, the reaction between a specific
>>brand of paper will react differently with each ink tested. I see that
>>with my printers and inks all the time. One will give a more magenta
>>red than the other, for example.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
> Of course paper and ink combinations are of _prime_ importance! Yet
> many hear would tell you that it makes no difference since the inks
> are cheaper and they can not _see_ any real difference.
> Or perhaps you take issue with the poor performance of the third party
> inks because of the test methods? Well how about Wilhelm-Research?
> Do you respect his opinions? He performed the research for this
> article: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp
> or http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf
>
> Silly swab tests or in depth testing, the test results
> tend to show that OEM inks matched with appropriate papers in the
> majority of cases are _not_ matched in color accuracy _OR_ longevity
> by third party inks and cheap papers. Yet, buyers of inkjet printers
> are very often told the myth that third party inks are just as good
> when, in fact, very few third party inks offer any real quality.
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have been using MIS ink for a couple years. I see no difference (in a
print and after all that is what we are after, right) between Canon ink
and MIS and I am very critical. For $1.00 per ink tank refill I could
reprint a lot of pictures if they would happen to fade slightly sooner
than with Canon ink. I'll go for the cost savings. Hell, I can buy a new
printer every year with the savings and that gives me a free set of
Canon ink tanks too.


> Silly swab tests or in depth testing, the test results
> tend to show that OEM inks matched with appropriate papers in the
> majority of cases are _not_ matched in color accuracy _OR_ longevity
> by third party inks and cheap papers. Yet, buyers of inkjet printers
> are very often told the myth that third party inks are just as good
> when, in fact, very few third party inks offer any real quality.
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Actually, it is, at least for OCP vs. OEM inks where I have compared:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/a/radellaf/imgs/ink_bars.jpg .
Can't do color profiling with these swatches but for the intended
purpose (mostly fade resistance) the swabs are fine. The comparison is
with inks, not printers.

Tests are on plain paper and Epson PGPP, which is probably the most
common (4x6) photo paper on dpreview.

How bad the 3rd party black inks are is what I found the most
interesting.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

MIS, MediaStreet and InkJetGoodies (and WeInk) all resell ink from
http://www.image-specialists.com

If you see a difference that makes a difference (to you) between the
ink types, then you probably care enough to pay $80 for Profile Prism
and profile your ink and paper combinations.

I did the test primarily to answer the question of "are 3rd party inks
as good?" since all the companies selling them say they are. Answer is
quite clearly and without doubt, no, they are not as good.

They're still a great VALUE though.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rod Williams <Rodf@adelphia.net> wrote:

>I have been using MIS ink for a couple years. I see no difference (in a
>print and after all that is what we are after, right) between Canon ink
>and MIS and I am very critical. For $1.00 per ink tank refill I could
>reprint a lot of pictures if they would happen to fade slightly sooner
>than with Canon ink. I'll go for the cost savings. Hell, I can buy a new
>printer every year with the savings and that gives me a free set of
>Canon ink tanks too.
>

I would heartily agree with you Rod if we were not discussing photos
since most of the other color printing we do is highly transitory.

If you do not think as I do that a photo should be long lasting then
ANY ink that looks ok and does not clog a printer is fine. Obviously
that is the case for many here.
However, when I print a picture of one of my grandchildren for my
family, I fully intend that it last for a very, very long time and
certainly longer than I. With that being the case, I obviously would
not be around to print another. Unless, of course, I used some of the
poor third party inks that fade relatively quickly. Even then, how
would I possibly be saving anything if I had to reprint every few
years? That would seem both boring and wasteful to me since it would
double costs, time on task, and wear and tear. To each his own.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Sounds like it's worth considering if a photo makes a good B&W print in
'black cartridge only" mode on a printer with pigment black ink on a
nice archival matte paper. It'll be "dotty" buy probably not from a
few feet away, and as carbon is the colorant in many of those inks they
should last nearly forever.

Most of my photos I expect to last no longer than my magazines, and
those'll fade in months if left in bright light.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Renard DellaFave" <radellaf@gmail.com> wrote:

(SNIP)

>Most of my photos I expect to last no longer than my magazines, and
>those'll fade in months if left in bright light.

Really? Why would you settle for that? I throw my magazines out when I
finish the articles but my photos I treasure forever. I never knew
anyone considered photos as "throw away". Interesting. Then again,
if they last no longer than a magazine I guess there is no other
option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom