Measkites arguments....

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

I agree with Measkite, that it is best to use OEM inks where practical.
By this I mean people who are in the business of producing photographic
prints, or for people who do not use their printers often.

However if a printer is used often and much, and the printout quality is not
important, then it may not always be financially practical to use OEM inks.

I had an Epson printer at work a few years ago and used compatible inks all
the time, however when I started working for myself from home, the same
model failed on me due to lack of use causing a clog.

It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable. In any case it
is up to the individual concerned whether they use OEM inks, compatible inks
or bulk ink refills.

I see reason behind the argument that constant refilling with the same
cartridge could cause sediment to clog up in the bottom of a cartridge over
time, but surely not if each OEM cartridge were only refilled once and then
replaced with another OEM.

Regarding people who give their point of view about inks in this newsgroup,
I have to disagree with Measkite as to his approach. I have had a lot of
very useful feedback from some individuals who know a lot more about the
topic
than I do simply because they are in the business or have a degree or two in
the subject.

It does not matter to me that they may be providing links to their own
business. I am of the opinion that people in the business who frequent this
newsgroup will be more aware of the problems and issues with certain inks in
certain printers and then go on to formulate something better than the OEM
products themselves.

For instance... When I bought my car, it had standard oil and spark plugs in
it. I replaced with a finer grade oil and better spark plugs, and as a
result have improved performance.
This is to say that manufacturers original spec are not always the best and
can
always be improved upon.

If we have a printer manufacturer who supplies their own ink and that ink
tends to clog, then comes along Mr Bloggs who recognises this and
formulates an anti-clogging ink compatible which does not clog, would you
still buy the OEM??? I think not.

To conclude. Everyone has their views within this newsgroup, and it is that
wide variation of views and responses which makes this newsgroup what it is.
It is in the best interests of all concerned to be able to voice an opinion
and not be blatantly rude towards other peoples opinions if it does not
agree with your own.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable. In any case it
> is up to the individual concerned whether they use OEM inks, compatible inks
> or bulk ink refills.

Yes, it would be "nice" if someone would actually point out the actual
benifits of different inks in an objective way that would allow people
reading this group to make a reasonable choice. For example, many OEM
inks out peform aftermarket in the catagory of resistance to light.

> I see reason behind the argument that constant refilling with the same
> cartridge could cause sediment to clog up in the bottom of a cartridge over
> time, but surely not if each OEM cartridge were only refilled once and then
> replaced with another OEM.

I think this applies mostly to the sponge type of tanks. Enough people
have observed that the foam does have a limited lifespan even with dye
before becoming blocked. The non-foam type can always in theory be
washed out but on the other hand the non-foam type i've seen tend to be
made up of a complex series of chambers and require negative pressure
filling or worse yet negative pressure bottom filling.

> For instance... When I bought my car, it had standard oil and spark plugs in
> it. I replaced with a finer grade oil and better spark plugs, and as a
> result have improved performance.
> This is to say that manufacturers original spec are not always the best and
> can always be improved upon.

Keep in mind that on an engine... you can achieve an improvement in
peformance at the expense of the engine. For example that oil addative
with teflon which pretty much served to block oil flow which does
result in less resistance and as a result higher power and lower
latency. There are other cases where buying OEM is a good idea... as
with my Nissan where the NDK platinium plugs I believe are rated for
50,000 miles, where another platinium brand may only work equaly as
well for 20,000 miles, or regular plugs that require cleaning every
12,000 or so (not certain as i've not bought regular plugs for a very
long time). But the best way to find out what works well and what
doesn't is to hit the discussion boards and see the results of what
others have used and make an informed judgement.

> Regarding people who give their point of view about inks in this newsgroup,
> I have to disagree with Measkite as to his approach. I have had a lot of
> very useful feedback from some individuals who know a lot more about the
> topic than I do simply because they are in the business or have a degree or
> two in the subject.

Agreed. There are exceptions as some of the big companies are taking
it upon them selfs to hire businesses who's business is to hit the
blogs and boards and turn them into blatent mirrors of the marketing
garbage on their own websites. You can usually spot these as they make
a product out to be cooler than sliced bread but when asked about
anything technical they dismiss you and say "they are not an engeneer."
There is a ton of useful information from professional refillers esp
since their experence base comes from pushing OEM tanks to the extreme.
This info can be applied by OEM and non-OEM users alike to help
troubleshoot oddball problems.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ngreplies wrote:

> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable.

I have about 10 years experience with compatible cartridges and bulk
inks, so I don't find it a MUST nor even ADVISABLE that I use OEM inks
Good compatibles will give you OEM results. I don't know what a clog is
as I've never seen one on my Canon printers.

Maybe if I sold prints for a living, a little blurb at the bottom that
the print was made with OEM ink might add a little "je ne sais quoi"
status symbol smugness but little else. Paying through the nose for ink
doesn't make it any better, only more expensive.

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

Taliesyn wrote:
> ngreplies wrote:
>
>> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable.
>
>
> I have about 10 years experience with compatible cartridges and bulk
> inks, so I don't find it a MUST nor even ADVISABLE that I use OEM inks
> Good compatibles will give you OEM results. I don't know what a clog is
> as I've never seen one on my Canon printers.
>
> Maybe if I sold prints for a living, a little blurb at the bottom that
> the print was made with OEM ink might add a little "je ne sais quoi"
> status symbol smugness but little else. Paying through the nose for ink
> doesn't make it any better, only more expensive.
>
> -Taliesyn

Really...only an inexperienced user would make such an absurd statement
(It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable).
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Really...only an inexperienced user would make such an absurd statement
> (It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable).

I disagree, and this is comming from someone who buys MIS's product.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=12198835

Note the swabs. In the catagory of fading it seems like under this
test Canon OEM actually held up very well. InkTec very well too and
Image Specalists / Media Street / MIS not quite as good in this test as
either Canon or InkTec. On plain paper though canon does clearly have
an edge in terms of lightfastness.

So as far as "It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable"
statement goes... I can see where it has the ring of truth. There
could be an advantage to the OEM solution on a given printer. It's a
question of what other people offer, what benifits they offer over OEM.


What we need are more people willing to carry out such tests and
measure the differneces so rahter than blanket statements like "it's
advisable" someone could say Brand A has this benifit and Brand B has
this benifits.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <dfd928$1sr$4@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
ngreplies@tdrd.freeserve.co.uk (ngreplies) wrote:

An extremely reasonable and well argued viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's not
sufficiently pro-OEM ink to satisfy the monomaniacal troll, so expect the
usual capitalised, insulting rant to follow.

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

> And when not using OEM inks, you get your profiles where?

Valid point.. I'm not sure where to get profiles for 3rd party inks.
I've heard of some pay profiles... but know not where.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125819715.347812.235500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Really...only an inexperienced user would make such an absurd statement
> > (It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable).
>
> I disagree, and this is comming from someone who buys MIS's product.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=12198835
>
> Note the swabs. In the catagory of fading it seems like under this
> test Canon OEM actually held up very well. InkTec very well too and
> Image Specalists / Media Street / MIS not quite as good in this test as
> either Canon or InkTec. On plain paper though canon does clearly have
> an edge in terms of lightfastness.
>
> So as far as "It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable"
> statement goes... I can see where it has the ring of truth. There
> could be an advantage to the OEM solution on a given printer. It's a
> question of what other people offer, what benifits they offer over OEM.
>
>
> What we need are more people willing to carry out such tests and
> measure the differneces so rahter than blanket statements like "it's
> advisable" someone could say Brand A has this benifit and Brand B has
> this benifits.
>

And when not using OEM inks, you get your profiles where?
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I had two Epsons, and both clogged with Epson inks, the first one
clopged the 2nd day and the replacement clogged on 4th day.

Now then, I can see measekite points very clearly, the above makes a
mockery of that I know, but the Canon ip5000 is over three months old
and I use Canon inks seeing it's under warrenty and never had any
problems nor wanted any manual clean yet, no need to check the prints
like I had to do with the Epsons.

The two Epsons 'gulped ink, wasted ink, time and paper anyone with a
single brain cell would not waste money on that kind of printer,
expensive money at that.

It's not the user's fault but that of Seiko Epson's, so you would
refill buy or 3rd party anything but waste money no one on this NG
can blame anyone for that.

Only a fool would buy OEM inks for a printer that clogs, gulps ink and
requires continual cleaning wasting paper on the way.

A good printer which does not waste nor guzzle ink is worthy of using
OEM I feel the problem arises because of the 'Curse of Epson' what
has created this scenario.

You just can’t justify the price of Epson ink cartridges?


PC World claims that there is 20% of ink left in a C84 when the tank
say's empty....!

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114590,00.asp

Here's a snip-;

Quote-:
The Stylus C84 on average stopped printing with 20 percent of the ink
left in the cartridge, while the Canon i850 stopped printing with 10
percent of the ink left. Canon says that it generally strives to
leave 6 percent of a cartridge's ink as a safety margin. Epson
doesn't disclose its target residual ink levels, nor will the company
comment on why so high a proportion of the total ink is unused when
printing stops. The other printers we tested gave low-ink messages
but never stopped functioning (see the test report for details).
Unquote:


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

> I followed that thread when it was active and while it's quite interesting,
> I'm skeptical about the conclusions. If those tests had been done using an
> actual printer to apply the ink to the test pages I would have more faith in
> the conclusions he came up with. Instead, he used a cotton swap to apply
> each sample. The variable that introduces is consistency of application.

This indeed is a valid point... and such testing should be redone with
real printing. Problem being even if one had 4 or so seperate tanks
filled with seperate inks there would likely be some contamination.
But regardless it is food for thought, not absolute truth.... one of
the first times i've seen those inks compaired to eachother, and
measure the results on specific papers... for example the ever popular
kirkland photopaper.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Aren't profiles only useful for ICC compatible applications such as
PhotoShop? Most inks are so close to Canon than it doesn't make much
difference.
--
Ron

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eKGSe.4221$ia7.786@trndny08...
>
> "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125819715.347812.235500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Really...only an inexperienced user would make such an absurd statement
>> > (It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable).
>>
>> I disagree, and this is comming from someone who buys MIS's product.
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=12198835
>>
>> Note the swabs. In the catagory of fading it seems like under this
>> test Canon OEM actually held up very well. InkTec very well too and
>> Image Specalists / Media Street / MIS not quite as good in this test as
>> either Canon or InkTec. On plain paper though canon does clearly have
>> an edge in terms of lightfastness.
>>
>> So as far as "It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable"
>> statement goes... I can see where it has the ring of truth. There
>> could be an advantage to the OEM solution on a given printer. It's a
>> question of what other people offer, what benifits they offer over OEM.
>>
>>
>> What we need are more people willing to carry out such tests and
>> measure the differneces so rahter than blanket statements like "it's
>> advisable" someone could say Brand A has this benifit and Brand B has
>> this benifits.
>>
>
> And when not using OEM inks, you get your profiles where?
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

drc023 wrote:
> Aren't profiles only useful for ICC compatible applications such as
> PhotoShop? Most inks are so close to Canon than it doesn't make much
> difference.

You got that right!
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I followed that thread when it was active and while it's quite interesting,
I'm skeptical about the conclusions. If those tests had been done using an
actual printer to apply the ink to the test pages I would have more faith in
the conclusions he came up with. Instead, he used a cotton swap to apply
each sample. The variable that introduces is consistency of application. One
sample could have more ink applied than a different one and none of them
(except by accident) would have the same amount of ink applied as would be
from an actual printer. As a result, the initial color swabs could vary from
what a printer would actually lay down and fading results would be variable
based upon the amount of ink applied.
--
Ron

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125819715.347812.235500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Really...only an inexperienced user would make such an absurd statement
>> (It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable).
>
> I disagree, and this is comming from someone who buys MIS's product.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=12198835
>
> Note the swabs. In the catagory of fading it seems like under this
> test Canon OEM actually held up very well. InkTec very well too and
> Image Specalists / Media Street / MIS not quite as good in this test as
> either Canon or InkTec. On plain paper though canon does clearly have
> an edge in terms of lightfastness.
>
> So as far as "It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable"
> statement goes... I can see where it has the ring of truth. There
> could be an advantage to the OEM solution on a given printer. It's a
> question of what other people offer, what benifits they offer over OEM.
>
>
> What we need are more people willing to carry out such tests and
> measure the differneces so rahter than blanket statements like "it's
> advisable" someone could say Brand A has this benifit and Brand B has
> this benifits.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> >It does not matter to me that they may be providing links to their own
> >business.

> it does to me. this is not a commercial venue. let them start a commercial ng group
> and sell their wares there.

If someone provides useful advice and links in their tagline to a
business that they are a part of... i'm all for it. I agree this isn't
a forsale group... so unsolicited posts advertising wares are totally
out of the question, but if someone who's involved in commercial
printing or printers or their products wants to come here and offer
technical support, I support their efforts. It was not an issue in the
past and isn't an issue today.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <eKGSe.4221$ia7.786@trndny08>, SamSez <samtheman@verizon.net>
writes
>
>And when not using OEM inks, you get your profiles where?
>
How many people actually make a noticeable difference at the consumer
level using profiles?

When I have had a new printer, I've found the most effective thing to do
is print a document off using the various different options, see what
effects they have and then chose what appears most realistic to me. On
the monitor I have adjusted the colour temperature so that it appears
'right'

I haven't been using inkjet[1] chemically treated paper for about five
years, but is there really that much difference between one manufacturer
and another in this regard? I would have thought the main variation
would be the whiteness of the paper and whether matt or gloss.

[1] Because that was about the last time I used one.

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

ngreplies wrote:

>I agree with Measkite, that it is best to use OEM inks where practical.
>By this I mean people who are in the business of producing photographic
>prints, or for people who do not use their printers often.
>
>However if a printer is used often and much, and the printout quality is not
>important, then it may not always be financially practical to use OEM inks.
>
>
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. TAKE THE RISK IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE
BUSINESS AND YOU ARE A VERY HEAVY USER.

BUT IF YOU ARE NOT AND YOU WANT THE VERY BEST IT IS BEST TO USE OEM INKS
AND GRUMBLE ABOUT THE PRICE BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF LINE.

I ALSO OBJECT TO THE TYPE OF COMPANIES IN THE AFTERMARKET BUSINESS AND
THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES STINK.

>I had an Epson printer at work a few years ago and used compatible inks all
>the time, however when I started working for myself from home, the same
>model failed on me due to lack of use causing a clog.
>
>It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable. In any case it
>is up to the individual concerned whether they use OEM inks, compatible inks
>or bulk ink refills.
>
>I see reason behind the argument that constant refilling with the same
>cartridge could cause sediment to clog up in the bottom of a cartridge over
>time, but surely not if each OEM cartridge were only refilled once and then
>replaced with another OEM.
>
>Regarding people who give their point of view about inks in this newsgroup,
>I have to disagree with Measkite as to his approach. I have had a lot of
>very useful feedback from some individuals who know a lot more about the
>topic
>than I do simply because they are in the business or have a degree or two in
>the subject.
>
>It does not matter to me that they may be providing links to their own
>business.
>
IT DOES TO ME. THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL VENUE. LET THEM START A
COMMERCIAL NG GROUP AND SELL THEIR WARES THERE.

>I am of the opinion that people in the business who frequent this
>newsgroup will be more aware of the problems and issues with certain inks in
>certain printers and then go on to formulate something better than the OEM
>products themselves.
>
>For instance... When I bought my car, it had standard oil and spark plugs in
>it. I replaced with a finer grade oil and better spark plugs, and as a
>result have improved performance.
>This is to say that manufacturers original spec are not always the best and
>can
>always be improved upon.
>
>If we have a printer manufacturer who supplies their own ink and that ink
>tends to clog, then comes along Mr Bloggs who recognises this and
>formulates an anti-clogging ink compatible which does not clog, would you
>still buy the OEM??? I think not.
>
>To conclude. Everyone has their views within this newsgroup, and it is that
>wide variation of views and responses which makes this newsgroup what it is.
>It is in the best interests of all concerned to be able to voice an opinion
>and not be blatantly rude towards other peoples opinions if it does not
>agree with your own.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> ngreplies wrote:
>
>> I agree with Measkite...
>
>
> That makes you an army of one!
> Frank

THAT MAKES YOU A DICKHEAD WITHOUT BALLS.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Jon O'Brien wrote:

>In article <dfd928$1sr$4@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>ngreplies@tdrd.freeserve.co.uk (ngreplies) wrote:
>
>An extremely reasonable and well argued viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's not
>sufficiently pro-OEM ink to satisfy the monomaniacal troll, so expect the
>usual capitalised, insulting rant to follow.
>
>Jon. DA TROLL
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> ngreplies wrote:
>
>> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable.
>
>
> I have about 10 years experience with compatible cartridges and bulk
> inks, so I don't find it a MUST nor even ADVISABLE that I use OEM inks
> Good compatibles will give you OEM results. I don't know what a clog is

WHY DON'T YOU FIND OUT

> as I've never seen one on my Canon printers.
>
> Maybe if I sold prints for a living, a little blurb at the bottom that
> the print was made with OEM ink might add a little "je ne sais quoi"
> status symbol smugness but little else. Paying through the nose for ink
> doesn't make it any better, only more expensive.
>
> -Taliesyn
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> ngreplies wrote:
>>
>>> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have about 10 years experience with compatible cartridges and bulk
>> inks, so I don't find it a MUST nor even ADVISABLE that I use OEM inks
>> Good compatibles will give you OEM results. I don't know what a clog is
>
>
> WHY DON'T YOU FIND OUT

I suppose I could not print anything for a week or two and wait for a
clog to form. But that would only confirm what I've been saying for
months: clogs form in Canons from underuse.

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

Frank wrote:

> drc023 wrote:
>
>> Aren't profiles only useful for ICC compatible applications such as
>> PhotoShop? Most inks are so close to Canon than it doesn't make much
>> difference.
>
>
> You got that right!
> Frank


WHY IS YOUR BRAIN SMALLER THEN A COCKROACH.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>>It does not matter to me that they may be providing links to their own
>>>business.
>
>
>>it does to me. this is not a commercial venue. let them start a commercial ng group
>>and sell their wares there.
>
>
> If someone provides useful advice and links in their tagline to a
> business that they are a part of... i'm all for it. I agree this isn't
> a forsale group... so unsolicited posts advertising wares are totally
> out of the question, but if someone who's involved in commercial
> printing or printers or their products wants to come here and offer
> technical support, I support their efforts. It was not an issue in the
> past and isn't an issue today.
>
As if that moron has any idea of what he is talking about. What a
complete jackass he makes out of himself with his every post. You'd
think he'd bother to read his own replies but that would take a least a
little intelligence.
Forget it!
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> ngreplies wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not a must that we use OEM inks, but advisable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have about 10 years experience with compatible cartridges and bulk
>>> inks, so I don't find it a MUST nor even ADVISABLE that I use OEM inks
>>> Good compatibles will give you OEM results. I don't know what a clog is
>>
>>
>>
>> WHY DON'T YOU FIND OUT
>
>
> I suppose I could not print anything for a week or two and wait for a
> clog to form. But that would only confirm what I've been saying for
> months: clogs form in Canons from underuse. WHEN USING AFTERMARKET INK
>
> -Taliesyn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom