Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
An open letter to Consumer Reports
Mark Herring, 11 April, 2004
Sirs;
After reading accounts in various forums, I read with some interest
your recent articles (May 2004) on inkjet printers and third-party
ink. I must tell you that I find your work superficial and
amateurish---with the conclusions misleading at best and-in the
limit-downright erroneous. Inkjet printing for both consumers and
professionals has been maturing for many years, and is a complex and
highly-developed technology. You have covered it only at the
grade-school level.
1. In your printer article, you state: "Eventually all photos fade,
and inkjet photos have a reputation for fading faster than other
types." While this may be true for a typical dye-based printer using
normal glossy paper, there are many more variations extant. First-for
dye printing-there are the so-called "swellable polymer" papers that
absorb and encapsulate the ink. Epson Colorlife is only one example.
These papers offer lifetime on the order of 25 years with dye ink.
All of us have seen 1-hour photolab products fade more quickly.
More seriously, you omit ANY discussion of pigment printers. The
first of these in the consumer market was the Epson 2000. Widely
criticized for its color rendition, it nonetheless offered 200-year
print life on selected papers. More recently, Epson has introduced
several pigment-based printers with trademarks such as "Durabright"
and "Ultrachrome". You would have to have been marooned on a desert
island to have missed their advertising, and yet you make no mention
of any of these products-some of which are the MOST POPULAR printers
in use.
2. Your sampling of printers for test is totally skewed, omitting-as
mentioned above-some of the most popular and widely-used models. Your
article is slanted towards photo printing, and yet you list several
HP models that are never considered photo printers (they are 4-color
systems), and you OMIT the most widely used Epson models-including ALL
of their 6 and 7-color "Photo" printers.
3. Finally, your article about third party ink has serious problems.
First, consider some basic logic: Inkjet printing has been around a
long time. Why would anyone believe that a particular manufacturer
had some magic formula for ink such that nothing else would work in
their printers? This is simply not plausible. While it IS credible
to believe that the typical printer manufacturer has taken the time to
test an ink formula that works well in their printers, it does not
follow that noone else can make compatible ink.
If you sample the various forums relating to photo printing with
inkjets, you will see mention of many sources of 3rd party ink, refill
kits, and continuous-feed systems. You will also see testimonials
from both advanced amateurs and professionals who use these products.
It is wholly consistent with the amateurish nature of your article
that you mention NONE of the most often recommended sources, including
for example: MIS Associates, Mediastreet, Lyson, ColorBat, Weink.
Read the forums---you will find many others.
In summary, your articles have serious errors of omission and are
unbalanced in that widely-used products and technologies receive no
mention. Your blanket statements about third-party ink cannot be
reconciled with the large user community successfully using these
products.
To maintain your integrity and credibility, I believe that it is
incumbent on you to publish something more complete and competent.
I am sure that all participants in these forums join me in urging you
to respond.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
An open letter to Consumer Reports
Mark Herring, 11 April, 2004
Sirs;
After reading accounts in various forums, I read with some interest
your recent articles (May 2004) on inkjet printers and third-party
ink. I must tell you that I find your work superficial and
amateurish---with the conclusions misleading at best and-in the
limit-downright erroneous. Inkjet printing for both consumers and
professionals has been maturing for many years, and is a complex and
highly-developed technology. You have covered it only at the
grade-school level.
1. In your printer article, you state: "Eventually all photos fade,
and inkjet photos have a reputation for fading faster than other
types." While this may be true for a typical dye-based printer using
normal glossy paper, there are many more variations extant. First-for
dye printing-there are the so-called "swellable polymer" papers that
absorb and encapsulate the ink. Epson Colorlife is only one example.
These papers offer lifetime on the order of 25 years with dye ink.
All of us have seen 1-hour photolab products fade more quickly.
More seriously, you omit ANY discussion of pigment printers. The
first of these in the consumer market was the Epson 2000. Widely
criticized for its color rendition, it nonetheless offered 200-year
print life on selected papers. More recently, Epson has introduced
several pigment-based printers with trademarks such as "Durabright"
and "Ultrachrome". You would have to have been marooned on a desert
island to have missed their advertising, and yet you make no mention
of any of these products-some of which are the MOST POPULAR printers
in use.
2. Your sampling of printers for test is totally skewed, omitting-as
mentioned above-some of the most popular and widely-used models. Your
article is slanted towards photo printing, and yet you list several
HP models that are never considered photo printers (they are 4-color
systems), and you OMIT the most widely used Epson models-including ALL
of their 6 and 7-color "Photo" printers.
3. Finally, your article about third party ink has serious problems.
First, consider some basic logic: Inkjet printing has been around a
long time. Why would anyone believe that a particular manufacturer
had some magic formula for ink such that nothing else would work in
their printers? This is simply not plausible. While it IS credible
to believe that the typical printer manufacturer has taken the time to
test an ink formula that works well in their printers, it does not
follow that noone else can make compatible ink.
If you sample the various forums relating to photo printing with
inkjets, you will see mention of many sources of 3rd party ink, refill
kits, and continuous-feed systems. You will also see testimonials
from both advanced amateurs and professionals who use these products.
It is wholly consistent with the amateurish nature of your article
that you mention NONE of the most often recommended sources, including
for example: MIS Associates, Mediastreet, Lyson, ColorBat, Weink.
Read the forums---you will find many others.
In summary, your articles have serious errors of omission and are
unbalanced in that widely-used products and technologies receive no
mention. Your blanket statements about third-party ink cannot be
reconciled with the large user community successfully using these
products.
To maintain your integrity and credibility, I believe that it is
incumbent on you to publish something more complete and competent.
I am sure that all participants in these forums join me in urging you
to respond.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram