How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need
the ink to be archival.

"Robert Montgomery" <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote in message
news:Gv0Uj.920$KB3.362@edtnps91...
1) No such thing as "archival" inkjet prints. Don't believe marketing hype.

2) Epson inks have no special claim to longevity. Given the right
combination of ink and paper, compatible ink may well last as long or
longer.

DanG wrote:

"Robert Montgomery" &lt;info-block@northern-data-tech.net&gt; wrote in message news:Gv0Uj.920$KB3.362@edtnps91...



How can I save on ink costs? My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need the ink to be archival.



1) No such thing as "archival" inkjet prints. Don't believe marketing hype.

That is a lie.&nbsp; Both Epson and Canon pigmented ink qualify for that name.


2) Epson inks have no special claim to longevity. Given the right combination of ink and paper, compatible ink may well last as long or longer.

That is a filthy lie.&nbsp; Do not believe that.&nbsp; There are many posters in this ng that have some type of affiliation with the fly by nite vendors.&nbsp; If you want the real truth go visit wilhelm labs.&nbsp; Do a google.&nbsp; They are independent testers and have the results you are looking for.

"Robert Montgomery" <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote in message
news:Gv0Uj.920$KB3.362@edtnps91...

1. How is archival defined? This obviously involves paper
and storage methods as well as ink and years.
2. What are you now using for ink and paper? What cost
3. If we know the technical characters of the ink and paper
we might then know whether you are already saving as
much as you can.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

measekite wrote:
No, that is the truth. Something you seem allergic to.

Do not believe that.

Do believe that as it is true.

There are many posters in
Only a few and they supply this ng with the truth, something you
meashershithead know nothing at all about.

If you want the real truth go visit wilhelm labs.

He's a paid shill for the major brand printer manufacturers. They pay
him to test their inks and then to compare their inks with the very
worst after market inks available. Only an idiot like maeashershithead
wouldn't see thru this scam.
One thing his report is good for is finding out what the worst after
market inks are.
This ng is the very best place to find the best after market inks and
carts because we all use them.
On the other hand, meashershithead has never, ever used any after market
inks or carts.
So who are you gonna believe? And that is not a trick question.
Frank

Robert Montgomery wrote:
If you want quality you have to pay for it. The Epson 3800 and the
Canon IPF models are better on ink than the Epson 2400

Robert Montgomery wrote:
If prints are mounted in a way that protects them from direct sunlight
and put behind glass they will last a long time not matter what ink is
used. If not then even the best ink and paper won't keep them from
fading. I'm not familiar with Epson printers, my experience with Canon
printers is third party compatible inks are just as good as expensive
OEM ink. I would expect it to be the same for Epson. I think some
Epson printers have chips that keep the owner from using compatible ink.

measekite wrote:

Oh ok.
Now tell us which one's you've purchase and used?
Well...?
Frank

"DanG" <nospam@q.com> wrote in message
news:zZWdnR8Umao6Ab3VnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
Testing by Henry Wilhelm would tend to disagree with you. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and before you claim that you know more
than he does please review his resume at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html

- Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

Robert Montgomery wrote:
programs; however since you mention archival that may not be a option
for you.
The obvious thing is to only do a print run when you have many documents
to produce. That way you minimise the ink waste from clearing the print
head every switch-on. That can be quite a lot of ink if you print one a day.

Don Phillipson wrote:
documents are one thing, B+W documents are another.

If the documents are that important, even with OEM "archival" ink, I'd
recommend storing a copies of the digital files on optical media, in a
different location than the original document, and I'd recommend
renewing that storage every few years. That is so the document can be
reproduced, if necessary. Remember to transfer the document to whatever
media replaces optical before you can't read it anymore, too. How many
old documents are now inaccessible because they reside on old floppies?

Paper documents are subject to more dangers than just fading, so you
need several layers of protection above and beyond the ink you use.

TJ

I think some clarity is required in your statement.

I agree that Eposn has no monopoly on higher fade resistant inks, but
not all inks are created equal either. The 2400 uses a pigment colorant
ink in a resin base. To achieve that same longevity, a similar
formulation of ink is required, and if the person doesn't wish to make
or buy ink profiles, he may be best to stick with the OEM inks.

Regardless of the paper and ink combination, no currently marketed
inkjet dye inks have the longevity of quality pigment inks. Also, paper
type is a lesser issue with pigment inks, which tend to sit on top of
the paper rather than penetrate it.

Art


DanG wrote:

On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery <info-bl...@northern-data-
tech.net> wrote:

If you want top image quality your printer is going to use
appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is.
Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said
then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in
Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and
storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very
public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS.
Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival",
is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a
document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the
longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as
pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to
test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall
apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So
archival is not a great term.
One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of
the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink
for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the
printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges.
It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user.
17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models.
I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work,
I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party
inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas.

Tom

Michael Johnson wrote: Robert Montgomery wrote:
How can I save on ink costs?

My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink.

I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need the ink to be archival.

If prints are mounted in a way that protects them from direct sunlight and put behind glass Putting ink behind glass (except for museum no glare glass) make a print look terrible and takes away the fine art look.&nbsp; Having glaring glass may help make the crap ink lower quality print last a little longer but it is lower quality from the beginning.&nbsp; So what this poster is claiming is not true.
they will last a long time not matter what ink is used.&nbsp; If not then even the best ink and paper won't keep them from fading.&nbsp; I'm not familiar with Epson printers, my experience with Canon printers is third party compatible inks are just as good as expensive OEM ink.
That is totally false.&nbsp; Canon ink is superior to any of the crap inks.&nbsp; Now inks by Pantone may be an exception (they make ink for Epson printers) but they are just as expensive or maybe more so.
I would expect it to be the same for Epson.&nbsp; I think some Epson printers have chips that keep the owner from using compatible ink.
There is not such thing as compatible.&nbsp; The word is meaningless and overused.

Bob Headrick wrote:

Peter wrote:

tomm42 wrote:

On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery &lt;info-bl...@northern-data- tech.net&gt; wrote:



How can I save on ink costs? My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need the ink to be archival.



If you want top image quality your printer is going to use appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is. Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink

That is not true.&nbsp; You only save money when you spend less and get the same thing.&nbsp; Since you are not getting the same thing you are spending less and getting less.


, but as you said then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS. Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival", is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So archival is not a great term. One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer,

I did say the Epson 3800 may be a choice but also look at the Canon IPF models.


inks because of the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges. It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user. 17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models. I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work, I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas. Tom

Wilhelm Imaging Research is a commercial company like any other and
derives its income largely from tests paid for by the ink jet
manufacturers. Henry Wilhelm has stood in front of his clients’ booths
at trade shows and cheerfully hawked their products. He does not do
that for free. Check out some of his ink jet printer reviews from past
years where you will find that the results of some tests are strangely
missing (still labeled “Now in Test”) years later, even when those
tests are amongst the quickest to do. Could it be that those products
didn’t fare so well in the missing tests and WIR “co-operated” with
the manufacturer who paid the fees by suppressing the result? Is that
how a self-proclaimed “independent” lab functions? You decide.

There are some very good non-OM inks out there, but they tend to be
for commercial, large format printers. They also are not cheap, but
since they come in bulk, they are usually much less expensive to use
than the OM products. Most have not been tested by Wilhelm. Also Kodak
has adopted a different business model for their printers. Rather than
sell the printer at a loss and charge high prices for the ink, they
sell both at a reasonable mark-up. Tests by Quality Logic (sponsored
by Kodak) claim significant savings using the Kodak consumables, and
WIR says that print lifetime from their products are best in
class.

Brian Adams wrote:
that can read them in 100 years? I doubt it. If you had some of those
cylinders that Edison used in his original phonograph, could you play
them? How about a vinyl LP? An 8-inch floppy? Or even a 5-inch floppy?

TJ