Ithink, we all know or suspect that the inks is where Epson makes their real profit ang getting around that has an obvious appeal.Nevertheless,I'm not willing to risk an expensive repair to save $25 in ink,especially not while getting top quality with their recommended inks;too much of a risk to me123inkt.nl here in NL sell Epson's own cartridges but also their own "home brand" Epson-compatible cartridges. See here for the ink for the R1900 which is the printer I own.
The home brand cartridges are 4ml larger than the Epson originals and cost roughly 50% of the latter.
I realise it's all (or almost all) about the ink and how that corresponds to printer profiles and the like. Bearing that in mind does anyone know how these 3rd party cartridges are - a waste of money or a good deal?
Thanks in advance
Philip
There are some good reasons for using 3rd party inks -- reduced cost, increased longevity (replacing dye inks with pigments), better UV blocking (for alt printing), using a monochrome ink set for the highest quality b&w, keeping empty cartridges out of landfills. Using quality inks should not create additional maintenance problems for an Epson which get plenty of head clogs with the native inks. Figure out exactly what you want from your printer, then pick an appropriate ink. Epson makes a huge profit on their ink -- I once calculated it cost something over $1200 USD per liter for a 13" desktop like to 1900. That said, Ultrachrome is pretty good stuff. Some of my Epsons use native ink, and others are using 3rd party products.123inkt.nl here in NL sell Epson's own cartridges but also their own "home brand" Epson-compatible cartridges. See here for the ink for the R1900 which is the printer I own.
The home brand cartridges are 4ml larger than the Epson originals and cost roughly 50% of the latter.
I realise it's all (or almost all) about the ink and how that corresponds to printer profiles and the like. Bearing that in mind does anyone know how these 3rd party cartridges are - a waste of money or a good deal?
Thanks in advance
Philip
If you want to get really angry, consider the following:Printer ink is without doubt one of the most overpriced consumables on earth.
Exactly -- I might consider using dye-based inks for casual use, but if you want prints to last you want pigment. I wouldn't have a problem using dyes for digital negatives, but I haven't found any that provide sufficient UV blocking for my workflow. The 1400 is a nice printer, but I replaced the Claria (dye) ink with a monochrome pigment ink.The images may look good today, but how is the image stability regarding fade and spread, over a long period of time when you use non standard inks?
Just a thought to consider.
PE
Sounds like a head clog. This can happen even with OEM inks, especially if the printer is used infrequently. Run a nozzle check. Some Epsons have an auto nozzle check and cleaning option and you should use that one as it is more thorough than the quick check. You need a perfect nozzle check for high quality printing.I am very happy this thread has come to life again. After I posted the question I decided to try the non-Epson inks. They have worked well enough but suddenly, just the other week as I needed to print important photos (great timing), the photos come out green or magenta. No ink is depleted and I've even replaced those which are at 1/3 full. Still no joy. No idea what could be the problem. Head cleaning etc give no improvements.
I'm wondering if there may be a block in the channels for one of the inks which the computer doesn't pick up?
John, thank you for mentioning the Permajet system. I will check if the Dutch importer of Permajet products (Eyes on Media) sell that. One question - can one turn off/block the tubes so that the ink doesn't dry up and clog? I don't print very often (more in fits and starts over time) so if there's a risk of blockage I might not benefit from the savings of using such a system.
Best
Philip
Sounds like a head clog. This can happen even with OEM inks, especially if the printer is used infrequently. Run a nozzle check. Some Epsons have an auto nozzle check and cleaning option and you should use that one as it is more thorough than the quick check. You need a perfect nozzle check for high quality printing.
Sometimes head clogs can only be cleared with drastic measures, like injecting a cleaning fluid into the head. This is a potentially destructive procedure so it should be a last option. You should be able to find plenty on the web on the topic of clearing clogged heads.
We could sell it, but, to be honest, we wouldn't recommend it. In the past we have had a lot of trouble with these systems and have taken back all the systems we have sold.
The system works alright if it is used daily. If it has not been used for a couple of days, it starts clottering and is very hard to get to work again.
Perhaps, if you really print on a daily basis it is worth to try.
I use Piezography in the 1400; it can achieve something like 4.0 density which is more than you will ever need. The negatives are very fine. I usually print carbon transfers or platinum.Philip hello! What was the monochrome ink you replaced the Claria with and was it better as a UV blocker? Which alt process are you doing? KR!
Exactly -- I might consider using dye-based inks for casual use, but if you want prints to last you want pigment. I wouldn't have a problem using dyes for digital negatives, but I haven't found any that provide sufficient UV blocking for my workflow. The 1400 is a nice printer, but I replaced the Claria (dye) ink with a monochrome pigment ink.
Ralph -Phillip,please make an ink suggestion. I currently use Epson's K3 inks in a 3880 for B&W.
Ralph -
It all dependsDo you want paper prints? Digital negatives? Both? Do you need the ability to tone b&w prints?
Ralph:valid question!;B&Wpaper prints with the ability to tone while digital negatives are a secondary priority.I lodt my darkroom anyway.
Ralph:
No easy answers
If being able to tone b&w prints is a priority, then you probably want to stick with the native Ultrachrome provided that you are satisfied with Epson
Advanced B&W. You can then print digital negatives -- colorized or b&w using ABW.
I think a monochrome inkset makes the best quality b&w prints, but you will give up variable toning. Paper choice can significantly image tone, but that may not provide sufficient control. Not all monochrome inks adhere well to OHP film, so you need to choose carefully if you want both prints and negatives. Ultrachrome
is bulletproof on Pictorico and Inkpress, Piezography less robust but still practical, and MIS didn't adhere well at all in past testing.
I used to print colorized digital negatives, but now prefer monochrome inks because they generally provide much more density.
OK, so what do I use? At least one printer dedicated to monochrome ink:
R1800: native Ultrachrome (this is NOT K3) -- composite b&w with Epson driver for digital negatives, Epson driver for color prints
1400: Piezography warm neutral -- b&w prints, digital negatives, both using QTR
3800: native Ultrachrome K3 for color prints, ABW for b&w prints, QTR or PDN for digital negatives.
What I really want: a 17" Epson with 1.5 pl droplets, and MK and PK both available with NO switching. Digital negatives are a priority for me, and the 13" 1.5 pl desktop printers make better negatives because of the significantly smaller droplets.
I've ever used anything but the original Epson cartridges with my 3880;far too scared ending up with problems and a broken printer.the original ink cartridges work well.why take the risk?123inkt.nl here in NL sell Epson's own cartridges but also their own "home brand" Epson-compatible cartridges. See here for the ink for the R1900 which is the printer I own.
The home brand cartridges are 4ml larger than the Epson originals and cost roughly 50% of the latter.
I realise it's all (or almost all) about the ink and how that corresponds to printer profiles and the like. Bearing that in mind does anyone know how these 3rd party cartridges are - a waste of money or a good deal?
Thanks in advance
Philip
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?