Anyone tried 3rd party ink for Epson printers?

[philipus]

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

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 me

 

[pschwart]

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

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.

 

[OzJohn]

Printer ink is without doubt one of the most overpriced consumables on earth. I own a single Epson photo printer but several other types of inkjets of various manufacture. I run the genuine inks in the Epson for no better reason than I stuffed the heads in my last photo printer (Canon) through using third party inks. I learnt later that I was using inks that are not well regarded by other users and that there are alternatives that I would have been better advised to use. As Phillip says you sometimes need to use third party inks for certain purposes because Epson don't make equivalents and I don't doubt that there are other inks out there that are just as good as Epson's. I think it comes down to seeking advice from other trusted users, preferably face to face.

I use third party inks and toner in every other printer I own without any difficulty - it's just that the Epson is by far the most expensive of the lot and has the most expensive heads but it sure hurts buying those refills that work out at around a dollar a millilitre when I am.

As an aside I have been looking into ink based minilabs recently and the one piece of information the vendors are loathe to discuss is the average cost of ink per print. I appreciate that unlike machines based on either RA4 paper or dye sublimation, ink costs vary according to the subject material but I find it impossible to accept that the manufacturers of these machines have not done tests over thousands of diverse images to come up with a workable ink cost per print. Just reinforces in my mind that the ink business is largely smoke and mirrors. OzJohn

 

[pschwart]

Printer ink is without doubt one of the most overpriced consumables on earth.

If you want to get really angry, consider the following:
- some Epsons (like the 38xx) can use several milliliters of ink switching between photo and matte black. If you do this with any regularity you will empty a cartridge
FAST
- how expensive are cleaning cycles? I put an external waste tank on my 1800 and it is shocking how much ink is wasted. It holds about 10 cartridges when full.
That's at least a couple of hundred $$ right down the drain.

We are a small niche market; there is absolutely no incentive for Epson to manufacture a smaller format (< 24") production-quality printer with the features we want.
Even the larger pro printers have plenty of issues. I have a love/hate relationship with my Epsons, and I am currently running four different models.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

I went with the Vivid Colors ink set at Amazon for my 7800~way way cheaper. the "canned" profiles at the paper sites are not supported but I use Color Muki so made my own profiles and I'm quite happy.

 

[John_M_King]

I don't know if they are available elsewhere than UK but I have an Epson 3000 which is fitted with a continuous ink system sold by a UK company called Permajet. (Google Permajet or Nova Darkroom - they are the same company) The dyes and equipment are expensive to buy initially but you get bottles of ink x 9 (approx 125cc each) which are connected to the printer via flexible tubes which lead into empty cartriges. They have to be primed before use but this is easy and the dye is every bit as good as the original Epson.

The ink levels drop as per the original and show up on computer or on the printer itself. Once there is a signal that the cartridge is empty and printing stops, all you do is remove the enpty cartridge and simply replace it again. This resets the levels and you can continue printing straight away. The costs of the new dye bottles are about 1/3rd of the cost of the originals. I can thoroughly recommend them.

They do a similar system for most Epson models from the 1400 upwards

 

[Doyle Thomas]

omg Epson 3000 I had one of those like 20 years ago lol

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[pschwart]

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

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.

 

[philipus]

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

 

[pschwart]

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.

 

[philipus]

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know the auto check and clean is more thorough than the quick check. I may have tried this already but have another go.

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.

Btw, I just received the below from Eyes on Media re the Permajet CIS. Somewhat discouraging for someone like me who doesn't print regularly.

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.

 

[pschwart]

If you don't print regularly, I think it makes more sense to use cartridges than a CIS.

 

[ced]

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!

 

[pschwart]

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!

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.

 

[ced]

Philip thanks for the rapid response! Much appreciated.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Phillip,please make an ink suggestion. I currently use Epson's K3 inks in a 3880 for B&W.

 

[pschwart]

Phillip,please make an ink suggestion. I currently use Epson's K3 inks in a 3880 for B&W.

Ralph -
It all depends Do you want paper prints? Digital negatives? Both? Do you need the ability to tone b&w prints?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph -
It all depends Do you want paper prints? Digital negatives? Both? Do you need the ability to tone b&w prints?

valid question!;B&Wpaper prints with the ability to tone while digital negatives are a secondary priority.I lodt my darkroom anyway.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have been very pleased with the ultrachrome inks with a 2200 for many years and now with the 3880. I think the choice of paper and profile definitely influence the appearance of the print. Most of the better papers have sample packs. Selecting the profile that will give you what you want on a particular paper is another story at least for me. I haven't been too crazy about the matte black ink though and have been mostly avoiding it on matte surface papers. As far as the printer knows it is printing on semigloss or luster surfaces. I am open to suggestions since I predominately print in the darkroom and lately more pt/pd from film and scanned negatives to digital printed negatives.

HOME
HOME

 

[pschwart]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

thanks for your experienced answer Phillip,I'll stickto the K3 inks then; I'm happy with the neutral monochromes and the toned prints it produces.I like the color prints as well and the one-time digital negativev was very usable and an instant success.well done EpsonI didn't have a clogged head yet; use it about once week every week but had some minor banding in the blues lately

 

[Papa Tango]

Some third party bulk refill options have come a long way in the past several years. I have used Precision Color products in both Epson (R2400) and Canon (Pixma Pro-10) printers. Both have performed exceptionally well--and with the right papers and ICC profiles indistinguishable from OEM inks. The best part is that the costs are less than a quarter of OEM...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

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?