Buying in UK

[mind_the_goat]

Not sure why the word counterfeit cropped up here, no suggestion that the ink purchased was badged as Epson.
It would be equally possible to buy 'better' ink than Epson sell. It might well be that cheaper ink fulfils Phils' requirements perfectly, so why pay more for beer longevity then is needed. As others have pointed out you don; really need to order from Asia to get those sort of prices.

If anyone uses a lot of ink then it could well be worth looking into continuous ink systems, you can buy them or build them yourself.

 

[Rhossydd]

I don't buy this whole counterfeit nonsense. Ink is ink,

Saying "ink is ink" is a bit like saying 'all metal is metal'. There is a lot significance between different ink sets, dye or pigment, micro encapsulated or not, type of solvent etc etc.

I can't believe people fall for the b******s spouted continuously by manufacturers that their printers will be damaged in some way unless we all keep filling their coffers.

The harsh reality is that most inkjet printers fail because of improper use and the hardware gets blamed for failure caused by using second rate consumables that damage the internal components.

 

[DiscoStu]

With regards to the ink point. Of course it is cheaper for ink to be made in the Far East with ridiculously cheap labour and poor quality control and no customer service etc. Also they will have just copied Epson's design and won't have done all the R&D etc. It's hardly comparing like for like. Personally I do like to buy British when I can. I'm not religious about it but if I can I will. I think I'd rather support the UK economy than China's. Hence I drive a Jaguar and a Land Rover. I spend a bit of time in the US and these days a lot of stuff is cheaper at home. It's certainly not the bargain place it used to be.

 

[beech1948]

rhossyd,

I think that 90% of what the manufacturers say is patently rubbish. Toner/print powders etc can only be made in a few factories around the world. many of these factories produce both for HP/Epson etc etc and the " independent " ink suppliers. They use the same machines, the same ink formulae and offer a range of parameter changes to the independents.

To prove this about 3 yrs ago my son and I carried out some experiments on both independent and major brands of ink. We basically bought 3 of each in black, cut open the packaging and separated each sample into 4 sub-samples. One for the archives, two to test and one for a pre-test check to ensure that there would be no issues with the testing process.

My son is an Electrical/mechanical engineer who at the time was involved in research on the flow characteristics of particles sized from 100 microns down to 2 microns in a variety of liquids, gases and plasma variations. The site was weekend use of his employers test lab.

We discovered the following;-
a) Out of 108 samples some 78 were identical in physical sizes, chemical composition and flow characteristics
b) Some 21 were slightly coarser by about a factor of 3 against the smallest particle size but would still work well
c) Some 9 were potentially too coarse, too large in particle size and had a different chemical make-up compared to the 78 identical samples.
d) of the initial 78 samples 54 all dried at the same rate.
e) the remaining 24 were 20% slower to dry
f) the 21 coarser samples all dried at the rate but were 35% slower than the sample of 54 in d)
g) No tests could be adequately performed at that time on colour saturation, colour density or colour fastness as we lacked access to a suitably qualified and experienced chemist.
h) Satisfaction with colour reproduction was highest with sample of 54 in d)
i) Next highest satisfaction was with 21 samples in b)
j) Lowest colour reproduction was with samples in f)

h) through j) are all subjective measures.

We also took apart for examination 29 printers including HP, Epson, Canon and a few others. All were said by printer shops to be not working due to head malfunction due to incorrect ink. Our examination revealed the following:-

1) It was impossible to tell if branded or independent inks were used. However some 17 all had inks with the finest ink particles and as far as our chemical tests could show all 17 had similar chemistry. So head damage was as likely from branded inks as independents.
2) Of the remaining 12 no testing of inks was possible.
3) Failure of the head mechanisms were all electro mechanical. It was impossible to tell if these electro/mech failures were caused by the ink, by expected "bath curve" mechanical failures or by shoddy manufacturing. The mechanisms were all delicate and easily damaged.

The statements that the independent ink had caused the failures was thus suspect and possibly merely down to the acceptance of verbalised known references or opinion.

Remarkably the initial 78 finer particle size samples had almost identical chemistry and particle sizes. That indicates same factories and processes for 60+% of these samples.

So a not conclusive experiment. BUT one which shows that the reputation of the independent inks for damage to heads is as unlikely as not.

I have used just about all of the independent inks over the past 3yrs. We get through about 2000 pages a week on 7 inkjet printers. With blacks we see no differences. With colours we see a few differences but nothing to cause us to stop using the independents. 5 of the 7 printers have added large external reservoirs for black and all colours. We only use inkjets because many staff frequently work from home and the lasers on offer are big and noisy.

Some independents inks are much better than others. I do feel that I want to make public which these are due to potential legal issues that may come back and hurt my son's lab and employers.

So Rhossyd. What you say may have some truth in it. You sound almost like the employee of a manufacturer. What actual empirical evidence do you have to back up your statements please.

Al








i

 

[Rhossydd]

So a not conclusive experiment. BUT one which shows that the reputation of the independent inks for damage to heads is as unlikely as not.

So your limited tests were inconclusive, not really very helpful then.

So Rhossyd. What you say may have some truth in it. You sound almost like the employee of a manufacturer. What actual empirical evidence do you have to back up your statements please.

No, I don't have any commercial ties to any printer or consumables manufacturers. I run a specialist business dealing with the custom profiling of inkjet printers for photographers, www.colourprofiles.com As part of that I've attended courses run by Epson and others, so have a better insight into the inkjet market than most.
In the ten years I've been running the business, and over ten thousand pages of measurements, I've NEVER come across an inkset that matches the manufacturer's own colour output. Some appear to have better gamut, most don't. Those that at first appear to be in some way better, usually have worse longevity and shift colour and fade faster than OEM inks.

This isn't a suitable place for further discussion of this particular speciality.
If one wishes to give useful comparisons about global variations in pricing, it's important to compare like for like, not an OEM product against a dirt cheap non-OEM item as phil.p unhelpfully tried to.

 

[beech1948]

So a not conclusive experiment. BUT one which shows that the reputation of the independent inks for damage to heads is as unlikely as not.

So your limited tests were inconclusive, not really very helpful then.

NO. The tests were conclusive in that head failure was as likely to be from branded inks as non-branded. The other conclusions were also valid.

Its a bit glib to dismiss this work so fully without considering the implications at all.

No, I don't have any commercial ties to any printer or consumables manufacturers. I run a specialist business dealing with the custom profiling of inkjet printers for photographers, http://www.colourprofiles.com As part of that I've attended courses run by Epson and others, so have a better insight into the inkjet market than most.

You have a view proposed by the manufacturers and thats all. And a single manufacturer by the sound of it.

In the ten years I've been running the business, and over ten thousand pages of measurements, I've NEVER come across an inkset that matches the manufacturer's own colour output. Some appear to have better gamut, most don't. Those that at first appear to be in some way better, usually have worse longevity and shift colour and fade faster than OEM inks.

I understand that you have a professional photography viewpoint and that can be valuable. However, it is still subjective.

I accept that some inksets may perform less well than the branded manufacturers in terms of colour longevity, density etc etc. That does not matter as most of us have much less modest aspirations and useage. What may be unacceptable to a professional photographer is very much on the mark for most domestic users.

Thus the conclusions we saw indicate that the better independents perform well enough for most users. Certainly in terms of price, colour and expected output quality.

In those terms the independent inks work out just fine.

(Quote)This isn't a suitable place for further discussion of this particular speciality.

Perhaps of your speciality of course. Others will continue to wonder and test out the independents. I mentioned the 2000 pages a week my team create. All of it up to or even above our expected standards and with pretty good reliability. We do occasionally use branded inks but find no advantage in doing so just the extra expense.

The critical issue is that the branded suppliers simply over price and over estimate the functionality and performance of their product when something less will do just as well.

 

[Rhossydd]

However, it is still subjective.

Over ten thousand pages measured by spectrophotometers with an repeatable accuracy of better than 1.1dE2000 is hardly subjective.

 

[Tetsuaiga]

I expect the seller knows there will be enough people who can't be bothered buying from abroad, as it involves basic calculation to check if there is duty, postage, extra wait time. So they will profit from those people.

The only bonus when buying from UK in this situation is if you have to return it won't be as expensive.

 

[rafezetter]

However, it is still subjective.

Over ten thousand pages measured by spectrophotometers with an repeatable accuracy of better than 1.1dE2000 is hardly subjective.

I recently had cause to print out 20+ pages as a printed copy of my travel insurance terms to take with me in case someone else needed to access them if I was incapacitated.... I don't need the above level of accuracy, crispness or any other such guff... if it's perfectly readable, that's ALL IT NEEDS TO DO.

It very much sounds as though your opinion is based on printing photographs of a high professional quality that are then being sold to customers whom will not accept anything less, which means your opinion and advice is very niche and applies to almost no domestic user.

Phil also states that OEM cartridges do perfectly well for his business, so frankly I think your stance on "branded is always better" is flawed, because at the end of the day the original comment was that OEM's work just as well for the purposes required, and you still have not given sufficient proof that branded and OEM's are not made by the same people.

Any course run by Epson, HP or any other brand with e vested interest in making sure you buy branded (because they sell the machines at a loss) are ALWAYS going to say their branded cartridges are the only ones to be used - please don't be so naive to think otherwise, and your comment about sectrophotometers is also moot as Phil's test did not have access to one, if he had it's possible you might be singing a different tune as you only have that data to go on, so the bias will always be in favor of that.

I don't know anyone who's printed off a photo for years because it's safer and cheaper to store them digitally. If I did
need to I would take them to be done professionally, who can then bear the brunt of the cost of branded inks (but who's to say they do use branded anyway) rather than my buying an expensive set of inks for a few photo's and using the rest printing out e-tickets and other things that DO NOT REQUIRE such standards.

Essentially what you are saying Rhossydd is every person should drive a Porche - even those people who drive only a couple of thousand miles a year, and that the Daiwoo's, Hyundai's, Kia cars and the like are all crap.

 

[rafezetter]

However, it is still subjective.

Over ten thousand pages measured by spectrophotometers with an repeatable accuracy of better than 1.1dE2000 is hardly subjective.

I recently had cause to print out 20+ pages as a printed copy of my travel insurance terms to take with me in case someone else needed to access them if I was incapacitated.... I don't need the above level of accuracy, crispness or any other such guff... if it's perfectly readable, that's ALL IT NEEDS TO DO.

It very much sounds as though your opinion is based on printing photographs of a high professional quality that are then being sold to customers whom will not accept anything less, which means your opinion and advice is very niche and applies to almost no domestic user.

Phil also states that OEM cartridges do perfectly well for his business, so frankly I think your stance on "branded is always better" is flawed, because at the end of the day the original comment was that OEM's work just as well for the purposes required, and you still have not given sufficient proof that branded and OEM's are not made by the same people.

Any course run by Epson, HP or any other brand with e vested interest in making sure you buy branded (because they sell the machines at a loss) are ALWAYS going to say their branded cartridges are the only ones to be used - please don't be so naive to think otherwise, and your comment about sectrophotometers is also moot as Phil's test did not have access to one, if he had it's possible you might be singing a different tune as you only have that data to go on, so the bias will always be in favor of that.

I don't know anyone who's printed off a photo for years because it's safer and cheaper to store them digitally. If I did
need to I would take them to be done professionally, who can then bear the brunt of the cost of branded inks (but who's to say they do use branded anyway) rather than my buying an expensive set of inks for a few photo's and using the rest printing out e-tickets and other things that DO NOT REQUIRE such standards.

Essentially what you are saying Rhossydd is every person should drive a Porche - even those people who drive only a couple of thousand miles a year, and that the Daiwoo's, Hyundai's, Kia cars and the like are all crap.

 

[Rhossydd]

and you still have not given sufficient proof that branded and OEM's are not made by the same people.

Would you like me to send you half a gigabyte of actual measurement data to check for yourself ?

I don't know anyone who's printed off a photo for years

Your social circle is different to mine then.

Essentially what you are saying Rhossydd is every person should drive a Porche - even those people who drive only a couple of thousand miles a year, and that the Daiwoo's, Hyundai's, Kia cars and the like are all rubbish.

No, please comment on what I've written, not what you think I mean. I've pointed out that the allegation that all inks come from the same suppliers is untrue. I've also pointed out that there important issues with using non-OEM ink that can cause problems and premature failures.
People are perfectly free to buy any supplies they like to run their inkjets with, I'm not telling anyone what to do. Those who don't need high performance and reliability can and do use low quality supplies.

 

[Ed Bray]

I print out images regularly on my Epson 4880 pro printer, typically on Canvas although I do use paper sometimes. I only use Epson K3 inks but I buy up old out of date ink cartridges as new ink cartridges costs circa £50 for a 110ml cartridge and £100 for a 220ml cartridge, there are 8 of them so could be quite a hit in one go. I was informed when I bought my printer (from an authorised Epson service centre) that for normal use the ink in OOD cartridges is more than adequate and the dates specified on the cartridges are to ensure performance for scientific and other critical applications.

I have bought up a selection of OOD cartridges in all colours which will see me through quite a few years, If you want a printer that is relatively cheap to run and will give consistent results (and have the room for one as they tend to be bigger and are certainly heavier) then look for a second hand or refurbished pro model as they are designed for longevity and output quality.

Not sure where this fits in the original post though, it is often cheaper to buy from the US and import them into the UK and the choice of items is often greater too.

 

[DiscoStu]

I think that branded inks will be better, however surely this is a case of what meets your needs. A Ferrari might be technically better than a Kia hatchback but if you need a car to take 5 people and a dog to the park then it's not much use.

I used to work in print and publishing and inks do vary, probably not so much on the issue of print head clogging but more about the dye and colour matching. One of the biggest issues in the industry is with what you see on screen matching what you get out at the end. Colour gamut varies drastically from device to device so often what you see on screen etc might be out of range of what is printable. Anyway I don't really want to get drawn into an argument, if cheap ink does what you need it to then that's fine. Only thing I would say is that often inks are chipped and if you try to return a printer and you've been using non branded ink then manufacturers could refuse to repair a printer. That is unlikely on a low end printer. Also at the lower end of the market (sub £300 or so) manufacturers make their money on the ink and not when they sell you a printer. Ink supplied is normally about 50% full.

 

[Giff]

If you are ordering from the USA and can get a tariff code the duty may well be a lot cheaper. If it hasn't got a code on the customs invoice they just put the highest default tax code on it. Tariff codes may be available online, or the .GOV do have a helpline.

 

[orchard]

If you are ordering from the USA and can get a tariff code the duty may well be a lot cheaper. If it hasn't got a code on the customs invoice they just put the highest default tax code on it. Tariff codes may be available online, or the .GOV do have a helpline.

It's an EU site iirc mate, very useful although I don't think I have a link anymore. Like you say, if the exporter fails to declare one gets stung. One can also stipulate that one's billed directly by customs on the package

 

[JJ1]

Ink supplied is normally about 50% full.

I think you'll find that the majority of printers (at least from Canon and Epson) come with full cartridges but a certain percentage of that is used to charge the print heads, often giving the impression that less ink is supplied.

 

[ColeyS1]

My Epson's just snuffed it but I have to buy the next model up as the cis system will fit. I fitted a waste ink bottle and it was manic watching it fill up doing scheduled charging/cleans- kind of criminal really

 

[RogerS]

Why on earth does anyone buy ink-jets when there is so much angst?

I bought an HP colour laserprinter for well under £200. Quality is excellent. Photocopies...even has a sheet feeder. Stacks and stacks of software comes with it. I can remotely print out to it from anywhere I have internet access (although quite why I might want to do that remains to be seen but it does work). OCR. Wifi. Bells and whistles. Just bought a complete set of replacement toners (not original HP) for under £40.

 

[Harbo]

Laser printers produce fast, sharp text prints. Inkjet printers print better photos.

Depends what you want?

Rod

 

[DiscoStu]

If you want the best of both then go for a wax printer (Xerox) produces amazingly glossy prints in fine detail. Not exactly home user market though. But as always horses for courses. If you don't want to print photos, then a laser is great and they don't dry up if they are not used for a few weeks. I've got lasers and an inkjet and my inkjet (not a cheap one) is a nightmare as it only gets used occasionally and the heads are clogged and cleaning is impossible. I tend to use photo box for prints as they arrive the next day and are better than anything I can print at home.