Difference between dye and pigment

I am about to purchase a bulk ink system for my Epson 1400. Epson calls their

new ink Claria and I love the quality from that ink. With the bulk system, I

am offered dye or pigment ink. What is the difference? Which will be the same

as the Claria inks from epson? The printer prints beautifully, but the

constant stopping to change cartridges drives me nuts! It's also very

expensive. Which ink should I pick for mass production and lots of printing?

Use pigment for longevity and better conservation. I dont know if this ink will be like the Claria, but it should be close. As for the visual quality, some say that they do not see any difference.

 

You should have gone with a 4800 if you where tinking about mass production, any small printer will cost you a hell of amount of $ in ink for sure.

Claria is a dye ink. Conventionally, dye prints had a wider gamut and pigment prints a longer life, but both camps are amending their shortcomings.

Which will be the same as the Claria inks from epson? Neither will be the same. Claria is a dye

based ink and the MIS dye based inks will be consistent but "different". If you can get them to

where you like, good, but don't expect them to be the same, particularly on all types of

paper.

Another possible Spaniard in The Works - you'll have no idea what the longevity might be with untested ink/paper combinations. Google "Wilhelm Imaging" to see if the ink vendor you're considering has had any of its inks tested and if so, with what paper.

 

One other thought - printer/paper profiles for accurate color reproduction may be a huge pita with 3rd party inks. You'll likely have to make profiles yourself or have them custom-made.

 

Just my .02 cent's worth but I would agree with Patrick and look at a printer like the 4800. I've read many horror stories here from people using 3rd party inks. When (not if, but when) there's a problem the ink manufacturers blame the printer manufacturer and vice-versa. If you want to print a lot then I think you might hit a lot of problems too.

 

If you were to buy say, an Epson 4800, you'd at least have some tests done to back up any longevity claims - not to mention a warranty. Most printer warranties are voided if one uses 3rd party inks.

 

Most "pro" Epson printers use pigment inks because the prints last longer than dye-based. At one time, dye based prints had more "pop" to them than pigment based prints in terms of color (especially with glossy papers) but I think the gap has closed significantly in that regard and not too many people use glossy paper anymore.

 

I recently purchased an Epson 3800 and their new (pigment) ink formulation - and the print head itself - are impressive, even with glossy papers. The B&W prints are amazing and longevity tests are impressive. The only drawback to the 3800 for "mass production" is that it does not support roll-feed paper. But that wasn't a show-stopper for me, anyway - you can always put multiple sheets in its sheet-feeder. It's a very good printer. Good luck!

While I agree with almost all of Beau's comments, here and in other posts, I must take exception to his statement: "Most printer warranties are voided if one uses 3rd party inks." That is absolutely NOT the case under US law unless the manufacturer can establish that the 3rd party product CAUSED the warrantied failure. This is the same US Federal law that keeps GM from denying you warranty failure on your Chevrolet because you used Quaker State motor oil instead of Delco (GM house brand)

Hi Bob,

 

From Epson's Warranty Statement 7600/9600 series: "Epson also warrants that the consumable ink cartridges enclosed... will conform to the manufacturer's specified usage" Source: http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/pro76p/pro76pwa.pdf The warranty makes no claims about supporting other manufacturer's inks.

 

Also see this PN thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gd3A

 

Also see: http://www.brandonstaggs.com/epson-r200-continous-ink-system-review.html Who says: "Epson says using anything except their brand of ink cartridges voids the warranty on the printer"

 

From PC World: "All the manufacturers' warranties for the printers we used state explicitly that they don't cover damage caused by other vendors' ink." Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,111767-page,1/article.html

 

Think about it: What if a CIS/Bulk ink system made by...oh.. me, damages your printhead because I put coal-tar in the "Black" ink? Do you think Epson will (or should) fix that printhead under warranty? How could they possibly do that? I would be curious to see a link about any Federal law prohibiting Epson from doing this. In fact, I found just something indicating Epson prevailing in lawsuits with 3rd party ink manufacturers: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=10821

 

See also: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061129-8323.html

 

I didn't have time to Google enough to find Epson's official statement on this but I stand by what I've heard and read all along and that is that Epson will not warranty a printer using someone else's ink - and I think with good reason: The formulation of the ink is specific for the printhead. (A given motor oil is *not* formulated for one particular engine) If you can find Epson's info to the contrary, I'll stand corrected but as sure as I'm sitting here I can hear how a hypothetical call to Epson Support might go if one starts the conversation with "I was using someone else's inks and..." Best wishes . . .

Beau: None of the Epson references actually says that using someone else inks voids the warranty. Yes, it is true that the warranty will not cover damages CAUSED by other inks, but all other warranty aspects still apply.

 

I've had two Epson printer warranty replacements where I clearly told them I was using 3rd party inks. Neither of those cases were directly related to ink problems. Although one was a mechanical problem caused by a 3rd party ink cart which I clearly explained. That one surprised me when they agreed to a warranty replacment.

 

I have not done legal research on this. But this topic was discussed on the digital b&w forum a few years ago. Most of my info came from Paul Roark, noted printer and ink developer. Some remember that Paul's job before he retired was Senior Anti Trust Counsel for the Justice Dept. Paul was the one who gave the legal citations.

 

The recent Epson ligitations were 1) Epson suing 3rd party cart manufacturers who violated their patents and 2) Epson losing a class action suit in the US about their chips showing carts being empty when there was still substantial ink remaining.

Spanner -- chiefly British : wrench

 

cf "monkeywrenching"