The fallacy of OEM ink

[mark_herring]

Lots of traffic lately on the pros and cons of OEM vs 3rd party

consumables. Two pretty polarized camps are evident:

I. Locked into the OEM-only idea

II. Lots of experience with--and confidence in--the 3rdparty products

 

And of course MANY people somewhere in between.

 

I offer a few basic observations:

 

1. The printer manufacturers WANT you in group I--that is their

business model, and they will spend big bucks on advertising to

promote it. Remember all the stories about how Detroit manipulated

the public to NEED all manner of things in cars---many of which

turned out to be very bad ideas. Never underestimate the power of

advertising

 

2. To support the business model--and their reputation--the big OEMs

will invest heavily in testing paper and ink combos. Thus you have

some assurance of consistent results with OEM consumables.

 

3. The reality of #2 does NOT negate the existence of other ink and

paper combos that are equal to or better than OEM. There are

infinite combinations---some good and some not. Many non-OEM

solutions are better than OEM.

 

4. There is no basis in any fundamental chemistry or physics to say

that 3rd party ink and paper cannot match or exceed OEM. Even if a

particular ink formula were to be patented, it would be virtually

unenforceable.

 

5. There's a lot of testing in place for specific 3rd party

products, and many offer better performance than OEM in some aspect---

eg lifetime.

 

6. There is a sizable group of professionals and advanced amateurs

that have found good non-OEM combinations and are selling their work

in serious markets. This group cannot be dismissed. I have read

material from specific professionals that demonstrated an

understanding of the issues far beyond what I ever hear from a

printer manufaturer. For just one example, look at Paul Roark's site

(a user of MIS B&W inksets).

 

Saying the you MUST have OEM to get good results is like saying that

your car will not work properly without OEM tires, oil,belts,

batteries....etc etc. What's pretty humorous about this is that car

manufacturers buy many things from subcontractors---many of whom also

sell to the repair and maintenance trade. You can very easily

imagine buying something from Ford that is the same as what you would

buy from Pep Boys. I wonder if this is happening in printer-land....

[david_lau3]

I do believe there are some 3rd party ink+paper that are as good or even better than the OEM. However, the problem is:

 

<<There are infinite combinations---some good and some not>>

 

I am an amateur with low printing volume (about using 1 Epson color cartridge per 1-2 months - I give most of the prints to the Frontier machine). I have tried a few brands of 3rd party ink+paper but all are not as good as Epson, not even close. Although they are cheaper than Epson, they are not cheap in absolute term. These trials already wasted me a lot of money and time so I decided to stop and just use Epson, for the sake of peace of mind - I know exactly the result I am getting.

 

If I am a pro with high printing volume, then it is justify to spend time and find a solution.

[Aoresteen]

I have tried many 3rd party inks, toners, paper, and ribbons. Some are good, some are bad. I tend to use OEM inks while the printer is under warrenty. Then when I call with a problem, the manuafacturer can not blow me off saying the problem is the 3rd party ink.

 

We use 3rd party lazer toner at work. I got a guarrentee from the vendor that the tonner would last for x ammount of pages. In most cases it did. When it doesn't I get a refund. Savings are significant.

 

Mgf sometimes stop making ink for older printers so 3rd party ink is the only solution.

 

For a new printer I use OEM ink and OEM paper and learn how to use it to get good results. Then I will try 3rd party inks to compare to base reference print. This week I tossed a box of 3rd party "glossy photo paper" that was terrible. I tried it in 3 printers; all showed the same banding type effect. When I used Epson paper the prints were perfect.

[mr.wind-upbird]

In my experience, when the printer has individual ink cartridges, 3rd party inks are a bad idea. I tried a set of them in my Canon i950 and had to mess with the intensities of each color, because the lousy 3rd party inks were unbalanced as to their relative intensities (i.e. cyan was stronger than magenta, and thus needed to be turned down, etc). I also had to turn up the intensities of all the inks to get them to be as vivid as the genuine Canon inks. As for Canon, the 3rd party inks are NOT the same, and not worth the "savings."

[ted_marcus1]

I haven't tried third-party ink for my Epson printer because it's really not that much cheaper than mail-ordering Epson ink. I have tried third-party paper, but I have yet to find anything that works as well as Epson Heavyweight Matte (which also happens to be the cheapest of Epson's photo papers).

 

My experiments with third-party mainly involved looking for a paper that was available in "legal" (8.5x14-inch) size so I could easily make 8x12 prints in a narrow-carriage printer. I couldn't find anything that met my needs, so I get 13x19 Heavyweight Matte and cut it down to 13x9.

[beno_t_marchal]

<p>I am under the impression that most 3rd party inks are cheap replacements designed

for office printing (reports and graphics where it's acceptable if the colors are slightly off).

This helps give 3rd party inks a bad press amongst photographers.

<p>I confess that if I wanted to buy 3rd party inks, I would not know where to start. My

computer shop sells 3rd party inks but they could not answer my questions on color

accuracy... the answer was: "does it really matter?" I guess not for most users but it does

for me.

<p>As you correctly point out, none of this prevents a 3rd party from making good inks

but it does not help me buy 3rd party.

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com/">marchal.com</a>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Aaaah! btw OEM is a reference to a 3rd party product - they are the same thing

[roger krueger]

If the price is too good to be true, it probably is. There are good 3rd-party inks out there,

but there is an immense amount of dreck as well.

 

If price is their only selling point, stay clear.

 

I had an Epson 3000 (at work) that clogged to the point of needing repair within two

weeks of being switched to cheapo 3rd party inks.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

I've been using MIS inks (obtained from www.inksupply.com) to refill oem epson dye-based t007 and t009 cartridges for almost two years in my 1270. The printed results are indistinguishable. However, the cartridges inevitably 'wear out' (become increasingly clogged to the point where the frequency of refilling outweighs the cost savings), so that they only last for 3 or 4 fills then have to be tossed. Also there may be an ingredient in the oem formulation that does a better job of keeping the heads clean over time. When I have had streaking problems develop, they have always (to date) been instantly cleared up by putting in new cartridges.

 

On the whole I have saved a significant amount of money by refilling, though with the not inconsiderable expenditure of an hours time per refill (of both black and colour cartridges, with clean-up), some further time spent troubleshooting refills gone bad, and wasted media.

 

As I said, the results appear to be absolutely identical to prints made from the oem ink in appearance and longevity (fading), on epson HWM and Ilford classic pearl (the only papers I use). But this is with MIS inks, which certainly aren't the cheapest.

[jon_austin]

Another issue is consistency; i.e., consistent quality of 3rd party inks from cartridge to cartridge over time.

 

I don't dispute Mr. Herring's lucid argument for a second, but I've been reading this and many other sites for years, and have yet to read where anyone's posted their list of "just as good or better" combinations of inks and papers. Anyone who's stumbled upon these magic combinations must be keeping their secrets to themselves.

 

Every technical review I've read has shown nothing but problems with 3rd party inks, particularly for photographic applications.

 

For my part, I'll stick to OEM inks unless / until someone publishes proof of a creditable set of alternatives, priced substantially lower to offset the risks. Experiementing with papers is another thing entirely; even if the results are crap, risk to the printer/printhead is neglible / nonexistent -- the only downside is wasted time and $$.

[michael_kersenbrock]

Using non-OEM tires, oil, and batteries aren't so much of a problem because the definition of the parts are well defined and have been so for a very long time. Plus they can be "sloppy" spec-wise and still work fine. Personally I'd not buy any of those selling for only 25% the price of name-brands which is the name of the game in 3rd party inks for the most part.

 

Printer inks for quickie text printing to use then toss away can probably fall into the same category.

 

Printer inks for printing photos accurately and knowing that they'll last for a while before fading is another thing. Accurate profiles are needed for given papers. That mfgr investment in #2 is important to the user. Fade testing with those specific papers is needed too. Because photo printers print with the smallest of dotsizes, the chances of clogging are greater when using third party inks not of quality. Especially by those that sell the same ink for almost every printer under the sun (in particular those with a single refill kit that fits all -- how can it?).

 

Another point is that Epson, Canon, or some other printer company probably paid you for you to take their printer. They may have lost money off it it -- certainly didn't make any. It's reasonable to buy inks from them for at least a while for both ethical reasons as well as keeping them in the printer business to keep more printers coming. If everybody didn't buy their inks, they'd not bother to make printers at all. Not a good situation for the user either.

 

No, I don't work for a printer maker, but until my recent printer purchase, my printer for a long time was made by a company that stopped making printers with consumables slowly getting harder to find.

 

Mike

[barmijo]

Not all 3rd party inks are created equal. Most of the attention in this thread is on low cost alternatives to Epson or Canon inks. However, cost savings isn't the only reason to use 3rd party inks.

 

I use Lyson small gamut inks in my Canon s9000 for black and white. The print quality is excellent. I also tried a couple different color inksets for my Epson 2200 when I was thinking of getting a bulk ink system. The quality was acceptable but the savings over mail order Epson cartridges wasn't worth the effort (and at the time I was using 3 to 5 cartridges per day).

[jack paradise]

"and have yet to read where anyone's posted their list of "just as good or better" combinations of inks and papers"

 

I've been using an Epson 1160 for b&w printing since the past four years and except for the original Epson ink cartridge that I used to ascertain that the printer was printing correctly, I've been using 3rd party carbon pigment inkset first from Inkjetmall.com and then from www.inksupply.com I have yet to see anything from Epson that would even approach the quality of the inks i'm using.

 

As for inkjet papers, there are only 3 or 4 mills in the world that supplies to the inkjet trade. There is no such thing as a Canon or Epson paper. They all buy from the same 3-4 paper mills like third party paper supplier. In fact some paper are known several differents brand names!

 

Stay away from the cheapo ink suppliers and you'll do ok. I dont put cheap brand engine oil in my car but I would not use OEM engine oil either.

[maureen_m]

<i>For my part, I'll stick to OEM inks unless / until someone publishes proof of a creditable set of alternatives, priced substantially lower to offset the risks.</i><p>I agree. There are many posts that talk about great 3rd party ink, but many don't give DETAILS!<p>Tell us the exact brand, supplier, part number, and price of the ink, which printer model they were used in, which paper, plus how the prints are displayed or stored, how long the prints have been shown to last without fading or color shifting, what they were compared to in order to claim that they have not faded/shifted, how often the cartridges are replaced, how often the heads need to be cleaned, and any other pertinent details that lend credibility to one's personal experience with 3rd party inks.<p>I certainly believe MIS and other quality inks perform as promised, but many supporters of 3rd party inks leave me with the impression that they are claiming the 3-for-$10 cartridges at computer shows and on eBay are just as good as the original brands or MIS-type-quality brands.<p>I <i>WANT</i> to believe...

[michael_kersenbrock]

"As for inkjet papers, there are only 3 or 4 mills in the world that supplies to the inkjet trade. There is no such thing as a Canon or Epson paper. They all buy from the same 3-4 paper mills like third party paper supplier. In fact some paper are known several differents brand names!"

 

This is true, but this doesn't mean the papers are anywhere near alike. There are a *lot* of semiconductor companies, even large leading ones that don't make any semiconductors. Their IC's are made by a few fabs (3rd party companies) that make chips for lots of companies. Those products are all completely different however!

 

In other words, manufacturing of the papers may be done by a few companies, but design of the way the paper is made probably belongs to the respective printer companies. They're not just relabelling papers made by a few companies -- they're having those companies make their paper. Different thing.

 

Of course, I'd expect the cheapest, "plainest" paper among the different brands to be the most similar among different brands.

 

Mike

 

P.S. - Recent Canon paper I've bought says "Canon" on the backside in a pattern of semi-faint print. Makes it both easy to see which side is which as well as clearly makes it non-generic. Don't think I'll buy any Epson paper with 'Canon' on the back. :-)

[bobmichaels]

You can pay more or you can pay less. You can get higher quality or lower quality. It's very rare that you can pay less and get equivalent or higher quality.

 

BUT printers are low margin items and ink is a very high margin item for the manufacturers. Therefore manufacturers never sell their consumables like ink in bulk. 3rd party manufacturers whose business is ink, not printers, frequently do.

 

Printer manufacturers sell to the mass market. As much as we'd like to believe that fine art photo printing is the mass market, it just isn't. There are several 3rd party ink manufacturers that sell to niche markets like us.

 

I print black and white. No OEM ink works well. Several 3rd party inks do. (I'm sold on the MIS inks)

 

If I printed color very much, I couldn't afford to use Epson or OEM inks bought in new carts each time. On a per ounce basis, OEM ink is one of the most expensive liquids sold because you have to buy in such minute quantities. But I can find equivalent 3rd party ink in 4 oz bottles that's much cheaper on a per oz. basis. Of course in prefilled disposable carts, they cost the same as OEM.

 

There is no validity to any blanket statement that OEM is better then 3rd party ink, nor is the converse true. For the typical ink jet user, OEM ink in prefilled disposable carts probably has the best cost / performance. But I'm not typical, nor are people like Mark and others, so OEM inks just can't do the job and would cost too much if they could.

[Matthew Currie]

"As for inkjet papers, there are only 3 or 4 mills in the world that supplies to the inkjet trade. There is no such thing as a Canon or Epson paper"

 

That may be, but it's pretty obvious that some of these papers are made to different specifications, whatever those specifications might be. It's like the Ritz salesman saying Sigma makes Quantaray lenses. The information is true but incomplete. In an earlier post I recounted my experience of using Canon paper with Hewlett Packard ink. The difference in longevity was surprising. The combination is essentially no good for anything but the most ephemeral printing job.

 

I have no doubt that there are some good combinations of third party consumables, and I'd love to see a well-tested list of do's and dont's. If such a list is available, someone please post it.

[jack paradise]

"P.S. - Recent Canon paper I've bought says "Canon" on the backside in a pattern of semi-faint print. Makes it both easy to see which side is which as well as clearly makes it non-generic."

 

When Epson started to print their name on the backside of Archival Matt paper, later to be called Enhanced Matt, there was a lot of discussion maily centering on the fact that this almost perfect proofing paper was somewhat cheapened by this.

 

For exhibition prints I use 100% cotton paper and no company logo appears on the back side. If it did i'd switch in an instant.

[robert_hively]

the fallacy of OEM ink, or the failings of "guaranteed compatible" ink?

 

I put a Canon BJC-80 portable printer back into service after my Canon s820 printhead packed it in recently. the "80" had been sitting in a closet for 6 years. Still had the Canon ink cartridges in it. Fired right up and printed perfectly. I also had a supply of cartridges for it purchased six years ago, some Canon, and some from Dataproducts: "part of the worldwide family of Hitachi products" "engineered for perfectly compatible results" "made in USA" "iso 9001 quality control" written warranty "should it ever harm your printer in any way, we will repair it or replace it" (for ninety days after purchase) "non-toxic environmentally sensitive inks contain lubricants that help protect your printer's printhead and extend it's life"

 

Whew! Dataproducts sure did talk the talk. Should have, since according to the price tags their product was not a whole lot cheaper than Canon. Six years later regret to advise Dataproducts couldn't walk the walk.

 

Both Dataproducts and Canon cartridges were sealed in foil packs. When opened six years after purchase, each Canon cartridge worked for approximately the number of prints Canon estimated it was good for. When opened, the Dataproduct cartriges had seepage around the seams of the cartridge, in one box of three cartridges, two were completely dried out and one worked for only a couple of pages. Same held true for the black only cartridges.

 

took another look see at the "ingredients" listed on the Canon cartridge box: "Glycerin 56-81-5" "Isopropyl alcohol 67-63-0," Dataproducts description as listed above (vague).

 

Proof in the pudding, the Canon products were ENGINEERED. They lasted, they worked, they didn't leak, six years on. Dataproducts: designed (reverse engineered?) by Hitachi, (a BIG Japanese company), made in the USA, FAILED in this unusual long-life test.

 

The '80 did the job, it's now back in retirement, (again with CANON cartridges inside) A new Canon i9100 is now zooming through the print jobs, using those irritatingly expensive (but worth it) Canon BC-6 cartridges.

 

And I wouldn't have experienced the longevity test were it not for an 18 month-old Canon s820 with a failed printhead. Seems right after purchase I found "just as good" replacement BC-6 cartidges for $4, a third of the Canon cost per cartridge. But then the printer sat idle for about six months, ink nozzles clogged, and the resistors in the print head circuit burned themselves out when dried ink instead of Canon lubed and alcoholed ink was not available for their cooling requirements. Did I save money on the non-Canon ink cartridges? Yep, but not enough to pay for the new printhead $85!

 

If Hitachi can't reverse engineer Canon ink well enough to go the distance, I have serious doubts about the new ink products coming from China being able to duplicate Canon ink any better. But your mileage may vary, and hey, the world needs more non-OEM beta testers!

[mark_herring]

For Robert;

 

Let's see....I think you just told us that you had one bad sample of a 3rd party ink, and that proves that it is best to stick with OEM.

 

OK: I am using MIS pigment in my 1280 Epson. I get an archival solution which Epson does not offer in the 1280, and I get good-looking prints---ANd I dont have any reliability issues. This OBVIOUSLY proves that 3rd party is superior.

 

actually, both assertions are just plain wrong. Some 3rd party solutions are clearly inferior to OEM and some are better. And it is certainly true that OEM can be the safest solution--if not the best or the cheapest.

[robert_hively]

Agreed, I only reported two incidents above.

 

those wishing to use third-party inks in their printers should link and read the following:

 

http://fixyourownprinter.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?Range=All&Format=Standard&Terms=epson+printhead

 

http://fixyourownprinter.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?Range=All&Format=Standard&Terms=canon+printhead

 

the reader may or may not note a pattern in the 785 hits on the epson thread and 232 hits on the canon thread. I detected enough of a problem area with canon printers that I opted to purchase the Canon 3-year extended service plan on the i9100 i just bought, the cost of the plan was $50 cheaper than the cost of one replacement printhead, and Canon could concieveably replace more heads than that in a three year period. Regretably, said warranty is invalidated by "use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that cause damage to the product" So I be buying Canon inks only for the next three years.