|
A recent report in the Lyra Research Hard Copy Supplies Journal alerted me to some new findings from the folks at Wilhelm Imaging Research regarding the display life (or lack thereof) of inkjet prints made using third-party inks and papers. The study compared printer manufacturer ink-and-paper combinations to those made with store-brand inks, refilled ink containers, aftermarket ink sets, and third-party papers. And the test results were rather damning for third-party manufacturers:
“As a group, the aftermarket inks and premium photo papers in this study had among the lowest WIR display-permanence ratings of any products ever tested by our lab,” says Henry Wilhelm, WIR’s president and founder.
I’ve been reading Henry’s test reports for more than a decade, so I know that is a pretty harsh statement for him to make. Not everyone agrees with his accelerated testing procedures—most notably those whose products aren’t on his A list—and I’m not sure if the year ratings he gives ink and paper combinations are a precise indication of how long a print will last in typical at-home display conditions. But since WIR uses the same testing methodologies across a wide range of ink and paper combinations, its scores act as benchmark indications of whose products will last longer.
In fact, Henry’s reports have helped pressure printer manufacturers to improve the display life and dark storage of inkjet prints. And over the last decade we’ve seen ink and paper combinations improve from just 3 years to over 200 years in some cases (from printers costing the same as they did in 1996).
His most recent tests bring us right back to the mid-1990s or earlier. For example, prints made from an HP printer using HP’s number 57 and 58 photo cartridges on HP’s Premium Plus Photo Paper get a 73 year rating in WIR tests. But, if you replace the inks with Office Depot’s compatible cartridges and use the same paper, the display life drops to 1.4 years! Even worse, if you print with Office Depot’s inks on its own Professional Photo Paper, the display life tops out at 0.4 years! Even Kodak takes a direct hit with its Ultra Premium Photo Paper when it’s used in a Canon printer loaded with Canon’s own BCI-6 inks. In that case, display life drops from 16 years (using Canon Photo Paper Pro) to 1.1 years with the Kodak paper. More details and comparisons are available on the WIR website.
I can’t say I’m surprised at the results, knowing the extent of the research and funding that large companies like Canon, Epson, and HP have put into improving their print life over the last 10 years. It’s hard to imagine a relatively small third-party ink company outsmarting them on the longevity issue. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in this industry, it’s that small fish can become bigger ones if they have developed a better solution to a problem. Until now, the better solution for consumers that chose third-party inks and papers was lower operating costs. Image quality and color management might have turned purists away, but some of the better aftermarket ink sets can now make prints that look pretty good when paired with the right printer and paper.
Ignorance is bliss, especially if you’re a politician or someone trying to get something for nothing. For those trying to save money by purchasing third-party inks, the lack of display life data may have made it easier to choose an ink primarily on price and image quality. But now that the WIR reports are in, what will happen? I predict, not much at all, until the word gets out to the consumers trying to save money on printing supplies. And for some reason, I can’t imagine the stores selling their own brand-name inks to alert customers to the fading problems of the inks they are selling—especially when the store makes a bigger profit.
Perhaps companies like Epson and HP will go on the offensive with ads that explain the longevity benefits of their products over the off-brands, or perhaps a episode of CSI will use faded inkjet prints found in a corpse’s wallet to determine how many months (or days) they were in dark storage… Stay tuned!
Comment on this blog in the PopPhoto.com forums
View more McNamara Reports
|
