Pigment Ink for Epson XP-950

[te36]

Thanks a lot, ISF. Lots of great stuff.

After reading your explanation and that german page, i tried to scratch off the surface of the kirkland and print4life with a knife. On the print4life i was left with white powder and then directly paper (paper easy to recognize by putting ink on it). So that probably makes it a cheap CC paper.

On the kirkland, i could equally scratch off a layer that turned into white powder, but either that is more special or there is another layer underneath it that also absorbs ink. Aka: had to scratch off a lot harder to get down to the non-ink absorbing layer - i guess thats whats called PE/RC. So as you and the german URL explain that is on both sides of the paper. I would have never guessed it this way.

I am now puzzled how the PE layer below the "microporuous" layer(s) can have an impact on UV/Ozone from the front. Maybe it is really protection from back. I need to also hang out a kirkland and a print4life into the sun with some cheap ink to see what difference the paper makes.

TheHats fading test is very helpful but also scary because the laminated page performed worse than the naked page. I wonder if its some chemical reaction or just the fact that the print is in some kind of greenhouse (under the lamination). Then some non-UV protecting glas frame might cause problems too.

Thanks again!

 

[te36]

Hah:

https://www.printerknowledge.com/attachments/black-patches-jpg.4470/
https://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/which-pigment-ink-for-epson-1500w.9323/page-19#post-92483

That scotch tape was the proof for "rear protection works" i was looking for. Fascinating!

 

[te36]

Switching printer vendors/makers may mean a change in ink as different makers use different print head mechanisms which require different inks. You seem to be chasing the holy grail of inks and paper combinations and, at least in this case, there ain't no such thing.

Thanks for digging up those epson/canon URLs! And for ISFs response putting those into perspective.

Here is the holy grail: The universal ink for every printer. Probably the ink with the highest search engine performance

https://www.toner.de/Universaltinte+Magenta.htm

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Since we cannot measure the amount of ozone and UV radiation separately it is quite difficult to separate their effects when doing those tests, and that could easily explain differences in the results using lamination or scotch tape or something else like a closed frame with glass, I'm not a typical user for that and won't try to test that in more detail. I tested some time ago the impact of a gloss optimizer overprint which had some effect of slowing down the fading on some papers, not so much on castcoated papers - that again showed a difference between cc and PE papers. Those cc papers are o.k. if you are aware of their limitations and you choose them intentionally - e.g. for pricing reasons, for short term prints etc.

Universal ink - no, that ink is not universal enough yet - it doesn't cover stamps or markings on eggs....

 

[te36]

All those different reports about experience ink vs printer vs paper vs. fading can be quite overwhelming, so its nice to find simple to show reasons for why some option is better than another. And from which you can extrapolate and test.

The scotch tape test persuades me that i want paper that isolates against air from the rear side. And it seems easy to test against PE/RC coating on both sides (scratch & ink..).

Universal ink - no, that ink is not universal enough yet - it doesn't cover stamps or markings on eggs....

For eggs see attached picture. Maker Faire 2010. Nice simple contraption if you are into easter egg decorations.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

We had discussed here - and elsewhere the issue that the fading of prints needs to be judged always as a combined performance of a particular ink and a specific paper. Changing one of these parameters can result in widely different results. There is always the assumption that pigment inks perform better in this respect - yes, but... Epson upgraded their inks about 2 years ago to the Ultrachrome HD version with the release of the P600, P800 and similar printers. One claimed improvement is the improved fading performance of the yellow inks which resulted in pretty weak results in previous tests. Aardenburg did extensive tests on this claim and is now publishing detailed results here
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-ultrachrome-hd-140-mlux-hrs/
That's good news overall, but the big black hole remains for all 3rd party ink users - how do those P600 compatible P600/800 inks perform in this respect - those inks by Lyson, Vermont/Cone ink etc

 

[Hisopio]

A little feedback about the main issue, maybe it would help someone. Four years ago I bought an Epson xp-960 and some Chinese generic cartridges that I filled with pigment inks. It worked very well for the first year or so, but I am not a regular printer and after a couple of months of inactivity the printer started to clog. I could clean it at the beginning but it became harder and harder until I could not get a clean print anymore. Most certainly the culprits were the sponges that didn't age well in contact with the pigments, so I bought new cartridges, refilled them and tried, my printer printed perfectly again.
Since then I change the whole set of carts every year or so.
Voilà.