Test Results

[rodbam]

Thanks again Irv, I will ask around about who has a print profiler but I think knowing what Aussies are like it could cost me more in beer than actually buying one
Yes whatever works to our own standards will be fine, I agree.
Regards Rod

 

[wcandrews@sccoast.net]

The Hat
The original file is a TIFF in Adobe RGB color space and is 12.14MB. The copy you see here has been converted to a JPEG in what's close to sRGB color space. This forum allows a file no larger than 100KB and makes that reduction itself if necessary. Along with the problems of conversion to sRGB and JPEG. it has been compressed by a factor of 121.4. I think it looks pretty good for the way it has been treated and the shape it is in. Give me your address, and I'll send you a real print where you can look for banding and other defects.

rodbam
The real key here is to make a profile for any change you make -- paper, ink, printer.

Each time you replace the OEM ink, you have a new paper, ink, printer situation. If you make a new profile each time you do it, you can get consistent results if the inks were a close match to start with. In face, my first profiles with OCP ink was with OEM red and green because those OCP inks were back ordered. With those profiles, the test prints came out almost identical with the all OCP ink profiles.

My profiling system requires two sheets of paper for each profile target and a third to see the results on the test print. Draining all the OEM ink and refilling with OCP ink cost me $3.60. It was worth that to me to just make the OCP profiles once for each combination. Even at that, analyzing the cure time thing for three papers took 12 sheets of paper.

There is no law that says you must make or worry about profiles. Just do what you are comfortable with.

To All
I come from an engineering background of many years. I test things and only report as facts those things I have tested. If I give an opinion, I make sure that is understood.

As I have stated before, the results of these tests are only valid for this particular combination of ink, paper, and printer. Change one of those variables and new tests are necessary to get valid results.

Good Luck!
Wil

 

[martin0reg]

wcandrews, thank you for the detailed report

...
2.1 It isnt helpful, and maybe harmful, to try to purge the original cartridge with distilled water or any other purging solution.

The problem is that I doubt that the sponge ever gets dry after introducing water, etc., into the sponge. Then the new ink is diluted with the water until the new ink has completely replaced the water. My profiles have confirmed this statement. I tried that method, and the prints changed each time a print was made for a very long time.

2.2 After considering the problem from an engineering perspective, I decided that the best way to condition the original OEM cart was (1) drain it with the paper towel method, (2) fill it with the new ink (I use the German Method), then:

2.3 Drain it again with the paper towel method.

2.4 Refill it with the new ink.

2.5 I know, all the new ink in the cartridge has been dumped once. My ink costs me $0.45 per cartridge. That is a small price to pay to get the OEM cartridge to produce consistent results from the beginning. The profiles demonstrate that this system works.

...

I am using empty and dried up old OEM cartridges (from ebay), so I use to purge them.
I know the problem of diluting with the rest of wetness, so what about the folowing:

purging with water - draining the water - first refilling - draining the ink - second refilling?

Would this be enough to avoid diluting?
My last cartridges were purged, drained and then dried for ca. 3 days...
..I am trying to test out the best state between dryness and humidity so that the cartridge
- soaks well
- but not too well so that the upper sponge stays dry. Otherwise a saturated wet upper sponge would not let the air exchange...

 

[wcandrews@sccoast.net]

That would certainly get the job done. In fact, my first post on this issue recommended that exact process.

I changed my mind about the water thing after I thought about it for a while, and it did seem to give a problem on one CLI-8 cartridge. I had a very hard time draining the water with the paper towel method. After I finally got the water out, I could only put 8ml of ink in it. The lower sponge never got ink all over it. The ink just went past the outlet hole, but it profiled and printed well.

When I decided to make the cure time test, I decided to replace that cartridge with a new one. I drained it, filled it, drained it again, then filled it. Worked perfectly with the whole bottom sponge saturated with ink.

Good Luck!
Wil

 

[The Hat]

wcandrews@sccoast.net
You seem to be having problems that none else is having drying out their cartridges.
If you were using ghwellsjr paper towel method properly then your cartridges would be dry.
Have a look at his method again and I am sure that youll get the hang of it with another couple go's.
As far as your JPEG compression is concerned why you didnt use PNG instead if were worried about how your prints would turn out..:|

 

[nche11]

When I first saw the picture I did not think it was a scan of a print. It was too perfect from corner to corner, not a tiny bit that showed that it is a scan. I can never scan any of my picture without a slight tilt. After scanning a picture you can not tilt it other than turning it 90 or 180 degrees but not any small angle. I was amazed how the scan can be so precisely scanned without slanting a degree or two. But then I saw the banding all over the picture. I have never seen jpeg artifact like that. They looked like real banding. I had some questions as the Hat had.

 

[wcandrews@sccoast.net]

I'll give the test picture one more try!
1. I only show it to demonstrate what properties a good test file should have. If you have a complaint, I think it should be about what properties it tests.

2. It is just a very comptessed JPEG from the original TIFF file.

3. It is not from a print I made. It just came from the original file.

4. It was exported from Lightroom as JPEG.

5. The original file is in Adobe RGB color space. What you see is, at best, in sRGB. Any time you compress a file by factor of 120 and then send it to the web, strange things are likely to happen to it.

6. There is no banding in the original file, nor on any of the actual test prints.

7. If this is all you got from the original post, you missed it all.

8. I'll not comment on this again.

Good Luck!
Wil

 

[ghwellsjr]

As The Hat suggested in post #15, if you save it from your original as a .png, it will not have any compression artifacts, but it still may not be small enough. If that is the case, email it to Rob and I'm sure he will be happy to make it available.

 

[errante]

And any external image uploading service? Imageshack (as an example) allows images up to 5 MB and formats like png, tiff, etc.

Online storage services like box.net are another easy way too.

 

[emerald]

wcandrews@sccoast.net, What happened to your picture on post #1? I was fortunate to notice it shortly after it was posted and saved it as a test file - probably the best test file I've seen on this forum.

As for the jibes about banding etc. . . . Am I missing something? What banding? I don't see any major imperfections. I don't see any minor imperfections. Or am I simply a lumberjack at a wine tasting event?