For those looking into third-party inks to cut down on ultra-expensive fluids, TrustedReviews.com just published their last installment on third-party inks: http://www.trustedreviews.com/printers/rev...ation-Part-3/p1

The quick conclusion: Third-party inks fader a *lot* when put in bright sunlight for a year, hardly any of them holding up as well as the manufacturer's mega-buck-per-gallon inks. There's some entertaining samples in there, too.

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.html

Pffff... thank you larsrc, but this page reviews inexpensive "office" inks which I think none of us would even think to use in a photo printer. Wilhelm Research has the same bias to consider only el-cheapo 3rd party inks, as if Lyson, Cone or InkJetFly didn't exist at all.

We ought to thank Aardenburg Imaging to take the problem seriously (and darkPenguin for the link ;o)!

Yes, thanks for the link! I found the part about OBA's to be quite interesting with the examples shown. Loved the Ansel Adams print viewed with a black light, but I'm sure that any original prints would have been placed behind glass.

Keith, Hi. The Adams print shown in the photo was and always has been framed under glass. Ordinary glass has about 50% UV transmission at 340nanometers and about 85% transmission at 370nm which is the peak for the black light output and an optimum wavelength for activating OBAs. Hence, the print fluoresces nicely even under glass which is how I photographed it. Natural daylight through window glass allows for plenty of 370nm UVA to reach the print as well. Lucky for me, I have alway had this print on display in an interior room that has naturallight levels and is mostly lit by incandescent lighting which is low in UVA content. It didn't see any where neare the industry-standard light fade prediction based on 450 lux for 12 hours per day. It has likely only seen an average of about 20 lux for 12 hours per day. So the OBAs in this print have not degraded even after 30 years of essentially continuous display.

Cheers,

Mark
Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Unfortunately, Aardenburg tests only two third-party inks on one printer, but there, too, the (few) third-party inks do noticably worse than OEM inks. I'm starting to see a pattern.

-Lars

The "Trusted Reviews" site doesn't inspire confidence in the unbiased nature of their reviews. The page contains ads for major printer manufacturers.

It's well known that printers are simply profit generators for the manufacturers. Absurdly low printer prices and high ink price disparity proves that. For those reasons, we should suspect any claims by printer manufacturers that their inks and their inks only will resist fading and provide optimum results if used on their media.

For ten years I lived in a sixth floor waterfront condo with a southwest exposure and floor-to-ceiling windows. The direct afternoon sunlight was brutal. With white walls and continuous windows, interior light levels were similar to those outdoors. On the walls hung several photographs, some printed by me with OEM inks and some with third party inks, and some printed by a service bureau with Cibachrome technology. All were matted and framed behind glass.

In this decidedly unscientific test, in ten years I noticed no differences in fading between the OEM and third party inks, in fact, I noticed no fading at all with these prints. The Cibachrome prints faded considerably and are now useless.

It's in the manufacturers' interest to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about inks and media. It's in our interest to discover the truth by experimentation and testing.