Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Research commissioned by HP finds third party inks to be inferior

A new study at the independent testing organisation Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc (WIR) shows that photos printed with refilled cartridges can fade significantly in less than two months, while prints made with original HP inks and photo papers last far longer.

|  Industry News
 Add Comment
Research commissioned by HP finds third party inks to be inferior
Press Release:
Photos printed using original HP inkjet print cartridges on HP media1 had the highest WIR Display Permanence Rating of all inks tested - 73 years. This means that under the standard conditions of the WIR tests it would take 73 years before noticeable fading would occur.2 By contrast, refilled inkjet print cartridges had among the lowest WIR Display Permanence Ratings ever measured in the WIR lab.

For example, prints made with Tesco-refilled ink cartridges and Tesco-branded photo paper faded 730 times more rapidly than prints made with original HP inkjet print cartridges and paper.3 Even the best of the refilled cartridges printed on matched, same-brand photo paper had a rating of only 1.2 years, and faded approximately 60 times more rapidly than prints made with original HP photo inks and paper.4

This is WIR's first published study comparing the permanence of refilled ink cartridges and photo papers available in the European market with original HP photo inks and papers.

"Generally, refilled ink cartridges and third-party photo papers have been advertised as having quality equal to the original products," said Henry Wilhelm, president and director of research, WIR.

He continued: "Because these claims of product quality deliberately exclude image permanence, we feel that the claims are misleading. The poor permanence of these products is being hidden from consumers who want to make informed purchase decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine the permanence of third-party inks and photo papers and compare this with HP inks and paper, thereby assisting consumers by providing important permanence information that has been unavailable in the marketplace."

Wilhelm concluded: "Based on the results of this study, WIR considers the permanence of all the refilled ink cartridges tested to be poor and unsuitable for printing consumer photographs. People have always understood that the driving motivation in photography is to preserve moments in time. Refilled inks and third-party papers fail in that respect."

Vincent Vanderpoel, vice president and general manager, HP IPG Supplies EMEA, said: "HP customers have a choice about the aftermarket products they use. However there are significant implications behind choosing anything other than original printing supplies. The consequences of poor display permanence only emerge when it is potentially too late."

He added, "Customers also need to understand the significance of using original products both for the ink and the paper, which these results bear out. These are not small differences: there is clearly a huge increase in permanence when using HP products throughout."

The following table shows the results of the Wilhelm Imaging Research ink permanence study commissioned by HP.

WIR Display Permanence Ratings for Original HP Photo Inks and Papers Compared with Store Label Refilled Ink Cartridges and Other Third-Party Photo Inks and Papers

Inkjet print cartridge and paper brandWIR Display Permanence Rating
Original HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 73 years
Tesco refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on Tesco Premium Photo Heavyweight Glossy Inkjet Paper 0.1 years
Tesco refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 0.9 years
Jessops refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on Jessops Photo Inkjet Paper, Glossy 0.9 years
Jessops refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 4.5 years
Embatex Emstar refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on Kodak Ultra Premium Photo Paper 0.6 years
Embatex Emstar refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 4.5 years
KMP refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on KMP Photo Paper 1.2 years
KMP refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 4.4 years
WeCare refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on WeCare High-Quality Photo Gloss Paper 1.2 years
WeCare refilled HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 2.1 years
Ink Tec refill kit used with HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on Ink Tec Premium Photo Paper 0.4 years
Ink Tec refill kit used with HP 57 & 58 inkjet print cartridges printed on HP Premium Plus Photo Paper 2.3 years

MPB Start Shopping

Support this site by making a Donation, purchasing Plus Membership, or shopping with one of our affiliates: Amazon UK, Amazon US, Amazon CA, ebay UK

It doesn't cost you anything extra when you use these links, but it does support the site, helping keep ePHOTOzine free to use, thank you.

Other articles you might find interesting...

My-Picture.co.uk Introduces Personalised Photo Bedding
ePHOTOzine Exclusively Partners With MPB: Buy & Sell Used Ph...
MPB Appoints New Chair As It Hits £100m Revenue
Transcontinenta Group And Degreef & Partner Are Joining Forces
Nikon Announces Four New European Ambassadors
EISA AWARDS 2021-2022: The Best Cameras, Lenses & Smartphones
DxO PureRAW Wins EISA Advanced Photo Software 2021-2022 Award
ePHOTOzine Team Change Announcement

Comments


Glad I read this .. I was being swayed toward the resevoir systems because of the huge savings ... so it would be interesting to hear the other side now, although as an independent test it may seem difficult to question the results. I will be sticking with lab quality prints for now.
guidoa 20 1.4k United Kingdom
Interesting to see how inks like Jet Tech fare
Britman 15 1.7k England
I'll still buy the cheaper inks for general use and then get a company to print any photos.
Of course Britman, agreed .. I am about to buy a cheap printer just for text and I wouldn't consider using genuine ink .. the cartridges cost almost as much as the printer.
Erm, is it just me, or is the 'research commissioned by HP' bit the most important section. Of course they're going to come to that conclusion. They've been paid to say it. Its like McDonalds commissioning research proving you can have a great diet on their food.
You are right Rich, that's why I said it would be interesting to hear the other side now ... how independent can research be when you are paid by one of the test subjects? But the results were far far more than conclusive and if the results were only half right it would still be enough for me, especially as I am considering purchasing a Canon or Epson A3 printer at this moment.
Paul as far as the resevoir systems go IMHO if you stick with the likes of Lyson's PhotoChrome etc you should'nt have any problems which claim upto 70 years they also have test results on there web site.
sorry the 70 years I quoted was only on certain papers most are 40-60 years there are so many combinations worth a read though.
I teach research methods to undergraduates, which includes teaching them how to evaluate existing research. One of the prime issues we tell them to look for is the source of funding and the impact this may have on the intentions of the researchers. I know its a cliche now to say that there are three kinds of lie ("Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"), but its true; you can heavily influence the outcome of research by being selective in the way you design and interprete it.

For example, some recent research into the dangers of drinking and smoking found drinking to 'cause more death' than smoking...which is very interesting until you realise that they didn't actually compare death rates for the two. What they did instead was compare age of death linked to smoking (typically lung cancer, CHD etc in older people) and linked to drinking (which although it included some old people with liver problems etc, was dominated by younger people drink driving), to the life expectancy in the countries where that research was carried out. Having chosen this method at the start, they were always going to find smoking to be more dangerous, because a 70 year old UK male dying of smoking-related CHD is only 'losing' 8 years, whilst a 20 year old dying in a drink driving incident is 'losing' 58 years; you'd need about 7 old smokers to 'equal' one young drinker.

Sorry for the research lesson, but I do think its useful for people to be aware of the impact research design has on research findings, considering how many 'latest research shows' type stories we read in the media or see in advertising.
Edit - sorry, I mean 'they were always going to find drinking to be more dangerous'.

Doh!
sorry the 70 years I quoted was only on certain papers most are 40-60 years there are so many combinations worth a read though.
Yes 'mostly harmless' ... we only need to look as far as the Govt. to see stats and research can prove anything you sek to prove. And @ 'andrewjen' .. thanks for the advice .. still looking and still sending my files to labs for the moment. Regards, Paul.
Research commisioned by HP will tell us what HP want to hear.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.