Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


epson printers


9 Aug 2017 12:16PM
iv just bought a replacement for my epson stylus photo 1400 the new one being the stylus photo 1500 but i always used non epson ink on the 1400 and have heard that epson are now blocking third party inks on the new printers, my son has done the same just replaced an old printer with the same and his ink wont register on the new epson. has anyone found this to be true i can always send the 1500 back if so as i haven't even collected it from the shop yet HELP PLEASE

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Jestertheclown 9 7.8k 252 England
9 Aug 2017 1:19PM
I used an Epson (of some kind) until a couple of years ago and always used non Epson inks; dirt cheap from Amazon.
The ink manufacturers were always playing catch up though, having to chip their inks to match those in the newly released printers.
It might be that those manufacturers have yet to catch up with your specific printer.
Havre you looked up inks for your printer on any of the suppliers' websites?
Most, if not all, of them will list the inks and printers that they're compatible with.
CTee 11 129 United Kingdom
9 Aug 2017 1:47PM
Maybe a daft question but why would you buy a 300+ printer for quality then want to use cheap inks?
Plus if you want anything repaired under the guarantee you will have voided the guarantee by using any third party inks, cheap or not?
Jestertheclown 9 7.8k 252 England
9 Aug 2017 2:04PM

Quote:Maybe a daft question but why would you buy a 300+ printer for quality then want to use cheap inks?
Plus if you want anything repaired under the guarantee you will have voided the guarantee by using any third party inks, cheap or not?


The bit about the guarantee may be valid, assuming Epson somehow know which inks you're using but with regard to quality, I could never see any difference between the images that I printed using genuine Epson inks and the ones printed using cheap (and I mean really cheap) inks from someone via Amazon.
Dave_Canon 12 1.4k United Kingdom
9 Aug 2017 3:34PM
I also cannot see the point of buying a quality printer and using cheap inks. If you do not want the best quality prints that the Epson printer can produce why not buy a cheaper printer. I did once use some recommended third party inks (not for my photographic printer but for my office printer) and the quality was very poor. Even the Black was a muddy grey and not Black. For my photography, I use an Epson R2800 now 8.5 years old and have always used Epson cartridges and yes they are expensive. It would be cheaper to use a professional print service but I enjoy having complete control and B&W is much better than I have seen from a printing service. I get excellent quality prints for competitions and would be at a serious disadvantage without this.

Dave
Railcam 11 684 2 Scotland
9 Aug 2017 4:33PM
The results from cheap inks might look fine at first. What are they like a few months or a few years down the line? I suspect they wil have faded or changed colour.

Cheap inks are cheap for a reason, usually.
CTee 11 129 United Kingdom
9 Aug 2017 4:49PM
Cheap inks are also usually a different formula, they may cause damage to the printer!
StrayCat 14 19.1k 3 Canada
9 Aug 2017 6:24PM
I stopped using Epson years ago because of the ink cost, and at the time after market ink for Epson printers was scarce, so I switched to Canon. I just received an order of 5 tanks of grey ink that I paid $21 for including shipping from the US and exchange on the dollar. Like Jester, I see very little difference in the quality, but a huge difference in price. I would go whole hog if I were selling prints, in fact, I'd have them done professionally, but I don't sell them. I'm about to research a new printer, and one of the first things I'll want to know, is if 3rd party inks are available. Each to their own. Btw, Epson and Canon have always said we should use their paper, and their inks, because that's what they were designed to use. It's up to you.
justin c 14 5.0k 36 England
9 Aug 2017 6:37PM
Railcam sums it up perfectly. Initial results may look encouraging compared to the original inks but it's widely acknowledged that the results won't stand the test of time.

When you consider the effort gone into capturing the images, processing the files, learning all about colour management, learning the best printing techniques, spending a small fortune on paper, ink and print storage. It would be a real shame and waste of time, effort and money to be left with a great quantity of prints that are fit for the bin in the not too distant future.
StrayCat 14 19.1k 3 Canada
9 Aug 2017 9:57PM

Quote:When you consider the effort gone into capturing the images, processing the files, learning all about colour management, learning the best printing techniques, spending a small fortune on paper, ink and print storage. It would be a real shame and waste of time, effort and money to be left with a great quantity of prints that are fit for the bin in the not too distant future.


Rather than go through all that time, effort, and expense, I get my important stuff done at a lab, much cheaper, and ultimately much better than doing it myself.
Jestertheclown 9 7.8k 252 England
9 Aug 2017 10:01PM

Quote: Epson and Canon have always said we should use their paper, and their inks, because that's what they were designed to use.

And of course it has nothing to do with the fact that by not using them, we're denying them revenue.


Quote:Rather than go through all that time, effort, and expense, I get my important stuff done at a lab, much cheaper, and ultimately much better than doing it myself.

Same here, hence my use of the cheapest inks, paper and half decent printer I can lay my hands on.
rambler Plus
9 978 17 England
10 Aug 2017 12:57AM
I had this problem some years ago, the Epson printer also used a lot of ink cleaning each time I booted it up, The last time I booted it was down at the local tip.

Ken
LenShepherd 10 3.7k United Kingdom
10 Aug 2017 8:28AM
Most comments so far are historical experience and in this sense not relevant.
Two decisions have to be made early on when buying a printer for photography.
The first is what colour space ability do you want - less than sRGB, sRGB or Adobe RGB.
If you are satisfied with the limited colour gamut of sRGB why buy a photographic printer? Decent labs will print for you for about 33% of the cost of doing it yourself allowing for the cost of printing inks alone Smile
On a detail it is difficult to get the best colour quality if you shoot jpeg as by default it is sRGB
The second question is how much do you want to pay for inks. Paying around 1,000 for a printer (Ouch!) reduces ink costs by around 66%, has A2 print ability, and much wider than sRGB colour space. The epson can print longer than A2 for big panoramas - the 1,000 Canon cannot. The Epson still wastes a small amount switching between gloss and matt paper. The Canon requires a lot of gloss optimiser ink to reduce bronzing on gloss paper.
When you factor in 1,000 for the printer and the cost of paper it still costs more than good sRGB colour printing from a lab, but you can get wider colour gamut and use a huge range of papers with a 1,000 printer compared to an sRGB lab.
Ink costs can be further reduced by paying around 2,000 for a printer similar to the ones seen at trade shows that take up a lot of floor (as distinct from desktop) space.
Ink costs can also be dramatically reduced with an L800 Epson continuous ink system with quality not too bad compared to the old Epson 2440. In theory the Epson L800 is available from Wilkinson but otherwise seems not on sale in the UK.
Home printing to the highest standard and economical cost are not synonymous Sad
On to "cheap ink" my experience is they dry out in the printer much quicker than the manufacturers ink, prints fade much quicker and colour is not as good.
My opinion is if you need cheap ink to make home printing "affordable" you can save quite a bit more money by using a decent sRGB lab.
sausage Plus
13 518 United Kingdom
10 Aug 2017 9:02AM
I have an Epson P600 printer and using it with Fotospeed inks. The printer occasionally puts a message up that I'm using 3rd party inks but I just click the continue button and it carries on. I'm sure I read somewhere (I think it was Which?) that a new law came in last year that said printer manufacturers couldn't stop people from using 3rd party inks. This applied to new printers only.

I prefer to use a printer - it's almost like watching a print developing like the old days.
Ross_D 4 754 1 United Kingdom
10 Aug 2017 1:11PM
Interesting debate. However, the wider question is why don't the printer manufacturers come up with a cartridge which is refillable rather than buying the cartridge which also includes the print head + the various contacts needed. I read an article some years ago that said buying a new cartridge for a printer was like buying an ink cartridge for a fountain pen and having to buy a new nib as well !!


Quote:it's almost like watching a print developing like the old days.

But without the smell from the developer and fixer !! Smile

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.