RE: Epson Ink carts
Judy, Our old 1160s and 7000s and such don't have a chipped cart. This was introduced by Epson for a reason(s). While they could have the printer and cartridge to talk to each other, it also allows them to control the carts. They want that control. All in the name of quality, they are making it harder and harder for tinkerer to open up machines and reset waste ink, etc. Knowing that you could n't lift the hood of your new car might keep you from buying it, and if the gas could only be put in at branded gas stations I bet many would avoid such vehicles. Epson looks like they want that kind of control. Write and complain to GW and his band of Free marketers that are locking up the free system. Eric Eric Neilsen Photo 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 214 827-8301 http://ericneilsenphotography.com SKype ejprinter -----Original Message----- From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:22 PM To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: Re: Epson Ink carts There are apparently points of law at issue re inkjet carts an ordinary citizen would fail to understand. For instance, although I can conceive of outlawing re-using the left-over Epson ink from Epson cartridges, I have trouble following the concept by which I am forbidden to put something different in a machine I've bought and paid for and kept on my own premises. That would be like saying I couldn't put a 3rd party tyewriter ribbon in my Smith Corona... Or make my own hubcaps for my Alfa Romeo. My current inkjet printer is a relic from the distant past -- an Epson 1160 -- which has done good service for years with 3rd party cartridges at $3 & $4 apiece. For what it's worth, I tested them against the manufacturer's originals in every way I could think of (light fastness, nozzle clogging, opacity, etc.) and found them at least equal, though I daresay the more complicated recent machines might not fare so well with 3rd party inks -- tho then again they might. In any event, with the money I saved I'm planning to buy a small island in the Pacific -- or maybe hire an expert to make negatives for me... But I suppose that the more advanced machines have more ways to hang up... tho my experience is that some folks are more adventurous in these respects than others. But I'd also say, Bob: Epson's "market share" does not fit the definition of "monopoly" as I understand it... and I expect new technology to come along any minute anyway & re-liberate us. PS: Speaking of inkjet printers; I noticed in the Photo Review auction catalog that probably half the prints were listed as "Archival inkjet," or "archival pigment prints", or like that. A few were alternative processes, and a larger few were "silver prints", but what struck me most of all was that the "estimated" auction price for inkjet prints seemed to be just what it would have been in traditional silver gelatin. There was meanwhile one print listed as -- are you ready ?-- "GLICEE" -- tho I don't remember if it was expected to bring a higher price. Judy On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, jfulton wrote: > If other companies produced inks as good as the present Epson stuff, and > those worked with the complicated printers, yes, that > guaranteed income Judy mentions, would diminish. These people out here use > the left over ink from spent cartridges so it's the > genuine thing but does come from various ages. Theoretically the inks show > their age whilst sitting in cartridges but pigmented > inks, as most o you know, lie in suspension and a good round or shaking is > helpful to maintain consistency in particular if you > use one of the large printers like I do (24" - 40"). The caveat, I suppose, > is the these 'mixed' inks might not be as supposedly > consistent as are the original manufactured product. To me the prime point is > reduction of waste and use of the product to its > very end. Do we all squeeze that tube of toothpaste to the finite > possibility? > > As for the 'other' printers, yes, they surely have become better. Like Toyota > overtaking GM they have emulated the best of their ilk. > Yet, what with the research, the new head and ink designs, and improved ICC > profiles, the Epson products provide, IMO, extremely > consistent and long-lived output and result. I have recently run well over > 1200 20x24 prints through my 7800 w/zero problems, > only one major head cleaning and perfect consistency . . . even after taking > three months off for travel. > > Jack > > > > On November2007, at 6:52 PM, Judy Seigel wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Trevor Cunningham wrote: >> >>> The lovely thing about monopolies is that they usually end up chopping >>> their own heads off. If anything, this opens a window of opportunity for >>> other companies to create similar technology and level the playing field. >>> In order to maintain their market share, Epson will have to keep prices >>> low, or play ball. >> >> I've had the impression that (like they say -- was it Gillette that gave >> the razor free, or nearly free and made its profit on the blades ?) Epson >> sells its printers more or less at cost and makes its profit on the ink -- >> or did. But, incredible as it may seem, I know folks who claim to have >> made very satisfactory prints/negatives with other makes of printer (HP & >> Brother come to mind, tho that may be just my mind)... In any event I >> would assume that totally blocking other strategies for ink without >> lowering the cost of its own cartridges would seriously affect total >> sales... as Trevor suggests. >> >> Judy >> >> >> >> >
|