U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Epson Ink carts

RE: Epson Ink carts

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, EJN Photo wrote:


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
Exactly -- that's one of the reasons (besides inertia) I've stayed with the 1160 so long.... and one of the reasons when I have to bite the bullet and get a real grown up printer, I will think HP, or whatever.... when that awful moment comes.

Meanwhile, I suffer more brain damage from another mail program I use when I MUST take a photo (or other) attachment and it is more pernicious, irrational, hostile, unpredictable and generally hateful than even my late mother-in-law (tho I hasten to add that her only son, my husband, is as close to saint as I deserve, closer even).

I've grown up thinking of myself as reasonably intelligent, at least among, say, the upper 50th percentile. That strange mail program (not this one, which is Pine -- that other one) reduces me to blithering fuming idiocy... I can only lay a pox on it and every one of its ugly pixels.

Who has an INTELLIGENT mail program that will work on Mac System 10. I need at times to take an attachment. I gave up years ago on several, like Outlook Express (I think it was) that had 3 and 1/2 menus. Oh well, I'd lay money they've only gotten more complicated. (Folks reccomend g-mail, but the original registry gave me brain death. I'm looking for brain first aid.)

PS. Eric says > Write and complain to GW and his band of Free marketers that are locking up
the free system.
GW ???? He doesn't use a printer. Does he know what a printer is? I think we should band together and create a co-operative to make a printer for negatives. Or surely there's a digital genius who can unchip a chip. On the 3rd hand I've heard it said that the new Epsons carry more ink so are not that prohibitively expensive to use. Is that true?

J.







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