For the last ten years or so, I've been helping my brother in law by scanning and restoring old photographs and slides for his casino collectibles business. Traditional prints that are less than 30 years old have degraded markedly. The paper and emulsion are brittle and the colors have shifted or faded. Slides and negatives are particularly hard hit.
By the time a photograph, slide, or negative is 40-50 years old, the color maps are so damaged that restoration is more art than science.
All the prints my brother in law sells are done on an inkjet printer, and come with a 30 year replacement guarantee. In the ten years I've been helping him, not one person has requested a replacement. Keep in mind that the inks and papers of ten years ago don't have anywhere near the same permanence ratings as their modern counterparts.
If you want actual facts on the permanence of inkjet prints, or traditional prints, you should try Wilhelm Imaging Research. There is a wealth of free information there about the preservation of photos, slides, etc. They'll even give you a free copy of their 768 page book (in pdf):
"The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures"
In a study from that site, they found that Ektacolor 37 RC paper (Process EP-3) "Kodacolor Print" when processed by Kodak had a 10% fade of the image dye in just 10 years, and that doesn't take into account the "gradual formation of a yellowish stain" which "...may become objectionable" in the same 10 year period.
From the same site, they have found that many inkjet prints (depending on the ink, paper, and storage conditions) can last longer before suffering the same level of fading. In particular, the Epson Picturemate Personal Photo Lab has a "Display Permanence Rating" of 104 years (with proper handling).
The only way to truly archive images is to digitize them, but images stored on a cd or dvd will rarely be viewed. In the real world there has to be a print. If you'll actually go to the site above, and do some studying, you'll find that modern inkjet printers can produce excellent results.
Yes, taking a flash card up to the corner drugstore (or Walmart or whatever) will be cheaper and easier, but if you're talking about prints for sale, or to go into a family album, a good inket printer and supplies are a better choice.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 86
-
-
So, HP stands for:
High Price,
Hiked Products,
Hello Poverty,
Heaven Prevent,
Hell (to) Pay,
H'ouch Please !
Holly Printouts !
Handover Plenty,
anymore ? -
Originally Posted by adam
From my own experience the only difference between an original and a generic ink-cartridge has been the price. And I would think HP (considering their current cartridge prices) could use a cheaper version available for their printers to stay competitive.
Ofcourse, that's partially what patents are for isn't it? To undermine the free market, establish monopoly and make sure that companies don't have to stay competitive. -
Originally Posted by Vovin
Where did I ever say that all generic cartridges are stolen, or infringing, or anything else?
I also wouldn't agree at all with your description of patents but that's another issue.
Originally Posted by Vovin -
Originally Posted by hech54
It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.
Originally Posted by hech54
It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.
Originally Posted by hech54
Of course, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.
Originally Posted by hech54
And, I sense a theme here... but it should be noted that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.
Originally Posted by hech54
Thread hijacking is still wrong.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.
Just my thoughts,
-Bruce -
In a way you are correct Bruce. My point is that I've been here a long time and I constantly see the same people over and over again starting and/or avidly participating in threads such as these....and the same ones also chime in vigorously on threads concerning Cover Sites being out of commision, down, or even the quality of such covers on cover sites. They also seem to flock to threads concerning DVD Rental places/prices/maximum number you can rent at one time....etc etc etc.
And of course the most common response is "what if you(I) don't own a scanner?"....pretty funny. Hundreds of dollars in burners, blank printable media and Factory Pressed DVD's that require better artwork than Hollywood provides....leaves them with a lack of enough funding to buy a scanner in order to scan the original covers?
Coincedence indeed.... -
I just bought a new printer and it was ... an EPSON LOL
My first "really nice" color inkjet was an HP only because the store I could get credit at only carried HP. I really wanted an EPSON ... both the HP and the EPSON were about $500 to $600 (this is a few years ago mind you when prices were higher).
Just a few months after buying the HP I started dating a woman that had the EPSON I had wanted to buy. Although the HP was decent ... even "very" good ... the EPSON blew it out of the water.
Never another HP for me!
- John "FulciLives" Coleman"The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
-
If they would spend that much time working on Printer drivers, they would be a perfect solution.
They have good hardware for the most part but drivers have always stopped people from getting them.
LS -
Even HP cartridges get clogged.
Suggested method from HP representative to unclog.
Bang it hard on the side opposite the nozzles on a hard object to wit a desk, a few times till you see some ink ooze out of the nozzles.
That is the equivalent of
Kick it if it doesn't work.
Anyway, I have couple of HP ink jet printers and always use HP cartridges.
The usage is very low.
If it was high, considering the prices I would go for refilledgeneric cartridges.
Price of two cartridges (color+black) is almost that of a printer in my country. -
I've been buying refurbed HP cartridges for a couple of years now from premiumink.com. Their quality has been as good as the originals. About 2 months ago I placed an order, and it vanished! I contacted them and they did not have any record of it. So I went to put in my order again and voila, disclaimers about their ink not being the same as HP's and now they're advertising new HP's right next to their refurbs. Also their refurbed prices seemed to be bumped up about $5, but still not a bad deal with free shipping. I don't ever remember seeing any of this before...it looks like the HP lawers sat down with them and made an offer they couldn't refuse...
Usually long gone and forgotten -
So like I said, manufacturers are free to make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want, they just have to come up with their own ink formula (or use something off patent), they can't steal another's.
As to stealing HP's ink formula, modern ink formulas are kind of like a recipe, with lots of different ingredients. So far, HP has only asked Cartridge World "to stop using inks with the same chemical composition that's found in its patented brand of Vivera inks", so there aren't any legal documents to show the details of the claim.
Earlier this year, though, HP did file a lawsuit against InkCycle, which HP won in June of this year. In that case, HP cited infringements on three of their patents: 5,165,968; 5,428,383 and 5,488,402.
Here's the abstract of 5,165,968:
"If a small amount of alcohol (about 0.05 to 6 wt %) is added to water-based inks for thermal ink-jet printing, the resultant print has a rapid dry time and improved smear resistance. In addition, a high quality print is obtained, even on plain paper."
So, if you add a little alcohol to your ink, it will dry faster and smear less. I guess that's why Sharpies have a little alcohol in their inks. Tatoo inks also contain alcohol, as do other inks. Did HP originate the idea of using alcohol in ink? No, but HP does indeed have a patent on the addition of alcohol to ink used in a thermal ink-jet printer.
The other two patents are really just one feature of ink, and concern using a "precipitating agent" (in this case, a multi-valent metal salt) in the inks so that where two inks come together, they react and make a precipitate that acts like a little dam to keep the inks from running together. Again, this is nothing new. Even plain paper uses an alum-rosin mix (for example) so ink stays put, instead of spreading out like you get with blotting paper. But yes, HP does have patents for the specific chemicals they use as precipitating agents (as do Epson, Lexmark, etc).
So, at least in the case against InkCycle, three ingredients of the ink recipe they used were patent infringements. The entire rest of the ink formula (dyes/pigments, carriers, etc) apparently did not infringe HP patents, meaning InkCycle did (mostly) "come up with their own ink formula".
Given the above, I really don't think it's fair to infer that "compatible" ink manufacturers are stealing HP's formula for ink. In the InkCycle case, they used a couple of the same ingredients in their recipe, paid for it, and theoretically are now using completely their own ink formula.
Given HP's history of vigorous litigation, either InkCycle, Cartridge World, and others made a simple mistake in some of their choices for ingredients, or they have really, really stupid management. Is there such a thing as accidental theft?
By the way, cyflyer, you missed "Huge Profits". -
WTF, does anyone read posts before challenging them anymore?
So like I said, manufacturers are free to make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want, they just have to come up with their own ink formula (or use something off patent), they can't steal another's.Originally Posted by VegasBud
Originally Posted by VegasBud
I'm not going to argue semantics about what "mostly" coming up with your own ink formula means. Each patent is a separate invention. If you infringe on it you have stolen that invention, that's just how patents work it doesn't matter if 99% of the rest of the formula was your own.
And no there is no such thing as accidental theft and theft only applies to tangible goods anyway. A patent infringement could easily be considered accidental stealing but that doesn't really mean anything since neither culpability nor negligence are elements of a patent infringement claim. -
Originally Posted by adam
Originally Posted by VegasBudOriginally Posted by adam
4872027
4635273
4827294
4992802
5409134
4680859 -
Yes if you infringe on any patent it can get you into trouble. I don't see what this has to do with my any of my statements or even this thread.
I could have said ink manufacturers can't infringe on any patent, I could have brought up trademarks and copyrights, and product label requirements or anything else. But since this thread is about ink that's all I bothered mentioning. -
A long time ago, HP used to bring out inovative products at affordable prices.
These days, as I read, HP is losing money in all their divisions, including printers, except their consumables (printer ink and paper). This leads to a single conclusion. They overprice their consumables.
I won't argue that HP spend a fortune to bring out better ink and paper. All their competitors do so (Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc) and if they want a market share they have to compete hard. And they have a right to get back their invested money.
But offseting their company-wide losses from ink ???
Apart from that, all low cost (<140$) printers use inks that are overpriced, no matter what make they are. The best way to save money on ink is to buy a more expensive printer that uses cheaper ink more economically.
I am an Epson user, and I have experience from both professional printers (e.g. Stylus Color 1520) and cheap personal printers (e.g. C64). The 1520 original inks are half the price of what the C64 inks cost and they print almost twice as much. Same story with the Stylus Photo 1200 series - although the inks are a bit pricey, the print much more than what the C64 do.The more I learn, the more I come to realize how little it is I know. -
Originally Posted by CaptainVideo"What? Huh?!? WHAT will come out no more?!?" Jack Burton -- BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA
-
This whole industry has got to change. They are giving away the printers, and price gouging on the ink. I am surprised no one has filed a lawsuit against all printer manufacturers, for their FIXED PRICING of consumables!
I got an Epson R200 and this d*mn thing is programmed to waste ink every time you turn it on. It goes through a priming process. Just for the heck of it, I power cycled the printer about 10 times. Guess what, a couple of the cartridges wasted 1/4 ink. There is no way I'm paying $70 for a set of tiny ass cartridges with little ink. I would not even pay $40. Look back at older inkjet printers. 10 years ago, you got a printer that came with cartridges filled with a lot more ink. Even if it was one cartridge, the amount was more than these multi-cartridge printers. -
Epson is currently in litigation regardings its ink consumption. The suit alleges that the Epson software locks further printing, claiming the cartridges are empty, while there's still 33% more ink left in the cartridge! The numbers are calculated using actual Epson cartridges though which I never used after my initial ones went dry. Using generics of all kinds, the ink level gauge seems pretty accurate to me.
But I hear ya, everytime you put in another cartridge it uses about 10% ink from all cartridges in the priming process. -
I agree with both of the previous replies regarding Epson and HP. I leave my HP printer on continuously to avoid the issue of having that happen. I went to HP because the Epson 777 I used to have would prime itself EVEN BEFORE A PRINT JOB and EVEN WHEN I LEFT THE DAMN THING ON ALL THE TIME. It may be 1 or 2 days before I printed something, but that printer would decide that "enough time has elapsed" to require priming. I think Epson is the worst offender, though.
Bottom line...ignore the low ink warning and keep printing until you notice a degradation in print quality. I did that on BOTH printers...except the Epson will "prime" itself just about every time."What? Huh?!? WHAT will come out no more?!?" Jack Burton -- BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA -
Originally Posted by Wile_E
Guess they got you coming or going though.... :P
Here's my pet peeves about my Epson Stylus Photo 820:
1. You gotta use ink to clean.
2. Even if there's only one jet clogged you have to clean all the jets.
3. I have a single cartridge for color, I'm pretty sure there's lots of certain colors left. More waste....
4. Black ink even if brand new doesn't work unless you have a "good" color cartridge installed.....
5. The 220mb required install... WTF requires 220mb?
6. The "you ink cartidges are low, do you wish to purchase" nag screen that just will not go away no matter what you do, doesn't matter what you select it's there and on top constantly if the cartridges are low.
~~~ -
Originally Posted by canadateck
Ever open an ink jet printer...It has a soaker at the bottom to soak all those ink purge during head cleaning and start-up. $$$ down the soaker....
-
thecoalman:
A couple of the items on your pet peeve list can be taken care of by using the freeware program SSC Service Utility. The program site says it does support (among many other models) the "Epson Stylus Photo 810 / 820". It only works on Epson printers, but it lets you do things like:
-freeze the ink counters (levels)
-reset the ink levels (even on an empty cartridge)
-separate the head cleaning
-etc. -
Yes Canon compatable ink is so cheap on Ebay it makes no sense buying overpriced fancy boxed Canon ink.
I pay £16 for 20 compatable carts (12B, 8C) while the local shop charges £21.99 for 2 oem carts (1B, 1C), but what would i know those 20 carts are for piracy reasons. -
Originally Posted by e404pnf
-
Originally Posted by CaptainVideo
Is a 20 year monopoly needed to recoup the cost of investment and make a profit from printer ink? Probably not. However, very few patents are actually profitable for the whole life of the patent (to be honest many patents are never profitable). This is because most inventions are patented years before they actually come to market. This is especially the case outside the US where the priority date is the date of application not the date of invention (I think the US is the only country to use the date of invention but could be wrong). Moreover, in a fast paced technological field, new (non-infringing) patents often leave old patents obsolete, reducing the profitable lifespan even further.
So the actual marketable life span of a patent is very rarely 20 years. But what is the alternative? If this was reduced it no longer becomes economically viable to patent, and companies rely on secrecy and non-disclosure agreements that would last a long longer than 20 years, such as the Coca-Cola recipe. While this would be feasible for some industries, others which require complete disclosure (I'm particularly thinking of the pharmaceutical industry) would grind to a halt without a 20 year patent*.
- e404pnf
* To be wholly accurate the term of a pharma patent is often extended beyond 20 years to allow for this reduced marketable life and the huge costs in bringing a new drug to market. Also, The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (think that’s its name) in the US and the European equivalent that should be introduced in 2006, will enable Pharma patents to be extended a little further. -
Right, the completed software program is copyrighted, but the underlying code is patented. I see your point that patents can become obsolete quickly and that most patents don't make money, I guess a consequence of this is that some patent holders feel the need to make their patents as broad as possible. This is a problem, patents shouldn't be broad, they should be very specific in what they cover. The patent office unfortunately allows these broad patents to be approved and then they are used to stifle innovation.
And I agree when it comes to pharma companies. They should be given incentives. While they are private companies that are in the business to make money, their business is to improve our health. Something that should always be encouraged. -
CaptainVideo the source code of software can only be protected by copyright not patent. The application code is not protected at all. You can patent an invention which is implemented through software, like an algorithm, but there is no such thing as a software patent in the US. You just can't patent code of any kind at all. The invention has to exist on its own outside of any software program.
Patents are not broad and cannot be described as such in any sense of the word. Patents are positively narrow to the utmost degree. Change one little iota about the patented invention and you are no longer infringing. The patent office is extremely critical of patent applications. Most patents have to be submitted 3 times before they get approved. -
adam, that might be it in a black and white legal sense but that doesn't seem to be the case in reality. So many companies are using their patents to cover broad applications. Such as one company claiming to hold the patent for downloadable video across all technologies. That's just insane. I can understand for a specific way to download video, but this should not cover all ways.
The US doesn't have software patents? True enough, in a black and white sense, congress has not legislated software patents, however courts have allowed software patents and the courts have used a liberal interpretation of the 1952 Patent Act to allow it. Congress has not put a stop to it, so yes in a strict sense of law there are no software patents, yet because of courts companies do hold them. -
I don't know what patent you are referring to in your first paragraph. I don't believe I've ever seen what I would consider to be a broad patent as it applied to technology generally. I don't believe there is such a thing.
As for your second paragraph that is just complete nonesense. There is not 1 single software patent in existence in the United States. There is no such thing. General courts don't have the power to grant patents, only the Patent Office does and they flat out do not allow patents to be held in software because software is classified as a "mental step" process which fails all three of of the patent requirements. There are about 30 major Patent Court cases on this and they have all ruled the same way, software is non-patentable.
Similar Threads
-
resseting hp printer ink after refill
By cyprods in forum Off topicReplies: 1Last Post: 2nd Dec 2011, 21:08 -
Cracks in a disc.
By bizzybody in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 13Last Post: 6th Apr 2010, 18:14 -
This is what happens every time I refill the auto-feeder
By zzyzzx in forum Off topicReplies: 3Last Post: 17th Nov 2008, 18:38 -
radial cracks in DVDs
By AlanHK in forum MediaReplies: 8Last Post: 19th Nov 2007, 02:14 -
anyone tried Walgreen's inkjet refill service?
By spiffy in forum ComputerReplies: 8Last Post: 8th Aug 2007, 17:13