nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Well I am glad someone has shown some proof . I Have been pushing for years now trying to convince hoggers to ditch 3rd party inks . They are crap , I personally screwed 2 small printers early on . The printer I now own is a canon IPF8300 a 44inch wide printer before I got it the previous owner I worked for went thru 3 heads a year . There are 2 heads in the printer $450,00 each .when I got the printer I purged the ink in it installed 2 new heads running now on OEM only inks I am 6 months into the 3rd year .I recently found out that Canon uses glycerin in their inks as a lubricant since the heads use heaters to create pressure to spray from the nozzles it is also a coolant for each nozzle group . This is the tech used on most of the pixma line of printers. The new Canon pro 4000. Has the head come to rest in a pool of glycerin the nozzles slightly below the surface of the glycerin with negative pressure moving glycerin into the nozzles . I seriously doubt 3 party inks use glycerin in their inks....

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Ok - actual proof. I have been a proponent of LD products but can't argue with the results you present. Thanks for providing actual examples rather than speculation as we normally get here ! (although I think you can be banned from UHH for supplying actual proof !!). In the limited tests I have done, I did not see any difference but never put things directly in the window. Thanks for sharing the results.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

We stopped using 3rd party inks when they clogged my Wife's 30 inch Roland printer heads.
It was a 1000 dollar lesson that wont be repeated.

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Something about the results confused me - how were the photos facing ? Looks like some type of cellophane tape was on the front of both papers. So was the back of the photo touching the window or were they mounted on something and facing a window ? Your results either way still show the same conclusion, just curious. Also, just an observation, looks like UV protection sprayed on the prints would have evened out the results as evidenced by the area covered by the tape (but still Canon ink seems to outperform).

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Also not to be forgotten , pigment inks are more stable in sunlight than the dye based counterparts with Canon Lucia Inks and Epson pigment based inks lasting a minimum of 100 years when properly mounted with UV glass or giclee coatings.. or acrylic panels ..

DaveD65 Loc: Queen City, Ohio

the prints were mounted on a piece of white foam board with a patch of cellophane tape, placed in my bedroom window that faces due west.

DaveD65 Loc: Queen City, Ohio

Not all organic pigments are anti-fade, rhodamine, red lake c and even rubine are faders. Yellows are notoriously bad as well.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Another example for doing things right if we way a print to last. That also includes the framing...... Which had been discussed here many times.

Thanks for sharing.