[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Head-to-Head: Printer Manufacturers' Ink vs. Cheap Third-Party Ink here

[Datrebor]

It might just be me, even though the one the right still looks great, I can see a difference.

This in regard to pic #5: " The images above, printed using Kodak-brand ink in a Kodak Easyshare
5300 inkjet printer, were scanned before (left) and after (right)
exposure to artificially heightened levels of ultraviolet light for 80
hours. The printout faded by only 1.45 percent--an amount virtually
undetectable by the unaided human eye."

[forstevekc]

Have to wonder, since you do not have a heads up comparison on HP ink, Did HP pay PCWorld off to not compare their ink against others. And I have had excellent results with Walgreen's refills, when they will do it. HP, being on of the giants in printers was notably left out of the slide show. Shame on you PCWorld. Steve

[Dwaine]

I have personal experience with some of these socalled cheap cartridges for both ink jet and laser printers. The quality in no way matches the printer manufacturers quality. These cheap cartridges also fail and can ruin your printer. I know the printer manufacturers charge high prices, but until a reliable source comes along that's what we're stuck with. Clancy

[oldfellow]

Yes, it would be good to see a test of HP ink verses compatible.

Would show that PC World is above suspicion.

[rem1010]

I have used third party inks for years and never used the brands you have selected. I know that there are many differing qualities out there and even greater variations in price. Why not compare some of the DIY refill kits while you are at it? I buy my re-manufactured inks off the internet and have had some great results. Now, if you must compare printing pictures and photographs, then I think the choice of paper is more dramatic than the ink and have found that experimentation is required to get the best match, no matter what ink is used. I cannot place much weight into your tests based upon my own experiences and financial impact of those OEM inks. Also, I feel a real discrimination has taken place in favor of the OEM inks. The article is of little use due to the entire lack of responsibility of showing multiple 3rd party inks. Walgreens must be prominent in the world of consumer electronics, instead of over the counter drugs and prescriptions, like I thought they were. Come on! Do you take us for idiots or was the testing on a very tight budget and the tester had to WALK to obtain all the supplies? Sorry, but it seems to be snowing here in June!

[Roca]

I have been a PCWorld subscriber for at least 15 years. I have never seen them publish such an irresponsible article. How can you draw any conclusion from testing only 3 third-party ink suppliers? If I was one of those suppliers my hair would be on fire. I'm not a supplier but I'm bristling never-the-less. I do use third-party ink and am tickled with the quality and ecstatic with the price. For example, Staples gets about 11.50 for a Canon BCI-3eBk in quantity and 11.48 in quantity for the Staples brand. I'm paying a little over 2.00 delivered and the quality is great. I have not mentioned the vendor because I don't want anyone to think that I'm the vendor pushing my own goods.

PCWorld - shame on you. This review, which did offer some interesting insight for nubbies, is not up to your usual standard.

[velvetmoxie]

Three times I have purchased non-oem ink for my printers. One printer was a Lexmark; the other two were Canons. Although the quality of the prints was not bad out of the box (using photo paper, of course) I did find that they faded rather quickly (all three times were different third party inks) but that wasn't the worst of it. The worst was that all three clogged up my printer jets over time causing me to have to replace the printer. Since I generally purchase expensive photo printers I think I'll stick with the Canon inks! Although they're not cheap, for my use they last quite a long time and there are "sets" you can buy that really aren't all that expensive. My printer takes 7 tanks so I really don't run out all that often.

[cbcaldwell]

Shame on PC World! That review/article is not worth reading!
CBC

[Ozark]

This was an interesting article.

The vast majority of my printing is done in Black & White using inexpensive paper and refilled cartridges.

For photos I have a dedicated printer where I use OEM ink and quality paper.

I save a small fortune by refilling my OEM printer cartridges and Laser toner cartridges. My Epson printer was a little tricky. I wrote a guide on the refilling process:

Save a fortune on refilling Epson cartridges

No, I'm not trying to sell you something:)

Don

[abbiethekitty]

I am a quilter. I have made quilts where I printed pictures onto treated fabric. I have taught classes for this. My students have occasionally used third party inks.
I have had some of them completely fade when washed.
I use HP ink in my HP printer and have a quilt I made in 2000 that has been displayed under fluorescent light in a quilt store and also at home with no noticable fading in almost 9 years now.
I have the students test their ink by washing one of two identical samples. They can then compare them to see what the ink will do when washed.
I would never use 3rd party inks after seeing some of the results.

[Datrebor]

I did not noticed before but you are right not lonely is there NO comparison with HP itself or third party ink but the only shot with Kodak is before and after 80 hours of UV light not against third party ink but Lexmark 4 times and Canon 2 times. They must have something about them.

I think this depends on the job you are printing if not a picture that needs to last for over 5 years or its text, then the third party ink will work just fine IMO.

[Anysia]

The banding has to do with print head, not the quality of ink. With 3rd party cartridges you do need to adjust the default printing settings, as they are set for the Branded cartridges. So, I find your side by side comparisons a bit suspect. I have been using 3rd party carts for years and years, and don't get the lousy results you are posting up there. Fading? Put your printed photos, no matter what manufacturer of the ink, under cover, like in a glass covered picture frame, or plastic sheath, like with regular film prints, will keep them from fading. I have my wedding photograph, printed on my old Canon BJC 2100, and it's still bright and colorful in its frame.

[oldfellow]

I have checked our (New Zealand)Consumer Institute site, and on a test of 28 Mulitfunction Printers , they found that HP Officejet Pro L7580 was one of those recommendedl

I am glad I got one about 6 months ago , and for about $200 less than the price on the Consumer site. So that the "But- Resonably Expensive" comment doen't apply to me.

It gets rated as a good print quality -good scanning,very reliable AND ! - EXTREMELY CHEAP PRINTING COST FOR PHOTOS, COLOUR GRAPHICS AND TEXT.

( NB- The 3 other printers also recommeded were CANON. )

I have no need to go for alterative inks for this printer.

I did however use such ink when I had an Epson - for about 5 years - no problems..

Conclusion- HP printers give good results , don't need to collude with PC World to get good reviews

[Bartylby]

You have got to be kidding me about using Walgreen's inks in this test. They simply squirt more ink in without cleaning or emptying the old inks! What ink they use is also suspect. I remanufacture my own line of inkjets using state of the art equipment and ink, replacing internal components and test printing every inkjet before it gets packaged. OEM, by its own admission has a 2% failure rate straight from their factories. I have less than 1% when I remanufacture mine! I would gladly send you a set of mine for the comparison including an entire line of HP's if you'd like them. But then again, the OEM's are quaking enough and I think you might have different results using professionally remanufactured inkjets vs. "drill and fill" or illegal knock offs from overseas passed off as OEM by unscrupulous companies here in the US. No one here has mentioned the illegal clones that are inundating the market and ruining peoples printers. No one here has mentioned that the large OEMs are being pounded in overseas EU courts for misleading information and bad business practices. Buyers need to be wary of all the different recycling methods and choose a company with good products and customer service. Thanks.

[rem1010]

I AGREE! with you! Thanks for being clear and stating the problem with this article!
If Walgreens sells this type of product, I would be leary of their drugs and other GENERIC stuff.
The article makes Walgreen sound like a place to avoid.
If you sell your cartridges, please email me your product line and any other information.
I cannot promise you sales, but I am looking for your quality of a product.

[Bartylby]

You have got to be kidding me about using Walgreen's inks in this test. They simply squirt more ink in without cleaning or emptying the old inks! What ink they use is also suspect. I remanufacture my own line of inkjets using state of the art equipment and ink, replacing internal components and test printing every inkjet before it gets packaged. OEM, by its own admission has a 2% failure rate straight from their factories. I have less than 1% when I remanufacture mine! I would gladly send you a set for the comparison including an entire line of HP's if you'd like them. I think you might have different results using professionally remanufactured inkjets vs. "drill and fill" or illegal knock offs from overseas passed off as OEM by unscrupulous companies here in the US. No one here has mentioned that illegal clones are inundating the market and ruining peoples printers. Most of the companies listed buy them from overseas! (Made in China)

[ewol]

I was surprised to see Lexmark used for some tests. Lexmark has always had a striping problem. Still does apparently. I now use Epson, which never has a striping problem, and Clickinks work fine.

[forstevekc]

Thank you for your response and would enjoy a suggestion for my own refill for HP inkjets. I was in no way trying to support Walgreen but was trying to point out that the article blatantly left HP out of the Head to Head comparison. Your suggestion will be honored and I will try to refill one myself.
Steve

[forstevekc]

Now your comment has real value. You brought up an entire other area of inking needs that I am sure most of us never thought about. Actually, I use trademarked HP inks most of the time. But, I really want this article to give me some in depth research into a good reason as to why to buy their inks over other after market inks. This article failed in it's entirety. Maybe Consumer Reports would take up this issue. Thanks for your response to my comment. Steve