MIS Refill Inks

(7/25/2001) Three samples of prints made using MIS Lightfast inks have now been in the ozone chamber for more than 8 weeks. Unlike the first sample, these were not supplied to me by MIS, but by three separate users of the ink. I last updated these pages when they were about 3 weeks old. How do they look at 8 weeks?

So far, they look a lot better than the OEM inks did at three weeks!. The control prints made with OEM inks were bright orange before two weeks was up. The matching prints with MIS inks now show somewhat more shift than they did at three weeks, but they're surprisingly good. Especially on 3rd generation PGPP.

I also have kept samples in a West facing window. This is a double pane, low-E window, so I'm sure it cuts down greatly on UV, but I think it's still a tougher test than the typical indoor environment. So far (after eight weeks), I can't see any fade or shift on any of the MIS samples. The OEM sample on the Office Depot paper shows a slight amount of shift toward brown. The other OEM samples look fine.

Click on the charts below to see scans of the latest ozone test samples here. In the meantime, all the samples are going back under test. I'll check them again in a couple of weeks, and report on my findings then. I'll keep testing them until they seem to reach some endpoint.

This link will show you a comparison of MIS vs. OEM inks, on the original, first generation PGPP paper. This paper's as bad as any I've ever tested, so it's an extreme test of the ozone shift resistance of the MIS inks.

Here's a comparison of MIS vs. OEM inks, on the current, third generation PGPP paper. It's much more fade resistant than the original paper, but as these scans show it's not immune.

And here's a comparison of MIS vs. OEM inks on Office Depot Premium glossy paper. There's been a lot of interest about this paper on one of the mail lists, because it does print very well. But with OEM inks it has very bad shift resistance.

Finally, here's a comparison of the MIS ink prints on the three different papers. To me, it seems clear that the 3rd generation PGPP has held up the best. I hadn't intended to continue this test beyond this point, but I've decided to put the 3rd generation PGPP print back in the ozone test to see just how long it lasts.

MIS Products for the Epson Photo Printers

MIS Associates (www.inksupply.com) has announced a wide variety of new products aimed at the current crop of Epson photo printers. These products should work with any printer that uses the T008 and T009 color cartridges and the T007 black carts.

They have refill kits available for the 870/875/1270 printers, and the other printers that use these same carts. MIS claims these inks to be the same as the ink Epson uses in their cartridges, "except for the Cyan and light Cyan which we have improved." MIS sells the same inks in bulk, at even lower per unit prices.

Interestingly, MIS says the chipped carts are even easier to refill than the other Epson carts.

Perhaps more surprising, MIS also has brand new, pre-filled, 3rd party cartridges for the 870/890, with 1270/80/90 carts due soon. These are NOT the ILRS system, with the chip reprogrammer. Each of these carts comes complete with a chip on the cart. MIS claims "The performance, coverage, and colors are exactly the same as the factory original Epson cartridges." But MIS also tells me the carts are made and filled in China, and that they "have no control or specific knowledge of the ink [the Chinese] are using." But these are not the same inks used in the MIS refill kits. The thought that occurs to me, though, is that if the Chinese are making brand new, chipped carts for this product, then empty carts for filling with any inks you choose can't be far behind.

And lo and behold, on April 12th I was informed by MIS that they will have empty 870 and 1270 carts available (made in China), probably in May. These carts will not have a chip. You'll need to remove the chip from a regular Epson cart, attach it to the new cart, and then follow the reset procedure to make it useable. So Be Sure To Save Your Empties!. An unfortunate note, however. Epson is suing a Chinese manufacturer of compatible ink cartridges. If Epson wins, this could put a serious damper on the supply of 3rd party ink carts. But they can't stop you from refilling genuine Epson carts, if you choose to do so.

The most surprising thing of all, at least to me, is that MIS has a continuous ink product for the 1270, chipped cartridges and all. MIS calls it a Continuous Flow System (CFS). To be frank, after reading the instructions, I don't think I have the nerve to try it. But if you're a high volume printer, the cost savings may well make it worth while. And I've heard from one user of this system that it's really not as complicated as it seems.

(5/21/2001) One user of this system, James Hill, has written a review of his experiences with the CFS. If you're considering the purchase of one, I highly recommend you read this.

But What About Orange Shift?

A few weeks ago, MIS sent me a print to test for longevity. So far, I've only done a preliminary ozone fade test. What? You'd like to know what the results? Oh, OK!

First, some basics: These are the bulk inks, not the chipped, pre-filled cartridges. Those cartridges do NOT contain the same inks, so nothing I discover in these tests can be applied to them. And these prints were made with the regular dye based inks for the 1270, not the archival inks. The unchipped carts which MIS says they're going to begin selling soon, will have these inks. I know, it's a bit confusing. Hopefully MIS will make the distinction clear on their web site.

Also, I did not make the print with the MIS inks. It was supplied to me by MIS. I don't think they cheated, but you should know.

I only had one test print of the photodisc target, so I had to test in a slightly different way than normal. I made a duplicate print using the OEM inks. I then cut both prints into a number of pieces, and placed half of those in the ozone chamber, the other half in my standard zip-loc-in-the-box control storage. Both prints were made on 3rd generation PGPP.

The color balance on the MIS print was noticeably cooler than that using the OEM inks. But I can't say whether that's a natural characteristic of the inks, or just a difference in the workflow, profiling and driver settings between my setup and theirs. The prints are not unpleasant, and viewed by themselves look only a little bit too cool for my taste. In any case, it wouldn't be hard to warm them up a little if you wanted to. And now, the drum roll, please....

Test Results

After the first several weeks in my ozone chamber, the orange shift on the OEM ink samples is obvious in comparison to the control print. The orange shift on the MIS ink samples is......not there!! But see below:

I'm not about to reach any conclusions about long term shift resistance based on three weeks, but this is certainly promising. I'm going to put the samples back in the ozone chamber for a few more weeks, and then check them again. And again, if necessary. I'm also going to put a couple of pieces of the control prints in my west facing window, and see how the MIS inks compare to the OEM ones in that environment.

A promising start. If the inks continue to hold up, and also do well in the window, I may start doing something I've never done before: buy 3rd party inks.

I am anticipating receiving some additional prints, of my standard test file, using the MIS 1270 compatible inks. I'll begin some additional testing as soon as possible.

Note that except for this one test I've never used MIS inks and make absolutely no claims for the quality or suitability of these products. I have no relationship with MIS at all. And when it comes to refilling, you're on your own. I've never refilled, so I can't give you any advice or offer any help.

(4/29/2001) I've had the sample supplied by MIS Associates (see above) in my ozone chamber for another 2 weeks, about 5 weeks total. How does it look?

The Epson OEM ink sample is dramatically orange. No one would need a comparison print to notice somethings wrong. The MIS ink sample, by comparison, looks very neutral. However, compared to the dark stored, sealed from air control sample, it isn't perfect. Originally, the MIS supplied print seemed very cool, with a bit of a blue tone to it. Now, it looks quite neutral. Black hair still looks black viewed in isolation, but when compared to the control sample it looks just a bit brown. The blues are, unfortunately, a bit weaker than they were originally. Results are still dramatically better than the OEM ink, but not perfect.

I've scanned a part of these samples, and adjusted the color balance to try to match what I see with the naked eye (because my scanner isn't all that accurate. I think you can readily tell the difference between the control and test samples. And if you can't tell the difference between the MIS and Epson inks, you must be color blind!

I've got prints of my standard test image, printed with MIS inks on three different papers, coming soon. I'll duplicate the prints with Epson OEM inks on each paper, and run some additional comparison tests. Check back here from time to time to see what's happening.

MIS Archival Inks

Joel Wilcox has printed copies of my test file on a number of papers using MIS archival inks in an Epson 1160, 4 color printer. He mailed them to me, and I put samples to the test in each of my test scenarios. These inks are pigment based, and are completely different than the dye based replacement inks discussed above.

Take a look at Joel's comments on the output quality, and see the results of my fade/shift tests.