Review/Comparison between Ink Republic (IR) and InkJetFly (IJF) inks for the Epson r1800 and r800

 

Before I begin my review/comparison, I would like to give some equipment info and background. I am currently using 3 Epson printers. An r1800 with OEM inks, an r800 with IJF CIS and IJF inks, and an r800 with IJF CIS and IR inks. I have Monaco Optix XR Pro, a Pulse ColorElite and Gamutworks and Colorshop X, allowing me to make custom profiles, and see how large the gamuts are and how the colors measure. This journey started when I decided, after reading many posts about CIS systems, that I would like to try one. I had previously used MediaStreet inks in my old Canon i960 printer, and had problems, so I ruled them out. I found that the overwhelming majority of people liked the inks from IR and MIS. These inks are the same, and are made by Image Specialists. I looked at both of their CIS systems, and was about to place an order. Right before I did, I started to see some posts about InkJetFly's CIS systems. I took a look, and really liked the design, and the price could not be beat, as long as it worked! I "really" liked the design, so I purchased the IJF CIS. Now, many people have their own opinion on which CIS unit is the best. This article is not about that. I am sure there are quite a few out there, that provide good usage, and cause little to no problems, like clogging. I will let others talk about that.

Personally, I think CIS systems have two important subjects. The units themselves, and the ink set. I went with the IJF CIS unit for the design and price. As long as it worked, I saw no point in spending more money on another design. I have read countless posts that show how well the IR CIS units work also. So, like I said, it seems that more than one CIS unit will work well. I am interested in the inks. Which ink set will give me the most accurate prints. I took a gamble on the IJF, since it seemed newer and less info on the message boards, compared to the IR ink set. After the install, which went well, I did a few test prints with their provided profiles. They were "ok". I then printed up color patches to make my own profiles. After printing, using my own profiles, I still thought the prints were a little "off". A little "dull". It almost seemed like I needed to add a little more contrast to my picture, before printing. But since I had an r1800 with OEM inks, and those prints were fine, I knew it was the IJF inks. I contacted IJF, and Leo responded quickly. He said he hadn't had any reports about "dull" looking prints before, and I started to think I might be a little too picky. This entire time, the CIS unit itself was working well, so I knew I wanted to continue to use a CIS. I just wasn't 100% satisfied with the output. I decided to get IR inks, and try them. So I got another IJF CIS, but empty, and got some IR inks. I was going to just switch out the CIS units, but thought that would be a lot of work, plus it would be more difficult to compare them. So I purchased a second r800. Now I had 3 printers, all with different inks, so I could easily test them.

Once I got the IR inks set up, I went and made custom profiles. After printing test images, I immediately saw improvement over the IJF prints. I compared all three prints. IR, IJF, OEM. As many people have said before, the OEM prints have more "gloss" to them. These two 3rd party inks have good gloss, just not "as much" gloss. I got used to it, and actually rather prefer the reduced glossiness. I printed out the same file with all 3 inks, on Ilford Pearl, and let them dry overnight. I then let them soak in water for a half hour. Every ten minutes, I checked for bleeding. I also rubbed the prints, to see if they would smudge. All 3 inks passed. I am not worried about water resistance on any of these inks. I was all ready to switch over to the IR inks, but one thing kept nagging at me. When I look at the profiles for all three ink sets, the IJF inks have the largest gamut. Even larger than the OEM inks. The IR ink set was close to OEM. I wanted to switch to IR inks, but disliked the idea of lost gamut. Below you can see some examples of the larger gamut that the IJF ink set has.

(These plots were made from measurements from IJF and IR prints. The colors measured were out of gamut: pure Red, Blue, Green, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow. The IJF inks measured closer to actual colors, than the IR inks. Each color plotted, the IJF is the outer plot. You can see that the IJF inks' gamut is considerable in the reds and blues.)

 

 

 

I continued to measure the inks. Since the IR prints looked just like the OEM prints, less the glossiness, I put the OEM prints to the side for awhile. I measured the colors, and as gamutworks showed, the IJF prints measured larger gamut. But what I found was that the IJF blacks were not very dark. When measuring, the IR blacks were about as black as OEM. Well within 3 delta, which most people cannot notice a difference. The IJF blacks however, were way off, compared to the other two. And even to my eye, the blacks looked more like really dark grays. Once I reached about 37,37,37 rgb, all things evened out. But that is a lot of dark shades missing and loss of shadow detail in prints. I spent A LOT of time on the forums, to see if I could find anything out. Greg, you know who you are, helped me immensely, on understanding how to use the Pulse and measurements. I was also told by many that ink density could play a role in all of this. And that if the ink is laid down too heavily, that the blacks could actually become "muddy", and become less dark. Well, unfortunately, the r1800 and r800 do not have the ability to lower ink density. So whether this is the reason why the IJF black inks perform the way they do, I do not know, nor does it really matter, since we cannot correct for it, if it is the reason. I contacted Leo, at InkJetFly, and he was interested in what I found. I explained what I had found and my concerns. He was confident that his colors were very good, and my measurements agree to that. He did mention that one customer had used an OEM black in his IJF CIS and it was working well. I was willing to try that, but Leo did not like the idea that the IR inks provided better blacks. He seemed to genuinely want to provide the best product that he could. He suggested that I substitute the IJF blacks for IR blacks, but use IJF colors, and see what results I could get. I figured, what the heck, since I would be dumping out the IJF blacks anyways, to use OEM ,or totally switch over to IR ink set.

I flushed the dampers, tubing, and carts. I then purged the printer, by printing 5 full pages of black and grays. I then made new profiles. To my amazement, the prints were not "dull" anymore. They looked just like OEM, and matched my monitor. I still do not totally understand how only the blacks can influence the entire picture, but they do. The black must play an important role regarding Dmax of the entire print. I guess it does make sense. With the shadow details darker, it makes it seem like there is more contrast, hence removing that "dull" look. At any rate, I now had prints that I was happy with. I remeasured, and obviously the blacks measured the same as the IR ink set. So now I had the darker blacks, AND the larger gamut. I tried out all my usual test prints, then regular pictures. Everything is printing out great. Leo said that he was concerned that his blacks may not be "dark" enough. After he did his own research, he agreed that the IR blacks, both the photo and matte blacks, measured out to be darker, and that it is noticeable in prints.

I guess here is where I would normally stop and give a conclusion that from my findings, if you want the largest gamut, and dark blacks (better shadow detail), for the r1800 or r800, then I recommend the InkJetFly colors, and IR (Image Specialist) blacks. Most companies want to hear good reviews about their products, but few will actually take those reviews, and/or comparisons, especially those who may show a problem, and use them to make their product or service better. But if you remember, I said that it seemed that Leo, at InkJetFly, genuinely wanted to provide the best product he could. To my surprise, Leo contacted me, and told me that he was doing something about all of this. I am extremely happy to say, that InkJetFly will actually be switching over to Image Specialists' black inks for their CIS. I don't know how much InkJetFly had invested in their own stock of black inks, or how much more or less the Image Specialists' inks cost them. But this obviously demonstrates InkJetFly's commitment to their customers. They are willing to keep improving their products. I have no affiliation with any of these companies, besides the fact that I have purchased from each of them. I have however, emailed InkJetFly on numerous occasions, discussing my concerns about the "dull" appearance I was initially getting, and my tests and the results. In combination with that and findings of their own and feedback from others, They have decided to make this switch. They knew I would be posting my comparison soon, and thought it would be a good time to announce their switching of the black inks. I don't have all the specifics, but I do have some info to share. InkJetFly already has black ink from Image Specialists being delivered to them. The switch will not be in full effect for a month or two. They do not want potential customers to have to wait that long though, so to those who make purchases before the switch is made, InkJetFly will supply those customers with the ImSp blacks, once they have them ready to go. Allowing them to change blacks later, with IJF's support. I was told that the customer will get replacement dampers and cart, so they won't have to purge the entire thing, just the tube, and print a few black sheets to purge the printerhead. I think that about raps it up. I have spent a lot of money on my camera equipment, all the way to my printer paper, and I want to get the most out of it all. As far as printing goes, I am very happy with my Epson r1800 and r800's. I have put two InkJetFly CIS units through their paces, and have not had any trouble at all. I have been getting working nozzle checks, and no banding. And just as important, if not more so, I have found a great ink set. Taking the best blacks, and best colors, and putting them together, I am sure I will be using InkJetFly's ink set for as long as I am using these printers. The money we save on ink, gives us the freedom to print more, and nothing is more satisfying, than holding your own work in your hands, or looking at it, hanging on the wall.

Lastly, no matter which inks you decide to use, even with OEM inks, if you want to get the most out of them, and get accurate colors, you need to have custom printer profiles made. Even on OEM inks, you will see an improvement over the "canned" profiles that are provided by the manufacturers.

Side note: Some people may wonder if I am going to switch over to the IJF CIS for my r1800, since I am happy with the results. For now, the answer is no, for two reasons. One, I have a box full of OEM inks to use up first. Second, Light fading is still in question. I have had prints in the window for about a month now, and all inks are holding up fine. But I sell some of my prints, so I need to be more sure. I plan to keep the prints in the window during this spring. If the IJF prints resist fade, which so far they are, then I will switch my r1800 to a CIS also. I have read that many people who sell their prints, use these inks, so I am assuming fade tests have been done before, so I am confident that my tests will give good results also.