Canon Compatible Black Pigment Ink 8oz 225ml PGI-5

[joyea]

Has anyone used this ink following? Thanks

Canon Compatible Black Pigment Ink 8oz 225ml PGI-5

from

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Compatibl...ash=item1e51aee968&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

 

[ghwellsjr]

Lots of people on this forum use that and other inks by Precision Colors. They are highly regarded. See this link for a discussion of this ink:

http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=25018#p25018

However, see this link for the reason why there will be a shipping delay:

http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=27517#p27517

 

[leo8088]

Has anyone used this ink following? Thanks

Canon Compatible Black Pigment Ink 8oz 225ml PGI-5

from

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Compatibl...ash=item1e51aee968&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

Look at the bar code shown in the link. It looks like a lot of bleeding on the bars. If that bar code is printed with the ink they sell the quality of the ink is not good. It defeats the purpose of using pigment black ink for printing documents. A good quality black pigment ink should produce sharp edges and lines with no/little bleeding.

 

[leo8088]

This is a sample print I just did on my ip4300. You can see what I mean the edges and lines should have no bleeding.

And this is a crop of a portion of it.

 

[on30trainman]

I use this pigment ink plus dye based color inks from this supplier and have very good results. The barcode does look a little ragged but the rest of the printing seems fine. Same with all the bottle labels I have for his inks. Could be the barcode software or scan he uses. Also his labels are printed on a very thin and somewhat coarse paper. Go more on the comments on this forum which are mostly very positive. I am a happy user of his inks.

Steve W.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Leo8088, you are comparing photos with scanned images. Note that your scans show pure white in the background whereas the photos show light grey speckles. This means you had very high contrast but the photos had normal contrast. You can see artifacts from jpeg compression showing on the photos (we don't know how much processing they went through before finally ending up on eBay as bitmaps). Your scans were created on flat paper on a flat scanner with absolutely even lighting whereas the photos are of a cylindrical object with uneven lighting. If you copy the photos to an application that allows you to enlarge them, there is so much pixelation around the edges of the black lines that you cannot tell what is causing it. I would not draw the conclusion that the appearance of jagged edges in the photos is representative of reality instead of image artifacts.

 

[leo8088]

Well, what I saw on the photo is bleeding of ink on the edges and lines. Scanned image is a photo too, isn't it? I scanned the print at 300 dpi so that it can show the exact detail (sharp and bold). If you see bleeding on edges and lines on the photo you will see it more clearly on a scan. Sorry, I thought I made an objective observation. I respect on30trainman's comment. I have no reason to suspect that he did not speak for his true opinion.

There are good reasons that the KMP brand (correct me if I remember it incorrectly) of black pigment ink from Germany is many times more expensive than any cheap Chinese competitions. You get what you paid for. But of course one can always choose to be cheap. Unfortunately not everyone is aware they get what they paid for. Try better quality ink and you will see differences.

 

[ghwellsjr]

No, a scanned image is not a photo because it is not taken with a camera. A scanned image of a flat original will always be much better than one taken with a camera because it has fixed optics and a very long exposure with a very bright light, as opposed to the original that is on a curved surface which cannot have the advantages of a scanner.

I would like to be able to buy the KMP brand of pigment black ink but they do not sell to USA customers.

 

[leo8088]

A photo can be produced in many ways. One of them is from scanning a negative or scanning a print. You can print the photo from the scan or disply the photo on the computer screen. A photo is a photo.

Before I posted the scan I had to apply heavy compression to reduce the size of the file. I am not going to argue between a photo and a scan, which I don't believe can not qualify as a photo, I am not the only one who can see the bleeding ink on the photo's bar code. If you are willing to believe that the bleeding bar code is a result of it being a photo how about let's all agree that the "photo's bar code" does show bleeding of ink? You can determine at will to believe that it is because it is a photo and not the real thing. To me and maybe others it is ink bleeding on the edges and lines. Dye based black ink does that always. If I can tolerate that I can use dye based black ink and pay cheaper cost.

 

[pebe]

Doesn't the bleeding say more about the paper than the ink?