Image Specialists 10 year old formulation

[stratman]

TinHo:

You restated the points perfectly. The exact same formulations are not used for all three cartridge model types. There may be some overlap - a color that is the same - but not all colors are formulated the same. The reason for reformulation was technological changes, which I take to mean hardware and software changes for the printer models of a specific cartridge model.

This forum had user determined data on the Canon reformulation change from BCI to CLI-8 and then again some information on changes going from CLI-8 to CLI-221 IIRC. And, IIRC, Mikling had commented on an some reformulation of specific ink or inks with Image Specialists inks when looking at differences between cartridge model types (ie not within the same cartridge model). From your registration date, looks like you were around for at least some of that discussion.

The point, again, is Image Specialists stated no reformulation for the specific class of cartridges CLI-8 since it has been on the market. There is also evidence that Canon has not materially changed their CLI-8 inks since its inception based on the same ICM printer profiles used for the MP830, even if the MSDS was revised for some of the inkset.

 

[Tin Ho]

TinHo:

You restated the points perfectly. The exact same formulations are not used for all three cartridge model types.

Do you mean the formulation was changed from BCI-6 to CLI-8 to CLI-221? I can see different IS part numbers for Cyan ink for different cartridge models. But yellow and magenta inks have the same part number. This is the confusing part. The ink set may be considered re-formulated if one of some of the colors are re-formulated. But the yellow and the magenta are still the same. Don't you feel this is old formulation as Grandexp pointed out?

This forum had user determined data on the Canon reformulation change from BCI to CLI-8 and then again some information on changes going from CLI-8 to CLI-221 IIRC. And, IIRC, Mikling had commented on an some reformulation of specific ink or inks with Image Specialists inks when looking at differences between cartridge model types (ie not within the same cartridge model). From your registration date, looks like you were around for at least some of that discussion.

I remember Mikling's post. He claimed that Image Specialists ink set for CLI-221 is not perfect. He came up with a solution by mixing his own ink set. I believe he sells it in fact. It is a little odd that he did that. For one the ink will not be qualified as an IS formulation. 2ndly it's odd that the IS CLI-221 ink set has a problem that motivated him to mix his own ink.

 

[stratman]

TinHo:

My position is even if any of the inks of an inkset are from the previous cartridge model, not all the inks of the inkset are the same as the previous version. The inkset, the sum total of all the individual inks that make up a specific printers set of inks, is therefore reformulated to provide a proper balance necessary for Canon's desired color output. Precisely how many inks of a specific cartridge model are the same as the previous cartridge model, if any, is unknown to me. It is clear, however, that there were formulation changes made going from BCI to CLI-8, and again going from CLI-8 to CLI-221. The forum has data on this and the person I spoke with from Image Specialists stated the same as well. There has been no formulation changes to CLI-8 inkset since its been retailed per Image Specialists and inferred by my examination of the ICM printer profiles distributed by Canon.

It is a ridiculous notion that an ink formulation developed several years ago to match a specific set of printers is "old" or less. The printer and the ICM printer profiles are the same. The ink was developed to match OEM Canon output to provide consistency and customer satisfaction. The ink is current for the model printers it was designed for. Are you implying that something must necessarily be "updated" in this situation or else be considered less desirable?

I don't think I can say it better than I already have. I suggest you call Image Specialists and ask your questions directly to them.

 

[The Hat]

There is a good saying doing the rounds on this forum which is very appropriate..

You can lead a Horse to water But you cant make him Drink..

 

[Grandexp]

I called Image Specialists this morning. I asked a very simple and direct question. I said I have a Canon Pro9000. I asked if IS inks for Pro9000 ever get reformulated over time. I told the lady the reason I ask is I profile my ink from IS and I want to know if I would ever need to reprofile because the inks are reformulated. I was told they would reformulate the ink if they see a need to make improvement. At the moment they have no plan to reformulate and the ink has not been reformulated yet. The lady also said if the ink ever gets reformulated it will get new part number.

That's the end of my call. I got the answer I wanted. The ink will get a new part number if it gets reformulated. I didn't need to ask if WJ797 and WJ2032 were formulated 10 years ago. They were. Stratman, the hat, you guys are absolutely correct. Mules are stubborn and foolish sometimes. Want to see more?

You can call Image Specialists yourself to verify what I was told.

 

[LeeE]

I done a little checking and tend to agree with Grandexp about the ink formulations!
Except that the WJ2032 is Cyan (not magenta) Per the OctoInkjet site and the Image Specialists web sites!

I also noted that OctoInkjet showed Cyan for HP printers as WJ244 however the bottle picture showed Canon cyan WJ2032.

Checking the Image Specialists catalog I found that the WJ244 was compatible with Canon CLI-221C as well as some Epson and HP printers
This seems to indicate that even different part numbers may contain the same ink ( WJ244 and WJ2032 are apparently the same )

http://www.image-specialists.com/ca...&inkName=wj244&pagegrp=1&currPage=1&qsearch=1


Glad I didn't drink the water

 

[mikling]

I don't know what you guys are talking about because if a certain shade is required by the RIP inside the printer, why would you change it? The RIP wants to see the color and the printer is preprogrammed for it. Any changes or differences that an "improved" color that comes along by a third party gives something else up somewhere. If you don't understand what I've mentioned then forget the argument. Stratman alluded to this but it obviously went over the head of the other party.

Furthermore, can you imagine someone purchasing some OEM carts from a store that is transitioning the color changes in the same numbered OEM carts and the prints don't come out correct. This will never happen to think it should is ludicrous .

Now the fact is IS yellow 797 was changed over the 5 years I have handled it. The constituents in the yellow was changed, but the printed color did not measurably. No one mentioned that.

LeeE 244 and 2032 is not the same. Martin may have made a mistake in the pics but they are not the same. Neither is the correct match for the 221C BTW. Both are compromises based on feedback from customers but the main customers that pays IS bills don't want another color for the 221C. I have tried to create a better compromise but it still is a compromise nonetheless. Most thermal printheads require similar properties in their inks. Additionally, there is a lot of Canon engineering within HP printers nowadays and inks generally are interchangeable between the brands in similar applications but not always so.

 

[LeeE]

LeeE 244 and 2032 is not the same. Martin may have made a mistake in the pics but they are not the same. Neither is the correct match for the 221C BTW. Both are compromises based on feedback from customers but the main customers that pays IS bills don't want another color for the 221C. I have tried to create a better compromise but it still is a compromise nonetheless. Most thermal printheads require similar properties in their inks. Additionally, there is a lot of Canon engineering within HP printers nowadays and inks generally are interchangeable between the brands in similar applications but not always so.

Yes I understand what you are indicating (I think)

It was the misplaced bottle pictures on OctoInkjet that made me think that 244 and 2032 were the same :/

Apparently the 2032 should be used for CLI-8c but not 221c
I was thinking about getting a printer that takes the 221 cartridges and if I was to order the cyan ink from Image Specialists it appears I would get the WJ244 (as per their websites)
I don't think a compromise in color would effect me as I am more interested in avoiding clogs in the print head

Thanks for the info

 

[stratman]

Mikling:

I was wondering where you, Grandad35, ghwellsjr and others were.

The issues I had with Grandexp's construct were twofold: That a specific inkset has been changed over the years of its distribution (no proof given), and, that using some inks (Yellow and Cyan in this case) from a previous inkset (BCI-6) in a new inkset (CLI-8) was somehow bad and customers are getting ripped off for "10 year old technology" (logical fallacy).

I don't know what you guys are talking about because if a certain shade is required by the RIP inside the printer, why would you change it? The RIP wants to see the color and the printer is preprogrammed for it. Any changes or differences that an "improved" color that comes along by a third party gives something else up somewhere. If you don't understand what I've mentioned then forget the argument. Stratman alluded to this but it obviously went over the head of the other party.

Furthermore, can you imagine someone purchasing some OEM carts from a store that is transitioning the color changes in the same numbered OEM carts and the prints don't come out correct. This will never happen to think it should is ludicrous .

While I did not mention RIP, I discussed this situation extensively in a different thread here with Grandexp.

Now the fact is IS yellow 797 was changed over the 5 years I have handled it. The constituents in the yellow was changed, but the printed color did not measurably. No one mentioned that.

What do you mean by "constituents"?

If you previously mentioned on the forum that WJ797 had changed over the past 5 years then I forgot. Otherwise I had no proof or reason to suspect change in formulation for the purpose Grandexp discusses. I read the MSDS for IS yellow WJ797 last night. It was revised March 6, 2006. The man I spoke to the other day at Image Specialists said the inkset for CLI-8 had not been revised since it was brought to market. When I mentioned that Canon's MSDS'es for their inks had a revision for several inks in the CLI-8 inkset but without an update to their proprietary ICM printer profiles, he said that certain changes may have been made without affecting the output of that ink. When later asked again about reformulations to the CLI-8 inkset he stated, again, no.

One overlooked topic is the desire of aftermarket ink manufacturers wanting to recreate OEM inks while remaining free of legal issues. With today's laboratory equipment it should be possible to determine most if not all of an ink's constituent ingredients and their volumes. However, patent law prevents exact duplication and the expense involved in patent infringement may be a significant blow to a third party ink business. Continued "improvements" may also bring unwanted litigation.

As I previously stated numerous times, the forum has discussed the topic of changes to an inkset when going from one cartridge model to the next newer model. This included the continued use of some of the same inks from the older inkset in the new inkset, specifically cyan and yellow inks for IS BCI-6 and CLI-8 compatible inksets. In this 2008 thread, Grandad35 stated:

Even within one printer family using the same basic technology, it has been shown that the CLI-8 inks are different than the BCI-6 inks, and that they offer an improvement in the color gamut (and maybe in longevity). Canon cant modify the formulation for their BCI-6 inks to incorporate these types of improvements (imagine the uproar this would cause with owners of older printers using those carts), so they have to wait until they introduce a new line of carts to make any improvements in their inks.

Reformulations resulting in changed output would require new Canon ICM printer profiles. The logistical hassles and costs to ensure customers update their drivers (and possibly the printer's EEPROM) may be reason enough for Canon, and third party manufacturers like IS, from reformulating a current inkset.

 

[mikling]

The older 797 looked darker but printed the same essentially as the newer 797. That is what I meant. It is likely the dye used before and after was different. The target color remained the same.... I'm not sure this is possible on all papers though. So workflow issues could come up... I would not worry much about it because paper batches change all the time as well and few care about that issue as well. We get new paper formulations with each batch,

Statman Yes, fully agree with what is said. The party presenting their other views appears to not understand key issues and as such, any proper argument you present will always be refuted.

I think we should end it here, grandexp is proposing to use newer universal inksets as time goes along because it is newer. If he likes that, fine but the reader should understand that it is not technically correct and fundamentally wrong on many fronts as you and others have pointed out.