Workforce 1100 - complete waste of money

[Fenrir Enterprises]

Got my Workforce 1100 with CIS set up, everything runs fine, black nozzle check is still clearing up but the colors are all fine. So I do a few test prints, and find that the 1100 is no better than the C88 was at printing nice, bright, blue colors.

I put a lot of faith into this. I went by the photo on the box, which shows a bar chart with a nice bright turquoise blue amidst the bright primary blue chart. But no, it can't do it.

Left three rows, Workforce 1100 with plain copy paper. Right three rows, HP 8500A (which is a 4-color pigment printer just like the Workforce). In real life, the difference is even more striking, the HP has a very rich, bright turquoise blue. The Workforce is dull and worthless.

I have no doubt this is due to the printer itself and not the aftermarket ink from a well reviewed supplier. Anyone in the North Palm Beach Florida area want the 1100 fit with a CIS for $200?

 

[The Hat]

Fenrir Enterprises
Why dont you give the new Pro 1 a go it can print blue that steps off the paper at you..

 

[stratman]

I have no doubt this is due to the printer itself and not the aftermarket ink from a well reviewed supplier.

How was the same test print with OEM inks?


The Hat:

Sure. Lend me $1K.

 

[The Hat]

I have no doubt this is due to the printer itself and not the aftermarket ink from a well reviewed supplier.

How was the same test print with OEM inks?


The Hat:

Sure. Lend me $1K.

No problem I will run you off a few green backs in the morning..

 

[Fenrir Enterprises]

How was the same test print with OEM inks?

I never used them. Since I intend to sell them to recoup the money I've lost on this project, I won't be able to find out. I doubt it would make a difference. I went through this with the C88 and C88+. The prints are exactly the same low quality as those two printers. Apparently Epson has made no advances in color management while HP rivals six color printers with its 4-color non-photo all-pigment 8500 series. I had originally intended to convert a 1400 and not get a Workforce. All the advice here and from my ink supplier was that the 1400 doesn't work right with pigment, that you can only print with ICC profiles or the color is way way off, so when I got a good deal on a Workforce and saw the color print on the box, I decided to go for it. Now I have over $200 sunk into a printer that is more useful to me as a boat anchor.

Even if the color is better with OEM vs aftermarket I wouldn't be able to afford to use it.

 

[stratman]

I was wondering if the OEM output was as disappointing for you as the aftermarket inks. If not, then maybe profiling the aftermarket ink or trying a different aftermarket ink would help.

 

[Fenrir Enterprises]

I was wondering if the OEM output was as disappointing for you as the aftermarket inks. If not, then maybe profiling the aftermarket ink or trying a different aftermarket ink would help.

And if it doesn't work I've wasted the OEM carts which I could sell for $40-50. And if it does work then I still have to throw out the CIS and buy one from a different company since it's contaminated with ink now.

I'm think I'm better off calling it a loss, selling the OEM carts, throwing out the printer and buying a second 1400 + CIS so I have one dye and one pigment.

 

[stratman]

Was the CISS working properly? The first two squares/patches on the bottom row of the left hand image seem faint.

Could it be the choice of paper? Have you tried other plain papers as well as appropriate photo papers?

What ink were you using with the CISS?

 

[Fenrir Enterprises]

Was the CISS working properly? The first two squares/patches on the bottom row of the left hand image seem faint.

Could it be the choice of paper? Have you tried other plain papers as well as appropriate photo papers?

What ink were you using with the CISS?

Nozzle checks for CMY were 100% good. Some mild banding in the black tanks. Yes, the colors overall from C and M are dull and faint. Yellows are bright and vibrant. Printing on bright inkjet paper and on matte paper with the appropriate settings, the colors were more solid and a little deeper, but still dark and dingy. I also tried settings that didn't match the paper, and different color management (epson vivid, adobe RGB, epson photo enhancement, etc). The printer is just flat out incapable of printing bright colors that require Cyan. The inks are color matched pigment inks, not generics. Granted, I could possibly have the wrong ink, but I really don't think so. Like I said, this is exactly the same thing I tried to do with the C88 and C88+. The C88 broke due to non-refill reasons (bad feeder) and was exchanged for the 88+. When the 88+ gave me the exactly same problems, I tried the OEM cartridges to see if the refill ink was bad. There was zero difference in the prints with OEM inks, the C88 was simply unable to do the bright colors with the 4-color system, and by using the inks I was simply out of luck and didn't even have cartridges to sell to make back a bit of what I had lost. This is exactly the same issue and I'm not going to waste the cartridges this time. The C88+ eventually wound up getting thrown into the garbage, which is where the Workforce will soon be heading if I can't sell it quickly.

What annoys me the most about all this is that both here, on another forum, and at the refill company I buy from which I don't want to name since I don't think they are at fault at all, everyone extols the virtue of the Workforce 1100, how rugged and fast it is, how the output is great for a 4-color printer, how there's no more need to mess with ICC profiles and clogging headaches from using a 1400 with pigments. There is zero comparision between the printers. I'm willing to bet the 1400 produces better output without an ICC profile than the 1100 does natively, just like the R220 knocked the socks off the C88+. I heard the same nonsense about Durabrite printers vs dye/Claria printers back during the R220/R240 generation of printers. It's my fault, really. I shouldn't have bought the Workforce without having someone make me some test prints. I shouldn't have drilled holes in it before testing it. I asked here a few times but nobody ever answered my question about the color gamut capabilities. The HP 8500 only has 4 pigment colors to work with and photos come out bright and vibrant even on cheap 20 lb copy paper. I've also seen claims that the 6-color Epson photo printers only use C and M or LC and LM, but not both of them together (depending on if plain or photo papers are chosen).

 

[stratman]

Just looked at reviews on Amazon. Not kind: Work Farce; The Yugo of Printers. Ouch. Very polarized opinions.

Thanks for letting the forum know your experiences. It may help someone to make a better decision one day.