Digital BW, The Print

What grief? I'm using the new refillable MIS 2200 cartridges - one set
with the MIS Archival 7600 Ultrachrome equivalent inks and another with
the UT7 inks. I haven't had a single clog with these cartridges and have
already refilled them several times.

I used to clean and refill empty Epson cartridges, and never had a
serious clog with those either, but they weren't as easy to refill as
the new MIS cartridges.

The color inks match the Epson inks really well. The only problem was
that the reds were a little weak so I paid \ufffd40 for a custom profile 
which fixed the problem.

Here in Norway a single cartridge for the 2100 costs around $23 so I
save huge amounts of money by refilling myself from 4oz bottles. Easily
worth the half hour I spend every time I refill my cartridges.

 From what I know the MIS inks are as archival as the Epson inks, so
that's not an issue either.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

> In modern printers (2200 and subsequent), this Forum's complaints
> about heads, banding, and system failures almost always involve
> non-OEM inks instead of Epson's encapsulated pigments. You can prove
> that for yourself by browsing posts. 
> 
> The real arguments for non-OEM seem to be short-term savings (until
> system failures)and, for those who insist, non-bronzing glossies. 
> 
> It doesn't seem to be a tone issue...QTRgui and other excellent
> approaches and applications provide fine B&W tone control, maximum
> Dmax and true grays with OEM.   
> 
> Many of us simply have more fun swimming upstream: A minority are
> Macintosh or Linux users. I still shoot film. 
> 
> What justifies the grief with non-OEM inks in modern printers, rather
> than the probably-more-archival (per Wilhelm)OEM pigments?