I nominate this for most confusing chart ever made. Took me a good few minutes to understand what the hell was going on.

@Substance_D:
I still don't understand it :/

I think this chart is pretty easy to follow. Its pretty clear to me that the Green team on the west is Attacking the red team in the east. thats what we're looking at right?

I looked at it for 15 seconds, determined that green must somehow mean good, and red must somehow mean bad (but for what or who I still don't understand)

This graph which measures color quality uses color in the least effective manner possible. Which is I guess, ironic somehow.

@SteveZim1017:You made me laugh in meatspace.

someone needs an excel tutorial

My guess from this table, is that it's also saying that you shouldn't buy a lexmark for photo printing beyond stylish invitations for your wedding within the next three months.

I almost never print anyway, unless it is postage.

Once upon a time, I worked as an inkjet printer repair tech (worked mostly on Canons, some HP, some Lexmark). Whenever we saw aftermarket ink tanks or printheads in the printers, we threw them away; the cartridges (particularly from Nu-Kote) would leak, causing damage to the print heads or printer. There were several printers that the customers didn't want back, because repair cost was higher than a new printer (this was when the cost of entry to an inkjet was at least $300, if not more)... All because they used aftermarket ink.

I hardly print out photos myself; I take it to Snapfish.

What's interesting is the quality (or lackof) of Lexmark's printer on non-Lexmark papers, even when you are using Lexmark's ink. One word describes it best -- POOR. How they can manage to make it performs worse than a cheapo JetTec replacement is beyond our wild imagination. On the other hand, Canon's performance confirms my suspicion that it is one of the more honest ink jet manufacturer among all ink jet printer maker -- they have been using individual ink tanks on most of their models, their print head can be replaced (unlike Epson's if your printhead is seriously clogged, you'd better replace the printer)

I've seen the quality of print that the cheap-o brand inks put out. Not great. Plus, on HP printers, each cartridge contains a new head. I wouldn't trust some off-brand manufacturer to make the heads to the same quality standard that HP does, especially if they're trying to make a buck off of them. Besides, when do you have a choice of what ink to use to print which job? Once you put a cartridge in, you're supposed to use it till it's empty. How do you know you won't want to print your Japan photos while you've got your cheap ticket-printing ink loaded?

the time (calibration, maintenance, etc), cost (ink, paper, my time), and fuss you have to spend on maintaining a high quality photo printing solution is so not worth it. text, PDF's and non-meaningful pics I can print in low quality without worry about losing/mangling it are always printed myself. If anything meaningful to me needs to be processed, I bring it to a local professional center (read: NOT CVS/Walgreens/etc). It's also backed up to multiple destinations (flash drives, dvd's, computers, blah). It costs a little more that way, but saves so much more in the long run and are guaranteed to be happy with it.
I used to work at a locally owned retailer/professional imaging & developing center). I sold the hardware, and customers always returned happy to have their images printed through us over and over again.

Are those dot-matrix or thermal printers? :)

Seems to me...that the kind of printer that you own is just as determinative.

If you own an HP, don't buy StinkyInk; buy Cartridge World.
If you own a Canon, don't buy JetTec; buy from the manufacturer.
If you own a Lexmark, buy a new printer.

@92BuickLeSabre:
Haha, we all already knew about the lexmark thing. ;)

wow. lexmark printers really suck. i mean, an el-cheapo refill shop's ink scores BETTER than their own ink.

My Epson all-in-one, that I bought a couple of years ago mainly on price, has just quit working. No doubt some nozzles are clogged and won't clear even with repeated cleanings. I've already disassembled it and checked the ink discharge tube, etc.

So I'm about fed up with ink jet printers and ready to buy a Brother HL-4070CDW color laser printer. The cost per page seems like it will be less, and it doesn't have nozzles to get clogged. Should I pull the trigger, or is there an ink jet printer that works?

So... Original ink is best and paper doesn't really matter most of the time... Unless you have one of the pickier printers... And some el-cheapo ink brands might actually perform well... But tend to not age so well... Too bad I've never heard of those off-brands before...

Comment on Inkjet Ink Test: Manufacturer Brand vs. Cheapo Store Ink It's surprising how poorly the Kodak photo paper does in all cases. Photo paper is one thing I would have thought they would actually make well. Apparently not...

I'm sure it won't mean anything to anyone. But Staples has discontinued their own brand of printer ink. Especially from HP. Apparently they were selling more of their brand rather than HP, and HP was not to happy. Or so I was told. Could have been a crazy manager, which Im sure is 100% likely. What sucks though is that their ink was "ok" and the price wasn't half bad either.

Okay I just spent some time with the chart, but i still don't know what our threat level is! :\

@Substance_D: I second your nomination

I gave up on the chart and bought myself a black and white laser printer... red pink, orange, green, yellow and all those other colors be damned!

I got it. I think the colours means girls should buy original ink (and I guess girls that like other girls use the Canon), boys should buy JetTek or StinkyInk (somehow that seems appropriate), and those who play both ways go for the other two. Right?