Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: benmarcin on June 10, 2017, 10:39:03 am
-
I have an Epson 9800 that has been a sturdy and reliable printer for eleven years. Given it's age, and the increasingly frequent power cleanings that I've had to run (along with having to set the platen gap at its widest setting to avoid black marks), I'm thinking that a new 44" printer is on the horizon. In the past, the Epson line of wide-jet printers was considered to be the clear choice for discriminating photographers. However, I am hearing that some of the newer Canon printers have caught up and are actually easier to maintain. From the research I've done, it looks like either the Canon Image ProGraf-4000 or the Epson P9000 printer would be the best candidates for eventually replacing my 9800. I was wondering if anyone out there has any experience with the Canon 4000 and could offer me a comparison to the Epson P9000? I am aware of the basic differences/issues in replacing the print heads. While reliability and ease of maintenance will be a major factor, print quality is my main concern. I print primarily color photographs. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Ben
www.benmarcinphotos.com
-
If you read my reviews of the Canon Pro-2000 and Epson SC-P5000 printers you will have insight into the print qualities of the Pro-4000 and the SC-P9000, insofar as the 44-inch printers for the same model line from the same manufacturer share the same technology, same inks, same printhead as found in their 24-inch or 17-inch models. You may also wish to read reviews done by Northlight Images (Keith Cooper) and OnSight (Scott Martin). The main difference between these high-end Canon and Epson models is that Epson comes with Orange and Green inks which provide for a wider colour gamut than available from the Canon printers, as tested on several PK-luster-type papers, however not all of that extra gamut is always usable for all photos - it depends on the photo.
I recently did another test comparison of the colour appearance of Canon Pro-1000 versus Epson SC-P800 versus Epson SC-P5000 using a very colourful photo drawing on a wide variety of colours, printed on Hahn Photo Rag Baryta, and honestly I'd be very hard put to see a telling difference between them. But I have also printed photos wherein a narrow slice of highly saturated yellow-green gamut printed more accurately from the Epson SC-P5000 because of its wider gamut in those areas of the colour spectrum.
-
Thanks, Mark. I found your reviews and will read them as well as the others you referred to.
If anyone else has any experience with the Canon 4000 or Epson P9000, I'm all ears.
-
hi Ben, I use the P7000(24" version of the 9000) and I am quite pleased with the prints. The two additional colors (Orange/Green) over the P6000/P8000 can be noticeable. I used to have the P6000 and for various reason, Epson gave me a refund(their customer service is excellent). I purchased the 7000 and for some prints, the colors we just that much better. Mark has shown all the technical details with regards to the color space, so I won't go into it any further. Just wanted to share that I feel the impact on the two additional colors makes a difference.
-tony
-
I would definitely include the HP DesignJet Z3200 Photo Printer in your list of possibles.
-
The differences really depends on what you're printing. Canon did update their models from the ground up and added features that Epson doesn't even have. However Epson has some features that Canon doesn't have, so this is where we find out what you print and on what media, how much printing you'd be doing to provide our suggestion of which model would work best for you.
They are both great printers and Epson has updated their print head so it doesn't clog as easily along with a built in timer that can be changed at any time to help maintain the head properly. Canon went from 2 print heads (x100-x400 series) and now has a single, larger head with more nozzles.
Canon and HP have the same print head technology and the Z3200 is one of the top models to compete against the new Epson and Canon.
Atlex.com
-
Dear Atlex,
I print large color photographs on Epson Hot Press Bright, 30x40", 40x50", etc. I sometimes mix things up but HPB is my go-to paper. You can get an idea of what I print here: www.benmarcinphotos.com.
Thanks for the info.
Ben
-
Ben,
So, either model would work for your printing application. If you're not doing much printing per week, we'd recommend the Canon series as the print head technology works well with not being used a lot (and you can use a lot as well with minimal issues). Epson would need to have some printing per week and the timing feature that was added to the P series helps to keep their head clean from clogging (been doing better than the previous series so far). If you'd be doing a decent amount of printing, you can also go with Epson.
The great feature on the Canon Pro is that they made their roll feature an automatic loading option now as opposed to manually feeding it and having the printer make sure it's straight (like Epson). If it's crooked, the printer will automatically adjust it upfront, so less handling fine art media (even photo and canvas) when loading into the printer. Still need to manually feed sheets on both (technically all large format printers). Epson still has the spindle-less feature which is great too. You have more media settings on Canon as well as being able to create Media Types yourself with Canon's Media Configuration Tool (MCT).
Epson media will work on Canon and vice versa, just need to select the closest media type and setting on the printer. Also, you can always get a custom profile for the media to match the ink of the printer for best quality.
Atlex.com
-
Ben,
So, either model would work for your printing application. If you're not doing much printing per week, we'd recommend the Canon series as the print head technology works well with not being used a lot (and you can use a lot as well with minimal issues). Epson would need to have some printing per week and the timing feature that was added to the P series helps to keep their head clean from clogging (been doing better than the previous series so far). If you'd be doing a decent amount of printing, you can also go with Epson.
We still can't make any decisions about longevity because Wilhelm never released his final tests of the new Epson ink beyond his "preliminary" results that amount to nothing but marketing non-sense for Epson. And Cannon confused the picture for themselves by suggesting on their own website that their new inkset had actually gone backwards to achieve some unknown gamut increase ( that many of us couldn't care less about ) to hit more Pantone hues. So The Canon Wilhelm tests were never released either but Aardenburg suggests so far they did go backward in longevity. These factors combined with the continued clogging nozzle issues with Epson and people reporting that the head design is essentially same , encouraged me to but another HpZ which I did last week with a good dependable warranty for $3,000.00 and free shipping. I wish Sony would get into the printer business. Then we would see some real innovation maybe.
canvas) when loading into the printer. Still need to manually feed printers). Epson still has the spindle-less feature which is great too. You have more media settings on Canon as well as being able to create Media Types yourself with Canon's Media Configuration Tool (MCT).
Epson media will work on Canon and vice versa, just need to select the closest media type and setting on the printer. Also, you can always get a custom profile for the media to match the ink of the printer for best quality.
Atlex.com
[/q
-
Thanks, Deanwork.
Should be interesting to see how your HP printer works out - give it a year, I guess. I'm primarily concerned with print quality, although reliability is a factor. I also have an Epson 3880 and I believe that the ink-switching issue on the newer Epsons aren't as bad as they are on my older 9800. I talked to a service tech the other day who offered that her fine-art photography customers were almost exclusively using Epson printers whereas her Canon customers were coming from the more commercial printing fields like signage, etc. On the other hand, a paper specialist I talked to said that he felt that the Canons were now as good as the Epsons when it came to print quality. Ultimately, I will have to choose a photograph and find a way to get it printed on both the Canon 4000 and the Epson P9000 and make a judgement from there.
-
Actually the old 9800s and 9880s were quite reliable in most respects , the ink switching was real waste though. There are a lot of people doing high end gallery work on the Canons and hp machines. They don't have the gamut of the orange and green Epson but I've never needed it. I have never had a complaint from a customer about not being able to hit a specific color. The z3200s with the chromaticed equals the gamut of the 8300-8400 Canons. My z3100 does not have the improved red but it still runs the same as always after 10 years of professional use. Besides the red the other reason I wanted the z3200 was to do digital negatives with the alternative process neg workflow that has been worked out by the guy Angel in Spain, and of course the permanence is off the charts. Hp is horrible about promoting themselves to artists and art schools. Canon is not much better. Epson has excellent promotional capability and are very savvy in getting their products noticed. And most of us started our work with them long ago and a lot of people fear change, for whatever reasons. Main thing is whatever you choose, is to stay in warranty as long as possible and figure the cost of a good warranty as a necessary ingredient in your long term sanity.
Thanks, Deanwork.
Should be interesting to see how your HP printer works out - give it a year, I guess. I'm primarily concerned with print quality, although reliability is a factor. I also have an Epson 3880 and I believe that the ink-switching issue on the newer Epsons aren't as bad as they are on my older 9800. I talked to a service tech the other day who offered that her fine-art photography customers were almost exclusively using Epson printers whereas her Canon customers were coming from the more commercial printing fields like signage, etc. On the other hand, a paper specialist I talked to said that he felt that the Canons were now as good as the Epsons when it came to print quality. Ultimately, I will have to choose a photograph and find a way to get it printed on both the Canon 4000 and the Epson P9000 and make a judgement from there.
-
.............. along with a built in timer that can be changed at any time.............
Atlex.com
Where is this accessed in the driver?
-
Ultimately, I will have to choose a photograph and find a way to get it printed on both the Canon 4000 and the Epson P9000 and make a judgement from there.
I've done that umpteen times between the Epson SC-P800, Epson SC-P5000, Canon Pro-1000 and Canon Pro-2000, which covers the technologies of the Canon Pro-4000 and the Epson SC-P9000. Quite frankly, for most photos you'd be hard pressed to see any significant difference of results attributable to the printers. The main determinants of print quality are fist and foremost good image preparation, accompanied by good colour management and high quality papers.
-
Any recent data on longevity? This might be way more important than a tiny bit of gamut difference. Any news on these new ink sets ?
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
No - none that I am aware of.
-
The lack of ink longevity numbers from Canon is a bit shocking at this point. These printers has be out for over a year.
-
The lack of ink longevity numbers from Canon is a bit shocking at this point. These printers has be out for over a year.
Well, let me put it this way: one gets less shocked the more one is familiar with the "culture" of the industry, and it's not only Canon. They shoot themselves in the feet by not being more transparent, because then people would have a natural tendency to suspect the situation is worse than it may be in reality. This is so obvious to me, it perplexes me as to why it isn't at least as obvious to them. But this is how it is, and perhaps I shouldn't be perplexed - I recall back some 45 years ago when I was an advisor to a development ministry in a developing country I opened "Secret Files" that contained nothing but newspaper articles, while I found really confidential papers of the institution I was advising being used in the local food market for wrapping fish and chips. Go figure! :)
-
The lack of ink longevity numbers from Canon is a bit shocking at this point. These printers has be out for over a year.
Aardenburg has three media in light fade testing printed with a Canon Pro-1000 printer using Canon's latest Lucia Pro-11 ink set (same ink set used in the Pro-2000 and Pro-4000). One paper is an OEM RC photo paper, another is a fine art matte paper, and the third is a Fine Art glossy paper. They are paired together with three of the same media printed with Epson's latest UCHD inks, and one paper was further printed with the older Lucia EX pigmented ink set as well using a Canon iPF8300. Plus, there are additional comparative samples using the Canon ink set from the Canon Pro-1 printer model. You can find the whole test suite of samples placed in testing late last year at this link: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/ Not shown in the 2017 inks and media table is a "stealth" sample I recently added into the design matrix which uses the same Moab Entrada Rag Natural fine art matte media except printed with the HP Vivera/Chromata red ink set after we recently acquired an HPZ3200PS printer in late December, 2017. Hence, the study has a direct-comparison component to it that will help to reveal relative differences in performance between the three most current OEM aqueous pigmented ink sets.
This research project is coming up on the 40 megalux hour mark in testing, but for a number of reasons, I don't expect to publish any results until we collect at least 50 megalux hours of total exposure dose on this batch of samples. It will take a few more months to reach that goal. The study is less than 20% funded at this time, but at least all the samples are in test. Light fade tests on modern media can take quite a while :( It's just the nature of the work. The manufacturers can start those tests much sooner by performing tests in house or by contracting the studies early with fee-for-service testing labs. The community-sponsored testing model that Aardenburg Imaging uses to help fund our tests takes longer to get the project started because we have to wait for new printers, inks, media, and the funding necessary to independently purchase all materials and supplies on the open market. That said, I hope what our approach lacks in speed is made up for by thoroughness and independent integrity of our published research.
I would also caution that it would be good to sample more media with all of the latest OEM ink sets in order to give a better statistical evaluation of the comparative strengths and weakness of the latest inks on a variety of modern media. Both inks and Media play a critical role in print longevity. Perhaps for the upcoming 2018 calendar year, we may be able to start another new round of testing.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Not mysterious for HP. They released thorough fade tests in house and through Wilhelm before the inks were on the market and being used. That's why I bought their first Z in the first year it was offered. This is also true of previous Epson and Canon inksets. Then many people of us later saw confirmation, or lack of confirmation with various media , through Mark's more precise and better documented work. But now Canon and Epson are both doing a sloppy job of releasing real data about both of their new inks long after thousands and thousands of important prints are being made with these inks all over the world. I understand they are competing intensely in the color gamut arena too which may even be more of a concern for a significant block of their customers, but that is not a good reason to not reveal important info about inks that have been on the market well over a year. You know they test all these products in house early on as part of their chemical development. I just hope that Canon hasn't screwed up a really great inkset that they already had! If people don't say anything they will permanently adopt this new strategy of selling the printers way before they release their true stability characteristics. There has been way too much of that in the third party ink market over the years. The oems have the resources to to it right.
quote author=Mark D Segal link=topic=118494.msg983431#msg983431 date=1497790115]
Well, let me put it this way: one gets less shocked the more one is familiar with the "culture" of the industry, and it's not only Canon. They shoot themselves in the feet by not being more transparent, because then people would have a natural tendency to suspect the situation is worse than it may be in reality. This is so obvious to me, it perplexes me as to why it isn't at least as obvious to them. But this is how it is, and perhaps I shouldn't be perplexed - I recall back some 45 years ago when I was an advisor to a development ministry in a developing country I opened "Secret Files" that contained nothing but newspaper articles, while I found really confidential papers of the institution I was advising being used in the local food market for wrapping fish and chips. Go figure! :)
[/quote]
-
If people don't say anything they will permanently adopt this new strategy of selling the printers way before they release their true stability characteristics. There has been way too much of that in the third party ink market over the years. The oems have the resources to to it right.
I agree totally with this. These ink numbers should be known before they market and sell the printers. It is a bad precedent to market and then review these printers without stability "longevity" numbers. After all, we are printing with pigment inks because of these supposed longevity numbers.
-
It is a bad precedent to market and then review these printers without stability "longevity" numbers. After all, we are printing with pigment inks because of these supposed longevity numbers.
I shall continue to selectively review new printers regardless of whether we have the longevity data beforehand, because there are many other aspects of the printers people wish to know about in order to make purchase/investment decisions; print longevity is one variable inter alia. That said, I too am very much in the "transparency" camp and would like to see detailed test data published as soon as possible with or shortly after product launch. Potential customers have the ultimate market power of not buying the printers if longevity is a very high priority concern that they think is not sufficiently addressed for their purposes and they do not have confidence that today's papers and OEM inksets will prove-out as adequate if or when the data does get published. Speaking personally, as I keep most of my prints in dark storage I am less concerned about light-fading, only mildly concerned about OBA fading, and would not hesitate to update my printer if I thought there were compelling reasons to do so. But I would certainly be happier having the longevity data than not having it, and in light of that I shall continue to be a supporter of Aardenburg Imaging's work on this issue.
-
I recently did another test comparison of the colour appearance of Canon Pro-1000 versus Epson SC-P800 versus Epson SC-P5000 using a very colourful photo drawing on a wide variety of colours, printed on Hahn Photo Rag Baryta, and honestly I'd be very hard put to see a telling difference between them. But I have also printed photos wherein a narrow slice of highly saturated yellow-green gamut printed more accurately from the Epson SC-P5000 because of its wider gamut in those areas of the colour spectrum.
Mark:
Have you observed any difference in the level of vibrancy of the Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 inkset compared to the Epson SC5000, P800 inkset? I have the Epson 3880 and always felt the inkset lacked vibrancy and was somewhat flat. Thanks.
-
Mark:
Have you observed any difference in the level of vibrancy of the Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 inkset compared to the Epson SC5000, P800 inkset? I have the Epson 3880 and always felt the inkset lacked vibrancy and was somewhat flat. Thanks.
Firstly, the Epson SC-P5000 and SC-P800 are not "an" inkset. They are different inksets only to the extent that the SC-P5000 adds green and orange inks, which explain the difference of gamut between the two models and the ability of the SC-P5000 to produce more vibrant tones in parts of the colour spectrum as I demonstrated in my article reviewing the SC-P5000. the Canon Pro line, to speak loosely in terms of gamut - and for Luster paper tested, fits between the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 (but closer to the P800), again as mentioned and illustrated in the review. I should add that the Epson SP-3880 was/is capable of producing vibrant colour - doesn't quite reach the Black density of the SC-P800/SC-P5000, but nonetheless, depending on your image editing, remains a very good printer. That said, the new generation of Canon and Epson printers are just that bit better, as to be expected. Inkjet printing technology matured some years ago such that successive models show incremental improvements, not sea-changes.
-
Historically speaking the Epson injets used to be better for "fine art" style matte work, while the Canons handled glossy media slightly better. Also, the Epson canned profiles for their own media are excellent.
Edmund
Firstly, the Epson SC-P5000 and SC-P800 are not "an" inkset. They are different inksets only to the extent that the SC-P5000 adds green and orange inks, which explain the difference of gamut between the two models and the ability of the SC-P5000 to produce more vibrant tones in parts of the colour spectrum as I demonstrated in my article reviewing the SC-P5000. the Canon Pro line, to speak loosely in terms of gamut - and for Luster paper tested, fits between the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 (but closer to the P800), again as mentioned and illustrated in the review. I should add that the Epson SP-3880 was/is capable of producing vibrant colour - doesn't quite reach the Black density of the SC-P800/SC-P5000, but nonetheless, depending on your image editing, remains a very good printer. That said, the new generation of Canon and Epson printers are just that bit better, as to be expected. Inkjet printing technology matured some years ago such that successive models show incremental improvements, not sea-changes.
-
Any recent data on longevity? This might be way more important than a tiny bit of gamut difference. Any news on these new ink sets ?
I was (am) pretty sure I'd seen some data somewhere, very likely either preliminary results of Mark's tests (were there some posted on the AI&A website?) or else maybe Wilhelm tests, on the Pro-1000. I will try to look for it tonight. But I thought the overall takeaway was that Canon's new Lucia Pro inkset was slightly less archival than the older Lucia inks--not bad, just slightly less good.
[T]he "culture" of the industry, and it's not only Canon. They shoot themselves in the feet by not being more transparent, because then people would have a natural tendency to suspect the situation is worse than it may be in reality. This is so obvious to me, it perplexes me as to why it isn't at least as obvious to them.
Amen! To give an example of the permanence / archival properties transparency problems, when Canon announced the Pro 9000 and Pro 9500 (ca. 2006), there was a Wilhelm announcement that he was testing the new Canon inks. At least for the Pro 9000's inks--IIRC the original ChromaLife 100 dye type, not the current ChromaLife 100+ type--there appears to be or at least have been a problem with the black fading. I think Mark has posted some about this. So Canon and Wilhelm announced they were doing tests, but then they never published the results. A cynic would assume that the results were very bad. I suspect that the results were only moderately bad, and not quite as good as Epson's (slightly newer, IIRC) Claria HD dye ink. And then Canon came out with the current ChromaLife 100+ dye inks, which appear to be the current archival-properties leader among dye inks. How much longer-lasting are prints from, say, a Pro-100, compared to, say, a Pro 9000 Mark II? Canon ought to tell us what the tests it's sponsored show.
Another transparency issue: the printer manufacturers need to give us at least good data on when / under what conditions auto-cleanings are done and how much ink they use. Preferably they'd also include driver settings that let you adjust the cleaning schedule / conditions. And the more advanced models with more detailed usage and ink monitoring reporting ought to tell you how much they've used in auto-cleanings.
-
Another transparency issue: the printer manufacturers need to give us at least good data on when / under what conditions auto-cleanings are done and how much ink they use. Preferably they'd also include driver settings that let you adjust the cleaning schedule / conditions. And the more advanced models with more detailed usage and ink monitoring reporting ought to tell you how much they've used in auto-cleanings.
Give users the ability to change them, and a very large portion will simply reduce them to whatever minimum they can, and then complain that they get constant blockages or hardware failures. If you want to know your average usage, then just measure how much you use over a reasonable run of prints/time. It's very simple. What does it matter the exact amount of ink used on a particular clean? The only important cost factor is total ink usage over pages and/or time.
Trying to save pennies by reducing a few cleans is, IMHO, just silly. Paper costs far more than ink per page. Ink, as expensive as it is per ml, is still a very small input to your total print costs (from capture to output). Of course less is best, but having users second-guessing engineers as to when and how to clean will just lead to problems. Should users also get to decide when a nozzle remaps to another one in thermal inkjet heads instead of the system using its algorithms to decide when it's necessary? That would let them "extend" the life of those heads, right? Of course, no.
-
How much longer-lasting are prints from, say, a Pro-100, compared to, say, a Pro 9000 Mark II? Canon ought to tell us what the tests it's sponsored show.
Samples made with both Chromalife 100 and 100+ inks can be found in the Aardenburg database (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/). After logging into the database (registration is free) you can find the relevant samples easily by filtering the ink/colorant field on "Chromalife". Canon didn't sponsor these tests, and to date along with all the other OEM printer and major media manufacturers doesn't acknowledge publicly available Aardenburg light fade test reports even exist.
The difference is night and day between the two ink sets on microporous media (swellable polymer papers are essentially no longer on the market), and the problem can indeed be attributed mainly to the black ink performance and to a lesser extent the red (orange) ink used by the Canon Pro 9000 Mark II printer. Neither the PK nor the red(orange) color channel is evaluated in the Wilhelm legacy densitometric test method, and there's the rub! The Wilhelm legacy densitometric test method and WIR 3.0 densitometric endpoint criteria set does not evaluate a maximum density black patch nor any red, green, blue/violet, orange, or skin tone colors. Skin tones would blend some of the weak red (orange) ink, and very deep shadow values plus maximum printable black areas deploy PK ink. However, even though a max black color patch was not part of the WIR measured patch set, the fade resistance of the Chromalife 100 PK dye was so severe (in the realm of cheap third party dye sets), that it would most likely have been easily noticed by WIR staff if any Dmax text printing was located anywhere on the samples placed into test. Published images of the standard WIR color test target indicate that max black printed areas are indeed present on the standard printed targets even though they are not part of the official test. And the visually alarming fading signature (the black dye turns reddish brown) in those areas of the the WIR test targets in turn would have certainly been sufficient cause to halt the testing.
As such, both WIR and Canon more than likely had to wrestle diplomatically with what followed after that. What followed was apparently no WIR publishing of any test results for the Chromalife 100 set (nor the Chromalife 100+ dye set, either), and Canon ultimately rectified the technical problems by quietly replacing the weak Chromalife 100 PK dye with a much more stable PK dye in the Chromalife 100+ set and also by dropping the use of the red (orange) ink while also introducing photo gray channels derived from the new black dye stuff (a first for dye based printers) when the Pro 9000 Mark II replacement, the Canon Pro-100, came to the market.
Hence, the good news is that Canon ultimately did the right thing by going back and reformulating the Chromalife 100 ink set to come up with a new and improved Chromalife 100+ set. More good news is that the Chromalife 100+ set, especially when configured with photo gray inks in the Canon Pro-100 design specification, now place at the top of dye-based print longevity ratings in Aardenburg lightfastness testing, i.e., better than Epson's Claria dye set, and also significantly better than Fuji Crystal Archive II chromogenic color paper which many photographers erroneously still consider to be the "gold standard" for archival color photo printing.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Give users the ability to change [self-cleaning settings], and a very large portion will simply reduce them to whatever minimum they can, and then complain that they get constant blockages or hardware failures.... Trying to save pennies by reducing a few cleans is, IMHO, just silly.... Ink, as expensive as it is per ml, is still a very small input to your total print costs (from capture to output). Of course less is best, but having users second-guessing engineers as to when and how to clean will just lead to problems.
First, I have a somewhat higher opinion of the users at issue. This thread is mostly talking about fairly upped-end printers like the Epson P5000, P7000, and P9000 and the Canon Pro-1000, Pro-2000, and Pro-4000. People who will buy those printers and take the trouble to drill down into those settings should not be presumed to be idiots. (Or at least, I hate it when manufacturers attempt to idiot-proof products--especially products not designed for the mass market--in a way that seriously inhibits the advanced user's use.) On the contrary, I think the majority of users (or at least main users / maintainers) of such printers are fairly knowledgeable.
Second, there is no reason the manufacturer can't establish a default based on sound engineering, and give the user a major warning before that default is changed, but nevertheless allow the user to change it.
Third, the user can take into account significant variables that the printer cannot measure. The user might appropriately change the self-cleaning schedule / conditions depending on things like the humidity and temperature of the air in which the printer sits and the dustiness of the printer's environment. Unless manufacturers want to build a bunch more sensors into the printers and then use them to modify the cleaning behaviors, the manufacturers ought to let knowledgeable users decide.
-
Mark, thanks for mostly confirming and also clarifying what I thought I recalled about the Canon dye inksets. FWIW I signed up at Aardenburg, read several of your test reports, and made a small contribution.
To expand and document a little what I said above, the Wilhelm announcement from February 21, 2006 of Wilhelm's testing of the original Pro 9000 and Pro 9500 is still up on Wilhelm's site at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/Canon_Pro9000_and_Pro9500.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/Canon_Pro9000_and_Pro9500.pdf). Presumably Canon contracted for or at least sponsored these tests. Evidently the results for the Pro 9000 were not published--while the results for the Pro 9500 were (see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf)).
Also, at least some of Wilhelm's results show that the newer (?) Canon Lucia inks in the Pro-1 (not the Pro-1000, which has Lucia Pro inks--I was wrong about that) have worse archival properties than the older inks in the 9500. For the Pro 9500 with Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss SG-201, "Displayed Prints Framed Under Glass" lasted a simulated 104 years; see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf (http://see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf). For the Canon Pro-1 with Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss SG-201, "Displayed Prints Framed Under Glass" lasted a simulated 71 years; see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Canon_Pro-1_2012_10_24.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Canon_Pro-1_2012_10_24.pdf).
-
First, I have a somewhat higher opinion of the users at issue. This thread is mostly talking about fairly upped-end printers like the Epson P5000, P7000, and P9000 and the Canon Pro-1000, Pro-2000, and Pro-4000. People who will buy those printers and take the trouble to drill down into those settings should not be presumed to be idiots. (Or at least, I hate it when manufacturers attempt to idiot-proof products--especially products not designed for the mass market--in a way that seriously inhibits the advanced user's use.) On the contrary, I think the majority of users (or at least main users / maintainers) of such printers are fairly knowledgeable.
Second, there is no reason the manufacturer can't establish a default based on sound engineering, and give the user a major warning before that default is changed, but nevertheless allow the user to change it.
Third, the user can take into account significant variables that the printer cannot measure. The user might appropriately change the self-cleaning schedule / conditions depending on things like the humidity and temperature of the air in which the printer sits and the dustiness of the printer's environment. Unless manufacturers want to build a bunch more sensors into the printers and then use them to modify the cleaning behaviors, the manufacturers ought to let knowledgeable users decide.
Do car manufacturers let you adjust the fuel air mixture through a control panel? Even experienced, mechanically minded drivers? It's not dissimilar.
I don't have a low opinion of users, but if you see what happens on machines and the kind of things users of all varieties do to try to save a penny (literally in some cases), then opening this up opens up a can of worms and costs to manufacturers for very little benefit.
You can already run additional cleans or set auto cleans off or change some of the basics of them on most machines. The reality is that the vast majority of *users* (as opposed to owners, because most are not the same), aren't that knowledgeable to be able to outguess the engineers. They know a lot about prints and printing, but they rarely know much about the mechanics, electrics, electronics, chemistry, and physics that make a large format printer work and the problem is that even if they were knowledgeable, once you open up these functions then a much wider spectrum of users will attempt to fiddle with the settings.
-
I think we're drifting OT, so this will probably be my last post on this issue, but:
Do car manufacturers let you adjust the fuel air mixture through a control panel? Even experienced, mechanically minded drivers? It's not dissimilar.
Nah, it's much more like changing the oil. In the old days, manufacturers recommended you change it every 5000 miles or whatever. Some were a little more nuanced, like change it every 3000 miles for mostly city driving or every 6000 miles for mostly highway driving, or whatever. Now my car has a computer that monitors my use--it's clearly not just the miles--and recommends what maintenance to get and when. Sometimes it recommends only an oil and filter change and tire rotation, sometimes it recommends something more comprehensive. I am free to take what it tells me into consideration and do maintenance that, less than, more than, or simply different than it recommends. And I bet that if I'd given it maintenance far short of what it recommends, and I'd had a major failure within the warranty period, the manufacturer might use that as a reason not to honor the warranty. And that would be perfectly fair and reasonable, as long as the two appeared probably connected. So why can't Canon and Epson take the same approach, and even give you the option to let the printer do it itself?
-
That's the problem, it's really NOT like changing the oil. There are far more factors involved. Changing the oil is changing the maintenance tanks or running a heavy clean and then changing the maintenance tanks. There's no fine tuning involved, there's no need to understand anything other than the purely mechanical process of draining it and replacing it. So long as you use the specified grade of oil and ensure it's clean, there's not much to it. The problem is that if all you do to maintain your engine is change the oil then a modern engine will fail.
So, yes, when most people think it's no different to changing the oil, the very concern I've expressed is evident. They're over simplifying something because they think it should be easy because they don't actually know what's involved.
As I said, there already exists a reasonable degree of tuning from all manufacturers and most people don't even address those. Adding more, without people first using what they have, isn't likely to help at all.
Regarding the issue of voiding warranty. Yes, if you don't follow the manufacturer's guidance and have a failure with your car they will void your warranty so far as the law lets them, assuming, as you say, the failure and maintenance are reasonably logically linked. The problem with what you propose with printers is that it's far more complex than just pages printed or time turned on (with a car, your services are scheduled based on miles or days, whichever comes first), and proving the environment factors involved with a printer in order to tell someone they failed to maintain the unit properly and therefore it's not under warranty is a customer service nightmare that no manufacturer would ever want.
-
Where is this accessed in the driver?
Mark,
Sorry for the delay.
I'm not sure where the option is located directly, but Epson reps informed us that the feature is available (most like in the settings). I haven't personally used one of the large P printers yet, but may soon. We only have the 17" models to work with upfront at the moment. You may even find out from Epson Customer Service directly if you can't find it via the manual or from someone that had changed it themselves.
-
Mark,
Sorry for the delay.
I'm not sure where the option is located directly, but Epson reps informed us that the feature is available (most like in the settings). I haven't personally used one of the large P printers yet, but may soon. We only have the 17" models to work with upfront at the moment. You may even find out from Epson Customer Service directly if you can't find it via the manual or from someone that had changed it themselves.
In the SC-P5000 it isn't available. The situation is also a bit complicated by the fact that in the firmware for this printer, there are two categories of cleaning operations, one of which is user-adjustable and the other apparently is not, to the best I have been able to achieve clarity on the matter.
As I've been saying for years, I would like to see far more transparency from both Epson and Canon on matters related to ink usage for printhead maintenance, but they play this stuff pretty close to their chests.