Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: John Hollenberg on December 20, 2007, 10:09:07 am
-
Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the (Epson) water:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4670)
Brings back bad memories of exactly the same clogging problems I had with my Epson 9600. Fits with my experience that the larger Epsons are worse for clogging than the smaller ones (Epson 3800 and smaller), which don't seem to be too much of a problem.
--John
-
John,
The link you gave takes you to a page where you need to register before being able to see the article, just an FYI
Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the (Epson) water:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4670)
Brings back bad memories of exactly the same clogging problems I had with my Epson 9600. Fits with my experience that the larger Epsons are worse for clogging than the smaller ones (Epson 3800 and smaller), which don't seem to be too much of a problem.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
That's funny... I have a 9600 for a few years now and it has NEVER clogged once. I don't use it sometimes for weeks and I turn it on and send the file to it and it prints (pigment inks only)perfectly every time.
My 2200, on the other hand was a piece of junk pretty much right off. It clogged so much I finally threw it out.
This pretty much unconfirms your theory that there is an on going problem with the larger Epsons.
There will be bad ones and good ones in every model. To make blanket statements is never a good idea.
Go buy an HP or Canon and you can just as easily get a lemon there as well.
-
This pretty much unconfirms your theory that there is an on going problem with the larger Epsons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, at the time I had my problems I started a poll on the Epson wide format group. About 30% of the respondents reported significant clogging problems with the large format printers. There wasn't any difference between the X600 and X800 generation. Assuming that the 3800 doesn't clog much (not too many reports), this data is at least some verification of my theory.
Edit: We don't have any reports of clogging on the iPF printer Wiki (except for a few reports of printheads that went bad and were replaced by Canon), so that is a significant difference from Epsons.
--John
-
My 9800 was having bad nozzle checks last week. Humidity level in the studio and it was at 20%. Way too dry so I went out a purchased a humidifier to bring the level up to 35-40%. Has solved the problem. Could be a coincidence but I don't think so.
-
The link you gave takes you to a page where you need to register before being able to see the article, just an FYI
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't realize Asher had the forum set to require registration just to read the thread. I will drop him a line later to see if this can be changed.
--John
-
You know John, with this kind of post you are moving from a provider of useful info regarding Canon printers towards the shrill my brand is good and your brand kinda sucks drivel.
Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the (Epson) water:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4670)
Brings back bad memories of exactly the same clogging problems I had with my Epson 9600. Fits with my experience that the larger Epsons are worse for clogging than the smaller ones (Epson 3800 and smaller), which don't seem to be too much of a problem.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You know John, with this kind of post you are moving from a provider of useful info regarding Canon printers towards the shrill my brand is good and your brand kinda sucks drivel.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162183\")
The poster on OPF (provided you sign up) has considerable credibility in my eyes. He is a long time poster on Outback Photo and has written some articles for them in the past, I believe. He hoped the Epson was going to be better, but for him this hasn't been the case. This is only one data point, but the fact that he is experiencing clogs (and moving clogs as he did before, and which I also experienced with my Epson 9600) suggests that the problems may not have changed significantly over the generations.
I would like nothing better than for Epsons to be clog free printers, as their color is very good. If you have read my article on LL and posts on the Wiki, you will see that I have been extremely critical of Canon and the way they handled the iPF5000 and its problems, to the point that I have been criticized for being way too harsh on Canon. I think that it is equally important to point out the weaknesses of the Epsons. Feel free to look at the only data I have seen in this regard:
[a href=\"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/surveys?id=2201947]http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWi...veys?id=2201947[/url]
In this poll, which 92 people responded to, about 25-30% had significant clogging problems.
This topic is of interest to me, because I will soon be in the market for a 24 inch printer.
--John
-
I keep reading about Epson and how all they do is clog. Do any of you wonder why some of us never get clogs and other repeatedly get them all the time? Could it be something you may be doing wrong? Could it simply be your environment?
I have two 4800 printers purchased a year apart. One is loaded with PK and the other with MK inks. 95% of my printing is on fine art paper. Consequently, the 4800 with PK may sit for a long period of time.
Recently, I needed to make a print on RC paper. The PK printer had been off for four months. Sure, I needed to run two simple cleanings before I got a good pattern and could print the image.
In the three years I have owned the 4800 printers, I have never done a Power Cleaning on either machine. Only the simple cleaning or sometimes the Auto print confirmation.
So what is it that I am doing differently? The environment of the 4800s (and paper stock) are kept at 68° to 74°F year round. The humidity is always between 40% and 50% year round. Also, since I print a low volume, I only purchase the 100ml ink cartridges. However, on the MK printer it does have a 220ml MK cartridge installed. With the printers powered down, I remove the ink cartridges once every two months and gently shake them. I alway power down the units at the end of the day. And before I run the first print of the day, I check the unit with a simple ink pattern check. I do print mostly sheet stock. But I proof on roll Enhance Matte.
One more data point: I also own a 1200 and a 2200 and I have never had a clog on them either. The only other variables left is witchcraft and alchemy. Or I am living in a downward vortex.
Gene
-
I keep reading about Epson and how all they do is clog. Do any of you wonder why some of us never get clogs and other repeatedly get them all the time? Could it be something you may be doing wrong? Could it simply be your environment?
So what is it that I am doing differently? The environment of the 4800s (and paper stock) are kept at 68° to 74°F year round. The humidity is always between 40% and 50% year round. Also, since I print a low volume, I only purchase the 100ml ink cartridges. However, on the MK printer it does have a 220ml MK cartridge installed. With the printers powered down, I remove the ink cartridges once every two months and gently shake them. I alway power down the units at the end of the day. And before I run the first print of the day, I check the unit with a simple ink pattern check. I do print mostly sheet stock. But I proof on roll Enhance Matte.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This has been discussed and debated on the Epson wide format list forever. Every time someone would come up with a theory about why some have a problem and others don't, 3 other people would provide their experiences that shot the theory down. My temperature and humidity readings are very close to what you describe, yet I have had a problem (in varying degrees) with every single Epson I have owned. When the tech came out for problems with the 9600 I quizzed him about anything I might be doing that could cause the problem. He didn't see anything I could be doing differently. I don't print canvas or papers that would be expected to create a lot of paper dust with the cutting.
It seems that Paul Caldwell (the OP on the OPF thread) has had a similar experience with clogging problems. It is indeed a mystery to me. Perhaps alchemy is not such a bad explanation!
--John
-
No experience with the big epsons but my old epson clogged religiously. I then put in a new furnace/ac system with a whole house humidifier. Had the exact same behavior.
However, I tossed it to a friend and he had no clogging problems at all.
So, go figure.
-
Poll summaries like that are fairly salacious, but also quite worthless unless you have also polled and presented the environmental conditions as well - which everyone knows is a critical factor when it comes to inkjet clogging. Sure, some cases will have freakish "it simply doesn't work" factors. But I bet most other cases are related to user conditions.
And maybe if both links didn't require logins, I'd have more context.
I guess for some, the clogging risk is acceptable. As are pizza wheel marks. As is a poorly written manual. As is poor 3rd party paper support. Blah, blah, blah. The water isn't safe anywhere - for any brand. I don't think it will be for years. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm having fun in the meantime, knowing that technology is still developing (much like the megapixel wars and jumping from camera to camera these days).
To me, jumping into inkjet printing is an adventure. There is a lot to learn, control and master. You just have to be prepared to learn how to swim. A pain in the@ss at times and some lemons are floating around, of course!! The only easy path in inkjet printing right now is to pay someone else to make your prints. Or win the inkjet lottery and become one of the rare few who seem to have zero problems.
People shouldn't be so scared of inkjet printing by "it's not safe" posts. Because I see that a lot. It's a lot of fun, and you're not likely to get a printer that simply doesn't work - with any brand - if you're willing to learn how to use the technology. And if you do get a lemon, you have to understand the current state of things before you buy - and be willing to just keep swimming.
I may be overreacting here, admittedly, but I see too many people commenting on how scared or unsure they are about buying an inkjet printer. I agree its necessary to share the flaws we encounter ... I just never see anyone posting the tempered "hey, the waters aren't terribly calm but are really OK" post.
Jesse <--- happily swimming around in 7880 prints (but have also wanted to toss older Epsons into a large lake)
-
I'm running four x880 and five x800 epsons and i've never had any problems with the heads in them.
-
The poster on OPF (provided you sign up) has considerable credibility in my eyes. He is a long
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just an FYI John. I have even registered on that forum but still am told I do not have privileges to access that page. I am working with it.
Carl
-
Just an FYI John. I have even registered on that forum but still am told I do not have privileges to access that page. I am working with it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162336\")
Send a PM to Asher Kelman, who runs the forums. Very strange, link works fine for me (although you do have to be registered).
You can also go to the Open Photography Forums:
[a href=\"http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/index.php]http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/index.php[/url]
and find the thread in the Printers forum.
--John
-
Edit: We don't have any reports of clogging on the iPF printer Wiki (except for a few reports of printheads that went bad and were replaced by Canon), so that is a significant difference from Epsons.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just curious how you confirm that with a Canon - doesn't a Canon just hide clogging by remapping to another nozzle? Can you confirm that all 30720 nozzles are still functioning with 0 clogs?
I have both, and like both. A friend has had a 9880 for over 4 weeks with 0 clogs, my 11880 over 2 months with one minor clog. While the post you refer to may be "credible" and I feel bad for his experience, that doesn't really mean this is normal and common place does it? There are things that can aggravate clogging on an Epson, such as using a paper type that isn't set up for the thickness of the paper actually being printed. Also, not shutting the printer down when not using it - even overnight - will aggravate clogging.
I suppose it is even possible his printer is defective like those Canon's you mentioned?
I think it's a stretch to use this one experience as an indicator that nothing has changed ... to me the jury is still out, but from where I sit things have improved. I'm just not sure how much yet.
-
You're correct, Wayne, that the Canon uses remapping to deal with clogs. Not that this is a bad solution (users obviously love it), but eventually you run out of nozzles. Then, it's a replacable head so if it has enough remap space within the expected life all is good. You just have to factor in the replacement cost.
I ran off 36 meters of canvas yesterday on an 11880 (3 rolls) without skipping a beat. It hadn't been used for about a week and was left on, just sitting in an air conditioned office. It ran some cleaning cycles, but 30 images came out perfectly.
Whether it's Epson, Canon or HP - the internet attracts people complaining (it's a place to voice their concerns and seek help). Very few people take the time to post that they're having no problems. If Canon's approach puts pressure on Epson to do better with clogging and cleaning then that's fantastic.
The 11880 is obviously the next evolution in heads for Epson. The multiple cleaning modes allowing you to restrict it to 1 or 2 channels (mostly 2, except for PK which can be done by itself) when cleaning, for example, and the AID technology that detects blocked nozzles as they occur. All good stuff. If the Canon lasts its life doing its remapping then that's a winner of a solution, too. HP seems to be doing fine in that regard as well.
From a business perspective you need to look at the cost (dollars and time) of each solution and then weight that against the other options, features, quality etc.
If anyone is having a chronic blocking/clogging problem then either their printer is out of spec or they're doing something to induce it. If you're confident you're not doing anything to cause it, then get the manufacturer to check it under warranty and sort it.
-
Just curious how you confirm that with a Canon - doesn't a Canon just hide clogging by remapping to another nozzle? Can you confirm that all 30720 nozzles are still functioning with 0 clogs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By "no clogs" I mean that any clogged nozzles are re-mapped so that you don't see the effect of the clogs. My guess is that some of the nozzles are almost certainly clogged, but the compensation in the firmware takes care of this. On the iPF5000, I haven't ever made a print that was obviously bad due to clogged nozzles. Can't say the same for the Epsons I have owned.
By the way, my post was not meant to start a bunch of arguing over brands. This was the first report I had seen of significant clogging problems with the X880 generation of printers and I thought others might be interested. The "just when you thought it was safe" was more a personal reaction, as it reminded me of clogging problems I have had and with my own previous bad experiences was enough to turn me away from the 7880. Obviously a lot of other people have had good experiences with Epson printers.
--John
-
John - is there any way for you to interrogate the printer to find out how many spare nozzles are left? I'm hoping that users will find that they never run out, but it would be interesting to know the remap rate.
I think it's a good point you raise that because of the remapping you haven't had any spoiled prints. That's the point of the new technology in the 11880 so this certainly seems to be a case of the competition bringing improvements.
-
John - is there any way for you to interrogate the printer to find out how many spare nozzles are left? I'm hoping that users will find that they never run out, but it would be interesting to know the remap rate.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162398\")
Good question. As far as I can determine, that information is not even available in the Service Menu. I poked around in there for a bit and also looked through the iPF5000 service manual (a PDF of which was anonymously donated to the Wiki) and couldn't find anything. You can look at the Service Manual yourself if you like:
[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/iPF5000+Service+Manual]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/iPF5000+Service+Manual[/url]
--John
-
I'll take your word for it, John. In good conscience, I can't download what I know to be a copyright document that Canon hasn't released publically. Everyone will make their own choice in that regard and I'm not judging anyone else, just following my personal choice here.
It might be worth users requesting Canon make the information available or perhaps Canon are prepared to make a blanket statement that within the specified life of the head you should never run out of remaps. That would be a strong statement and position (and obviously very welcomed).
-
It might be worth users requesting Canon make the information available or perhaps Canon are prepared to make a blanket statement that within the specified life of the head you should never run out of remaps. That would be a strong statement and position (and obviously very welcomed).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162405\")
I believe that is true by definition. In other words, when you run out of remaps is when the head life is over and you will get a message that you have to replace the printhead. They are guaranteeing each printhead for one year or 10 trillion ink drops, whichever comes first. The guarantee is about 30% of the expected printhead life. You can find the data on "expected printhead life" here:
[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Printhead+Expected+Life]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Printhead+Expected+Life[/url]
Edit: Figuring that the printhead is effectively a "consumable", the cost to run the printhead per ml of ink used for printing is approximately 24 cents if you use the warranted figure above, and 7.5 cents per ml if you use the "expected printhead life". In other words, on average (expected printhead life) the cost of the printhead will be a fairly small fraction of the cost of ink, which is about 58 cents per ml.
--John
-
My 9800 was having bad nozzle checks last week. Humidity level in the studio and it was at 20%. Way too dry so I went out a purchased a humidifier to bring the level up to 35-40%. Has solved the problem. Could be a coincidence but I don't think so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can verify this. After we got aircon in the studio for the summer, and i blocked out all the windows with white background paper, the humidity has gone up, and the clogging has essentially stopped. My Epson 9800 clogged about every second time i would use it (about every second day.) And now it has not clogged since we got the temperature/humidity problem fixed. Going strong for 1/2 year without clogging...
-axel
-
Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the (Epson) water:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670)
Brings back bad memories of exactly the same clogging problems I had with my Epson 9600. Fits with my experience that the larger Epsons are worse for clogging than the smaller ones (Epson 3800 and smaller), which don't seem to be too much of a problem.
John,
The link you gave takes you to a page where you need to register before being able to see the article, just an FYI
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just an FYI John. I have even registered on that forum but still am told I do not have privileges to access that page. I am working with it.
Carl
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Denny and Claskin,
We need all the collective experience of users of competing printers to get round the advertizing hype. There are huge gaps between all claims and actual function. So it's important that URL links should work for us!
I apologise for OPF to have been user-unfriendly to you on this occaision. OTOH I appreciate learning of this issue which is caused the particular URLs with a number, requiring the OPF search engine! That's how it works. I will PM both of you here and try to make things easy for linking to any OPF url!
The intention is to only block spammers from getting access to photographers' private info in their profiles. We'll try to separate the different permissions if we can! OPF want's to be an open resource that works flawlessly and your report will help us do better!
I'm particularly interested in this topic since I'm about to replace my LF printer so every report is valuable.
Asher
-
Denny and Claskin,
We need all the collective experience of users of competing printers to get round the advertizing hype. There are huge gaps between all claims and actual function. So it's important that URL links should work for us!
I apologise for OPF to have been user-unfriendly to you on this occaision. OTOH I appreciate learning of this issue which is caused the particular URLs with a number, requiring the OPF search engine! That's how it works. I will PM both of you here and try to make things easy for linking to any OPF url!
The intention is to only block spammers from getting access to photographers' private info in their profiles. We'll try to separate the different permissions if we can! OPF want's to be an open resource that works flawlessly and your report will help us do better!
I'm particularly interested in this topic since I'm about to replace my LF printer so every report is valuable.
Asher
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Asher,
Thank you for your concern. Clearly you have fixed the problem since I can now log on without difficulty.
Carl Laskin
-
You're correct, Wayne, that the Canon uses remapping to deal with clogs. Not that this is a bad solution (users obviously love it), but eventually you run out of nozzles. Then, it's a replacable head so if it has enough remap space within the expected life all is good. You just have to factor in the replacement cost.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree it's not a bad solution, but that perspective is usually overlooked. One challenge with remapping of nozzles is you don't know when it happens, and if enough are remapped you need to re-calibrate the printer (which you can't do on the 5000, which requires you to re-profile it). It could be the printer re-calibrates itself when that happens ... haven't had mine but a few months, so hopefully not that many nozzles are clogged.
Given John's perspective of the projected cost of the heads, the fact that Canon ink is more expensive to start with, and considering the printer still uses a fair amount of ink keeping nozzles clear (more than most will admit), the Epson may actually cost less. (My calculations for ink costs are about .51/ml for 9880, vs .65/ml for canon, .58 plus John's conservative estimate of 7.5 cents for the head). Granted the canon may require less ink to print because of the primaries .. I don't know. But it seems to me the cost of ink between the two is not clear, and there is enough variables that neither can claim superiority in ink costs.
I have no axe to grind ... I own both a 6100 and an 11880, like both, and use both. But to me the only real clear advantage a Canon has over an Epson 4880 or 9880 is strictly in the on board pk/mk inks. Other than that I don't see either printer as obviously superior.
-
Granted the canon may require less ink to print because of the primaries .. I don't know. But it seems to me the cost of ink between the two is not clear, and there is enough variables that neither can claim superiority in ink costs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe the Canon does use less ink to print, for me it has averaged around 1.2-1.3 ml per square foot. This is a lot higher than Michael Reichmann's experience, but lower than the figures I have seen for Epson, which tend to come in around 2 ml per square foot. However, the 220 ml cartridges for Epson cost around 36-40 cents per ml, quite a bit cheaper than Canon. I am not convinced of a cost superiority for either in terms of ink costs, but in my experience (again, yours may vary) the convenience/time factor of not having to hassle with any clogs on the Canon is significant.
Another factor is the maintenance cartridges, which some have re-used on the Epson printers using paper towels, etc. and a reset of the counter. On the Canon printers, no workaround has been found to buying a new cartridge.
--John
-
But to me the only real clear advantage a Canon has over an Epson 4880 or 9880 is strictly in the on board pk/mk inks. Other than that I don't see either printer as obviously superior.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wayne,
You commented in another thread:
"Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens. I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer. It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.earlier that the 11880 had a better gamut than the 6100."
Have you had a chance to compare the 7880 or 9880 to the 11880 to see if the gamut is the same? I ask because apparently they have slightly different inksets.
--John
-
Wayne - do you have local costs there for 11880? It should be considerably less than for the 9880 if it follows the Australian pricing model which have the 11880 carts (700ml) at roughly 60% of the price per ml of the 220ml carts.
The amount of ink being used will depend on driver settings or RIP settings (particularly if using aggressive ink limiting - this can even lead to banding problems if it's too aggressive) and the media type etc. What *doesn't* have much of an impact is the output DPI setting even though that would seem counter intuitive to some.
I think John's point is very valid in terms of convenience factor. Again, competition has brought a new technology to the 11880 to automatically detect clogged nozzles and deal with it. More competition = better products. Can't complain about that!
-
Have you had a chance to compare the 7880 or 9880 to the 11880 to see if the gamut is the same? I ask because apparently they have slightly different inksets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John I'm curious about this. I'm quite sure this is not the case. the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.
Would it be valid to compare canned profiles for 11880 vs 9880 on the same paper type? Or are you looking for first hand spectro results?
-
John I'm curious about this. I'm quite sure this is not the case. the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162612\")
I got this (? fact) from:
[a href=\"http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html]http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html[/url]
The quote from Joe's review of the 11880 is:
"*This paragraph was updated 10-23-07: In the 11880 but probably not the other new machines, all six primary colors in the raw state of the printer are quite a bit different from those of the 9800 with the original K3 inkset. All six look darker and seem more saturated, portending a gamut on photo papers which includes noticeably more of the darker colors, historically the realm of dye gamuts. Coupled with the improved gloss of the new Luster (260), the effect is one of quite luscious-looking test forms and prints. The magenta, blue and red primaries will obviously be quite improved with the 9880 family of printers due to the new magenta pigment, but the other three primaries will almost certainly look the same as the last generation."
Of course, I have no way of knowing if this statement is accurate. Whether the printers produce roughly the same gamut and dmax (even if there are differences in the inksets) is a separate question. It would be interesting to examine profiles made for both 9880 and 11880 using Colorthink, assuming they were made with the same profiling package and the same media type setting for the printers.
--John
-
It would be interesting to examine profiles made for both 9880 and 11880 using Colorthink, assuming they were made with the same profiling package and the same media type setting for the printers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162619\")
PixelGenius made profiles (available free) for the Epson EFP for both the 11880, 9880 and 9800 printers. You can download them and see for yourself...
See: [a href=\"http://pixelgenius.com/epson/]Epson Exibition Finber Paper profiles[/url]
And yes, Joe is right...the 11880 DOES have better D-Max and total volume of color compared to the other 880 series printers.
-
Ah, John, the original author compared the 9800, not the 9880, and he supposes that's not the case in the other 880 series but I'm quite sure it is. Of course the inksets between 800 and 880 are different. Regular Magenta K3 compared to Vivid Magenta K3.
Other differences for the 11880 I would ascribe to differences in head technology and half-toning etc.
Here's a view of 9800 vs 11880 on EFP_PK_2880 based on the Pixel Genius profiles (attached - 9880_11880_EFP_PK_2880.jpg) and profile information courtesy of http://back.iccview.de/index_eng.htm (http://back.iccview.de/index_eng.htm) . The 11880 is shown in wireframe and the 9880 in solid colour.
Description:
SP9880_EFP_PK_2880
Tags: AToB1 (Colorimetric)
Calculation: LUT with 35937 grid points
Header:
size = 2930500 bytes
CMM = 'APPL'
Version = 2.4.0
Device Class = Output
Color Space = RGB
Conn. Space = Lab
Date, Time = 2 Oct 2007, 18:36:29
Platform = Macintosh
Flags = Not Embedded Profile, Use anywhere
Dev. Mnfctr. = 0x0
Dev. Model = 0x0
Dev. Attrbts = Reflective, Glossy
Rndrng Intnt = Perceptual
Illuminant = 0, 1, 0 [Lab 100, 0, -0]
Creator = 'LOGO'
Total volume of gamut is 747498 cubic colorspace units
Copyright by LOGO GmbH, Steinfurt
Description:
SP11880_EFP_PK_2880
Tags: AToB1 (Colorimetric)
Calculation: LUT with 35937 grid points
Header:
size = 1798568 bytes
CMM = 'APPL'
Version = 2.4.0
Device Class = Output
Color Space = RGB
Conn. Space = Lab
Date, Time = 1 Oct 2007, 18:41:36
Platform = Macintosh
Flags = Not Embedded Profile, Use anywhere
Dev. Mnfctr. = 0x0
Dev. Model = 0x0
Dev. Attrbts = Reflective, Glossy
Rndrng Intnt = Perceptual
Illuminant = 0, 1, 0 [Lab 100, 0, -0]
Creator = 'LOGO'
Total volume of gamut is 758396 cubic colorspace units
Copyright by LOGO GmbH, Steinfurt
-
And yes, Joe is right...the 11880 DOES have better D-Max and total volume of color compared to the other 880 series printers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Comparing the profiles for the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper in Colorthink Pro:
9880 has dmax of L* 3.7
11880 has dmax of L* 3.2
Gamut volume in colorthink pro:
9880 - 734,000
11880 - 756,000
Gamut volume about 2.9% greater for 11880.
Assuming they use the same media type this would be a valid comparison. There is a note on the Pixel Genius web site to use Premium Luster or Premium Luster (260) "depending on your printer".
--John
-
Ah, John, the original author compared the 9800, not the 9880, and he supposes that's not the case in the other 880 series but I'm quite sure it is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Joe is anything but a casual observer, so if he thought they were different, he probably had a very good reason. Still, it would be nice to know for sure.
--John
-
I don't doubt he saw differences in the output, John, I've read his commentary for some time and find it insightful.
My contention is over producing two different inks of minor variation being the reason for the differences versus differences in head technology, half-toning, drivers etc. The cost of producing a difference inkset between the 11880 and the other 880 series printers would seem absolutely prohibitive.
I'll make a point of sending some emails to ask the question :-)
-
Wayne - do you have local costs there for 11880? It should be considerably less than for the 9880 if it follows the Australian pricing model which have the 11880 carts (700ml) at roughly 60% of the price per ml of the 220ml carts.
The amount of ink being used will depend on driver settings or RIP settings (particularly if using aggressive ink limiting - this can even lead to banding problems if it's too aggressive) and the media type etc. What *doesn't* have much of an impact is the output DPI setting even though that would seem counter intuitive to some.
I think John's point is very valid in terms of convenience factor. Again, competition has brought a new technology to the 11880 to automatically detect clogged nozzles and deal with it. More competition = better products. Can't complain about that!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A checked ink prices a couple of weeks ago from two local suppliers (inkjetart.com an pictureline.com) and arrived at the .51/ml price. However, you are right, after checking again a few minutes ago, its seems inkjetart.com has lowered the price, and now the ink is at .40/ml.
I suppose the Canon is slightly more convenient - that is assuming the clogging has not improved on the new 48/78/9880 printers. My limited experience on those printers has shown otherwise, but it's still too early. (it certainly not an issue with my 3800 or my 11880).
-
John I'm curious about this. I'm quite sure this is not the case. the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.
Would it be valid to compare canned profiles for 11880 vs 9880 on the same paper type? Or are you looking for first hand spectro results?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162612\")
You may want to look at an earlier thread about the 11880.
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21642]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=21642[/url]
In that thread, Jeff Schewe explains the different between the 11880 inks vs the other x880 series printers.
My own experience with the 11880 has mirrored that of other users.
-
My contention is over producing two different inks of minor variation being the reason for the differences versus differences in head technology, half-toning, drivers etc. The cost of producing a difference inkset between the 11880 and the other 880 series printers would seem absolutely prohibitive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My assumption is that the K3+VM of the 11880 is more advanced, but can't be used in the 9880 series due to differences in the head design. My guess is that the K3+VM of the 9880 is more of an "interim step" that can work OK with the older head design of the 9880 series. Of course, I have zero inside knowledge here, just speculating. Once Epson brings the technology to the "smaller" large format printers they will probably bring the new K3+VM inkset from the 11880 along.
--John
-
Reading Schewe's earlier post *appears* to me to be comparing K3 with K3+Vivid Magenta, not K3+Vivid Magent 4880/7880/9880 with K3+Vivid Magenta 11880, but I agree it could be read either way.
If you look at part numbers, there are new K3 inkset part numbers. So the new Cyan, for example, works in the 9880 and 9800 but the old Cyan only works in the 9800.
Suggests to me there was more to Vivid Light Magenta than the change in the magentas, but not that the 11880 uses a different subset again.
Having said that, if you look at the new head technology it could certainly be that changes were made to the pigment encapsulation to work/take advantage of the new design.
Of course, I feel a bit dumb speculating on the meaning of something posted by someone here...I'm sure Schewe will correct my assumption subject to any restrictions on his commenting imposed by Epson :-)
-
I'll add another correction to the mix -- in my own printing to date the darkest images (night/twilight panoramas) are no more than 1.5ml per foot with the 9880 and not 2ml as John stated. The images are 18x72 inches printed area so I'd consider the numbers from the machine accurate. Other images are slightly less than 1.4mls and are larger yet. I'm only printing matte with the 9880. With the 4000 it was more like 1.2mls per foot and didn't seem to make much difference between types of paper.
Adding the cost of the Canon print head as well as John's stated usage for the auto head cleanings and I think the economics of the Epson are as good or better provided you don't have to switch inks, of course. If you have to switch inks than everything changes.
Doug
-
I'll add another correction to the mix -- in my own printing to date the darkest images (night/twilight panoramas) are no more than 1.5ml per foot with the 9880 and not 2ml as John stated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hadn't seen any figures on ink use for quite a while, so it is good to have more updated information. This certainly swings the economics toward Epson, assuming that the cleanings on Epson and the Canon iPF printers use about the same amount of ink (hard to know for sure, but probably a reasonable assumption given the data I have on printhead cleanings on the Canon iPF5000).
One other aspect of the Canon printers I really like is the loading of roll paper. Not that it was difficult on the Epson 9600 I had, but the Canon is really nice with the motorized roll feed. I don't know if the 9880 generation has changed any in this regard.
--John
-
For roll paper loading I find that the 9800/9880 is simple and probably a bit easier than the 4000. There are only two tricks I've found so far. Foremost is to always leave the printer set to autocut/roll feed as if set to no-cut it will let out a leader and waste a bit of paper. For art papers with a sensitive coating (moab's entrada comes to mind) it may be wise to roll the paper back on the spool while it's positioning itself and not let it drag against the inside of the roll paper cover as insurance against flaking. For the last a powered roller might be a little more hands-off but it would be to roll media back up, not feed the paper.
I haven't used the 5000 directly and the local user I know may not be the happiest camper at the jamboree but they gave up on the roll feeder. In Canon's defense they may still be using an original defective unit on an early model. Though I believe it was replaced once previously it may not be the final, fixed design.
Doug
-
I haven't used the 5000 directly and the local user I know may not be the happiest camper at the jamboree but they gave up on the roll feeder. In Canon's defense they may still be using an original defective unit on an early model. Though I believe it was replaced once previously it may not be the final, fixed design.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If they gave up on the roll feeder, it is almost certainly defective. Once properly fixed (applies to 5000 only, as I am sure the X100 series will not have this problem) the roll feed unit is a dream. I don't think there have been any complaints on the Wiki in regards to the functioning of a non-defective RFU.
--John
-
Reading Schewe's earlier post *appears* to me to be comparing K3 with K3+Vivid Magenta, not K3+Vivid Magent 4880/7880/9880 with K3+Vivid Magenta 11880, but I agree it could be read either way.
If you look at part numbers, there are new K3 inkset part numbers. So the new Cyan, for example, works in the 9880 and 9800 but the old Cyan only works in the 9800.
Suggests to me there was more to Vivid Light Magenta than the change in the magentas, but not that the 11880 uses a different subset again.
Having said that, if you look at the new head technology it could certainly be that changes were made to the pigment encapsulation to work/take advantage of the new design.
Of course, I feel a bit dumb speculating on the meaning of something posted by someone here...I'm sure Schewe will correct my assumption subject to any restrictions on his commenting imposed by Epson :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you read the thread I mentioned a few posts up, Jeff provided the following information
"Reformulated resin to reduce gloss differential (even more than the K3 inks) and a further increase of pigment density (beyond the K3 inkset). The reformulated resin and new head design also decreases the likelihood of clogging (that head change may also be in the smaller printers–I can't remember).
Epson didn't want to over-promote the reformulated K3 with Vivid Magenta inkset for the 11880 just yet..."
If you read that thread in context, that answer was a direct response to a question about the 11880 inkset being different than the 48/78/9880 ink set.
-
Thanks, Wayne. I've re-read it (again :-) and now get the context of it. Interesting stuff.