Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: ghaynes754 on April 10, 2010, 12:14:15 pm
-
It's been awhile since I did a switch from Matte Black (Canvas) to Photo Black (Epson Fibre). I don't remember the 9900 doing a full cleaning cycle after the switch. Today when I started I ran my normal nozzle check (everything firing) and then switched to back to Matte. Printer ran a full cleaning after the switch which eats up 84ml of all colors according to the report on MyEpsonPrinter. Is this normal? Looked in the manual and it doesn't mention anything. Side note all ACN etc is turned off. AID is set to 1.
-
It's been awhile since I did a switch from Matte Black (Canvas) to Photo Black (Epson Fibre). I don't remember the 9900 doing a full cleaning cycle after the switch. Today when I started I ran my normal nozzle check (everything firing) and then switched to back to Matte. Printer ran a full cleaning after the switch which eats up 84ml of all colors according to the report on MyEpsonPrinter. Is this normal? Looked in the manual and it doesn't mention anything. Side note all ACN etc is turned off. AID is set to 1.
Disabling ANC doesn't affect nozzle cleans when switching blacks - it will still check. I have no clue why Epson made this decision- disabling ANC should do just that- completely disable it. Switching blacks frequently triggers cleans. I still do all black switching in service mode although even then I have had the machine decide to do a nozzle check when going back into normal mode.
My last black switch i was in a "hurry" so i thought I would not use service mode, which triggered cleans and also shows why the new options are pointless ... After cleaning the printer informed me there were still some clogs then proceeded to print. (I thought i had this turned off) Since a substantial number of black nozzles still had no ink to them the print had heavy banding. The new firmware options really are not useful.
-
It's been awhile since I did a switch from Matte Black (Canvas) to Photo Black (Epson Fibre). I don't remember the 9900 doing a full cleaning cycle after the switch. Today when I started I ran my normal nozzle check (everything firing) and then switched to back to Matte. Printer ran a full cleaning after the switch which eats up 84ml of all colors according to the report on MyEpsonPrinter. Is this normal? Looked in the manual and it doesn't mention anything. Side note all ACN etc is turned off. AID is set to 1.
84ml's !!! That must be some sort of record. The highest I had was about 45ml's on a cleaning. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Like Wayne (and thanks to him) I do all my switching in service mode.
I like to imagine that for every full cleaning run on these beasts a little bell dings in the CEO's office and he realizes he is one step closer to that luxury yacht he so very much wants.
-
Today I also tried switching blacks in Service mode. Then I rebooted the printer in normal mode and just before it started printing it performed an automatic cleaning which according to Jobmonitor ate up approximately 8 ml. I executed this procedure twice and the second time it consumed approximately 7 ml. Both times the autocleanig infomed me that there are still some clogs. Note that ANC is off and AID set to 1.
-
I have also found that this series of printers tends to run (expensive) cleaning cycles far too often. What, if anything, is the workaround? (I guess that's the question to begin with, but it bugs me).
David
-
Today I also tried switching blacks in Service mode. Then I rebooted the printer in normal mode and just before it started printing it performed an automatic cleaning which according to Jobmonitor ate up approximately 8 ml. I executed this procedure twice and the second time it consumed approximately 7 ml. Both times the autocleanig infomed me that there are still some clogs. Note that ANC is off and AID set to 1.
I have also found that this series of printers tends to run (expensive) cleaning cycles far too often. What, if anything, is the workaround? (I guess that's the question to begin with, but it bugs me).
David
My current method to try and avoid this particular auto nozzle check is to start the printer in service mode, and then do the ink swap. I then run a CL1 on the black channel (about 1 to 1.5 ml of ink), and print out a nozzle pattern from the host computer. If I get any missing nozzles I will remedy them with channel cleans. Only after I get a good nozzle pattern do I turn off the machine and power back up in normal mode. So far using these steps I have not have the machine trigger a nozzle check/clean.
-
a naive question - how does one start the printer in service mode?
David
-
On the HPz3200 and the Canon ProGraf printers you simply put in any type of media you want and click print. I just can't believe Epson still gets away with all this waste.
a naive question - how does one start the printer in service mode?
David
-
On the HPz3200 and the Canon ProGraf printers you simply put in any type of media you want and click print. I just can't believe Epson still gets away with all this waste.
Wonder why you quoted someone asking a question, then offered nothing. I don't think anyone on these forums is unaware of the facts you state.
I've used all of them and feel it's the best output. Not knocking the others, they're all good. I've seen some output from the new ipf6300/8300's and it looks like they are in the same league, i don't have one yet to test.
Epson ink waste is manageable, and print quality is exceptional. I'm constantly surprised how many people seem so concerned with ink costs. I guess if your margins are that low perhaps, but if doing high end printing and charging appropriately, the ink is really not very significant. I've been tracking my ink waste on an under utilized 7900, and it is coming in at around 10%, meaning about a nickel per square foot.. Not all of that goes in the waste tank, some of it is waste on prints that are rejected as well, and wasted paper costs are far greater than wasted ink costs.
If the printers are used in volume situations (which the majority of Epsons are) the wasted ink really isn't very significant either. As far as black ink swaps, most Epson printers never switch inks, as the majority are in production houses with multiple printers, each dedicated to a specific paper type/ ink combination. We have a relatively small operation, and yet run an 11880, a 7900, and a 3880 daily. The only time I switch to MK on the 7900 is test new papers. This forum is not really representative of the average user of Epson printers.
-
a naive question - how does one start the printer in service mode?
David
with the machine off, hold the down arrow, right arrow and center button, then power the machine on. Continue holding until things start showing up. At that point you will be presented with new menus. Stay away from all of them except the cleaning ones. There will you see four levels of cleans, CL1 to CL4, available for all nozzles or just color pairs. The CL1 appears to only use about 1 to 1.5 ml of ink per color, so 2 to 3 mil if cleaning 1 pair.
To print a nozzle pattern you have to send it from the host computer while in service mode. You can actually operate the printer fine in service mode, however it wont' got to sleep.
-
Ditto to Waynes ink comments. My ink costs are less then 5% of a print sale. Heck it costs more to turn the heat and lights on in this place then I spend on ink.
Business owners like myself look at this in a totally different light. The more ink we use when printing the more money we make.
-
I don't want to wade into anyone's bunfight - for one thing, it's not terribly helpful to the OP - but I think Deanwork may simply have been expressing amazement at the elaborate hoops Wayne is forced to jump through just to effectively switch blacks on an Epson, despite the loudly trumpeted claims to the contrary made at the time of its release and the fact that the other major manufacturers have left this issue behind them. It really does beggar belief.
-
double post
-
I don't want to wade into anyone's bunfight - for one thing, it's not terribly helpful to the OP
Agreed, but it never fails when someone asks for help with their choice of an Epson printer someone has to bring this up.
- but I think Deanwork may simply have been expressing amazement at the elaborate hoops Wayne is forced to jump through just to effectively switch blacks on an Epson,
No hoops, pretty simple actually. the real issue is each person has to learn about it on their own
despite the loudly trumpeted claims to the contrary made at the time of its release
Completely agree with this point ... from Epson claims you would expect this to be the best printer for nozzle issues but it certainly doesn't live up to those claims and that is disappointing. I am intimately familiar with about 5 of these machines now, and they all exhibit the same issues across the board. If every user pretty much has to disable a touted feature such as auto nozzle check because of excessive ink waste, that clearly demonstrates the technology has some serious issues. If almost every printer out there has issues with excessive failed nozzles (not clogs), that demonstrates a design issue. Despite those issues, it really is very manageable, no different than any other Epson printer. As far as the issue with black ink swap, I still have no clue why Epson decided in the firmware to have a choice to disable ANC which doesn't do what it claims and still checks when swapping blacks.
and the fact that the other major manufacturers have left this issue behind them. It really does beggar belief.
Well, it's always nice to come 2nd to the party so you know what you need to do. And while it seems easy to add more nozzles, etc., it seems every time Epson does so (the 4000 and the 11880), they find adding some other color benefits the output more so they use that MK channel for some other color (4880 and 79/9900). And while the majority of those frequenting this forum may find ink swapping a desirable feature, the majority of Epson printers rarely if ever swap inks.
-
Well, it's always nice to come 2nd to the party so you know what you need to do. And while it seems easy to add more nozzles, etc., it seems every time Epson does so (the 4000 and the 11880), they find adding some other color benefits the output more so they use that MK channel for some other color (4880 and 79/9900). And while the majority of those frequenting this forum may find ink swapping a desirable feature, the majority of Epson printers rarely if ever swap inks.
I think any user will desire a printer that allows the use of matte and gloss black ink instantly and without waste in cleaning or ink. Whether for infrequent use, low volume or high volume printing. A 12 channel, 360 nozzles each, piëzo head would be expensive. So Epson compromises on it and the Epson users base see it is an inevitable compromise. For what reason? The majority of Epson users do not swap because it is expensive and takes time. The majority doesn't have a second printer to split the work on. For low volume and infrequent use it would be too big an investment and only create more problems with clogging. So they compromise. In a high volume print shop there is an excuse but in fact it is a lame excuse as two printers that can do both kind of jobs instantly have advantages there too. The workload can be divided more flexible, the back up if one machine fails is at hand, etc.
Epson was first to the party 10 years ago, more than 3 years ago they got the message what they could have developed in the seven years before. It looks like they can not deliver a solution like that with the technology they have. While ink consumption may not be an important cost factor for a shop it could well be an important factor for Epson. An expensive printer, frugal on ink, may not be what they want. There is a technological or a commercial reason that Epson doesn't deliver a better solution yet for what users actually desire.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Epson was first to the party 10 years ago, more than 3 years ago they got the message what they could have developed in the seven years before. It looks like they can not deliver a solution like that with the technology they have. While ink consumption may not be an important cost factor for a shop it could well be an important factor for Epson. An expensive printer, frugal on ink, may not be what they want. There is a technological or a commercial reason that Epson doesn't deliver a better solution yet for what users actually desire.
It is no different than with any other industry. The company that comes up with something revolutionary just sits back and counts their money, and before long, a competitor passes them while they are asleep at the wheel. I'm sure Epson isn't hurting, but I sure do wonder how much of a market share they have lost given the good offerings from Canon and HP (which I think isn't as good as the rest mind you). I have a Canon iPF6100 and am delighted with how it works compared to the Epson 4800 I had. I realize that many people who are churning out prints every day might lose proportionately less on ink then us home users that print every now and then, but I can't help but think that the average person is a huge segment of the market now buying up all these things, much like the dad who just wants to take pics with his kids using a fancy and expensive Canon 5DII or better. These expensive toys are more like consumer items now and not just being kept afloat by professionals. So I wonder how long it will be until Epson does start to hurt and they notice that it is hurting their bottom line. Thank goodness that there are choices out there so we aren't forced to buy a printer that continually wastes ink! (The only good thing about the Epson was that I could see how much ink I was wasting each time I turned it on. I was religious with always doing a nozzle check and then being horrified to find I'd waste 20ml of ink to print an 8x10 that would use 2ml! On that Canon, these ink usage numbers aren't as easy to get, but thankfully, it has never clogged once and I hardly ever see it doing a clean cycle.)
-
Let's be clear. The majority of Epson users do *not* swap PK and MK. The majority of Epson users are proofers.
Epson had both inks on board without needing to swap with the 4000. You know what? They had a heap of complaints from customers who said they never used one of the blacks and so it was wasted and they felt hard done by because they had to have both installed.
A lot of photographers swap blacks and that's why Wayne said it's not very well represented here when considering the total market.
For a professional, the cost of the ink, as many have stated, is only a very tiny portion of costs. I'll see if I can dig up some figures I worked out a while back to calculate real printing costs.
-
OK - some figures I did in January based on Australian retail costs to operate an Epson Stylus Pro 9880:
Taking into account:
Ink
Maintenance Tanks
Autocutter Space Blades
Yearly maintenance
Depreciation of unit over 3 years
Electricity
Media (I did figures on Traditional Photo (Exhibition Fibre), Satin Canvas, Premium Luster and Textured Fine Art)
Including taxes, at full retail price, it worked out to about AUD$15.84 / sqm, plus 10% "wastage" gives $17.42 / sqm
Taking the Canvas cost - the total worked out at around $66.50 / sqm not including spraying or laminating or stretching or edging etc), which makes the ink about 26% of the actual cost, not allowing for labour.
For Premium Luster, the cost worked out around $41.50 / sqm which pushed the percentage of ink cost up to 38% of the cost.
Traditional Photo was in the middle at around $51.50 / sqm and Textured Fine Art was much higher at $73.50 / sqm.
So let's say on average that's about 30% of total costs are ink. This doesn't take into account wasted media, either, which would push the percentage down.
So, now consider what you would charge per sqm (1 sqm = 10.76 sqf). How much does the ink really represent out of your margin?
Of course every business wants to reduce costs and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's just a cost of doing business and for the return most professionals get it's not a big deal. If you also add in the cost of rent or real estate, insurance, perhaps staff, advertising, capital expenditure on equipment for framing, matting and such, it all becomes even less of a cost.
-
So to recap: the Epsons waste quite a bit of ink, but if you're a real professional, cranking out prints all day in a press house or service lab, it doesn't represent enough money to worry about. OK, fair enough I guess.
So all the other lower-volume users (some of whom are professionals, making a living from photography and printing for themselves), should just suck it up and quit complaining, because they weren't really who Epson made the printer for in the first place?
Sorry but I think Epson has gotten complacent, they used to have this market all to themselves, but not anymore. They can and should do better. I really think they deserve the criticism they're getting.
-
That's not at all what's being said, Jeff.
It's there in black and white. If you want to put a spin on it, then that's up to you.
I'm not suggesting that people can't ask Epson to do better. Wayne, whilst defending ink usage and costs, makes several key and reasonable points where improvements could be made (improvements that I think would suit most users, photographers, proofers and others alike).
It is useful, though, to keep everything in perspective and realise that it's just not that huge a cost when you take into consideration all the other factors involved. Yes, improved performance of anything is always welcome. As Ernst suggested, though, heads with more channels cost money, particularly when it's a permanent head and as Wayne mentioned it's a question of do you want more gamut, better LUT or less ink cost to switch between PK and MK? I'm sure the answer is "all of the above", but that's not always commercially possible within a given time frame.
Keep telling them what you want, that's what helps to drive these improvements, but just keep everything rooted in reality when complaining about these costs.
Oh, and to the lower volume users - if you're a low volume user you typically need to make higher margins (let's assume we're talking fine art printing here). That just makes the "waste" even less of an issue in those margins. Anyway, just trying to shed a few realities on the debate. I'm not for one second suggesting you shouldn't press for improvements.
-
I hesitate to chime in here, but…
Yes, Epson printers “waste” some ink in keeping heads cleaned. But, I don’t quite understand why no one complains about Canon printers “wasting” print heads for exactly the same purpose. Mapping out nozzles when they can’t be cleaned leads to the need to replace heads after a few years, and it’s a big expense. I don’t know if they “waste” less ink in their periodic cleanings. but that may well be the case. I’m honestly not sure which system is cheaper, but it’s certainly not as clear cut as saying one "wastes" ink and one does not.
I also do not consider all ink that doesn’t end up on paper “wasted”, since it performs a required function without which the printer will not function. Nozzle and head replacement perform the identical function in other brands, and it's not as if they use zero ink in attempting to clear clogs before nozzle replacement is required. The only difference is whether the money goes into ink or ink+ nozzles and heads. When you spray ink from nozzle that’s thinner than a hair, clogs are going to happen no matter what system is used. Pumping ink to clear the clogs is just one way to solve the problem, and replacing clogged nozzles and print heads with new ones is another. The simple fact is that piezo nozzles (Epson) are very expensive, so the nozzle and head swapping method is not an option. Flushing the nozzles with ink clears clogs with the least cost and is just what makes sense. Thermal nozzles (Canon, HP) are relatively cheap, and replacing or mapping them out is what accomplishes the clog clearing task with the lowest cost on these printers. It’s simply what makes sense if you’re using thermal heads. One method is not particularly better or worse. It’s a fundamental difference in the technologies, each of which has distinct advantages and disadvantages. There's a lot more to selecting a printer than ink usage, which is indeed a small part of the cost of photography and print making.
-
It is not a matter of just ink cost, though 10% would be pathetic, it is a matter of wasted time, not only in this ridiculous switching procedure that is antiquated, but having to do nozzle checks all the time so that a 30x40 print doesn't end up with banding due to clogged nozzles. Every minute of every day someone is doing a nozzle check on an Epson. You don't think that adds up big time for them?
Now if all you are doing is proofing and output on rc media all day, avoiding rag media, I'm sure everything is perfectly fine. But for those of us, and they're thousands, who are switching media constantly, often on two printers, like Ernst and I are, it is a total waste of time and energy.
I did bring this up to the Epson reps at Photo Expo in NY back when the 9800 was first released and the HPZ3100 and the Canon IPF were first released. The Epson rep just grinned a sarcastic grin (reminded me of Kodak) and said, well maybe you need to buy two of them. I said I'll walk over here to the HP and Canon booths and talk to them, and that is what thousands of us did.
j
-
Buy the way Ernst, I don't think I agree that this major limitation exists with piezzo heads in regard to making them perform with clean running nozzles.
We both had an Epson 10K back in the day and I never ever had clogged nozzles, even with the most lint producing rag papers like William Turner, roll after roll, and even after 8 years of use. These heads just run clean, as they did on the Rolands they were also licensed to. I never remember people complaining about the Roload Hi Fi Jet or the Mimaki clogging and sputtering like that. The 10K certainly didn't. Those were good heads that didn't do these constant cleaning cycles. And their big size sprayed out a lot of ink at a time. And I never even had to reset a waste tank after all that mileage. Maybe moving from 1440 to 2880 caused all this problem, who knows.
-
Sorry for being a bit off topic previously, as the original post was about black switching and not clogging. The difference in black switching between brands is still due to the difference between piezo and thermal print head technology. Putting matt and photo black inks online at all times in a piezo head would increase the head size significantly, and it would raise the cost of the piezo printers, which are already more expensive, beyond reason. When using thermal heads it makes sense to add an ink channel to the head since it can be done while maintaining a reasonable size and cost. All of this could change with advancing technology, but for now it’s what we’ve got. So, yes, in terms of black ink swapping the thermal head printers are better, and will be for a while. Whether this is a big consideration depends entirely on how you use the printer. If you have to switch black inks “constantly” you’re likely better off with a Canon or HP. If you only need to switch once in a while it probably doesn’t make a big difference and other considerations may be more important.
I’ve personally pretty much abandoned matt papers since the baryta papers came on the scene, and the performance of the Epson 7900 on these papers was a large part of the reason I bought that printer. But once in a while I have to switch to matt papers for a client, and less often I want to do it for myself. Because of that I wanted black ink swapping that was easier and less expensive than the previous Epson printers provided. The X900 printers satisfy that acceptably for me, though not perfectly. I’ve had the 7900 for 16 months and given my requirements it has been wonderful, meaning stunning output on my media of choice with some annoyances thrown in for good measure. I guess the key point here is that one has to evaluate a printer based on personal requirements. None of them are “best” for everyone.
-
... Maybe moving from 1440 to 2880 caused all this problem, who knows.
I don't know, but I'd bet on it. The droplet size on the 10Ks was around 10 pl and it's 3.5 pl in the X900s, with correspondingly smaller nozzle size.
Added -- But honestly, I've had two clogging incidents in the last five months -- since the November firmware update. Before that I had many more, but it was very manageable. I wonder if it's more to do with matt papers...
-
For me with my Epson 4800, it wasn't so much just about clogging, or the time as another poster mentioned, it was all the unecessary thigns that were going on. Cleaning cycles were run randomly with no way to turn them off, and what was worse was that the cleaning cycles were causing entire color channels to drop out. I know another poster mentioned that my problem was a simple fix of just swapping out one component, I'm not even sure which one, but after ready these boards for quite a while, it seems like far too many people with Epsons just have a teach come over with a box full of parts and start swapping them out. I'm sure that there are many more happy people than unhappy ones, but my frustrations with the printer will take a long time to be forgotten and Epson would have to drastically redesign everything, right down to giving the user more power about what the printer is doing before I bought another Epson printer. Or perhaps just have the printer keep track of how much ink it wastes, and when I reach 220ml, Epson sends me a new cart of my choosing to cover the lost ink. The ink costs that go on paper aren't usually the issue for most people, it is ink that they are paying for which will never be used which is the problem and the fact tha Epson designs their printers to waste ink to help their bottom line!!!
-
and the fact tha Epson designs their printers to waste ink to help their bottom line!!!
What a load of BS. This is the problem - people make absurd, emotionally driven comments that bear no realtion whatsoever to fact. The better option would be to provide feedback and to vote with your wallet.
-
What a load of BS. This is the problem - people make absurd, emotionally driven comments that bear no realtion whatsoever to fact. The better option would be to provide feedback and to vote with your wallet.
You'd start to cry too if you knew that turning your printer on would waste more ink than the ink used to actually print out an 8x10! And I did vote with my wallet by buying a Canon. Feedback is pointless. An engineer at Epson doesn't want to be told how to do his job.
-
You'd start to cry too if you knew that turning your printer on would waste more ink than the ink used to actually print out an 8x10! And I did vote with my wallet by buying a Canon. Feedback is pointless. An engineer at Epson doesn't want to be told how to do his job.
It doesn't use ink to just turn it on. If it runs a clean, it will use ink.
An engineer doesn't want to be told how to do his job, but he will want to know what the customer wants and try to deliver such a product.
-
It doesn't use ink to just turn it on. If it runs a clean, it will use ink.
An engineer doesn't want to be told how to do his job, but he will want to know what the customer wants and try to deliver such a product.
Well I'm nearly not as smart as an engineer, but as a consumer, I would think that a printer shouldn't randly just run clean cycles if I turn that feature off. Perhaps let me do a nozzle check pattern and run it myself if I want. But the Epson isn't designed this way. It will still continue to do what it wants to do. And when a clean cycle ends up cause more trouble by leaving entire color channels missing after the clean, then you would understand the frustration.
As for the second point, DPReview has been saying forever that Canon should have a direct button on their bodies for mirror lockup instead of being buried in the menus. I think they have mentioned this for at least 5 years. They could have easily mapped this function to the useless print button since other buttons are customizable. But has this happened? No. I would think at least one person high up at Canon would be reading the reviews coming from one of the most popular sites in the world. I'm also sure lots of people have complained about only a 2 stop range in the exposure bracketing mode. But this hasn't changed either. Now I'm not saying they aren't listening to this or unaware, but some big guy at Canon is I'm sure not wanting to do it just yet, leaving these so called upgrades for when they need to add something new to a camera and have nothing else. So these major companies don't give customers what they want, they tell customers what they should want, give them as little as necessary to ensure they get more money out of them, and do it all over again in another year. Luckily in terms of the major players for printing there are other options now so we can vote with our wallet, which is of course the best way, and not just send messages and feedback which I don't believe are all that usefull.
-
Well I'm nearly not as smart as an engineer, but as a consumer, I would think that a printer shouldn't randly just run clean cycles if I turn that feature off. Perhaps let me do a nozzle check pattern and run it myself if I want. But the Epson isn't designed this way. It will still continue to do what it wants to do.
Untrue. If ANC is disabled, the ONLY time the 7900/9900 will do an Auto Nozzle Check is during the time you prime the machine, and when you swap blacks. All other nozzle checks are disabled if you turn the feature off. So with it disabled you do run your own nozzle checks, and clean only appropriate colors.
Agreed it should be disabled when swapping blacks, I assume someone just spaced that function when they updated the firmware.
And it's not like Epsons drink ink ... I only have to clear nozzles a few times a month at most, have only had nozzles fail during printing one time, and if the humidity is decent I have gone months with no clogs.
-
I agree with Wayne. My clogs have almost disappeared on my 7900 and 9900. At most I am doing nozzle checks 2 or 3 times a month. I now have the 9900 set up for pk and have not switched black ink on either printer for at least a month. That can change quickly as the first person through the door that wants a 44" mk print will get it.
The ink used in the switch is quite minimal. Now if you switched inks every day I could see this being a pretty costly issue.
If It was't for reading about ink switching usage every time I read this forum I would probably never give it a second thought.