Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Scott Martin on April 28, 2012, 11:51:53 am

Title: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 28, 2012, 11:51:53 am
I'd venture to guess that at least 95% of the complaints of failed print heads are due to under-usage. These printers (all large format brands) like to be used and clog up when left idle for months at a time. I'm seeing original heads from 6 year old iPF5000s going strong in print shops that use their printers daily. And shops that are burning out iPF heads from lots of use aren't complaining about replacements because they are making so much money off of them and the user-replaceable aspect is a good thing for them.

We need to scream this from the top of a mountain. These printers like to be used!! Make at least one 8x10 print every single week and leave them on 100% of the time. Vacuum pressure and ink movement needs to be maintained. If allowed to sit off for periods of time, all large format printers (HP, Canon and Epson) will clog and introduce unnecessary and costly expenses.

Those that aren't printing every week should consider outsourcing their printing or making it a habit to print at least one (but preferably several) 8x10s every single week.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 28, 2012, 12:18:30 pm
Scott, you've probably hit the nail on the head (not the print-head) here. But I have one question - the advice to leave the machine ON all the time. This is contrary to advice I've received from Epson to shut it down when not using it, because this creates a seal that protects the printhead from drying out.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 28, 2012, 12:42:49 pm
Scott, to amplify - looks like this is one of those "it depends" situations: Here is a direct quote from several published Epson bulletins:

<On and Off
This may seem like a basic thing, turning a printer on and off…How can that be a problem? It isn’t unless you turn it on and off from a power strip. Never do that. When you turn a printer off, it parks the heads in a very specific place. Shutting the printer down from a power strip may by pass the normal shut down procedure and the heads may not be parked properly. This can lead to the head drying out and becoming clogged. If you use your printer on a daily basis, just leave it on. This is not a waste of energy as the printer uses minimal power in stand-by mode. You should turn the printer off if it is not going to be used for a few days. However, your printer does work best when used regularly so it is recommended that you turn the printer on and make a small number of prints at least every seven to ten days.>
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on April 28, 2012, 12:47:07 pm

Those that aren't printing every week should consider outsourcing their printing or making it a habit to print at least one (but preferably several) 8x10s every single week.

If intermittent use is to be expected then take an HP Z. It may be slower, the carts are smaller but it copes best with that work load and the idle times.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: tmphoto on April 28, 2012, 05:23:51 pm
I'd venture to guess that at least 95% of the complaints of failed print heads are due to under-usage.
I don't agree, unless the x900 printers are badly designed. With older printer you could not print for weeks, months or even years and the clogs were fixable.

Here is a partial text from post 653 on the "Epson 7900 from the inside - out":
www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61585.670#653

Quote
I can assure you that problems caused by little use can be fixed.
User neglect, take a look at this:
http://e7800.printermed.com/kv2v6403.htm
http://e7800.printermed.com/kv2v6455.htm
Got the above printer for $100 with empty cartridges because it was badly clogged.
Serviced the cleaning unit and cleaned the head externally. After that I was able to print a clean nozzle check just using the inks that were left in the lines.
http://e7800.printermed.com/kv2v6463.htm
The wiper blade above did not need replacement, it was in great shape after cleaning. Same with the other parts.

After that I cleaned all the printer parts, ran some cleaning fluid trough the head and lubricated - It's working like new.
http://e7800.printermed.com/kv2v6450.htm
http://e7800.printermed.com/kv2v6410.htm

The above printer was used continuously until the owner bought a new 7900 then set aside for several months.
So, lots of wet ink accumulated over a 3-4 years that the dried off (used a lot and then "neglected", really bad but fixable).

In the attached pic a 9800, similar experience. Behind a 9600 printer, under cover. This printer was stored away in like new condition for several years. It has been cleaned and printing fine now.

 
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on April 29, 2012, 01:55:52 am
Often overlooked or minimized is the dramatic affect humidity has on all of these printers. Most buying these printers don't think much about this, but if you really want to minimize clogs you might want to consider finding an autofill humidifier, hooking it up through a reverse osmosis water supply and making sure the humidity in the room stays at 45%. While many live in "humid" environments,  natural humidity gets sucked out of the air by both air conditioning and heating.  A few years ago I was a guest of HP's in Atlanta Georgia while evaluating the installation of an HP  Indigo digital press.  I was surprised to see several commercial humidifiers running through the facility ... I assumed Atlanta was plenty humid.

Setting a bowl of water near the printer won't do it.  If you are in a moderately dry environment (natural humidity floats at around 25% in my house), it takes several gallons of water each day to keep the room the printers are located in at 45%.  I worked with a company who specializes in systems for applications where critical humidity control is needed.  He modifies humidifiers with autofill float mechanisms, and adds controls to them to create very accurate humidity control. He convinced me to get a little larger unit (rated at 8 gallons/day) rather than a smaller one with the high end control.  The built in control on the humidifier was accurate enough for what I needed.

  I installed one a few weeks ago after fighting some issues with my new 4900. With this running, I have yet to clean a nozzle on either the 4900 or 9900.  No matter the brand of the printer, it something worth considering ... it will add substantial life to the heads for a Canon or HP, or save time and ink cleaning nozzles of the Epsons.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 29, 2012, 09:31:07 am
You're right - the humidity of the room is an important variable. Epson is explicit about this in the Specifications section of the manual (4900 here): 20% to 80% RH. Print quality guarantee: 40% to 60%.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ken Doo on April 29, 2012, 10:19:57 am
+1.  Yup---Mark and Wayne are spot on.  A hygrometer is a relatively inexpensive purchase (about $12-25) to measure the humidity in your print area.  I keep one by my printers and a separate one where I store my rolls of media.  My target for rh is between 40%-60%.

My printers generally get used regularly, but I did have concerns for those times when I leave the studio for days/weeks at a time and the printer is not used.  I found a printer utility (with a tacky name) called Harvey Head Cleaner (HHC).  See, www.harveyheadcleaner.com  It prints a nozzle check on the dates/times that you schedule.  All I have to say is that it works as advertised.  A whopping $39.95---well-worth the investment.  I leave an inexpensive 10" roll of media loaded in the printer and a laptop left on.  The program will *wake up* the computer to print a nozzle check as scheduled.  This is a pretty simple means to keep a small amount of ink flowing through the print head and keep the capping station wet.  I emailed to check---and was told I could purchase a single license to run the HHC on all my printers (I use two separate computers for three printers).  Right now I use HHC scheduled daily to print a nozzle check on my 9800 K7 piezography printer which doesn't get exercised as much as the 9900.  And no, I don't have any connection with HHC.  Otherwise, since I'm usually in studio all the time, I do turn my printers off at the end of each day.  It seems to me that when you turn on your printer it goes through various system checks, and that's also part of printer maintenance imo.

Aside from regular common sense inspection and cleaning, (now including wiper replacement as recommended elsewhere here at LL) I use a small powerful hand vacuum (Dirt Devil Scorpion) which has an easy to use attachment to vacuum up paper/media dust/debris on the printer deck, holders, and on the edge of the media rolls every time I change media.  If you look carefully, there is a good amount of media dust/debris that collects around the paper feed area and on the media edges.  My thoughts are if you don't clean it, you know that murphy is directing that dust/debris to collect on the print head.  In general keeping the area around your printer clean and free from dust is a good idea.

ken
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 29, 2012, 11:14:43 am
The chief problem with high humidity is mold formation.  If you have your printer in a dedicated room where you don't have a lot of fabric which can accumulate mold spores, maybe greater than 40% humidity is OK but I would worry about going much beyond that.  Commercial installations are a different matter since they usually don't have curtains, sofas, carpeting, etc. that one would find in a home.  I have my 3880 in the family room which is on the ground floor of my home and because the way the heating/AC is set up it has higher humidity than other rooms in the house.  I'm probably at 35-40% in the summer (and have to run a dehumidifier downstairs to keep it there) and about 25% in the winter when the heat is running.  We have a furnace humidifier and I know for experience that if it is too moist in the winter I get mold.

Alan
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Don Libby on April 29, 2012, 01:09:09 pm
Usage of large-format printers reminds me of the advise I received on the generator of a motor home we once owned.  In both cases the advice is use it as often as possible if nothing else just to exercise it.

I also feel that humidity or lack thereof can cause a major problem with the printers.

My first large printer was a 4000 which clogged constantly.  Until I added a humidifier to my studio.   The 4000 was replaced with a 9800 and never had a problem due in part to the humidly in the studio.  I recently replaced the 9800 with a 9900 and again no major problems or complaints. 

I keep the studio between 40-45% humidity and around 74 degrees.  I also live in the desert environment of the Southwest in Tucson AZ where summer temps can go upwards of 110 with humidity as low as 5%.

So in my case at least as long as I keep using the printer as it was intended (several times a week, sometimes per day) and keep the environment stable, my printer keeps chugging along.

Don
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ryan Grayley on April 29, 2012, 03:01:34 pm
If intermittent use is to be expected then take an HP Z. It may be slower, the carts are smaller but it copes best with that work load and the idle times.

Yes, I agree. I have had a Z3200 44" for over three years and I have never left it switched on when not in use. It has only been used for the very occasional canvas print as I have been using an Epson x900 for most of my printing. In fact until a few days ago, my Z3200 hadn't been used at all for about a year. Every few months or so I have been running a nozzle test pattern and the only channel that has clogged in the last year of non-use has been matte black. I haven't been able to clear with cleaning cycles so I routinely wip out the print head, give it a good old rub with lint free cloth (PEC wipes) and stick it back in. This clears the clogs 100% every time. I was going to sell this printer but it prints canvases perfectly without any flapping around having to make adjustments for incorrect canvas dimensions as with the Epson x900. I just wish HP could bring out a refined model that deals with some of the weaknesses of the Z3200.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ken Doo on April 29, 2012, 03:57:20 pm
....it prints canvases perfectly without any flapping around having to make adjustments for incorrect canvas dimensions as with the Epson x900. ....

As an aside, Ryan, I used to have to make adjustments when printing canvas with my 9800 (add 1.25% only on length), but no longer need to make any adjustments whatsoever when printing canvas (BC Lyve) with the Epson 9900.  Whatever size/dimension I print canvas on, comes out spot-on (or within 1/64th of an inch last I measured----and certainly within spec when stretching cloth!) with the Epson 9900.  Printing on canvas can present a "feed adjustment" issue, and designating the right printer media, printer settings, and profiles resolves this issue on the 9900.  Well---let's put it this way:  there isn't an issue with BC Lyve canvas printing on an Epson 9900 with the right profile and printer settings.   ;D

ken
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ryan Grayley on April 29, 2012, 05:14:25 pm
As an aside, Ryan, I used to have to make adjustments when printing canvas with my 9800 (add 1.25% only on length), but no longer need to make any adjustments whatsoever when printing canvas (BC Lyve) with the Epson 9900.  Whatever size/dimension I print canvas on, comes out spot-on (or within 1/64th of an inch last I measured----and certainly within spec when stretching cloth!) with the Epson 9900.  Printing on canvas can present a "feed adjustment" issue, and designating the right printer media, printer settings, and profiles resolves this issue on the 9900.  Well---let's put it this way:  there isn't an issue with BC Lyve canvas printing on an Epson 9900 with the right profile and printer settings.

I guess I must be unlucky. Despite trying every known method, BC Lyve "feed adjustment" inaccuracy is so bad on my Epson 9900 that I gave up and I have switched back to using my Z3200 for canvas printing.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Damir on April 29, 2012, 05:50:35 pm
I just wish HP could bring out a refined model that deals with some of the weaknesses of the Z3200.

What are the weaknesses of Z3200 in your opinion?
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ryan Grayley on April 29, 2012, 06:46:58 pm
What are the weaknesses of Z3200 in your opinion?

In my opinion (but others milage will of course vary) some pros and cons of the Z3200 are as follows:

1. Ink stability is poor as I found out to my embarrassment with a discerning customer. It is essential to regularly calibrate with the built in spectro and not ignore the prompts to do so. It isn't difficult to do and only requires a few moments of time to load an A4 sheet of the offending media and leave the rest to the printer. (I am preaching to myself as I ignored the prompts to my cost).

2. Under a loupe I have noticed that with PhotoRag Ultrasmooth Z3200 dot patterns are sometimes visible. Ok, I realise this is dot peeping but for the same image on the same paper, my Epson x900s have had no observable dot patterns even with a loupe.

3. Print speed is relatively slow.

2. Paper loading especially roll is a PITA.

5. Star wheel patterns were supposed to be fixed on the Z3200 but on every thicker semi-gloss/pearl type papers I have tried they are still evident although admittedly very feint. Thinner papers such as Ilford Gallerie Pearl seem ok.

There are things to like about the HP though.

1. Even after 5 or so years, the HP still has a strong lead on light fastness according to Wilhelm.

2. Apart from my self inflicted ink stability embarrassment, my Z3200 has been 100% reliable.

3. Great black and white support. I used my Z3200 to produce the 100 or so large individual b&W giclee prints to the London exhibition of the 1960s photographer John 'Hoppy' Hopkins a few summers back with positive feedback. http://gallery.ideageneration.co.uk/blogs/52/view
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: enduser on April 29, 2012, 07:00:56 pm
Proof of the wisdom of leaving my Canon on is that because I sit next to it I hear what it does.  I always leave it on and after a while it goes into power saving mode, then every few hours (possibly once a day), it wakes itself up, has a look at its nozzles, agitates the ink and checks temperature and humidity.  After some sounds of activity it goes back in to power saving mode.   Power use in saving mode is 6w.

This obviously doesn't happen if turned off completely.

These checks show on the panel while they are running.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on April 29, 2012, 07:21:07 pm
The chief problem with high humidity is mold formation.  If you have your printer in a dedicated room where you don't have a lot of fabric which can accumulate mold spores, maybe greater than 40% humidity is OK but I would worry about going much beyond that.  Commercial installations are a different matter since they usually don't have curtains, sofas, carpeting, etc. that one would find in a home.  I have my 3880 in the family room which is on the ground floor of my home and because the way the heating/AC is set up it has higher humidity than other rooms in the house.  I'm probably at 35-40% in the summer (and have to run a dehumidifier downstairs to keep it there) and about 25% in the winter when the heat is running.  We have a furnace humidifier and I know for experience that if it is too moist in the winter I get mold.

Alan
A 3880 is a different story all together, and clogging of nozzles is very rare.  It really won't benefit nearly as much from some TLC as the larger printers.

As far as humidity, mold requires higher humidity levels than 40-45%, a level which is recommended for comfortable living by many sources.  Mold becomes problematic at 75% or higher, and the real issue is areas that are "wet".  That's why I use the RO water supply and change the wick in the humidifier every 3 months.   Having higher humidity levels in the winter can be an issue if you don't have good windows as it can condense on the glass, leading to wet areas that might get mold.   I've been running a humidifier in my bedroom at 45% for 5 years now, and have no issues with anything, including no problems around the windows (triple glazed) despite some pretty severe winter temperatures.



Proof of the wisdom of leaving my Canon on is that because I sit next to it I hear what it does. 

This is the recommended procedure for Canon and HP printers.  They frequently "spit" minuscule amounts of ink to maintain nozzle health and leaving them off will lead to clogged nozzles and shorter head life.  Epsons on the other hand do not do this, and if the printer is on the head is not sealed as well, allowing the ink around the head to dry out.  I turn mine off if I know I won't use it the next day, otherwise I leave it on.  It also goes into power saving mode, taking several seconds to "wake up" and get ready to load paper or print.

I also have an image I create which I use before and after every nozzle check, and I print out about once a week if I'm not using the printers.  I designed it specifically to make sure all colors get some ink, trying to get them balanced.  Still not perfect, but every color gets between .07 and 1.2 ml of ink when printing the page.  Here's a little thumbnail of it ...


Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Don Libby on April 30, 2012, 12:18:57 am
I guess I must be unlucky. Despite trying every known method, BC Lyve "feed adjustment" inaccuracy is so bad on my Epson 9900 that I gave up and I have switched back to using my Z3200 for canvas printing.

Odd - I started using Lyve the same time I upgraded to the 9900 and have not had a problem.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on April 30, 2012, 06:31:16 am
In my opinion (but others milage will of course vary) some pros and cons of the Z3200 are as follows:

1. Ink stability is poor as I found out to my embarrassment with a discerning customer. It is essential to regularly calibrate with the built in spectro and not ignore the prompts to do so. It isn't difficult to do and only requires a few moments of time to load an A4 sheet of the offending media and leave the rest to the printer. (I am preaching to myself as I ignored the prompts to my cost).


There have not been that kind of surprises for me. On the Z3100 I have printed some art print with long intervals in between over 3 years at least and no complaints. I calibrate when I get a new batch of paper rolls but did not notice issues within paper batches. If there have been color differences it usually was a mistake by me in either profile choice or media preset. The Z3200 did not behave different either. Shake the carts from time to time, the extra hues like RGB are consumed much slower than the light greys for example.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update april 2012: Harman by Hahnemühle, Innova IFA45 and more
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 30, 2012, 10:42:48 am
This may seem like a basic thing, turning a printer on and off…How can that be a problem?

Yes, that's a particularly good technique for Epsons in particular and was the saving grace for Epson 4000 users!
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 30, 2012, 10:46:37 am
I don't agree, unless the x900 printers are badly designed. With older printer you could not print for weeks, months or even years and the clogs were fixable.

I agree! Clogs used to be fixable on Epson's and when the heads finally died years and years later people were happy to finally upgrade. I'm alarmed by how many x900 printers are needing replaced heads and all of the complaints I'm hearing about it are coming from low volume users. The x900 printers are clearly a break from the past in this respect. For Canon iPF users, again low print usage leads to premature head failure. So yes, I feel a huge percentage of complaints are coming from people who just aren't using their printer enough.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 30, 2012, 10:47:48 am
Often overlooked or minimized is the dramatic affect humidity has on all of these printers.

Excellent point Wayne!
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2012, 10:49:50 am
Yes, that's a particularly good technique for Epsons in particular and was the saving grace for Epson 4000 users!

Yes, that and the humidity level. The Epson 4000 was a clog monster; much has improved dramatically since those days.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2012, 10:56:59 am
.............. I'm alarmed by how many x900 printers are needing replaced heads and all of the complaints I'm hearing about it are coming from low volume users.

Well Scott, this seems to beg the whole question, doesn't it? Just how many x900 heads DO need replacement and after what time periods, relative to the number of these printers sold since they were first marketed, and does this number exceed normally expected performance criteria? Who outside of Epson itself would have such information? And wouldn't one need it before becoming "alarmed"?

And we do need to distinguish between "complaints" and actual head replacements. People can complain about anything and everything. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with needing a head replacement. I could complain about my 4900 if it needed a nozzle cleaning after not using it for a few weeks, but that would be a frivolous complaint because I should expect pigmented ink to not flow too well if left idle in the printhead for so long a time. If it suffered clogged nozzles every other day in conditions of sustained use, that would be another talk-show and valid grounds for a complaint (bit it doesn't).
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 30, 2012, 11:04:58 am
Well Scott, this seems to beg the whole question, doesn't it? Just how many x900 heads DO need replacement and after what time periods, relative to the number of these printers sold since they were first marketed, and does this number exceed normally expected performance criteria? Who outside of Epson itself would have such information? And wouldn't one need it before becoming "alarmed"?

I advise and watch over a large body of clients using all kinds of printers. Among my own pool I've got several hundred x900 users and I'm alarmed by how many of them have had to throw theirs in a dumpster 6-18 months after their initial purchase due to permanently clogged heads who's replacement by Epson would exceed the cost of buying a new printer. These printers aren't cheap and can understand their complaint. That said, much more head replacement complaints come from Canon iPF users and that's primarily the audience I'm speaking to in my OP. Seems like a lot of hobbyists buy these printers expecting them to be trouble free with extremely little usage and that's just not the case. Need to get the word out on this.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2012, 11:12:02 am
Well, very interesting, and I hope I do not become one of those whose printer is headed for the dumpster next year - as long as it works it really churns out gorgeous prints, as we both know.What you say about the Canons should not come as a total surprise, because those heads are meant to be replaced (albeit pricey), whereas the Epsons are not - for Epsons the head is basically the printer. The main question about the Canons is whether those heads are also failing prematurely for the same low-usage reason.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on April 30, 2012, 11:19:26 am
What you say about the Canons should not come as a total surprise, because those heads are meant to be replaced (albeit pricey), whereas the Epsons are not - for Epsons the head is basically the printer.

It's a surprise for both Epson and Canon users when heads die on a fairly new printer with low usage. Canon heads have been known to last 3-6 years with regular usage (well beyond the expected life of the printer) and yes, we've come expect Epson heads to last as long.

The main question about the Canons is whether those heads are also failing prematurely for the same low-usage reason.

No question about it. Low-usage is the reason for the vast majority of premature head failures on iPF printers.


Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2012, 12:31:12 pm
It's a surprise for both Epson and Canon users when heads die on a fairly new printer with low usage. Canon heads have been known to last 3-6 years with regular usage (well beyond the expected life of the printer) and yes, we've come expect Epson heads to last as long.

No question about it. Low-usage is the reason for the vast majority of premature head failures on iPF printers.

The discussion here, and on the other thread, which should probably enter into a web-forum Guinness Book of Records, prompted me to go back to the Epson website (I didn't check Canon because I use an Epson 4900) and read and download all the materials they provide to the public describing the 4900, which of course is an x900 product and shares the printhead technology of the other x900s. There isn't a peep or a hint that people who buy this product should consider it needing fairly continuous usage in order to protect the features they describe - in particular the claim about the ink-repellant head coating making clogs almost a thing of the past. Nor do they recommend anywhere that low volume users should consider buying the extended warranty for the USD 535 they priced it at. For this relatively low price one ends-up with three year's protection from the cost of replacing the machine due to head failure or any other non-user induced cause, and presumably they calculated the price of that warranty based on the cost and expected frequency of it being called, and on a basis whereby they would not lose money on warranty servicing. So based on the published material, there is no reason provided by Epson for users to expect premature head failure as a function of low usage; hence what you are saying about this being a surprise amongst affected parties appears to be understandable, if indeed the low-usage/head failure correlation really has merit as you indicate from your data.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: jenea on April 30, 2012, 04:20:47 pm
I have had two clogged heads in my 4900 for the last three months. no matter how many cleanings i did the VML and LC were always clooged and got worse after each cleaning. so i tried humidity and everything else I could find. finally called epson and they said that those two colors are on a matched line and that that must be the issues as i never had any issues with any of the other colors. So I called last thurs and today got delivered a replacement unit. They weere very fast and professional. I asked if there was something i did or did not do that caused the clogs. They sai no for the above mentioned reason.

I have to say that reading this thread made me think I could have done something to prevent it but epson said there was nothing i could have done. Oh one more thing, the sent me the replacement printer with full 80ml ink cartridges and told me to send back my unit with no ink, to keep what I had in my old printer. I assumed it would be sent with no ink in it. Gotta say, Epson you really impressed me with your service!
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2012, 04:58:17 pm
I've had similar experience with Epson's service and I have been likewise impressed.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: enduser on April 30, 2012, 09:08:31 pm
I would not be surprised if a very active research program is going on behind the scenes to develop a true dye ink with equivalent display life.  Almost all these problems would likely go away then.

If these wide format machines need extended warranties, almost continuous use, humidity controlled locations, replacement of parts such as wipers and others, and none of this is said to a purchaser, well ....   Bad luck for the specialist print business with a low volume, high qualty client base.

Perhaps a new purchase/use method is needed such as a leasing plan from the manufacturers agent - so much a month in return for the machine being kept going? ???
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on May 01, 2012, 04:06:16 pm
There have been some significant advances in dye ink systems, and several commercial systems doing high speed inkjet utilize dye inks. Not sure it's ready to replace pigment, guess we'll see.

As far as heads of the new printers vs the old printers on Epsons, I do think the technology and complexity of current heads is vastly different than the older printers.  The technology was "beta" tested in the 11880 where it proved very good, but then not many spent $15k for a printer that didn't put it into serious production.  Now the technology has filtered into lower priced and lower utilized printers head issues have become more frequent.  I think over cleaning of underutilized printers is hard on the delicate components of current heads thus we see more head failures.

Even the 3880 head doesn't use the same technology.  The new heads are designed for amazingly precise dot placement and shape, with the unfortunate trade off perhaps being more problematic and prone to breakdown with low volume users.

Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: cybis on May 01, 2012, 11:18:25 pm
...
I also have an image I create which I use before and after every nozzle check, and I print out about once a week if I'm not using the printers.  I designed it specifically to make sure all colors get some ink, trying to get them balanced.  Still not perfect, but every color gets between .07 and 1.2 ml of ink when printing the page.  Here's a little thumbnail of it ...

Hi Wayne, I'm intrigued by your teaser image; it seems like a very good idea...

I live in arid Arizona and I too run a humidifier 24/7 in my office. My 7900 still does clog regularly but it always goes away with one clean cycle.

I’m curious, when you print the ‘purge’ image, do you find that it actually solves a clog mid-print? Does the print start with some banding but sometimes ends just fine? Also, could printing with known clogs cause damage to the head, like overheating or baking ink in?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on May 02, 2012, 01:05:05 pm
I now normally print this image out on regular paper before I run a nozzle check.  I rarely see clogs anymore.  However when I designed the page I did it because I was seeing occasional clogs of one or two nozzles in  a few different colors.  I figured printing the page might use less ink than a clean, and was probably better on the head and found that just printing this page cleared several of the clogged nozzles.  I also print the page after I do a clean and before a verification nozzle check. 

I haven't ever gotten a nozzle clog mid print with the 9900 and 4900 (knocking on wood now).  Not sure if it's luck or the way I use this page and maintain the head.

Epson recommends printing something after cleaning.  Seems a nice feature would be the printer itself printing about 1/2 page driving every nozzle briefly then printing the nozzle check at the tail end of the paper. I guess something they might not consider because the vast majority of these printers function very well with the auto nozzle detect system, which works quite well except for low utilized machines.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: tmphoto on May 03, 2012, 08:24:44 pm
Among my own pool I've got several hundred x900 users and I'm alarmed by how many of them have had to throw theirs in a dumpster 6-18 months after their initial purchase due to permanently clogged heads who's replacement by Epson would exceed the cost of buying a new printer.
I am looking for one of those printers to do controlled tested using different cleaning fluids and techniques. A busted head with some good colors would be perfect to test what cleaning fluids are safe. Main concern is that the coating may be damaged which was not a problem with the older printers.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Farmer on May 03, 2012, 08:47:22 pm
Among my own pool I've got several hundred x900 users and I'm alarmed by how many of them have had to throw theirs in a dumpster 6-18 months after their initial purchase due to permanently clogged heads

Where in the world do you have less than 12 months warranty that you're tossing out printers after 6 months?
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: tonywong on May 07, 2012, 05:28:30 pm
I've been very happy with my Z3100, aside from a 'dead' formatter (ahem hard disk). The ink stability is great and I print less than I should, and I just leave it on for months at a time with zero clogging. I think the longest time I went without printing was 4 months and it was perfect.

The humidity is very low here (no large bodies of water and is below freezing often) and I had no end of problems with Epsons which drove me to the HP Z series. I haven't regretted it but I really wish there was more of an indication if there will be a followup to the Z3200.

I was thinking of moving to Canon for the print durability (fewer scratches) but after reading about the clogging issues people are having I might just leave enough alone.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Light Seeker on May 08, 2012, 06:30:11 pm
I was thinking of moving to Canon for the print durability (fewer scratches) but after reading about the clogging issues people are having I might just leave enough alone.

I'm surprised to read this comment. I've read very little complaining about Canon's clogging, and found my 8300 to be exceptional in this regard (clogging is rare).

Terry.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on May 08, 2012, 08:29:50 pm
This thread is about where clogs come from and the z3100 and 8300 are not immune to them at all.  It just handles them with a different technology so they're not in your face.  If you live in a dry climate and use your printer rarely you probably have hundreds of clogged nozzles, and your heads will eventually "fail", because that's what they are designed to do.  If you own a Canon those new heads will be pretty pricey. HP's are a little more reasonable, and they have the advantage of not having to replace half of the colors but just two at a time, meaning the failures will be more gradual and easier on the cash flow. 

Head failures haven't been a significant issue with Canon's so far because they have been on a pretty aggressive upgrade path since the initial ipf5000, and so a great many have upgraded before wearing out the heads of their current printer(I have 2 myself gathering dust, and both would require 2 replacement heads to get up and running again, not worth it). This may change since it seems we're at a point now where it may be difficult to squeeze much more quality out of these printers so people will own them and run them longer.

This thread isn't about whose technology is better, I think both have advantages and disadvantages.  It's about the fact that ALL pigment ink printers clog, and there are things you can do to perhaps make it less of an issue. (i'm going on 8 weeks with a 4900 and 9900 used only a couple of times a week without a single clog.  I'm probably gonna turn the auto nozzle detect back on because it's getting to be a waste of time to run manual nozzle checks. Just from an automatic humidity control system).

Keeping the humidity controlled for a Canon or HP will still be of great benefit, as it will most likely add a substantial amount of time to the life of your head.  and I agree, I think the Canon experience in this area is equal to the HP.  The 3100 is older technology, and the 8300 offers a substantial benefit in output quality that in some areas will be obvious.  Not that the 3100 is bad (although I never felt it did very well with reds).
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Light Seeker on May 08, 2012, 09:07:48 pm
This thread is about where clogs come from and the z3100 and 8300 are not immune to them at all.  It just handles them with a different technology so they're not in your face.

I don't disagree with you Wayne. My comment was that clogging is not generally considered a troublesome area for Canon. In fact it's usually seen as a strength, due of course to the technology you've noted.

Terry.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on May 09, 2012, 09:52:54 am
This thread is all about complaints about print head failure, not clogging that can be fixed by cleaning. That's an important distinction. IMO, there's a clear correlation between usage and print head failure. If people are knowledgeable about this, they can avoid premature failure. Thus this thread.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Light Seeker on May 09, 2012, 04:08:22 pm
Scott, I'm one of the intermittent users you are targeting, and I appreciate the advice. In the last two weeks I've done a fair bit of printing, which will likely be followed by a few weeks of inactivity. Going forward I plan to print at least one of two images per week, just to exercise everything.

A question. . . .   would it be wise to print on both matte and gloss, to ensure that all the ink channels have some activity (i.e. matte and gloss black)?

Terry.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on May 09, 2012, 10:15:56 pm
A question. . . .   would it be wise to print on both matte and gloss, to ensure that all the ink channels have some activity (i.e. matte and gloss black)?

Hmm, a good point I hadn't considered. One 8x10 each is kinda of a pain but would likely be more thorough than a basic nozzle check...
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Wayne Fox on May 09, 2012, 11:28:19 pm
It seems logical on a Canon since those inks do not share the same channel/nozzles it would make sense, and certainly may help extend the life of the heads by a considerable length of time.

On an Epson it actually may be problematic since they do share the same nozzles and switching inks sometimes results in cleaning cycles.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Scott Martin on May 09, 2012, 11:45:41 pm
may be problematic since they do share the same nozzles and switching inks sometimes results in cleaning cycles.

Exactly. 4-5 Auto Nozzle checks might be a better idea, and more realistic on an Epson...
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Darrel on May 10, 2012, 01:30:54 am

On the subject of failed Canon 8300 printheads, I had my right go about a month past warranty which Canon replaced after some prodding.  When I tried to print it gave the "execute printhead cleaning message, if message still displayed replace printhead".  It was still in usage warranty "a", and a few cleanings did not resolve anything.  Is this the symptoms of a low usage failure? My left mdot count was over double of my right. I am generally conscious to print out things weekly.

I wish canon had a test print utility to print out a nice solid swath of solid color for each of the colors all in one go.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: enduser on May 11, 2012, 01:32:02 am
This is leading to a great fall in confidence in digital art printers.  We have Scott saying he is alarmed by how many of them (Epson owners) have had to throw theirs in a dumpster 6-18 months after their initial purchase ... and now we have to print frequently to preserve the life of Canon heads, etc.

I know a few sign shops that have the usual printers they use and they also have some Epsons and Canons such as we use for clients wanting photo work.  These printers see no work for weeks at a time.  I know art print shops where a particular machine might be idle for a few weeks.

Seemingly out of nowhere we are all advised to use them even if we don't have a current job for them.  And we'd better factor in extra warranty costs as well.  The point I'm making is that all this, plus wiper replacement and flushing box cleaning is probably necessary but WHO KNEW?   Most of this new info is not provided in the maker's literature, so whatever method you use to calculate cost of goods is going to have to be loaded up with the cost of all these new discoveries, and what might yet be divulged, if we're lucky.

I think it is well past time when Canon and Epson should be publishing updated maintenance and running instructions for these machines.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Jeff Magidson on May 11, 2012, 10:30:02 am
This is leading to a great fall in confidence in digital art printers.  We have Scott saying he is alarmed by how many of them (Epson owners) have had to throw theirs in a dumpster 6-18 months after their initial purchase ... and now we have to print frequently to preserve the life of Canon heads, etc.

I know a few sign shops that have the usual printers they use and they also have some Epsons and Canons such as we use for clients wanting photo work.  These printers see no work for weeks at a time.  I know art print shops where a particular machine might be idle for a few weeks.

Seemingly out of nowhere we are all advised to use them even if we don't have a current job for them.  And we'd better factor in extra warranty costs as well.  The point I'm making is that all this, plus wiper replacement and flushing box cleaning is probably necessary but WHO KNEW?   Most of this new info is not provided in the maker's literature, so whatever method you use to calculate cost of goods is going to have to be loaded up with the cost of all these new discoveries, and what might yet be divulged, if we're lucky.

I think it is well past time when Canon and Epson should be publishing updated maintenance and running instructions for these machines.

I don't disagree with anything you have said, except that a potential buyer must also use some common sense. In the case of a of Canon 44" printer: the printer weights about 350 lbs, it contains about 4 liters of ink that costs about $1,900 to refill in total, it is clearly a production machine.  With those facts, it should be understood that it is not meant to sit idle for weeks or months at a time. If you cannot see turning all the ink over in a years time... this machine is probably not for you.  
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: enduser on May 12, 2012, 01:40:23 am
Well said Jeff, and the important thing is that buyers know all this stuff before they make a purchase.   The excellent things revealed in this forum so far have great value, but many of the hints, observations and suggestions are mostly without firm values attached.  An example is, how often and what should we print to get maximum head life.  If any quantitative knowledge is inside Canon and Epson HQs it needs to be available to buyers.
Title: Re: Where failed print head complaints come from
Post by: Clearair on May 12, 2012, 08:57:40 am
Darrel

There is,

Try the colour calibrate printer to re set printer accuracy. This is used on initial set up of the machine, you must have seen this.
I do this half yearly and it showed up a recent issue very well, as you get a print out of colour swatches that the printer uses to sort itself.
These are clear blocks of colour from the print heads and in my case showed a muddy red channel just when I was struggling with a new graphics card, monitor calibration and custom canvas profile all on a weekend.
And it got stuck on one calibration run due to a small crease in the profiling roll, would not end job so had to pull the power. OK as print carriage at a standstill.

I have never engaged the cleaning A or B manually before.
It took 2 A cleans,1 B clean to clear the contamination from the head.

Nozzle checks show nothing and the ink carts were clean.

Supplier says they have seen this before but no understanding of why it happens.
B clean sorts problem.

I do not print commercially and the printer is often idle for a month but with the power on and a sine wave UPS so that if there is a power failure it will still be on when this is restored.
Plus to save a crash while printing.
It is 4 years old, original print heads still in place.

I had the printer standing for two months while away over the winter and power off as I wanted to cover it.
On start up all looked good. Seems that there may have been a slight ink
cross contamination at the heads while idle.

Canon iPF6100

Regards