Epson 1400 print head - to replace or not?

[unesco]

Hi all,

I have two Epson printers: 3880 (Epson inks) and 1400 (InkThriftCL inks from Cone, before, I used L800 inks and Lyson inks). The 1400 is about 8 years old and I am not happy with the results. The gamut is not as big as it was at the beginning and there is significant difference between Photo and RPM mode. In Photo mode gamut goes ~20% smaller than in RPM (both separately profiled, various equipment used: iSis, I1Pro, CM). Visually prints are also much worse, especially in shadows and saturated yellows. Even in RPM mode the quality is not as good as 8 years ago with Claria (I still have some reference images printed).

When I look at the prints under magnification (scan with 3200 dpi), there is some micro banding in both modes (uni-dir printing used), as some of the nozzles would fire not parallel to each other. Furthermore in Photo mode image gradient is not linear and quickly gets ugly dense (compared to RPM)

To the conclusion - I would like to use this printer for some time more - does it make sense to replace the print-head? Especially, I am wondering to convert it to Piezography but first must be sure the quality of the hardware is ok (3880 will remain color).

Or maybe there is any software, like in Pro series, that allows for linearisation?

Any help and ideas appreciate!

[dgberg]

Not quite sure where you are from, profile? Here in the USA you can get a new 1430 for $299 and a refurbished one for $199.
A very slippery slope you are entering when discussing repair on an 8 year old consumer level printer.
Service life for most of these small printers is 5 years. You got 8 that is quite exceptional.
I run 5 Epson's here and my trusty 1430 with Claria Jon Cone inks beats any of my larger pigment machines when printing hi-gloss white film Mitsubishi Pictorico or Ilford smooth hi gloss.
One of Epson's best bang for the buck printers.

[unesco]

Hi Dan, thanks for the answer. I live in Europe (Poland) and of course can have 1500W (1430) for similar price, but I don't want to throw my 1400 away, rather to use it if it works well. In fact it is nearly 9 years old, it was moderately used, a few months ago I had to reset ink waste pad.

I am involved in semi pro/semi amat. photography, mostly portraits and nudes, sometimes some landscapes - mostly for my own, with quite a lot of experience in analogue B&W in the past. I use my 3880 for most of my pictures (with QTR for B&W) but e.g. for metallic paper - dyes are exceptional. I would also like to try carbon. In case of buying a new printer I would go for refurbished 24' Epson (but sometimes I also think about HP...).

BTW, I am curious if your 1430 with Cone Claria equivalent gives you good colors in dark shades?

[graeme]

Is it worth re profiling your printer / paper combinations & seeing if you get better results. I use a consumer level Canon printer. After a couple of years the colour started going out of whack & the b & w output wasn't as good. I had new profiles made & the prints were OK again. I'm sure the mechanical tolerances of your printer will have changed after 8 years.

[unesco]

Is it worth re profiling your printer / paper combinations & seeing if you get better results. I use a consumer level Canon printer. After a couple of years the colour started going out of whack & the b & w output wasn't as good. I had new profiles made & the prints were OK again. I'm sure the mechanical tolerances of your printer will have changed after 8 years.

all the results I write about are after re-profiling, that's why I wonder about changing the printhead because as I understand after examining magnified prints, it looks like its mechanical properties have changed

[dgberg]

Hi Dan, thanks for the answer. I live in Europe (Poland) and of course can have 1500W (1430) for similar price, but I don't want to throw my 1400 away, rather to use it if it works well. In fact it is nearly 9 years old, it was moderately used, a few months ago I had to reset ink waste pad.

I am involved in semi pro/semi amat. photography, mostly portraits and nudes, sometimes some landscapes - mostly for my own, with quite a lot of experience in analogue B&W in the past. I use my 3880 for most of my pictures (with QTR for B&W) but e.g. for metallic paper - dyes are exceptional. I would also like to try carbon. In case of buying a new printer I would go for refurbished 24' Epson (but sometimes I also think about HP...).

BTW, I am curious if your 1430 with Cone Claria equivalent gives you good colors in dark shades?

I see no discernible difference between the Epson OEM and Cone Claria. I use Epson OEM inks for all my printers except my 1430.
I forget what the cost difference was but I think Cone was around .10 or .15 per ml versus OEM of at least $1.00 per ml.
That is a huge savings.

[unesco]

I forget what the cost difference was but I think Cone was around .10 or .15 per ml versus OEM of at least $1.00 per ml.
That is a huge savings.

In Europe the cost relation is similar 8-9x. Good to hear you see no difference to OEM Claria.
Do you of course mean InkThriftCL?

[dgberg]

Sorry, yes.
Jon calls it his Claria equivalent.

[Paul Roark]

If you are a high volume printer, you can buy the real Claria dye in Noritsu large carts and get the lightfastness of the real thing.  I do this for both my 1430 and a 4000.  See, for example, http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4000-Noritsu-2K.pdf .  I have not seen a good third party lightfastness comparison of Jon's dyes, but the old style dyes are not in the same league with Claria.  Ditto regarding metamerism/color constancy with light sources.  (HP dyes are very lightfast but suffer in several other areas.)

The 1400/1430 is, in my view, an excellent platform that can last a long time.  However, once the base fills up with waste ink, there is no practical way to "change the waste tank" aside from buying a new printer.  The likely cost of a new head, the age of the 1400, and it's somewhat defined and unchangeable lifespan makes the cost/benefit of a new head a difficult calculation.  (You can usually get away with a single reset of the printer's method of predicting its end point.  Epson allows downloading of the reset software.)

Dyes can definitely win the beauty contest when in comes to high gamut, high gloss output.  That said, even the best dyes (Claria, including the Epson Noritsu carts) are not in the same league as the best pigments.  For those selling fine art, I'd be wary of them.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[unesco]

Hi Paul,
Thank you very much for comprehensive reply.
I was thinking about Noritsu carts, but I am not heavy printer - I do it for myself, and sometimes friends, although printing much more than usual amateur printer user.
The point is that I would like to switch to dedicated B&W (e.g. with Piezography), but I noticed quality degradation in color, that's why I thought about print head replacement (I know it would cost half price of a new printer).
I just try to find the best trade-off for outstanding B&W.

[Paul Roark]

... I would like to switch to dedicated B&W ...  just try to find the best trade-off for outstanding B&W.

I did an entire B&W show with the Claria/Noritsu dyes on Red River's metallic paper, and it did very well.  That said, profiling a color inkset in the 1400 for B&W is tricky.  With most dyes (all but Claria?) the metamerism/color constancy issues will be overwhelming.  So, I'd recommend for the best B&W, you look at the carbon pigment based inksets.

The MIS "Eboni" MK based "Eboni-6" gives the most lightfast images, and at the lowest prices (by far if you use the generic dilution base to mix the inkset yourself).  My latest iterations of this inkset use a single light blue toner based on Canon blue and cyan pigments.  I just received bottles of beta light blue toner from MIS, so it looks like they want to support this approach.  I assume the third party color toner will have the lightfastness of the typical third party B&W inks.  With the Canon based toner, it's better than any other, and is roughly equal to the silver print.  100% carbon easily beats the silver print, but it's that color content that is the weakness.  Thus the less used and the better the inputs, the better the final product.  While there are a number of sources of solid carbon pigments, getting the best color pigments is a challenge for third party ink sellers.  On the other hand, most users seem OK with the lightfastness of the older MIS "UT" B&W inksets and Jon's Piezo inksets.

I'm now taking my latest carbon pigment approach (100% carbon in all positions except a single light blue toner for neutral printing) to glossy carbon pigments.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone.pdf .  My 7800 is next in line for conversion to glossy carbon.  Note that this approach cannot produce the high gloss that dyes can, but for virtually all other B&W finishes, the carbon is going probably be visually better, particularly with respect to color artifacts.  It'll probably print very well in all Epson printers.  The 1400 is a good platform for it.  When the toner is in the Y position, it's Epson driver compatible, though QTR is my favored approach.

But to return to the basic issue, if it B&W printing is your goal, messing around with color dyes of questionable quality in a 1400 is not your best, easiest or most cost effective approach.

Good luck,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[unesco]

Paul, thank you again for such rich information. I couldn't reply earlier.
So, I think it was a bit of misunderstanding. I definitely do not want to print BW using dyes. Just gave an example of my 1400 condition when dyes are used, thinking about its conversion to carbon. I decided to get rid of it and replace with used R2880 or R3000 for carbon (accompanying my 3880 for color). It will be a path to anything like used 7800/7880 in the future.
Is MIS 'Eboni' system anyhow available in Europe? Mixing sounds tempting for me, especially that Piezography is expensive and sold in at least 220 ml bottles, even though QTR does not have good documentation and I fight now with all those try and error options for setting right ink limits for LK and LLK as well as toning setup - like a blind.

[enduser]

Paul, I have heard rumours about the improved lightfastness of HP dyes but is there any informed data about this?  Also, you say "MS inks are very lightfast but suffer in several other areas."
Do you have any information about those other areas?
Thanks.

[Paul Roark]

Regarding HP dyes, the only ones I've experimented with in recent years suffered from serious metamerism/color constancy issues and were incompatible with the other inks I routinely use in my 1430.  So, those two issues excluded the HP dyes from further consideration.

I'm not sure of the context of the MIS comment.  The usual problem with B&W inksets is color shifting as they age.  The very lightfast, warm carbon pigments that are the core of a B&W inkset, are cooled with color pigments if a neutral B&W print is the desired final product.  These color pigments are too often not the best, and virtually all color pigments suffer from differential fade.  Usually the B&W inksets use magenta and cyan to cool the carbon.  The cyan is usually more lightfast than the magenta.  So, as the magenta fades, the B&W print tone will drift into a negative Lab A, or slightly greenish hue.

To deal with this problem as best I can for my own use, I now use Canon Lucia cyan and blue pigments to make the bluish toner I use in my variable tone inksets.  I have used both http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ and my own fade (and other) testing come up with this combination.  I post my fade test results.  Some of the URLs are these: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/8-week-neutral-v2-v-silver-sel-50-hr.jpg, http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/16-Week-Arches-Neutral-sprayed-Fade-test.pdf, 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Fade-Test-8-week.pdf, and http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Fade-Test-Claria-Roark-v-AaIA-7-2015.pdf.  Fade testing is always an inexact attempt to predict the future.  That said, I think my approach is a very good solution for B&W printing that the fade testing indicates is working.  The basics of it are obvious: use the most carbon relative to the color pigments, and then use the best color pigments.  People will always, of course, debate this issue.  There is no perfect solution.

I might add that my testing and Mark's testing at Aardenberg seem to indicate that HP Vivera gray inks are the most stable regarding the Lab A shifting, but they sacrificed Lab L stability to get there.  Pick your poison.  Matching the silver print is my target, and I think I've done that.  In fact, overall, I think my B&W prints on Arches watercolor paper will outlast any silver print, due mostly to the expected physical stability of the substrates.

I note that in Europe, Octoink appears to be a legitimate source of STS Inks, which is the source of the carbon I use.  The glossy-compatible carbon inkset I'm working on now (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone.pdf) uses the STS Inks WJ 1122 PK and WJ824 dilution base.  (I don't know if they carry those.)  The Canon pigments ought to be available there.  As such, European based B&W printers might have all they need for what appears to be an outstanding, economical, and easy to control B&W printing approach.

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[unesco]

Thank you very much Paul!

[enduser]

There might be some help in pigment selection  through BASF at   https://www.basf.com/us/en/company/about-us/Locations/featured-sites/about-hq.html
 
Their product listing at   http://www2.basf.us/additives/pdfs/color_brochure_plastics.pdf   shows what a huge range they carry.

[Paul Roark]

Regarding BASF, that company has quite a large selection of products, as do some of the other chemical companies like Dow.  The problems we have include not only finding the chemical or pigment that does what we want, but then also finding that chemical in small enough quantities to be practical for not only the individual photographer but even a small company.

An important example relating to my ink mixing was finding surfactants that did what needs to be done for inkjets.  That is why I turned to the darkroom wetting agents as, perhaps, the best source.  Small quantities were available, some worked very well, and we ink mixers are often old darkroom workers who feel comfortable with those products, like concerning safety.

So, Edwal LFN turned out to be very good.  What is it?  It appears to be 20% to 22% BASF Plurafac S305 LF, 10% Isopropyl Alcohol, remainder 70% water.  If one does a lot of printing, you can save a lot of money mixing it with the BASF input instead of buying the Edwal in tiny quantities, but just try to find Plurafac in small quantities.  There, it turns out, getting a small sample is the best approach.  The "sample" size is about what a photographer will need for a lifetime.  The smallest commercial quantity they sell is too much for even a small company.

(BTW, just so Kodak doesn't feel left out, Photo Flo 200 that I also use is about 30% Propylene Glycol, 60% Water, and 10% Triton X-100.) 

Realistically, we individuals have to rely on our suppliers to sort through the maze of competing products and be in a position to buy and process the inputs.  When it comes to the best color pigments, I doubt we individuals have any source or even small retail supplier that can afford to do what the large inkjet makers have done to find and prepare the pigments.  Early in this inkjet era I found a superior pigment for cooling carbon.  Even MIS Associates at the height of the third party B&W market could not buy and prepare it in quantities that made sense for the B&W niche.  Large carts of OEM color pigments seem to be our best source as a practical matter when it comes to getting top quality color pigs.  Carbon pigments appear to be the only ones that are so old (patent free?), widely used, and available that our small suppliers can, in effect, get product that is equal to the best in quantities that make sense.  I find it most interesting that Epson has, in effect, entered the low cost carbon retail market with its EcoTank carbon MK (ET-4550 black #774).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com