Black Ink Switch on 9900

[ghaynes754]

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.

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[mikev1]

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.

[dtsiapas]

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.

[David Saffir]

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

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[David Saffir]

a naive question - how does one start the printer in service mode?

David

[deanwork]

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

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[dgberg]

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.

[artobest]

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.

[artobest]

double post

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[Ernst Dinkla]

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/

[k_p98]

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.)

[Farmer]

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.

[Farmer]

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.

[JeffKohn]

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.

[Farmer]

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.