Dull greens on the print from Epson 3880

[Praki]

I use a Imac and epson 3880 (which I got in 2012) using PS CS5. The inks are from inkjet mall in their refillable cartridges. I had not used the printer for a few months so I filled the carts with piezoflush and cleaned the head a few times and reinserted the ink cartridges and charged the ink. Got a good nozzle check - no breaks in the lines etc. It printed fine for a few months. Last few prints, the greens are dull; all other colors seem fine. The nozzle check is fine regarding the colors and no breaks in lines etc. . The comparisons are to same prints printed a few months earlier on same inks, printer, paper combination. I have reloaded the drivers etc. Any suggestions regarding cause or things to try?
Thanks in advance.
Praki.

[Mark D Segal]

I have no ready answers for you, but a few things come to mind to think about: Green is a mixture of Cyan and Yellow. So, (1) How old are those inks (I'm thinking maybe they need to be shaken a bit or replaced)? (2) The printer is made for Epson inks, not third party inks. One wonders whether any of the chemical components have affected one or the other of those two channels? (3) Any possibility that your display has wandered and is giving you wrong information (needs re-profiling)? I'm wondering why you did all the flushing - it is often the case that the 3800/3880 in particular can go for many months without usage and without clogs as a result of that. Did you check the need for that purging before you did it? I'm wondering whether all that activity may have caused a "creeping issue" that is now becoming noticeable.

[Mark D Segal]

I should add to my suggestion (1): the saturation of colour is in part determined by the amount of black in the non-black colour mix, so there could also be an issue with your light black or black inks as well.

[Paul Roark]

I had an image that was very dependent on good greens and had a friend print a copy with a Canon printer with OEM pigments.  I then compared that to a print make with my 1400 and OEM Claria dyes.  There was a dramatic difference.  The dyes made the pigment print look dull.  While there is no doubt that OEM pigments are more lightfast than even the good Claria dyes, third party color pigments do not necessarily get better Conservation Display Ratings at http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ .  Note also what a protective spray does to the ratings of dye prints.

Although my main printing is black and white, and I'm a major proponent of uisng the most lightfast carbon pigment printing for that, I actually have my Epson 4000 set up with Noritsu dyes, which are made by Epson and appear to be the same as Claria dyes.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4000-Noritsu-2K.pdf .  Note that Epson went to dyes for its SureColor minilabs -- using what it calls "UltraChrome D6" inkset. 

Oddly, the weakest link in the Epson dye inkset appears to be the black ink -- just the opposite of with pigments.  If/when they upgrade that (as Canon may well have with its Pixma Pro-100), I hope we start to see wide format printers using the technology. 

These modern dyes are not the old-school 1280 dyes, and the results they can achieve are quite impressive.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Some Guy]

I have some cheapy battery-operated Epson Charm PM-225 that some university professor talked me into for location work.  Evidently it uses some Epson dye ink (Okay, it also clogs in a week like most Epson's tend to do too even being dye ink!).  More odd is the ink in it seems to last forever in bright sunlight.  I've had popular 3rd party Epson dye inks fade in less than a week in sunlight.  Whatever ink is in it (Claria? HDR?), it does seem to last and Epson shows it for something like 125 years which surprised me for a consumer printer.

Dye ink does seem to be getting much better, but seems only the OEM ones are leading the pack far ahead of 3rd party inks.

SG

[digitaldog]

(2) The printer is made for Epson inks, not third party inks. One wonders whether any of the chemical components have affected one or the other of those two channels?

Kind of par for the course for some who refuse to use the inks designed for the printer. Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Mark D Segal]

Praki, another thing that comes to mind is that perhaps you should reprofile the printer for the ink and paper combination in its current state, re-adjust the image under soft-proof with the new profile, print it and see whether you come back to the colours you expect. It could be that certain conditions changed as a result of what you did and didn't do over the past few months, such that a new profile may capture the current conditions and restore your colour to where it was - once you re-edit the print and print it with the softproof for the new profile.

[Mark D Segal]

Kind of par for the course for some who refuse to use the inks designed for the printer. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Very much so, but I didn't want to ignite a flame-war over 3rd party inks. We've had enough of those in the past. Just to amplify on your comment, I had a service tech over to the house to perform a clean-up on my 4900 - it was clogging too much so I figured a maintenance clean-up may help improve it. The technician is a very good guy, independent, expert on numerous printer models and scanners, etc., and willing to share insight from experience. We spent a moment discussing the question of 3rd party inks (I DO NOT use them, but was curious about them from the service angle) and he told me that he's seen damaged print heads as a result of them - they use some chemicals that are noxious to some materials in the heads. We didn't get into which inks and which heads - it was enough information to confirm my long-held view that these machines and their OEM inks were designed and tested to work together. On the question of cost saving - you are correct; anyone doing "serious printing" will be using high quality paper. I use IGFS and print generally on 13*19 inch sheets. I know from my cost accounting model that the paper is CAD 3.16 per sheet and the ink to cover it less a one inch border is CAD 1.22, so the ink is only a bit more than a third the value of the paper. At the volume I've been putting through, amortization of the printer is about CAD 0.75 per 13*19 sheet. So ink comes out to less than 25% of total cost per printed sheet. This does not include ink consumed in head cleaning. The cleanings use very little ink, but they add up. Still, not enough to change the fundamental conclusion that buying OEM ink is most likely economic and the safest route to printhead longevity. That said, we can't be sure whether this is actually the OPs problem.

[Praki]

Thanks for the reprofiling suggestion. I will try and and see if that clears up the problem.

[Mark D Segal]

I'm a little surprised that the greens shifted by such an amount in such a short time.  While re-profiling may help, my hunch is that something is affecting ink flow somewhere.  Part of Mark's initial response included a suggestion about ink agitation, and that's certainly something I'd consider.  Although you've done a flush and charge, it's possible that the age of the printer and period of inactivity may have let to sedimentation in one or more of the dampers, which the flush didn't clear.  A damper replacement may be an option.

It's probably worthwhile asking this question on the IJM forum.  I monitor that forum fairly closely and I have not seen any reports of ConeColor Pro inks causing the sort of issues alluded to in this thread, and they seem to be in fairly widespread usage in large format printers. 

I realise that this forum is not overly sympathetic to third party inks, but flow problems can occur with OEM and the same principles apply to diagnosing and solving them.

If ink flow were being restricted it would show in the nozzle check. Likewise if sedimentation were clogging a damper. The damper just holds a very small amount of ink for supplylng the print head. The issue is more likely what is flowing and not whether it is flowing. Epson inks that are within their <best before> period do not normally experience sedimentation from being inactive for several months. And a 3880 is one of the most trouble-free printers available when used with the inks designed for it. It is a successor and very similar to the 3800. I had a 3800 that went unused for a year and when fired-up the first nozzle check was clean and it printed like new. I have heard similar accounts numerous times over about these models - most unlike the x900 series or the 4000/4800. Amateurs tinkering with the innards of these machines can cause more problems than they solve. If re-profiling doesn't help and you still have the problem, use the services of a qualified technician trained in proper diagnosis and remedial procedure.

[digitaldog]

I'm a little surprised that the greens shifted by such an amount in such a short time.  While re-profiling may help, my hunch is that something is affecting ink flow somewhere. 

But you’re getting a clean nozzle check right? If you can re-profile, I’d do that. If you have the original measurement data, it would be useful to compare that to the new measurement data. We could analyze the differences in ColorThink. If the new profile works better, we may have found the problem; differences in ink between first and new profile. Process control issues from ink manufacturer? That would be rather telling.

Part of Mark's initial response included a suggestion about ink agitation, and that's certainly something I'd consider. 

Shake, try again. If that’s a fix, another reason to move away from this ink manufacturer.

[Mark D Segal]

You may be right, but I thought I had read reports somewhere of partial starvation, not enough to give a bad check but enough to give problems when printing.

Not buying into the other issues.

I believe those nozzle checks are very sensitive, but clearly neither of us have the detailed technical information to know for sure. One thing for sure, whatever the printer has in the lines will make many more prints, so the re-profiling would seem a worthwhile step. He should also agitate the carts, (but not harshly - risk of air bubbles) just in case there is decomposition going on. Then when the agitated ink reaches the print head, who knows, he may find it necessary to revert to the original profile. Resolution of this problem will be one step at a time, ruling out the easiest things first that a consumer can do without tinkering inside the printer. If all that fails, he needs a technician. I agree with Andrew that reverting to OEM inks would be a wise choice, but only after there is certainty that nothing done over the past few months has caused permanent damage to the printer.

[Mark D Segal]

Piffle. With the huge membership and huge number of contributors you get every view under the sun in this Forum. Debates on everything are always lively and often informative! :-)

[digitaldog]

I'm a little surprised that he asked this question on Lula, which, while also friendly and helpful and well-informed, does have a certain prevailing culture.

For a fellow with all of 10 posts here, that’s a rather odd and misinformed comment. I’m with Mark, Piffle.

[Mark D Segal]

Firstly, not clear the OP is using ConeColor inks. He mentioned Inkjet Mall. They also sell something called "Ink Thrift" in three different versions. I have no idea what the general track record is of any of those inks in an Epson 3880, and all the more so in the conditions he describes. There are other variables possibly at play too as we've discussed. I have seen no poll on LULA providing any evidence of what proportion of the members making prints use third-party inks. But it doesn't matter. The OP has a specific problem we're trying to help him solve. And your suggestion that he post the question in other Forums is a useful one. No harm getting as wide a range of suggestions as could be helpful to him.

[digitaldog]

I was waiting for that observation.  I am mindful of my low post count and the impression that creates, although I've been reading Lula on and off for some time. 

Well the comment you made wasn’t called for and if your goal with to ruff up feathers, you got the reply you deserved!

That said, on this specific issue - OEM vs third party - there seems to me to be a prevailing view (culture), and as this comment observed, third party ink users seem to be less common here.  Is this impression correct?

Mark already addressed this nicely, I’m not about to suggest any silly statements that  have no basis of fact that would provide an answer to a rather silly question.
I’ll just add that you’ve only made one comment that IMHO added anything useful to the discussion (seek other comments in other forums) and the rest of your writings seem more directed at some personal issues you have with LuLa and the thousands of people who post here by suggesting there is some prevailing view (culture). That’s nonsense!

[enduser]

We have used "Injetcarts" pigments in a Canon 6100 for years, no reprofiling was needed.  Long exposure to Australian sunshine eventually fades everything, but side-by-sides against Canon inks were pretty equivalent over time.

No shortened printhead life was noticed and, as usual, no clogs ever.  At the price differential you could replace heads at twice normal frequency and still be ahead.

In Australia, genuine inks are three times the price I got Injetcarts inks for. In the US there isn't such a large disparity.

[Praki]

I am getting a clean nozzle check. All the colors are bright and no breaks to indicate clogged heads (I printed the test print that has the large rectangles as opposed to the wavy lines). The inks I bought were Conecolor Pro pigment inks. So they are the preferred inks from Inkjetmall and not the thrift inks. Cost was an issue but a secondary or tertiary one. I wanted a refillable system or preferably a continuous ink supply system (CISS) for the 3880. Epson does offer such a system with its bulk inks but not for the 3880 but for all in ones and that too in Hong Kong. While the cost was close to $600 to replace a set of carts for a printer that cost about $1000, I really wanted an option to get bulk ink and use it. I would have happily paid a premium to get the bulk inks and refillable cartridges from Epson had such things been available.
I researched the subject quite a bit and came to the conclusion that Conepro inks were my next best alternative. When some color issues occured previously, it was due to Apple Update programs  loading   Gutenprint drivers and colors and tones go haywire when the OS uses these drivers instead of the epson drivers. That happened once to me. So I ran a program to deinstall these drivers and loaded epson drivers to get the print quality back on track. But lately, the dull greens are cropping up. I normally take the carts out every couple of weeks and gently agitate them and put them back.
I am following the posts carefully and will try some of the suggestions and hopefully post the results.

[digitaldog]

When some color issues occured previously, it was due to Apple Update programs  loading Gutenprint drivers and colors and tones go haywire when the OS uses these drivers instead of the epson drivers.

True, and why it’s always a good idea to always ignore any Apple updates for Epson drivers. Partly Apples fault, partly the users fault.
It was pretty obvious when this occurred, the driver looked quite different and lacked many of the options in the Epson driver.

[Praki]

Andrew: You are on target regarding the print dialog being different with Gutenprint. That is how I discovered the issue and researched the solution. Am still not clear how I accepted that update. I normally ignore updates unless it is a security update for the OS. Not sure why Apple feels the need to provide these drivers when the user has not asked for them.