Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pedz on July 31, 2015, 08:29:31 pm
-
At some point, I'd like to get a large printer such as the Epson 9900. Obviously the main difference between a P800 (17"), a 7900 (24") and a 9900 (44") is the width. The incremental cost between the P800 and 9900 is (around) $2500. Several places are selling the 9900 for under $4000 now. I'm wondering if that isn't indicating that Epson is about to roll out a new set of printers.
I had a 4800 which I did not use much but when I did I would often print on canvas or art paper. A 30x40 canvas print from ProDPI is $215 making the differential printer cost around 10 prints. I have no doubt I will make 10 prints. Ok, that's not totally fair because I'll have ink and paper costs but even 20 prints seems a fairly sure bet.
BUT... I probably would print with it in fits and spurts -- printing most weekends and even week nights during a spurt and then letting it sit idle for a month or more. According to the internet, that leads to clogs. I'm wondering if there is a way to properly mothball the 9900 if I know I'm not going to print for a month or perhaps even several months. Or... I could rig up a cron job to print a 4x5 card every N days during the idle period. Or ... ?
I'm also looking at the P800 as a temporary printer since the internet seems to indicate that letting it sit idle is not as hard on it. And, I would also be waiting for a larger printer using the same tech as the P800 to come out in a year or two. Part of my hope with a possible new printer based on the P800 technology would be that it would not clog as bad as the 9900 is reported to do.
Mostly, the purpose of this thread is to see if it is possible to mothball a 9900 or what tricks and techniques the folks that have one but don't print every few days with it have learned to do.
Thank you,
Perry
-
Some folks have no problems letting the 9900 family sit idle, but I feel overall they like to be used. If you fee it's going to sit for months at a time idle, I would go with the P800 and job out your larger prints.
Epson may be working on a large format replacement, with P800 inks, but really the P800 is brand new and has not really had anytime to see if it's going to clog over time.
If you know it's going to sit for a long time, look to Canon, as they have a different design on the head:
1. Allows you the user to replace it at a manageable cost
2. Automatically maps out clogs, so eventually you will have to replace the head but it's a drop in.
They make great printers and prints.
Paul
-
What Paul said. The 9900 is a production machine, and although not as clog prone as the 4900, it likes to be used and used often. However, the other thing to consider with costs is the ink. If you produce enough prints, you can get 700ml cartridges for the 9900 which brings the cost down considerably from the smaller units with smaller cartridges. I'm sitting quite comfortable with 350ml cartridges for most colours and they'll last me about a year (even though Epson recommends you use them up in 6 months). But then again, I print quite a bit, every week.
-
Thank you to both of you. I was a confused and making some bad assumptions. I thought Epson had a considerably larger gamut but it appears that while it is larger it isn't significantly larger. dmax seems roughly in the same ball park as well. Where I was making a bad assumption is I just assumed all ink jet printers had clogging problems but from the surfing I've done last night and today, it seems Canon almost never clogs. The user replaceable print head is attractive too.
I'll keep surfing... :-)
-
I highly recommend going with a 7890 instead of a 7900. The orange and green inks do not make a difference for printing photos, including fine art reproduction. The green and orange inks are included in the X900 printers for graphic designers who need to perfectly match up to PMS colors. It is necessary to have that expanded gamut for prepress proofing. I've had both X900 and X890 printers. The differences between the two are significantly insignificant. And if you are just printing photos, the orange and green inks will rarely get used--except when you do a cleaning cycle on "pairs." As I recall, orange and LLK are paired together. By not having orange and green, you will not see a difference, your are eliminating two ink carts, and minimizing potential problems down the road.
-
I highly recommend going with a 7890 instead of a 7900. The orange and green inks do not make a difference for printing photos, including fine art reproduction. The green and orange inks are included in the X900 printers for graphic designers who need to perfectly match up to PMS colors. It is necessary to have that expanded gamut for prepress proofing. I've had both X900 and X890 printers. The differences between the two are significantly insignificant. And if you are just printing photos, the orange and green inks will rarely get used--except when you do a cleaning cycle on "pairs." As I recall, orange and LLK are paired together. By not having orange and green, you will not see a difference, your are eliminating two ink carts, and minimizing potential problems down the road.
Great point. The usage of orange and green is very slight.
Paul
-
You might want to go over to Breathing Color Form and take a look at this
http://www.breathingcolor.com/blog/printhead-failure/
Seems the take home is that the heads in the 900 series are good for about three year from manufacture, use or no use, the adhesives degrade and they simply die. Not so much a clogging issue as a design issue. What appears to be a clogging issue later in the life cycle is actually just the print head slowly delaminating over its normal life span. It’s just part and parcel of the DX6 print head. The DX5’s were and are much more robust at least in my experience. I’ve got a 9880 that still prints as good as the day it was built. I’ve never had a clog that a single regular cleaning hasn’t fixed in a single clean cycle, and these are few and far between.
So if I was looking to print at 44” I think I’d look for a good used 9880 (DX5 head) or maybe even an 11880, particularly if your business model doesn’t allow for replacing printers every three year.
Just something to think about.
Later Larry
-
You might want to go over to Breathing Color Form and take a look at this
http://www.breathingcolor.com/blog/printhead-failure/
Seems the take home is that the heads in the 900 series are good for about three year from manufacture, use or no use, the adhesives degrade and they simply die. Not so much a clogging issue as a design issue. What appears to be a clogging issue later in the life cycle is actually just the print head slowly delaminating over its normal life span. It’s just part and parcel of the DX6 print head. The DX5’s were and are much more robust at least in my experience. I’ve got a 9880 that still prints as good as the day it was built. I’ve never had a clog that a single regular cleaning hasn’t fixed in a single clean cycle, and these are few and far between.
So if I was looking to print at 44” I think I’d look for a good used 9880 (DX5 head) or maybe even an 11880, particularly if your business model doesn’t allow for replacing printers every three year.
Just something to think about.
Later Larry
My 9900 died at around 39 months. I had to have a $700 DecisionOne service call after 28 months of moderate use. I have not had issues with my 7890.
-
The orange and green inks do not make a difference for printing photos, including fine art reproduction.
Great point. The usage of orange and green is very slight.
Don't you guys think those are pretty broad assumptions? Orange and green clearly increase gamut. According to a video by printer retailer DTG Web (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oMzqD4b3E), the Stylus Pro x8xx printers produce 1,509,735 colors and the x9xx printers produce 1,751,041 colors. That's 16% more colors. The x8xx printers represent 87.4% of sRGB while the x9xx printers represent 101.3% or sRGB. That can be a significant difference if you're using many of the colors in your particular fine art print. An image with lots of greens (vegetation) or oranges (humans) can improve significantly by having those extra colors available, especially in the highly critical fine art market.
-
So if I was looking to print at 44” I think I’d look for a good used 9880 (DX5 head) or maybe even an 11880, particularly if your business model doesn’t allow for replacing printers every three year.
The 11880 is a 360 nozzles per channel head and belongs to the 9900 generation with DX6 heads more than to the generation before it that still has 180 nozzles per channel. Nine channels though so without green, orange but with both MK and PK black instantly usable without the infamous blacks switch. A friend had issues as well with the 11880 and uses it only at the highest print quality setting to suppress banding. The real production there is done with Canon iPF models with 12 inks so increased gamut as well.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Don't you guys think those are pretty broad assumptions? Orange and green clearly increase gamut. According to a video by printer retailer DTG Web (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oMzqD4b3E), the Stylus Pro x8xx printers produce 1,509,735 colors and the x9xx printers produce 1,751,041 colors. That's 16% more colors. The x8xx printers represent 87.4% of sRGB while the x9xx printers represent 101.3% or sRGB. That can be a significant difference if you're using many of the colors in your particular fine art print. An image with lots of greens (vegetation) or oranges (humans) can improve significantly by having those extra colors available, especially in the highly critical fine art market.
The 16% gamut difference is the enabling factor re matching PMS colors. There is virtually no difference in color photographs. Foliage, ironically, does not require green ink. See for yourself by adding a HSL adjustment curve. Then in soft-proof mode, move the "H" sliders--Green, Yellow, and Cyan. You will barely see a change in Green while Yellow is significant.
-
Just as another data point, I've had a 7900 for a little over 6.5 years with no issue beyond the normal and sometimes maddening "clogs", which I think are often an initial lack of ink at the nozzle rather than an actual clog.
-
I have a 6 month old 9890. Light but regular use. Love itr. It is a shame that even properly taken care of it may only last 3 years. It's a great well built machine. I really should get 10 years out of it.
Just like incandescent light bulbs, or ipod batteries. what a shame companies desire a little extra $$, over making a great product.
-
I've had a 7900 for a little over 6.5 years with no issue beyond the normal and sometimes maddening "clogs"
HA! That's like saying I have this wonderful car that has not had any issues, except it leaves me stranded on the side of the road sometimes.
-
HA! That's like saying I have this wonderful car that has not had any issues, except it leaves me stranded on the side of the road sometimes.
I sometimes have to do a cleaning before starting to print, but I'd hardly call that being left "stranded".
-
I sometimes have to do a cleaning before starting to print, but I'd hardly call that being left "stranded".
That's like saying you have to check all your fluids in your car before you drive away. Would you find this acceptable to dig around under the hood every morning?
I think the Epson owners have gotten used to the routine they need to perform in order to have some sort of reliability with their machines, and in the process, have just accepted that as normal procedure, but when compared to what it takes to run a Canon wide format printer, there is simply no reason to do anything before starting your printing.
-
That's like saying you have to check all your fluids in your car before you drive away. Would you find this acceptable to dig around under the hood every morning?
I think the Epson owners have gotten used to the routine they need to perform in order to have some sort of reliability with their machines, and in the process, have just accepted that as normal procedure, but when compared to what it takes to run a Canon wide format printer, there is simply no reason to do anything before starting your printing.
I do wish the Epson never needed cleaning, but I see this as a tradeoff for a not having to change out 2 print heads at around $430 each every few years. At almost 7 years old I'd have, or would soon have, $1720 invested in replacement heads. I've used some extra ink in cleanings, but not $1720 worth. Frankly, I don't see either printer as "better" than the other. Print heads clog, whether they be Canon or Epson. Canon's philosophy is to provide extra nozzles and use them up as clogs happen. When all are used you replace the head. They can provide lots of extra nozzles and user replaceable heads because thermal print head technology is cheaper to produce. Epson's philosophy is to provide only as many nozzles as required and make you clean them when they clog. They do not have the option of providing extra nozzles and user replaceable heads because the piezo heads are a much more expensive to produce. Epson could not use Canon's consumable print head philosophy and be cost competitive.
-
.... Epson could not use Canon's consumable print head philosophy and be cost competitive.
I've wondered why they couldn't. Just put some pads under the printhead like a computer chip has, and a cap with the dampening pads and lines, and the spring-loaded pins to the printhead and make it a drop in affair? Maybe 4 screws or a spring clip to attach it from the top. Canon has basically that design and don't know why, other than they don't want to, apply the same methodology. At the rate the Epson's clog, they might end up selling more heads and bring the cost down a bit too as people will likely just switch them out a couple of years if the clogging continues.
Around here, we have a couple of Canon business machine dealers who do work on Canon printers and sell their parts, but no Epson service. The Epson service is 250 miles away and the local camera shop has to haul theirs to them for fixing. Worse part is the first repair place they used was an independent (Does Epson even have factory service in their name?) Epson service and they got them to fork over $2,400 for parts (Head, pump, motherboard), then wait for parts, and then they folded and took off with the printer and money both! They never did get the printer back and bought a 9900 which does clog over three day holidays so they have to pamper it in the Tuesday after the 3 days off. They think they took off and maybe reopened somewhere else along with the parts and cash. Owner is sort of worried about finding another Epson service center, and I don't know why he didn't go to the local Canon other than the lease was really high for the Canon ipf8400 he looked at (Twice the price.).
I'd look close at how far away your Epson service would be, Canon also. At $175/hr. and if they are 300 miles away, that will get expensive!
SG
-
The 11880 is a 360 nozzles per channel head and belongs to the 9900 generation with DX6 heads more than to the generation before it that still has 180 nozzles per channel.
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
I did not know that, I assumed it would be a DX5 as a 880 series. Good to know.
Later Larry
-
It's not a philosophy that these companies subscribe to, it is the nature of Thermal vs Piezo Electric head technology. Canon, HP, and Epson all invented inkjet printer/head systems in the 1970s at about the same time. All have improved their designs and inks but their basic functions have stayed on course. If there is any real innovation in these head designs I would have to think it is in the HPZ machines. They have a head that combines two channels only. What that means is if one channel fails you don't replace the whole head ( Epson ) or 6 whole channels ( Canon) . And their heads are like $70.00 each that you just pop in, and last me a very long time. That way you don't get hit with a big bill when one of your channels goes dead in the middle of a job. For us poor folks out there, that's a pretty big deal.
Hp has made some wonderful advances in printer technology that you would have though they would have followed up on. They just seem so confused on the marketing side of the company in deciding what they want to do with it. For instance, why didn't they ever come out with a solid desktop unit using these super permanent inks. Imagine what they could have done if they had added one more light gray channel, it could have been killer for toned and neutral bw that all faded at the same rate. They could have sold a lot of ink.
When companies get that big they are like the military or something, the right hand doesn't even know what the left hand is doing at any particular time. And their old CEO who screwed a lot of things up when they merged with Compaq, is more interested in running for president but can't even get into the debate line up. What's that all about? It's shows she was more interested in politics and marketing than technology. But tech people don't run these companies anymore, sales people do.
john
-
BUT... I probably would print with it in fits and spurts -- printing most weekends and even week nights during a spurt and then letting it sit idle for a month or more. According to the internet, that leads to clogs. I'm wondering if there is a way to properly mothball the 9900 if I know I'm not going to print for a month or perhaps even several months. Or... I could rig up a cron job to print a 4x5 card every N days during the idle period. Or ... ?
Here is some empirical feedback:
I have had a 7900 for about 4 years now. Like you, I print in "fits and spurts" - sometimes going for several weeks without printing.
In those "down" periods, I run a quick nozzle-check on a plain 8.5x11 sheet once a week (to push at least some ink through it - knowing that Epson has a reputation for clogging). Though there are times I don't even do that.
Most of the time the printer does not clog. But, on the occasions when it does, I've found that cleaning does work. There have been a couple of times that I have had to use the "power clean" routine. Before each printing session, I do run a nozzle-check.
Do I worry about clogging? Yeah. Is it a hassle to deal with the occasional clog? A little. Would I prefer Canon's apparent superiority re: not-clogging? Sure, why not.
Personally, although I am technically inclined, I'm not that interested in head-and-printer-internals design, and debates about the merits of each vendor's design approach (although I certainly don't mind you guys doing it among yourselves - have at it). I just want the dang thing to print when I'm ready to print. :) So I am more concerned about empirical performance.
All-in-all: the prints look great, I've gotten my money back by not having to go outside for prints (got the printer for a good price), I enjoy having print control in my little lab and (so far/ fingers-crossed) the printer hasn't died with a terminal-clog. What's not to like?
-
I wonder the real ratio of 7890/7900/9890/9900 owners that have no $$service calls.
After 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 4 years, 5 years.
I'd think Epson would go out of business or have a class action suit if everyone who buys one of these printers failed, prematurely.
-
Depends on what you mean by prematurely? They used to last 5, 6. 7 years or more, and to tell you the truth most of us could solve any minor issues we had ourselves without resorting to a service call. Epson service calls were pretty rare. That was my experience. In contrast I began having major head issues with the 9890 after 3 years, and wasted ink due to blocked nozzles way before that.
A class action lawsuit would go nowhere and even if it was successful the lawyers would be the only ones to profit from it. They would always come up with some far fetched complaint that you did something wrong. At the very least they should sell heads at a reasonable cost for people to put in themselves. But I wouldn't even want to work on one of these. I've heard so many horror stories about even the trained technicians pulling their hair out trying to figure out what part to replace, to stop banding issues and ink pressure issues.
Thing is they have gotten progressively worse over the years in the large format market. The popular 9600 ( I had three of them) that was really their first photo pigment inkjet printer under $10,000.00 would clog regularly, in minor ways, but in that case the heads were very durable and you might have to screw around with windex and all every year or two but you rarely saw these "terminal" clogs that you see with the 9900 series today. And when you did you had gotten a lot of mileage out of the unit.
There are a LOT more people with premature printer failure with the new series. I mean where the only remedy is a new head a two thousand dollar bill, which may or may not help it last another year. The Epson 10K was the best by far, they never clogged or wasted ink. The 9800 and 9880 printers were more reliable than the 9600s and a lot more reliable than the 9900, and I think a good value for performance, but like the 9600s you still had a lot of headache and waste every time you wanted to switch from photo to matte media. Epson would tell us to buy two printers one for each type of paper (seriously), ( that is when I moved to Hp and Canon). The 10K had a single universal black for both matte and gloss media and I actually preferred that solution to the ink switching. They have just over- engineered this new series and the pressure cart system is all F ed up. That Breathing Color guy was saying the heads actually delaminate and fall apart. That's the first I've heard of that, but it makes sense. The 9600 heads were really durable. I heard they were used in all kinds of military applications. They clogged some but they could last easily 8- 10 years, and many did even under heavy use. A lot of people just gave them away after many years because they were too slow, but still printing fine.
I have to say the Epson 3800-3880s are really designed well and function well. Epson clearly has made an excellent printer there. 20 years ago I would dream of something like that that you could put on your desktop.
john
I wonder the real ratio of 7890/7900/9890/9900 owners that have no $$service calls.
After 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 4 years, 5 years.
I'd think Epson would go out of business or have a class action suit if everyone who buys one of these printers failed, prematurely.