Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jerryw on August 11, 2015, 05:46:34 pm
-
As I said in another thread recently: I've had a 7900 for about 4 years now. I'm very happy with the print quality, and relatively happy with the printer overall (occasional clog, but mostly fixed with standard cleaning, though 1-2 power cleans in 4 years).
But this forum makes it appear there is a significant group of folks (though not a majority) that have had clogging issues that have made them very unhappy.
Makes me wonder:
- If you had it to do over, would you buy your 7900 or 9900 again?
- If not, what would you buy that is at least 24" wide?
This is just a curiosity for me, nothing more. If you would be so kind, please respond only if you are an actual 7900/ 9900 owner.
-
Yes,
I would purchase a new 9900. I fully understand the workflow and issues around the large format Epson's. I have used them since 2002, starting with the 7600.
If I did purchase a new 9900, I would also plan on purchase of the extended warranty. I feel that as long as you have a warranty, Epson will work to make a problem right. At least they have for me in the past.
I have had my 9900 now almost 4 years. I don't feel the printer uses the orange/green inks much in my work, (landscape) and it seems they are really more for the proofing crowd. However I do not want to go back and have to re-profile everything as I would by moving to the 9890.
As for Canon, I appreciate they have a far different strategy for heads, both in design and maintenance. I feel the output from either a 8300/8400 and 9900 are so close I could not tell much difference. But again, I am much more familiar with the Epson workflow (windows) and don't want to learn a new setup. Too much time and energy for not enough gain. I also prefer the way Epson loads the rolls, from the top and the paper path of the Epson.
I would also hope that Epson has a newer large format on the horizon, based on the new P800 but that's anyone's guess.
Paul Caldwell
-
No!
Way too much ink ending up in the waste tank. The fact that Epson still advertises today that these printers have virtually eliminated clogged nozzles is just shameful. They are clog monsters and the printheads are expensive and have too short a life time. I don't need the slightly wider color gamut. I don't like wasting ink when switching black. The yellow ink longevity is inferior to the competition. The grayscale color tint is too finicky to control, probably because the black and grey inks are not neutral enough. there is no gloss optimizer.
I like that it's compatible with QTR.
So next printer is probably going to be the HP Z3200ps, the canon iPF8400, or the next generation of printers.
-
I would buy the 9900 again. But I would sure buy the extended warrantee after going through the expense of replacing the print head this year. The printer works flawlessly for me, despite leaving it sit idle all summer. I love the consistency of the output, paper handling, and ink capacity. I also love having a less than 10 second wait time when I have a phone question for the Epson support staff. I use the Colorbyte rip with no printer woes. I would have to see major, major quality differences to consider switching brands.
-
I had a 7900 that had failed printheads after a couple years fairly light use. I wound up junking it instead of forking out $1800 to get new heads installed.
I just bought an HP Z5200 44" wide printer and so far it's great. You can replace your own heads for about $70 each. They just unplug like an ink cartridge. Not to mention it has a built in spectrophotometer so you can make your own profiles,
You leave it on (in sleep mode) all the time and it periodically runs automatic maintenance on the heads.
At $3200 (from atlex) Epson can't touch that.
That's the long answer. The short answer is hell no never.
-
Probably not because of all the wasted ink, random head issues, and very expensive warranty cost.
The thing I really liked about HP's service is that, first of all the technician I had over a couple of times in 7.5 years was really good in every way. He knew the printer inside out and could take that thing apart in 15 minutes and replace anything that needed fixing, the first time, by just popping in a module. It wasn't any of the nonsense of talking to some guy in another part of the country on the phone to tell him what to do. And, with HP you could renew your warranty at ANY time, regardless if the printer has been out of warranty for a year or whatever, and that cost for the warranty was about half of what Canon or Epson charges.
What I do hope is that the next round of Epson large format printers will equal the professionalism of their 3880 series. I think if they redesigned their pressurized inkflow system and cap station, more in line with what they had with the well designed robust 10K model, they could go a long way to doing that. We really need 3 competitors in this market to improve the products and keep them honest. Let's hope the new ones out next year will kick ass. I really do hope that. And, I also hope HP keeps one big photo printer in their lineup and doesn't just cater to designers.
John
-
I'm printing with a 7900, mostly matte papers, occasionally photo papers, no canvas. I purchased it in December 2008 which means end of this year will be 7 years on this printer. I did purchase the 3 years of extended warranty but never had to use it for any repairs. Last summer I replaced the head and Ink Selector (dampers) as a result of electromechanical failure in the head. (Up until then, there were zero issues requiring any kind of repair.) I did the head replacement myself since I have worked on similar equipment in the past and have the necessary tools and background. After doing all the service adjustments required after replacing the head, my printer is actually more "tuned in" than before the head failed.
PROs: I love the output quality on this printer. I think the dithering is maybe slightly better than Canon/HP, but I also feel the average viewer or print purchaser would never know the difference. And like other posters, I also feel Epson has the best paper handling of anyone. And while I haven't yet ventured into using QTR (I do mostly B&W), I have plans to do that and so I like that I have that option. Having done the head replacement and studied the internals, I feel like now I know this machine and can fix most anything that needs attention as long as I can get the parts.
CONs: Yes, it is inconvenient and wasteful when switching blacks. But I'm not doing that often so for me the inconvenience and ink usage is acceptable. I"m definitely not happy that Epson inks are behind Canon and especially HP in terms of neutrality (blacks) and longevity. I'm encouraged that Epson is trying to address this in their new P-series printers (Yellow especially). I wasted a lot of ink leading up to the realization that my head had failed. I wish there was a more deterministic troubleshooting workflow (and even logic in the firmware) to help quickly identify when the problem is the head; it would save a lot of people a lot of time and money.
Would I buy another 7900 or 9900? Maybe. Right now my 7900 is "the devil I know" and I tend to like to use tools which I fully understand and can master for maximum quality of work. But I am hopeful that Epson will extend the P-series into LF (24', 44", 64") and bring additional innovation. I'm hoping I'll get at least another 4-5 years out of my 7900. When the time comes I would likely look first at the P-Series LF printers from Epson, assuming they do offer something in at least 24". I would certainly also look at anything new from Canon or HP to evaluate the current state of innovation and reliability in their offerings. One thing is certain: It is possible to produce stunning work from any of these printers. I've seen it.
Dave
-
The short answer is hell no never.
I agree with that.
For me the canon user experience is far nicer. As of today I would get a IPF8400. Have a epson7900 and a IPF8300 now.
No dealing with the never ending nozzle check, clogs, cleaning cycles that the epson requires.
-
4 no, 2 yes, and 1 maybe so far.
I realize its a small sample size, and those that are unhappy are probably be more prone to reply. But interesting nonetheless.
Any more yes people out there?
-
4 no, 2 yes, and 1 maybe so far.
I realize its a small sample size, and those that are unhappy are probably be more prone to reply. But interesting nonetheless.
Any more yes people out there?
What's interesting would be if you take the users that said yes, and gave them a Canon for a month to play with, if they would change their answer to no.
Likewise, what if you took Canon owners and made them use an Epson for a month. What would they gain? Surely the Epson isn't going to run any better than a Canon, and surely having to switch the black inks would drive them crazy.
So I can see getting some of those people who would get an Epson again to convert to Canon, but I just do not see a Canon user converting to Epson.
-
Yes, I'd buy another one.
I got my Epson 7900 in December 2008 without an extended warranty and have never had a problem beyond the typical clogging we all know about. So far I have only had to use "normal" cleanings at most. No "power clean" or even "powerful" clean cycles have been needed, though sometimes I have had to do a couple "normal" cleaning cycles to get things going again. My printer is used pretty regularly but several times per year it sits idle for 5 weeks or so. After sitting like that it sometimes has no clogs but other times it takes multiple cleanings to get a perfect nozzle check. Having to run a cleaning cycle before you print can sometimes be incredibly frustrating, but it doesn't use huge amounts of ink. The straight through paper path and paper handling are wonderful.
Because changing printer brands would require all new paper profiles and print files of different dpi for optimal output I wouldn't consider changing brands. Changing all of my print ready files would be too much effort, on top of learning a new workflow.
When it comes to low operating cost I think the HP "Z" printers win hands down. Relative to Canon I think it's just a matter of tradeoffs. At almost 7 years old I'd have, or would soon have, $1720 invested in replacement Canon heads. Canon's operation keeps the user from experiencing clogs and cleanings. That's great until head replacement is required. Canon and Epson both use ink to keep nozzles clean, but with Canon the user does not watch the event so it's perceived as not happening. I may have used a bit more ink in cleanings, but not $1720 more.
YMMV.
-
No...... I've owned 7600's and 9900's. I was lucky enough to actually sell my 7600 after purchasing a new 9900. That printer lasted 2.5 years. I threw it away and bought another 9900 which had to be completely rebuilt after 10 months..... very finicky. After another year the printer would not unclog itself.... no matter what I did. I threw it away and bought a Canon ipf8400 and will never go back to Epson. Extended warranties, to me, are a complete waste of money. Very expensive and the printer is never the same after major servicing. If it requires servicing out of warranty my best advice is to throw it away and buy something else. Its just the cost of doing business.
Victor
-
I find it hard to sell my HP Z3100 and Z3200 after resp. 8 and 6 years of use with little trouble, easy maintenance and not to forget fast available parts and user doable repairs. Wonder in what category user replaceable heads fall. By the time the printers go really belly up I will think about this question, small chance it will be an Epson.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Yes for me. Like the 4880 before it, my 3 year old 7900 has performed flawlessly (aside from minor clogs) and creates great prints on paper and canvas. It gets light use and when it's sitting idle all I do is run a nozzle check every few days to keep the ink flowing. I have never noticed an issue with black neutrality. As for "wasting" ink changing blacks, if I was such a pinch-penny to worry about a few bucks worth of ink I certainly would not be doing large format printing! Hell, a good number of my prints are wastes of ink!
-
Hell, a good number of my prints are wastes of ink!
Ha!
-
I don't think I could ever buy another. Too much pain and anger with my 7900. Two failed heads in 1.5 years!!! $2800 for the printer plus $2500 or more to fix it and then about $1000 in wasted ink and paper. So over $6000 in less than two years for a printer that rarely worked! I'm contemplating just finding a good fine art printer to work with for prints bigger than 17x22 and let them deal with the headache. If the printer f@*ks up a 24x36in print they eat the cost. Luckily one of the best fine art printers there is just moved into my town. I guess I'm lucky!
I just fired up my 3880 after sitting in my closet for 8 months and it started printing like it never missed a beat. Thats what I'm talking about!!!!
J
www.jayhemphill.com
-
7 no, 4 yes, and 1 maybe so far.
Again, I realize its a small sample size, and those that are unhappy are probably be more prone to reply. But interesting nonetheless.
I'll weigh-in with my vote now: I'm a probable "no". Reason: although I love the print quality and the paper handling, I print intermittently, so clogging is a risk for me. As such, I would prefer to have the peace-of-mind offered by one of the alternatives that doesn't have such a high clogging risk. However, if I was printing every day - yeah, I probably would buy one. So, I'm going to somewhat reluctantly vote "no" on the 7900, but only because I print intermittently.
That brings the totals to: 8 no, 4 yes, and 1 maybe so far.
-
Emphatic yes. Great image printing quality and no problems at all in my print studio.
The problem with "polls" like these and forum threads on "printers" is that they invariably are about difficulties/troubles with printing (e.g., how do I fix...) rather than "hey guys, I just wanted to take five minutes of your time to let you know everything is going great today..."
The result imho is the appearance that the world is ending and society is falling apart at the seams. Ok, so maybe the last part is true :P but I think you get the point. This isn't to minimize the extreme frustrations experienced by some printers here, but I suspect that there is a large number of forum participants that are indeed happy with their printers (regardless of brand) and indeed a whole world more that live outside the realm of Luminous-Landscape. (No offense to Kevin Raber who probably thinks I was stalking him in the Palouse this month... ;D)
ken
-
Emphatic yes. Great image printing quality and no problems at all in my print studio.
The problem with "polls" like these and forum threads on "printers" is that they invariably are about difficulties/troubles with printing (e.g., how do I fix...) rather than "hey guys, I just wanted to take five minutes of your time to let you know everything is going great today..."
The result imho is the appearance that the world is ending and society is falling apart at the seams. Ok, so maybe the last part is true :P but I think you get the point. This isn't to minimize the extreme frustrations experienced by some printers here, but I suspect that there is a large number of forum participants that are indeed happy with their printers (regardless of brand) and indeed a whole world more that live outside the realm of Luminous-Landscape. (No offense to Kevin Raber who probably thinks I was stalking him in the Palouse this month... ;D)
ken
If this was the case, you would expect the amount of 'negative' posts regarding the Epson x900 to be proportional to their prevalence. I suspect the ratio of negative posts to market share for the x900 is very high because those printers are troublesome, not just because their owners are a bunch of whiners ;)
Also, if the failure rate of the x900 is affected by the local climate (temperature and humidity) more than other printers (a big if), it could mean that depending on your geographical location you may bump into relatively happy or unhappy fellow x900 owners. I live in dry and hot Arizona and have only met x900 owner unhappy about their printer but otherwise generally happy people. :)
-
Emphatic yes. Great image printing quality and no problems at all in my print studio.
The problem with "polls" like these and forum threads on "printers" is that they invariably are about difficulties/troubles with printing (e.g., how do I fix...) rather than "hey guys, I just wanted to take five minutes of your time to let you know everything is going great today..."
The result imho is the appearance that the world is ending and society is falling apart at the seams. Ok, so maybe the last part is true :P but I think you get the point. This isn't to minimize the extreme frustrations experienced by some printers here, but I suspect that there is a large number of forum participants that are indeed happy with their printers (regardless of brand) and indeed a whole world more that live outside the realm of Luminous-Landscape. (No offense to Kevin Raber who probably thinks I was stalking him in the Palouse this month... ;D)
ken
To Ken: Many thanks for your response. My comments already acknowledged (twice) that unhappy folks will be more prone to respond.
To All: If you would be so kind, please help keep this thread on-topic. Its simply asking actual 7900/ 9900 owners if they would purchase again - to share thoughts and experiences.
-
I bought a 9890 less than two years ago and on my third head replacement.
Hell no.
-
NO - I'm on my second 7900 after two heads went on the first. I live remotely away from a service centre, so a head malfunction is fatal. Canon I'm told you can replace heads like their an ink cartridge. I am sick of waiting for a new generation printer which addresses the clogging issue. If all the other companies can do it why not Epson?
-
Inkjet technology came right from the dungeons of hell. We need an entirely new kind of printing technology. Otherwise I'm done printing myself for life.
Eduardo
-
I am curious as to why there is such a divergence of experience with the Epson printers. Some people have a miserable time with clogs and head replacements while others, such as myself, sail along for years with at most a few minor issues. Could it be a quality control issue with the manufacturing of the heads, some are just not quite up to spec and are prone to problems? I cannot think of any other possible reason. In any event, I am thankful to be one of the lucky 7900 owners.
-
... Could it be a quality control issue with the manufacturing of the heads, some are just not quite up to spec and are prone to problems? I cannot think of any other possible reason. In any event, I am thankful to be one of the lucky 7900 owners.
There's always the possibility of quality control issues, but I generally doubt this is the primary source of the wide range of reported experience with these printers. What is often (usually) missing in users' reports of problems is a history of the printer's usage (volume, media, frequency, etc) and environmental factors. We hear about the clogs, but we may not hear about the "external" factors which may have some bearing on the reported problems. So it is really hard to tell. But I think those external factors are quite likely to be heavily involved since it is the one aspect that we know can vary widely from one user to the next.
It would be really interesting if there were instrumentation in the printer itself that could record (over a long period, say 2-3 years) things like humidity, temperature, pages printed, ink volume used, paper types used, AID nozzle check results, etc. etc. I bet there would be some interesting correlations that could be extracted from an analysis of that data. But of course adding this type of instrumentation would add to the cost of the machine, not something Epson (or any manufacturer) would likely implement.
Dave
-
For a long time already I suspect that my HPs make regular internet calls to HP about their treatment etc. At least the ones that have a Windows driver. The OfficeJet driven from Ubuntu keeps on running without errors, the moment I print from Windows the printer starts to complain that something is wrong with the cartridges. Quite right as there are modified Z3100 130 ML cartridge ink bags in the cart slots with third party chips that say "we never get empty" and I think they will never empty in the lifetime of that printer. So I treat my Windows driven HP Zs with some care and make sure not to alarm big brother with tricks it knows already, the rest I will not make public here. BTW, all run on official HP Vivera pigment ink, the Officejet sort off.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I am curious as to why there is such a divergence of experience with the Epson printers. Some people have a miserable time with clogs and head replacements while others, such as myself, sail along for years with at most a few minor issues. Could it be a quality control issue with the manufacturing of the heads, some are just not quite up to spec and are prone to problems? I cannot think of any other possible reason. In any event, I am thankful to be one of the lucky 7900 owners.
From what I can tell after reading so many posts, much of the problems with Epsons has to do with ink delivery, not the printhead. Even when I had an Epson 4000 and 4800, when clogs appeared and I did some clean cycles, it would often make the problem worse. More clogged nozzles shouldn't appear, and they shouldn't jump all around the print pattern. This to me is indicative of sufficient ink not reaching the printhead.
Over time, I think perhaps the heads could get damaged after too many clean cycles and such, but initially, I think its the ink delivery system. Others have said that its the capping station which someone sucks ink from the bottom through the head, from what I understand, and so it this isn't working properly, this would once again affect the flow.
This also explains I think why the problems are so random. There are a few things that can fail in the chain of ink leaving the ink cart to getting squirted out of the printhead. If any of these fail, that is where the bottleneck lies.
-
From what I can tell after reading so many posts, much of the problems with Epsons has to do with ink delivery, not the printhead. Even when I had an Epson 4000 and 4800, when clogs appeared and I did some clean cycles, it would often make the problem worse. More clogged nozzles shouldn't appear, and they shouldn't jump all around the print pattern. This to me is indicative of sufficient ink not reaching the printhead.
Over time, I think perhaps the heads could get damaged after too many clean cycles and such, but initially, I think its the ink delivery system. Others have said that its the capping station which someone sucks ink from the bottom through the head, from what I understand, and so it this isn't working properly, this would once again affect the flow.
This also explains I think why the problems are so random. There are a few things that can fail in the chain of ink leaving the ink cart to getting squirted out of the printhead. If any of these fail, that is where the bottleneck lies.
I totally agree with that. When I run a cleaning due to one or more missing nozzles in the nozzle check pattern, it's not unusual for the missing nozzle(s) to be restored and other nozzles that previously printed perfectly to go missing. Sometimes nozzles go missing in different colors than the initial clog was in. If I were to guess I'd say the vast majority of "clogs" are lack of ink at the nozzle, not real clogs caused by hardened ink. Also guessing, I'd say the most likely cause is ink getting pulled back from the nozzles (and pulling in air) when the ink system is not pressurized. I say that because, at least in my case, I see "clogs" only when initially starting up the printer for a printing session. Once a perfect nozzle check is established everything is fine for the rest of the session, and often for days, weeks, or months thereafter (a bit over 3 months is the longest for me) if I am printing on a reasonably regular basis.
-
Hell yes !
I have a 7900 (now 5 years old), and 9890 ( 5 1/2), and both have performed very well from day one. I print for myself ,my wifes art, and customers. Mostly use the 9890 with MK for canvas and fine art papers, and the 7900 with PK for Premium Luster, Ex Fiber, etc. Every few months I switch PK and MK inks in both just to keep them exercised.
Started my 7900 today after an unusual lack of printing on it for a month, and it went right to work with no missing nozzles ;D
I have stated many times that I believe they are somewhat self aware, and I let them do regular periodic nozzle checks. I just give them whatever ink they desire to drink when they need nozzle cleaning. I figure my ink usage into my overhead costs, and price my printing services accordingly!!
A few $ worth of ink down the drain, is more than acceptable to avoid head problems and costly maintenance replacements!
-
No. There are much easier ways to flush my money down the toilet.
-
I have stated many times that I believe they are somewhat self aware, and I let them do regular periodic nozzle checks. I just give them whatever ink they desire to drink when they need nozzle cleaning.
Just to make sure I understand... you mean you have Printer-Setup/ Auto-Nozzle-Check/ On-Periodically selected, correct?
-
No. There are much easier ways to flush my money down the toilet.
That's like saying changing you car's oil is a waste of money.
-
I've had far less clogging with the 7890 than with the X900s. The X890s were brought to market later, and I think (might be untrue) that the heads are less prone to clogging. Another thing about the X900s--unless you have to match PMS colors, the orange and green inks only have a very marginal, if at all any, effect on photo output.
-
Yes Jerry , from day one on both.
-
Yep, I'd be hard pressed to see the differences in regular photos and most people would never notice anyway!
-
I am curious as to why there is such a divergence of experience with the Epson printers. Some people have a miserable time with clogs and head replacements while others, such as myself, sail along for years with at most a few minor issues. Could it be a quality control issue with the manufacturing of the heads, some are just not quite up to spec and are prone to problems? I cannot think of any other possible reason. In any event, I am thankful to be one of the lucky 7900 owners.
All I can add is that after working next to about ten 7900s and 9900s in professional, high volume shops, hardly any issues. So, keep those things churning, I guess.
-
I have stated many times that I believe they are somewhat self aware, and I let them do regular periodic nozzle checks. I just give them whatever ink they desire to drink when they need nozzle cleaning.
Just to make sure I understand... you mean you have Printer-Setup/ Auto-Nozzle-Check/ On-Periodically selected, correct?
Yes Jerry , from day one on both.
Thanks for clarifying David. And thanks for the tip.
I haven't been doing this, but I just might experiment with this. Since I am an intermittent printer, if it drives down my clog risk, it will be worth it.
-
... Makes me wonder:
- If you had it to do over, would you buy your 7900 or 9900 again?
- If not, what would you buy that is at least 24" wide?
This is just a curiosity for me, nothing more. If you would be so kind, please respond only if you are an actual 7900/ 9900 owner.
This thread achieved my objective - which was simply to distill experiences from actual owners in the form of "would you buy again" responses. And to share those around the virtual water-cooler.
Of course, we cannot draw any statistically valid conclusions about the 7900/ 9900 from this thread. But it has been interesting to share experiences, and I certainly learned a thing or two. And I am going to make one change as a result - the suggestion David made to do regular periodic nozzle checks.
Thanks to all who responded. And thanks for keeping the thread on-topic and civil.
Cheers
Jerry
-
I have had the auto nozzle check turned on since the start, but unfortunately this has not prevented printhead failures in my case.
(low volume, room: peak temp 88F, average temp 77F, min humidity 8%, avg humidity 50%, low dust) We may learn something if everyone shared environmental data along with their experience.
-
This thread achieved my objective - which was simply to distill experiences from actual owners in the form of "would you buy again" responses. And to share those around the virtual water-cooler.
Of course, we cannot draw any statistically valid conclusions about the 7900/ 9900 from this thread. But it has been interesting to share experiences, and I certainly learned a thing or two. And I am going to make one change as a result - the suggestion David made to do regular periodic nozzle checks.
Thanks to all who responded. And thanks for keeping the thread on-topic and civil.
Cheers
Jerry
One of my first tasks when I took possession of the 9900 in April2010 was to turn ANC off. I've done that with every Epson printer I have owned. What I do not want is for the printer to govern when a cleaning cycle is or is not necessary. I have adopted the "habit" of printing a nozzle check pattern before I start my days work. I suppose to some extent that habit is a carry over from the darkroom RA Colour process days and long before RA as well. Running a QC control strip and plotting the graph was always the first task of the day. Otherwise one could never know for certain whether or not the process was in complete control. And of course the same set of disciplines pertained to the C22, C41 and E3, E4 and E6 processes. When the Kodak Q-Lab system was devised for the E6 process that was a rather involved procedure, but again the only way of determining whether or not the process was in control. A lot of chemical testing as well as PH and Specific Gravity tests involved, every day. Then the numbers fed into the Q-Lab software and sent to Kodak in order to maintain one's Q-Lab status. OK, somewhat off topic, but just making the point that I do not understand how anyone would simply assume that all nozzles are firing properly before starting a print session. A totally foreign approach to me, but of course I suppose I might also be considered a bit of a throw back in this case. Hey, works for me.
Gary
-
I confess to having ANC turned off at the moment, but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. I had it turned on for a couple years and didn't have to deal with the nozzle check and manual cleaning routine. I've been happy enough with either setting though I think ANC sometimes occasionally goes overboard with ink usage.
ANC is able to detect whether any nozzles are not firing ink, performs the cleaning function if any nozzles are missing, and repeats. I think it goes through this three times and if some nozzles are still not firing it gives an error message. It is not simply assuming everything is OK after a cleaning. I read that this is done by electrically charging the ink droplets and measuring the charge on the fired ink. It is said to be accurate enough to detect a single missing nozzle.
-
One of my first tasks when I took possession of the 9900 in April2010 was to turn ANC off. ... OK, somewhat off topic, but just making the point that I do not understand how anyone would simply assume that all nozzles are firing properly before starting a print session. A totally foreign approach to me, but of course I suppose I might also be considered a bit of a throw back in this case. Hey, works for me.
Personally, I would not do this - i.e., I would not start a print session without a nozzle check.
Somehow you seem to have inferred that some would not nozzle-check-at-start-of-print-session if one had turned ANC on - no, not the case! I plan to turn it on simply to lessen the probability of a nozzle clog GIVEN THAT I only print intermittently. Reason: it will push a little ink through at times that I wouldn't, thus hopefully lowering (but not eliminating) the probability of a clog.
If I was printing every day, I wouldn't turn this on - I wouldn't see the point.
-
I have had the auto nozzle check turned on since the start, but unfortunately this has not prevented printhead failures in my case.
(low volume, room: peak temp 88F, average temp 77F, min humidity 8%, avg humidity 50%, low dust) We may learn something if everyone shared environmental data along with their experience.
So, I'm not an Epson engineer, but it is highly probable that clogging is a function of several different factors and conditions - one of which, sure, may be environment.
I suppose its possible that, if all printing were done within perfect/ controlled environmental specs, there would be no clogging anywhere for anyone.
However, its just as possible that, even under perfect environmental conditions, some clogging would occur.
As such, I see no particular harm in using ANC (other than a bit more wasted ink). And I can see a significant potential upside, for those of us that print intermittently (pushing a little ink through when I'm not there to do it for a while).
That said, I'll share my environmental conditions: ranges from 65-70F/ 55-65RH in summer to 60-70F/ 10-30RH in winter ; low dust in all seasons.
-
...
And I can see a significant potential upside, for those of us that print intermittently (pushing a little ink through when I'm not there to do it for a while).
That said, I'll share my environmental conditions: ranges from 65-70F/ 55-65RH in summer to 60-70F/ 10-30RH in winter ; low dust in all seasons.
FYI, when you are not there and the printer is asleep or off, ANC does nothing. I'm not exactly sure what triggers ANC nozzle checks, but thy seem to happen at the start or end of a print, and/or when the printer is turned on. I suppose it could be based on elapsed time. Regardless, AFAIK the printer does not wake up and do them when no one is using it.
My environmental conditions are very similar to yours, but perhaps a couple degrees warmer in summer. FWIW, I have by far the fewest "clogs" in winter (for 6 consecutive winters) when it's colder and much less humid. Because of that I've always conjectured that temperature plays a bigger role than humidity.
-
FWIW, I have by far the fewest "clogs" in winter (for 6 consecutive winters) when it's colder and much less humid. Because of that I've always conjectured that temperature plays a bigger role than humidity.
I couldn't agree more. My experience exactly.
-
FYI, when you are not there and the printer is asleep or off, ANC does nothing. I'm not exactly sure what triggers ANC nozzle checks, but thy seem to happen at the start or end of a print, and/or when the printer is turned on. I suppose it could be based on elapsed time. Regardless, AFAIK the printer does not wake up and do them when no one is using it.
Dean - are you sure about this? If you are correct, then I would agree that it would not help folks like me that are intermittent printers (because it wouldn't run the nozzle check when I'm not there, and when I am there, I check manually nozzle-check at the start of each session anyway).
However, I would think that the term "periodic" would mean just that - periodic - and not be a function of the wake/ sleep state of the printer (perhaps a bad assumption on my part). I just searched, and I wasn't able to find anything that told me if ANC will wake up during sleep and do its thing, or if it only does its thing when the printer is awake. Does anyone know for sure?
-
Dean - are you sure about this? If you are correct, then I would agree that it would not help folks like me that are intermittent printers (because it wouldn't run the nozzle check when I'm not there, and when I am there, I check manually nozzle-check at the start of each session anyway).
However, I would think that the term "periodic" would mean just that - periodic - and not be a function of the wake/ sleep state of the printer (perhaps a bad assumption on my part). I just searched, and I wasn't able to find anything that told me if ANC will wake up during sleep and do its thing, or if it only does its thing when the printer is awake. Does anyone know for sure?
The printer has no way to boot up with the (mechanical) switch in the off position. When leaving the printer on, I have never observed the printer performing an ANC on its own outside of a print job.
-
The printer has no way to boot up with the (mechanical) switch in the off position. When leaving the printer on, I have never observed the printer performing an ANC on its own outside of a print job.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that it (apparently) won't do an auto-periodic-check when it is in sleep-state - not what I expected/ hoped-for... dang. That might be a good firmware-update for the 7900/ 9900 - not that I expect any such thing from Epson.
(re: cold-off, yes, of course - I knew that; I was referring to sleep-state in the previous post.)
-
Personally, I would not do this - i.e., I would not start a print session without a nozzle check.
Somehow you seem to have inferred that some would not nozzle-check-at-start-of-print-session if one had turned ANC on - no, not the case! I plan to turn it on simply to lessen the probability of a nozzle clog GIVEN THAT I only print intermittently. Reason: it will push a little ink through at times that I wouldn't, thus hopefully lowering (but not eliminating) the probability of a clog.
If I was printing every day, I wouldn't turn this on - I wouldn't see the point.
I think it's rather widely accepted that usage is a good thing for these printers, so printing intermittently may very well be more of a contributing factor to nozzle "clogs" than any of the environmental factors we all try to adhere to. I print 6 days a week. Not that I print a large volume everyday, but there's always work coming in to be done and that helps keep the printer happy in my opinion. And of course that helps keep me happy as well. So the answer is definitely no, I have not and will not use ANC on my 9900. I was not at all inferring that everyone using these printers would never think to run a nozzle check before starting a printing session, but it does appear that those who report massive unworkable "clogs" often seem somehow surprised by those who might suggest a nozzle check occasionally. I've seen this sort of behavior exhibited here on many occasions and that's what I was basing my opinion on. As far as no ANC is concerned I tend to take it a bit further. I often switch the K inks. To do so I always startup in Service Mode so that the printer won't run a cleaning cycle automatically following the switch. After the switch I let the printer rest for about half an hour when possible and then run a nozzle check and clean cycle if necessary, although that's seldom the case. Restart in Standard mode and another NC which is usually clean. From there it's print time. And again, your experience may vary, but my routine works very well in my conditions in the Great White North. Just saying :)
Gary
-
Dean - are you sure about this?
In a little over 6.5 years I have never seen the printer wake up of its own accord and do anything, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
-
In a little over 6.5 years I have never seen the printer wake up of its own accord and do anything, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Dean, Cybis - thanks for clarifying that ANC will not cause a printer in sleep-state to wake-up and run a nozzle-check. That wasn't obvious.
As such, I'm unlikely to turn ANC on:
- Not much advantage since I always nozzle-check and clean-if-necessary at print-session-start-time
- So, seems like the only thing it would do would be to catch a clog that forms in the middle of a print-session, after I have performed my session-start-ritual
- Based on my own experience with the 7900, clog formation in the middle of a session (after session-start-ritual) almost never happens
Cheers
Jerry
-
I'm telling you, these capping stations are not fitting the heads correctly, and then they can't function in the pressurized way they need to, so your really dealing with ink starvation in the vast number of cases, I'm convinced.
But you don't see Decision One replacing the cleaning units nearly as often as you having them throwing up their hands and selling you new print heads. Guess that's what they've been taught how to do in those Epson training sessions they go to. Every now and then they will replace a cap station but not often from what I"ve been hearing. Do they ever tell people to moisten their cap station with distilled water before doing that? I'll bet only one in a thousand does.
I do think that if you put some water on your cap station at least once a week, and more often than that in dry environments a big portion of these complaints would be rectified. But you need to do it early before ink dries in the lines, dampers, and heads.
Of course they should have a decent cap station and wiper blade in a "pro" printer. That wiper blade is really a joke. And I don't buy the bs that if you don't print every single day and do huge production work then you should expect your printer to malfunction. That's crazy Epson talk.
john
-
I'm telling you, these capping stations are not fitting the heads correctly
But if this was the case, the symptom would tend to be missing nozzles affecting channel pairs, would it not? That hasn't been my experience.
-
No, it could effect pairs, or effect any single nozzles, or multiple nozzles.I've had all of the above.
-
No, it could effect pairs, or effect any single nozzles, or multiple nozzles.I've had all of the above.
I've difficulty imagining a mechanism by which a partial channel failure, which for me has been the most common occurrence, is caused by a failure of the capping station to fit the head properly. Say the capping station is not air tight around the C/M channels. All the nozzles in the C and M channels will be exposed to the same air environment and the exact same lack of suction during cleaning, uniformly.
-
I've difficulty imagining a mechanism by which a partial channel failure, which for me has been the most common occurrence, is caused by a failure of the capping station to fit the head properly. Say the capping station is not air tight around the C/M channels. All the nozzles in the C and M channels will be exposed to the same air environment and the exact same lack of suction during cleaning, uniformly.
Think of some paper lint at one point on the surrounding elastomer seal ring. When in rest this could happen; ink repelling first in the nozzles nearby as no static vacuum remains, dryer air nearby so lower humidity, drying in of the sponges and possibly even air getting into those nozzles, all depending on time. The paper lint also getting a better bond in time. With cleaning and the waste pump active there would be a lower dynamic vacuum at that point which would be less able to clear those local issues, more (dry) air getting in even. Heavy cleaning could then also bring ink from one channel into another due to that dynamic vacuum difference and some ink channels delivering way more ink than the affected channels (though I assume this usually is caused by differences in damper throughput due to debris there). Good, overdone, wiper(s) construction could solve this paper lint issue somewhat. There will always be that difference of experience between shops that mainly print RC papers with low dust and shops that pull all kinds of art, canvas, cotton, qualities through their printers and have no vacuum cleaner ready next to that printer.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
That is a very good point about paper dust. I would imagine that those who use rc papers almost exclusively would have more reliability. But if not, that would discount that dust theory.
Although I use the Canson matte papers almost exclusively with this printer, even they can cause dust particles flying around near the head when the paper is cut. It is probably a good idea to have a can of compressed air handy at all times and use it after each session. I doubt very few of us do that, along with keeping the cap station moist.
We shouldn't have to be doing all this, but it might be prudent.
Ernst, do you have any idea why we never ran into these kinds of issues with the Epson 10k that you and I used for many years?
Was it better cap station, better heads, better wiper blade, better pressurized cart design? Remember we never even had to empty our waste tank in all those years. I never even had to do nozzle checks. It was always clear.
john
-
Epson 10000. Six channel head, three wipers running across so not over the total length, each wiping the nozzles of two channels and nowhere wiping a channel color over another channel color. In the x900 models one wiper runs over the entire 10 channel nozzles surface.
On the pressurising system; the 10000 had just behind the cartridge slots 6 electric valves on the ink channels, by that there was no need for the backflow blocking valves in the carts but they were still used (not on hacked carts :-) probably just to discourage refilling. I wonder if the electric valves are still present in the models after the 10000. I do no think a cartridge backflow blocking valve is entirely tight in time for a water column of say 20 cm pressure. When on power a leaking air membrane in one of the carts could give a low pressure error, how fine tuned that was I do not know. The last is still used on the x900 models, I believe the 11880 has three air pumps, the x900 might have too.
The ink buffers and dampers system was integrated in the 10000 head, both probably bigger than in the models before and after it that separate the dampers from the heads. At one hand you could not replace dampers but on the other hand they were aimed at a longer life. For all pressurised systems including other brands; at the nozzle level I do not expect any extra pressure in the supplied ink but maybe 1-3 cm water column gravity of the ink buffer at the head. The Epson damper membrane, the HP butterfly valve, will even out ink pressure to the local air pressure and that system + sensors will control the ink buffer content. It could be that Epson has less buffer capacity than the HP heads have and that the supply tubes interfere more on the ink buffer stability. I can hardly believe that it would be done that stupidly.
The 10000 still had a 180 nozzles per inch head, we are now on 360 for most of the Epsons discussed here. It is getting more critical. My vote goes to the wiper systems making the main difference between the printer models. On the HPs there is no rubber spared to get it right, has to wipe more than 1000 nozzles per channel/inch on heads like. The Canon doubles that.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Think of some paper lint at one point on the surrounding elastomer seal ring. When in rest this could happen; ink repelling first in the nozzles nearby as no static vacuum remains, dryer air nearby so lower humidity, drying in of the sponges and possibly even air getting into those nozzles, all depending on time.
I'm sorry but that doesn't sound plausible to me. If the seal is broken anywhere, the pressure and humidity to which to nozzles will be exposed will be the same for the entire pair. I can't see how the nozzles near the piece of debris would be affected more. I suppose they could be exposed to a sort of air draft near the breach but that seems far fetched to me.