Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: robertDthomas on September 25, 2018, 09:05:09 pm
-
Not sure if this is unique to me and my setup but this is the second time a major Mac OS upgrade has lost its mind (or connection to ICC profiles) after upgrade. Same thing with previous upgrade to High Sierra. I printed images from my iMAC through LR the day before the upgrade and a second set of same images the day after and colors different/incorrect. I remembered this happened previously and previously after much hashing around coping files into the colorsync/profiles directory and still no luck I just deleted the printer; Epson P9000 in the Printers/Scanners dialog box and then reentered. This simple process reconnected the driver to the proper location of the profiles and proper colors are restored.
Maybe no one else will have this problem but JIC I thought I would mention it.
-
thanks for the info.
Epson released several driver Mac OS updates on September 24th. this would indicate they were releasing a compatible driver to prepare for Mojave. This is easy to miss for those upgrading to Mojave (I would have probably missed it as well).
Oddly enough I believe the driver version didn’t increment, so this is probably a simple “build” version.
Drivers are sort of a different beast when it comes to updating because you don’t “launch” them and they really don’t have the ability to let you know you need an update like applications do. Before installing any new system software it’s a good idea to check with Epson to see if it is supported. (advice I myself fail to follow sometimes).
-
For the SC-P5000 the driver upgrades from 9.x to 10.x.
-
Why did you upgrade?
I never upgrade until a new version has been out for at least six months unless their is a very compelling feature that I need.
I only just upgraded to High Sierra when Mojave was about to be released. Maybe over cautious but I seldom have problems that way.
-
+1
I upgrade only to the latest - mature - release of any OSX system...
i can spend my time better ...
-
An interesting note to this, Epson Software Updater no longer looks for updates for their printers and says all updates are distributed through Apples Software Update. See screen shot, says this is valid for 10.6 and later, although I don’t ever remember seeing this before.
Of course we all know that this didn’t work in the past. but I noticed that both my p5000 and p9000 driver versions match the current versions on Epsons website, yet I did not download and install those updates yet. But I also don’t remember telling software update to update anything, and there are no Epson updates available or in the recently installed list in my App Store Update window. Not quite sure what is going on.
-
Wayne, my experience as of yesterday indicates that the drivers for Epson professional printers continue to be distributed through the Support>Printers>Download section of Epson's website. That is where I obtained the latest available driver (version 10.18) for my SC-P5000. It worked in the usual way. "Usual" here means that the download and install process were seamless, presets preserved and everything continues to work normally, but one is in the dark about what changed from the previous to the current driver and there was never any notification from Epson that this new driver version is available; unless there is some box I neglected to check, it seems they don't have a notification system to tell users of the professional printers when driver updates are posted.
-
To: Mark, Kers, Bob and Wayne
First to Bob and Kers - You are right upgrade only when you need to --- I am a glutton for punishment - but was drawn to the dark side (dark mode) ---- Always better to wait.
To Mark and Wayne: I did not check for Epson updates and that would have been prudent. I have now updated the driver but have not printed with it yet hope all works out well.
-
An interesting note to this, Epson Software Updater no longer looks for updates for their printers and says all updates are distributed through Apples Software Update. See screen shot, says this is valid for 10.6 and later, although I don’t ever remember seeing this before.
Of course we all know that this didn’t work in the past. but I noticed that both my p5000 and p9000 driver versions match the current versions on Epsons website, yet I did not download and install those updates yet. But I also don’t remember telling software update to update anything, and there are no Epson updates available or in the recently installed list in my App Store Update window. Not quite sure what is going on.
Hi Wayne,
I just checked the Epson site and there seems to be no update for the P7000 driver in either 10.13 or 10.14 (both are version 9.89). I believe I recall reading some time ago that Apple and Epson finally stopped fighting and fixed the issues that were encountered about 6 years ago with the AppleEpsonUpdate for drivers and scanners. However, as long as I can download drivers from the Epson site I will not go near the Apple updates for Epson Pro Graphic printers. I have recently seen the AppleEpsonUpdate in the App Store a couple of times, but the last time I clicked the "Hide" button and now if it does show it's only for a few seconds and then it disappears. I guess Apple finally got the message. ::)
Gary
-
For clarity and avoidance of doubt: the Apple updater path for Epson software only applies to consumer grade printers and all-in-one office machines. The Epson website continues to provide updates for the professional printers.
-
For clarity and avoidance of doubt: the Apple updater path for Epson software only applies to consumer grade printers and all-in-one office machines. The Epson website continues to provide updates for the professional printers.
Absolutely correct Mark, and it's always been for the consumer grade printers. However, with the issue I referred to about 5 or 6 years ago folks were using the AppleEpsonUpdate for their Consumer Grade Printers and Scanners and it played absolute havoc with their Pro Graphic Printers, in many cases to the point of rendering them unusable. I don't recall the workaround for that, but it was rather complicated and both Apple and Epson were involved if I remember correctly. A lot of folks were caught in that trap and it was a rather nasty situation. Luckily I read what was happening and put a large note on my desk to remind me to NEVER install the AppleEpsonUpdate. When I started seeing it again I posted a couple of times on LuLa with a warning about that update for those using ProGraphic Printers. Not sure that it has been fixed, but I do know that I won't personally find out one way or another.
Gary
-
I think all that was resolved long ago. When I still had an Epson all-in-one I used that Apple updater and it did not interfere with the prographics stuff.
-
After my upgrade to Mojave, I output my Gamut Test file on my 3880, it matches output made from older OS's so no issue. There is no update to that driver I can find on Epson USA. What doesn't work is the ColorSync radio button doesn't gray out using the older (?) SPI* but if it is selected as it should be when it can be, it works correctlyI. I saw the same issue on the P800 driver which is reported as version 10.16 Now what's a bit odd is the driver I had for the P800 was the same version shown as Epson's site but states their installer was updated 9/28/18. None the less I downloaded and installed it, now on the P800, the radio button is grayed out as it should be. So that's one 'fix'.
*Apple API (SPI) called kPMApplicationColorMatching.
-
Not sure if this is unique to me and my setup but this is the second time a major Mac OS upgrade has lost its mind (or connection to ICC profiles) after upgrade. Same thing with previous upgrade to High Sierra. I printed images from my iMAC through LR the day before the upgrade and a second set of same images the day after and colors different/incorrect. I remembered this happened previously and previously after much hashing around coping files into the colorsync/profiles directory and still no luck I just deleted the printer; Epson P9000 in the Printers/Scanners dialog box and then reentered. This simple process reconnected the driver to the proper location of the profiles and proper colors are restored.
Maybe no one else will have this problem but JIC I thought I would mention it.
Deleting the printer (Epson R3000) and then remounting it is very worthwhile advice - and thanks for it. In my case it sadly only delivered me halfway back to ground zero. Luckily, I had access to an excellent - and rapid - profile producer here in the U.K., who in 36 hours brought me all the way home. Not much use if you're not in the U.K.; but for those similarly afflicted his name is Rob Griffith at Colour Space.
-
After my upgrade to Mojave, I output my Gamut Test file on my 3880, it matches output made from older OS's so no issue. There is no update to that driver I can find on Epson USA. What doesn't work is the ColorSync radio button doesn't gray out using the older (?) SPI* but if it is selected as it should be when it can be, it works correctlyI. I saw the same issue on the P800 driver which is reported as version 10.16 Now what's a bit odd is the driver I had for the P800 was the same version shown as Epson's site but states their installer was updated 9/28/18. None the less I downloaded and installed it, now on the P800, the radio button is grayed out as it should be. So that's one 'fix'.
*Apple API (SPI) called kPMApplicationColorMatching.
There does appear to be a bug in the 9.33 Epson driver for 3880 when the 16-bit check box in the driver is turned ON. Just discovered this yesterday. Nothing new on Epson's site but as of this morning, Epson USA is aware of this bug and I'll report back if I learn anything. In the meantime, keep the check box turned OFF under Mojave.
Edit: Correction, turn the check box OFF. Output with ON is awful.
-
There does appear to be a bug in the 9.33 Epson driver for 3880 when the 16-bit check box in the driver is turned ON. Just discovered this yesterday. Nothing new on Epson's site but as of this morning, Epson USA is aware of this bug and I'll report back if I learn anything. In the meantime, keep the check box turned OFF under Mojave.
Edit: Correction, turn the check box OFF. Output with ON is awful.
After upgrading the Mac connected to my epson 2880 I suddenly had awful prints. thought I messed up my color management at first.
but then stumbled upon this thread. and tried with 16bit switch of. This sort of solves the problem ( at least when printing from Lightroom). printing from Capture One I have not managed to succeed( I have not found a way to toggle between 8 and 16bit printing in C1).
Kees
-
After upgrading the Mac connected to my epson 2880 I suddenly had awful prints. thought I messed up my color management at first.
but then stumbled upon this thread. and tried with 16bit switch of. This sort of solves the problem ( at least when printing from Lightroom). printing from Capture One I have not managed to succeed( I have not found a way to toggle between 8 and 16bit printing in C1).
Kees
Hi Kees,
Which OS version did you upgrade to? Did you also check the Epson site for the proper driver for the 2880 and your new OS? Also, if you do find an updated driver keep in mind that uninstalling the current driver involves more that simply deleting it in Sys Prefs > "Printers & Scanner", although that should be your first step. To do a complete driver uninstall (according to Epson) you must also delete the Epson folder in the User Library > Printers folder. Empty the trash and then check the Library > Printers folder once again to be sure the Epson folder no longer exists. Open Disk Utility and Repair Permissions, or in High Sierra or later just run "First Aid". Restart the computer and install the new 2880 driver version. Of course since you have deleted the Epson folder in Lib > Printers you will also have to reinstall any desktop printers you might have. If all you do is delete the driver in Sys Prefs there are still a number of files on your computer that can play havoc with the with new driver version you have installed. Hope this helps.
Gary
-
After upgrading the Mac connected to my epson 2880 I suddenly had awful prints. thought I messed up my color management at first.
but then stumbled upon this thread. and tried with 16bit switch of. This sort of solves the problem ( at least when printing from Lightroom). printing from Capture One I have not managed to succeed( I have not found a way to toggle between 8 and 16bit printing in C1).
Kees
The toggle is in the print driver, not the application.
-
One wonders whether Epson and Apple have quietly decided to stop undertaking functionality checks with system upgrades for printers behind a certain (unstated) vintage. If so, one may argue about the appropriate extent of backward compatibility; if not, one may argue about the overall adequacy of attention to compatibility in the instance of major upgrades of any piece of software that needs to work interdependently with others.
-
Why did you upgrade?
I never upgrade until a new version has been out for at least six months unless their is a very compelling feature that I need.
I only just upgraded to High Sierra when Mojave was about to be released. Maybe over cautious but I seldom have problems that way.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
I do NOT understand why people immediately jump on a 10.x.0 release, especially when historically, they've been pretty messy for people like us who dig reasonably deep into the printing subsystem only to find 'problems'.
At very least, get yourselves a standalone small disk/SSD and put the new OS on that and boot off it and then play.
I've been sitting on 10.10 for a good long time and just recently went to 10.12 (part of the reason is the complexity of running a Hackintosh)
YMMV
-
Add me to that. I'm at least as cautious, still on El Capitan, quite committed, as I've mentioned before somewhere on LuLa, to the notion Bob Shaw espoused, being that the main compelling reason to upgrade is when it's necessary for some feature or other one wants or needs. It could be an application, a security update, new features within an existing application that one wants, etc. Otherwise, why ask for trouble.
-
Guys, it's an Epson driver bug (at least the 16-bit one). Yes, Apple updated the OS. No, apparently Epson Japan didn't test beta's with the 3880 driver or well. The P800 runs fine. And the 'fix' until a new driver is released (?) this time is simple. As is reverting back to the older OS if it wasn't simple. But let's put the blame where it belongs. Not Apple, not users who upgrade sooner than you do (Epson may never update the driver; now what?).
-
Guys, it's an Epson driver bug (at least the 16-bit one). Yes, Apple updated the OS. No, apparently Epson Japan didn't test beta's with the 3880 driver or well. The P800 runs fine. And the 'fix' until a new driver is released (?) this time is simple. As is reverting back to the older OS if it wasn't simple. But let's put the blame where it belongs. Not Apple, not users who upgrade sooner than you do (Epson may never update the driver; now what?).
OK, that's now clarified, thanks Andrew. Responding to your "now what?", I suppose it simply means that without saying so Epson has deprecated the 3880, so anyone who wants full correct 16-bit functionality with the latest OS needs to upgrade their printer. It won't be the first time one is faced with forced technical obsolescence, and it's always very annoying when one has been perfectly satisfied with performance heretofore.
-
OK, that's now clarified, thanks Andrew. Responding to your "now what?", I suppose it simply means that without saying so Epson has deprecated the 3880, so anyone who wants full correct 16-bit functionality with the latest OS needs to upgrade their printer. It won't be the first time one is faced with forced technical obsolescence, and it's always very annoying when one has been perfectly satisfied with performance heretofore.
Technical obsolescence saved me. My late 2011 Mac Mini wouldn't update to Mojave so my 3880 remains usable at 16-bit. Of course, given Adobe's announcement that it will only support current OSes, I may not be able to move beyond LR8/PS20.
-
OK, that's now clarified, thanks Andrew. Responding to your "now what?", I suppose it simply means that without saying so Epson has deprecated the 3880, so anyone who wants full correct 16-bit functionality with the latest OS needs to upgrade their printer.
No, they simply turn the option off since it makes no visible difference anyway. And no, it IS possible that Epson will update that driver and fix that bug.
-
No, they simply turn the option off since it makes no visible difference anyway. And no, it IS possible that Epson will update that driver and fix that bug.
OK, but you'd think by now they would have done it, given that they probably had a good six months' notice (my understanding of the usual period) to update their stuff before the Mojave commercial release. Anyhow, possible it will happen, so we'll see.
-
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
I do NOT understand why people immediately jump on a 10.x.0 release, especially when historically, they've been pretty messy for people like us who dig reasonably deep into the printing subsystem only to find 'problems'.
At very least, get yourselves a standalone small disk/SSD and put the new OS on that and boot off it and then play.
I've been sitting on 10.10 for a good long time and just recently went to 10.12 (part of the reason is the complexity of running a Hackintosh)
YMMV
As I've mentioned here before, I have 3 Boot-Clones of my main OS and Applications Drive. When I'm ready to upgrade the OS I boot on one of the Boot-Clones and do the upgrade there, totally apart from the Main OS and Applications Drive. I can then do test runs on all of the Apps I use daily to make sure they are performing as expected. I'll use that drive only for a few weeks and go about my daily routine. That way I can determine whether or not all of my most important Apps are working well under the new OS version. After that period of time, if everything looks good I will then clone that Boot-Clone back to my Main Work Drive. Test it there again for a few weeks and then update the other Boot-Clones so that everything is up to date. Using this procedure I have never been caught with a nasty app that does not play well with the newly upgraded OS, and then nothing to do but try to downgrade and the reinstall ALL apps, an experience I would never want to encounter.
About 4 months ago I finally decided to upgrade from 10.9.5 to Sierra, but then decided to go all the way and installed High Sierra with absolutely no issues at all. Of course first upgraded and tested on a Boot-Clone Drive and all is well.
Gary
-
The toggle is in the print driver, not the application.
I know the one in the driver, but setting that one to 8 bit when printing from C1 did not solved the issue
when printing in Lightroom there is a toggle in Lightroom and in the print driver, I have to set both to 8 bit to get correct results.
Therefore I was looking for a similar option in C1
Kees
-
I know the one in the driver, but setting that one to 8 bit when printing from C1 did not solved the issue
when printing in Lightroom there is a toggle in Lightroom and in the print driver, I have to set both to 8 bit to get correct results.
Therefore I was looking for a similar option in C1
Kees
Then may be a C1 bug. Because the bug with the 3880 is caused by the check box in the Epson driver.
-
OK, but you'd think by now they would have done it, given that they probably had a good six months' notice (my understanding of the usual period) to update their stuff before the Mojave commercial release. Anyhow, possible it will happen, so we'll see.
Agreed. Epson is most interested in selling you a new P800 or something, not going back to old software for old obsolete machines and verifying/re-qualifying the driver for the new OS. In my place of work, that'd often fall to a summer intern.
Disappointing but not surprising (to me) they have not/may not moved the 3880 driver >9.33
Although, the P800 is now 2? years old and maybe we can get 2-3 years out of High Sierra, I'd guess the P800 will be obsolete before *forced* to abandon the OS. Of course, Adobe will start throwing in features and thus versions of PS/LR that require it.
</rambling rant>
-
Then may be a C1 bug. Because the bug with the 3880 is caused by the check box in the Epson driver.
If it were a C1 bug, then I wouldn't have the problem in Lightroom I would say.
-
Agreed. Epson is most interested in selling you a new P800 or something, not going back to old software for old obsolete machines and verifying/re-qualifying the driver for the new OS. In my place of work, that'd often fall to a summer intern.
Disappointing but not surprising (to me) they have not/may not moved the 3880 driver >9.33
Although, the P800 is now 2? years old and maybe we can get 2-3 years out of High Sierra, I'd guess the P800 will be obsolete before *forced* to abandon the OS. Of course, Adobe will start throwing in features and thus versions of PS/LR that require it.
</rambling rant>
Rant indeed (and a bit of FUD).
1. At least with the 3880, one can run it just fine under Mojave.
2. An update could come. Not that it matters in this case.
3. NO ONE forces you to update the OS.
4. Epson isn't alone from the issues discussed.
The next major Mac OS will not run 32-bit applications. And Apple has told developers this fact for years now. And not all the applications I run, maybe you run, will be updated. Some still run under Mojave but the developers have gone out of business.
I can't run HyperCard and all the stacks I built under any version of OS X. The horror. :-[
-
If it were a C1 bug, then I wouldn't have the problem in Lightroom I would say.
All I can tell you is LR runs just fine on this end with the 3880. I cannot diagnose your problems remotely either.
-
Hi Kees,
Which OS version did you upgrade to? Did you also check the Epson site for the proper driver for the 2880 and your new OS? Also, if you do find an updated driver keep in mind that uninstalling the current driver involves more that simply deleting it in Sys Prefs > "Printers & Scanner", although that should be your first step. To do a complete driver uninstall (according to Epson) you must also delete the Epson folder in the User Library > Printers folder. Empty the trash and then check the Library > Printers folder once again to be sure the Epson folder no longer exists. Open Disk Utility and Repair Permissions, or in High Sierra or later just run "First Aid". Restart the computer and install the new 2880 driver version. Of course since you have deleted the Epson folder in Lib > Printers you will also have to reinstall any desktop printers you might have. If all you do is delete the driver in Sys Prefs there are still a number of files on your computer that can play havoc with the with new driver version you have installed. Hope this helps.
Gary
I went to 1.14.1 immediately, skipped 1.14.0.
Since ages the printerdriver for Epson 2880 is supplied via Apple update, not via epson, checked versions though. latest is 9.0 (also for ages ). which is installed.
I'll try a reinstall nevertheless to see if the problem is solved.
Kees
-
All I can tell you is LR runs just fine on this end with the 3880. I cannot diagnose your problems remotely either.
No problem I'll keep digging for a while to see if I can solve the issue. I have a more or less working solution now, a bit cumbersome. otherwise Il keep my printing Mac on high Sierra for a while. (can switch back in a pinch)
however this situation maybe a good excuse to the wife for investing in a new and bigger format printer like the p800. ( and then convert the to 2880 to a bw dedicated printer with all black/grey inks). ;-)
-
I have a friend who built an entire company accounting system based on Hypercard ;)
-
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
I do NOT understand why people immediately jump on a 10.x.0 release, especially when historically, they've been pretty messy for people like us who dig reasonably deep into the printing subsystem only to find 'problems'.
At very least, get yourselves a standalone small disk/SSD and put the new OS on that and boot off it and then play.
I've been sitting on 10.10 for a good long time and just recently went to 10.12 (part of the reason is the complexity of running a Hackintosh)
YMMV
A lot of assumption in those "why do you upgrade" responses while knowing nothing about the poster and his motivations
Neither Op or me stated we "jump on new versions" un prepared.
nor do you know anything about background and reasons for upgrading
I have been in the systems administration and support business for around 25 years, so I pretty well know what to expect and how to keep my systems running and safe.
for the record I am not on *.0
Second, I have upgraded in order to test for issues and have taken the precautions needed to go back if necessary
If everybody waits for the >3 or later release, there will be no bugs fixed, and it will be as unstable as the *.0
For me with the epson 2880 being an old beast with a probably substantially reduced installed base it might very well be nobody finds out about the issue, and if they do they might never flag it to epson/apple and stay on older OS versions. Therefore I want to test this asap. knowing about a potential effective end of life situation or supportability issue earlier on is better risk management than waiting it out and find out you have an issue when you must upgrade because of End of support issues on your Operating system.
would be a pain to have to introduce any issue or problem like Posted with a preamble like this both for poster and readers
nuf said asfaik
I'll further keep this thread on topic as all this will not help the OP or others in any way.
Kees
-
I have a friend who built an entire company accounting system based on Hypercard ;)
And still running OS9 it seems. ;)
-
I have a friend who built an entire company accounting system based on Hypercard ;)
Ouch..... I envisage some sleepless nights
-
.......... investing in a new and bigger format printer like the p800. ( and then convert the to 2880 to a bw dedicated printer with all black/grey inks). ;-)
You'll get excellent B&W prints from a P800. Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only.
-
You'll get excellent B&W prints from a P800. Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only.
I'll keep that in mind, maybe someone is still willing to give some bucks for the 2880 in stead ;-)
-
I went to 1.14.1 immediately, skipped 1.14.0.
Since ages the printerdriver for Epson 2880 is supplied via Apple update, not via epson, checked versions though. latest is 9.0 (also for ages ). which is installed.
I'll try a reinstall nevertheless to see if the problem is solved.
Kees
Hi again,
Just one more thing. If you are going to reinstall the driver, please follow the steps I outlined previously, since that's the only way to be absolutely certain you have deleted all driver files before reinstalling the driver.
-
You'll get excellent B&W prints from a P800. Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only.
This is OT for this thread, but it's worth observing that there are a number of monochrome-only printing systems available. They're not for everyone, but plenty of people use them because they see benefits compared to OEM, even the P800. Have you tried any of them Mark?
-
This is OT for this thread, but it's worth observing that there are a number of monochrome-only printing systems available. They're not for everyone, but plenty of people use them because they see benefits compared to OEM, even the P800. Have you tried any of them Mark?
The first question is whether it's practical to convert this particular 2010 printer model to monochrome - who's done it and what success have they had with it? I'd want to see evidence before recommending this. The second question before looking at anything else is the DMax you can achieve with a P800, especially in ABW mode - the answer to that one, as far as I'm concerned, is that I've seen none lower from anywhere. Looking visually and statistically at the tonal gradations it produces, they are superb. I think I've seen inkjet B&W prints made in every which way and I believe the P800 stands up well to all of it. So no, I have not tried converting a printer to third-party B&W ink systems. I know many people really love them, and that's fine, but speaking personally I don't see the point. That said, my mind is always open to obviously superior methods, but I'm not feeling compelled to invest in it as an experiment given what we have on the market today. It may be also worth considering a point recently brought to my attention by an industry professional, and sounds plausible - that when you have colour inks available to a B&W printing process, used with good ICC profiles they can help neutralize the effect of non-neutral papers in a way that B&W inks alone cannot do - perhaps useful if you put a high value on apparent neutrality through the tonal range.
-
Hi again,
Just one more thing. If you are going to reinstall the driver, please follow the steps I outlined previously, since that's the only way to be absolutely certain you have deleted all driver files before reinstalling the driver.
reinstalling the printer did the trick for me, printing in 16 bit works just fine now. Thanks!
Kees
-
Taking Mark's post as a sequence of questions:
Yes, you can convert the R2880 to monochrome. Plenty of people have done it. Inkjetmall sell carts and inks and provide a turnkey system. They're not the only suppliers.
Yes, you can get a higher dMax than the P800, if high dMax is your thing. Inkjetmall recently released their new HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks that deliver significantly higher dMax than OEM. They're intended for monochrome printing, although you could use them in a color OEM printer and reprofile. I'll leave readers to check the higher dMax claims themselves.
It's true that some of the pure carbon monochrome systems that provide the most longevity are a long way from neutral, such as those advocated here from time to time by Paul Roark. But if neutrality is your thing then the Piezography Pro inkset delivers a neutral tone and moreover allows fine tuning of neutral for the impact of different papers. Again not the only neutral solution but the quickest one to point to.
The point of my previous question was not to suggest that you try one of these systems, but to check what your comment "Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only" was based on. Speaking purely for myself, there are printing systems discussed on this forum that I'm envious of and others that I'm skeptical of, but I would hesitate to dismiss a system that I hadn't tried myself and hadn't done the research on. The P800 is a great little printer with much to recommend it, but monochrome practitioners often look for more.
This has drifted way OT, and to get it back on-topic I will report that the software that most of these third-party monochrome systems rely on - QuadToneRIP and Print Tool - seems to work under Mojave, with the exception that PSD files are not currently working in Print Tool but TIFF files still are.
The first question is whether it's practical to convert this particular 2010 printer model to monochrome - who's done it and what success have they had with it? I'd want to see evidence before recommending this. The second question before looking at anything else is the DMax you can achieve with a P800, especially in ABW mode - the answer to that one, as far as I'm concerned, is that I've seen none lower from anywhere. Looking visually and statistically at the tonal gradations it produces, they are superb. I think I've seen inkjet B&W prints made in every which way and I believe the P800 stands up well to all of it. So no, I have not tried converting a printer to third-party B&W ink systems. I know many people really love them, and that's fine, but speaking personally I don't see the point. That said, my mind is always open to obviously superior methods, but I'm not feeling compelled to invest in it as an experiment given what we have on the market today. It may be also worth considering a point recently brought to my attention by an industry professional, and sounds plausible - that when you have colour inks available to a B&W printing process, used with good ICC profiles they can help neutralize the effect of non-neutral papers in a way that B&W inks alone cannot do - perhaps useful if you put a high value on apparent neutrality through the tonal range.
-
Yes, you can get a higher dMax than the P800, if high dMax is your thing. Inkjetmall recently released their new HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks that deliver significantly higher dMax than OEM.
It's true that some of the pure carbon monochrome systems that provide the most longevity are a long way from neutral, such as those advocated here from time to time by Paul Roark. But if neutrality is your thing then the Piezography Pro inkset delivers a neutral tone and moreover allows fine tuning of neutral for the impact of different papers. Again not the only neutral solution but the quickest one to point to.
From evidence I've read, the extent of difference in Maximum Black between an OEM-inked P800 and the recent Cone inks is small.
I won't argue about adjusting neutrality because I haven't personally used those inks, but I would simply ask how they can do this when they are all monochrome. As far as I know, opponent colours are needed to offset hue biases, but if this were incorrect or not relevant, please let me know - perhaps in another thread.
The basis of my comment about converting an old 2880 to B&W is that relative to the performance of the P800, based on information I've seen (not first-hand experience with non-OEM inks) one may question the extent to which it's worthwhile.
There's been lots of discussion about these options in other threads and Forums, so perhaps let us not further divert this thread OT.
-
There's been lots of discussion about these options in other threads and Forums, so perhaps let us not further divert this thread OT.
I have been reluctant to keep this exchange so OT, but you provided OT advice to Kees in passing that raised issues that needed to be explored in that context, as it could have had a bearing on any decision that Kees might make. I think we can wrap this up here by clarifying a couple of points.
From evidence I've read, the extent of difference in Maximum Black between an OEM-inked P800 and the recent Cone inks is small.
I suspect this information predates the relatively recent arrival of Inkjetmall's HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks, which have changed dMax comparisons considerably. That said, people don't usually opt for a monochrome inkset for higher dMax but for the tonal transitions. I assume that's what Kees was interested in, although dMax is now also a consideration.
I would simply ask how they can do this when they are all monochrome.
The Cone Pro Inks (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114117.0) contain both warm and cool inks and the user blends them in the RIP software to neutral, or other variations such as split-toning. There's also an older K7 inkset that comes toned to neutural. The system developed by Paul Roark has a single cool toner that is used in conjunction with warm carbon inks.
-
I have been reluctant to keep this exchange so OT, but you provided OT advice to Kees in passing that raised issues that needed to be explored in that context, as it could have had a bearing on any decision that Kees might make. I think we can wrap this up here by clarifying a couple of points.
I suspect this information predates the relatively recent arrival of Inkjetmall's HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks, which have changed dMax comparisons considerably. That said, people don't usually opt for a monochrome inkset for higher dMax but for the tonal transitions. I assume that's what Kees was interested in, although dMax is now also a consideration.
The Cone Pro Inks (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114117.0) contain both warm and cool inks and the user blends them in the RIP software to neutral, or other variations such as split-toning. There's also an older K7 inkset that comes toned to neutural. The system developed by Paul Roark has a single cool toner that is used in conjunction with warm carbon inks.
The latest quantified information I've seen that's relevant to this discussion is from Richard Boutwell, B&W Mastery, April 2017. I had that in mind in my comment.
Smoothness of tonal gradation depends of course on how smooth the tonal gradations are in the image file and then how granular/accurately those numbers get printed. This I test for with OEM inks when I do my paper reviews and my latest results, which are more detailed than ones I did several years ago, indicate that with good profiles the Epson driver can perform very well on this criterion with 3 Blacks. I have not compared, however, with dedicated systems as I haven't had a printer to dedicate.
Interesting information on the neutralizing potential.
The point is also made that these conversions have become increasingly difficult to perform with the more recent printer models.
I'll be open-minded pending strong evidence about the extent of value-added converting a 2880 if I also had a P800, but for now I'll put the matter to rest thanking you for raising the matter.
-
The latest quantified information I've seen that's relevant to this discussion is from Richard Boutwell, B&W Mastery, April 2017. I had that in mind in my comment.
From that April 2017 blog post in which Richard Boutwell compared the Original Epson UltraChome MK from the x800-x880, the new HD Matte Black in the P800 and the STS MK (Roark's system) to the new Inkjetmall Ultra HD Matte Black, for the interest of readers I quote the following finding:
"In the two Hahnemühle papers I tested I was able to maintain a Dmax of 1.81 (L* ~12.92) [with the Ultra HD Matte Black] where all the other inks were the best to around a Dmax of about 1.65 (L* ~16.7). The best I was ever able to do with the STS MK was with Museo Portfolio Rag that maxed out at 1.7 (L* ~15.45)."
The P800 MK was the closest ink to the Ultra HD Matte Black when measured in isolation, although still with a noticeable gap, but not so close when used in combination with the other inks. Previous comments about monochrome inksets being used primarily for reasons other than dMax still apply.
Best wishes to all early adopters of Mojave. Please let us know how you go.
-
An update, I decided the holiday weekend was a good opportunity to do some projects, and decided to upgrade to Mojave now that the 10.14.1 update has been released. Everything went smoothly and haven’t had any issues ...
... other than I also had issues with color on my p9000 like the OP and had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers to get things back to normal. Strange because I was using a custom profile, but color was definitely wrong (bluish, more contrast and overall darker).
A little simpler now for MacOS, just delete the printers from the printer preference pane, navigate to Hard Drive/Library/Printers and toss the entire Epson folder. Restart, download the drivers and install them. Everything normal after that.
-
I've been struggling for weeks trying to figure out why my 3880 was printing so strangely. Stumbling onto this thread proved to be the fix. Thanks everyone!
David g.
-
I have had an Epson 4900 for several years and was very pleased with the output, which matched what I saw in Lightroom closely enough for my work. Then I replaced the 4900 with a P5000 and immediately noticed that prints were now slightly darker overall, especially noticeable in the shadow details. I was expecting some differences due to the new ink set, but hoped that the canned Epson paper profiles would compensate.
My iMac 27 is calibrated (I1 Display, 100 c/m2), as it was with the 4900; I print only from Lightroom; I am using Mojave but it was the same in High Sierra; the paper profiles displayed in Lightroom all start with "SC-P5000".
I have deleted the printer and re-installed it with no change.
However, if I set the dreaded Print Adjustment slider in Lightroom to Brightness +25 then what comes out of the printer matches extremely closely to, for example, the DigitalDog test print as displayed in Lightroom with no other adjustments made. In both B&W and colour the printer output is what I see on the screen.
Would a custom printer profile for the 2 papers I use (Epson Premium Lustre and Epson Hot Press Bright) correct things so that I can turn off Print Adjustment? Or should I be looking elsewhere?
-
Notwithstanding the change of inkset, the bespoke profiles should compensate for colour handling differences between the two printers. The first question I would want to resolve in your situation is whether the canned profiles are performing well enough, and the second whether the printer is laying down the right amounts of ink as guided by the profiles. Have you checked what the prints look like using Printer Colour Management? This may offer a clue, and it only costs a bit of paper and ink. More costly would be to get one custom profile made for the paper that is the worst performing, and see whether a custom profile solves it.
-
[...] Have you checked what the prints look like using Printer Colour Management?
Good point, Mark. No, I haven't done that test, but I will tomorrow morning. Thanks for pointing this out.
-
I have had an Epson 4900 for several years and was very pleased with the output, which matched what I saw in Lightroom closely enough for my work. Then I replaced the 4900 with a P5000 and immediately noticed that prints were now slightly darker overall, especially noticeable in the shadow details. I was expecting some differences due to the new ink set, but hoped that the canned Epson paper profiles would compensate.
My iMac 27 is calibrated (I1 Display, 100 c/m2), as it was with the 4900; I print only from Lightroom; I am using Mojave but it was the same in High Sierra; the paper profiles displayed in Lightroom all start with "SC-P5000".
I have deleted the printer and re-installed it with no change.
However, if I set the dreaded Print Adjustment slider in Lightroom to Brightness +25 then what comes out of the printer matches extremely closely to, for example, the DigitalDog test print as displayed in Lightroom with no other adjustments made. In both B&W and colour the printer output is what I see on the screen.
Would a custom printer profile for the 2 papers I use (Epson Premium Lustre and Epson Hot Press Bright) correct things so that I can turn off Print Adjustment? Or should I be looking elsewhere?
Ideally you'd have two display calibrations you can switch on the fly for each, resulting in a visual match. One calibration for say Matt and Glossy paper, even on the same printer may not match especially if the profile's proofing table isn't that good. Profiles have two tables; one for output, one for soft proofing and they should be 'in sync' ideally but that may not be the case and may be one of your issues.
-
Ideally you'd have two display calibrations you can switch on the fly for each, resulting in a visual match.
Andrew, by "display calibrations" I'm guessing that you are referring to the soft proofing tables in the paper profiles (and not monitor calibrations for each paper type). Would custom profiles be guaranteed to have both output and soft proofing tables in sync?
-
Andrew, by "display calibrations" I'm guessing that you are referring to the soft proofing tables in the paper profiles (and not monitor calibrations for each paper type). Would custom profiles be guaranteed to have both output and soft proofing tables in sync?
No, I'm speaking of actual differing display calibrations based on the soft proof. But yeah, it's possible a 'better' profile could have a better matching soft proof if again, the two tables are not in sync.
My SpectraView allows differing calibrations in the panel which I can switch on the fly in the software since calibration takes place within the panel. So I can have one calibration for a matt paper, one for a glossy paper where for example, the contrast ratio differs per paper. This takes a lot of the burden off the soft proof table but we still prefer those tables to be (I hate to use the term) 'accurate'.
-
I made 3 prints of this file http://www.inkjetcarts.us/support/file.php?id=73 this morning. In all 3 cases I imported the file to Lr, making no adjustments. The print made with "Printer manages colour" and the print made with Lightroom managing colour (but no Print Adjustment) match with only very subtle differences. Both were darker than the image on my screen in the shadow detail, particularly at the bottom of the circuit board at the top left of the image. The print made with Lightroom managing colour and a +25% Brightness Print Adjustment value brought that shadow detail up to match the screen image. Note: I'm talking about very subtle differences here. Any of the three prints would be acceptable, in my clients' view.
But I believe my problem is fuzzy thinking. I have been assuming that a reference image ought to come out of the printer with the same values as the image on the screen. But that surely can't be true - even reference images should require compensation for the paper being printed on, right?
I think it's worth getting profiles made anyway because of subtle differences elsewhere in the image, if only to damp down my OCD-ness! Andrew: is the Adobe Color Printer Utility still the best way to print targets? Thanks!
-
I made 3 prints of this file http://www.inkjetcarts.us/support/file.php?id=73 this morning. In all 3 cases I imported the file to Lr, making no adjustments. The print made with "Printer manages colour" and the print made with Lightroom managing colour (but no Print Adjustment) match with only very subtle differences. Both were darker than the image on my screen in the shadow detail, particularly at the bottom of the circuit board at the top left of the image. The print made with Lightroom managing colour and a +25% Brightness Print Adjustment value brought that shadow detail up to match the screen image. Note: I'm talking about very subtle differences here. Any of the three prints would be acceptable, in my clients' view.
But I believe my problem is fuzzy thinking. I have been assuming that a reference image ought to come out of the printer with the same values as the image on the screen. But that surely can't be true - even reference images should require compensation for the paper being printed on, right?
I think it's worth getting profiles made anyway because of subtle differences elsewhere in the image, if only to damp down my OCD-ness! Andrew: is the Adobe Color Printer Utility still the best way to print targets? Thanks!
If you are comparing display to paper images, you should be making the comparison under softproof on the display, so that the display version comes as close as the technology allows to mimicking what comes out of the printer. It will never be a perfect match because of the fundamental difference between transmitted and reflected light, but if the softproofing is working well, they come very close in a well managed system. How are you profiling your display, what display profiling parameters are you using, what ambient light do you work with and view prints with?
-
No, I'm speaking of actual differing display calibrations based on the soft proof. But yeah, it's possible a 'better' profile could have a better matching soft proof if again, the two tables are not in sync.
My SpectraView allows differing calibrations in the panel which I can switch on the fly in the software since calibration takes place within the panel. So I can have one calibration for a matt paper, one for a glossy paper where for example, the contrast ratio differs per paper. This takes a lot of the burden off the soft proof table but we still prefer those tables to be (I hate to use the term) 'accurate'.
Interesting point. What setting do you use for matte paper? Is it simply changing the contrast for SpectraView?
Alan
-
I have been assuming that a reference image ought to come out of the printer with the same values as the image on the screen. But that surely can't be true - even reference images should require compensation for the paper being printed on, right?
Yes. To some degree. Paper white, contrast ratio all play a role.
-
Interesting point. What setting do you use for matte paper? Is it simply changing the contrast for SpectraView?
Alan
My settings are moot; depends on the paper(s). But yes, you'd change the contrast ratio and perhaps white point in SpectraView as a new custom calibration.
-
My settings are moot; depends on the paper(s). But yes, you'd change the contrast ratio and perhaps white point in SpectraView as a new custom calibration.
Thanks! I wasn't requesting your settings but rather the approach. I do a lot of printing on matte paper and it hadn't occurred to me to have a different setting for my monitor. This is a useful tip.
-
[...] How are you profiling your display, what display profiling parameters are you using, what ambient light do you work with and view prints with?
I profile the display with an I1 Display, D65, 100 cd/m2. Work room is subdued supposedly neutral lighting, walls are beige, no sunlight or other bright lights distracting. Viewing environment is daylight in a studio with north facing windows (the only fussy client has a similar environment).
I think my uncertainty arose just after receiving the P5000 and I had 50 prints to deliver to an exhibit that week. I panicked when I saw how the impressive DMax of the inkset affected the deep shadows (25 of the prints were B&W), and to get the job delivered I made the Print Adjustment. Once that crutch was in place, I never bothered to take the time to analyze what was going on and happily printed without always going through the soft proof adjustment step. *slaps self*
I'm sure now that the printer and Epson profiles are fine, although I believe I will get custom profiles made anyway. Thanks for your help!
-
That all sounds good.
-
An update, I decided the holiday weekend was a good opportunity to do some projects, and decided to upgrade to Mojave now that the 10.14.1 update has been released. Everything went smoothly and haven’t had any issues ...
... other than I also had issues with color on my p9000 like the OP and had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers to get things back to normal. Strange because I was using a custom profile, but color was definitely wrong (bluish, more contrast and overall darker).
A little simpler now for MacOS, just delete the printers from the printer preference pane, navigate to Hard Drive/Library/Printers and toss the entire Epson folder. Restart, download the drivers and install them. Everything normal after that.
I know this is an old thread but I just made the jump to Mojave today. Everything went well until I made my first print and it was off quite a bit from my monitor and a print of the same image I'd made under High Sierra. I had re-calibrated my monitor after the upgrade to Mojave and the image on screen was a pretty close match to the High Sierra print and not at all like the Mojave print. I did a search here for Mojave & Color and one of the first posts that came up was this one by Wayne. Bluish, more contrast & darker? EXACTLY what i was looking at. I was already using the latest printer driver but followed his directions and my printing immediately returned to normal. You guys are great!
-
An update, I decided the holiday weekend was a good opportunity to do some projects, and decided to upgrade to Mojave now that the 10.14.1 update has been released. Everything went smoothly and haven’t had any issues ...
... other than I also had issues with color on my p9000 like the OP and had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers to get things back to normal. Strange because I was using a custom profile, but color was definitely wrong (bluish, more contrast and overall darker).
A little simpler now for MacOS, just delete the printers from the printer preference pane, navigate to Hard Drive/Library/Printers and toss the entire Epson folder. Restart, download the drivers and install them. Everything normal after that.
Sorry to come back on such an old thread. I found it very helpful but have some questions relating to Epson lates driver update for 3800 (Nov 2019).
I thought I was being smart and have only just updated to Mojave. I have however hit the same printing problem. Thanks to this thread I resolved it by unticking the 16 bit box. I would however like to know if downloading and installing the latest Epson Driver 10.33 dated 15 Nov 2019 will resolve the problem and allow the 16 bit box to be ticked. Does anyone know id there is there any advantage to using this new driver? Is it specifically for 64 bit applications and will therefore be "better" with Catalina? I am using an Epson 3800 which probably tells you I am only an amateur with little knowledge of the finer points!