Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Mick Sang on November 21, 2020, 10:13:36 pm
-
We installed this printer in our downtown studio in late March. Since then, we have encountered several intermittent issues with both the printer and Epson Media Installer. For both we received either bad advice or no help whatsoever from Epson Tech Reps. When we had been fortunate enough to print without interference by these glitches, which was not often, the results were excellent. So, we had no intention on giving up on this printer until all avenues had been exhausted. That said, we are fortunate to have 4 other wide format Epson printers on which to print the work that we were unable to run on the 9570 when the issues were rampant. If the 9570 had been our only printer, our situation would have become very dire very fast.
Today, I believe we found the major cause of many of the software related issues. From the start, with the guidance and support of Epson, the printer has been connected directly to its controlling MAC via an ethernet cable due to its physical distance from that Mac and only a wireless network being available. The MAC allows for this type of direct connection with IP protocol. No crossover cable is required. While this method of connecting the two did work in terms of printing to the printer, it was apparently the cause of serious software related issues such as the repeated corruption of the driver upon every attempt to create custom media using Epson Media Installer and the intermittent ability of the MAC to read that custom media which would then suddenly not be read. Other features would also work one day but not the next. We had reset the printer, the printing system on the Mac, reinstalled the driver, firmware and Epson folder more times than I care to remember.
This morning, we decided to disconnect the printer, reinstall the driver again and connect the printer by a 25 foot long USB cable strung across the floor so as to reach the printer. While we had to make slight changes to each custom media so that they could be re-saved and re-registered to the printer, every one of them registered properly and was read by the printer and Mac perfectly. Also, Epson Media Installer was opened, changes made, quit and relaunched several times without any noticeable driver corruption or problem of any kind. This was the first time we have seen this printer work flawlessly since late March. So, we have ordered an active 32 foot USB cable. Our longest cable was only about 5 feet short.
We discovered this connection related issue through failed attempts to update the firmware via that direct ethernet connection. As soon as we connected the printer by USB cable, we were able to update firmware. So, finally a lightbulb ignited. It took far too long for us to put 2 and 2 together to apply that finding to these other issues. Assumptions, frustrations and distractions clouded the mind. But, better late than never.
So, fingers crossed, we may finally be on a path to really use this printer to its fullest. Other owners of this printer, please beware that a direct ethernet connection appears to cause 2 way communication deficiencies with this printer. USB or full ethernet network are apparently the way to go.
I hope this helps,
Mick
-
Thanks for the comprehensive update.
Glad to read that you guys have no print issues with the 9570.
In my shop i work with a full Ethernet network.
-
We installed this printer in our downtown studio in late March. Since then, we have encountered several intermittent issues with both the printer and Epson Media Installer. For both we received either bad advice or no help whatsoever from Epson Tech Reps. When we had been fortunate enough to print without interference by these glitches, which was not often, the results were excellent. So, we had no intention on giving up on this printer until all avenues had been exhausted. That said, we are fortunate to have 4 other wide format Epson printers on which to print the work that we were unable to run on the 9570 when the issues were rampant. If the 9570 had been our only printer, our situation would have become very dire very fast.
Today, I believe we found the major cause of many of the software related issues. From the start, with the guidance and support of Epson, the printer has been connected directly to its controlling MAC via an ethernet cable due to its physical distance from that Mac and only a wireless network being available. The MAC allows for this type of direct connection with IP protocol. No crossover cable is required. While this method of connecting the two did work in terms of printing to the printer, it was apparently the cause of serious software related issues such as the repeated corruption of the driver upon every attempt to create custom media using Epson Media Installer and the intermittent ability of the MAC to read that custom media which would then suddenly not be read. Other features would also work one day but not the next. We had reset the printer, the printing system on the Mac, reinstalled the driver, firmware and Epson folder more times than I care to remember.
This morning, we decided to disconnect the printer, reinstall the driver again and connect the printer by a 25 foot long USB cable strung across the floor so as to reach the printer. While we had to make slight changes to each custom media so that they could be re-saved and re-registered to the printer, every one of them registered properly and was read by the printer and Mac perfectly. Also, Epson Media Installer was opened, changes made, quit and relaunched several times without any noticeable driver corruption or problem of any kind. This was the first time we have seen this printer work flawlessly since late March. So, we have ordered an active 32 foot USB cable. Our longest cable was only about 5 feet short.
We discovered this connection related issue through failed attempts to update the firmware via that direct ethernet connection. As soon as we connected the printer by USB cable, we were able to update firmware. So, finally a lightbulb ignited. It took far too long for us to put 2 and 2 together to apply that finding to these other issues. Assumptions, frustrations and distractions clouded the mind. But, better late than never.
So, fingers crossed, we may finally be on a path to really use this printer to its fullest. Other owners of this printer, please beware that a direct ethernet connection appears to cause 2 way communication deficiencies with this printer. USB or full ethernet network are apparently the way to go.
I hope this helps,
Mick
I have noticed that in the past, with Ethernet and firewire connections, on several printers. They performed only basic operations. I only now use USB connections and everything works fine! I am on Mac.
Have you print on glossy Fineart paper on P9500 and if yes what are you thinking in comparison with other Epson printers?
Regards
-
VERY VERY IMPORTANT...
>So, we have ordered an active 32 foot USB cable<
Good for you. USB should not really go longer than 10ft, without being active (especially in a critical case, like this).
You 'could' have traded one problem with another, without that 'active' cable.
I run IPF8300 using Directed Ethernet on a PC. A pretty good tell-tell would be if the Print Monitor utility is working consistently (Epson or Canon); you should always see the Ink Levels and current Printer Status displayed. That's a good test of Bi-Directional Communication.
Also, I don't think many use them on the MAC but on the PC, it's a good practice to turn OFF the Firewall (It can block communication with the Printer.
-
Good for you. USB should not really go longer than 10ft, without being active (especially in a critical case, like this).
Quite right. The cable with which we did the final test on the 9570 yesterday is a standard 25 footer used only out of necessity. As I mentioned, it worked. While you are quite right that USB cables should not exceed 10 feet in length, we ran our 7900 with that same standard USB cable for 6 years without a hitch. So, some rules were meant to be broken, I suppose. That said, every time we had a problem with that printer, the cable was the first thing we looked at. Nevertheless, since we have to use a USB cable for the 9570 and since it has to be even longer, only the best, active cable will do. I do like to sleep at night.
Paul
-
Have you print on glossy Fineart paper on P9500 and if yes what are you thinking in comparison with other Epson printers?
Yes, we've printed on Hahnemuhle FA Baryta, Ilford GFS, Ilford GF Gloss, Epson Gloss, Epson Lustre, Canson Platine, Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl and Epson Exhibition Fibre. All results were excellent except for Exhibition Fibre which was over-inked and has an ugly waxy look in the 3/4 tones and shadows. The others printed beautifully IMHO, with larger gamuts, beautiful blacks, sharp etc. No issues were seen.
Paul
-
This is GREAT news!!! I’ll be interested to know how it goes as you put the thing through its paces!
Rand
-
This is GREAT news!!! I’ll be interested to know how it goes as you put the thing through its paces!
Well, it WAS great news and we had begun to "put the printer through it's paces" yet again - until yesterday. We had attempted to do that several times over the past 8 months. After our discovery last week, the starts & stops appeared to be due to failures and corruption caused by our choice of direct connection via ethernet as described in my initial post. But, today for no good reason that we are able to discern, once again Use Printer Settings in the driver failed to "see" the selected custom media. It simply states "Printer Media."
So, we loaded EMI, made a slight change to the specific custom media which was not showing up and then re-saved it. This is what we had to do after installing our USB connection when it appeared that this new connection was going to work. It was as though the previously entered custom media settings were somehow rendered dormant by the issues apparently caused by the previous connection. Making a small edit and re-saving each custom media in EMI brought them all back to life. That is, with the USB connection they were all now visible to EMI and under "Use Printer Settings."
However, this time, that method did not work. Nothing whatsoever had been changed in the MAC.
Now, believing that perhaps the length of our active USB cable (32 feet) might be a factor, we sat the MAC atop the printer and connected it by a much shorter, standard length USB cable and restarted Mac and Printer. This made no difference AND the launching of EMI wiped out all saved paper presets. We keep a backup of the pref for that eventuality. But, even that failed to bring them back. In the control panel, I changed the media setting to a standard Epson paper. "Use Printer Settings" still did not "see' it. I changed to another (Epson Premium Lustre) and it did "see" that one. I switched back to one of our custom media to no avail.
This is exactly how the system had behaved with the direct ethernet connection. So, as we all feared, the apparent simple solution of the USB connection which seemed too good to be true actually was. At least we got to see the system in correct operation for a few days. But, that's how it's been going with this thing since day one. How can we ever have faith in such a system?
Tomorrow, I will be spending much of another day on the horn with Epson in hopes of finding someone who knows the whole print system well enough that they can offer meaningful help. The printer can operate without EMI in a similar way to its predecessors. But, this would be even more difficult as half the driver settings are now only on the printer. In short, the printer works well. The system is a failure - on MAC and in our experience at least.
In the meanwhile, I'd be very interested to learn if any other MAC user and owner of the 75** / 95** line has experienced similar issues.
Cheers,
Mick
-
you should always see the Ink Levels and current Printer Status displayed. That's a good test of Bi-Directional Communication.
Oddly, yes there was communication with this. I presumed that this would indicate a back & forth. Your confirmation is good to see. Thanks you,
Mick
-
Glad i swapped my 9500 back to scp9000 printers. These work without issues .
-
FWIW, I run a 7500 over a wired Ethernet network, printing from an iMac Pro, and have had no communication difficulties at all.
Jeremy
-
You might not like it, but you 'could' try connecting the Printer to a PC (old used machine) or older MAC and sorta use it as a Print Server.
Personally, I prefer using a Rip for this very reason. It allows you to 'save a collection' of settings and stores/attaches them in a Rip Queue; whenever you Print thru that Queue, those saved settings are used. (The Rip 'sends' them to the Printer)
I have a post in here somewhere talking about using Virtual Machines. The idea behind it was, You have to 'discover' the OS/Software combinations that will work best for you and use those. Sometimes things are 'better' on MAC; sometimes better on the PC. Sometimes an older OS is better then a newer one (windows 8 or 7 vs windows 10) or (safari or catalina vs Big Sur).
And sometimes, more often than not, having a Printer attached to a FRESH machine with little to nothing else on it, can make all the difference in the World.
Sure Epson will work it out (fingers crossed), but in the mean time...
ps. That 1Gb Ethernet connection 'should' be WAY better and much more reliable than the USB connection (not to mention so much faster). I would try to get that to work and on ANY machine, make sure to use Solid State Storage so the Disk has no problem having to do multiple things at the same time (reading, writing, spooling). I don't necessarily think it is the Software; I think it is the combinations of ALL the different things that are in Play.
-
From my point of view this is clearly a software problem. I do not assume that the PCI-E bus from the printer has a problem that serves both the USB and the Ethernet port.
Our 9500 should come next week, maybe I can say more then. Or - maybe I am completely speechless because I have much worse problems ..... ;D
Greetings Gerd
-
That 1Gb Ethernet connection 'should' be WAY better and much more reliable than the USB connection (not to mention so much faster). I would try to get that to work and on ANY machine, make sure to use Solid State Storage so the Disk has no problem having to do multiple things at the same time (reading, writing, spooling).
Thanks for this. Yes, we have become so frustrated that trying a PC or even installing Big Sur have been considered. But, this will happen only when all else has failed. Which RIP are you using?
In fact, we spent the first 7 months trying to get the direct ethernet connection to work as intended without any luck. It was the fact that we could not update the firmware via that connection and only via USB that caused me to think that perhaps the ethernet connection was the issue. Once we connected via USB, it all worked for a few days. The temporary nature of this is something I fail to understand. During those 3 or 4 days we were even able to launch EMI without it damaging the driver. It was very good to see it all work as it is supposed to. Not any longer.
The MAC does indeed have a solid state drive and I do understand how one flavour or iteration of computer can make a difference. I have seen that with other equipment over the years and it is the reason why we have so many older computers. But, the fact remains that each time Epson Media Installer is launched, it corrupts the driver such that the printer has to be reinstalled. Aside from that short stint of 3 days this has been reliably repeatable.
So, perhaps to put the question differently: are there any Mac users anywhere who own a 95** or 75** who are having success with Epson Media Installer in combination with these printers without a RIP i.e. through the driver?
I'd love to read some success stories. May you'll have the key....
Mick
-
FWIW, I run a 7500 over a wired Ethernet network, printing from an iMac Pro, and have had no communication difficulties at all
I'm glad to learn that. Or let's say, I'm happy for you.
So, to be sure, is yours a full ethernet network i.e with several computer nodes/addresses? Ours was a direct connection via ethernet. Do you print from the driver or a RIP? Do you use Epson Media Installer? If so, have you had any issues similar to those which we have whereby the driver has to be reinstalled after every use aside from a 3 day period last week?
Any other MAC users experiencing success with these printers?
Thanks,
Mick
-
I'm glad to learn that. Or let's say, I'm happy for you.
So, to be sure, is yours a full ethernet network i.e with several computer nodes/addresses? Ours was a direct connection via ethernet. Do you print from the driver or a RIP? Do you use Epson Media Installer? If so, have you had any issues similar to those which we have whereby the driver has to be reinstalled after every use aside from a 3 day period last week?
Any other MAC users experiencing success with these printers?
I did preface my remark with "For what it's worth"!
In answer to your questions, yes, although it's my home network it has two Macs, several CCTV cameras and their DVR unit and four printers (two Brother lasers, the 7500 and an old 3800) connected by wire; I print from the Epson driver; and I have used EMI without difficulty (once the "can't save settings" bug was fixed).
Maybe I'm just lucky.
Jeremy
-
I did preface my remark with "For what it's worth"!
Thank you Jeremy. It is worth quite a lot. I know of no other owner of these printers who also runs a Mac in connection with it. So, I wonder is it just us or are these issues MAC rampant?
So, we will look closely at our MAC and again at it's interface with the printer in hopes of narrowing this down. We'll also try Epson Support again.
In the meanwhile, I'd still love to know if any other MAC based owner of one of these printers has experienced any similar issues?
Thanks again,
Mick
-
Hopefully others will chime in. Are you able to install your OS (whatever version you use) Clean? Like start the installer and put the installation on a different partition or different Drive?
If you 'could' do this and let's say it works PERFECTLY, than you can take a look at what else is running on the machine. If it does the same thing, you will know it's not the fault of anything else installed/running.
The configuration is pretty standard Mac OS with an Epson directly connected via Ethernet. A clean install also helps to 'put the ball into Epson's Court.
I know that MAC let you 'choose' the Startup Disk. I can buy a 120gb SSD for $20 bucks, from my local Computer Store; more than large enough to do a fresh install. You should be able to switch back and forth, just by changing the Startup Disk, during Boot.
-
Are you able to install your OS (whatever version you use) Clean? Like start the installer and put the installation on a different partition or different Drive?
Thank you, yes, I reinstalled the existing system (Mojave 10.14.6), deleted the Epson folder, prefs etc. to start fresh - no change. Then we purchased a 4GB external which was partitioned. We put Catlaina on one partition and Big Sur on another and tried Catalina - no change. We have not tried Big Sur as yet. But, I must add that they ran painfully slow. Tomorrow we go at it again.
Hopefully, I will hear from other MAC users who have had success with these printers. So far Jeremy is the only one. That said, we have had success on 2 or perhaps 3 occasions which lasted only a few days at most each time. Why it didn't stick and why it degraded thereafter I do not know. Therein lies the challenge.
Mick
P.S. 120gb ssd for $20? Wow!
-
>P.S. 120gb ssd for $20? Wow!<
https://www.microcenter.com/product/623040/inland-professional-128gb-3d-tlc-nand-sata-30-60-gb-s-25-internal-ssdMicrocenter (https://www.microcenter.com/product/623040/inland-professional-128gb-3d-tlc-nand-sata-30-60-gb-s-25-internal-ssd)
-
I brought one of these but was too scared to initialize it BEFORE I was really ready to 'Print for Pay' (printer sitting around clogging)
Try checking the Interface Settings, so that ONLY the Protocol that you are choosing is Activated USB, Appletalk, TCPIP, etc.
If you are allowed to say OFF for the ones you are not using, maybe that would help. (while you are there the IP settings should be set to Auto-Negotiate for the Speed (standard for a 1GB Link).
I not a [real] MAC user (Thank God <slow wink>) but I went back and reread your Post and it sounds more-n-more like an Epson Software Problem (e.g., Drivers getting corrupted) I know that Apple has strict requirements for how software should be implemented.
Some parts of the Software 'is' New for Epson... maybe they 'haven't gotten it right.
I think you now have a strong case for THEM [Epson] to provide the Resolution (especially if those 'reinstalls' you did were CLEAN installs (Downloaded OS installed to a BLACK disk/partition and THEN install Epson's Stuff)
-
https://www.microcenter.com/product/623040/inland-professional-128gb-3d-tlc-nand-sata-30-60-gb-s-25-internal-ssdMicrocenter
Thank you. But, I had had a total mind shut down when I last posted. I was substituting TB for GB. The external drive we purchased was a 4 Terabyte drive and I had seen the drive you mentioned as 120 terabytes not gigabytes. I'm sorry for that. But, $20 for a 120 gb SSD still seems pretty darn good to me. So, thanks again.
Re the our 9570 print system, I spent all afternoon at that. I reinstalled the OS Mojave, reset the printing system, deleted Epson Folder and Epson Surecolor 9570.gz files from Library/ Printers/PPDs/Contents/resources and Epson Caches, then restarted and installed driver 10.86 downloaded from Epson.com. Unbelievably, Use Printer Settings could now see all Epson custom media but not our own. So, I opened Epson Media Installer and made a tiny edit to one of our custom media after which it was indeed seen by the driver. So, I did the same for all of our custom media and they were all seen. Also, EMI no longer corrupted the driver such that it had to be reinstalled. Success!...??
However, (isn't there always a "but"?) the driver was different from that which we had used before. It was the postscript driver. So, the 16 bit check box was missing as was Print Preview and a couple of colour settings were different. Nevertheless, this was extremely promising. So, next we had to print something. So, I printed a file and immediate got an error message on the printer which stated "Check the Driver."Tthe only option available was "Cancel." So, I cancelled. But, it froze until I went back to the MAC and trashed the print queue.
So, next we are going to reinstall the standard non-postscript driver and give that a shot.
Still hoping to find another MAC user and owner of one of these printers who is either having successful printing experiences or not.
Mick
-
Still hoping to find another MAC user and owner of one of these printers who is either having successful printing experiences or not.
If I can do anything to help, Mick, just let me know.
Jeremy
-
If I can do anything to help, Mick, just let me know.
Thank you very much, Jeremy. We're getting close to running out of things to try. So, we'll see.
Friday afternoon was spent on the phone with Epson support. The tech rep seemed genuinely interested in helping which was a refreshing change. He took control of the MAC and saw first hand the effects of Epson Media Installer on the driver - i.e. corruption. As I mentioned, we are not able to use EMI without it destroying the driver, wiping out all paper sizes and half of the driver controls causing it to have to be deleted and reinstalled. He tried various things which we had already tried to no avail. He saw and made notes on every anomaly as described earlier. He had no idea as to the cause. He was in contact with the “higher up team” and opened a ticket. We were told this once before without any further contact. But, this time, it seemed more sincere. We’ll see.
Yesterday, once again, we reset the printing system and deleted all things Epson from the MAC. This was also done after a reinstall of the OS. This time EMI was also completely uninstalled. So, after all things Epson were removed printer and MAC were shut down and restarted and the non-postscript driver installed along with a fresh version of EMI. Then, as usual, we checked to see if any custom media was seen under "Use Printer Settings." All Epson media was seen which was encouraging. Ours had been deleted from EMI on the MAC during reinstall. So, one at a time they were re-added after which the driver was checked to see if they were recognized. They were!! So, once again we thought we were on to the solution. BUT, after installing the fourth custom media, once again, the driver was corrupt and had to be reinstalled after which we were right back to square one.
So next, we have installed a fresh system on a removable with nothing else there but PhotoShop and LightRoom - so like a new MAC. We will install the printer later today and see what happens. It is suicide to sit around waiting for Epson. So, we persist.
I know that the driver corruption issue was present in the Windows world for awhile and that has been resolved. There must be more MAC using owners of these printers. Has anyone else experienced anything like the issues we are experiencing?
Thanks again Jeremy,
Mick
-
You should send them an invoice for your time. You are a temp employee of theirs now.
What I don’t like is, if there is a hardware flaw they will come out and fix it under warranty, but if there is a major software problem they assign the customer the job of doing their work for them and beta testing for them. Man with this new line there is a lot of it going on this year. Hp is pretty much the same way. From my experience with Canon I’ve just never had software issues at all in 8 years. The good thing is overall it’s a very minor issue but if you are in business it really messes you up and wastes time.
John
Thank you very much, Jeremy. We're getting close to running out of things to try. So, we'll see.
Friday afternoon was spent on the phone with Epson support. The tech rep seemed genuinely interested in helping which was a refreshing change. He took control of the MAC and saw first hand the effects of Epson Media Installer on the driver - i.e. corruption. As I mentioned, we are not able to use EMI without it destroying the driver, wiping out all paper sizes and half of the driver controls causing it to have to be deleted and reinstalled. He tried various things which we had already tried to no avail. He saw and made notes on every anomaly as described earlier. He had no idea as to the cause. He was in contact with the “higher up team” and opened a ticket. We were told this once before without any further contact. But, this time, it seemed more sincere. We’ll see.
Yesterday, once again, we reset the printing system and deleted all things Epson from the MAC. This was also done after a reinstall of the OS. This time EMI was also completely uninstalled. So, after all things Epson were removed printer and MAC were shut down and restarted and the non-postscript driver installed along with a fresh version of EMI. Then, as usual, we checked to see if any custom media was seen under "Use Printer Settings." All Epson media was seen which was encouraging. Ours had been deleted from EMI on the MAC during reinstall. So, one at a time they were re-added after which the driver was checked to see if they were recognized. They were!! So, once again we thought we were on to the solution. BUT, after installing the fourth custom media, once again, the driver was corrupt and had to be reinstalled after which we were right back to square one.
So next, we have installed a fresh system on a removable with nothing else there but PhotoShop and LightRoom - so like a new MAC. We will install the printer later today and see what happens. It is suicide to sit around waiting for Epson. So, we persist.
I know that the driver corruption issue was present in the Windows world for awhile and that has been resolved. There must be more MAC using owners of these printers. Has anyone else experienced anything like the issues we are experiencing?
Thanks again Jeremy,
Mick
-
.. BUT, after installing the fourth custom media, once again, the driver was corrupt and had to be reinstalled after which we were right back to square one...
Mick
I don't have a MAC or the specific printer. I wonder if there is a way to change the file permissions on the EMI executable or the driver folder to prevent the corruption. Set the EMI to read only the driver directory or something like that. Just a wild wild suggestion....
-
>You should send them an invoice for your time.<
Priceless. <smile>
I guess you ARE taking care, that your naming convention is 'conservative' (custom media names); no spaces, illegal characters... things of that nature.
I'd try Upper & Lowercase Letters, numbers and Underscores, only.
It could be spazing out when it reads file naming it does not like.
-
I don't have a MAC or the specific printer. I wonder if there is a way to change the file permissions on the EMI executable or the driver folder to prevent the corruption. Set the EMI to read only the driver directory or something like that. Just a wild wild suggestion....
Thanks, but not sure how to do that on a MAC if it is even possible. Also, EMI communicates back & forth with the MAC.
Still have not received any response (again) from Epson. The tech rep with whom I spoke on Friday did appear to be seriously interested. He took screen shots and made notes which he claimed he would escalate because he had no answers. He also claimed that I would get a response by Monday. That did not happen. If he did escalate the issue to anyone, they appear to have dropped the ball once again.
So, today we installed a fresh version of the last iteration of Catalina on an external 4gb USB, installed fresh software (no Time Machine back ups), downloaded and installed Epson driver and utilities including a fresh version of Epson Media Installer 1.1.5. To make a long story short, we got EXACTLY the same results as described herein including driver corruption upon loading EMI as well as the inability of the driver to "see" custom media. Now I am getting pissed off.
Mick
-
Thanks, but not sure how to do that on a MAC if it is even possible. Also, EMI communicates back & forth with the MAC.
Still have not received any response (again) from Epson. The tech rep with whom I spoke on Friday did appear to be seriously interested. He took screen shots and made notes which he claimed he would escalate because he had no answers. He also claimed that I would get a response by Monday. That did not happen. If he did escalate the issue to anyone, they appear to have dropped the ball once again.
So, today we installed a fresh version of the last iteration of Catalina on an external 4gb USB, installed fresh software (no Time Machine back ups), downloaded and installed Epson driver and utilities including a fresh version of Epson Media Installer 1.1.5. To make a long story short, we got EXACTLY the same results as described herein including driver corruption upon loading EMI as well as the inability of the driver to "see" custom media. Now I am getting pissed off.
Mick
Why not a win10 pc just for print. If there is no problem with win10 and Epson EMI drivers etc. Just a non elegant temporary solution.
-
Why not a win10 pc just for print. If there is no problem with win10 and Epson EMI drivers etc. Just a non elegant temporary solution.
That is absolutely on the horizon as a final step if we continue to get nothing from Epson as we have so far. But, I am not one to let them away with this. If there is something that we are doing or have done wrong, we need their help to determine what it is. So far, it appears that they simply fluff off our concerns. I could hear in the voice of the tech rep with whom I spoke last Friday his veiled concern that his having to "escalate the issue" would lead nowhere. JR Smit (Jan) encountered this sort of lack of concern with his 9500 and he eventually had them take it back. We are not at that stage YET. But, when I think of having to bring in a new computer simply because we can get no help from Epson, I get really pissed off. We are and have been more than reasonable and patient. Time will tell where this goes.
Mick
-
If I can do anything to help, Mick, just let me know.
Jeremy, may I ask how many custom media you have been able to install via EMI?
Thank you,
Mick
-
Only a couple, really to see if I could. I'm still playing, learning why I need to install custom media (I have to spend most of my time on the day job, alas).
Jeremy
-
Only a couple, really to see if I could. I'm still playing, learning why I need to install custom media (I have to spend most of my time on the day job, alas).
Thank you, Jeremy. That's what I had hoped. We may be on to something. We offer over 30 different papers 23 of which were being installed via EMI. We have an idea which may bear fruit at least in terms of getting the thing to work as it should. I'll report back once the newest tests have been run.
By the way, no reply whatsoever from Epson despite their promise to get back to me via phone or email on Monday. Nov 30.
Thanks again,
Mick
-
Mick, could it be that the latest MacOS update also updates the SQLLite drivers? The EMI database is An SQLLite database, but perhaps in a previous version, no longer supporters, causing the cortuption?
-
Have you ruled out in illegal characters in your file names? (illegal for EMI)
-
Have you ruled out in illegal characters in your file names? (illegal for EMI)
"Ruled out? No. But, we have received no error messages or any other messages in that regard. We are using upper case, lower case, spaces and hyphens on occasion. Fir example"CSI Ilford Gold Fibre Silk 310gsm." I saw your earlier suggestion regarding this and have paid attention to our naming since then. It appears to be similar to that which has been used by Epson in terms of the aforementioned list.
We go at this again tomorrow.
Thanks,
Mick
-
Just since you are asking, I am a small studio using the 9500 in Iceland on a Mac (still using Mojave, as I need 32 bit for Flexcolor). I am not having any issues yet, though I have only had the printer for a few weeks. May I ask again why you need Epson Media Installer so badly? It sounds like a disaster...my general procedure has been to make presets in the Epson printer driver, adjust them as needed, and save them. This is what I have done for ten years without a hitch. So far it does not really seem any different. I am not judging, I am just curious as to why you need this, as it seems like any benefit it has of serving you a readymade preset is offset by the fact that it seemingly fails to function completely...I am still new to the printer, so perhaps I am missing the benefit here.
Best,
Stuart
-
Mick, could it be that the latest MacOS update also updates the SQLLite drivers? The EMI database is An SQLLite database, but perhaps in a previous version, no longer supporters, causing the cortuption?
Hi Jan,
It is for this reason coupled with reported incompatibilities etc. that we have avoided "updating" the OS on the MAC which connects to the 9570. It is still running Mojave. We tried Catalina on a partitioned 4 TB USB drive and we encountered the same failures right away.
But, further to that, I spent much of the past weekend at this. I deleted every aspect of EPSON from the MAC and reinstalled fresh - TWICE. The first go started to show some success followed by failure. The second go was more successful - so far. After hearing from Jeremy who said that his system works but with only a few custom media entries we considered the possibility that the system can't handle all the custom media we were throwing at it - over 20 papers. So, I cleared out all things Epson, restarted, then slowly and carefully installed an older printer first followed by the 9570 and finally Epson Media Installer. Then, I imported several Epson media and checked USE PRINTER SETTINGS in the driver to be sure they were recognised. They were. So I imported ONE of our custom media sets for Canson Infinity Baryta. Let the bells ring out and the banners fly! It's too good to be true but it saw that media. So, we imported ONE MORE custom media for Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss and it was also seen.
After so many weeks of fighting this thing, I wanted to go no further. I restarted and it was all still good. So, I shut down. I wanted to see if it would continue to work next day. With this printer each day revealed something new or something would disappear. We still have no "Preview" ruction from the driver. It is greyed out. It has always been intermittent. I'd call Epson. But, they have been absolutely no help whatsoever. They have promised follow-ups apparently just to get us off the phone. So, if all else continues to work, we're happy. We'll see what happens when we import a third media set. There are plenty of empty space. So, we'll see.
Finally based upon comments from arobinson7547, we renamed all custom media to a maximum of 30 characters. One of the Epson Media is 33 characters. So, we SHOULD be ok. A few had been longer than 34. I realise this should NOT be ab issue. But, who knows? Otherwise, there are no special characters or anything really different from Epson media names.
So, so far so good. Let us pray.
I'll keep you posted. To those who offered help, thank you very much.
Mick
-
Just since you are asking, I am a small studio using the 9500 in Iceland on a Mac (still using Mojave, as I need 32 bit for Flexcolor). I am not having any issues yet, though I have only had the printer for a few weeks. May I ask again why you need Epson Media Installer so badly? It sounds like a disaster...my general procedure has been to make presets in the Epson printer driver, adjust them as needed, and save them. This is what I have done for ten years without a hitch. So far it does not really seem any different. I am not judging, I am just curious as to why you need this, as it seems like any benefit it has of serving you a readymade preset is offset by the fact that it seemingly fails to function completely...I am still new to the printer, so perhaps I am missing the benefit here.
Best,
Stuart
The problem with your approach is that for some (many?) 3rd party papers the recommended Epson media type has significantly different base-line parameters. Here’s an example. Canson Baryta Prestige is a 345 gsm paper, with a caliper of .381. The Canson recommended media type is Epson’s generic “baryta” paper type (with a -15% color density). The issue with the 75xx/95xx printers is that you cannot set the platen gap, caliper, etc., in the driver, as you could on previous Epson printer models. It must be done from the printer LCD on a per paper basis for the media types registered in the printer.
I guess you could go into the LCD panel menu and change the advanced settings every time you use an Epson paper as media type which has different advanced media settings than the Epson default, but then you’d have to remember to change them back to Epson default if you used “that” Epson paper at some future print session.
You also asked about “benefit.” One benefit is that you can “name” the custom media type you create with its “actual name” (e.g. “Canson Baryta Prestige”) which then appears in the driver and in on the LCD panel of the printer (and which contains all of its required advanced settings (e.g. thickness, platen gap, drying time per pass, etc.).
Rand
-
Thank you for the clarification. I have not really needed this level of customization in my studio as I have mostly adapted existing media settings to the papers I use (albeit not always the ones they were intended for), and I mostly set the platen gap on the printer as needed. This works for me, as I am a one man studio, mostly printing low volume stuff for galleries and museums etc. In other words, I don't need an easy to set setting, as no one else is coming in using the printer except me. That said, I certainly see the benefit in just having such a setting, and if EMI worked reliably, I would likely set one up. I guess for now I will just wait until it is all sorted out.
As an aside, has anyone noticed that Hahnemühle recommends a 3 second per pass drying time for Photo Rag Baryta? I tried doing that and it was excruciating...the prints took ages. I have not noticed any difference in quality either (not saying there isn't one, just not that I have noticed yet...again, early days. But adding that much time to my prints is a non-starter.)
-
As an aside, has anyone noticed that Hahnemühle recommends a 3 second per pass drying time for Photo Rag Baryta? I tried doing that and it was excruciating...the prints took ages. I have not noticed any difference in quality either (not saying there isn't one, just not that I have noticed yet...again, early days. But adding that much time to my prints is a non-starter.)
[/quote]Stuart, where did you find this please?
-
They say it in the handling instructions when you download a profile from them.
-
They say it in the handling instructions when you download a profile from them.
Wow... if I were a production shop, that would rule out this series printer! LOL
I can say that I have printed on H Torchon, William Turner, and A. Durer paper w/o increasing the time per pass and it prints beautifully with no paper swelling, ink pooling, obvious excessive dot gain or other issues. But those are MK papers. I’ve yet to test the PK papers.
Rand
-
Absurd. I run PR Baryta all day long on a p20000 (same head, slightly different ink-set) with no drying passes and everything is fine. I've never tried using a hahnemuhle stock profile, but I can't imagine that they're able to lay down a ton more ink than I am when using a Premium Gloss or Premium Semi-Gloss as the startingpoint when profiling in RGB... Nor would there be any reason to lay down more ink...
-
They say it in the handling instructions when you download a profile from them.
Thank you Stuart.
So this is specific for the SC P9500 and for all PK papers of Hahnemuehle. If it is not a mistake, that means that P9500 (UltraChrome Pro12 inkset, with K3 technology) is practically incompatible with Hahnemuehle PK papers and probably with others, as a member of this forum stated some weeks ago, in another threat, if i am not mistaken. This is a situation that I don't understand. Any thoughts?!
-
As I said, I have not seen any difference between doing and not, but I have not done a true test.
I did confirm with the UK rep that this was indeed their recommendation.
They also list Gloss Baryta as only being archival for 30 years now, which I find pretty shocking, as when it was Harman Gloss Fb Al it was rated for at least 70-100 years on Wilhelm Imaging. I think it is market positioning, but it still really disturbed me as I used that paper to replicate fiber prints for the National Museum of Iceland, and I don't like the idea that they do not recommend it for archival use (assuming that it is just because it is part of their "photo" line, not their "fine art" line.
-
It’s full of dye optical brighteners, always has been. As we’ve pointed out a million times on this forum, Wilhelm does not adequately describe the graying out of dozens of media loaded with these brighteners , like the horrible Epson Exhibition Fiber, all the rc media, etc. if the white base turns gray over time, all the high values in a print are effected. Papers that do hold up well and don’t have these brighteners are Canson Platine, Hahnemuehle Photorag Pearl, H. Photorag Baryta. I don’t know of any with that particular high glossy surface, but there may be some natural versions.
As I said, I have not seen any difference between doing and not, but I have not done a true test.
I did confirm with the UK rep that this was indeed their recommendation.
They also list Gloss Baryta as only being archival for 30 years now, which I find pretty shocking, as when it was Harman Gloss Fb Al it was rated for at least 70-100 years on Wilhelm Imaging. I think it is market positioning, but it still really disturbed me as I used that paper to replicate fiber prints for the National Museum of Iceland, and I don't like the idea that they do not recommend it for archival use (assuming that it is just because it is part of their "photo" line, not their "fine art" line.
-
I had to match darkroom printed Multigrade Warmtone prints side by side in an exhibition, so I used Gloss Baryta Warmtone, which is the closest equivalent that I am aware of. I realize that even the warmtone has optical brighteners, but so do the darkroom papers, and I was under the impression that while the OBA's may fade, the overall print would be ok. In any case, I do my best to not use them, but of course it is impossible to avoid if a client wants a luster or glossy paper, or even most art papers with anything other than a noticeably cream colored base (Photo Rag 308, German Etching etc.). As for mentioning a million times on the forum...well, frankly I am not reading it that often. In any case, back on track.
Is anyone else less than enthused with the 9500? I am extremely happy I don't have to deal with the ink swapping anymore and I like the speed, but so far I am not too impressed. It seems like there is more bronzing unless you use the BEO feature, and the margin issues are quite annoying (warnings about smearing edges unless you print a quite substantial extra edge. Overall I feel like I am consuming more paper and the actual impression of the prints is worse (though maybe the density is higher). I am also getting banding on some jobs, even though the nozzle checks are clean. Meanwhile, I much preferred the paper loading and button based control on the older model versus this newer style. I operate much quicker than the machine seems to want to, and I feel like I could swap rolls much faster on the P9000, and not have to fight a bunch of annoying messages about opening and closing the lid, when it was ok to put in a roll, when to take out a roll etc. I preferred the single button to release and close the clamp. This is all subjective, so maybe it is just getting used to it. On the other hand, I like the light and the time remaining counter, even if it is not always accurate.
That said, if anyone is considering this printer and is happy with their P9000, I would advise them to think hard about it, or at least try one for a while and see what you really think.
-
I should also note that at least about half the time it says that the paper is skewed or drifting on the roll, despite being apparently totally fine. Even my rep told me to just ignore the warning and go ahead and print. So far, any skew has been exceedingly minor (1mm or less).
-
Yea, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I was very sad when they discontinued the warmtone Harmon. I would print neutral or slightly cool prints on it and get a very nice split tone dimensionality with the warm highlights. Aardenburg pointed out that that one experienced a kind of bleaching of the highlights over time in daylight. But I used it anyway for some things and sprayed with a uv coating. It was ok for portfolios. Now as far as I know there is no gloss type paper that warm which is a shame.
John
I had to match darkroom printed Multigrade Warmtone prints side by side in an exhibition, so I used Gloss Baryta Warmtone, which is the closest equivalent that I am aware of. I realize that even the warmtone has optical brighteners, but so do the darkroom papers, and I was under the impression that while the OBA's may fade, the overall print would be ok. In any case, I do my best to not use them, but of course it is impossible to avoid if a client wants a luster or glossy paper, or even most art papers with anything other than a noticeably cream colored base (Photo Rag 308, German Etching etc.). As for mentioning a million times on the forum...well, frankly I am not reading it that often. In any case, back on track.
Is anyone else less than enthused with the 9500? I am extremely happy I don't have to deal with the ink swapping anymore and I like the speed, but so far I am not too impressed. It seems like there is more bronzing unless you use the BEO feature, and the margin issues are quite annoying (warnings about smearing edges unless you print a quite substantial extra edge. Overall I feel like I am consuming more paper and the actual impression of the prints is worse (though maybe the density is higher). I am also getting banding on some jobs, even though the nozzle checks are clean. Meanwhile, I much preferred the paper loading and button based control on the older model versus this newer style. I operate much quicker than the machine seems to want to, and I feel like I could swap rolls much faster on the P9000, and not have to fight a bunch of annoying messages about opening and closing the lid, when it was ok to put in a roll, when to take out a roll etc. I preferred the single button to release and close the clamp. This is all subjective, so maybe it is just getting used to it. On the other hand, I like the light and the time remaining counter, even if it is not always accurate.
That said, if anyone is considering this printer and is happy with their P9000, I would advise them to think hard about it, or at least try one for a while and see what you really think.
-
I should also note that at least about half the time it says that the paper is skewed or drifting on the roll, despite being apparently totally fine. Even my rep told me to just ignore the warning and go ahead and print. So far, any skew has been exceedingly minor (1mm or less).
Increase the platen suction. I had to go to +2 or +3 to get some stable behaviour. I do not have the 9500 anymore.
-
I was very sad when they discontinued the warmtone Harmon. I would print neutral or slightly cool prints on it and get a very nice split tone dimensionality with the warm highlights. Aardenburg pointed out that that one experienced a kind of bleaching of the highlights over time in daylight. But I used it anyway for some things and sprayed with a uv coating. It was ok for portfolios. Now as far as I know there is no gloss type paper that warm which is a shame.
John
Innova Exhibition Cotton Gloss (IFA 45) is a warm glossy paper, used called FibaPrint Warm Cotton Gloss. Plus it's OBA free and 100% cotton.
-
Thank you Stuart.
So this is specific for the SC P9500 and for all PK papers of Hahnemuehle. If it is not a mistake, that means that P9500 (UltraChrome Pro12 inkset, with K3 technology) is practically incompatible with Hahnemuehle PK papers and probably with others, as a member of this forum stated some weeks ago, in another threat, if i am not mistaken. This is a situation that I don't understand. Any thoughts?!
I think the 3 sec per pass suggestion is just because the super fast speed of this printer. Inks need more time to dry.
The interesting thing I found is reflection uneven in dark area since P10000/P20000. I think Epson's Black Enhanced Overcoat is the way they try to solve the problem. This is cause by Epson uses a little matte black ink on glossy papers to increase density, since they finally have individual MK/PK nozzles. This is not a new trick. Canon used the same way to increase density from iPF 6300/8300 or earlier models. But this time Epson goes to far, mixes too much MK in PK cause the problem in dark area. Sadly, there is no way user could set up the ratio of MK/PK in driver nor RIPs.
-
I think the 3 sec per pass suggestion is just because the super fast speed of this printer. Inks need more time to dry.
The interesting thing I found is reflection uneven in dark area since P10000/P20000. I think Epson's Black Enhanced Overcoat is the way they try to solve the problem. This is cause by Epson uses a little matte black ink on glossy papers to increase density, since they finally have individual MK/PK nozzles. This is not a new trick. Canon used the same way to increase density from iPF 6300/8300 or earlier models. But this time Epson goes to far, mixes too much MK in PK cause the problem in dark area. Sadly, there is no way user could set up the ratio of MK/PK in driver nor RIPs.
Thank you for your quote.
Have you seen any samples on glossy papers printed on P9500? But even if they are good I presume that it is impossible to wait 3 secs per pass to print. I was very exited about this new printer but now I start to believe that it is not what expected for photo papers. I hope I am wrong!
-
I remember using an IPF5000, years ago. I had to use something like a 7sec delay; else the ink would run.
Maybe try less ink density, to avoid that three second delay. I would think that unidirectional printing could be a first choice. Having the head travel back gives the ink a little more time to dry. I've always been a fan of printing in one direction for the little quality boost.
Looking back, I was just doing what I had to do [to get it to work]
But I also remember thinking, 'There has GOT to be a better way!"
-
In October 20 we wanted to replace an Epson Stylus Pro 9900, which did a great job for almost 10 years. After having purchased and extensively tested the P9500, we have purchased a P9000...
Why this? The 9500 is printing with too much ink on both matte and glossy paper. This results in overinked areas on baryta paper and in somewhat unsharp details on matte paper.
This overinking has led to recommendations of reducing ink density and longer drying time as you can see when checking Hahnemuehle's and Canson's website for their high-end baryta papers (already discussed in this thread). This is not a solution but only a workaround. The overinking may have gone after that, but the same is true for the gamut!
Interestingly, when comparing prints from the P9000 in 2880 mode and the 9500 in the 2400 mode, fine details look much better on the P9000. When checking this phenomenon with a looking glass, you will realize, that there is too much ink on the 9500 print - which can be reduced by reducing the ink density - and of course the gamut.
The only resolution for this problem will be a new firmware that corrects this problem reducing the ink amount - and hopefully keeping a large gamut, if Epson is interested in doing so. If not, the P9000 is and will be the better printer for fine art printing! Let 's hope that Epson will bring a Christmas present to fine art printers using the P9500...
Btw: the 9500 has great advantages over the previous models: no black switching and very precise paper feed!
-
It’s so strange, although I don’t have one, from the extensive tests that others have done with the new HP Z9+, they are having the same exact problem, ...when the gamut is best the over inking is messing with ink density
on fiber gloss media and the gloss enhancer channel doesn’t cover correctly.
In both cases it seems they never finished working out their media setting when creating the drivers. In HPs case they dumbed down the print utility adjustment sliders from previous Z printers where you could easily create and finesse custom media setting for anything.
This kind of thing seems so basic these days with the majority of people out there using these kinds of papers that you wonder WHAT they are thinking. I can’t think of anything more nightmarish than trying to fight this kind of nonsense when you are in the middle of an important quantity job and getting nowhere but wasting ink and expensive media. You are not the fist person to say the image quality is much better on the p9000 ( which should have offered the auto ink switching ). Oh well, it’ll probably be a year before these things are straightened out. Glad I didn’t buy one. I was seriously thinking about it.
John
quote author=macz5024 link=topic=136876.msg1201939#msg1201939 date=1608751741]
In October 20 we wanted to replace an Epson Stylus Pro 9900, which did a great job for almost 10 years. After having purchased and extensively tested the P9500, we have purchased a P9000...
Why this? The 9500 is printing with too much ink on both matte and glossy paper. This results in overinked areas on baryta paper and in somewhat unsharp details on matte paper.
This overinking has led to recommendations of reducing ink density and longer drying time as you can see when checking Hahnemuehle's and Canson's website for their high-end baryta papers (already discussed in this thread). This is not a solution but only a workaround. The overinking may have gone after that, but the same is true for the gamut!
Interestingly, when comparing prints from the P9000 in 2880 mode and the 9500 in the 2400 mode, fine details look much better on the P9000. When checking this phenomenon with a looking glass, you will realize, that there is too much ink on the 9500 print - which can be reduced by reducing the ink density - and of course the gamut.
The only resolution for this problem will be a new firmware that corrects this problem reducing the ink amount - and hopefully keeping a large gamut, if Epson is interested in doing so. If not, the P9000 is and will be the better printer for fine art printing! Let 's hope that Epson will bring a Christmas present to fine art printers using the P9500...
Btw: the 9500 has great advantages over the previous models: no black switching and very precise paper feed!
[/quote]
-
As an aside, has anyone noticed that Hahnemühle recommends a 3 second per pass drying time for Photo Rag Baryta?
IMHO, this goes to show that whatever is written by these manufacturers can not be taken as gospel. We have to testify to determine the best approach for our own situation. That instruction from Hahnemuhle is either a typo or they tested a different batch of PR Baryta than any we have seen to date.
Is anyone else less than enthused with the 9500? I am extremely happy I don't have to deal with the ink swapping anymore and I like the speed, but so far I am not too impressed. It seems like there is more bronzing unless you use the BEO feature, and the margin issues are quite annoying (warnings about smearing edges unless you print a quite substantial extra edge.
To be clear, we are very pleased with the printer. It is Epson's software which has been the primary source of our trouble. On that note, we have been successful in adding 2 more media to EMI for a total of 6 now and it's still functioning well. We have not deleted any Epson Media to make more room which we had done previously. This may have caused or compounded our issue. I don't know.
The 9570 (EU 9500) is a different animal - more sensitive that any other printer we have currently or have had. So there is a learning curve. But, we have been very pleased with the quality that it yields. We often use Half Speed. But, it is true that is is a finicky beast.
I operate much quicker than the machine seems to want to, and I feel like I could swap rolls much faster on the P9000, and not have to fight a bunch of annoying messages about opening and closing the lid, when it was ok to put in a roll, when to take out a roll etc. I preferred the single button to release and close the clamp. This is all subjective, so maybe it is just getting used to it. On the other hand, I like the light and the time remaining counter, even if it is not always accurate.
The older machines were faster to load IMO also. But, they were nowhere nearly as good for running sheets. In the end, as I said, there is a learning curve and a trade off between new benefits and some new aggravations. There are definitely some warnings that simply must be ignored. For example, it saw one of our rolls as 43.91" when we had entered 44" in the driver. So, it stops and waits for approval every time a print is made. Of course, changing the paper size to the 43.91" in the driver solved that picky nonesense.
Mick
-
The Canson recommended media type is Epson’s generic “baryta” paper type (with a -15% color density)
I believe this "-15% colour density" might be suggested in order to reduce black gloss differential which is painfully obvious when clients overly saturate the deepest shadows in their work to "make sure they get good blacks". Otherwise, we have seen no over-inking on the paper with the ink set to zero and we get very good D-max ( L*3 or better). Images which are properly edited in post show no such differential.
Mick
-
Is it even possible to make large prints, in the realm of 40x60, with total black backgrounds, without creating wavy warped paper from over inking, while at the same time producing correct color gamut? This is a sure sign of inaccurate ink limit settings if you can’t. I do prints like this all the time and they will never flatten if it occurs.
I believe this "-15% colour density" might be suggested in order to reduce black gloss differential which is painfully obvious when clients overly saturate the deepest shadows in their work to "make sure they get good blacks". Otherwise, we have seen no over-inking on the paper with the ink set to zero and we get very good D-max ( L*3 or better). Images which are properly edited in post show no such differential.
Mick
-
Is it even possible to make large prints, in the realm of 40x60, with total black backgrounds, without creating wavy warped paper from over inking, while at the same time producing correct color gamut? This is a sure sign of inaccurate ink limit settings if you can’t. I do prints like this all the time and they will never flatten if it occurs.
Funny, yesterday, we made 3 similar prints for a client 44" x 30" on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, heavily saturated colour throughout - night scene. No issues at all. But, the images had been properly processed i.e. no plugged areas of colour and deepest back just touched zero.
Mick
-
I do prints like this all the time and they will never flatten if it occurs.
I agree, over-inking will cause this: ripples, warping and ugly gloss differential in the blackest shadows - not good. So, correct image editing is a must.
Mick
-
Thank you for your quote.
Have you seen any samples on glossy papers printed on P9500? But even if they are good I presume that it is impossible to wait 3 secs per pass to print. I was very exited about this new printer but now I start to believe that it is not what expected for photo papers. I hope I am wrong!
Yes, I have seen many prints on P9500. Decrease the ink amount in driver or RIP, setup a drying time, uni-direction print, these can help to avoid the problems on P10000/P20000/P7500/P9500 printers. It's all about ink quantity / coating absorb ability / drying time combination. P9500 is build by good ideas, no black ink swap, user DIY capping and head cleaning, inside lighting and so on, but it needs more details setting for a good print.
-
Yes, I have seen many prints on P9500. Decrease the ink amount in driver or RIP, setup a drying time, uni-direction print, these can help to avoid the problems on P10000/P20000/P7500/P9500 printers. It's all about ink quantity / coating absorb ability / drying time combination. P9500 is build by good ideas, no black ink swap, user DIY capping and head cleaning, inside lighting and so on, but it needs more details setting for a good print.
I have to say here that I dont own a P9500 and it was into my plans to buy one. Now this must be postponed or even cancelled after all this useful information from all of you.
For the time being I work with 2 P9000 and I like the results, but I have the impression (visually) of general over inking if I compare with my old 9900. Am I wrong?
-
I've had the P9500 Spectro for a few days now and basically have (almost) no problems.
Firmware: 03.034.LL20KA
OS: Windows 10 (1909 Build 18363,1256)
The Ethernet connection unfortunately only has fixed settings for 10half, 10full, 100half, 100full and Auto Negotiation. So 1000full can only be reached via Auto Negotiation if the other side supports negotiation. There is no fixed setting for 1000full. Auto Negotiation is always problematic because it can cause so called Duplex-Type-Mismatch errors. This means that the sides "do not" automatically agree on a speed. E.g. the left side is set to 100full and the right side to 100half. This causes CRC/FCS errors. At first this makes the connection very slow, because missing TCP/IP packets are requested again by the receiver. From a certain degree there is a connection timeout. At this point the P9500 is very sensitive. To avoid problems - set the switch to 1000full or the PC/MAC if there is no switch. If you have no possibility to do so, set the P9500 to 100full. Better a slow connection than a faulty connection.
I have also tested WLAN connections via additional access points with different latencies. As long as no packets are lost during transmission (which is usually not a problem), the P9500 works fine with them.
The media installer also works almost without errors. In case of wrong input, e.g. point instead of comma or similar, it jumps to the largest possible value after pressing O.K.. Better look twice in the settings then you see the problem in time. Defective or lost media settings I had not once. Also, the media profiles can be ex- and imported as often as you like without the slightest error.
I have sized 5 different papers so far, including Hahnemühle Photo Rag Pearl 320g and SHIL Satin Baryta 295g. I think some of Hahnemühle's defaults in the media settings are nonsense.
My settings (both in the Media Installer and in RIP).
Hahnemühle Photo Rag Pearl 320g
Roller spacing: 1.6 ~ 1.9
Dryingtime per pass: 0
Paper suction: +1
Paper thickness: 0.48
The SHIL Satin Baryta 295g is a little softer and tends to swell a little more.
Roller spacing: 1.9
Dryingtime per pass: 0
Paper suction: +1
Paper thickness: 0.35
However, I print unidirectionally.
Here is a + 5000 target on Hahnemühle Photo Rag Pearl 320g. No bleeding at the transitions, no smudging, ink coverage is perfectly fine at 100%.
(https://up.picr.de/40183173np.jpg)
What I noticed negatively or should be noted:
(https://up.picr.de/40183174tn.jpg)
The white plastic tile is the measuring tile for the ILS30 EP (Xrite Spectro). When the plastic paper guide (red oval) is fully extended, the measurement slide can be hindered in its movement with stiff papers. The measurement tile is "shorter" than 44". When printing a target at full 44" width, the measuring head runs into an error on the far left. Limit targets to 1000mm in width - then it works beautifully.
(https://up.picr.de/40183175is.jpg)
Apart from that, I haven't noticed any serious problems in the few days since I got the P9500 (maybe the big end is yet to come ::)). In any case, I'm much further along than I was with the HPZ9+.
Greetings Gerd
-
What other Color Modes do you have access to? Beyound RGB.
-
RGB, CMYK and multicolor through my RIP.
The multicolor modes especially for this Epson model. Max. Color for multicolor is CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV
(https://up.picr.de/40189258xa.jpg)
(I haven't changed the software for the ScreenShot to English, but I think you can see everything that way)
Greetings Gerd
-
'That's' the Holy Grail. I asked because the first release was missing the Mk channel, in the color mode you have selected, in your image. It was fixed in Build 9129. The World is yours, my friend.
For that much money I'd not except a Spectro based on i1 Pro 2 and not i1 Pro 3. That's the one think I did not like.
-
RGB, CMYK and multicolor through my RIP.
The multicolor modes especially for this Epson model. Max. Color for multicolor is CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV
(https://up.picr.de/40189258xa.jpg)
(I haven't changed the software for the ScreenShot to English, but I think you can see everything that way)
Greetings Gerd
May I ask which RIP is that? Thanks!
-
I believe this "-15% colour density" might be suggested in order to reduce black gloss differential which is painfully obvious when clients overly saturate the deepest shadows in their work to "make sure they get good blacks". Otherwise, we have seen no over-inking on the paper with the ink set to zero and we get very good D-max ( L*3 or better). Images which are properly edited in post show no such differential.
Mick
Isn't that a limitation? A printer that can properly print only images edited in an orthodox way? I mean what if the image is a graphic with only black background (0,0,0) and white letters (postmodern stuff). Or a street photograph overprocessed to have completely black areas (there is a flood of this kind nowadays).
-
'That's' the Holy Grail. I asked because the first release was missing the Mk channel, in the color mode you have selected, in your image. It was fixed in Build 9129. The World is yours, my friend.
For that much money I'd not except a Spectro based on i1 Pro 2 and not i1 Pro 3. That's the one think I did not like.
I agree with you there. However, there are always complete offers that are very aggressively priced.
Such an offer I have perceived. i1Pro3 Plus I have here, the head is also flawlessly controlled by PS20 Build 9129.
One error I have seen in Build 9129 yet.
The Gamut Viewer probably shows the measurement file and not the profile.
Here is the TWZ display. The profile is error corrected and smoothed. As you can see from the curves, this can't be right.
(https://up.picr.de/40191076qu.jpg)
If you open the profile in Colorlogic CoPra 7 (the software is also used internally in Colorgate) then it is displayed correctly.
(https://up.picr.de/40191077ys.jpg)
Greetings Gerd
-
May I ask which RIP is that? Thanks!
Colorgate PS20 here the link to the manufacturer CLICK (https://www.colorgate.com/)
Greetings Gerd
-
Colorgate PS20 here the link to the manufacturer CLICK (https://www.colorgate.com/)
Greetings Gerd
Thank you!
-
Isn't that a limitation? A printer that can properly print only images edited in an orthodox way? I mean what if the image is a graphic with only black background (0,0,0) and white letters (postmodern stuff). Or a street photograph overprocessed to have completely black areas (there is a flood of this kind nowadays).
The -15% is just a kludge for the problem that the coating does not absorb the ink liquid fast enough. This due to the different formulation of the ink.
Gloss differentials (ugly) in the near black was in my case also present on Epson premium.
Regarding image editing , saturated blacks etc, as a cause, I disagree completely.
I did A/B comparisons with my SCP9000’s , and to be honest I prefer the 9000, in combination with remote panel for controlling custom papers on the printer. Also in its daily use it is more time efficient, and wastes much less paper. May be the recent firmware has made improvements. I do not know.
-
Just joined today after having a read of this thread. Have had the SCP9500 since May, although with the Covid situation haven't had much a chance to use it. Although I've not had any major problems with EMI, there is horrid overinking on matte and photo paper. I was so disappointed as it felt like I had a huge door stop. What has helped is profiling papers using the i1Photo Pro 3 with i1Profiler I have and using the PGPP paper setting where PSPP is the suggested media type for the paper as it lays down less ink. This is less than ideal, but it's hopeful.
I was hoping that maybe linearising it would help with the overinking, but apparently that won't help - plus I'd need a RIP for the SpectroProofer I have from the SP9900, because obviously Epson didn't make their Linearization nor Colour Calibration utilities available for this printer.
If there's a dedicated thread on the overinking on the SCP9500 (P9570), please can a mod move this thread. Any advice is welcome on how to overcome this issue without having to throw more money at it - Epson tech support has not been very helpful.
-
Just joined today after having a read of this thread. Have had the SCP9500 since May, although with the Covid situation haven't had much a chance to use it. Although I've not had any major problems with EMI, there is horrid overinking on matte and photo paper. I was so disappointed as it felt like I had a huge door stop. What has helped is profiling papers using the i1Photo Pro 3 with i1Profiler I have and using the PGPP paper setting where PSPP is the suggested media type for the paper as it lays down less ink. This is less than ideal, but it's hopeful.
I was hoping that maybe linearising it would help with the overinking, but apparently that won't help - plus I'd need a RIP for the SpectroProofer I have from the SP9900, because obviously Epson didn't make their Linearization nor Colour Calibration utilities available for this printer.
If there's a dedicated thread on the overinking on the SCP9500 (P9570), please can a mod move this thread. Any advice is welcome on how to overcome this issue without having to throw more money at it - Epson tech support has not been very helpful.
Lowing the ink quantity or lowing the printing speed
ink quantity way:
1. choose a reference media using less ink
2. change color density setting in paper configuration
3. run linearization & ink limit by a RIP (throw more money)
printing speed way:
1. set a drying time per pass
2. use uni-direction printing
-
What I’ve been trying to find out for the last month is:
Are these ink limiting problems occurring only at the higher speeds?
Are they nonexistent at unidirectional head movement?
Is this a glitch of the dual head design?
Is this printer too fast for it’s own good at bidirectional higher speeds, at least for fiber gloss media?
John
Lowing the ink quantity or lowing the printing speed
ink quantity way:
1. choose a reference media using less ink
2. change color density setting in paper configuration
3. run linearization & ink limit by a RIP (throw more money)
printing speed way:
1. set a drying time per pass
2. use uni-direction printing
-
Just joined today after having a read of this thread. Have had the SCP9500 since May, although with the Covid situation haven't had much a chance to use it. Although I've not had any major problems with EMI, there is horrid overinking on matte and photo paper. I was so disappointed as it felt like I had a huge door stop. What has helped is profiling papers using the i1Photo Pro 3 with i1Profiler I have and using the PGPP paper setting where PSPP is the suggested media type for the paper as it lays down less ink. This is less than ideal, but it's hopeful.
I was hoping that maybe linearising it would help with the overinking, but apparently that won't help - plus I'd need a RIP for the SpectroProofer I have from the SP9900, because obviously Epson didn't make their Linearization nor Colour Calibration utilities available for this printer.
If there's a dedicated thread on the overinking on the SCP9500 (P9570), please can a mod move this thread. Any advice is welcome on how to overcome this issue without having to throw more money at it - Epson tech support has not been very helpful.
The EPSON EMI program stores under Windows 10 in the directory C:\ProgramData\EPSON\Epson Media Installer\library\SC-P9500 Series\xxxxxxxx\.... the paper settings in form of a XML file for example => P95 EPSON_Prem_Semigloss_Sheet.xml. This file is written when you register a paper via EMI in the printer or when you create your own paper.
I have copied a section for you for a glossy paper.
The InkDensity is 100% for all papers I have examined. I suspect that your high ink application is "not" caused by the media settings. It could be the default profiles or the driver itself.
-<ModeInfo>
<ModeName>2400x1200dpi - 24 Pass Uni SuperPhoto Color</ModeName>
<SurfaceType>0</SurfaceType>
<Pass>24</Pass>
<PrintBiDirection>0</PrintBiDirection>
<ColorNum>10</ColorNum>
<Color>200,201,202,204,210,211,214,215,208,209,205,229</Color>
<White>0</White>
<Metal>0</Metal>
<OnePassLayerNum>1</OnePassLayerNum>
<InkDensity>100</InkDensity>
-<Resolution>
<H>2400</H>
<V>1200</V>
</Resolution>
<PMI>10</PMI>
<DefaultMW>0</DefaultMW>
<Intent>4,6</Intent>
<ProfileType>30</ProfileType>
<ICCProfileName>EPSON_SC-P9500_7500_PremiumSemiglossPhotoPaper_CMYK_2400x1200.icc</ICCProfileName>
<ICCProfileNameRGB>EPSON_SC-P9500_7500_PremiumSemiglossPhotoPaper.icc</ICCProfileNameRGB>
<Recommend>0</Recommend>
<InputResolution>300,600,1200</InputResolution>
<DrvLevel>5</DrvLevel>
<DrvBitPerColor>1</DrvBitPerColor>
<DrvMW>1</DrvMW>
<DrvMWSP>1</DrvMWSP>
<DrvHTType>3</DrvHTType>
<DrvOutputType>38</DrvOutputType>
<DrvDefaultIntent>0</DrvDefaultIntent>
<DrvProofingMode>0</DrvProofingMode>
</ModeInfo>
I myself did not have your problem until now. But I also only print unidirectional because of the better precision and the easier head alignment. Furthermore, I have never used an Epson default profile, but always my own profiles. I can provide you with one of my profiles, provided I have a suitable one for your paper.
Regarding linearization:
As you can read above, I use a Colorgate RIP. In the creation of a target is always - autarkic - a linearization included. The measurement results from the 5109 Patch Target always contain the measurement results for the linearization (red arrow). You can then derive various profiles of your choice (for example, smoothing, gray balance, error correction, OBAs, etc., etc.) and use them based on the linearization (blue arrow). If your printer drifts from color, you can update the linearization with a few patch fields. The measurement file with the 5109 patch fields incl. linearization will then be mathematically adjusted.
(https://up.picr.de/40253174ye.jpg)
I followed the manufacturer's specifications for the Canson Baryta Prestige 340g with -15% Ink-Density. Red arrow Ink. Density reduced from 100% to 85%. But that would not have been necessary, the paper tolerates 100% without problems in the combination.
(https://up.picr.de/40253175ej.jpg)
I have compared the dot gain from the original Epson Premium Luster 260 profile with my Epson Premium Luster profile.
You can see that the original Epson profile has a larger dot gain (more ink).
(https://up.picr.de/40253185re.jpg)
However, this does not play a major role in the comparison of the color space size.
(https://up.picr.de/40253189us.jpg)
I hope the information will help you.
Greetings Gerd
-
From reading Jan's previous post, changing the colour density settings will affect the colour gamut, so not sure I want to go down that route - actually referred back to one of the support emails from Epson on this same problem and that's what they suggested.
I'll try the uni-directional pass with a longer drying time to see how I get on with that. Will also bring the i1 to profile more paper to see if that helps.
This shouldn't need to be expensive to get a decent print out of a printer like this and it's using up much paper and ink to just get this thing printing as it ought to.
Lowing the ink quantity or lowing the printing speed
ink quantity way:
1. choose a reference media using less ink
2. change color density setting in paper configuration
3. run linearization & ink limit by a RIP (throw more money)
printing speed way:
1. set a drying time per pass
2. use uni-direction printing
-
All valid questions which require testing. I wish Epson would do the testing using their free paper and ink!
What I’ve been trying to find out for the last month is:
Are these ink limiting problems occurring only at the higher speeds?
Are they nonexistent at unidirectional head movement?
Is this a glitch of the dual head design?
Is this printer too fast for it’s own good at bidirectional higher speeds, at least for fiber gloss media?
John
-
Regarding the inkload of standard media types , for the matte papers it makers a measurable difference. For the gloss media types the differences are minimal if any. I stopped testing this. Epson LFP accounting registers the used ink per color. Used that to compare ink usage per media type.
-
You guys ARE the beta testers. I’m just glad it’s not me.
All valid questions which require testing. I wish Epson would do the testing using their free paper and ink!
-
Thank you for taking the time to respond with this detailed information Gerd, much appreciated. I'm using Mac OS 10.15.x and managed to locate the xml files you referred to, changing the ink density in any of those files didn't make any difference for me. What made a huge difference based on my testing was the paper type selected in the driver. The difference between Epson PGPP and PSPP is tremendous. The PGPP looks as if it has been sprayed with an overcoat, whereas the PSPP has clear gloss differential in the blacks. I even reverted to Ilford's profile for the Smooth Pearl and got good results with PGPP instead of their recommended PSPP.
I've not used a RIP before, so am on a steep learning curve with that. Have been looking at Colorbyte Overdrive and a few others that offer a 15 day trial.
Thanks again, Denise
The EPSON EMI program stores under Windows 10 in the directory C:\ProgramData\EPSON\Epson Media Installer\library\SC-P9500 Series\xxxxxxxx\.... the paper settings in form of a XML file for example => P95 EPSON_Prem_Semigloss_Sheet.xml. This file is written when you register a paper via EMI in the printer or when you create your own paper.
I have copied a section for you for a glossy paper.
The InkDensity is 100% for all papers I have examined. I suspect that your high ink application is "not" caused by the media settings. It could be the default profiles or the driver itself.
-<ModeInfo>
<ModeName>2400x1200dpi - 24 Pass Uni SuperPhoto Color</ModeName>
<SurfaceType>0</SurfaceType>
<Pass>24</Pass>
<PrintBiDirection>0</PrintBiDirection>
<ColorNum>10</ColorNum>
<Color>200,201,202,204,210,211,214,215,208,209,205,229</Color>
<White>0</White>
<Metal>0</Metal>
<OnePassLayerNum>1</OnePassLayerNum>
<InkDensity>100</InkDensity>
-<Resolution>
<H>2400</H>
<V>1200</V>
</Resolution>
<PMI>10</PMI>
<DefaultMW>0</DefaultMW>
<Intent>4,6</Intent>
<ProfileType>30</ProfileType>
<ICCProfileName>EPSON_SC-P9500_7500_PremiumSemiglossPhotoPaper_CMYK_2400x1200.icc</ICCProfileName>
<ICCProfileNameRGB>EPSON_SC-P9500_7500_PremiumSemiglossPhotoPaper.icc</ICCProfileNameRGB>
<Recommend>0</Recommend>
<InputResolution>300,600,1200</InputResolution>
<DrvLevel>5</DrvLevel>
<DrvBitPerColor>1</DrvBitPerColor>
<DrvMW>1</DrvMW>
<DrvMWSP>1</DrvMWSP>
<DrvHTType>3</DrvHTType>
<DrvOutputType>38</DrvOutputType>
<DrvDefaultIntent>0</DrvDefaultIntent>
<DrvProofingMode>0</DrvProofingMode>
</ModeInfo>
I myself did not have your problem until now. But I also only print unidirectional because of the better precision and the easier head alignment. Furthermore, I have never used an Epson default profile, but always my own profiles. I can provide you with one of my profiles, provided I have a suitable one for your paper.
Regarding linearization:
As you can read above, I use a Colorgate RIP. In the creation of a target is always - autarkic - a linearization included. The measurement results from the 5109 Patch Target always contain the measurement results for the linearization (red arrow). You can then derive various profiles of your choice (for example, smoothing, gray balance, error correction, OBAs, etc., etc.) and use them based on the linearization (blue arrow). If your printer drifts from color, you can update the linearization with a few patch fields. The measurement file with the 5109 patch fields incl. linearization will then be mathematically adjusted.
(https://up.picr.de/40253174ye.jpg)
I followed the manufacturer's specifications for the Canson Baryta Prestige 340g with -15% Ink-Density. Red arrow Ink. Density reduced from 100% to 85%. But that would not have been necessary, the paper tolerates 100% without problems in the combination.
(https://up.picr.de/40253175ej.jpg)
I have compared the dot gain from the original Epson Premium Luster 260 profile with my Epson Premium Luster profile.
You can see that the original Epson profile has a larger dot gain (more ink).
(https://up.picr.de/40253185re.jpg)
However, this does not play a major role in the comparison of the color space size.
(https://up.picr.de/40253189us.jpg)
I hope the information will help you.
Greetings Gerd
-
It's crazy right - they should be paying us to do this! :D
You guys ARE the beta testers. I’m just glad it’s not me.
-
Unfortunately, Epson have only produced LFP Accounting for the PC and I'm a Mac user. There's an iOS app, however, it's very outdated and doesn't include data for this printer. I wish Epson would catch up with Canon and create a Mac version.
How did you get Epson to finally take the machine back?
Regarding the inkload of standard media types , for the matte papers it makers a measurable difference. For the gloss media types the differences are minimal if any. I stopped testing this. Epson LFP accounting registers the used ink per color. Used that to compare ink usage per media type.
-
In my experience, P9500 did not really use so such more ink than P9000. By checking the ink usage in caldera RIP, they did not have a huge differential. At lease not that huge to cause over inked problem.
It's mainly about printing speed, P9500(or 9570, 9530) is 2~3x faster than P9000/9900. That causes the ink absorbing problem. Yes, it's a incredible fast machine, but we don't have a incredible fast dry paper. The papers we're using are designed for most printers that are not so fast like P9500. For a best print and no decreasing in color gamut and density, slowing down the speed by drying time or uni-direction printing is the best way.
-
So why don’t you just stand there with a hair dryer? .....Ugh.
So do you guys sense that this series was primarily designed for rc media?
From reports I’ve heard and samples of my files I’ve had done, that appears to be the case for the new quite fast HP Z9+.
How is the 9570 functioning with canvas on high speeds and bidirectional?
John
In my experience, P9500 did not really use so such more ink than P9000. By checking the ink usage in caldera RIP, they did not have a huge differential. At lease not that huge to cause over inked problem.
It's mainly about printing speed, P9500(or 9570, 9530) is 2~3x faster than P9000/9900. That causes the ink absorbing problem. Yes, it's a incredible fast machine, but we don't have a incredible fast dry paper. The papers we're using are designed for most printers that are not so fast like P9500. For a best print and no decreasing in color gamut and density, slowing down the speed by drying time or uni-direction printing is the best way.
-
Epson changed the formulation of the fluid of the ink.
It causes a reduced absorption rate of the existing coatings, specifically the gloss category papers. With the fine art matte papers it is less of a problem, and the Epson media types for matte have a larger diff in inkload. So you can play a bit there.
Some papers do not show problems, other do. Even on some Epson brandend gloss fine art papers.
Note that Epson does not manufacturen papers. The use existing papers from certain manufacturers and brand these.
-
Epson changed the formulation of the fluid of the ink.
It causes a reduced absorption rate of the existing coatings, specifically the gloss category papers. With the fine art matte papers it is less of a problem, and the Epson media types for matte have a larger diff in inkload. So you can play a bit there.
Some papers do not show problems, other do. Even on some Epson brandend gloss fine art papers.
Note that Epson does not manufacturen papers. The use existing papers from certain manufacturers and brand these.
Do you know if P10000/20000 used the same formulation of the ink (similar problems?) as P7500/9500?
If yes, similar effects has been observed?
What is interesting that for Epson Digigaphie certification P7/9500 printers can use only Epson papers (no HM, nor Cansons are allowed).
-
Epson Legacy media are Canson , which they bought the rights to use, coated in the same Felix Schoeller factory in Germany from the same Canson paper base. They tried to claim they created it. Whatever, I use it cause it’s cheaper.
If they can’t make it work on those fine media they have no excuses.
I would go so far as to say ( and I’m certainly not alone in this ) that if you can’t use my primary media for color and black and white, Platine, I can’t buy the printer period.
John
Do you know if P10000/20000 used the same formulation of the ink (similar problems?) as P7500/9500?
If yes, similar effects has been observed?
What is interesting that for Epson Digigaphie certification P7/9500 printers can use only Epson papers (no HM, nor Cansons are allowed).
-
Epson Legacy media are Canson , which they bought the rights to use, coated in the same Felix Schoeller factory in Germany from the same Canson paper base. They tried to claim they created it. Whatever, I use it cause it’s cheaper.
If they can’t make it work on those fine media they have no excuses.
I would go so far as to say ( and I’m certainly not alone in this ) that if you can’t use my primary media for color and black and white, Platine, I can’t buy the printer period.
John
Hi John,
For what it’s worth, I’m having zero problems with Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Epson Legacy Platine (though their cut sheets curl at the corners terribly) and Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss. The Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss has become my favorite “platine-like” of the lot. I’m printing on an Epson SC P7570, Windows 10, using Lightroom’s print module. I only print unidirectionally (for max image quality purposes). I’m careful about measuring caliper of 3rd party papers and setting up custom media types in the Epson Media Installer with proper icc reference, caliper, etc. suitable for the paper. I’ve not increased drying time per pass for any of the papers.
When I first received my 7570 back in late February, I had significant issues with it. Over a period of months, working with Epson Tech Support, running tests and documenting - providing feedback to Epson - and - after a series of updates to firmware, driver and Epson Media Installer, my printer is working reliably. No obvious over inking on any of the papers cited, nor on about 5 different matte papers (both Epson and Hahn). And, knock wood, the Epson Media Installer is working reliably for the creation of custom media types that I make and register to the printer.
In following this saga, it seems like the folk on Mac are having more problems than others. That may just be a reflection of the fact that “most” photographers/printers are on that platform.
I know that Epson had/has (perhaps still) some significant challenges. Here is my understanding:
1. The teams that work on driver, firmware, and Epson Media Installer are “not the same team” or “one team.”
2. Epson’s “lab” in Long Beach, CA was locked down back in Feb-April (and may still be, off and on) so that the support techs didn’t have direct access to the 75xx/95xx printer(s) to replicate / diagnose issues. And, could only meet remotely with the teams who developed driver / firmware / Media Installer.
3. The “average” general tech support person you get on the phone has little or zero knowledge of these printers.
4. All of the above has hindered Epson from getting their arms around the various issues in any kind of cohesive, comprehensive way.
I’ve also found it kind of odd that stalwarts like Jeff Schewe, Mark Segal and Kevin Raber (who all seem to have good contacts at Epson) have not reviewed these printers. Mark Segal and Kevin Raber have said that due to COVID they’ve not had access to them - yet they have had access to the P700 / 900 printers. I take it as evidence (I feely admit that I may be seeing things that are not there) that Epson knows they have significant issues to deal with and are not comfortable shipping units for “testing and review.” I’d be interested to hear from Jeff Schewe about whether he’s aware of these issues many are facing, and whether he has any “inside info.” Jeff is a “no BS” guy, and it seems like he has a good relationship with Epson.
Now, having said all this. I love my 7570 and, though I’m nervous about it for no good reason, continue to produce really wonderful prints.
Something that would help, but that I suspect we won’t ever see, is for Epson to be more forthcoming about simple things like sharing what the incremental driver / firmware / EMI updates are “doing” in terms of addressing issues, or even improving baseline performance. Going one step further, it would be nice if Epson were forthcoming about the difficulties this new printer series has had on launch, and to let us know what’s up with their moving in the direction of resolution. “Someone out there knows,” but ain’t talking, I suspect.
Rand
-
Rand, That is good news that you able to work with Platine, that’s a good sign. But you are correct more than half of the printmaking community is on Mac platform, and that’s no secret to Epson, if the platform is the problem.
Maybe it will end up being a situation where unidirectional is mandatory with fiber gloss media. I could live with that since I always use uni with Epson machines anyway ( not Canon ). If these heads don’t clog like the previous series and half your ink doesn’t end up in the waste tank, I assume these other issues can be fixed.
I agree that COVID has put a monkey wrench in all kinds of tech support and not just with Epson. It’s a horrible time for everybody.
I doubt it will improve much in the next few months. It’s a bad time to release anything.
But the fact remains this series should never have been released in the first place until it was ready for prime time. It’s not like they didn’t have enough printers out there. The same can be said with the HP Z9+. They have both caused a lot of grief and expense. I’m glad for the time being I have decided to restore my older Canon and wait. The only printer reviews I’ve trusted have been from Scott Martin at Onsight Imaging who consults on all these brands. He buys his own printers and inks and isn’t in bed with any of them. Not so the “ Epson Print Academy” or what ever they call themselves these days. Scott hasn’t said anything about the 9570 / 7570 but had good things to say about the P9000 and the Canon 4000.
Hi John,
For what it’s worth, I’m having zero problems with Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Epson Legacy Platine (though their cut sheets curl at the corners terribly) and Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss. The Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss has become my favorite “platine-like” of the lot. I’m printing on an Epson SC P7570, Windows 10, using Lightroom’s print module. I only print unidirectionally (for max image quality purposes). I’m careful about measuring caliper of 3rd party papers and setting up custom media types in the Epson Media Installer with proper icc reference, caliper, etc. suitable for the paper. I’ve not increased drying time per pass for any of the papers.
When I first received my 7570 back in late February, I had significant issues with it. Over a period of months, working with Epson Tech Support, running tests and documenting - providing feedback to Epson - and - after a series of updates to firmware, driver and Epson Media Installer, my printer is working reliably. No obvious over inking on any of the papers cited, nor on about 5 different matte papers (both Epson and Hahn). And, knock wood, the Epson Media Installer is working reliably for the creation of custom media types that I make and register to the printer.
In following this saga, it seems like the folk on Mac are having more problems than others. That may just be a reflection of the fact that “most” photographers/printers are on that platform.
I know that Epson had/has (perhaps still) some significant challenges. Here is my understanding:
1. The teams that work on driver, firmware, and Epson Media Installer are “not the same team” or “one team.”
2. Epson’s “lab” in Long Beach, CA was locked down back in Feb-April (and may still be, off and on) so that the support techs didn’t have direct access to the 75xx/95xx printer(s) to replicate / diagnose issues. And, could only meet remotely with the teams who developed driver / firmware / Media Installer.
3. The “average” general tech support person you get on the phone has little or zero knowledge of these printers.
4. All of the above has hindered Epson from getting their arms around the various issues in any kind of cohesive, comprehensive way.
I’ve also found it kind of odd that stalwarts like Jeff Schewe, Mark Segal and Kevin Raber (who all seem to have good contacts at Epson) have not reviewed these printers. Mark Segal and Kevin Raber have said that due to COVID they’ve not had access to them - yet they have had access to the P700 / 900 printers. I take it as evidence (I feely admit that I may be seeing things that are not there) that Epson knows they have significant issues to deal with and are not comfortable shipping units for “testing and review.” I’d be interested to hear from Jeff Schewe about whether he’s aware of these issues many are facing, and whether he has any “inside info.” Jeff is a “no BS” guy, and it seems like he has a good relationship with Epson.
Now, having said all this. I love my 7570 and, though I’m nervous about it for no good reason, continue to produce really wonderful prints.
Something that would help, but that I suspect we won’t ever see, is for Epson to be more forthcoming about simple things like sharing what the incremental driver / firmware / EMI updates are “doing” in terms of addressing issues, or even improving baseline performance. Going one step further, it would be nice if Epson were forthcoming about the difficulties this new printer series has had on launch, and to let us know what’s up with their moving in the direction of resolution. “Someone out there knows,” but ain’t talking, I suspect.
Rand
[moderator's edit: replaced a left bracket]
-
Do you know if P10000/20000 used the same formulation of the ink (similar problems?) as P7500/9500?
If yes, similar effects has been observed?
still have not received response to my question - does anybody know if P10000/P20000 had similar problems (same ink reformulation?)?
-
I did not yet run into similar issues with the scp20000.
-
I did not yet run into similar issues with the scp20000.
thanks! so, new inks, new problems - does anyone have experience how new Epsons work with their old Hot Press papers?
dilemma still rises, to go towards P7500 direction (I would like to switch from 17" Epsons into 24") or P7000? I was wondering in the past about Z9+, but it also seems unstable
-
I came to the conclusion, a while back, that Epson Released this Printer with well thought out Hardware changes and 'just' did some Global Adjustments to a current/different Printers' Driver, and dropped it in.
This Printer has more ink channels and enough differences from previous printers that would cause such a thing to cause Problems and be FAR from ideal.
If you remember the Epson 9600 Ultrachrome (my first large format and second Epson (the 1270 was the first)); these Printers were conservatively inked, in other words, the ink limits were set a little lower then idea, so the Printer could never be over inked and ink limiting was never needed. People that ran these Printers as Proofers, could always skip the 'Ink Limiting' step in their Rips, [when using the Epson HTM drivers].
My point is, I believe they need to build 'Ink Limits', anew, and start from scratch... single channel limits, duel channel limits, total ink limits, for each media [or type of media]; dial it in PROPERLY, just as they have done with previous printers. Even if they elect to start with the settings of a different Printers' drivers; still, you [they] have to take the time to tweak the limits to get as close to 'ideal' as possible.
This over inking shit, is insane. They have left Customers to do 'their' work for them.
In a traditional Rip (Proofing Rip) you select all your Printer settings, including if you choose to print Uni or Bi, then Individual Channel Ink Limits are set optimally, then Secondary Ink Limits are set optimally (R, G, B, and other 2 channel pairs), then some times, three channel ink combinations, then lastly, ALL channels together (Total Ink Limit). THEN [and only then] you Profile the Printer (print your Profiling Target)
Now the Driver development Process, is a little different, but these fundamental steps are STILL the same.
They can 'get there' how ever that choose, BUT, THEY (Epson), are the one's that have to get there.
Hardware and Software are two separate tracks; this stuff is all Software Driver Development stuff. Or I should say, the lack, there of.
Printing with 'seconds delay' between passes is 'sometimes' a necessary FIX to a Problem, but it's no got dammed way to RUN A PRINTER, DAY-2-DAY.
-
Regarding image editing , saturated blacks etc, as a cause, I disagree completely.
I did A/B comparisons with my SCP9000’s , and to be honest I prefer the 9000, in combination with remote panel for controlling custom papers on the printer. Also in its daily use it is more time efficient, and wastes much less paper. May be the recent firmware has made improvements. I do not know.
I did not say that I thought it was a cause. I said that it is important to make sure that the images are properly edited in order avoid large plugged areas adjacent to sudden tone breaks. This, as opposed to smooth tone transitions graduating smoothly right down to the deepest shadow, is ugly.
We have not seen the over-inking issue that has been suggested here on any paper except Exhibition Fibre which is a paper that I personally dislike intensely partially as a result of that. But, we have encountered over-inking on this paper on our other printers as well. Bad coating? Ink formulations not compatible? I have no idea. But, it is the only paper for which we have seen this issue, so far.
On the other hand, Canson Baryta, Platine, Hahnemuhle PR Baryta, Canson (Legacy) Baryta Prestige print beautifully on our 9570. We have also not encountered any issue with drying for either paper. In fact we ran another test today on Canson Baryta-1 and found perfect gradation and 3/4 tone separation right down to the final step of the scales. No sign of over-inking, plugging, smearing or pooling of any kind. I have no idea why others would see these things on those papers.
Quote from: Mick Sang on December 24, 2020, 10:43:07 am
I believe this "-15% colour density" might be suggested in order to reduce black gloss differential which is painfully obvious when clients overly saturate the deepest shadows in their work to "make sure they get good blacks". Otherwise, we have seen no over-inking on the paper with the ink set to zero and we get very good D-max ( L*3 or better). Images which are properly edited in post show no such differential.
Isn't that a limitation? A printer that can properly print only images edited in an orthodox way? I mean what if the image is a graphic with only black background (0,0,0) and white letters (postmodern stuff). Or a street photograph overprocessed to have completely black areas (there is a flood of this kind nowadays).
A limitation of the machine? No, why would it be? I don't think I got across what I really meant in my earlier post. Also, we may be on different paths here. Others have mentioned over-inking as though it is an issue with the 9570 and its ink set. I have not seen that. So, I was not in that frame of mind when I made my comment. I was referring to the ugliness of plugged shadows in some client images which we had received recently. Proper image editing reduces or removes that. Also, I know of at least one printer who purposely runs his ink density lower by at least -15 on all photo-style papers to save ink. I'm sure that works. but, the deepest black he gets is around 1.90.
But, with respect to the example that you mention, i.e. a smooth solid black background, I see no issue with that. A properly processed image would have that black background set to zeros RGB. But, the intention of the smooth black background would be obvious as having been intended. My issue is with those who plug up the last few steps of their images in order to make absolutely sure that they'll get a black. This is NOT necessary and is amateur work IMO. Often, the next open tone is obvious in contrast agains the breaks of the black. This happens on any printer.
For what it’s worth, I’m having zero problems with Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Epson Legacy Platine (though their cut sheets curl at the corners terribly) and Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss. The Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss has become my favorite “platine-like” of the lot. I’m printing on an Epson SC P7570, Windows 10, using Lightroom’s print module. I only print unidirectionally (for max image quality purposes). I’m careful about measuring caliper of 3rd party papers and setting up custom media types in the Epson Media Installer with proper icc reference, caliper, etc. suitable for the paper. I’ve not increased drying time per pass for any of the papers.
Same here. We encountered all sorts of issues at the start, particularly with respect to EMI - crashing, deleting media settings, print sizes and corrupting the driver etc., etc and on & on. Epson software and lack of support were the biggest issues for us. As someone else posted here, we got zero assistance from Epson and yes, we are all the beta testers sans compensation. We have learned far more about the printer than any support tech that I have met or heard about to date. Now, I am happy to report, our 9570 has been running beautifully. But, it always gives me a chuckle when I recall one of our first phone calls to Epson tech support. We asked for help with EMI (EPSON Media Installer) and the reply was "We don't support third party software." Jaws dropped.
Mick
-
Mick,
Thanks for sharing your experience. On my very first call to Epson general support, way back in February/March of 2020, the support person was not even aware of the new printers! How’s that? LOL Once I convinced them that there was indeed a new printer series, I spent the entire day on the phone, off and on... and the net result was that I felt sorry for the tech support person, and had zero help with my issues.
Once again I’ll thank Kevin Raber of PhotoPXL. I had contacted him, and he “talked to someone” at Epson. The very next morning I received an unsolicited phone call from Epson pro tech support and from that point on worked with the same EXCELLENT person (who prefers to remain unnamed). We communicated regularly for well over two months. I would document, take screen shots and videos of the issues I was encountering, and forward them to him. (They did not have access to the printer in their facility in Long Beach, CA at the time due to COVID lockdown.) He was helpful, did a lot of “coordinating - communicating” with the various Epson “teams” who were responsible for driver, firmware, EMI (not the same people!). I was provided with driver / firmware updates before they were released - to test. It was a good experience, actually, and as my wife said, “Gave you something to chew on while locked down and the printing business at a stand still.” The net result is that I probably know this printer better than any of the many Epson printers I’ve owned. For me, while I can agree with those who say the printer was released prematurely, it is a case of “All’s well that ends well.” Epson even compensated me for the paper/ink expended while having the initial problems, and used in doing tests and reporting. All in all, they were very fair.
Rand
-
Mick,
Of course. They didn’t want anymore bad press. It was piling up on all these forums.
It would be nice if they could send out an email to everyone who bought one that says here are the potential issues and this is what we’re doing to resolve it.
Once again I’ll thank Kevin Raber of PhotoPXL. I had contacted him, and he “talked to someone” at Epson. The very next morning I received an unsolicited phone call from Epson pro tech support and from that point on worked with the same EXCELLENT person (who prefers to remain unnamed). We communicated regularly for well over two months. I would document, take screen shots and videos of the issues I was encountering, and forward them to him. (They did not have access to the printer in their facility in Long Beach, CA at the time due to COVID lockdown.) He was helpful, did a lot of “coordinating - communicating” with the various Epson “teams” who were responsible for driver, firmware, EMI (not the same people!). I was provided with driver / firmware updates before they were released - to test. It was a good experience, actually, and as my wife said, “Gave you something to chew on while locked down and the printing business at a stand still.” The net result is that I probably know this printer better than any of the many Epson printers I’ve owned. For me, while I can agree with those who say the printer was released prematurely, it is a case of “All’s well that ends well.” Epson even compensated me for the paper/ink expended while having the initial problems, and used in doing tests and reporting. All in all, they were very fair.
Rand
-
Once again I’ll thank Kevin Raber of PhotoPXL. I had contacted him, and he “talked to someone” at Epson. The very next morning I received an unsolicited phone call from Epson pro tech support and from that point on worked with the same EXCELLENT person (who prefers to remain unnamed).
You were blessed indeed. We should be so lucky.
Mick
-
Back in National Lockdown again.
Rand you are a very fortunate individual indeed to get compensation from Epson - being so lucky you ought to pick some numbers for the lotto ;) it would be pretty decent if Epson would compensate us all for ink/paper.
I've got a Teamview coming up with PrintFactory who are going to install their RIP on my Mac so I can test it. Although I really think this printer should be able to print well using their drivers, ICC profiles and any I create using i1Photo Pro 3. This printer is a money magnet.
Seems that Epson don't really support Mac as much as they do PC.
@Mick, I tried slowing it down by adding in drying time and unidirectional printing, but didn't really make much difference. The main difference for me comes in when selecting glossy paper vs semi glossy paper.
@arobinson7547, you've outlined what I thought re linearization, but I don't know my stuff to anywhere near the extent you obviously do. Will this ink limiting process resolve the issues of gloss differential and laying down too much ink?
-
Hello Denise,
the word linearization must always be considered in context.
In the HTM mode (halftone mode) of a manufacturer, the primary colors (CMYK) are normally linearized. That means you print e.g. in 5% steps CMYK from 0% to 100%. Then you measure the density so that the characteristic curve can be adjusted accordingly in the printing process. This ensures that if you print 20% of any color, the result is really (near) 20%. Everything else is controlled by the manufacturer's own HTM module.
In the NON HTM mode you have nothing, not even the own Epson Precision Dot printing grid. That means you have to define a printing grid in the RIP - which is normally no problem with modern RIP's and you have to determine the ink limit yourself. In NON HTM mode linearization usually means two steps.
Step 1 - You print each real color channel (i.e. the physically existing color channel) unregulated in very small steps from 0% to 100%. This looks like a disaster at first, but it is correct. Then you determine the highest chroma value of a channel and set the ink limit there. The highest chroma value is not equal to the highest density. This is at least my approach, I know there are other possibilities.
Step 2 - (after the chroma ink limit has been determined) it is then the same as described above in HTM mode. Print the primary colors (CMYK), measure the density and linearize the characteristic curve.
The next steps are then as always - create target, print target, measure and create profile.....
I have not been able to detect any gloss problem on my end so far. But I doubt that a linearization process solves this problem completely - rather alleviates it.
If someone is interested I can publish the numbers of the measurement/linearization for Chroma/Ink-Limit of the P9500 here.
Greetings Gerd
-
Hi Gerd, I would be interested in your chroma values very much. In case I missed it: What version of Colorgate PS20 RIP are you using?
Best regards from Austria,
Michael
-
Hi Gerd, thank you for this information - learning loads here.
Hello Denise,
the word linearization must always be considered in context.
In the HTM mode (halftone mode) of a manufacturer, the primary colors (CMYK) are normally linearized. That means you print e.g. in 5% steps CMYK from 0% to 100%. Then you measure the density so that the characteristic curve can be adjusted accordingly in the printing process. This ensures that if you print 20% of any color, the result is really (near) 20%. Everything else is controlled by the manufacturer's own HTM module.
In the NON HTM mode you have nothing, not even the own Epson Precision Dot printing grid. That means you have to define a printing grid in the RIP - which is normally no problem with modern RIP's and you have to determine the ink limit yourself. In NON HTM mode linearization usually means two steps.
Step 1 - You print each real color channel (i.e. the physically existing color channel) unregulated in very small steps from 0% to 100%. This looks like a disaster at first, but it is correct. Then you determine the highest chroma value of a channel and set the ink limit there. The highest chroma value is not equal to the highest density. This is at least my approach, I know there are other possibilities.
Step 2 - (after the chroma ink limit has been determined) it is then the same as described above in HTM mode. Print the primary colors (CMYK), measure the density and linearize the characteristic curve.
The next steps are then as always - create target, print target, measure and create profile.....
I have not been able to detect any gloss problem on my end so far. But I doubt that a linearization process solves this problem completely - rather alleviates it.
If someone is interested I can publish the numbers of the measurement/linearization for Chroma/Ink-Limit of the P9500 here.
Greetings Gerd
-
Hi Gerd, I would be interested in your chroma values very much. In case I missed it: What version of Colorgate PS20 RIP are you using?
Best regards from Austria,
Michael
Hello Michael,
attached is an Excel table with the LCH and LAB values. The highest chroma of each color is marked in red, crossed out values are measurement errors. For all black channels not the highest chroma is valid but the lowest brightness (L value). I used ColorThink Pro to convert the data into Excel. CTP calculates some chroma values minimally different than the RIP software (so there are small deviations).
Furthermore the CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV reference values and the measurement data of the first linearization are available as CGATS file. The reference values are not a normal target which can be visualized easily. They are channel instructions directly to the printer, but you can see the values in the file to know what is done there.
In CTP the pure measurement looks like this:
(https://up.picr.de/40408146zq.jpg)
You can see all the black channels, you can see the two cyan and magenta channels, as well as yellow, orange, green and violet.
The hard curves at the end of the respective color channels (curvature) show you that the channels were not limited. That the gray balance at the top of L100 tilts towards blue is correct. The Epson Premium Luster 260g contains OBA's.
In the CGate RIP it looks like this and is much easier to handle. You just drag the red dot with the coordinates cross to the corresponding place with the highest chroma or the lowest L values for the black channels to the corresponding place or you can also let the RIP determine the optimal value.
E.g. for the yellow channel - highest chroma value
(https://up.picr.de/40408148ex.jpg)
or for the black channel - lowest L value.
(https://up.picr.de/40408150to.jpg)
Regarding Colorgate PS20 version:
I have the PS20 Campain Printig. But you don't need it to work in RGB/CMYK or additionally MultiColor. You can buy each module separately and put them together individually. In principle you can start with the Select or Pro version and buy only the Profiler module and Multicolor module.
I hope the information helps you.
Greetings Gerd
-
Hi John- I just read your correspondence with Rand... knock on wood I have had zero issues with the 9570 and I am on a Mac using many of the same papers that Rand mentioned. Rand's forbearance with this printer in the early days and his eventual confidence in it convinced me to get it. This printer replaced my Canon Pro-4000. I do miss the accounting tool; but otherwise, I feel quite at home with it. I typically run a nozzle check at the beginning of each day- rarely do I need to initiate a cleaning. Admittedly, I print for other photographers so the machine gets a fair bit of use. When I opened in 2004 I was using Epson and then decided to switch because of the clogging. I used the HP Z3100 for a couple of years, then moved to the Canon 8300 and eventually the Pro-4000. I was quite happy until last year when the Canon 4000 died. I would buy the Epson 9570 again, though I hope I don't have to!
Rand, That is good news that you able to work with Platine, that’s a good sign. But you are correct more than half of the printmaking community is on Mac platform, and that’s no secret to Epson, if the platform is the problem.
Maybe it will end up being a situation where unidirectional is mandatory with fiber gloss media. I could live with that since I always use uni with Epson machines anyway ( not Canon ). If these heads don’t clog like the previous series and half your ink doesn’t end up in the waste tank, I assume these other issues can be fixed.
I agree that COVID has put a monkey wrench in all kinds of tech support and not just with Epson. It’s a horrible time for everybody.
I doubt it will improve much in the next few months. It’s a bad time to release anything.
But the fact remains this series should never have been released in the first place until it was ready for prime time. It’s not like they didn’t have enough printers out there. The same can be said with the HP Z9+. They have both caused a lot of grief and expense. I’m glad for the time being I have decided to restore my older Canon and wait. The only printer reviews I’ve trusted have been from Scott Martin at Onsight Imaging who consults on all these brands. He buys his own printers and inks and isn’t in bed with any of them. Not so the “ Epson Print Academy” or what ever they call themselves these days. Scott hasn’t said anything about the 9570 / 7570 but had good things to say about the P9000 and the Canon 4000.
[moderator's edit: replaced a left bracket]