Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: StewKart on May 31, 2023, 12:07:53 pm
-
The P9500 has been out for a few years now, and searching the forums I can find lots of users facing issues with it in the past, but can't find many people complaining about it for the past year or so.
Have the issues been resolved thanks to software updates? Or have people just sold theirs/gotten used to the issues?
For context I'm in the market for a wide format printer, and weighing up between Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4100 and Epson SC P9500. I love everything about the Canon except for the ink permanence, the Epson seems to win there but I'm afraid of buying the P9500 and having something with such a bad reputation for maintenance as my first wide format printer.
-
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=142359.0
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133622.266 (next to last post on the page; by Rand)
-
If you want VERY recent then read this thread. You have to sign up for the Epson Wide Format group in order to view it.
https://groups.io/g/EpsonWideFormat/topic/epson_surecolor_p7570_p9570/99163951?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,99163951,previd%3D1685463331685339870,nextid%3D1683749084975564953&previd=1685463331685339870&nextid=1683749084975564953
Bottom line: there is a group of 40+ professionals who sent a letter to Epson about the design problems which have still not been fixed after 3 years leading to head strikes and paper being ripped off rolls. Likely can't be fixed with a firmware update, it is a hardware problem. So far they haven't received a meaningful response from Epson.
-
Everyone knew this was a hardware disaster in design and production two and a half years ago. The only people who pretended otherwise were the Epson sales team. I don’t know what was worse, rushing this printer to market during a global pandemic, or when they knew it was a disaster pretending it wasn’t. There is no way this unit was ever adequately beta tested. It’s a real mess.
Even worse now, the other 44” Surecolor printers are apparently no longer in production.
John
If you want VERY recent then read this thread. You have to sign up for the Epson Wide Format group in order to view it.
https://groups.io/g/EpsonWideFormat/topic/epson_surecolor_p7570_p9570/99163951?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,99163951,previd%3D1685463331685339870,nextid%3D1683749084975564953&previd=1685463331685339870&nextid=1683749084975564953
Bottom line: there is a group of 40+ professionals who sent a letter to Epson about the design problems which have still not been fixed after 3 years leading to head strikes and paper being ripped off rolls. Likely can't be fixed with a firmware update, it is a hardware problem. So far they haven't received a meaningful response from Epson.
-
Thanks both, I'd searched around and think I knew deep down the 9500/9570 was a bad call but was in denial hoping some people would pop out and say "it's perfect now"! It's a shame, the new Epson models all have quite serious issues, and I'd rather not buy an older model that support might be dropping for soon.
The HP Z9+ seems... good? Just doesn't seem to be talked about as much, so I can't tell if the lack of complaints is due to lack of popularity or if it's a silent powerhouse. Most print suppliers I've looked at near me stock Canon/Epson, and some of the smaller brand paper suppliers only have profiles for Canon/Epson printers so as a newbie I'll be working in the dark a little more figuring things out without the same community resources I'd have access to using Canon/Epson.
Canon lucia pro ink permanence is just somewhere shy of what I'm happy with, but can likely get over it as the imagePROGRAF PRO-X100 series just seem like great all rounders.
it feels like all the companies were so close to having the perfect printer formula but missed the mark somewhere serious :-\
Just completely torn between the Z9+ and Canon Pro's, if anyone has experience with both please chime in!
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=142359.0
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133622.266 (next to last post on the page; by Rand)
Everyone knew this was a hardware disaster in design and production two and a half years ago. The only people who pretended otherwise were the Epson sales team. I don’t know what was worse, rushing this printer to market during a global pandemic, or when they knew it was a disaster pretending it wasn’t. There is no way this unit was ever adequately beta tested. It’s a real mess.
Even worse now, the other 44” Surecolor printers are apparently no longer in production.
John
-
Thanks both, I'd searched around and think I knew deep down the 9500/9570 was a bad call but was in denial hoping some people would pop out and say "it's perfect now"! It's a shame, the new Epson models all have quite serious issues, and I'd rather not buy an older model that support might be dropping for soon.
The HP Z9+ seems... good? Just doesn't seem to be talked about as much, so I can't tell if the lack of complaints is due to lack of popularity or if it's a silent powerhouse. Most print suppliers I've looked at near me stock Canon/Epson, and some of the smaller brand paper suppliers only have profiles for Canon/Epson printers so as a newbie I'll be working in the dark a little more figuring things out without the same community resources I'd have access to using Canon/Epson.
Canon lucia pro ink permanence is just somewhere shy of what I'm happy with, but can likely get over it as the imagePROGRAF PRO-X100 series just seem like great all rounders.
it feels like all the companies were so close to having the perfect printer formula but missed the mark somewhere serious :-\
Just completely torn between the Z9+ and Canon Pro's, if anyone has experience with both please chime in!
It seems sad to have to say this but you'd probably be better off buying a good used Canon ipf8400 or a Epson 9000.
-
It seems sad to have to say this but you'd probably be better off buying a good used Canon ipf8400 or a Epson 9000.
I am still running a Canon ipf6300 and never get a bad print. It can go unused for a month, do a couple of automated cleaning cycles and then produce a pristine print. Inks more archival than later Canon printers like the Pro-2000 and on. I did have to replace the printheads eventually, but that is very easy to do. The P9570 may have a slightly larger gamut in some colors, but don't know if that would be visible in most prints. Certainly not worth trying to tame the 7570/9570 and ending up tearing your hair out.
-
it feels like all the companies were so close to having the perfect printer formula but missed the mark somewhere serious :-\
Just completely torn between the Z9+ and Canon Pro's, if anyone has experience with both please chime in!
If your old printer is still working, just wait for it. Don't buy P9570. Epson did not fix the issues at all. Wait for the replacement of P9570, and wait at least another year after the announcement to make sure they did fix old issues and didn't make any new issues.
If you need a printer now, I will suggest you buying an used Canon iPF8400 or Epson SC-P9000.
-
It seems sad to have to say this but you'd probably be better off buying a good used Canon ipf8400 or a Epson 9000.
If your old printer is still working, just wait for it. Don't buy P9570. Epson did not fix the issues at all. Wait for the replacement of P9570, and wait at least another year after the announcement to make sure they did fix old issues and didn't make any new issues.
If you need a printer now, I will suggest you buying an used Canon iPF8400 or Epson SC-P9000.
I am still running a Canon ipf6300 and never get a bad print. It can go unused for a month, do a couple of automated cleaning cycles and then produce a pristine print. Inks more archival than later Canon printers like the Pro-2000 and on. I did have to replace the printheads eventually, but that is very easy to do. The P9570 may have a slightly larger gamut in some colors, but don't know if that would be visible in most prints. Certainly not worth trying to tame the 7570/9570 and ending up tearing your hair out.
Unfortunately I don't have a printer yet, I'm a relative newbie here setting up a print service as an additional revenue stream for my business, hopefully in a year or so once it's gotten off the ground it will have consistent printing (or if flops and I sell it off). In the meantime I don't mind running prints occasionally throughout the week to make sure it's all kept in decent condition.
Due to that I'm hesitant to buy used, I don't yet have the skills or experience to identify if issues happen due to the previous owner not performing the correct maintenance, or if I've made a mistake/damaged something. It's just rather unfortunate that the current landscape of printers all have rather serious drawbacks compared to those of previous generations. Same reason I'm hesitant towards the 7570/9570, I just don't yet have the experience in this space to confidently deal with the issues, I could probably figure it out eventually but I'd rather a lower learning curve so I can focus more on revenue than printer maintenance.
For my use case I'll be printing ~60% of the time digital artworks on gloss/lustre papers, 40% of the time prints of traditional artworks on matte/canvasses, I'm looking for something with simpler maintenance/repairs to get me started that's easy to get something really good from (doesn't need to be the undisputed best). These will be prints going primarily to casual consumers, not limited edition prints going to collectors/museums so print permanence isn't a must have (although longer is always nice), which has me leaning towards the Canon PROs, they're still going to last decades if framed correctly which is fine for me. If someone comes to me looking for that kind of longevity I'll just honestly direct them elsewhere.
From what I can tell there's no major issues with the Canon PROs other than the same with every printer of routine maintenance/potential bad luck if something goes bad early. Also because they have identical print head/inks, I can start with a smaller (and cheaper) form factor printer then get a larger one if demand grows, and the prints should be identical between them.
Really appreciate the advice here, your comments are pretty much what I expected after dozens of hours looking into everything, and honestly if I hadn't posted here I'd probably have bought the 9570 and lived to regret it.
-
Unfortunately I don't have a printer yet, I'm a relative newbie here setting up a print service as an additional revenue stream for my business, hopefully in a year or so once it's gotten off the ground it will have consistent printing (or if flops and I sell it off). In the meantime I don't mind running prints occasionally throughout the week to make sure it's all kept in decent condition.
Due to that I'm hesitant to buy used, I don't yet have the skills or experience to identify if issues happen due to the previous owner not performing the correct maintenance, or if I've made a mistake/damaged something. It's just rather unfortunate that the current landscape of printers all have rather serious drawbacks compared to those of previous generations. Same reason I'm hesitant towards the 7570/9570, I just don't yet have the experience in this space to confidently deal with the issues, I could probably figure it out eventually but I'd rather a lower learning curve so I can focus more on revenue than printer maintenance.
For my use case I'll be printing ~60% of the time digital artworks on gloss/lustre papers, 40% of the time prints of traditional artworks on matte/canvasses, I'm looking for something with simpler maintenance/repairs to get me started that's easy to get something really good from (doesn't need to be the undisputed best). These will be prints going primarily to casual consumers, not limited edition prints going to collectors/museums so print permanence isn't a must have (although longer is always nice), which has me leaning towards the Canon PROs, they're still going to last decades if framed correctly which is fine for me. If someone comes to me looking for that kind of longevity I'll just honestly direct them elsewhere.
From what I can tell there's no major issues with the Canon PROs other than the same with every printer of routine maintenance/potential bad luck if something goes bad early. Also because they have identical print head/inks, I can start with a smaller (and cheaper) form factor printer then get a larger one if demand grows, and the prints should be identical between them.
Really appreciate the advice here, your comments are pretty much what I expected after dozens of hours looking into everything, and honestly if I hadn't posted here I'd probably have bought the 9570 and lived to regret it.
From my understanding there's nothing wrong with the new Canon 4100 except the ink display life isn't as good as the ink set from the older ipf8400. So if you absolutely need a printer now, and don't mind the 100+ year display life vs. 200 year for the Epson, then buy that one.
-
Unfortunately I don't have a printer yet, I'm a relative newbie here setting up a print service as an additional revenue stream for my business, hopefully in a year or so once it's gotten off the ground it will have consistent printing (or if flops and I sell it off). In the meantime I don't mind running prints occasionally throughout the week to make sure it's all kept in decent condition.
Due to that I'm hesitant to buy used, I don't yet have the skills or experience to identify if issues happen due to the previous owner not performing the correct maintenance, or if I've made a mistake/damaged something. It's just rather unfortunate that the current landscape of printers all have rather serious drawbacks compared to those of previous generations. Same reason I'm hesitant towards the 7570/9570, I just don't yet have the experience in this space to confidently deal with the issues, I could probably figure it out eventually but I'd rather a lower learning curve so I can focus more on revenue than printer maintenance.
For my use case I'll be printing ~60% of the time digital artworks on gloss/lustre papers, 40% of the time prints of traditional artworks on matte/canvasses, I'm looking for something with simpler maintenance/repairs to get me started that's easy to get something really good from (doesn't need to be the undisputed best). These will be prints going primarily to casual consumers, not limited edition prints going to collectors/museums so print permanence isn't a must have (although longer is always nice), which has me leaning towards the Canon PROs, they're still going to last decades if framed correctly which is fine for me. If someone comes to me looking for that kind of longevity I'll just honestly direct them elsewhere.
From what I can tell there's no major issues with the Canon PROs other than the same with every printer of routine maintenance/potential bad luck if something goes bad early. Also because they have identical print head/inks, I can start with a smaller (and cheaper) form factor printer then get a larger one if demand grows, and the prints should be identical between them.
Really appreciate the advice here, your comments are pretty much what I expected after dozens of hours looking into everything, and honestly if I hadn't posted here I'd probably have bought the 9570 and lived to regret it.
In this case, my suggestion is Canon PRO-2100 as you did not need the higher longevity. Easier and cheaper maintains, no waste ink tank cost, 24" for beginning. You can buy a bigger 44" PRO-4100 or 60" PRO-6100 in the future. This three printers are all the same in ink set and printing quality. This is a benefit using Canon printers, they introduced a series printers cover all size range at a time. Epson introduced 64" printers every other generation.
-
The display life for the Canon Lucia Pro inks at 450 lux exposure according to Wilhelm is:
37 years for Canson Platine , 43 years for Canson Baryta Photographique, and 60 years for Canson Rag Photographique. The only way you get near to 100 years of the previous 8300 is with uv glass.
Aardenburg only tested two papers with the Canon Pro inks before he quit testing new projects , they are:
Near 175 megalux , which is around 85 Wilhelm years,only on the warm Moab Entrada Natural matte paper.
The Red River Palo Duo which is a non oba semi gloss cotton paper much like the the Canson versions is 65 mega lux which is aprox 33 Wilhelm years. Most of my clients these days like the semi-gloss surface, like Platine.
These are all at 450 lux . In public spaces with 2-3x that much exposure you might be replacing prints every decade or use uv glass.
Now with canvas prints using the really robust acrylic/ laytex uv varnishes you might get to 200 years with those inks.
I like the Canon 44” printers a lot and just wish they would go back to the Lucia EX inks or get to where Epson is. I also really wish they would produce a neutral gray, not a bluish gray which requires so much problem yellow to be pumped into black and white prints. That’s not good and why I rarely used my 8300 for bw.
If you are new to all this and have little experience as a printmaker I would definitely go with the Canon. It’s just headache free and fast and produces very nice color prints.
John
From my understanding there's nothing wrong with the new Canon 4100 except the ink display life isn't as good as the ink set from the older ipf8400. So if you absolutely need a printer now, and don't mind the 100+ year display life vs. 200 year for the Epson, then buy that one.
-
I'm sorry for this late response, but I just found this .pdf on Epson's website:
Epson_P7570-P9570_Thick_Media_Guide.pdf (attached below - I hope...)
Will this guide help with the media feeding problems that you have been having with this printer?
Thank you.
Tony
-
No, don't rely on the basic paper setting guide. It's just a guide for beginners who did not know how to adjust their printer settings. It won't fix the issues of P9500.
-
The display life for the Canon Lucia Pro inks at 450 lux exposure according to Wilhelm is:
37 years for Canson Platine , 43 years for Canson Baryta Photographique, and 60 years for Canson Rag Photographique. The only way you get near to 100 years of the previous 8300 is with uv glass.
Aardenburg only tested two papers with the Canon Pro inks before he quit testing new projects , they are:
Near 175 megalux , which is around 85 Wilhelm years,only on the warm Moab Entrada Natural matte paper.
The Red River Palo Duo which is a non oba semi gloss cotton paper much like the the Canson versions is 65 mega lux which is aprox 33 Wilhelm years. Most of my clients these days like the semi-gloss surface, like Platine.
These are all at 450 lux . In public spaces with 2-3x that much exposure you might be replacing prints every decade or use uv glass.
Now with canvas prints using the really robust acrylic/ laytex uv varnishes you might get to 200 years with those inks.
I like the Canon 44” printers a lot and just wish they would go back to the Lucia EX inks or get to where Epson is. I also really wish they would produce a neutral gray, not a bluish gray which requires so much problem yellow to be pumped into black and white prints. That’s not good and why I rarely used my 8300 for bw.
If you are new to all this and have little experience as a printmaker I would definitely go with the Canon. It’s just headache free and fast and produces very nice color prints.
John
LUCIA PRO inks use Chroma Optimizer that is basically an antireflex/light polarization coating, so it may have influence on spectrophotometric 0:45 deg measurement results, not to mention funny Wilhelm's densitometric measurements. Canon made LUCIA PRO profiles using spectroradiometric measurements for a reason, as it's much more cumbersome and expensive approach. I wouldn't draw far reaching conclusions from WIR quasi tests.
Apart from potentially slightly inferior archival properties of LUCIA PRO (which are exaggerated due to idiotic WIR test approach IMHO), Canon iPF PRO is the least problematic printer I've ever used - it's super robust, failure-free, uses much less ink and PF-10 print heads last for way longer (>30l of ink). After 7 years of trouble free use of PRO-4000 I wouldn't touch any other printer with a bare bone.
-
Quote:
"LUCIA PRO inks use Chroma Optimizer that is basically an antireflex/light polarization coating, so it may have influence on spectrophotometric 0:45 deg measurement results, not to mention funny Wilhelm's densitometric measurements. Canon made LUCIA PRO profiles using spectroradiometric measurements for a reason, as it's much more cumbersome and expensive approach. I wouldn't draw far reaching conclusions from WIR quasi tests."
Does this also effect the making of ICC profiles, Marcin?
Cheers,
Remko
-
I've been using a 4100 for three years now, never a problem. It does see light use.
Regarding 2100 vs 4100, when I bought the 4100 it came with full 350ml carts, where as the 2100 came with starter carts. Not sure if that is still the case, but after accounting for the ink, the 4100 price was very close to the 2100.
Canon used to offer deals towards the end of the year, not sure if they still do.
I don't have any experience with HP, or with Epson since my disastrous 4900...
Good Luck!
-
One more note - there is a firmware update from 7/13/23 that seems to fix the fine art paper feeding issues - based on feedback from people who have this printer:
Epson P9750 firmware update (https://epson.com/Support/Printers/Single-Function-Inkjet-Printers/SureColor-Series/Epson-SureColor-P9570/s/SPT_SCP9570SE?review-filter=macOS+11.x)
Tony
-
One more note - there is a firmware update from 7/13/23 that seems to fix the fine art paper feeding issues - based on feedback from people who have this printer:
Epson P9750 firmware update (https://epson.com/Support/Printers/Single-Function-Inkjet-Printers/SureColor-Series/Epson-SureColor-P9570/s/SPT_SCP9570SE?review-filter=macOS+11.x)
Yes, but not everyone on the Epson Wide Format group (https://groups.io/g/EpsonWideFormat/topics) has weighed in yet. Cautiously optimistic, but waiting for more input before upgrading my Canon ipF6300 to Epson 7570. If I hear that it now acts like a normal Epson Wide Format printer I will likely purchase. Would like to know also if Dan Wells still has to take special precautions to try to get a good print with the new firmware.
-
We've been working with Dano from Epson quite a bit over the past few months. He is a strong proponent of EMI (Epson Media Installer). Settings were developed for EMI over a year ago which were purported to solve the issue of head strikes with the P9570. But, they did not. When Dano came into the picture, he suggested settings for EMI which we had already been using over the past year. They made no difference to the head strikes, whatsoever. However, after we installed the latest firmware update (LL18N4), the head strikes cleared up. Dano claims there has been no significant change to the firmware and that it is the use of the new settings in EMI which were the fix for the head strike issue. Of course, this can not be true since, as I said, we had been using those settings for over the past year and head strikes were a very common issue.
After all is said & done, our 9570 and our 7570 are now working normally. Frankly, I don't care if Epson doesn't want to own up to the real reasons for the head strike issue and what fixed it and wants to pretend that settings in EMI were the solution. We've had our 9570 since shortly after they were released and have lost a lot of paper and ink due to head strikes regardless of platen gap height which was always at the max. Not good! The last time we had our D1 tech in to try to fix the issue (again) he said in frustration "why did they put the damn head so close?" Now, we are finally able to reduce the gap to a more palatable level for higher quality prints without head strikes. So, whatever the fix, magic, divine intervention or Epson techs, we're happy it's fixed.
All of this said, unfortunately EMI still doesn't work with any RIP. So, they have a good deal of work ahead because they plan to put a lot of their eggs in that basket.
-
I have been using EMI together with a Colorgate RIP (https://www.colorgate.com/) since the P9500 came onto the market here in Germany. In all that time I have had no problem with slightly swelling or thick papers and head bumps. However, I do not print on canvas. The Colorgate RIP is capable of writing even large parts of the EMI settings.
I was told that we should keep the EMI settings and those of the Colorgate RIPS synchronized. I rather suspect that EMI has not worked properly so far and that the Colorgate RIP has compensated for this with its own EMI settings.
Greetings Gerd
-
ColorGate CAN compensate because that is THEIR Driver [and Screening]
What "Color Mode" are you using in the Rip? If your Halftoning Method is set to 'Epson Precision Dot" vs "Rip", then I think the Epson settings are in play. When set to "Rip", I believe it's all Colorgate [and your safest/best bet.
I would keep them separate, based on your Screening selection.
They have been developing Epson non-HTM drivers for a long time and do a great job of it.
-
In principle, I work in all modes, depending on the requirements. From RGB (Epson Precision Dot) to CMYK (RIP and Epson Precision Dot) to CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV (RIP). In all modes I can set different parameters from EMI directly in Colorgate.
(https://up.picr.de/46600585wi.png)
(https://up.picr.de/46600586cr.png)
I also have problems when the paper is not attached to the roll. If you use a Spectro Proofer, then the printer must first print the patch fields, then dry the paper and then feed it in again to be able to scan the patch fields at the end. Logically - if the printer pushes the paper up and cannot wind it up at the same time - because the roll is spinning empty - then there must be a paper jam.
In my opinion, this is more of a problem for the paper manufacturer. They must know that your roll must also work with a Spectro Proofer if they release a paper for a printer or declare such restrictions accordingly. But in my case they have not done this. The advantage of a Spectro Proofer is that I can make 5000 patches in ~ 1 1/2 hours including profiling, otherwise I can also use the i1iO for i1Pro3 Plus and spend several hours.
Greetings Gerd
-
>CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV<
That's it. The Holy Grail. <smile>
-
The entire Epson 9500/7500 issue is just a joke. Dano has been pushing the EMI settings as a solution because it's the easiest thing to address. In other words, it doesn't require Japan's help in engineering and SW changes. Epson Japan continues to drag its feet and from I understand they don't see the problem. Dano has been to my studio, and he's a genuinely nice guy and wants to help, but this is an Epson disaster that goes well beyond his ability as a marketing guy. That being said, kudos to Dano for trying. He's genuine and genuinely wants to help.
We have had two of these disasters in engineering now for a couple of years, and we've learned to work around a lot of the issues, but not without wasting a ton of paper and experiencing a lot of frustration. The problems occur with thicker papers mostly. So anything from Legion, Moab, Hahnemuhle is going to cause issues. Head strikes are the worst, and we still get them. Paper skews and paper meandering is still an issue, and the 9570 tearing paper off the core is still an issue.
We run all jobs now using ulilateral, not bidirectional. This helps a lot. We also turn off "lateral feed adjust", which helps a lot. And in many cases not only do we run jobs unilateral, but at half speed, and that helps. We've also learned how to glue paper to the core when it gets ripped off, rewind it to the core, and that helps a lot.
The latest firmware may have fixed some things. My staff is reporting fewer errors lately, but we can't be sure because the firmware notes (available only on the Japanese site in Japanese, which I'm fortunately able to read) doesn't mention anything about any fixes that would address these issues.
I have since acquired a Canon Pro 2100 and am super impressed. I'm very skeptical of the Wilhelm reports, so don't give them a lot of attention in my decisions regarding longevity. So the only thing that really bothers me is that the Canon Pro 2100/4100/6100 are a little weak in the greens. But many of our prints are a dead match between the Epsons and the Canon after profiling.
Given all the variables, and all the pluses and minuses between Epson and Canon, I'm moving toward Canon. I'm loving the 2100, and will surely never purchase another Epson after this disaster, as it's cost me literally thousands of dollars and some serious frustration. Epson's response has been far too little and far too late, and I'm just not even going to consider another one of their printers.