Update re SC P9570 (P9500 in Europe)

[JRSmit]

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.

[deanwork]

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!

[Dnx]

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.





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.





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).





However, this does not play a major role in the comparison of the color space size.





I hope the information will help you.

Greetings Gerd

[Dnx]

It's crazy right - they should be paying us to do this! 

You guys ARE the beta testers. I’m just glad it’s not me.

[Dnx]

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.

[MfAlab]

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.

[deanwork]

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.

[JRSmit]

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.

[unesco]

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).

[deanwork]

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).

[Rand47]

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

[deanwork]

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]

[unesco]

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?)?

[JRSmit]

I did not yet run into similar issues with the scp20000.

[unesco]

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

[arobinson7547]

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.

[Mick Sang]

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

[Rand47]

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

[deanwork]

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

[Mick Sang]

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