Epson SC P9570/P9500 in 2023

[Gerd_Peters]

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

[arobinson7547]

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.

[Gerd_Peters]

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.






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

[arobinson7547]

>CMYKLcLmLkMkOGV<

That's it. The Holy Grail. <smile>

[bellevuefineart]

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.