Re: Review of Large-Format Inkjet Contract Proofers
Re: Review of Large-Format Inkjet Contract Proofers
- Subject: Re: Review of Large-Format Inkjet Contract Proofers
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:03:13 -0400
on 5/6/03 10:39 PM, Cris Daniels wrote:
>
Hmmmm.. I think I'd take a slightly different view, at least based on
>
my own experiences. Be very aware that the Epson 10600 is almost 30%
>
slower than either the Photo Dye 10600 or archival 10600, this is a huge
>
productivity drop if you are simply looking to compare output
>
capabilities. I've run the Ultrachrome 10600, I'm not crazy about it,
>
short of the better build quality and lower cost of inks, you'd often be
>
better off buying 2 9600's.
Agreed except that even 2 9600's are still slower than a single 10600 at
least from what I've seen.
>
>
< If it's close to a year old and has had considerable proofs run
>
through it, you're probably looking at replacing the heads in a few
>
months.>
>
>
>
>
The answer is to get the Epson service contract. You should have it on
>
any of these LF printers that are actually used in a production
>
environment. At around $1200 a year, you are in business. The 10000 is a
>
very good printer, I had a 10000CF that I ran the hell out of for a year
>
and it never dropped a dime. There probably are some turds out there,
>
I'd only warn to make sure that you are not purchasing someone else's
>
headache.
Again, I agree. But I don't think Epson anticipated that some of these units
would be running proofs almost 24/7. I've been at many shops where at first
they expected the inkjet proofer to only supplement their "real" dot
proofer. Turns out that the inkjet proofs are so good that it's doing 90% of
the proofing instead of the expected 25-30%.
I tell people that they should look at these devices as disposable and
should prepare to replace them every couple of years. As we've already scene
with the Epsons, major leaps in technology such as speed, quality and better
inks come around even sooner than that.
>
>
< You'll have a good chance of getting a real good match to your press
>
with any of the Ultrachrome printers. I dare say you'll be hard pressed
>
to get a good match using the Photo Dye inks without considerable work.>
>
>
>
>
But you'll never get the blacks with the Ultrachrome set either, on
>
Luster paper the Ultrachromes dmax is 1.99, Photo Dyes can hit almost
>
2.4 dmax on the same exact media. There are places where the Ultrachrome
>
gamut slightly exceeds the photo dyes, but the Photo Dyes are very
>
simple to profile. I use the Ultrachrome 7600 with Epson premium
>
semimatte proofing paper and I like it, but it may not be for everyone
>
or appropriate in certain proofing installations.
The black ink density of the Ultrachrome ink is it's one weak spot. As far
as profiling, my experience has been that the UC inks profile easier. All I
can say is that with UC inks, I'll get a profile "out-of-the-box" that's
either very good or may require 1 round of editing, usually a gray balance
tweak. With photo dye inks, it would take 2-3 profile edits to get the
overall color matching that I'd get with my first UC profile. I guess "your
mileage may very" is the operative word here. But you definitely have to be
a bit choosey about the paper you use with UC inks whereas the photo dye
inks tended to be a bit more forgiving.
>
< From one quickie measurement/dry-down test I did a while back plus
>
some of what I've read, I'd say the HP dye inks are more stable than
>
Epson's dye inks.>
>
>
>
>
The Ultrachromes need a solid 24 hours before any evaluation or
>
measurements can be reliably taken. Banding is not really a problem, the
>
auto nozzle verification will prevent the machine from printing if it
>
fails a nozzle check. With the 7600/9600, it will merrily print away
>
with the nozzles in any condition.
24 hours for the UC inks? Are you sure you aren't referring to the photo dye
inks? All I know is that photo dye will shift more in the first 2 hours
after printing than Ultrachrome will in 24 hours. Maybe I should be waiting
48-72 hours to measure photo dye inks. I know that would really help my
bottom line when charging a daily rate!
>
The Hp's are fast, but more prone to banding than the 10000, and the
>
image quality of the 10000 is really quite a bit better, although that
>
may not be critical in some installations. The only HP's I'd touch are
>
the 5000 and 5500.
"Not critical in some installations"?? All I know is that, while I can
sometimes get by with less than perfect color matching, I get beat up all
the time over banding issues! It's not uncommon to have to switch to
1440x720dpi, not to get better color gamut/matching, but to simply get rid
of every last trace of banding. And customers tell me that with THEIR
customers (print buyers) they can get away with a lot as far as color but
show them a proof with some banding and that's the first they'll mention!
It's great to hear differing opinions and debate some of these issues. This
has been kind of fun.
Cheers,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
e email@hidden
__________________________________
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.