Re: (no subject)
Re: (no subject)
- Subject: Re: (no subject)
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 09:12:36 EDT
To add another viewpoint to the mix...
>
>Personally, I wouldn't go near it. 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.
>
I'm resigned to head replacement when truely needed for Epsons; though with
the wide format units, backwashing the dampers, pressure cleaning the heads,
and suctioning the supply lines (repeatedly, until the jet tests are correct)
will eliminate most head replacements, if you learn to do it yourself.
>
>
Could you explain this a bit more? When we run out of
>
ink on our HP 3800CP, we have to replace the heads as
>
well the ink packs. From your post I assume that is
>
not the case with the Epson units.
>
HPs use disposable Thermal heads, Epson's use permanent Piezo heads.
Replacing costs hundreds of dollars, and there is the issue of a service
call...
>
About how much does
>
it cost to replace each print head on the Epson? (I
>
assume there is one head for each ink instead of one
>
large head for all the inks.)
>
Epson's head numbers and ink numbers are not all that obvious, but there are
more than one in all units, and less than the number of ink colors... but
often when one is replaced, they all are.
>
>
>I dare say you'll be hard pressed to get a good match
>
>using the Photo Dye inks without considerable work.
>
This perplexes me a bit... on what grounds? I generally find the dyes easier
to match, and they have a somewhat lower "metamerism quotient" than the
UltraChromes as well, and a larger gamut in some areas, though not all areas.
>
>
By what do you mean "considerable work?" Frequent
>
linearization and/or profiling, or lots of profile
>
editing?
>
Since this isn't my experience, I can't comment, I find it to be less work to
profile the dye printers, personally.
>
>
Also, I may be wrong about the inkset on this unit--it
>
may be pigment. If it is in fact pigment inks, would
>
you anticipate it being just as hard or easier than
>
the dye inks to get a good match on the Epson 10000?
>
>
If its the 10,000 pigments, then you have two significant problems: the
"metamerism" in these inks make them quite insuitable for proofing, as the
colors shift drasticly under different light sources, and the gamut is quite
small, so even for press proofing there will be colors you can't emulate. The
conversion of a 10,000 from pigment to dye is not something you would really
what to consider.
>
>but I've never seen an HP yet that could compare to
>
>the quality of the Epson's (fast yes, quality?).
>
>
By quality what do you mean? Are you referring to
>
color quality (i.e. getting a good match to the press
>
sheet), or are you talking about the screening,
>
coarseness, banding, etc. of the the output?
>
Smoothness and detail of continuous tone output. HPs are getting better, but
Epson's are still ahead. The 7600 and 9600 are the best. Even the 10600 isn't
quite as good, lacking the light black ink to reduce visible grain.
>
>
>Still, the UC inks are superior to Photo Dye using
>
>any other criteria besides metamerism.
>
Well, again I disagree, they don't have the same gamut, offering a few
advantages, and a number of shortfalls in the gamut, and being... its hard to
describe, but "unsubtle" comes to mind... in the process of getting that
gamut they lose some capacity with more subte colors.
>
>
Are there other criteria other than stability or gamut
>
by which you judge inks?
>
Definately: "profilability" (there are inks that defy normal profiling, like
the Generations 5 pigment inks; the 10000 pigments are a bit like this), and
"metamerism" (if the skintones look sallow under one light and ruddy under a
different source, then its a pretty limited proof; limited to the light box,
except that the early Epson pigments balance more for tungsten than for
daylight/proofing light). Further factors include range of media they can
print on (the 10000 pigments aren't very good on most gloss surfaces;
unencapsulated pigments won't adhere to slick media at all) and their
propensity to clog or settle (pigments in general are worse than dyes in
general here). Don't get me wrong, I may keep noting the more problematic
nature of pigment inks, especially for proofing, but I expect them to take
over the earth in fairly short order.
>
>
>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 most post-printing shift I ever saw was on an earlier HP; it really
varies with the specific inks and media. It also varies a great deal with
local humidity; my results on this topic don't match up at all to what
clients in Nevada and Arizona see...
>
>
About how long do let the Epson or HP output cure
>
before measuring?
>
That depends on inkset, media, and most of all humidity. With problematic
inks and paper, in the Deep South during humid weather, a week might be
needed... while in many locations, with less problematic inks and papers, you
can profile it immediately, and the numbers won't shift enough to worry about
in the following week. Some would claim that, in addition to the drying
issue, the prints themselves are different made in a humid location, on paper
that has acclimated to that humidity. A few hours is generally sufficient for
drydown, with overnight being wise if you suspect problems or its muggy. With
the pigment inks, its usually the darker tones with their volitile blends of
inks and lots of vehicle that require the longest to settle.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
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.