Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ink Clogging ?  (Read 7408 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1896


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2010, 01:07:39 AM »
ReplyReply

The lack of this feature is something that may make some take a closer look at competitors. 
The other side of that issue is that some us aren't at all bothered by the issue and prefer the cost saving of not having extra heads. I rarely print on matte materials these days. It's taken three years to run out of MK ink in my 3800.
Quote
The same is true of ink clogging problems.
The vast, silent, majority of users DON'T see this problem. If it really was as bad as some folk assert, Epson wouldn't still have their dominant market share.
As has already been pointed out the people without problems rarely mention "everything's fine".
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2824


« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2010, 03:17:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The issue is having different inks for matte and glossy.

It's a fundamental problem with no easy solution.

(snip)

There is no single solution that is best for everyone.  Epson is just trying to find the solution that maximizes happiness for the largest number of customers.


It is an easy solution on the Epson 11880, 4000, all HP Z models, many Canon models. I have never seen a complaint that there is an extra black channel, cart>tube>head, on printers like that. I have not seen it described as wasting more ink, being prone to more clogging or anything that may indicate it is a bad design and not functioning in practice. There have been bad experiences with the 4000 but I know a happy 4000 owner who exchanged it for a 3880 about a year ago which he likes too BTW. He prints matte and glossy. I do not see why a photographer or print shop wouldn't like to have the instant availability of a gloss and matte printer in one package. About versatility there is no discussion needed anymore, all recent Epson wide formats can now change between matte and gloss black. It would surprise me if that isn't addressing a request in the market.

It is simple: an Epson piëzohead nozzle is expensive so compromises have to be made on the number of heads, the number of nozzles per head. It is reflected in the two Epson wide format ranges. It is reflected in the matte/gloss black ink switches..


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/


Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1896


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2010, 04:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I do not see why a photographer or print shop wouldn't like to have the instant availability of a gloss and matte printer in one package.
Sure, but are they prepared to pay for that facility ? They'd probably like to be able to use roll paper and have a vacuum print path, but they add cost too.
The other issue is that adding an extra print head  would increase the physical size of the print head assembly, necessitating a longer sweep to clear both sides of the paper, this in turn makes the printer wider and less home friendly.
The 3xxx series has been spectacularly successful for Epson mostly due to hitting an acceptable price point with low running costs, small physical size and great output and facilities. I'm sure that feature set was carefully researched and considered, any compromises were considered acceptable for the majority of users. I'm sure they know their business better than us.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2824


« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2010, 05:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure, but are they prepared to pay for that facility ? They'd probably like to be able to use roll paper and have a vacuum print path, but they add cost too.
The other issue is that adding an extra print head  would increase the physical size of the print head assembly, necessitating a longer sweep to clear both sides of the paper, this in turn makes the printer wider and less home friendly.
The 3xxx series has been spectacularly successful for Epson mostly due to hitting an acceptable price point with low running costs, small physical size and great output and facilities. I'm sure that feature set was carefully researched and considered, any compromises were considered acceptable for the majority of users. I'm sure they know their business better than us.


Sure the 3800 and 3880 fitted  in nicely, first model that had the switch and introduced at the time the competition had hardly a printer in that segment, still doesn't in a way. The iPF5000 was there but fell somewhat outside that segment, it was however an early bird of what would happen in the wide format market and Epson may not have been so well informed there.

They know their technology and most of the time their business. We know or should know what we want. We do not always get that as there has been a time that there was no competition in the market. Almost 5 years ago the competition had a first competing model, the iPF5000. Within a year the wide format market was completely changed (Photokina 2006, HP Canon) and Epson had to adapt and did so. The 4900 is the last one of that process, 5 years after the Canon iPF5000 appeared Epson has an N-color roll printer for 17" wide with a matte and gloss black switch. 5 years is a long time in a market that is 10-12 years old. I'm sure Epson knows the market and knows how to play it. I don't think Epson was surprised that customers liked the new features of the competition. I think Epson was surprised that the competition could deliver them end of 2006. In that sense they didn't know their business in 2006. I'm sure they did know what the customers wanted end of 2006, we told them and in some cases showed them way before that moment what would be nice features for a wide format inkjet printer. How to play the market with and without competition is a company's goal. Whether customers get what they want should be judged by the customers themselves.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
Randy Carone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2010, 06:57:57 AM »
ReplyReply

DBarnes,

I'll take a painful root canal and a printer that doesn't clog. Your post gave me a good morning laugh. Grin
Logged

Randy Carone
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2010, 07:11:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting discussion on the merits of the printers from different manufacturers.  I don't know what the sales numbers are which we would need in order to do a good statistical analysis of which printer is more reliable from a clogging perspective; I doubt that this thread will assist us in that matter.  Ernst makes some good points about the differing technologies regarding print heads and why Epson have gone down the path they have.  Will they come out with a new approach to printer design?  Probably so, we will just have to wait and see.  I have a 3880 and am pleased with the output.  I've not had a single clog (and I've already on the second set of a couple of cartridges) and print on both matte and gloss paper.  I don't mind the switchover and find that it really doesn't consume that much ink.  The only minor quibble is the lack of 17x25 paper in the brands I print on (Museo Silver Rag and Portfolio Rag and Ilford GFS) which means that if I do want to print 16x24 prints I need to have my friend who has an Epson 7900 do it or cut roll paper to size (which I have not yet tried).
Logged

Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2010, 04:01:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The other side of that issue is that some us aren't at all bothered by the issue and prefer the cost saving of not having extra heads. I rarely print on matte materials these days. It's taken three years to run out of MK ink in my 3800.The vast, silent, majority of users DON'T see this problem. If it really was as bad as some folk assert, Epson wouldn't still have their dominant market share.
As has already been pointed out the people without problems rarely mention "everything's fine".

Well, that post clears up a lot.  You are not talking about a large format printer... I am.  A 3800 is not a large format printer.  And I have heard good things about the 3800 not clogging as frequently as older desktops, so Epson improved at least in that category.

Second, I did not pay a premium for the extra "heads" when I bought my latest Canon.  It was WAY less expensive than its Epson counterpart, heads and all... as were the three previous Canons I bought.  No wasted time OR ink when different print jobs calling for different blacks come up.  No running nozzle checks before every job.  No forced cleaning cycles before every job.  No babysitting the printers to ensure each print job completes without a head clogging (or worse, getting to the end of a large run and discovering a clogged channel mid-way through).

Life is too short and business is too pressing to worry about ink clogs.

Tom
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2010, 05:52:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The 3800/3880 is a large format printer and it uses the same technology as the larger models in the range.

I don't do nozzle checks before every job (nor even every day), I don't have any forced cleans before jobs, I don't need to babysit the printer and I haven't lost any prints due to clogging part way through.  Since your last 3 (or 4) printers were Canons, I'm left wondering about how much direct experience you have with recent models from other manufacturers.

There's no doubt that some people experience problems, just as they do across any brand or type of product.

If the Canon is the printer that suits you best, then I reckon that's the best choice you could have made and well done. 

Discussing pros and cons helps everyone, including the manufacturers.  Simply ragging on models other than the one you have, and withouot recent direct experience, is of little value.  You'd be better extolling the virtues of your Canon and your positive (and negative) experiences.

Finally, it's worth remembering that photography is not the only market into which these printers go.  Indeed, it's not even the largest.
Logged

BobShram
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2010, 06:08:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The 3800/3880 is a large format printer and it uses the same technology as the larger models in the range.

I don't do nozzle checks before every job (nor even every day), I don't have any forced cleans before jobs, I don't need to babysit the printer and I haven't lost any prints due to clogging part way through.  Since your last 3 (or 4) printers were Canons, I'm left wondering about how much direct experience you have with recent models from other manufacturers.

There's no doubt that some people experience problems, just as they do across any brand or type of product.

If the Canon is the printer that suits you best, then I reckon that's the best choice you could have made and well done. 

Discussing pros and cons helps everyone, including the manufacturers.  Simply ragging on models other than the one you have, and withouot recent direct experience, is of little value.  You'd be better extolling the virtues of your Canon and your positive (and negative) experiences.

Finally, it's worth remembering that photography is not the only market into which these printers go.  Indeed, it's not even the largest.


Total Agreement
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2010, 07:22:28 PM »
ReplyReply

To say that the 3880 model desktop units are the same situation as the giant pressurized carts of the 44" models is a distortion of reality. The issues with the 11880 and the 9900 series machines is that they require a lot more pressure and subtle engineering, ink limitations for media, etc. I wouldn't even remotely compare the two types of printers, regardless of them using the same inks and papers.

j
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2010, 07:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The pressure has nothing to do with the operation of the print heads.  The ink is transported into a damper and then it feeds (without pressure) into the head and is ejected as droplets by the peizo.  There's no direct pressure from the cartridges to the print head via the ink lines.

RIPs exist for the 3800/3880 as well so issues of ink limitation and such are the same.

Yes, they are different in some ways, but the basic technology and ink delivery is the same.

Furthermore, the cartridges in the 44" machines are the same as the ones in the 24" and the same technology as those in the 17" machines.  The 3800/3880 is a little different, but we're talking about a 2880 here, which is certainly a different situation.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1896


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2010, 02:13:32 AM »
ReplyReply

You are not talking about a large format printer... I am. 
No, I'm talking about inkjet printers in general.
Quote
A 3800 is not a large format printer. 
You may not consider it one, but that's how it's categorised by Epson and it's resellers, check B+H or Bodoni for how it's listed. It also falls into the professional range and gets supported as such. See other posts for more explanations as to why this is the case.
Quote
And I have heard good things about the 3800 not clogging as frequently as older desktops,
I think I've yet to read of any unexpected clogging with this printer. The point is that things have moved on since the time when people reported clogging with their older printers.
Quote
I did not pay a premium for the extra "heads" when I bought my latest Canon.
The question you need to ask is how much cheaper would have been with a different spec ?
Quote
Life is too short and business is too pressing to worry about ink clogs.
That IS true, but I'll repeat again I've never suffered with print head clogging on any of my 6 Epsons over the years and from what I hear from my customers I'm sure it's an exaggerated problem.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad