Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ipf 8300 or epson 9890?  (Read 18110 times)
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2011, 05:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply

As i understand the canon comes with a smart plugin, the epson would need some kind of rip to get the same functionality?
Logged
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2011, 05:23:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The Canon heads are $560 each (two required) at Vistek in Canada. You replace them yourself. You can find information on how long they last by searching here or looking through the Canon Wiki (http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/home). Someone else will have to comment on the total cost to replace Epson 9890 heads.

On my Epsons (2200 and 3800) I started each print job by running a nozzle check. I never have to bother with the Canon, which translates into piece of mind. I have never had a print ruined by an ink clog. The 3800 was actually pretty good, but I became concerned about how one of the large printers would fare in my dry climate, based on the reviews I was reading.

Having heads for both matte and gloss black inks is another piece of mind thing. I used to hold off on doing work until I could batch up gloss or matte prints, to avoid unnecessary changes. Yes, it's an easy switch but there is some wasted ink.

Terry.
Logged
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2011, 05:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

As i understand the canon comes with a smart plugin, the epson would need some kind of rip to get the same functionality?

I'm not sure I would characterize things that way. The Canon plug-in for Photoshop bypasses the traditional printing process and provides a different method for dealing with paper handling, applying ICC profiles and making monochrome prints. I've read some comments that suggest it may produce slightly better gloss images, but I have yet to make that comparison. It is however, dead easy to completely turn off colour management in the plug-in and send an untagged file to the printer.

You may be thinking of the custom media utility, which allows you to specify the overall ink limit in five steps. However, this provides only one area of control, relative to a RIP.

Terry.
Logged
artbot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2011, 05:42:56 PM »
ReplyReply

before tossing the canon heads, i'd suggest suspending the jets in an ultrasonic cleaner ($29 at harbour freight).  don't see any reason if it's just a clog in a mechanically healthy jet, that a good cleaning couldn't solve.
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2011, 05:48:02 PM »
ReplyReply

before tossing the canon heads, i'd suggest suspending the jets in an ultrasonic cleaner ($29 at harbour freight).  don't see any reason if it's just a clog in a mechanically healthy jet, that a good cleaning couldn't solve.

Anyone tried this?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2011, 06:10:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it's an easy switch but there is some wasted ink.

Terry.

To clarify, the amount of ink consumed in the 3800 for a round-trip between matte, photoblack and return is about 4 ml. or about 5% of a 60 dollar cartridge, so 3 dollars or so.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2011, 06:40:41 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have an Epson printer and are looking at a "plugin" with more features than some RIPs, I can highly recommend looking at Mirage fron Dinax:

http://www.dinax.de/mirage/

One friend of mine decided it was worth the price just for the canvas wrap feature alone!  It's really very, very good.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2011, 07:17:27 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have an Epson printer and are looking at a "plugin" with more features than some RIPs, I can highly recommend looking at Mirage fron Dinax:

http://www.dinax.de/mirage/

One friend of mine decided it was worth the price just for the canvas wrap feature alone!  It's really very, very good.

Hi Phil,

I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2011, 08:08:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up...

Except you are not comparing apples to apples.  You cannot just talk ink costs.  You are not only out the INK costs for unclogging Epson printers, you are out the paper when nozzles clog and, as I clearly stated, out the most important factor of all, your TIME.  None of the later problems occur with our Canon printers.  No lost paper, no lost ink, no lost time.  Been there, done that... so we bought Canon.  Have had four so far and are presently running three all day every day.

And the amount of ink we are running through these things (several liters every other week through three printers that are run every weekday) is considerable.  In the last year we have replaced two heads in those three printers... both the heads shooting MBK ink which we consume at about four or five times the rate of the next most used ink color.  I think we got 6 plus liters of MBK alone just through the one head on each machine.  $475.00 heads that snap in in seconds are a cheap, cheap, cheap price to pay for that "turn it on and it just works" reliability.

And we NEVER stopped during production because the heads clogged up or a nozzle quit working mid-job.

Tom

Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2011, 08:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

If you run a nozzle check before you start the print job, chances are you won't waste much. I agree with you that the time factor checking and cleaning the printer as needed in a high pressure production environment is a considerable factor. Much depends on circumstances when confronting these choices.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2011, 08:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Phil,

I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Do you need two licences for that?  The one package (the top end) should cover it in one?

At any rate, for me it's useful for people who have the need for nesting with correct colour management, it's really slick and fast and versatile.  If you want to make custom profiles with the spectro (no other software does this with the Epson spectro).  If you want automatic resizing and gallery wraps for canvas.  It covers all the printers from the 4000 onward including the white ink WT7900 (and it can handle white ink usage and alpha channels for deciding what will be white and what won't and whether you lay it fron or back etc). 

To boil it down, it's efficient and does far more than the driver in terms of print management and it does it accurately for colour and previews.  There's a trial version available which I think is the best option because how it fits into an individual workflow is something that usually one can only decide for oneself.

I believe that most people don't need a RIP for photo printing, but if you do, this is well worth a look and is very cost effective compared to a lot of RIPs.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2011, 08:40:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Phil. Good to know about. I'll look into it as time permits.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JohnHeerema
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2011, 09:33:16 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the points that has been brought up frequently in this forum, is that the Canon re-maps clogged nozzles as necessary. When people mention this, they generally say "Oh, the cost is probably a wash between the Epson way and the Canon way".

It seems to me that it should be possible to quantify this. In order for the function to work, the Canon firmware has to maintain a nozzle map in non-volatile memory. As far as I know, the map isn't brought up to the user interface, but has to be there somewhere. Someone from Canon should be able to create a utility which reads the re-map information. That would allow the cost of lost nozzles to be quantified.

Making this information accessible would be a service to Canon owners, as it would be possible to predict the point at which head replacement will be necessary. I'm sure that Canon owners would be a lot happier to know how much nozzle re-mapping capacity is still available, then discovering one fine day that their printer won't print until new heads are ordered, shipped to site, and installed!

Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2011, 09:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the likelihood having to replace the heads on the Canons is overstated. If you're a service bureau cranking out tons of prints all day every day, then sure. But Shark_II has already made the case for that being a small price to pay compared to the wasted materials & time with clogs on the Epson.

For photographers printing their work, I think service lifetime of the heads is much less of an issue/concern. I originally purchased a used 5000, printed on it for a couple of years, and then sold it to someone else who is still printing on it. The print heads have not needed replacing yet, despite the fact that the heads in the 5000 supposedly don't last nearly as long as the latest generation of heads in the x300's. I'm now printing on a 6300, and fully expect that by the times the heads go out I'll probably be ready to upgrade to a new model anyway.

Conversely, the clog issues with the Epsons are going to be even more of a hassle for low-volume printers. To me, the thought of having to load plain paper and print a nozzle check before each print job is unthinkable. I would never accept this as normal and I find it pretty amazing that some folks seem to be OK with having to do that.

IMHO the bottom line is that the Epson printers are best suited to a high-volume printing environment. For lower-volume users (which probably includes many if not most photographers printing their own work), the Canons are infinitely more practical.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the points that has been brought up frequently in this forum, is that the Canon re-maps clogged nozzles as necessary. When people mention this, they generally say "Oh, the cost is probably a wash between the Epson way and the Canon way".

It seems to me that it should be possible to quantify this. In order for the function to work, the Canon firmware has to maintain a nozzle map in non-volatile memory. As far as I know, the map isn't brought up to the user interface, but has to be there somewhere. Someone from Canon should be able to create a utility which reads the re-map information. That would allow the cost of lost nozzles to be quantified.

Making this information accessible would be a service to Canon owners, as it would be possible to predict the point at which head replacement will be necessary. I'm sure that Canon owners would be a lot happier to know how much nozzle re-mapping capacity is still available, then discovering one fine day that their printer won't print until new heads are ordered, shipped to site, and installed!



Neither of them are terribly interested in transparency on issues of ink wastage.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
mikev1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2011, 11:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

If you run a nozzle check before you start the print job, chances are you won't waste much. I agree with you that the time factor checking and cleaning the printer as needed in a high pressure production environment is a considerable factor. Much depends on circumstances when confronting these choices.

That has not been my experience at all.  I have many times run into the situation where I run a nozzle check that comes out fine and then go to print the image only to have it ruined because of a clog.

I have two 40 x 60`s sitting in the trash can because of this issue (you think I would have learned after the first one).  My Epson 9900 needs to be babysat almost constantly.  When I have a lot of orders to process that is a real pain.  I recently made a 40 inch by 200 inch print on the Epson and I was sweating bullets the whole way through (it came out great thankfully).

My Canon on the other hand just cranks out print after print.

Once you factor in the lost ink, paper, and TIME spent on my Epson I can`t see the Canon losing the $$$ battle on this one.

The 9900 does have some advantages to be sure (media loading for one) but efficiency is not one of them.

Maybe I have a lemon who knows, maybe my sample size of one is not meaningful to anyone out there but it is  meaningful to me!

When the 9900 gives up the ghost I doubt I`ll replace it with another Epson.  That day may be soon coming, the printer makes a lot of noise these days.  The worst is on an ink switch which sometimes sounds like a 5 year old girl who just saw the boogeyman in her closet!
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2011, 02:00:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Phil,

I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.

Mark

What options are available for canon?
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2011, 03:03:37 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're having to babysit your 9900, it has a serious problem.  You should be getting it looked at by Epson.
Logged

hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2011, 07:17:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the likelihood having to replace the heads on the Canons is overstated. If you're a service bureau cranking out tons of prints all day every day, then sure. But Shark_II has already made the case for that being a small price to pay compared to the wasted materials & time with clogs on the Epson.

For photographers printing their work, I think service lifetime of the heads is much less of an issue/concern. I originally purchased a used 5000, printed on it for a couple of years, and then sold it to someone else who is still printing on it. The print heads have not needed replacing yet, despite the fact that the heads in the 5000 supposedly don't last nearly as long as the latest generation of heads in the x300's. I'm now printing on a 6300, and fully expect that by the times the heads go out I'll probably be ready to upgrade to a new model anyway.

Conversely, the clog issues with the Epsons are going to be even more of a hassle for low-volume printers. To me, the thought of having to load plain paper and print a nozzle check before each print job is unthinkable. I would never accept this as normal and I find it pretty amazing that some folks seem to be OK with having to do that.

IMHO the bottom line is that the Epson printers are best suited to a high-volume printing environment. For lower-volume users (which probably includes many if not most photographers printing their own work), the Canons are infinitely more practical.

Unfortunately, this has been my experience with nozzle clogging on a 9900. I do not print daily. More like every other week. I have to print out a nozzle check each time. Invariably, the nozzle check print will show a clog in one of the color channels. So, I do a nozzle cleaning and reprint the test. Now, the color that was originally clogged is usually clear, but the black channel is completely clogged. Three or four rounds of nozzle cleanings will generally get the job done. This is completely ridiculous in a high end printer that is now in its 5th generation.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2011, 07:52:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately, this has been my experience with nozzle clogging on a 9900. I do not print daily. More like every other week. I have to print out a nozzle check each time. Invariably, the nozzle check print will show a clog in one of the color channels. So, I do a nozzle cleaning and reprint the test. Now, the color that was originally clogged is usually clear, but the black channel is completely clogged. Three or four rounds of nozzle cleanings will generally get the job done. This is completely ridiculous in a high end printer that is now in its 5th generation.

You are raising a real good question. I, for one, would like to hear more from Epson about why nozzle clogging continues to be an on-going issue. I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that I hardly had ANY with my 3800, but with my new 4900, after months of accumulated experience, I am seeing more of it than I expected based on using my 3800 for three years in the same room, same environment - still not nearly as bad as the 4000/4800 were and it cures easily, but still more than I expected, based on all the work Epson has been doing to mitigate this problem and their advertising. The problem is that ALL these corporations are very non-transparent when it comes to issues of ink wasted in maintenance and clog performance, so it's hard for individuals to disentangle the norm from the machine-specific.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad