Canon -vs- Epson dry down time (color shift)

[Jeff Magidson]

Like many, I'm trying to decide between a Canon and Epson wide format printer. I've been using an Epson 3800 for many years and have been extremely happy with it. Most of my printing involves reproducing artwork (paintings and drawings), so color accuracy/matching is very important. My process usually involves printing several rounds of test strips and making small tweaks to the file to get the best color, density, saturation match as possible.

With the Epson K3 inks, prints dry almost immediately, and are ready for evaluation. I've heard that prints from Canon printers need more drying time for evaluation (like 12-24 hours??), this was alluded to in the Camera to Print and Screen LuLa videos. If this is accurate... how can you "test, test and print" rapidly with the Canons? Does using a hair dryer on the prints help them "cure" faster?

If anyone who has used the Canon pro printers can comment on this I would appreciate your thoughts, even better if use both Epson and Canon pro printers.

~ Jeff

Edited: When I say "dry down" time, I'm referring to the time it takes the color to stabilize.

[Alan Goldhammer]

With the Epson K3 inks, prints and dry almost immediately, and are ready for evaluation. I've heard that prints from Canon printers need more drying time for evaluation (like 12-24 hours??), this was eluded to in the Camera to Print and Screen LuLa videos. If this is accurate... how can you "test, test and print" rapidly with the Canons? Does using a hair dryer on the prints help them "cure" faster?

~ Jeff

I think since Jeff and Michael are Epson printer guys, this fact probably eluded them.  Sorry couldn't resist this ONE and I can't help either as I'm an Epson guy also.

[K P]

Here are my thoughts.  I've owned an Epson 4000 and a 4800 and cursed each and every single time they started clogging.  Cleanings just made more color channels completely disappear.  Power cleans helped, but that was 100ml of ink down the drain.  Then I read on here about the 7900 problems and feel a sigh of relief that I bought a Canon 6100.

Now I will say that I did need to buy a new printhead for my Canon, about $450, after not printing too much, but the problem was that the printer would sit for a couple of months without being used so it is partly my fault.  The fact that I could just buy a new printhead and be up and running is a huge benefit.  

I can't specifically comment on the ink drying issue (on RC and matte papers my ink is dry when it comes out of the printer, but maybe you mean a bit of color shifting occurs?), but I think anyone would say both printers (Canon and Epson) offer very good print quality, and therefore, the difference between them is user experience and cost.   So if it comes down to this, I don't know why people are buying Epsons.  The only thing the Epson offers is a straight paper path if you need to print on a hard surface, but other than that, I would get a Canon 6300 or 8300 without hesitation.

[Schewe]

I think since Jeff and Michael are Epson printer guys, this fact probably eluded them.  Sorry couldn't resist this ONE and I can't help either as I'm an Epson guy also.

LOL...

Actually we alluded to the fact that Canons and HPs take longer to dry down because they do. An Epson essentially only changes over the first 5-15 minutes depending on the paper. But Canon/HP tend to change more over time. I wouldn't judge a Canon print for an hour or so (sometimes more depending on the paper)...and I would definitely wait overnight before trying to read a profile target. Epson glossy prints are still delicate to scratching for a couple of hours and it does take a day+ for all the glycols to escape, but the color doesn't really change after that first dry down period.

[MHMG]

LOL...

Actually we alluded to the fact that Canons and HPs take longer to dry down because they do. An Epson essentially only changes over the first 5-15 minutes depending on the paper. But Canon/HP tend to change more over time. I wouldn't judge a Canon print for an hour or so (sometimes more depending on the paper)...and I would definitely wait overnight before trying to read a profile target. Epson glossy prints are still delicate to scratching for a couple of hours and it does take a day+ for all the glycols to escape, but the color doesn't really change after that first dry down period.

I print on both Epson and Canon. I wouldn't really attempt to profile either Canon pigment or Epson pigment at the 15 minute-after-printing mark. And after a few hours, I don't really see a practical difference. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just wondering if there's a pragmatic issue here that can be backed up with some dE statistics as opposed to personal opinions?

[Schewe]

I'm just wondering if there's a pragmatic issue here that can be backed up with some dE statistics as opposed to personal opinions?

Go right ahead...not something I would want to do. But it's my experience that drydown changes for Epson and Canon are not equal and that the Epson prints stabilizes sooner than Canon prints...does your experience suggest otherwise?

[Wayne Fox]

It's not like Jeff hasn't used Canon ... or Michael for that matter. But we aren't talking about overall output, but rather a quality that can greatly affect the workflow of the OP.  Bottom line very few even notice the slight color shifts from either printer because they are within their personal delta/e tolerance level.

One of the reason I quit using the ipf6100 was the color shift ... very hard to nail a perfect print sometime because it seemed to change for quite a while.  Personally I don't read any profile target for at least 24 hours, but I think the results wouldn't vary much after 15min or so.  with the 6100 that certainly didn't work well. I have no problem printing a 30x40 from my 9900 after printing a 13x19 test print on my 4900 and waiting a few minutes to evaluate it.  But here again I'm probably a littler more tolerant of slight shifts ... just not significant on most landscapes I print.

Granted this is a 6100, and the inks in the 6300 are better (as well as better black inks, much improved dot shape and of course improved gamut.) But I would be surprised if the drying characteristics are any different. 

Since the OP is talking about ultra critical and extremely small tweaks, (we also do a lot of repro work for artists) it's time consuming and tough.  We use Epson, and don't look at any test to tweak the original file for 15 minutes after printing.  I know this wouldn't have worked on my ipf6100, I would be surprised if the x300 series inks really changed this.

[Farmer]

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson9900-7900.html

There's a chart a short way down.

[Farmer]

Which "fact"?

If you know how to read the chart, you'll see that there's stability in just 5 minutes.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Actually we alluded to the fact that Canons and HPs take longer to dry down because they do. An Epson essentially only changes over the first 5-15 minutes depending on the paper. But Canon/HP tend to change more over time. I wouldn't judge a Canon print for an hour or so (sometimes more depending on the paper)...and I would definitely wait overnight before trying to read a profile target. Epson glossy prints are still delicate to scratching for a couple of hours and it does take a day+ for all the glycols to escape, but the color doesn't really change after that first dry down period.

I hope this is not based on Canon, HP dye inks versus Epson pigment inks.

Based on manufacturers docs on short term color stability I see 4 hours for the Epson 9900 to get within 1 DeltaE94 and 15 minutes for the HP Z3100 to get within 1 DeltaE2000. The last is the more accurate method for small DeltaE differences. To get independent test results you might check Fogra test results of GMG, EFI for both models.  For example [PDF] Fogra Certification Report No. 21228 GMG GmbH  page 13 shows no practical differences between Epson 4800, Z6100 and Z3100 short term color stability results on two GMG proof papers.

Profile creation on the Z3100 / Z3200 uses a minimum drying time for the target printed before it is measured with the integrated spectrometer but I have not seen big changes in profiles if I use the same printed target later on to create a profile on the printer. For gloss prints with the gloss enhancer used there are reasons to repeat the profile creation a day later. Which is a wise decision in general for all printers, inks and papers.

That all glycols are gone after one day is very unlikely for all printer models, not to mention the glycerols, but color does not have to change much for that reason. Framing RC prints behind glass shows that 24 hours is often too short. There is an issue with Canon pigment inks on canvas where they seem to dissolve faster when water based varnishes are applied. No issue like that with HP inks in my experience.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Schewe]

I hope this is not based on Canon, HP dye inks versus Epson pigment inks.

Nope, it was based on Canon pigment inks vs Epson pigment inks. Truth be told, I've not printed on HP printers for years...so I should not have included HP in my previous comments. Sorry. And when I make profiles (which isn't very often any more) I do wait overnight before doing the readings. (12+ hrs)

[MHMG]

Thanks Farmer and Ernst. You have both provided leads to the the kind of fact-based information I was hoping we could include in this thread. Opinions from knowledgeable and experienced people are certainly good, but opinions derived from more rigorous technical studies of the issues are often better.

To respond to the question posed to me by Schewe, I still use the venerable old Gretag Spectrolino/Spectroscan which is too slow to render a verdict on measurable color shift in a good profiling target at the 15 minutes-after-printing-mark since it takes over 1/2 hour to measure several hundred patches, but studies I've done on dye-based systems show that they change significantly for days, even weeks. Pigmented ink prints, on the other hand, from all the major OEMs (HP, Canon, and Epson) have all settled to respectable stability within the time that my Spectroscan can measure a target twice. Moreover, if I take a hot-off-the-printer "wet" print from either Epson or Canon pigment printers in my lab, both have an initial "wet" look that can slightly hinder one's ability to judge final color because even if color shift is negligible, final surface reflectivity (e.g., gloss factor) is not. That said, I've gotten experienced enough to estimate the final "look" after full dry down of pigmented ink sets on most papers that I have no trouble judging whether I've "nailed" the color on a fine art reproduction (I do those for select clients, too) even as the print comes fresh off the printer. Thus, I still don't understand what the practical significance is for others who suggest the Canon pigment systems aren't as good as the Epson.

[Schewe]

Thus, I still don't understand what the practical significance is for others who suggest the Canon pigment systems aren't as good as the Epson.

I never said that "the Canon pigment systems aren't as good as the Epson"...I said that the Epson pigment prints drydown quicker than Canon pigment prints...I've seen a lot more change in the first couple of hours from Canon prints than Epson prints. That's my experience...

[tim wolcott]

I would agree with Jeff on this on some papers.  But on Luster based papers I didn't see it happen.  But on Luster or micro ceramic papers you have other worries.  The Canon has NO out gassing of prints but I found I had to let Epson print dry for 5 days to guarantee there would be no Humectant load to show on the backside of the glass when framed.

Of course I live at 7000 feet where the humidity is very very low.  So my dry down is very fast. I use a dryer system I made to also speed it up.

But the white point is far more critical to printing.  T

[MHMG]

..I've seen a lot more change in the first couple of hours from Canon prints than Epson prints. That's my experience...

"A lot more change" implies/suggests several delta E in average system response, and if that is true, then it's a definite competitive advantage for Epson pigments if Epson pigments don't have this issue and if Canon pigmented inks do. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'd simply like to find some corroborating evidence that "a lot more change" actually does occur with Canon Pigments.  My personal (not quantifiably measured) experience has been opposite to yours.  I have one Epson printer running the K3VM ink set, and three Canon printers running X000, X100, and X300 Lucia ink sets respectively, and I see no practical differences in dry down effects nor anything that delays my ability to judge final color balance on any of these systems. In sharp contrast, dye-based systems using Epson Claria, Canon Chromalife 100, 100+, or Hp Vivera dyes, yes, these dye-based systems present some dry-down changes like you describe, and I have measured and tracked significant dE changes in these dye-based systems over days, even weeks on various media.

[Wayne Fox]

We seem to be getting off track from the problem of the original poster, who is trying to create an exact visual match to a reproduction of a painting/sketch/watercolor, etc.  This is extremely challenging, and a deltaE shift which most would consider negligible and insignificant may in fact be problematic.  I deal with a number of artists as well, and picky is an understatement.

No one is knocking canon print quality here ... don't be so defensive.  And yes, probably should have mentioned that the paper the test is being printed on can have a factor on this.  but bottom line with Canon you may have to wait a little longer before you can start tweaking your file.

For the OP if you would like to use the Canon, then finding someway to test it would make sense ... you may find it's fine for what you are doing.

[Jeff Magidson]

Thanks to everyone for taking their time to respond to my original question!

After getting conflicting responses, I spent some more time researching around the web for more information. With the introduction of the Lucia EX inks in the x300 series Canon printers, Canon has touted "faster dry-down performance" in their marketing literature. I also found another thread on this forum, where "Shewhorn" stated: "With the x300 my observation has been that the dry time is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the x100. I also have a 6100 and you can tell quite a dramatic difference between a fresh print, and one that's had a day to dry (especially with matte papers). "

As Wayne Fox said, the only way I can be 100% sure that this will not be a problem with my particular workflow is to try out the Canon 8300 before I buy one. However, in the Boston, MA area, Pro Dealers only have the Epson's on display.... no Canon ipf8300s in sight.

~ Jeff

[MHMG]

As Wayne Fox said, the only way I can be 100% sure that this will not be a problem with my particular workflow is to try out the Canon 8300 before I buy one. However, in the Boston, MA area, Pro Dealers only have the Epson's on display.... no Canon ipf8300s in sight.

~ Jeff

Jeff, I'm a couple hours west of Boston. If you're up for a leisurely commute on the Mass turnpike some Saturday or Sunday, you are welcome to stop by and try some dry down experiments. I have both the 8100 and 8300 sitting side-by-side in my studio, also an Epson 3880 which utilizes the K3VM ink set, i.e, same inks as the Epson HDR set except for the orange and green. You can reach me through my website contact information, or thru LULA messaging.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Jeff Magidson]

Just a follow up on my original post: I went ahead and purchased the ipf8300. After considerable testing on a variety of papers, I can tell you that the current Canon Lucia EX ink prints are color stable and ready to evaluate very soon after printing. I would still wait 24 hours before before profiling... but for visual color evaluation you only need to wait a short time... the same as Epson Ultrachrome prints.

~ Jeff