The First Clog in Nearly Two Months

My recent snowy owl prints have been selling very well. Sunday, a gallery about 20 miles (32 km) south of here had an opening reception for its new show. I'm not one of the two featured artists in the show, but I do have a number of pieces displayed there. A few days before the opening I delivered and hung several different owl photos, in several sizes. Most were framed, but I did take some small matted-and-bagged pieces. I attended the Sunday reception; because the owls are still here (no one knows when they'll return to their arctic breeding grounds, but early March is a good bet), there was a lot of interest in the photos. I spoke with a number of people, and some of the small matted prints sold.

Monday I received a call from the gallery owner. She asked for more owl photos. It seems all of the matted pieces sold, along with one of the smaller framed prints. I love getting this kind of phone call! I promised to bring more of these pictures to the gallery Thursday.

Monday evening I made a number of prints on letter-size sheets. These would be used in matted/bagged pieces and in the smallest frame size I use. As is my usual workflow, I made the files ready to print, printed a nozzle check (no clogs), and then made the prints. Entirely routine. I wanted to make one more larger print to frame, but ran out of time.

Yesterday after dinner, and before other business I had to take care of, I had time to make that larger print. I set up the file for printing, made the nozzle check print (no clogs), and then made the owl print on a Super A3/B (13 x 19 inches) sheet of GGFS. I couldn't believe the result. It's the worst print I've ever made. Color was waaaaay off, and the gloss differential was horrible. These are white birds, so there's always a little of that, but I've never found it objectionable with this paper (or EEF) and the 7900. The entire print had a magenta cast, making the foggy-blue sky background an alien, lavender shade. The owls were pink.

What happens when LLK goes away (left). The snippet on the right shows the correct color.

Sorry for the poor reproduction. These are point-n-shoot snapshots of the prints.

Thinking perhaps I'd made an error when setting the profile, I used a scrap sheet of GGFS, one that had been used for testing something a while back but had most of the sheet unprinted, and started over. I went through each step of my workflow very carefully, made the print, and got the same result. By then I was out of time and had to shelve the problem until this morning.

Today I set up to print, checked my workflow carefully, and then made a nozzle check print. Ah, there's the problem! The entire LLK channel was missing—not a single dot printed. All other channels were 100%. Interesting—last evening I printed a perfect nozzle check, and then printed my owl picture just minutes later. In those minutes, the LLK channel disappeared. I should mention there's plenty of LLK in the cartridge. This is the first clog I've seen since 3 January.

I did a cleaning of the Y/LLK pair, and then printed a nozzle check. LLK showed a few line segments in the print, but nearly all of the nozzles were still missing. I did a second cleaning of that pair, this time a "power clean". The nozzle check after that was perfect. Right away I made a small print of last night's failed picture. It looked great. So I resized and sharpened for the larger version, loaded a sheet of GGFS, and made the print. Perfect.

It's all a little puzzling, as the machine has been trouble-free since that last clog was cleaned in early January. I had no trouble with the prints made Monday, the nozzle check printed on Tuesday was perfect. Hmmm....

Tomorrow I'll be making a dozen client prints in various sizes, all on mat paper. I'll be watching carefully as each print emerges from the machine.

  --Jay

A New Client, Routine Print Jobs

I've probably mentioned I'm the Gallery Director at the Sandpiper Art Gallery, a non-profit gallery here in Polson, MT. Nothing to get excited about; it's a volunteer position, as are all others on the gallery's board of directors. In fact, there are no paid employees—it's volunteer-run. It works much like the typical co-op gallery, operated by gallery members, but being a 501-c3 (non-profit), we can't call it a co-op. All of this is a little beside my point, anyway.

One of the SAG's member artists is a very talented and busy watercolor painter. Using a service in Kalispell, MT, she's had several of her paintings scanned, those scans being saved as Photoshop files. The files are 8-bit, in the sRGB color space, and are 300ppi. She's done quite well with prints, which she insists on calling giclées, from these files. I've seen the original paintings in close proximity to the prints; the service bureau did a good job with color matching, etc.

A couple of months ago she got a call from the service bureau, informing her they were shutting down immediately; if she wanted her files, she'd have to go there (about a 100 mile/160 km round trip) and pick up a DVD no later than the next day. She did that, and began looking for a new source for her prints. Although we've known each other for a few years, it never occurred to her that I could print her files, and of course I was unaware of the need. Late last year I made some prints for one of the Sandpiper's other member artists, who passed the word along.

Last week I picked up the DVD and made some test prints on the same paper the service bureau used, Epson's Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (matte), formerly known as Enhanced Matte. I don't use this paper for my own work, but I have some inventory of letter size sheets, which my wife uses when printing color signs and business graphics on an antique HP "PhotoSmart" printer we have on our network. From my earliest days with my now-departed iPF 5000, I also have some A3/B sheets of the stuff. This paper is not lignin-free, and thanks to OBAs is a very bright white. It's inexpensive, and has it's place (obviously, as it's what this client wants), but it's not something I'll use for my own work.

A few days ago I ran the sample prints, using the "EnhancedMattePaper_PK" profile that was installed with the 7900's driver software. I used that because I didn't want to switch to MK ink. I very rarely print on mat papers, so I very rarely use MK, which is why it's still at 52% (since installation in late October). The print jobs were completely routine, starting with a nozzle check (no clogs), and then running the prints.

I delivered the test prints today. We compared them to a few remaining prints from the service bureau. To my eye they're as close to a perfect match as one could expect. My new client was delighted.

I need only up-sample the files from 300 to 360ppi and print. To save the client a little money, I made new files that put two of the smaller size prints on a single 13x19 sheet. I will do the same for the larger size print, which will print on roll paper I'll order for these jobs.

  --Jay

One Percent is a LOT, More on LexJet Papers

Since my last posting I've made a number of prints, spread out over those nine days. In some cases I made several prints on the same day, with some hours between those jobs. In all cases I printed a nozzle check as usual prior to the first job of the day. If I printed later that day I didn't bother with the nozzle check print. Through yesterday, when I made several 13 x 19 inch (Super A3/B) prints, the nozzle check prints have shown no clogs. Given the lambasting the 7900 seems to be getting in various forums and other venues because of clogging issues, I continue to be happily surprised.

Also surprising is that the LK ink is still showing 1%. I have not kept track of the quantity and sizes of prints I've made since LK first dropped to 1%, but I'd guess it's 25-30, not including the nozzle checks. Perhaps half of the prints have been Super A3/B or B size (13 x 19 and 11x17 inches, respectively). At least two have been long panoramas on 17 inch roll paper. The rest have been letter size. This strikes me as a lot of printing from the remaining 1% of a color I suspect is used, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly every print I make.

I bought LK, VM, and C inks, those showing the lowest levels, back in December. These inks have expiration dates fairly far out—mid-2013. Still, it's clear if one prints at the low volume I do, one should not order ink too soon.

In my last posting I mentioned the LexJet Sunset Portfolio paper sample pack I have, that I wasn't impressed with the papers' overall tone, and that most of the sheets were in poor condition. Since that posting I've made a print on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Gloss 295, and on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Satin 300. Although the tone of the unprinted sheets seems a bit gray, using profiles downloaded from LexJet the resulting prints are very nice. When soft proofing in Photoshop I preferred the look with the relative colorimetric intent, so I used that when printing.

I'm still having fun photographing the snowy owls that arrived here in late December, and I've been fortunate to get some flight shots in very nice, soft light. I made the pictures on a morning when heavy fog was moving through in bands. For a time it would be so foggy I couldn't see the owls (try photographing white birds in fog!). Fifteen minutes later the fog would move out, and in another five the sky would be pure blue. A few minutes later I'd be immersed in fog again. During the transitions, when the thinning (or thickening) fog filtered the morning sun, the light was fantastic. I printed these flight photos on the LexJet papers, and was very pleased with the results. Perhaps the somewhat flat tone of the papers lends itself to the sort of light I had when photographing. I have not yet printed my usual profile test images on these papers.

Unfortunately, when I checked the prices on these papers, I found they are not bargains. I can get my favorite paper, Ilford's GGFS, for very similar prices. Even Epson's Exhibition Fiber isn't much more expensive. Clearly I've no reason to do any testing or otherwise spend time with the LexJet papers.

  --Jay

Another Print Job, LexJet Papers

Things have been a little slow here lately. Although I've been chasing around the snowy owls, as mentioned in previous postings, conditions haven't been good for photography over the past two weeks or so. During that time I've been out shooting only a couple of times (in addition to the owls). I wrapped up a large art repro job in January, and also completed some client print jobs. With nothing in the pipeline I had time to do some printing of my own work.

Over the weekend I received a number of files from a client in Atlanta. He's a very interesting person who has had an amazing medical career, one from which he can't seem to retire. Photography is his attitude adjustment therapy. His photographs are among the most unusual I've seen; very creative, very colorful, often quite surreal. He's got a great eye, and most of his work is heavily manipulated in Photoshop to get the effect he likes. I really enjoy printing his stuff. This time around he sent a series of fairly traditional landscape/scenic photos. Not his usual fare, but still pretty nice.

I started as usual, by printing a nozzle check. No clogs. My LK ink is still showing 1%, as it has for weeks. I made the four prints on 13 x 19 inch ("Super A3/B") sheets of GGFS, after which the LK was still at 1%. Every time I print I expect to have to replace this cartridge in the middle of the job.

I bought the 7900 from LexJet. The sales person asked about my favorite papers. I then let him talk me into buying LexJet's Sunset Portfolio Pack, containing two sheets each of five different fiber-based papers. The salesman claimed these papers were very much like the more expensive GGFS and EEF I most often used. I'd not opened that package until a few days ago.

The first thing I saw was that the sheets were in poor condition, with scratches and other rub marks. Not a great first impression. I also discovered that the sheets are not marked, making it challenging to determine which sheets are which paper. I was about to call for clarification when I realized the sheets where in the pack in the order listed on the included advertising sheet. There's no mention of that, but after examining the sheets it becomes fairly clear.

Since I'd just completed four prints on GGFS, I compared the gloss and satin papers in the LexJet pack to the GGFS sheets drying on my drawing table. GGFS is a warm paper with a soft gloss. It is absolutely my favorite, and most-used, paper. The Sunset Fibre series in my LexJet pack are an odd tone. One is quite warm, much more so than GGFS. The others aren't warm, but they aren't bright white, like EEF, either. The best word I can use to describe the LexJet papers is "gray". The nicest of the lot is the Sunset Fibre Elite, which has a bit more surface texture than GGFS and is cooler in tone. But it's not a bright white—it looks gray to me, rather dull.

I've downloaded LexJet's profiles for these; one day I'll get around to printing my profile test images. However, given the condition of the sheets, and the overall tone of the papers, I'm not expecting much. In the sample pack this stuff cost $4.00 (US) per sheet. My recommendation today: save your money. If I feel differently after printing some test images, I'll report back here.

  --Jay

Another Owl Print; No Clogs After Ten Days

It's been ten days since I made my last print. The 7900 has been on, but in power-save (sleep) mode since 27 January. ANC is off, so the printer does not wake for periodic nozzle checks and cleanings.

Today I made another print of a snowy owl photo, this one a vertical on B size (11 x 17 inches) Canson Infinity Platine Fiber Rag 310. This is a lovely paper, 100% cotton, no optical brightening agents, stiff and very flat, and with a wonderful soft gloss—softer, even than GGFS. I used the profile available on Canson's site. When I made my test prints with this paper and profile, I noted the profile was "just OK", not great. I've read comments on the Luminous Landscape Printers, Papers, and Ink forum from people who think Canson's profiles in general are pretty bad.

I printed a nozzle check as usual, no problems found. Room RH was 40%, temperature 57°F (14C). I was making this print to fit a mat and frame I have on-hand. I set the print size to 10.6 x 15.8 inches (26.9 x 40 cm). To insure a sufficiently wide top margin for hinge mounting, I rotated the image in Photoshop 180°, putting the top of the picture at the bottom. In the print driver dialog I set the paper size to the standard US B 11x17 (sheet), and checked the Center Image checkbox. The image was upside down in the preview.

The print exited the printer bottom first. The measured right and left margins are just under .25 inch. The top margin is slightly more than .75 inch. The print is nice enough; sky color is slightly less blue than on-screen, but it's acceptable. I oversharpened a bit. If I print this picture again I'll sharpen a bit less.

The LK ink is still at 1%. The maintenance cartridge is up to 61%!

The owls are still with us. I'm not getting a lot of photographs, but I still go every couple of days  to the area where the birds are hanging out, still hoping to get that flight shot. The latest article on my Web site has a bit more about this, along with some photos.

  --Jay