Less Than Helpful Messages

I recently printed a series of client photos on EEF, and then printed several of my own pieces on Luster, to fill orders taken during a recent show. With those out of the way I decided to swap PK for MK so I could print another client job I've put off for while I was busy preparing my current show. That print would be made on Epson Enhanced Matte paper.

The printer performed the ink swap as usual. Also as usual, it wanted to do a cleaning when I sent the first print job after the swap. The machine stopped, showing this pair of messages on the LCD (the display toggles between them).

OK, which ink did you have in mind? Of the eleven inks in my 7900, all but three are below 5%, which I've come to believe is the threshold for cleaning. If an ink level is at 5% or lower, the machine won't run its cleaning routine until a new ink cartridge is installed. Once the cleaning is finished, that cartridge can be removed and the original cartridge can be installed so its ink can be more completely consumed during routine printing.

But the display does not indicate which ink(s) are too low. Since I have eight inks below 5%, I'd no idea which to replace for the cleaning. I'd done a black swap, so I guessed the printer might be unhappy about the PK being at 3%, even though PK was no longer being used after the swap. I installed a new PK, but the messages remained the same.

I had one channel, VM, which had a tiny gap in the nozzle check pattern last time I printed one. So I canceled the current operation, installed a new C and a new VM, and then ran a cleaning cycle on the C/VM pair. Another nozzle check print showed the VM was now perfect. I returned my low C and VM to the machine and was able to make my print without further interruption.

Epson, how hard would it be to make these messages a bit more helpful? Any reason the message couldn't specify which ink is too low? If there's more than one, couldn't the display toggle through a list of them?

As it is, one must either know beforehand which ink is likely to raise a complaint, or guess well, or replace several inks before happening on the right one(s). Dumb.

  --Jay

Epson Rebate; Perseverance Pays Off!

Installment #8 in the on-going Epson Rebate Debacle: Imagine my surprise when, as I was loading my car with pictures to hang later today in a "one-man" show, FedEx appeared in my driveway with this.

As you can see, the carton is a little banged up. As you can't see, one end (under the Epson label) is nearly torn off. The carton isn't made of especially hefty cardboard, and there's no internal protection for the roll of paper other than a plastic bag and molded plastic end caps. Epson does a much better job packaging it's professional cut-sheet papers. But the roll appears to be undamaged. The timing of this is excellent (if you don't count the months it's taken to get it), as I have a client arriving later today with a scan of a 4x5 negative. She wants a couple of large prints. She's got strong feelings about paper (as she should, and as do I); I suspect she'll want this or GGFS for her prints.

It's been nearly ten months since I submitted the original paperwork to claim this rebate, but I think I can call this the end of the Epson Rebate Follies!

  --Jay

VM "Clog" Goes Away By Itself

In my last posting I mentioned the nozzle-check print showed a tiny gap in VM, and that I'd ignored this and printed anyway. I had other problems when printing, but none related to the few missing VM nozzles. I had to clean (twice) a nozzle pair that did not include VM; when those nozzles were back to 100% I still had the tiny gap in VM. Not a surprise.

Today I made a print on a 24 inch roll of Luster. As usual, I started the job by printing a nozzle check. Interestingly, the tiny gap in VM was gone. There were no missing nozzles. I hadn't cleaned the pair that includes VM.

The provides additional evidence, corroborating that reported on various printing forums, that not all nozzle clogs are clogs. Gaps in nozzle check patterns may be caused by ink being "pulled back" away from the nozzles under some circumstances. Speculation, of course, given the absence of any verifiable information from Epson.

In any case, nozzle clogs aren't always clogs, but perhaps should be called "ink delivery problems", since we often don't know their causes.

Today my nozzle check was perfect, as was the print that followed it.

  --Jay

Can't Trust the Nozzle Check Print?

Over the course of the last four weeks, in preparing for a series of shows I've made dozens of prints. Many have been small, printed several across on 24 inch Luster. I've also printed a few panoramas on various papers, and a number of prints on 13x19 and 17x22 inch sheets. The 7900 has performed flawlessly. I don't post much here when there's nothing to say; the printer's given me little to talk about in recent weeks. That's always a Good Thing.

I've put aside a number of client print jobs (for my more tolerant clients). I'll be getting to those after my next exhibit hanging and opening reception, that reception being 26 August. It's a large show; as the featured artist I've got most of the gallery to fill. In addition to selecting the work to print, which takes more time than you might think if you've not been down that road, I've been working like a mad person to wrap up the printing, matting, and framing. Fortunately, most of that's now behind me. A few last minute details to sort out, hang the show this coming Thursday, and then enjoy the opening the following Sunday.

As usual, I begin each day's printing by printing a nozzle check on plain bond paper. These have been perfect for weeks, despite varying temperatures and humidities in my print studio. Today, however, I had a very odd occurrence.

I'd made a couple of prints two days ago, with no problems. Today I printed a nozzle check; it showed a very tiny gap in the pattern for VM. I decided to print anyway, loaded a sheet of GGFS, and sent the print job. The result was terrible. Washed out colors, the print looking badly blown out and horribly over-sharpened. I checked my setup, verified the use of the correct profile, even made sure I'd fed the sheet with the correct side "up". Everything looked fine.

Lacking any better ideas I printed another nozzle check. The LLK channel was missing completely. The pattern for LLK was perfect on the first nozzle check print, run not ten minutes earlier, immediately before making the failed print. I've no idea what happened to that channel, but clearly there was an ink delivery problem.

I ran a pair cleaning of LLK/Y, and then made another nozzle check print. This showed a few of the LLK nozzles had returned, but most of the pattern was still missing. I then ran a "powerful" cleaning of the same pair, and another nozzle check print. This time the pattern was perfect.

I fed another sheet of GGFS, ran my print, and got the result I expected the first time—a perfect print.

This disappearing nozzle problem hasn't happened to me before, but I've read a number of reports of this on various forums. It's a darned unhandy way to waste a sheet of quality (expensive) paper.

  --Jay

Epson Rebate Follies, Part 7

I've avoided writing about this simply because nothing's happening, despite my best efforts. If you've not been following along, I am owed a 24 inch roll of Epson Exhibition Fiber paper, from a rebate offer included with the purchase of my printer last October. In my last posting on the rebate subject I described a call I received from the rebate fulfillment house. A couple of weeks later, as I was leaving my driveway for an appointment, a FedEx truck pulled in. Assuming this was a delivery, I continued on my way. When I returned home there was no package waiting. Hmmmm....

The next morning the same driver arrived in his FedEx truck. The driver asked if I had a pick-up. Huh? I didn't call for any pick up. The driver produced a label from Archway, the company that bungles Epson's rebates. Understanding now what was happening, I handed over the package of Exhibition Canvas I'd received in error looooong ago, collected my receipt, and Mr. FedEx drove away.

If it's not obvious, I had no prior warning this label was coming. Are these people great communifucators, or what?

Since that telephone call from Epson/Archway back in July, there'd been no phone calls or other correspondence. Today I rattled the cage, sending a request for the status of my rebate. I mentioned I'd handed over the only thing I'd ever received from the to a FedEx driver, and was then left with nothing.

The response:

Dear Jay Cross,
Thank You for your patience it is greatly appreciated.  
Per the Special Handling Department you were correctly sent the call tag to return the incorrect product.  We are so sorry that was not explained to you in detail before hand as you stated.   Your correct order is currently in processing as of 07/28/2012.  Please allow more time for delivery.
Again we are sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely, Erika Epson Customer Care1-800-277-6187

Apparently I'm not patient enough. They need more time. A lot can happen in nine months. It would seem shipping  roll of paper isn't among them. It would also seem we started fresh on 28 July. I'll keep you posted.

  --Jay

Printing Multiples (n-up on a sheet)

Today and this weekend I'll be printing the last of the new pieces for the one outdoor show in which I exhibit. The show is Saturday, 11 August, on the courthouse lawn in Polson, MT. None of my half-dozen readers is local, but if by chance you've stumbled across this posting and you'll be in the area, please stop and say 'Hello'.

The 7900 has been idle a couple of weeks. As I mentioned in an earlier posting here, I made a number of prints on mat (matte) paper for a client in mid-July. Since then I swapped MK for PK, printed a profile test image on Epson Luster ("Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper 260"), and then made a larger print on the same paper. While this paper isn't as heavy or thick as my previous favorite satin (Canon HW Satin 300 gsm), I think the Luster will make a fine replacement for the Canon-branded satin, which apparently has been discontinued in 24 inch rolls. The Luster is 260 gsm and clearly a bit thinner, but it comes off the roll quite flat, no de-curling necessary.

Today I had to print a small panorama for a client. At a bit over 28 inches (71 cm) long, the image is only 10 inches (25 cm) high. So as not to waste paper on the 24 inch roll, I printed a couple of new images along side the panorama. QImage is a highly-regarded and recommended application for, among other printing tasks, setting up a page for multiple images. QImage is a Windows-only program, making it irrelevant for me as a Mac user. Instead, when I want to print n-up images on a sheet or roll, I create a new Photoshop file sized appropriately, copy my individual files, and paste them as layers into that new document. Using rulers and guides I position the layers as desired, and then print.

The pictures I printed today are shown at left. I started by running a nozzle-check print as usual, and found no problems, a nice surprise after the printer's longer-than-usual idle period. Normally I'd print the two smaller images together on a single 13x19 inch sheet and then cut them apart. I make a lot of prints that size, as they are clearly larger than can be printed with the typical "kitchen table" color inkjet printer, but are still small enough to sell fairly cheaply.

To save a little time I've created a few template files for Photoshop, with guides positioned to make pasting in the images quick and easy. This is most useful for the couple of "standard" sizes I print frequently. I'll be doing more of this kind of print in the next couple of days, and then jump into a marathon framing session next week after the prints have dried for a couple of days.

Next up will be switching back to MK for a small client job that came in just minutes after I'd switched from MK to PK. I try to be smart about making the switch, queuing up a number of jobs for either MK or PK before making the switch. But client jobs come in on their own schedule, requiring the switch as needed. Fortunately, the 7900 seems pretty frugal with ink when making the switch.

  --Jay