I noticed today Epson (U.S.) has once again posted the 7900 Macintosh driver version 9.17. This version is larger (87.1 megabytes vs. 76) than the previously posted (and removed) version 9.17. Like the earlier file, this "new" 9.17 is dated 1 November, 2013. Also like the earlier file, this one is named "epson15900.dmg."
And as with the earlier edition, Epson provides no clue what's changed since the earlier version or its predecessor, 9.04.
I'm having no problems printing with the earlier 9.17 driver with Mac OS X 10.8.5; I won't be changing that. However, I am slowly, as time permits, building up a 10.9 (Mavericks) "clean" system on a separate hard drive. I can boot into either version of the OS as needed.
Since this is my "money machine", I'll continue to get work done with the 10.8.5 system. I've just taken on a photo restoration project that likely will take a week or so. That work, and the printing, will be done on the 10.8.5 system with Photoshop CS6. I'll slowly build up the Mavericks drive, adding and testing my critical applications and utilities one at a time. A bit tedious, but it's my normal process for OS upgrades. It's unlikely I'll do any serious work with the new OS until 10.9.1 is released.
I will probably install Photoshop CC on this new system. TBD.
--Jay
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Mac Driver Version 9.17 Pulled From Epson U.S. Site
In my last two postings I mentioned a new Mac OS driver, version 9.17, from Epson. This replaced the previous version, 9.04. I noticed a couple of days ago that version 9.17 had been removed from Epson's U.S. site. Version 9.04 is once again the current version.
I emailed Epson's support:
As always, I waited several days after the new (9.17) driver was posted, giving me time to browse the Web to learn of any issues the early adopters might have had. I found none, so went ahead with the installation. Perhaps I should have waited longer.
--Jay
I emailed Epson's support:
This morning I received a response:
Checking now, I see that version is gone, and the previous release, 9.04, is shown. What's up? Was 9.17 pulled? Is there a problem with that? Should I uninstall and return to the older version?
As mentioned in my 8 November posting, after resolving an installation problem I've printed without issues with the 9.17 driver and OS X 10.8.5, Mountain Lion. As long as that continues I'll leave things as they are. I'd not be surprised to see a newer driver from Epson, a bug-fix for whatever issues they found with 9.17 on OS X 10.9, Mavericks.
Thank you for contacting Epson regarding your Epson Stylus Pro 7900. It is my pleasure to respond to your inquiry.
It is ok to run the 9.14 version of the driver. They pulled this version off the site becacue they found issues with it when used with 10.9, the new Mavericks OS. It is ok however with the older systems.
As always, I waited several days after the new (9.17) driver was posted, giving me time to browse the Web to learn of any issues the early adopters might have had. I found none, so went ahead with the installation. Perhaps I should have waited longer.
--Jay
Friday, November 8, 2013
Mac Driver (9.17) Installation Follies
For the past couple of weeks I've been making prints every three-to-four days, getting things ready for the holiday season, preparing smaller pieces for local galleries. Nothing interesting to report; when used with some regularity the printer has exhibited zero ink-delivery (clogging) problems.
Having a little time on my hands last evening, I installed the new Mac driver, described in my last posting, for the 7900. I installed simply by running the installer package, which means the new driver installed "over" the previous version (9.04). I've done this with earlier versions without issue. There's nothing on Epson's drivers page to indicate this is a bad (or good) idea. Perhaps, this time, not so good.
Although the Mac almost never requires a reboot, after the driver installed I rebooted. I then launched Photoshop CS6 (I haven't drunk the CC Kool-aid yet, but likely will before the end of the year). I opened a random jpeg and printed. I'd no intention of printing that file; I simply wanted to have a look at the PS print set-up dialog to see if there were obvious changes. There were:
I found garbage characters in the labels (captions) for many of the drop-down lists, and unpopulated (blank) drop-downs. Most of the drop-down lists for things like selecting a profile, setting the paper size, etc. didn't respond to mouse clicks. And then Photoshop crashed (exited). The OS wanted to let Apple know about it, and then an Adobe dialog wanted to let Adobe know.
I rebooted, repeated the test, this time with a .psd instead of a jpeg. Same result.
To resolve the problem, I removed the printer from OS X's printers control panel. I then followed Epson's instructions (posted on the driver page) to remove the driver. After rebooting, I ran the same installer package that started this mess. Printing has worked perfectly since. No odd behavior, and no obvious differences, beyond the displayed driver version number.
This wasn't a terrible hassle, but it took a bit of my time to sort out. Since I've still no clue what changes version 9.17 introduces over 9.04, I may have been better off doing nothing, keeping the older version. Your experience may be different (better, I hope).
For the record: 2008 Mac Pro (3,1) with dual quad-core 2.8 GHz processors, OS X 10.8.5. Photoshop CS6 with all updates. The 7900 has the latest firmware.
--Jay
Having a little time on my hands last evening, I installed the new Mac driver, described in my last posting, for the 7900. I installed simply by running the installer package, which means the new driver installed "over" the previous version (9.04). I've done this with earlier versions without issue. There's nothing on Epson's drivers page to indicate this is a bad (or good) idea. Perhaps, this time, not so good.
Although the Mac almost never requires a reboot, after the driver installed I rebooted. I then launched Photoshop CS6 (I haven't drunk the CC Kool-aid yet, but likely will before the end of the year). I opened a random jpeg and printed. I'd no intention of printing that file; I simply wanted to have a look at the PS print set-up dialog to see if there were obvious changes. There were:
I found garbage characters in the labels (captions) for many of the drop-down lists, and unpopulated (blank) drop-downs. Most of the drop-down lists for things like selecting a profile, setting the paper size, etc. didn't respond to mouse clicks. And then Photoshop crashed (exited). The OS wanted to let Apple know about it, and then an Adobe dialog wanted to let Adobe know.
I rebooted, repeated the test, this time with a .psd instead of a jpeg. Same result.
To resolve the problem, I removed the printer from OS X's printers control panel. I then followed Epson's instructions (posted on the driver page) to remove the driver. After rebooting, I ran the same installer package that started this mess. Printing has worked perfectly since. No odd behavior, and no obvious differences, beyond the displayed driver version number.
This wasn't a terrible hassle, but it took a bit of my time to sort out. Since I've still no clue what changes version 9.17 introduces over 9.04, I may have been better off doing nothing, keeping the older version. Your experience may be different (better, I hope).
For the record: 2008 Mac Pro (3,1) with dual quad-core 2.8 GHz processors, OS X 10.8.5. Photoshop CS6 with all updates. The 7900 has the latest firmware.
--Jay
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Mac Driver Update, to 9.17
Epson's U.S. Web site posted Mac driver version 9.17 on 1 November 2013. I've downloaded it, but have not yet installed it. Other than specifically including Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) in the compatibility list, the U.S. site gives no clue what changes were made since the previous Mac driver update, 9.04, released in September, 2012. I had a look through some of Epson's European sites, as those sometimes provide release notes, or at least a bit more information than the U.S. site.
No luck this time, I'm afraid. If you've found release notes or other comments about the changes, please post them, or a link, in the comments here. Thanks!
--Jay
No luck this time, I'm afraid. If you've found release notes or other comments about the changes, please post them, or a link, in the comments here. Thanks!
--Jay
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Cleaning the Wiper
As mentioned in my last posting, we were away for several days, visiting relatives in Ohio and Michigan. While in MI I spent a morning shooting with a Nikon D700, quite the alien experience for this Canon user.
My 7900 spends most of its time asleep. I leave it powered up; it goes into standby mode after being idle for ten minutes. Since we expected to be away for at least a week, I shut down the printer. This was on 3 October.
While we were away someone called with a photo restoration job. I collected his two pictures a couple of days ago, did the repairs and touch-up, and today made the six prints the client wants. I decided to power up the printer in "service man mode", and then remove the wiper assembly for inspection and cleaning.
The process is very easy. Eric Gulbransen describes it on his X900 site, and includes a link to a video. The wiper from my printer looked fine, but I guessed the sheen on the rubber "blade" was ink. It sure was. A Pec-pad wetted with distilled water came away from the rubber piece looking like a bad bruise. I dabbed and wiped a bit, until the pad no longer picked up any ink. The clean wiper was still somewhat shiny, which is probably the nature of the material. When I reinstalled the part, the printer took some time "sequencing". The process ended with something that sounded and behaved exactly like a cleaning, except that it seemed rather short in duration. When that finished, I printed a nozzle check, which was 100%. I looked at the ink levels and found them somewhat lower than before the process, confirming that a cleaning did happen. I then made the six prints black-and-white prints for the client.
My 7900 will be two years old next week. I don't mind cleaning the wiper every couple of years. ;-) I should buy a replacement, just to have on-hand.
--Jay
My 7900 spends most of its time asleep. I leave it powered up; it goes into standby mode after being idle for ten minutes. Since we expected to be away for at least a week, I shut down the printer. This was on 3 October.
While we were away someone called with a photo restoration job. I collected his two pictures a couple of days ago, did the repairs and touch-up, and today made the six prints the client wants. I decided to power up the printer in "service man mode", and then remove the wiper assembly for inspection and cleaning.
The process is very easy. Eric Gulbransen describes it on his X900 site, and includes a link to a video. The wiper from my printer looked fine, but I guessed the sheen on the rubber "blade" was ink. It sure was. A Pec-pad wetted with distilled water came away from the rubber piece looking like a bad bruise. I dabbed and wiped a bit, until the pad no longer picked up any ink. The clean wiper was still somewhat shiny, which is probably the nature of the material. When I reinstalled the part, the printer took some time "sequencing". The process ended with something that sounded and behaved exactly like a cleaning, except that it seemed rather short in duration. When that finished, I printed a nozzle check, which was 100%. I looked at the ink levels and found them somewhat lower than before the process, confirming that a cleaning did happen. I then made the six prints black-and-white prints for the client.
 |
| A piece of the Pec-pad used to clean the wiper, showing the accumulated ink. |
--Jay
Thursday, October 3, 2013
The Two Hour Print
Since my last posting (so long ago!) I've been very busy doing things I love. We've spent much time enjoying all that the mountains have to offer; I've been fortunate to capture some nice images while wandering Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, and the Shoshone National Forest, and here where I live in western Montana's Mission Valley.
I've also been printing, a lot. In between camping trips and printing my own work I've had a number of client jobs. These have been a wild mix of photographic styles, and have required printing on both gloss and mat papers.
In the morning yesterday I completed a job printing 27 small black-and-white prints on Epson's Enhanced Matte paper. These were the client's photos, brought to me as .tifs from Imacon scans of medium-format film. We'd worked these up in Photoshop when the client visited here earlier in the week.
With that job finished, I switched the 7900 from MK to PK. This required the usual 8-10 minutes, after which I ran a nozzle check print, mainly to initiate the first of the two auto-cleanings the machine does after swapping from mat- to photo-black. The print showed some missing nozzles in the PK channel. I initiated a standard cleaning of the PK/LK pair. The 7900 auto-cleaned again, and then ran the cleaning I initiated (dumb!). The nozzle check print that followed looked fine.
I loaded a 24-inch roll of Epson Luster to print one of my images for a buyer in Michigan. Her instructions: "Print this as large as you can!" I set the image size to 21 inches high by 31.2 inches wide (about 53 x 79 cm). That's a lot of data, but the print job seemed to send from the computer to the printer very quickly. Much too quickly. The resulting print, which I canceled before it completed, is shown below. As mentioned, the paper is 24 inches wide.
Before canceling I printed enough to understand what part of the image printed. The image started printing about half-way down the 21 inch height of the picture, cutting off the top entirely, and printing a seven-inch chunk from the full width. I ejected this and cut the wasted paper.
Back at the computer I resent the print job, and got exactly the same result. This time I canceled printing sooner, since I knew from the very short time needed to send the job that it too would fail.
Having no idea what was happening, I powered down the printer, closed my image file, exited Photoshop, and rebooted the Mac. I then opened the image in Photoshop, sized, sharpened, etc., and after powering up the printer, sent the job again. With the same result.
Still clueless, I closed the image file, opened it again in PS, sized it quite small to fit a letter-size sheet. This printed perfectly, so I repeated the process to prep the full-size image, loaded the roll paper, and printed, this time with a perfect result.
Total elapsed time to get this print: two hours. Wasted paper, a little over 36 inches (1 m).
As most operating systems do, the Mac logs all manner of events; I checked all the logs of which I'm aware, but found nothing to help understand or diagnose the problem. All attempts to print this picture show "completed" or similar.
Mac Pro w/16Gb of RAM, OS X 10.8.5, Photoshop CS6, latest Epson driver and firmware (both from September, 2012). The printer is connected via my wired network.
The good news is, the print is terrific, its in the mail to the client, and the check she'll send will go far to calm my frustration. We're flying out tomorrow for our annual visit with family back east. This is a vacation; I'm leaving the camera gear at home.
--Jay
I've also been printing, a lot. In between camping trips and printing my own work I've had a number of client jobs. These have been a wild mix of photographic styles, and have required printing on both gloss and mat papers.
In the morning yesterday I completed a job printing 27 small black-and-white prints on Epson's Enhanced Matte paper. These were the client's photos, brought to me as .tifs from Imacon scans of medium-format film. We'd worked these up in Photoshop when the client visited here earlier in the week.
With that job finished, I switched the 7900 from MK to PK. This required the usual 8-10 minutes, after which I ran a nozzle check print, mainly to initiate the first of the two auto-cleanings the machine does after swapping from mat- to photo-black. The print showed some missing nozzles in the PK channel. I initiated a standard cleaning of the PK/LK pair. The 7900 auto-cleaned again, and then ran the cleaning I initiated (dumb!). The nozzle check print that followed looked fine.
I loaded a 24-inch roll of Epson Luster to print one of my images for a buyer in Michigan. Her instructions: "Print this as large as you can!" I set the image size to 21 inches high by 31.2 inches wide (about 53 x 79 cm). That's a lot of data, but the print job seemed to send from the computer to the printer very quickly. Much too quickly. The resulting print, which I canceled before it completed, is shown below. As mentioned, the paper is 24 inches wide.
Before canceling I printed enough to understand what part of the image printed. The image started printing about half-way down the 21 inch height of the picture, cutting off the top entirely, and printing a seven-inch chunk from the full width. I ejected this and cut the wasted paper.
Back at the computer I resent the print job, and got exactly the same result. This time I canceled printing sooner, since I knew from the very short time needed to send the job that it too would fail.
Having no idea what was happening, I powered down the printer, closed my image file, exited Photoshop, and rebooted the Mac. I then opened the image in Photoshop, sized, sharpened, etc., and after powering up the printer, sent the job again. With the same result.
Still clueless, I closed the image file, opened it again in PS, sized it quite small to fit a letter-size sheet. This printed perfectly, so I repeated the process to prep the full-size image, loaded the roll paper, and printed, this time with a perfect result.
Total elapsed time to get this print: two hours. Wasted paper, a little over 36 inches (1 m).
As most operating systems do, the Mac logs all manner of events; I checked all the logs of which I'm aware, but found nothing to help understand or diagnose the problem. All attempts to print this picture show "completed" or similar.
Mac Pro w/16Gb of RAM, OS X 10.8.5, Photoshop CS6, latest Epson driver and firmware (both from September, 2012). The printer is connected via my wired network.
The good news is, the print is terrific, its in the mail to the client, and the check she'll send will go far to calm my frustration. We're flying out tomorrow for our annual visit with family back east. This is a vacation; I'm leaving the camera gear at home.
--Jay
Monday, August 12, 2013
This Year's Big Show
You wouldn't know it from the lack of recent postings, but I've been very busy making prints. As mentioned a couple of postings ago (7 July) Saturday, 10 August, was the annual Sandpiper Art Gallery "Festival", the one outdoor art show in which I exhibit each year. This was the 42nd year the gallery has held this show, always on the lawn of the Lake County (Montana) courthouse. It's a nice venue, with easy access for the public, a nice lawn, lots of trees for shade, and a few sites available for artists who need electricity for their displays. This was my fifth year exhibiting in the show.
I've had fewer exhibits and other art-related responsibilities this year than last; that's intentional so I could spend more time out shooting, and it's been quite successful. I've come home from most of my trips this year with several new "keeper" photos. My plan was to have a high percentage of new work on display for the festival. I started making prints in early July, getting frames and mats together, and generally chipping away at the many tasks required to be ready for the show.
In the middle of that work I completed the client print job I mentioned in my last posting (22 July). I printed this on the client's paper, a 24-inch roll of Epson Enhanced Matte. This required a PK-to-MK ink swap. The nozzle check print I ran after the swap showed no ink delivery issues. The five large prints were very nice. Another happy client. After that job I did no printing for exactly one week, when I returned to printing some of my own pieces. This required switching back to PK. After the swap a nozzle-check showed a number of small gaps in the PK channel. A nozzle check print made an hour later showed no gaps in that channel, nor any problems with the rest of the colors. I made several prints that looked fine.
Two days later I made a nozzle-check print that showed two tiny gaps in LLK. I made a coupe of prints, which looked good. The next day a nozzle check print which showed the same small gaps in LLK. Again, the prints I made looked fine. The following day those gaps remained, and again, the prints exhibited no problems I could see.
There's plenty of chatter in various Web forums about the need to run the x900 printers (and variants) often. People have looked for ways to automate the printing of a file that exercises each color channel once a day, whether or not they run any prints jobs. Several files that may or may not do this have been offered up and are freely available. The automation part is a bit iffy; some people have rolled their own scripts or programs. Windows users have a commercial option that seems to work well for most who've posted about it.
Bottom line, borne out by my experience over the past several weeks: those who print daily, or even every other or every third day, experience far fewer clogs or other ink delivery problems than those whose machines sit idle for longer periods of time. I've learned to spread out my print jobs to keep my 7900 running two to three times per week, rather than make large batches of prints in a day, and then not use the printer for weeks. While not always convenient, this has, so far, saved time wasted doing repeated cleanings prior to print jobs, and generally made using the 7900 a more pleasant (or at least less frustrating) experience.
In case you were wondering: we had a good day Saturday at the Festival. Nice weather, much more comfortable (less hot) than last year. Good crowds, lots of interesting conversation with visitors to our display. People were quite generous with their compliments, always nice, especially when a few back that up by making purchases!
These are photos of our exhibit, taken in the morning when a large tree left of our canopy provided maximum shade.
--Jay
I've had fewer exhibits and other art-related responsibilities this year than last; that's intentional so I could spend more time out shooting, and it's been quite successful. I've come home from most of my trips this year with several new "keeper" photos. My plan was to have a high percentage of new work on display for the festival. I started making prints in early July, getting frames and mats together, and generally chipping away at the many tasks required to be ready for the show.
In the middle of that work I completed the client print job I mentioned in my last posting (22 July). I printed this on the client's paper, a 24-inch roll of Epson Enhanced Matte. This required a PK-to-MK ink swap. The nozzle check print I ran after the swap showed no ink delivery issues. The five large prints were very nice. Another happy client. After that job I did no printing for exactly one week, when I returned to printing some of my own pieces. This required switching back to PK. After the swap a nozzle-check showed a number of small gaps in the PK channel. A nozzle check print made an hour later showed no gaps in that channel, nor any problems with the rest of the colors. I made several prints that looked fine.
Two days later I made a nozzle-check print that showed two tiny gaps in LLK. I made a coupe of prints, which looked good. The next day a nozzle check print which showed the same small gaps in LLK. Again, the prints I made looked fine. The following day those gaps remained, and again, the prints exhibited no problems I could see.
There's plenty of chatter in various Web forums about the need to run the x900 printers (and variants) often. People have looked for ways to automate the printing of a file that exercises each color channel once a day, whether or not they run any prints jobs. Several files that may or may not do this have been offered up and are freely available. The automation part is a bit iffy; some people have rolled their own scripts or programs. Windows users have a commercial option that seems to work well for most who've posted about it.
Bottom line, borne out by my experience over the past several weeks: those who print daily, or even every other or every third day, experience far fewer clogs or other ink delivery problems than those whose machines sit idle for longer periods of time. I've learned to spread out my print jobs to keep my 7900 running two to three times per week, rather than make large batches of prints in a day, and then not use the printer for weeks. While not always convenient, this has, so far, saved time wasted doing repeated cleanings prior to print jobs, and generally made using the 7900 a more pleasant (or at least less frustrating) experience.
These are photos of our exhibit, taken in the morning when a large tree left of our canopy provided maximum shade.
--Jay
Monday, July 22, 2013
I can't believe most of July has already passed; since late May we've been in Yellowstone once, Glacier three times, and running around locally in between. I've been photographing in all these locations, accumulating raw files that will keep me busy culling, processing, and printing for months to come. This is wonderful. It's what I live to do. Of course, the 7900 sits idle while all this other fun stuff goes on.
That's about to change. A new client visited this morning, with a flash drive full of Photoshop files for printing. In a first for me, this client also brought a roll of paper. I never calculated prices for printing on client-provided paper; I never had the need. It's not a challenge, of course. Just an hourly rate plus a little for ink and packaging. Because the client is a local photographer I won't even have to ship the prints. He's done most of the work, so this will be a low-value job for me, but a quick one.
Also coming up is the one outdoor show in which I exhibit every summer. I've got about two dozen frames to fill, both from existing inventory and from a frame order due to arrive here tomorrow.
Gallery sales have been slower than has been typical here in this "tourist town", a place where traffic increased dramatically in summer, which seems to start on July 4 and run through Labor Day (in the U.S., that's the first Monday in September). Still, I have my reliable sellers, which include several images I print and offer matted and bagged. Many of the tourists visiting the area fly in and out, or travel in motor homes, campers, vans, etc. They don't have a lot of storage space in their campers or the overhead bins in airplanes; these small images, without frames or glass, make taking home a photo of Montana's scenic and wildlife wonders easy for the traveler.
That's about to change. A new client visited this morning, with a flash drive full of Photoshop files for printing. In a first for me, this client also brought a roll of paper. I never calculated prices for printing on client-provided paper; I never had the need. It's not a challenge, of course. Just an hourly rate plus a little for ink and packaging. Because the client is a local photographer I won't even have to ship the prints. He's done most of the work, so this will be a low-value job for me, but a quick one.
Also coming up is the one outdoor show in which I exhibit every summer. I've got about two dozen frames to fill, both from existing inventory and from a frame order due to arrive here tomorrow.
Gallery sales have been slower than has been typical here in this "tourist town", a place where traffic increased dramatically in summer, which seems to start on July 4 and run through Labor Day (in the U.S., that's the first Monday in September). Still, I have my reliable sellers, which include several images I print and offer matted and bagged. Many of the tourists visiting the area fly in and out, or travel in motor homes, campers, vans, etc. They don't have a lot of storage space in their campers or the overhead bins in airplanes; these small images, without frames or glass, make taking home a photo of Montana's scenic and wildlife wonders easy for the traveler.
As I've mentioned in past postings, "Snow Raven" is my most popular image. A few days ago the last copies in both local galleries sold, requiring me to set up to print another batch. I do this on a roll of 24-inch luster, resulting in the prints you see above. Unlike the ugly situation described in my previous posting, I had no trouble with ink delivery (clogs) this time. This print job was fast and painless.
For these small prints I buy the mats and mount board (foam core) in batches of 24 from Redimat.com. The quality has been fine, the service reasonably fast, and the price can't be beat. I suppose you could cut your own mats for less if you put little (say, zero) value on your time. As should be obvious from my first paragraph above, I'd rather be out shooting!
--Jay
Sunday, July 7, 2013
A Frustrating Evening
My last print job ran on 24 June, twelve days ago. The printer's been idle since. Obviously I've not been printing much, instead spending my time outdoors, photographing locally, and in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks.
In August, the Sandpiper Art Gallery in Polson, MT, hosts its annual "Art Festival", an outdoor show now in its forty-second year. This takes place 10 August, on the lawn of the Lake County courthouse. This will be my fifth year exhibiting in the show.
It's not too soon to be printing new work for the show, so there will be time to order a few frames and get everything assembled. Last night I set up to make the first new prints. I chose a couple of panoramas, one from Glacier shot just a few days ago, and a second that's been a good seller since I first printed it for a commission in 2007. I selected a third, smaller image, to nest with the panoramas on 24-inch-roll luster.
In my experiences so far with the 7900, getting the printer ready for this job was by far the most frustrating.
The first nozzle check showed about half the pattern for VM missing. A standard cleaning of the C/VM pair fixed that, but that second nozzle-check print showed both LC and LLK entirely missing. I did a standard cleaning of the Y/LLK pair, followed by another nozzle check print (#3, if you're counting). This showed about half the LLK nozzles were printing. Next, I cleaned the VLM/LLK pair. When the cleaning finished, the printer's LCD showed a "Replace Ink" message, with the flashing red X over the G bar on the display. This ink had been at 1% for a very long time. I replaced it, and after the printer pressurized the inks, the LCD again showed the "Replace Ink" message, this time on the O bar. Orange too had been at 1% for a long time. I should note that both of these inks were the original 110ml "starter" inks that had been included with the printer; both had expirations dates of last August. I replaced the Orange.
Now I could print another nozzle check (#4), which showed only a few lines in LC, and a bit more of the LLK channel restored. Giving up on standard cleanings, I did a powerful cleaning of VLM/LC, and then another nozzle check. This showed most of VLM restored, but a few tiny voids remained scattered throughout the pattern. LLK seemed to be improving on its own, that channel now missing only a couple of lines at the bottom of the pattern.
All of this cleaning and nozzle checking was burning time; I wanted to get the prints done, so I sent the print job to the printer. That was a mistake, of course. Banding was quite obvious in the gray/cyan sky and fog areas in the smaller panorama (bottom right in the photo below). I watched closely as the print emerged from the printer, and canceled the job from the printer's control panel as soon as I saw the problem.
After removing the roll paper I printed another nozzle check (#6), getting the same result I'd seen after #5. I then did a powerful cleaning of Y/LLK, and another nozzle check print. Finally, LLK was perfect. LC still had several very small voids in the pattern. I reloaded the roll paper and printed the job, which looked fine.
All of that took over an hour, seven nozzle check prints, reduced my LLK from 10% to 4%, and took my maintenance cartridge, the original included with the printer, from 25% to 21%. I've ordered replacements for both.
--Jay
In August, the Sandpiper Art Gallery in Polson, MT, hosts its annual "Art Festival", an outdoor show now in its forty-second year. This takes place 10 August, on the lawn of the Lake County courthouse. This will be my fifth year exhibiting in the show.
It's not too soon to be printing new work for the show, so there will be time to order a few frames and get everything assembled. Last night I set up to make the first new prints. I chose a couple of panoramas, one from Glacier shot just a few days ago, and a second that's been a good seller since I first printed it for a commission in 2007. I selected a third, smaller image, to nest with the panoramas on 24-inch-roll luster.
In my experiences so far with the 7900, getting the printer ready for this job was by far the most frustrating.
The first nozzle check showed about half the pattern for VM missing. A standard cleaning of the C/VM pair fixed that, but that second nozzle-check print showed both LC and LLK entirely missing. I did a standard cleaning of the Y/LLK pair, followed by another nozzle check print (#3, if you're counting). This showed about half the LLK nozzles were printing. Next, I cleaned the VLM/LLK pair. When the cleaning finished, the printer's LCD showed a "Replace Ink" message, with the flashing red X over the G bar on the display. This ink had been at 1% for a very long time. I replaced it, and after the printer pressurized the inks, the LCD again showed the "Replace Ink" message, this time on the O bar. Orange too had been at 1% for a long time. I should note that both of these inks were the original 110ml "starter" inks that had been included with the printer; both had expirations dates of last August. I replaced the Orange.
Now I could print another nozzle check (#4), which showed only a few lines in LC, and a bit more of the LLK channel restored. Giving up on standard cleanings, I did a powerful cleaning of VLM/LC, and then another nozzle check. This showed most of VLM restored, but a few tiny voids remained scattered throughout the pattern. LLK seemed to be improving on its own, that channel now missing only a couple of lines at the bottom of the pattern.
All of this cleaning and nozzle checking was burning time; I wanted to get the prints done, so I sent the print job to the printer. That was a mistake, of course. Banding was quite obvious in the gray/cyan sky and fog areas in the smaller panorama (bottom right in the photo below). I watched closely as the print emerged from the printer, and canceled the job from the printer's control panel as soon as I saw the problem.
After removing the roll paper I printed another nozzle check (#6), getting the same result I'd seen after #5. I then did a powerful cleaning of Y/LLK, and another nozzle check print. Finally, LLK was perfect. LC still had several very small voids in the pattern. I reloaded the roll paper and printed the job, which looked fine.
 |
| The final print, after spending far too much time and materials getting ink to the paper. |
All of that took over an hour, seven nozzle check prints, reduced my LLK from 10% to 4%, and took my maintenance cartridge, the original included with the printer, from 25% to 21%. I've ordered replacements for both.
--Jay
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Ink Bay Door Issue (Again!)
Back in April I wrote about my 7900's left ink bay door opening itself. I've not made any prints in the last several weeks, have not disturbed the printer, have had no reason to wake it from stand-by mode. I have installed a laminate-covered work surface in the studio, in the corner opposite from the printer's location. I've used that workbench recently for some matting and framing work. I've otherwise spent little time in the room.
I entered the studio yesterday and noticed the printer's LCD was lit; it's bright enough to catch one's eye. Said another way, in stand-by mode the printer does not usually call attention to itself, so one can't help but notice when the display is lit.
The LCD carried a message indicating a bay door was unlatched. And it was, exactly as described in the April posting:
A quick Google search resulted in no hits of others reporting a similar issue (the search did find my April posting). Perhaps my print studio is haunted by a ghost who likes pushing buttons.
--Jay
I entered the studio yesterday and noticed the printer's LCD was lit; it's bright enough to catch one's eye. Said another way, in stand-by mode the printer does not usually call attention to itself, so one can't help but notice when the display is lit.
The LCD carried a message indicating a bay door was unlatched. And it was, exactly as described in the April posting:
"But sure enough, the left bay door was unlatched, as if I'd instructed the machine to open it. I pushed to latch it closed. The printer then made its usual noises, and the carriage made several very slow, full-width passes. After the expected time-out period, the machine went into sleep mode."As with last time, I can think of no cause for this. The machine hasn't been touched. It's well out of the normal traffic path in the room. I don't bump into it when working or moving around in the studio. I have a small UPS for the printer; while there have been no obvious power surges or other issues, the 7900 should be safe from them.
A quick Google search resulted in no hits of others reporting a similar issue (the search did find my April posting). Perhaps my print studio is haunted by a ghost who likes pushing buttons.
--Jay
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Lots of Little Prints
I live on the Flathead Reservation, with the town of Pablo, Montana, being the government seat of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT, aka "the tribes"). In honor of International Migratory Bird Day, which was a couple of weeks ago, the tribes are hosting a bird festival this week in Pablo. A couple of months ago I was invited to display some photos. As this is the first of these festivals to be held here, I've no way to know in advance what sort of venue this might be for fine-art photography. While I suspected it would have more of a craft fair sort of atmosphere as opposed to a true art show, I decided rather than participate as a vendor, I'd simply attend, have a look around, and then decide if it was something I'd like to do next year.
Then the local Audubon chapter (Mission Mountain Audubon Society, or MMAS) invited me to share booth space with them. Sharing a space would somewhat reduce the work involved in setting up, so I agreed to participate.
I plan to set up a couple of bins for small, matted pieces. My bird photos in this inexpensive format have been very popular in local galleries. I ordered two dozen mats and mounts (foam core), selected the photos, and made the prints. These will supplement the inventory of small matted prints I have on-hand.
As I've mentioned several times in this blog, I didn't buy the 7900 to make small prints. But they sell quite well; my cost to produce them is low, so they're profitable. I often print them on luster paper, which I sometimes salvage from the "scrap" paper cut off the 24-inch roll when I print wide panorama work for clients. I cut these remainder strips into letter-size sheets and store them until needed.
This photo shows the first of two groups of prints I made for this show. These are attached to my magnetic viewing board, lit by 5000° K LED lights. The board is large and the lights don't quite provide full coverage, hence the darkened areas. I printed the second group yesterday.
I set up for printing as usual. The nozzle check was fine, and since I'd printed only a couple of days before, I didn't see the need to wait and print a second nozzle check (see my previous post for an explanation of that issue). I optimized the image files in a large group, so printing was quick and painless. The 7900 prints one of these small images in well under a minute. No problems at all with either of these print jobs.
Whether anyone stops for a look during the festival, and whether any of these sell remain to be seen. But I have the summer show season coming up, for which I'd have printed many of these photos anyway. If nothing else, I'll also have a good time with my MMAS friends during the festival!
--Jay
Then the local Audubon chapter (Mission Mountain Audubon Society, or MMAS) invited me to share booth space with them. Sharing a space would somewhat reduce the work involved in setting up, so I agreed to participate.
I plan to set up a couple of bins for small, matted pieces. My bird photos in this inexpensive format have been very popular in local galleries. I ordered two dozen mats and mounts (foam core), selected the photos, and made the prints. These will supplement the inventory of small matted prints I have on-hand.
As I've mentioned several times in this blog, I didn't buy the 7900 to make small prints. But they sell quite well; my cost to produce them is low, so they're profitable. I often print them on luster paper, which I sometimes salvage from the "scrap" paper cut off the 24-inch roll when I print wide panorama work for clients. I cut these remainder strips into letter-size sheets and store them until needed.
I set up for printing as usual. The nozzle check was fine, and since I'd printed only a couple of days before, I didn't see the need to wait and print a second nozzle check (see my previous post for an explanation of that issue). I optimized the image files in a large group, so printing was quick and painless. The 7900 prints one of these small images in well under a minute. No problems at all with either of these print jobs.
Whether anyone stops for a look during the festival, and whether any of these sell remain to be seen. But I have the summer show season coming up, for which I'd have printed many of these photos anyway. If nothing else, I'll also have a good time with my MMAS friends during the festival!
--Jay
Thursday, May 16, 2013
When Things Don't "Just Work"
My 7900 had been idle for a bit less than three weeks when I received an order from a client to print five of his panoramic images. To start, I printed a nozzle check, as usual. It was perfect. Based on past experience (see my 4 April 2013 posting for an example), and the experiences of others as related on various forums, I waited about ten minutes and then printed another nozzle check. This showed some missing nozzles at the top and bottom of the LLK pattern.
I did a standard cleaning of the LLK/Y pair and then printed another nozzle check. This time, nearly the entire LLK channel was missing. Lovely when a cleaning makes things worse. I did a second LLK/Y standard cleaning, printed another nozzle check, and found no improvement. Finally, after a "powerful" cleaning of that pair, the nozzle check print was perfect.
After that wasted half hour, I printed the client's panoramas, finishing off a 24 inch roll of luster. (By the way, if you've not finished many rolls of paper while printing, here's what to expect: I was standing in front of the printer. The last image had nearly finished printing. Because the printer's roll cover was closed, I could not see the roll. I was startled by a loud "FWOP" sound from the printer, not a noise I normally associate with printing. The print finished as usual, and was cut from the roll. After my heart rate returned to normal I realized what had happened. The end of the paper had come off the roll and whipped against the inside of the roll cover. I knew the roll had just a little more paper left than necessary to finish this print, but hadn't expected the loud noise. No harm done.)
Three days later I made two large prints and several smaller ones of my own work for an exhibit we'll hang next week. I made the nozzle check print, found no problems, and then proceeded to set up and print as usual. There were no problems at all with this print run.
Bottom line: It seems if the 7900 is idle for "a while" (intentionally vague, as I suspect "a while" is quite variable), the first nozzle check may be 100% OK. However, it may be that this uses ink readily available at the nozzles, within the head, very nearby in the ink lines, or otherwise close to the nozzles, and consumes most of that tiny reserve. If a print is then made right away, it won't be acceptable; you'll have wasted time and a sheet of paper. If, instead, a second nozzle check is printed, it will point to the channel(s) which aren't receiving ink. I think this points to an ink delivery problem, rather than nozzle clogs. Perhaps it's air in the lines, as some have speculated. Nobody really knows, of course, leading to lots of guessing and misinformation. In any case, cleanings do eventually clear the problem.
When the printer is used more frequently it seems this issue is avoided. Friend Dean, with his 7900, has reported exactly the issue described above, with the same ink channel (LLK) being problematic. Similar stories abound in the forums.
This has led people to invent test files, designed to print from every channel, which they run periodically (often daily). Some have gone so far as to automate the process. Doing this works for some, doesn't for others, leaving us exactly nowhere with a solution.
Mine is to print a nozzle check, wait several minutes, and then print another, if I think my printer has been idle for "a while". I can then deal with missing nozzles, or get on with printing if there's none.
--Jay
I did a standard cleaning of the LLK/Y pair and then printed another nozzle check. This time, nearly the entire LLK channel was missing. Lovely when a cleaning makes things worse. I did a second LLK/Y standard cleaning, printed another nozzle check, and found no improvement. Finally, after a "powerful" cleaning of that pair, the nozzle check print was perfect.
After that wasted half hour, I printed the client's panoramas, finishing off a 24 inch roll of luster. (By the way, if you've not finished many rolls of paper while printing, here's what to expect: I was standing in front of the printer. The last image had nearly finished printing. Because the printer's roll cover was closed, I could not see the roll. I was startled by a loud "FWOP" sound from the printer, not a noise I normally associate with printing. The print finished as usual, and was cut from the roll. After my heart rate returned to normal I realized what had happened. The end of the paper had come off the roll and whipped against the inside of the roll cover. I knew the roll had just a little more paper left than necessary to finish this print, but hadn't expected the loud noise. No harm done.)
Three days later I made two large prints and several smaller ones of my own work for an exhibit we'll hang next week. I made the nozzle check print, found no problems, and then proceeded to set up and print as usual. There were no problems at all with this print run.
Bottom line: It seems if the 7900 is idle for "a while" (intentionally vague, as I suspect "a while" is quite variable), the first nozzle check may be 100% OK. However, it may be that this uses ink readily available at the nozzles, within the head, very nearby in the ink lines, or otherwise close to the nozzles, and consumes most of that tiny reserve. If a print is then made right away, it won't be acceptable; you'll have wasted time and a sheet of paper. If, instead, a second nozzle check is printed, it will point to the channel(s) which aren't receiving ink. I think this points to an ink delivery problem, rather than nozzle clogs. Perhaps it's air in the lines, as some have speculated. Nobody really knows, of course, leading to lots of guessing and misinformation. In any case, cleanings do eventually clear the problem.
When the printer is used more frequently it seems this issue is avoided. Friend Dean, with his 7900, has reported exactly the issue described above, with the same ink channel (LLK) being problematic. Similar stories abound in the forums.
This has led people to invent test files, designed to print from every channel, which they run periodically (often daily). Some have gone so far as to automate the process. Doing this works for some, doesn't for others, leaving us exactly nowhere with a solution.
Mine is to print a nozzle check, wait several minutes, and then print another, if I think my printer has been idle for "a while". I can then deal with missing nozzles, or get on with printing if there's none.
--Jay
Thursday, April 25, 2013
When Things "Just Work"
Some years ago Honda spent hundreds of hours, and a great deal of money, producing a fascinating commercial. It uses the component parts of a Honda Accord in a complex "Mousetrap" game-like sequence of events. At the end, Garrison Keillor says, in the commercial's only spoken words, "Isn't it nice when things just work?"
Yea, it is. Many of my postings over the last few months have been about starting a print job, and dealing with clearing clogs (or whatever ink delivery problems appear as clogs) before any printing can be done. Most of the clogs my 7900 has suffered have been easy enough to clear. Usually a simple cleaning of the affected pair of channels has resolved the problem. Occasionally a standard cleaning fails, forcing me to do a "powerful" clean. OK, not a big deal.
Still, dealing with clogs seems to be normal, so much so that any time I set up for a print job, I assume clearing one or more clogged channels will be part of the work. It's a hassle; in a few cases I've put off a print job simply because I knew I didn't have time to deal with the inevitable clogs. I'd come back to it, run the nozzle check, and then do the necessary cleanings when I had time for it.
What a pleasure it is to set up a job and have no clogs! One of my popular images of snowy owls sold to a gallery customer a few days ago. Another customer had queued up behind the first, hoping to get the same print. These are small, matted prints, which I sell in at a fairly low price, and in fairly high volumes. As there was only one copy in the bin, I received a call asking if I could provide another right away. Naturally I agreed, but had none on-hand. I set up right away to print multiple copies on a 24 inch roll of luster.
I ran a nozzle check as usual, found no clogs. I loaded the roll paper, sent the print job from Photoshop, and got a series of perfect prints. Quick, simple, and hassle-free! I'd forgotten that on these rare occasions, the 7900 truly is a joy to use.
Isn't it nice when things just work?
--Jay
Yea, it is. Many of my postings over the last few months have been about starting a print job, and dealing with clearing clogs (or whatever ink delivery problems appear as clogs) before any printing can be done. Most of the clogs my 7900 has suffered have been easy enough to clear. Usually a simple cleaning of the affected pair of channels has resolved the problem. Occasionally a standard cleaning fails, forcing me to do a "powerful" clean. OK, not a big deal.
Still, dealing with clogs seems to be normal, so much so that any time I set up for a print job, I assume clearing one or more clogged channels will be part of the work. It's a hassle; in a few cases I've put off a print job simply because I knew I didn't have time to deal with the inevitable clogs. I'd come back to it, run the nozzle check, and then do the necessary cleanings when I had time for it.
What a pleasure it is to set up a job and have no clogs! One of my popular images of snowy owls sold to a gallery customer a few days ago. Another customer had queued up behind the first, hoping to get the same print. These are small, matted prints, which I sell in at a fairly low price, and in fairly high volumes. As there was only one copy in the bin, I received a call asking if I could provide another right away. Naturally I agreed, but had none on-hand. I set up right away to print multiple copies on a 24 inch roll of luster.
I ran a nozzle check as usual, found no clogs. I loaded the roll paper, sent the print job from Photoshop, and got a series of perfect prints. Quick, simple, and hassle-free! I'd forgotten that on these rare occasions, the 7900 truly is a joy to use.
Isn't it nice when things just work?
--Jay
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Very Fresh Ink!
When printing a job recently I noticed my LK ink had dropped below 10%. I've learned I can print for months using cartridges that report a fairly low capacity. But the printer may refuse to run cleaning cycles when the ink for any channel to be cleaned drops below 10%. It was time to place an ink order. I also needed a roll of the paper I use for most client jobs, so the timing was good.
A week ago I ordered, from IT Supplies (itsupplies.com)* a roll of Epson Luster and a 150ml LK ink cartridge. The paper arrived Thursday, the ink the next day.
Of interest is the expiration date on that ink. I have received inks with widely varying expiration dates. In one case, the marked date was the very next month, which in fact was only a week away. Needless to say, I returned that for a replacement. More typical are expiration dates eight to twelve months away.
The expiration date on the new LK is November, 2014. That's the longest period I've seen, making this a very fresh ink!
--Jay
*I have no affiliation with IT Supplies other than as a frequently-satisfied customer. I find their prices to be slightly better than the lowest I can find elsewhere, they have the ink and papers I want, and they offer free shipping for orders over $99.00. It's very easy to spend more than that on any given order, so it's always free shipping (in the U.S.—sorry, I've not checked this for other countries). I have had problems with damaged shipments due to poor packaging. And that "expires next week" ink did come from IT Supplies. Still, my good experiences with this vendor have outweighed the bad, orders arrive very quickly, and their prices are good. Returns of damaged items, while they shouldn't be necessary, have been painless.
A week ago I ordered, from IT Supplies (itsupplies.com)* a roll of Epson Luster and a 150ml LK ink cartridge. The paper arrived Thursday, the ink the next day.
Of interest is the expiration date on that ink. I have received inks with widely varying expiration dates. In one case, the marked date was the very next month, which in fact was only a week away. Needless to say, I returned that for a replacement. More typical are expiration dates eight to twelve months away.
The expiration date on the new LK is November, 2014. That's the longest period I've seen, making this a very fresh ink!
--Jay
*I have no affiliation with IT Supplies other than as a frequently-satisfied customer. I find their prices to be slightly better than the lowest I can find elsewhere, they have the ink and papers I want, and they offer free shipping for orders over $99.00. It's very easy to spend more than that on any given order, so it's always free shipping (in the U.S.—sorry, I've not checked this for other countries). I have had problems with damaged shipments due to poor packaging. And that "expires next week" ink did come from IT Supplies. Still, my good experiences with this vendor have outweighed the bad, orders arrive very quickly, and their prices are good. Returns of damaged items, while they shouldn't be necessary, have been painless.
Friday, April 12, 2013
VLM and LC Clogs, Again
In my previous posting (4 April), I described dealing with some nozzle issues after the printer had been idle for several weeks. The problems were with the VLM and LC channels. Today, a little over a week since I last printed, I set up to make a pair of prints across the width of a 24-inch roll of Luster. The "pair" is two of the same photo, in the same size.
I set up as usual, starting with a nozzle check print on plain paper. I found the central third of the patterns of both VLM and LC missing. Note that these are paired channels. The cartridges for these inks are at 80% and 62%, respectively. I ran a standard cleaning of the VLM/LC pair, resolving the problem.
As the cleaning cycle completed I received a phone call, which kept me away from the machine for perhaps 15 minutes. After the call I printed a nozzle check, confirmed all channels were clear, and then fed the roll paper and made my prints. No problems found, the prints look great.
Of interest, though, is that the same channels had ink delivery problems today as did on 3 April, the last time the printer was used. Looking back through my nozzle check prints for the last several months, I found problems with either VLM, LC, or both on six of the thirteen check prints run over that period. No other channels had nearly as many problems.
This may or may not indicate a problem with the head or ink delivery system for the VLM/LC channel. Something to keep an eye on.
--Jay
I set up as usual, starting with a nozzle check print on plain paper. I found the central third of the patterns of both VLM and LC missing. Note that these are paired channels. The cartridges for these inks are at 80% and 62%, respectively. I ran a standard cleaning of the VLM/LC pair, resolving the problem.
As the cleaning cycle completed I received a phone call, which kept me away from the machine for perhaps 15 minutes. After the call I printed a nozzle check, confirmed all channels were clear, and then fed the roll paper and made my prints. No problems found, the prints look great.
Of interest, though, is that the same channels had ink delivery problems today as did on 3 April, the last time the printer was used. Looking back through my nozzle check prints for the last several months, I found problems with either VLM, LC, or both on six of the thirteen check prints run over that period. No other channels had nearly as many problems.
This may or may not indicate a problem with the head or ink delivery system for the VLM/LC channel. Something to keep an eye on.
--Jay
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Printing After a Five-week Idle Period
As mentioned in my last posting, it's been some time since I've made a print. The print job history the Mac keeps shows it's been five weeks; that's a record for me, the longest time between prints since I've owned the 7900.
Yesterday I made prints of two of my photos, along with four panoramic prints for a client. I started as usual, running a nozzle-check print. This was perfect. I then made a small print on a sheet of Epson luster. This was cut from the 24-inch roll the last time I nested several prints into one job and had some reasonable sized "scrap" pieces left after cutting the pictures apart. The print was unacceptable; clearly too magenta. Below is a photo of the area where ink delivery (LC, as it turns out) failed. At the top of the print, all's well.
But you can see clearly when banding starts, and you can see the white feathers of the snowy owl are anything but white (the print's better than it looks, but I bumped up the contrast in the jpeg at left so the banding would be clearly seen).
I printed another nozzle check, and sure enough, LC was completely gone. I then did a standard cleaning of the VLM/LC pair. This returned only about half the LC nozzles, so I did a powerful cleaning of the same pair.
That cleared the LC nozzles, but the check print showed a few missing dots in the patterns of several other colors. As it was no more than a couple of dots in three colors, I made a second print of the owl photo. This time, the print looked perfect, with no banding, and accurate color.
My next print was a larger B&W print on a sheet of EEF. You can see the image in a recent article on my site. The bottom (final) photo is the one I printed. It too looks great, with neutral grays and white whites.
I then made the client's panorama prints using the roll of luster. They too are very nice.
I've read numerous reports of situations like that described above; it's happened to others. A nozzle check is perfect, but the next "real" print is not. There are endless opinions about why, but as usual, few (or no) facts. It seems reasonable to conclude that, especially when the printer's been idle for some time, it's best to make a "junk" print, something that pumps more ink through the delivery system than a nozzle-check print, allow the printer to "rest" a few minutes, and then run a nozzle check. That junk print might best be one of the handful of test files available on the Web, created by people attempting to find a pattern that fires all nozzles. This preamble to printing is a big time-sink, and as usual with these printers, guarantees nothing. But perhaps it improves the chances of not wasting a sheet of good paper.
--Jay
Yesterday I made prints of two of my photos, along with four panoramic prints for a client. I started as usual, running a nozzle-check print. This was perfect. I then made a small print on a sheet of Epson luster. This was cut from the 24-inch roll the last time I nested several prints into one job and had some reasonable sized "scrap" pieces left after cutting the pictures apart. The print was unacceptable; clearly too magenta. Below is a photo of the area where ink delivery (LC, as it turns out) failed. At the top of the print, all's well.
I printed another nozzle check, and sure enough, LC was completely gone. I then did a standard cleaning of the VLM/LC pair. This returned only about half the LC nozzles, so I did a powerful cleaning of the same pair.
That cleared the LC nozzles, but the check print showed a few missing dots in the patterns of several other colors. As it was no more than a couple of dots in three colors, I made a second print of the owl photo. This time, the print looked perfect, with no banding, and accurate color.
My next print was a larger B&W print on a sheet of EEF. You can see the image in a recent article on my site. The bottom (final) photo is the one I printed. It too looks great, with neutral grays and white whites.
I then made the client's panorama prints using the roll of luster. They too are very nice.
I've read numerous reports of situations like that described above; it's happened to others. A nozzle check is perfect, but the next "real" print is not. There are endless opinions about why, but as usual, few (or no) facts. It seems reasonable to conclude that, especially when the printer's been idle for some time, it's best to make a "junk" print, something that pumps more ink through the delivery system than a nozzle-check print, allow the printer to "rest" a few minutes, and then run a nozzle check. That junk print might best be one of the handful of test files available on the Web, created by people attempting to find a pattern that fires all nozzles. This preamble to printing is a big time-sink, and as usual with these printers, guarantees nothing. But perhaps it improves the chances of not wasting a sheet of good paper.
--Jay
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Ink Bay Door Opens Itself?
I haven't run a print job since late February, surely my 7900's longest idle period to date. Gallery sales of my prints dribble in, always nice during this slow time of year. I had that print job in February, doing another batch of repro-prints for a local watercolor painter (she insists on calling these giclées, about which I've no complaint since she pays her bills promptly). I've been out shooting a little, but it's an odd time of year here in northwestern Montana. Winter's pretty much over, but spring has only just appeared in the form of warm and sunny days. Until a week ago it was still quite cold, with cloudy skies and generally lousy light and "blah" color. Fortunately, that's beginning to change.
But to my point for this posting: I've just completed the installation of a laminate floor in my print studio. As you'd expect, a job like this requires removing as much as possible from the room. For the most part that was no trouble, just a lot of leg-work. I left one large (and heavy!) desk in the room, and I left the 7900. When I completed laying the flooring in one half of the room, I moved the desk and the printer to the completed side, and then finished the rest. I wrapped up the job yesterday, removed all the tools, trash, and remaining materials from the room, and then moved furniture, my framed print inventory, all my printing supplies, and a few other odds-and-ends back into place. That included rolling the printer across the room and restoring it to its customary location. Given the smooth flooring and the casters on the 7900's stand, that was quite easy. During all of this the printer remained in standby mode. It's powered through a small UPS, so even when I had to unplug the machine from the mains it remained in sleep mode—LCD dark, the usual LEDs on or blinking. That's the normal "off" state for my printer.
After moving the printer I continued working in the room. Perhaps 30 minutes after moving the printer I noticed the LCD was lit; it displayed a message indicating the left ink bay door was open. Huh? I hadn't open it. I hadn't touched the printer's controls—hadn't, in fact, for a month.
But sure enough, the left bay door was unlatched, as if I'd instructed the machine to open it. I pushed to latch it closed. The printer then made its usual noises, and the carriage made several very slow, full-width passes. After the expected time-out period, the machine went into sleep mode.
I don't know how or why the door came ajar. The floor is very smooth, so there were no bumps or impacts as I rolled the printer across the room. I didn't lift or drop the machine. Odd. Clearly the door came ajar during the move, but I can't explain how it happened.
I'm awaiting receipt of some Photoshop files from my Michigan panorama client. I also have a couple of prints I want to make for a show that will hang next week. In the next day or two I'll start up the printer and (I hope!) verify there are no other anomalies.
--Jay
But to my point for this posting: I've just completed the installation of a laminate floor in my print studio. As you'd expect, a job like this requires removing as much as possible from the room. For the most part that was no trouble, just a lot of leg-work. I left one large (and heavy!) desk in the room, and I left the 7900. When I completed laying the flooring in one half of the room, I moved the desk and the printer to the completed side, and then finished the rest. I wrapped up the job yesterday, removed all the tools, trash, and remaining materials from the room, and then moved furniture, my framed print inventory, all my printing supplies, and a few other odds-and-ends back into place. That included rolling the printer across the room and restoring it to its customary location. Given the smooth flooring and the casters on the 7900's stand, that was quite easy. During all of this the printer remained in standby mode. It's powered through a small UPS, so even when I had to unplug the machine from the mains it remained in sleep mode—LCD dark, the usual LEDs on or blinking. That's the normal "off" state for my printer.
 |
| The 7900 and a few printing supplies on the new floor. |
After moving the printer I continued working in the room. Perhaps 30 minutes after moving the printer I noticed the LCD was lit; it displayed a message indicating the left ink bay door was open. Huh? I hadn't open it. I hadn't touched the printer's controls—hadn't, in fact, for a month.
But sure enough, the left bay door was unlatched, as if I'd instructed the machine to open it. I pushed to latch it closed. The printer then made its usual noises, and the carriage made several very slow, full-width passes. After the expected time-out period, the machine went into sleep mode.
I don't know how or why the door came ajar. The floor is very smooth, so there were no bumps or impacts as I rolled the printer across the room. I didn't lift or drop the machine. Odd. Clearly the door came ajar during the move, but I can't explain how it happened.
I'm awaiting receipt of some Photoshop files from my Michigan panorama client. I also have a couple of prints I want to make for a show that will hang next week. In the next day or two I'll start up the printer and (I hope!) verify there are no other anomalies.
--Jay
Monday, February 18, 2013
Eric Gulbransen's "MY X900" Site
Over a year ago Eric Gulbransen started a most amazing thread on Luminous Landscape's Printers, Papers and Inks forum. I mentioned it in this posting here, in January of 2012. The thread Eric started has become huge. For those who care about the minutia of the 7900/9900 print heads, and a great deal more of the mechanical workings of these printers, this thread is a gold mine of information. Unfortunately, as often happens, many pages of the postings add nothing to the discussion, devolving into rants about the tone of various postings, arguments about facts vs. hearsay, and general complaints about other peoples' postings, perceived attitudes, and even word choices. Typical forum stuff, alas, the usual junk one must wade through to find the good stuff. Since that thread is, as of today, over 66 pages long, it can take a very long time to find that good stuff.
Recently, Eric started a new site on which he's collected some of the information presented in the LuLa thread, minus all the usual forum detritus. Here he's collected information, tips, and instructional videos. The site is new; there's not a great deal of content yet, but what's there is good. One can assume this will grow as Eric has time for it, and as he learns more by working with his wayward x900 printers.
Very nice, Eric. Thank you for another great resource.
--Jay
Recently, Eric started a new site on which he's collected some of the information presented in the LuLa thread, minus all the usual forum detritus. Here he's collected information, tips, and instructional videos. The site is new; there's not a great deal of content yet, but what's there is good. One can assume this will grow as Eric has time for it, and as he learns more by working with his wayward x900 printers.
Very nice, Eric. Thank you for another great resource.
--Jay
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Larger Small Prints, 2-up on 13x19 Inch Sheets
Most gallery sales here are made during "tourist season", which seems to be that short period between 4 July and Labor Day (the first Monday in September). This is a beautiful place; there's lots to do here, especially outdoor activities—hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, climbing, camping, and much more. People come from around the world to visit Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, spend time on Flathead Lake, and visit the many other points of interest in Montana and surrounding states. Many of those people fly in, rent a car, have their vacations, and then fly home. Traffic at our local shops and galleries is quite high during summer.
Logistics get in the way of selling large framed prints to these visitors. It's certainly possible to sell a large print and ship it to the buyer's home location, and it happens now and then. But people seem reluctant to do that, perhaps because of the cost of adequately packaging and then shipping the item. More often, people buy small things, things that fit in their luggage, or in the overhead bin on the airplane.
I love making large prints. I didn't buy the 7900 to make small ones. Likewise, I didn't buy previous printer, the 17-inch Canon iPF 5000, to make small prints. The Canon was my first large-format printer. I learned a great deal using it—I considered it an excellent "starter" printer.
With the Canon I made a lot of small prints, generally on 8.5x11 inch (US A) size sheets. I settled on a print size that resulted in a finished, framed and matted picture, with acrylic glazing, about 13x17 inches (33x43 cm). I could sell these at a price that seemed acceptable to buyers, and make a decent profit, despite the need for a custom frame and mat. My cost for these, with a white-core paper mat, was under $30.00. I've purchased dozens of these frames and mats.
Since getting the 7900 it's become less and less satisfying to make these small prints, but I need something to replace them, something to maintain that revenue stream. My experiment has been to increase the size, while (I hope!) keeping it easy for buyers to transport these pictures.
I now buy custom frames (Nielsen profile 11, graphite) that are about 15x19 inches (38x48 cm). The mat opening is 8x12 inches (20x30 cm). I continue to use acrylic glazing. These present very nicely. They are clearly larger than what one can make from the typical "kitchen table" inkjet printer, but small enough to fit in luggage or the overhead bin, and small enough to sell at a comfortable price for most buyers (although substantially higher than the smaller versions I made before). My cost is very close to that of the smaller prints.
I make the prints 2-up on 13x19 (Super B/A3) sheets. I made a template for Photoshop, a very simple document with guides set up to leave appropriate borders when the images are pasted in. I size and sharpen my individual files as usual, copy, paste into the template, and drag them so they snap to the guides. I then print as usual using the standard 13x19 sheet layout in the printer driver. If I uncheck the "center" box, I can adjust the top border by eye (thanks to the preview in Photoshop CS6) and get the image pair almost perfectly centered on the sheet.
After printing I cut the sheet down the center, sign the prints, and they're ready to frame.
--Jay
Logistics get in the way of selling large framed prints to these visitors. It's certainly possible to sell a large print and ship it to the buyer's home location, and it happens now and then. But people seem reluctant to do that, perhaps because of the cost of adequately packaging and then shipping the item. More often, people buy small things, things that fit in their luggage, or in the overhead bin on the airplane.
I love making large prints. I didn't buy the 7900 to make small ones. Likewise, I didn't buy previous printer, the 17-inch Canon iPF 5000, to make small prints. The Canon was my first large-format printer. I learned a great deal using it—I considered it an excellent "starter" printer.
With the Canon I made a lot of small prints, generally on 8.5x11 inch (US A) size sheets. I settled on a print size that resulted in a finished, framed and matted picture, with acrylic glazing, about 13x17 inches (33x43 cm). I could sell these at a price that seemed acceptable to buyers, and make a decent profit, despite the need for a custom frame and mat. My cost for these, with a white-core paper mat, was under $30.00. I've purchased dozens of these frames and mats.
Since getting the 7900 it's become less and less satisfying to make these small prints, but I need something to replace them, something to maintain that revenue stream. My experiment has been to increase the size, while (I hope!) keeping it easy for buyers to transport these pictures.
I now buy custom frames (Nielsen profile 11, graphite) that are about 15x19 inches (38x48 cm). The mat opening is 8x12 inches (20x30 cm). I continue to use acrylic glazing. These present very nicely. They are clearly larger than what one can make from the typical "kitchen table" inkjet printer, but small enough to fit in luggage or the overhead bin, and small enough to sell at a comfortable price for most buyers (although substantially higher than the smaller versions I made before). My cost is very close to that of the smaller prints.
I make the prints 2-up on 13x19 (Super B/A3) sheets. I made a template for Photoshop, a very simple document with guides set up to leave appropriate borders when the images are pasted in. I size and sharpen my individual files as usual, copy, paste into the template, and drag them so they snap to the guides. I then print as usual using the standard 13x19 sheet layout in the printer driver. If I uncheck the "center" box, I can adjust the top border by eye (thanks to the preview in Photoshop CS6) and get the image pair almost perfectly centered on the sheet.
 |
| 13x19 sheet (on a gray countertop) with two images |
--Jay
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Stubborn Clog
Later this week I need to change my display area at a local gallery. I have plenty of framed inventory on-hand, but these periodic refreshes at area galleries provide opportunities to print new things, or to make prints of older pictures I've not previously had time to work with.
Last February I spent a day and a night in Hot Springs, Montana. I wrote an article for my Web site about the experience of judging a photography show there. The black and white photo used in that article, of a window in the Symes Hotel, is the picture I printed today. I did a little work on it today to remove some distortion (perspective tool) and adjust the contrast a bit. I then set up to make a print on an 11 x 17 inch (US B) sheet of EEF.
I'd last printed with the 7900 on 1 February; it's not getting much use lately. When I ran a nozzle check print today I found a small clogged area in the LC channel. I did a standard pair clean (LC/VLM), and then ran another nozzle check print. This showed the LC problem had been solved, but now the LLK channel was almost entirely gone. I did a standard clean on the LLK/Y pair, which made very little improvement in the LLK channel. Thanks to a phone call, the machine sat for about 15 minutes. When I got off the phone I ran another standard cleaning of the LLK/Y pair, again with no improvement. Finally, I did a "powerful" cleaning of that pair, which eliminated the clog.
All of this took half an hour (not counting the telephone delay) and required five nozzle check prints. Wasted time, and more than a little frustrating. I've seldom had this level of difficulty clearing an ink supply problem.
Fortunately, the problem did clear, and I was able to make what turned out to be a very nice print.
--Jay
Last February I spent a day and a night in Hot Springs, Montana. I wrote an article for my Web site about the experience of judging a photography show there. The black and white photo used in that article, of a window in the Symes Hotel, is the picture I printed today. I did a little work on it today to remove some distortion (perspective tool) and adjust the contrast a bit. I then set up to make a print on an 11 x 17 inch (US B) sheet of EEF.
I'd last printed with the 7900 on 1 February; it's not getting much use lately. When I ran a nozzle check print today I found a small clogged area in the LC channel. I did a standard pair clean (LC/VLM), and then ran another nozzle check print. This showed the LC problem had been solved, but now the LLK channel was almost entirely gone. I did a standard clean on the LLK/Y pair, which made very little improvement in the LLK channel. Thanks to a phone call, the machine sat for about 15 minutes. When I got off the phone I ran another standard cleaning of the LLK/Y pair, again with no improvement. Finally, I did a "powerful" cleaning of that pair, which eliminated the clog.
All of this took half an hour (not counting the telephone delay) and required five nozzle check prints. Wasted time, and more than a little frustrating. I've seldom had this level of difficulty clearing an ink supply problem.
Fortunately, the problem did clear, and I was able to make what turned out to be a very nice print.
--Jay
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Fun With Fog
Winter often brings foggy conditions to the valleys here in western Montana. I explain the phenomenon, describe some of the interesting shooting conditions I encounter in the fog, and show a few examples in my January article on my Web site. The photo of the wheel-line irrigator in the fog intrigues me. I made the picture just a few days ago, and spent some time working on it in Photoshop to enhance the contrast a bit in the foreground metal while letting the distant parts remain ephemeral. The picture is a good candidate for a frame and mat I have on-hand, so I decided to make a print.
The mat opening is about 15.75 inches wide x 8 inches high (40 x 20 cm). I made the print about half an inch larger than that in both dimensions. This forced me to crop a large area from the top of the frame. Creatively, that worked out well, since much of that area added nothing to the photo.
I cut a 17x22 inch (US C) sheet of EEF in half. Unlike the problem I mentioned in a 1 November, 2012, posting, I had no trouble with the paper curling this time.
I printed a nozzle check, as usual, and found VM completely missing. VM is paired with C. Both of these ink cartridges have been showing 1% for a very long time. I put new cartridges in the 7900, and then initiated a standard pair cleaning. That solved the problem. I returned the 1% cartridges to the machine.
Because the end margins would be narrow and would probably clip if I fed the sheet in the normal way, I made a custom sheet size in the driver, 17x11 inches. I fed the wide end of the sheet into the printer, and then set up the print job as usual, using portrait (vertical) orientation. The print looks fine-nice detail in the hoar-frost on the close metal section, with the detail fading away in the distance. If you're counting, there are nine wheels visible on the irrigator before it disappears completely in the fog. The print has wide top and bottom margins, with fairly narrow margins left and right. Feeding the sheet the "wrong" way allowed for those narrow end margins without clipping.
--Jay
The mat opening is about 15.75 inches wide x 8 inches high (40 x 20 cm). I made the print about half an inch larger than that in both dimensions. This forced me to crop a large area from the top of the frame. Creatively, that worked out well, since much of that area added nothing to the photo.
I cut a 17x22 inch (US C) sheet of EEF in half. Unlike the problem I mentioned in a 1 November, 2012, posting, I had no trouble with the paper curling this time.
I printed a nozzle check, as usual, and found VM completely missing. VM is paired with C. Both of these ink cartridges have been showing 1% for a very long time. I put new cartridges in the 7900, and then initiated a standard pair cleaning. That solved the problem. I returned the 1% cartridges to the machine.
Because the end margins would be narrow and would probably clip if I fed the sheet in the normal way, I made a custom sheet size in the driver, 17x11 inches. I fed the wide end of the sheet into the printer, and then set up the print job as usual, using portrait (vertical) orientation. The print looks fine-nice detail in the hoar-frost on the close metal section, with the detail fading away in the distance. If you're counting, there are nine wheels visible on the irrigator before it disappears completely in the fog. The print has wide top and bottom margins, with fairly narrow margins left and right. Feeding the sheet the "wrong" way allowed for those narrow end margins without clipping.
--Jay
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Paper Saving Trick
I can't take credit for this. I stumbled across it in a posting on Luminous-Landscape's Printers, Papers, and Inks forum. Thanks to someone who goes by "darlingm" for the hint. I did a little testing, cleaned-up his (or her) instructions, and posted them here.
When I print nozzle checks, I do so on plain bond paper-cheap stuff, fairly thin. I feed the page, print the nozzle check, make a couple of notes (date, and the room's temperature and relative humidity, and mark any missing nozzles). I then file the sheet for use a second time. When that time comes I turn the sheet 180° so the previously-printed pattern and notes are at the top, with the clean end of the sheet feeding into the printer. This scheme allows two nozzle checks per sheet. If I used a heavier paper I could print two more on the reverse side. However, with thin paper, inspecting the patterns as I do with an 8X loupe under strong light, anything printed on the opposite side of the sheet is quite visible and distracting.
darlingm's method allows printing multiple, up to five, nozzle check patterns on one side of a sheet, as follows:
Print the first nozzle check as usual. No "trick" involved. This puts the pattern at one end of the sheet, as usual. The next time a nozzle check print is needed, insert the sheet just as before, that is, with the previously-printed pattern going into the printer first. Feed the sheet as usual. When the 7900 is done setting it up, change the feed to roll paper, and then press the down-arrow several times, enough so the old pattern clears the printhead, putting clean paper in the head's path. Finally, switch the feed back to sheet, and then print the nozzle check as usual. Using this method it's very easy to print two more patterns on the sheet, and then feed the sheet with the remaining clean end first, to print a fourth pattern. One can squeeze in five with a little practice. That's great, but I'm a little lazy, and I find four per sheet to be plenty.
Above is a very poor photo of one of my resulting sheets. I'm an obsessive note-taker (more than a little nuts, surely); I like some extra space on the sheet for my scribbles. The top three nozzle checks were printed as described. The one at the bottom of the sheet was printed last, feeding the sheet normally.
A little excessive? More trouble than it's worth? Probably, and maybe. Still, a clever idea, I think.
--Jay
When I print nozzle checks, I do so on plain bond paper-cheap stuff, fairly thin. I feed the page, print the nozzle check, make a couple of notes (date, and the room's temperature and relative humidity, and mark any missing nozzles). I then file the sheet for use a second time. When that time comes I turn the sheet 180° so the previously-printed pattern and notes are at the top, with the clean end of the sheet feeding into the printer. This scheme allows two nozzle checks per sheet. If I used a heavier paper I could print two more on the reverse side. However, with thin paper, inspecting the patterns as I do with an 8X loupe under strong light, anything printed on the opposite side of the sheet is quite visible and distracting.
darlingm's method allows printing multiple, up to five, nozzle check patterns on one side of a sheet, as follows:
Print the first nozzle check as usual. No "trick" involved. This puts the pattern at one end of the sheet, as usual. The next time a nozzle check print is needed, insert the sheet just as before, that is, with the previously-printed pattern going into the printer first. Feed the sheet as usual. When the 7900 is done setting it up, change the feed to roll paper, and then press the down-arrow several times, enough so the old pattern clears the printhead, putting clean paper in the head's path. Finally, switch the feed back to sheet, and then print the nozzle check as usual. Using this method it's very easy to print two more patterns on the sheet, and then feed the sheet with the remaining clean end first, to print a fourth pattern. One can squeeze in five with a little practice. That's great, but I'm a little lazy, and I find four per sheet to be plenty.
Above is a very poor photo of one of my resulting sheets. I'm an obsessive note-taker (more than a little nuts, surely); I like some extra space on the sheet for my scribbles. The top three nozzle checks were printed as described. The one at the bottom of the sheet was printed last, feeding the sheet normally.
A little excessive? More trouble than it's worth? Probably, and maybe. Still, a clever idea, I think.
--Jay
Sunday, January 20, 2013
A Blog Note, And A Small Client Job
It's a slow time for me, not much printing to be done. When the 7900 sits idle, there's nothing to write about, so new postings here have been few and far between. A friend wrote a couple of days ago, wondering if I'd let "Life With a 7900" die. Certainly not! But this blog isn't about daily postings or sharing every thought I might have about the printer. I write when something interesting, something at least somewhat related to using the 7900, has happened, good or bad.
The good news is, this slow period for printing leaves me time to get out shooting. We'd planned a long-weekend trip to Yellowstone for this weekend (now), but that fell through. Instead I've been wandering around the Mission Valley (here in western Montana), mostly photographing our abundant hawk population and the occasional interesting "atmospheric" caused by inversional fog.
A couple of days ago I did get a small print job from a client who shoots only panoramas, that is, wide images made by stitching together multiple frames. These are fun to print. Where the sizes permit I nest them to make best use of 24-inch-wide Epson Luster. That was the case with this small order of three prints. The longest was 37 inches (94 cm), the shortest only 24 inches (61 cm).
The printer had been set up with MK loaded; I took advantage of that to make a couple of small prints of my own work on mat paper. I made the usual nozzle check, found no problems. I made my two small prints, and then initiated the MK-to-PK swap. That too completed with no problems. I then printed a nozzle check, and found VM completely absent. Odd, since the ink swap has nothing to do with that color channel. I did a cleaning on the C/VM pair, and then printed another nozzle check. A few lines in the VM pattern printed, but most were still missing. I then did a "powerful" cleaning of that same pair. That resolved the problem.
I set up and printed the panoramas without any problems.
--Jay
The good news is, this slow period for printing leaves me time to get out shooting. We'd planned a long-weekend trip to Yellowstone for this weekend (now), but that fell through. Instead I've been wandering around the Mission Valley (here in western Montana), mostly photographing our abundant hawk population and the occasional interesting "atmospheric" caused by inversional fog.
 |
Morning sun helps clear out fog over the ice of Flathead Lake in western Montana. The
Mission Mountains make the background.
|
The printer had been set up with MK loaded; I took advantage of that to make a couple of small prints of my own work on mat paper. I made the usual nozzle check, found no problems. I made my two small prints, and then initiated the MK-to-PK swap. That too completed with no problems. I then printed a nozzle check, and found VM completely absent. Odd, since the ink swap has nothing to do with that color channel. I did a cleaning on the C/VM pair, and then printed another nozzle check. A few lines in the VM pattern printed, but most were still missing. I then did a "powerful" cleaning of that same pair. That resolved the problem.
I set up and printed the panoramas without any problems.
--Jay
Monday, January 7, 2013
Snow and Fog
I recently bought a new camera. Choices abound, requiring some research if one is to make an informed decision. For my Web site I recently wrote about making that decision. The camera arrived just before Christmas. I've been spending time working with that, so I've done almost no printing lately. The 7900 has been unused, powered-up but in standby mode, since 16 December.
Today I decided to print a photo I suspected would not make a great print. The image intrigues me; it's one I spent some years trying to get, without getting the photo I'd hoped for. As I wrote for my site back in November, the opportunity is now lost. What I have is as good as it'll get. You can see the photo in the article. It's a winter scene, photographed in extremely foggy conditions. Because of the post-processing done to increase the contrast, the image is more noisy than I'd like. The subject is (was) something of an icon around here, something everyone in the valley would recognize. I need a couple of new prints for a show that will hang next week; I thought I'd give it a shot, see how the image prints.
Given the nature of the image, it seemed a good candidate for printing on mat paper. I have a roll of Epson Hot Pressed Natural (HPN), which is very nice stuff. Given the nature of the picture, with snow, fog, and rime on the tree, something whiter seemed a obvious choice. But I've only printed client jobs on the HPN and wanted to print one of my own images on it.
I ran a nozzle-check print as usual, and found no missing nozzles. A nice surprise, since the printer had been sitting idle for three weeks. I then loaded the roll and made the print as usual. It's small, only 15 inches high x 11 inches wide (38 x 28 cm), but I think it's quite nice. The noise is pretty well controlled; the mat paper helps with that. I suspect I could print it quite a bit larger with a good result.
I had no "resetting" issues when making this print. See the last posting for details on that.
--Jay
Today I decided to print a photo I suspected would not make a great print. The image intrigues me; it's one I spent some years trying to get, without getting the photo I'd hoped for. As I wrote for my site back in November, the opportunity is now lost. What I have is as good as it'll get. You can see the photo in the article. It's a winter scene, photographed in extremely foggy conditions. Because of the post-processing done to increase the contrast, the image is more noisy than I'd like. The subject is (was) something of an icon around here, something everyone in the valley would recognize. I need a couple of new prints for a show that will hang next week; I thought I'd give it a shot, see how the image prints.
Given the nature of the image, it seemed a good candidate for printing on mat paper. I have a roll of Epson Hot Pressed Natural (HPN), which is very nice stuff. Given the nature of the picture, with snow, fog, and rime on the tree, something whiter seemed a obvious choice. But I've only printed client jobs on the HPN and wanted to print one of my own images on it.
I ran a nozzle-check print as usual, and found no missing nozzles. A nice surprise, since the printer had been sitting idle for three weeks. I then loaded the roll and made the print as usual. It's small, only 15 inches high x 11 inches wide (38 x 28 cm), but I think it's quite nice. The noise is pretty well controlled; the mat paper helps with that. I suspect I could print it quite a bit larger with a good result.
I had no "resetting" issues when making this print. See the last posting for details on that.
--Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)