--Jayepson17815.dmgDescription: This file contains the Epson Stylus Pro 7900 Firmware Update version HN124G5.This update improves paper thickness setting for custom media and adds M1 support for high OBA media when using SpectroProofer.Installation instructions:
- Download the file.
- Double-click the downloaded file to create a disk image on your desktop.
- Open the disk image.
- Use the Remote Panel Utility to update this firmware.
Compatible Systems: Macintosh OS X (v10.11.x), Mac OS X (v10.10.x), Mac OS X (v10.9.x), Mac OS X (v10.8.x), Mac OS X (v10.7.x)
Saturday, June 18, 2016
June, 2016, Firmware Update
Epson's U.S. site has posted, on 14 June, a firmware update for the 7900. This is HN124G5. As usual, the U.S. site's blurb doesn't say much about what this update does; if I believe what it does say, I probably won't install this update. From the update page:
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Odd Cleaning Experience After MK to PK Swap
After a slow start to the year, I've been very busy printing in March. I rarely print on mat papers, but recently, after completing several client jobs on Epson Luster (with PK ink), I had to switch to MK, and then make 14 small prints for a client.
Several of the inks in my printer show 1%, which means these cartridges are somewhere between 1% of their capacity and empty. I've learned I can make a number of prints with inks at 1% before I'm forced to replace them; Epson has indicated it's perfectly OK to run these cartridges until the machine stops and requires new ink, and I've done that a number of times. When I initiated the swap from PK to MK, the printer displayed a message indicating there wasn't enough ink to continue. The machine never specifies which ink, and with a number of "low ink" cartridges this can lead to a lot of trial and error (or just swapping all of the low-ink cartridges for fuller ones). In this case I assumed the complaint was about MK; I installed a new cartridge, and the swap then completed as usual. "As usual" means after the swap finishes, no auto-cleaning happens prior to the first print job. I finished the printing job, but left MK loaded.
Today, two days later, I wanted to print some focus targets to test a new lens. I'd print these on very glossy paper, so I swapped back to PK. Once again the printer complained of not enough ink to continue. I removed the 1% PK and installed a fuller one, expecting the ink swap to complete after that. The MK to PK swap then completed and as usual when swapping from MK to PK, an auto-cleaning started. And stopped right away. Again the machine displayed the "not enough ink" message. Having no clue which ink(s) stopped the show, and not having time to change them one at a time to determine the culprit(s), I changed all of the 1% cartridges (there are six, total). The cleaning then completed.
An MK to PK swap always requires two auto-cleanings. I inserted a sheet of plain paper and initiated a nozzle check print. As expected, the printer then performed the second auto-clean, after which the nozzle check print completed. All nozzles looked good. I then removed all of the fuller cartridges and installed the 1% inks.
My focus targets for testing the lens have no color patterns, only black. These targets are small, so I set up an image in Photoshop to print two per sheet. I needed six targets (three sheets). I printed the first sheet, and after carefully inspecting it I printed the second. When that completed I inserted the sheet to print the third. The 7900 stopped, displaying the "not enough ink to clean" message. Huh? Clean what? Why? With Auto Nozzle Check (ANC) turned off since the first day I owned the printer, how could it know it needed a cleaning?
As usual with this machine, I had no idea, and no way to find out short of swapping inks with fuller cartridges one at a time until the machine did its cleaning. Since my targets use only black ink, in this case PK, I reinstalled the fuller PK. That allowed the cleaning to proceed. When it finished I restored the 1% PK to the printer, and then, finally, the last print completed (and looked fine).
Nothing above is unusual except that third cleaning, and that's something I've never seen before today. I don't know what initiated it. I don't know if it really was necessary, or if some other glitch caused the printer to think so. Perhaps the 1% PK cartridge is very nearly empty, and that triggered an incorrect message. In any case, I finished printing the test targets and they look fine. Just another 7900 mystery.
--Jay
Several of the inks in my printer show 1%, which means these cartridges are somewhere between 1% of their capacity and empty. I've learned I can make a number of prints with inks at 1% before I'm forced to replace them; Epson has indicated it's perfectly OK to run these cartridges until the machine stops and requires new ink, and I've done that a number of times. When I initiated the swap from PK to MK, the printer displayed a message indicating there wasn't enough ink to continue. The machine never specifies which ink, and with a number of "low ink" cartridges this can lead to a lot of trial and error (or just swapping all of the low-ink cartridges for fuller ones). In this case I assumed the complaint was about MK; I installed a new cartridge, and the swap then completed as usual. "As usual" means after the swap finishes, no auto-cleaning happens prior to the first print job. I finished the printing job, but left MK loaded.
Today, two days later, I wanted to print some focus targets to test a new lens. I'd print these on very glossy paper, so I swapped back to PK. Once again the printer complained of not enough ink to continue. I removed the 1% PK and installed a fuller one, expecting the ink swap to complete after that. The MK to PK swap then completed and as usual when swapping from MK to PK, an auto-cleaning started. And stopped right away. Again the machine displayed the "not enough ink" message. Having no clue which ink(s) stopped the show, and not having time to change them one at a time to determine the culprit(s), I changed all of the 1% cartridges (there are six, total). The cleaning then completed.
An MK to PK swap always requires two auto-cleanings. I inserted a sheet of plain paper and initiated a nozzle check print. As expected, the printer then performed the second auto-clean, after which the nozzle check print completed. All nozzles looked good. I then removed all of the fuller cartridges and installed the 1% inks.
My focus targets for testing the lens have no color patterns, only black. These targets are small, so I set up an image in Photoshop to print two per sheet. I needed six targets (three sheets). I printed the first sheet, and after carefully inspecting it I printed the second. When that completed I inserted the sheet to print the third. The 7900 stopped, displaying the "not enough ink to clean" message. Huh? Clean what? Why? With Auto Nozzle Check (ANC) turned off since the first day I owned the printer, how could it know it needed a cleaning?
As usual with this machine, I had no idea, and no way to find out short of swapping inks with fuller cartridges one at a time until the machine did its cleaning. Since my targets use only black ink, in this case PK, I reinstalled the fuller PK. That allowed the cleaning to proceed. When it finished I restored the 1% PK to the printer, and then, finally, the last print completed (and looked fine).
Nothing above is unusual except that third cleaning, and that's something I've never seen before today. I don't know what initiated it. I don't know if it really was necessary, or if some other glitch caused the printer to think so. Perhaps the 1% PK cartridge is very nearly empty, and that triggered an incorrect message. In any case, I finished printing the test targets and they look fine. Just another 7900 mystery.
--Jay
Monday, January 25, 2016
Centered, Finally!!!
I've had my 7900 since October, 2011. Several times in the early days I wrote about the difficulty centering a print on sheet paper when printing from the Mac. I had a number of email discussions with Friend Dean, who's been mentioned several times in this blog. He prints to his 7900 from Windows 7; the printing architecture is quite different, of course, and the dialog boxes he sees in Photoshop for setting up a print job appear to be somewhat different from those seen when printing from the Mac. With Windows there are 'center' checkboxes in two different dialogs, those being the large dialog (with image preview) one initially sees when invoking printing from Photoshop, and a second that's raised by clicking the Print Settings... button in that dialog.
However, on the Mac, with OS X going back at least to 10.8 and Photoshop CS5, there is no centering control, checkbox or otherwise, on that second dialog. Still, if the 'center' box is checked on the initial dialog, one would expect the print to be centered. But when printing on cut sheets, it never is. This has been endlessly frustrating. After all, most of the prints I make are for paying clients. Within my small collection of clients I have a reputation for making high-quality prints, on the best choice of paper for a given image. I handle these prints with utmost care, and go to extremes when packaging prints for shipping to insure they arrive undamaged. My clients expect perfection, and are willing to pay for it.
Imagine, then, their perception of my work for them if they unpacked a print and found uneven borders around the image. To me this appears unprofessional and sloppy. To avoid that I've made a number of trail prints and determined reasonable offsets that insure very-nearly-centered prints. When printing, I check the 'centered' box to get the printer's default margins (which it apparently, and erroneously, thinks make a centered print), and then I uncheck the box and enter the appropriate offsets in the fields for top and left margins. A PITA, to be sure, but worth the effort, and occasional wasted print, to get it right. I really hate it, but that's just part of life with a 7900.
Earlier this month I made a few small prints of my work, on letter-size sheets. When, while setting up to print I selected the sheet size I noticed an option I didn't recall seeing before, 'US Letter (Sheet - Centering)'. Huh? Where'd that come from? What does it do? I never imaged it meant the image would be centered on the sheet, since the 'centered' checkbox is just kidding, not really meaning the image would be centered. As I'm afflicted by extreme curiosity I could only select that option and make the prints. Imagine my surprise when I measured the margins around the image and found it perfectly centered!
For #1 there is some confusion, as both Photoshop and the Mac OS have been updated here since I last printed on sheet paper. But we can rule out Epson's driver; the most recent version for Mac OS X is 9.33, released 29 October, 2014, according to Epson's US Drivers and Downloads page. It's what I have.
For #2: I updated the Mac to OS X 10.11, "El Capitan" last fall, after waiting for the 10.11.1 version release. I finished building a clean system, with Photoshop CC 2015, in late November and have used that exclusively since. I updated Photoshop CC on 18 December to 2015.1.1. Best guess: it was that Ps update that brought the new centering feature. As I recall, I printed only on roll paper through the rest of December, so I'd not have noticed if the new sheet feature became available immediately after that Ps update. For the record, OS X is now at 10.11.3, and there's been another Ps CC update which I've not yet installed.
For #3: Yes. The new centering option appears in the paper size selection list regardless of sheet size selected and regardless of the image size. I've only tested with US sizes, and only up to 17 x 22 inches.
The centering has worked perfectly on images I've printed on several sheet sizes, and seems to behave consistently. After dealing with the original problem for several years, I'm delighted it's gone away.
--Jay
However, on the Mac, with OS X going back at least to 10.8 and Photoshop CS5, there is no centering control, checkbox or otherwise, on that second dialog. Still, if the 'center' box is checked on the initial dialog, one would expect the print to be centered. But when printing on cut sheets, it never is. This has been endlessly frustrating. After all, most of the prints I make are for paying clients. Within my small collection of clients I have a reputation for making high-quality prints, on the best choice of paper for a given image. I handle these prints with utmost care, and go to extremes when packaging prints for shipping to insure they arrive undamaged. My clients expect perfection, and are willing to pay for it.
Imagine, then, their perception of my work for them if they unpacked a print and found uneven borders around the image. To me this appears unprofessional and sloppy. To avoid that I've made a number of trail prints and determined reasonable offsets that insure very-nearly-centered prints. When printing, I check the 'centered' box to get the printer's default margins (which it apparently, and erroneously, thinks make a centered print), and then I uncheck the box and enter the appropriate offsets in the fields for top and left margins. A PITA, to be sure, but worth the effort, and occasional wasted print, to get it right. I really hate it, but that's just part of life with a 7900.
Earlier this month I made a few small prints of my work, on letter-size sheets. When, while setting up to print I selected the sheet size I noticed an option I didn't recall seeing before, 'US Letter (Sheet - Centering)'. Huh? Where'd that come from? What does it do? I never imaged it meant the image would be centered on the sheet, since the 'centered' checkbox is just kidding, not really meaning the image would be centered. As I'm afflicted by extreme curiosity I could only select that option and make the prints. Imagine my surprise when I measured the margins around the image and found it perfectly centered!
 |
| Note the top and bottom border shading: they are now equal, providing a visual indicator of the centered image. Click or tap for a larger image. |
 |
| Note the new option, '(Sheet - Centering)' for paper size in the Print Settings... dialog. Click or tap for a larger image. |
- Where did this come from: The Epson driver? Photoshop? The Mac OS?
- When did it appear?
- If the image is large, approaching the margins of the sheet, is the new option still available?
For #1 there is some confusion, as both Photoshop and the Mac OS have been updated here since I last printed on sheet paper. But we can rule out Epson's driver; the most recent version for Mac OS X is 9.33, released 29 October, 2014, according to Epson's US Drivers and Downloads page. It's what I have.
For #2: I updated the Mac to OS X 10.11, "El Capitan" last fall, after waiting for the 10.11.1 version release. I finished building a clean system, with Photoshop CC 2015, in late November and have used that exclusively since. I updated Photoshop CC on 18 December to 2015.1.1. Best guess: it was that Ps update that brought the new centering feature. As I recall, I printed only on roll paper through the rest of December, so I'd not have noticed if the new sheet feature became available immediately after that Ps update. For the record, OS X is now at 10.11.3, and there's been another Ps CC update which I've not yet installed.
For #3: Yes. The new centering option appears in the paper size selection list regardless of sheet size selected and regardless of the image size. I've only tested with US sizes, and only up to 17 x 22 inches.
The centering has worked perfectly on images I've printed on several sheet sizes, and seems to behave consistently. After dealing with the original problem for several years, I'm delighted it's gone away.
--Jay
Saturday, December 26, 2015
A Tale of Several Print Jobs
What follows started back on 9 December. I've been fairly busy lately, having little time to make a posting here. As usual, I kept records to make catching up a little easier. This posting covers a number of days, so it's fairly long.
My 7900 had been idle for just a day shy of four weeks. This isn't typical, but such long periods without printing have happened several times during my ownership of the machine. On 9 Dec I had a job to make a single print for a client. I'd print on 24-inch roll Epson Luster. After sizing and optimizing the file in Photoshop I moved to the printer to start, as usual, with a nozzle check print. This print showed gaps in five channels, more than I'd ever seen at one time. Also for the first time ever, there was a tiny gap in the orange channel. Circumstances and environment were as usual; no extremes of temperature or humidity. A number of my ink cartridges were at 1%, and had been for some time. I had spares on hand for all.
OK, this wasn't going to be a simple "check and go" print job. I found gaps in C, O, LC, VM, and LLK. I felt the image file, being a little unusual and a challenge to properly sharpen, would need a test print, a slice through an area of high detail. I had no concerns about color fidelity in this test strip, so despite the failed nozzle check I printed the strip, learned what I needed to learn, and made appropriate adjustments to the file. The test strip color was awful, as you might expect. But having pumped some ink through the system I thought some of the channels might have cleared; stranger things have happened during my life with this 7900.
I ran another nozzle check, and thing had indeed changed. I still had the same gaps in C, O, and VM. But now LC was missing entirely, and about half of LLK had disappeared. I replaced all of the 1% inks with fuller cartridges, and then ran "powerful" cleanings of the C/VM pair, the LC/VLM pair, and the Y/LLK pair. It's been widely reported that powerful cleanings are hard on the printhead, so I left several minutes cooling time between those pair cleanings. When the last had finished I made another nozzle check print.
This time, I had more gaps in C, the gap in O remained (not a surprise, since it hadn't been cleaned), and LC was mostly back but still had a small gap. As I was still tweaking the image a bit I ran another test print, this time a small version of the full image. The top 2/3 of that print looked good, but the bottom third exhibited very obvious banding. Another nozzle check print (#4, if you're counting) showed a large area of gaps in C, the small gap in O, and numerous small gaps in LC, VM, LLK, and VLM. Today, the machine is chasing itself all over the place.
I repeated the powerful cleaning of the C/VM pair, the LC/VLM pair, and the Y/LLK pair, again leaving some time between each pair. The next nozzle check showed only the small gap in O, the one channel I'd not yet cleaned. After a standard cleaning of the O/G pair, the nozzle check (#6) showed perfect patterns in all channels.
Finally, I made the print. It was perfect. Being the only print I needed, I put the 1% inks back in the machine and quit for the day. I can't say how much ink the cleanings consumed. The waste ink tank went from 66% down to 58%. That one print turned out to be rather costly to make.
On 11 December I woke the printer and made a nozzle check, finding no problems. I made a small print.
On 14 December I needed to make a large print on HPN, which required switching to MK, something I'd not done in many months. I made the PK-to-MK swap, ran a nozzle check, and found a small gap in MK. That ink, at 1%, required replacing with a new cartridge so I could do the cleaning cycle. I did a standard cleaning of the MK/LK pair, which solved the problem without creating any new ones. I returned the 1% MK cartridge to the printer and made my print, which is very nice. HPN is such a lovely paper. I should do more with it.
Three days later I started the machine, did a nozzle check, found no problems, and then made 28 small prints on sheets of Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (formerly Enhanced Matte). The prints were perfect. Another three days later I made a few more prints on the same paper for the same client, again without problems.
Finally, to wrap up, the next day (21 December) I made six more prints on the same paper for the same client, who'd come to pick up all the work I'd done for him this month, plus one large print on Epson Luster I'd made in early November.
Once again all of this points to the need to run these machines regularly. I can't explain why I had such problems after the four-week idle period, when there have been several periods over the years of that duration or longer with no or fewer or easier-to-resolve problems.
That's Life With a 7900.
--Jay
My 7900 had been idle for just a day shy of four weeks. This isn't typical, but such long periods without printing have happened several times during my ownership of the machine. On 9 Dec I had a job to make a single print for a client. I'd print on 24-inch roll Epson Luster. After sizing and optimizing the file in Photoshop I moved to the printer to start, as usual, with a nozzle check print. This print showed gaps in five channels, more than I'd ever seen at one time. Also for the first time ever, there was a tiny gap in the orange channel. Circumstances and environment were as usual; no extremes of temperature or humidity. A number of my ink cartridges were at 1%, and had been for some time. I had spares on hand for all.
OK, this wasn't going to be a simple "check and go" print job. I found gaps in C, O, LC, VM, and LLK. I felt the image file, being a little unusual and a challenge to properly sharpen, would need a test print, a slice through an area of high detail. I had no concerns about color fidelity in this test strip, so despite the failed nozzle check I printed the strip, learned what I needed to learn, and made appropriate adjustments to the file. The test strip color was awful, as you might expect. But having pumped some ink through the system I thought some of the channels might have cleared; stranger things have happened during my life with this 7900.
I ran another nozzle check, and thing had indeed changed. I still had the same gaps in C, O, and VM. But now LC was missing entirely, and about half of LLK had disappeared. I replaced all of the 1% inks with fuller cartridges, and then ran "powerful" cleanings of the C/VM pair, the LC/VLM pair, and the Y/LLK pair. It's been widely reported that powerful cleanings are hard on the printhead, so I left several minutes cooling time between those pair cleanings. When the last had finished I made another nozzle check print.
This time, I had more gaps in C, the gap in O remained (not a surprise, since it hadn't been cleaned), and LC was mostly back but still had a small gap. As I was still tweaking the image a bit I ran another test print, this time a small version of the full image. The top 2/3 of that print looked good, but the bottom third exhibited very obvious banding. Another nozzle check print (#4, if you're counting) showed a large area of gaps in C, the small gap in O, and numerous small gaps in LC, VM, LLK, and VLM. Today, the machine is chasing itself all over the place.
I repeated the powerful cleaning of the C/VM pair, the LC/VLM pair, and the Y/LLK pair, again leaving some time between each pair. The next nozzle check showed only the small gap in O, the one channel I'd not yet cleaned. After a standard cleaning of the O/G pair, the nozzle check (#6) showed perfect patterns in all channels.
Finally, I made the print. It was perfect. Being the only print I needed, I put the 1% inks back in the machine and quit for the day. I can't say how much ink the cleanings consumed. The waste ink tank went from 66% down to 58%. That one print turned out to be rather costly to make.
On 11 December I woke the printer and made a nozzle check, finding no problems. I made a small print.
On 14 December I needed to make a large print on HPN, which required switching to MK, something I'd not done in many months. I made the PK-to-MK swap, ran a nozzle check, and found a small gap in MK. That ink, at 1%, required replacing with a new cartridge so I could do the cleaning cycle. I did a standard cleaning of the MK/LK pair, which solved the problem without creating any new ones. I returned the 1% MK cartridge to the printer and made my print, which is very nice. HPN is such a lovely paper. I should do more with it.
Three days later I started the machine, did a nozzle check, found no problems, and then made 28 small prints on sheets of Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (formerly Enhanced Matte). The prints were perfect. Another three days later I made a few more prints on the same paper for the same client, again without problems.
Finally, to wrap up, the next day (21 December) I made six more prints on the same paper for the same client, who'd come to pick up all the work I'd done for him this month, plus one large print on Epson Luster I'd made in early November.
Once again all of this points to the need to run these machines regularly. I can't explain why I had such problems after the four-week idle period, when there have been several periods over the years of that duration or longer with no or fewer or easier-to-resolve problems.
That's Life With a 7900.
--Jay
Friday, October 30, 2015
Four Years? Really??
Somehow my "new" printer is four years old. I'm not sure how that happened. I can't recall where I heard it, but someone said, "Time passes slowly, but the years go by so fast."
The 120 postings (121 counting this one!) in this blog are a record of the joys and frustrations experienced in real-world use, four years of life with a 7900.
I feel fortunate in having avoided the serious, costly problems some 7900 owners have reported. My machine makes lovely prints and has provided a decent percentage of my income, although sometimes at the expense of a great deal of time and annoyance. I've had plenty of occasion to ask myself if, knowing what I know now, I'd buy the same printer. Some days the answer is, "Not a chance in hell." But other days, you bet I would. If forced to decide right now, forced to buy another printer today, I'd say, "Probably not." But to be fair, there are more options today, and I know a lot more now than I did four years ago.
As mentioned in several postings here, I've settled into a comfortable routine and workflow that allows me to get the best out of my 7900. As would anyone after four years' experience, I know what to expect. When there are problems I've so far been able to work them out and get the job done. There's always the chance of a surprise, but life with the 7900 is quite stable at the moment. That's the main reason new postings here are fairly infrequent: there's simply not much to report. But the blog lives on; I'll continue to post here whenever something interesting happens.
I can offer no advice if you're shopping for a printer, but I offer this blog as a history of my own experiences. I hope you find it useful.
--Jay
The 120 postings (121 counting this one!) in this blog are a record of the joys and frustrations experienced in real-world use, four years of life with a 7900.
I feel fortunate in having avoided the serious, costly problems some 7900 owners have reported. My machine makes lovely prints and has provided a decent percentage of my income, although sometimes at the expense of a great deal of time and annoyance. I've had plenty of occasion to ask myself if, knowing what I know now, I'd buy the same printer. Some days the answer is, "Not a chance in hell." But other days, you bet I would. If forced to decide right now, forced to buy another printer today, I'd say, "Probably not." But to be fair, there are more options today, and I know a lot more now than I did four years ago.
As mentioned in several postings here, I've settled into a comfortable routine and workflow that allows me to get the best out of my 7900. As would anyone after four years' experience, I know what to expect. When there are problems I've so far been able to work them out and get the job done. There's always the chance of a surprise, but life with the 7900 is quite stable at the moment. That's the main reason new postings here are fairly infrequent: there's simply not much to report. But the blog lives on; I'll continue to post here whenever something interesting happens.
I can offer no advice if you're shopping for a printer, but I offer this blog as a history of my own experiences. I hope you find it useful.
--Jay
Saturday, September 26, 2015
New Printers to Replace The X900 and X890 Series?
This is off-topic from life with a 7900, but perhaps of interest to both of my regular readers: A few days ago Epson announced a new series of printers: Eight-ink SureColor (SC) P6000 (24"), and SC P8000 (44"), and ten-ink SC P7000 and SC P9000. Epson lists these new machines under the heading, "Photography and Fine Art". In appearance and overall size they are quite similar to the X900 and X890 printers.
The eight-color machines use Epson's UltraChrome HD inks. While the name is similar to the UltraChrome HDR inks used in the X900/890 series, and the available cartridge sizes are the same, the inks have new part numbers, so one assumes they are not the same, and likely not interchangeable.
Epson calls the inks for the ten-color machines "UltraChrome HDX", perhaps in an attempt to ensure nobody can keep straight which inks are used in which machines. In any case, it seems clear the HDX inks are completely new.
And yes, one still (apparently) must swap MK for PK, and back, as the two inks continue to share a channel in the head.
There's no shortage of speculation around the Web: these machines use new (and one assumes better) heads, or they don't; one can swap the new inks into an X900/X890, or not; there will be fewer head clogs (ink delivery problems) or that problem will remain a major annoyance and expense; the list goes on.
Imaging Resource has posted a decent quick overview. I found a couple of minor factual errors, or at least, information that doesn't agree with what Epson has posted. I also noted a number of the features the article describes as "new" are, in fact, present on the X900/890 series.
Epson's "Pro" printer page is here. You can see the Stylus Pro X900 and X890 series are still shown, under the heading, "Photo, Proofing, Packaging, and Fine Art" (pretty much covers it!). At the top of that page you'll find links to detailed information about the new SureColor machines.
Of particular interest is the ability to schedule automatic head/nozzle checks. This apparently uses a small amount of ink to check for nozzle clogs, and then cleans only the channels needing it. Apart from the ability to schedule when these checks happen, the nozzle checking part of this feature sounds similar to the much-reviled ANC function, which, I think it's safe to say, most X900/890 users disable soon after setting up their machines. Let's hope it works better than ANC ever did, and doesn't leave the machines stuck in an endless, ink-draining cleaning mode.
There is, as yet, no indication the SC machines will replace the similar-sized Stylus Pro printers. Time will tell. Although this is not an endorsement of the X900/890 series, if you're at all interested in owning one of these machines, it makes sense to watch for bargains over the next few months.
--Jay
The eight-color machines use Epson's UltraChrome HD inks. While the name is similar to the UltraChrome HDR inks used in the X900/890 series, and the available cartridge sizes are the same, the inks have new part numbers, so one assumes they are not the same, and likely not interchangeable.
Epson calls the inks for the ten-color machines "UltraChrome HDX", perhaps in an attempt to ensure nobody can keep straight which inks are used in which machines. In any case, it seems clear the HDX inks are completely new.
And yes, one still (apparently) must swap MK for PK, and back, as the two inks continue to share a channel in the head.
There's no shortage of speculation around the Web: these machines use new (and one assumes better) heads, or they don't; one can swap the new inks into an X900/X890, or not; there will be fewer head clogs (ink delivery problems) or that problem will remain a major annoyance and expense; the list goes on.
Imaging Resource has posted a decent quick overview. I found a couple of minor factual errors, or at least, information that doesn't agree with what Epson has posted. I also noted a number of the features the article describes as "new" are, in fact, present on the X900/890 series.
Epson's "Pro" printer page is here. You can see the Stylus Pro X900 and X890 series are still shown, under the heading, "Photo, Proofing, Packaging, and Fine Art" (pretty much covers it!). At the top of that page you'll find links to detailed information about the new SureColor machines.
Of particular interest is the ability to schedule automatic head/nozzle checks. This apparently uses a small amount of ink to check for nozzle clogs, and then cleans only the channels needing it. Apart from the ability to schedule when these checks happen, the nozzle checking part of this feature sounds similar to the much-reviled ANC function, which, I think it's safe to say, most X900/890 users disable soon after setting up their machines. Let's hope it works better than ANC ever did, and doesn't leave the machines stuck in an endless, ink-draining cleaning mode.
There is, as yet, no indication the SC machines will replace the similar-sized Stylus Pro printers. Time will tell. Although this is not an endorsement of the X900/890 series, if you're at all interested in owning one of these machines, it makes sense to watch for bargains over the next few months.
--Jay
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Cartridge Error
Recently I made a number of prints for an exhibit at a local gallery. I've been making several prints a week for clients, but these are the first prints of my own work I've made in some months.
My LLK has been at 1% for a long time. I think I’ve swapped in a new LLK half a dozen times for cleanings. And lately, LLK has shown nozzle-check issues every time I start up the machine. Setting up for these latest prints was no exception; about half of LLK was missing. I swapped in a new LLK cartridge, did a powerful cleaning of the Y/LLK pair (had to swap Y, too), and then had a good nozzle check. I swapped back in the old Y and LLK. I then inserted the sheet for the new print, and that’s when the printer’s LCD showed “cartridge error”, with a flashing X over LLK. OK, the thing was really close to empty, so rather than mess around “reseating” and such, I just replaced it with the newer one. No problems since. I made another print later, and had no problems.
Just another oddity from this odd machine.
--Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)