My wife and I live in a house with two levels. The main floor (upper level) includes the living and dining rooms, kitchen and breakfast area, master bedroom and bathroom, a half-bath, and a laundry room. Because the property has a fairly dramatic slope, the lower level has large doors that open onto a stone patio. This level also includes a bedroom, bathroom, family room (perhaps called something else where you live; this is the room with the TV, hi-fi, comfy couch and chairs, lots of properly-lighted display space for art, and a corner area I use as office space). This level also includes an unfinished room. When we designed and built the house in 2004, the plan included this room as a third bedroom. We knew we'd never use it for that purpose, and we left it unfinished—bare concrete floor, exposed studs, joists, insulation, etc. It has a large window with a southern exposure, bringing plenty of light into the room and providing emergency egress, as required by building code for any below-grade room that may be used as a bedroom.
When I telecommuted in the tech industry for a company in Ohio, this room was my office, filled with computers and the products on which I worked. When that job ended a few years ago, my wife took over the office space. The room now has her desk, computer, files, phone, bookshelves, etc.
This is also the room where my 7900 lives, and provides storage for my paper, ink, framing and matting supplies, and other printing and display essentials. The printer is on my network, so it doesn't require immediate proximity to my Mac Pro out in the family room area.
We've decided it's finally time to finish the room. It's basically a rectangle, 13 x 15 feet (4 x 4.5 m), with a large walk-in closet. The walls are wood studs with fiberglass bats for insulation. The ceiling is also insulated. With only one exterior wall, the rest of the insulation is for sound, making for a very quiet room. Lighting is provided by two overhead florescent fixtures. The room is bright enough, but not exactly an inviting workspace.
Beginning next week, a contractor will build an additional closet, hang sheetrock (aka "drywall"), paint, and add the finishing trim. Sometime later I'll install a floor (perhaps bamboo—TBD) over the concrete, build some cabinets for storage, and a large work surface for framing and matting. I'll also install track lighting, and hang a large steel panel under a track with dim-able, color-corrected bulbs in track fixtures. I'll be able to hang prints on the panel with magnets, making this area a viewing booth of sorts.
Naturally, before the work can begin, everything must be removed from the room, including the 7900. So far, while installing additional wiring, adding insulation (sound-proofing), and doing other preparations, I've worked around the desk, table, shelf units, and the printer. Finally tired of tripping over stuff, yesterday I began moving things out of the room, including the printer. I moved it into the adjacent room. This area includes my network/audio/video/telephone wiring "closet" and my file servers, the circuit breaker panel for the lower level of the house, and other "mechanical" systems for the house. It's also my main storage area for framed prints. It's a small room, so it's going to be pretty cramped for a while.
After some rearranging to make room in the new location, I unplugged the printer's UPS from the wall outlet. This kept the printer, which is in standby, powered up during the move. It also made the UPS beep at regular intervals, by design a maddening sound. This was incentive to move quickly! The printer rolls very nicely on the hard concrete, but I had to negotiate a tight corner on carpet. This proved to be easier than I expected. I had the printer in place and its UPS plugged in to power in under 10 minutes.
The new location is several degrees warmer, and, according to my hygrometer, a bit more humid than the machine's usual location. The room is not well lit and is currently very crowded. This is far from an ideal situation, but the printer is accessible and, while inconvenient, in theory it can be used. I will make several prints this evening (for a show next weeks) to test that theory.
It'll be a while before I can move the printer back to the newly-finished room. I'm really looking forward to a nice working space, good lighting, a viewing booth, and new wall surface for hanging artwork. In other words, a print studio!
--Jay
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Is ANC Off When it's Off?
As mentioned in my last posting, I'd switched to MK ink for a series of client prints on mat paper. Since the printer was set up for that, I made a few of my own prints on the same paper. I rarely use mat papers for my photos, but for these pictures I wanted the softer look one gets from these papers.
Today I made seven prints for my client who shoots only panoramas. Per his preference, I printed these on HW Satin paper (see the sidebar for definitions); this required switching back to PK ink. I pressed the button to make the change. As reported earlier, this takes a couple of minutes, during which a progress bar is displayed. But the process isn't really completed until a print is made. When the job is run, the printer stops and performs a cleaning. Based on before-and-after comparisons of ink levels, this cleaning cleans all colors. As best I can determine, this cleaning isn't optional. When finished, more than just the MK/PK inks are reduced slightly, as is maintenance cartridge capacity (as one would expect).
Since I knew this cleaning would take place, I made the ink change, and then inserted a piece of plain bond paper to run a nozzle check print. When I initiated that, the cleaning happened. As before, I was required to swap my LK cartridge, showing 1% ink remaining, with a new cartridge, so the cleaning could continue. However, this time I was also required to swap out my LLK, also with 1% remaining, with a new cartridge. As mentioned in my last posting, the printer only shows the need to replace a cartridge. It does not specify which. Since I knew I had two at 1% (or less), it was easy enough to guess which to replace. Once the cleaning finished, the nozzle check printed (no clogs). I then swapped back the two 1% cartridges.
Next I loaded a roll of HW Satin, and then sent the first print job. The printer came to life as it usual, but then stopped. It insisted I replace a low ink cartridge so it could run a cleaning. Having just done that, followed by printing a perfect nozzle check, I had no idea why a cleaning was necessary. Why would the printer think a cleaning was necessary? If you've been reading this blog for a while, you'll know I disabled the 7900's ANC (auto-nozzle check) months ago, so the machine shouldn't be checking nozzles by itself, right?
With no other choice, I swapped the 1% LK with the new LK. The printer then performed a cleaning, not stopping to ask for a full LLK. During the cleaning I watched the printer's LCD. At one point it's "Cleaning, please wait" message was briefly replaced by "Auto Nozzle Check". This flashed on the display for just a few seconds, after which the "Cleaning, please wait" message returned. A minute or so later, that message disappeared, and the print job I'd sent several minutes earlier began. The job completed without issue. However, the full LK ink was in place and being used.
When the print finished I checked the setup (via the printer's control panel); I confirmed that ANC is turned off. I then completed the client's print jobs with the full LK in place.
So, a mystery. Perhaps the low ink level in LK, which has been showing 1% for several weeks and several dozen prints, somehow triggered this, but I have my doubts. It's pretty well documented around the Web that one can print until a cartridge is quite empty, replace that cartridge in the middle of a print job, and printing will continue as it should. That has yet to happen with either of my lowest inks. Later in the day I made a print, on a B size sheet of Canson Infinity Platine Fiber Rag, of my newest snowy owl photo. Before making that print I put the 1% LK cartridge back in the printer. The print is fine; there were no complaints, messages, or cleanings from the printer.
--Jay
Today I made seven prints for my client who shoots only panoramas. Per his preference, I printed these on HW Satin paper (see the sidebar for definitions); this required switching back to PK ink. I pressed the button to make the change. As reported earlier, this takes a couple of minutes, during which a progress bar is displayed. But the process isn't really completed until a print is made. When the job is run, the printer stops and performs a cleaning. Based on before-and-after comparisons of ink levels, this cleaning cleans all colors. As best I can determine, this cleaning isn't optional. When finished, more than just the MK/PK inks are reduced slightly, as is maintenance cartridge capacity (as one would expect).
Since I knew this cleaning would take place, I made the ink change, and then inserted a piece of plain bond paper to run a nozzle check print. When I initiated that, the cleaning happened. As before, I was required to swap my LK cartridge, showing 1% ink remaining, with a new cartridge, so the cleaning could continue. However, this time I was also required to swap out my LLK, also with 1% remaining, with a new cartridge. As mentioned in my last posting, the printer only shows the need to replace a cartridge. It does not specify which. Since I knew I had two at 1% (or less), it was easy enough to guess which to replace. Once the cleaning finished, the nozzle check printed (no clogs). I then swapped back the two 1% cartridges.
Next I loaded a roll of HW Satin, and then sent the first print job. The printer came to life as it usual, but then stopped. It insisted I replace a low ink cartridge so it could run a cleaning. Having just done that, followed by printing a perfect nozzle check, I had no idea why a cleaning was necessary. Why would the printer think a cleaning was necessary? If you've been reading this blog for a while, you'll know I disabled the 7900's ANC (auto-nozzle check) months ago, so the machine shouldn't be checking nozzles by itself, right?
With no other choice, I swapped the 1% LK with the new LK. The printer then performed a cleaning, not stopping to ask for a full LLK. During the cleaning I watched the printer's LCD. At one point it's "Cleaning, please wait" message was briefly replaced by "Auto Nozzle Check". This flashed on the display for just a few seconds, after which the "Cleaning, please wait" message returned. A minute or so later, that message disappeared, and the print job I'd sent several minutes earlier began. The job completed without issue. However, the full LK ink was in place and being used.
When the print finished I checked the setup (via the printer's control panel); I confirmed that ANC is turned off. I then completed the client's print jobs with the full LK in place.
So, a mystery. Perhaps the low ink level in LK, which has been showing 1% for several weeks and several dozen prints, somehow triggered this, but I have my doubts. It's pretty well documented around the Web that one can print until a cartridge is quite empty, replace that cartridge in the middle of a print job, and printing will continue as it should. That has yet to happen with either of my lowest inks. Later in the day I made a print, on a B size sheet of Canson Infinity Platine Fiber Rag, of my newest snowy owl photo. Before making that print I put the 1% LK cartridge back in the printer. The print is fine; there were no complaints, messages, or cleanings from the printer.
--Jay
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Finally, an Ink Change (Temporarily)
To print the series of painting files I mentioned a couple of posts back, I did a PK/MK swap. These prints will be made on Epson "Ultra Premium Presentation Paper", formerly known as Enhanced Matte Paper. The driver installation for the 7900 includes profiles for this paper for both PK and MK ink. When I printed my profile test image on this paper some time ago, the result was clearly superior with MK ink, just as one would expect.
I pressed the button to initiate the swap. The process takes only a couple of minutes; the printer's LCD displays a progress bar while this is happening. However, it's not really finished when the progress bar reaches 100% and the printer returns to its ready mode. After the ink swap, I inserted a piece of plain bond paper and ran a nozzle check print, as usual. Instead of printing as one might expected, a full cleaning cycle ran.
If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that my LK ink has been showing 1% remaining for some weeks. After the cleanings I ran earlier in the week to clear the clogs in the LLK channel, that ink too dropped to 1%. When the cleaning cycle started today, the printer displayed this.
The display alternated between the two screens. Notice it does not specify which ink is too low to clean. I assumed, since LK had been showing 1% for some time, that it was the one to change.
The procedure is simple; press the button to open the ink bay (you can choose to open the right bay, the left bay, or both). LK is in the right bay. Making the choice from the control panel pops open the appropriate cover(s). I opened a new LK cartridge (150ml) and shook it as indicated on the package. I then pressed in to unlatch the old LK, slid out the cartridge, and inserted the new one, pressing it in place to latch it. When I closed the bay cover, the printer started the cleaning. This took several minutes to complete. There were no further complaints about low ink, despite the LLK being at 1%.
When it finished, the nozzle check printed on the sheet I'd inserted previously. The nozzle check looked fine. I then opened the right ink bay cover, removed the new LK, and inserted the old one. I put a piece of tape over the opening on the back of the new cartridge. It's probably not necessary, but it can't hurt. I've no way to know how long this cartridge will sit on the shelf before being needed again.
I ran the print job, which required five Super A3/B sheets (13 x 19 inches), and 27 inches (69 cm) from a 17 inch roll.
In the next day or two I'll make a number of prints of my snowy owl images to fill orders that have come in recently. While all of these look good on my preferred gloss papers (GGFS and EEF), several look very nice on the softer surface of mat papers. I'll print those on mat, but to complete the orders I'll have to switch back to PK for the prints I'll make on GGFS.
--Jay
I pressed the button to initiate the swap. The process takes only a couple of minutes; the printer's LCD displays a progress bar while this is happening. However, it's not really finished when the progress bar reaches 100% and the printer returns to its ready mode. After the ink swap, I inserted a piece of plain bond paper and ran a nozzle check print, as usual. Instead of printing as one might expected, a full cleaning cycle ran.
If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that my LK ink has been showing 1% remaining for some weeks. After the cleanings I ran earlier in the week to clear the clogs in the LLK channel, that ink too dropped to 1%. When the cleaning cycle started today, the printer displayed this.
The procedure is simple; press the button to open the ink bay (you can choose to open the right bay, the left bay, or both). LK is in the right bay. Making the choice from the control panel pops open the appropriate cover(s). I opened a new LK cartridge (150ml) and shook it as indicated on the package. I then pressed in to unlatch the old LK, slid out the cartridge, and inserted the new one, pressing it in place to latch it. When I closed the bay cover, the printer started the cleaning. This took several minutes to complete. There were no further complaints about low ink, despite the LLK being at 1%.
 |
The right ink bay, with the LK cartridge unlatched and ready to remove. |
When it finished, the nozzle check printed on the sheet I'd inserted previously. The nozzle check looked fine. I then opened the right ink bay cover, removed the new LK, and inserted the old one. I put a piece of tape over the opening on the back of the new cartridge. It's probably not necessary, but it can't hurt. I've no way to know how long this cartridge will sit on the shelf before being needed again.
I ran the print job, which required five Super A3/B sheets (13 x 19 inches), and 27 inches (69 cm) from a 17 inch roll.
In the next day or two I'll make a number of prints of my snowy owl images to fill orders that have come in recently. While all of these look good on my preferred gloss papers (GGFS and EEF), several look very nice on the softer surface of mat papers. I'll print those on mat, but to complete the orders I'll have to switch back to PK for the prints I'll make on GGFS.
--Jay
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The First Clog in Nearly Two Months
My recent snowy owl prints have been selling very well. Sunday, a gallery about 20 miles (32 km) south of here had an opening reception for its new show. I'm not one of the two featured artists in the show, but I do have a number of pieces displayed there. A few days before the opening I delivered and hung several different owl photos, in several sizes. Most were framed, but I did take some small matted-and-bagged pieces. I attended the Sunday reception; because the owls are still here (no one knows when they'll return to their arctic breeding grounds, but early March is a good bet), there was a lot of interest in the photos. I spoke with a number of people, and some of the small matted prints sold.
Monday I received a call from the gallery owner. She asked for more owl photos. It seems all of the matted pieces sold, along with one of the smaller framed prints. I love getting this kind of phone call! I promised to bring more of these pictures to the gallery Thursday.
Monday evening I made a number of prints on letter-size sheets. These would be used in matted/bagged pieces and in the smallest frame size I use. As is my usual workflow, I made the files ready to print, printed a nozzle check (no clogs), and then made the prints. Entirely routine. I wanted to make one more larger print to frame, but ran out of time.
Yesterday after dinner, and before other business I had to take care of, I had time to make that larger print. I set up the file for printing, made the nozzle check print (no clogs), and then made the owl print on a Super A3/B (13 x 19 inches) sheet of GGFS. I couldn't believe the result. It's the worst print I've ever made. Color was waaaaay off, and the gloss differential was horrible. These are white birds, so there's always a little of that, but I've never found it objectionable with this paper (or EEF) and the 7900. The entire print had a magenta cast, making the foggy-blue sky background an alien, lavender shade. The owls were pink.
Thinking perhaps I'd made an error when setting the profile, I used a scrap sheet of GGFS, one that had been used for testing something a while back but had most of the sheet unprinted, and started over. I went through each step of my workflow very carefully, made the print, and got the same result. By then I was out of time and had to shelve the problem until this morning.
Today I set up to print, checked my workflow carefully, and then made a nozzle check print. Ah, there's the problem! The entire LLK channel was missing—not a single dot printed. All other channels were 100%. Interesting—last evening I printed a perfect nozzle check, and then printed my owl picture just minutes later. In those minutes, the LLK channel disappeared. I should mention there's plenty of LLK in the cartridge. This is the first clog I've seen since 3 January.
I did a cleaning of the Y/LLK pair, and then printed a nozzle check. LLK showed a few line segments in the print, but nearly all of the nozzles were still missing. I did a second cleaning of that pair, this time a "power clean". The nozzle check after that was perfect. Right away I made a small print of last night's failed picture. It looked great. So I resized and sharpened for the larger version, loaded a sheet of GGFS, and made the print. Perfect.
It's all a little puzzling, as the machine has been trouble-free since that last clog was cleaned in early January. I had no trouble with the prints made Monday, the nozzle check printed on Tuesday was perfect. Hmmm....
Tomorrow I'll be making a dozen client prints in various sizes, all on mat paper. I'll be watching carefully as each print emerges from the machine.
--Jay
Monday I received a call from the gallery owner. She asked for more owl photos. It seems all of the matted pieces sold, along with one of the smaller framed prints. I love getting this kind of phone call! I promised to bring more of these pictures to the gallery Thursday.
Monday evening I made a number of prints on letter-size sheets. These would be used in matted/bagged pieces and in the smallest frame size I use. As is my usual workflow, I made the files ready to print, printed a nozzle check (no clogs), and then made the prints. Entirely routine. I wanted to make one more larger print to frame, but ran out of time.
Yesterday after dinner, and before other business I had to take care of, I had time to make that larger print. I set up the file for printing, made the nozzle check print (no clogs), and then made the owl print on a Super A3/B (13 x 19 inches) sheet of GGFS. I couldn't believe the result. It's the worst print I've ever made. Color was waaaaay off, and the gloss differential was horrible. These are white birds, so there's always a little of that, but I've never found it objectionable with this paper (or EEF) and the 7900. The entire print had a magenta cast, making the foggy-blue sky background an alien, lavender shade. The owls were pink.
 |
What happens when LLK goes away (left). The snippet on the right shows the correct color. Sorry for the poor reproduction. These are point-n-shoot snapshots of the prints. |
Thinking perhaps I'd made an error when setting the profile, I used a scrap sheet of GGFS, one that had been used for testing something a while back but had most of the sheet unprinted, and started over. I went through each step of my workflow very carefully, made the print, and got the same result. By then I was out of time and had to shelve the problem until this morning.
Today I set up to print, checked my workflow carefully, and then made a nozzle check print. Ah, there's the problem! The entire LLK channel was missing—not a single dot printed. All other channels were 100%. Interesting—last evening I printed a perfect nozzle check, and then printed my owl picture just minutes later. In those minutes, the LLK channel disappeared. I should mention there's plenty of LLK in the cartridge. This is the first clog I've seen since 3 January.
I did a cleaning of the Y/LLK pair, and then printed a nozzle check. LLK showed a few line segments in the print, but nearly all of the nozzles were still missing. I did a second cleaning of that pair, this time a "power clean". The nozzle check after that was perfect. Right away I made a small print of last night's failed picture. It looked great. So I resized and sharpened for the larger version, loaded a sheet of GGFS, and made the print. Perfect.
It's all a little puzzling, as the machine has been trouble-free since that last clog was cleaned in early January. I had no trouble with the prints made Monday, the nozzle check printed on Tuesday was perfect. Hmmm....
Tomorrow I'll be making a dozen client prints in various sizes, all on mat paper. I'll be watching carefully as each print emerges from the machine.
--Jay
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
A New Client, Routine Print Jobs
I've probably mentioned I'm the Gallery Director at the Sandpiper Art Gallery, a non-profit gallery here in Polson, MT. Nothing to get excited about; it's a volunteer position, as are all others on the gallery's board of directors. In fact, there are no paid employees—it's volunteer-run. It works much like the typical co-op gallery, operated by gallery members, but being a 501-c3 (non-profit), we can't call it a co-op. All of this is a little beside my point, anyway.
One of the SAG's member artists is a very talented and busy watercolor painter. Using a service in Kalispell, MT, she's had several of her paintings scanned, those scans being saved as Photoshop files. The files are 8-bit, in the sRGB color space, and are 300ppi. She's done quite well with prints, which she insists on calling giclées, from these files. I've seen the original paintings in close proximity to the prints; the service bureau did a good job with color matching, etc.
A couple of months ago she got a call from the service bureau, informing her they were shutting down immediately; if she wanted her files, she'd have to go there (about a 100 mile/160 km round trip) and pick up a DVD no later than the next day. She did that, and began looking for a new source for her prints. Although we've known each other for a few years, it never occurred to her that I could print her files, and of course I was unaware of the need. Late last year I made some prints for one of the Sandpiper's other member artists, who passed the word along.
Last week I picked up the DVD and made some test prints on the same paper the service bureau used, Epson's Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (matte), formerly known as Enhanced Matte. I don't use this paper for my own work, but I have some inventory of letter size sheets, which my wife uses when printing color signs and business graphics on an antique HP "PhotoSmart" printer we have on our network. From my earliest days with my now-departed iPF 5000, I also have some A3/B sheets of the stuff. This paper is not lignin-free, and thanks to OBAs is a very bright white. It's inexpensive, and has it's place (obviously, as it's what this client wants), but it's not something I'll use for my own work.
A few days ago I ran the sample prints, using the "EnhancedMattePaper_PK" profile that was installed with the 7900's driver software. I used that because I didn't want to switch to MK ink. I very rarely print on mat papers, so I very rarely use MK, which is why it's still at 52% (since installation in late October). The print jobs were completely routine, starting with a nozzle check (no clogs), and then running the prints.
I delivered the test prints today. We compared them to a few remaining prints from the service bureau. To my eye they're as close to a perfect match as one could expect. My new client was delighted.
I need only up-sample the files from 300 to 360ppi and print. To save the client a little money, I made new files that put two of the smaller size prints on a single 13x19 sheet. I will do the same for the larger size print, which will print on roll paper I'll order for these jobs.
--Jay
One of the SAG's member artists is a very talented and busy watercolor painter. Using a service in Kalispell, MT, she's had several of her paintings scanned, those scans being saved as Photoshop files. The files are 8-bit, in the sRGB color space, and are 300ppi. She's done quite well with prints, which she insists on calling giclées, from these files. I've seen the original paintings in close proximity to the prints; the service bureau did a good job with color matching, etc.
A couple of months ago she got a call from the service bureau, informing her they were shutting down immediately; if she wanted her files, she'd have to go there (about a 100 mile/160 km round trip) and pick up a DVD no later than the next day. She did that, and began looking for a new source for her prints. Although we've known each other for a few years, it never occurred to her that I could print her files, and of course I was unaware of the need. Late last year I made some prints for one of the Sandpiper's other member artists, who passed the word along.
Last week I picked up the DVD and made some test prints on the same paper the service bureau used, Epson's Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (matte), formerly known as Enhanced Matte. I don't use this paper for my own work, but I have some inventory of letter size sheets, which my wife uses when printing color signs and business graphics on an antique HP "PhotoSmart" printer we have on our network. From my earliest days with my now-departed iPF 5000, I also have some A3/B sheets of the stuff. This paper is not lignin-free, and thanks to OBAs is a very bright white. It's inexpensive, and has it's place (obviously, as it's what this client wants), but it's not something I'll use for my own work.
A few days ago I ran the sample prints, using the "EnhancedMattePaper_PK" profile that was installed with the 7900's driver software. I used that because I didn't want to switch to MK ink. I very rarely print on mat papers, so I very rarely use MK, which is why it's still at 52% (since installation in late October). The print jobs were completely routine, starting with a nozzle check (no clogs), and then running the prints.
I delivered the test prints today. We compared them to a few remaining prints from the service bureau. To my eye they're as close to a perfect match as one could expect. My new client was delighted.
I need only up-sample the files from 300 to 360ppi and print. To save the client a little money, I made new files that put two of the smaller size prints on a single 13x19 sheet. I will do the same for the larger size print, which will print on roll paper I'll order for these jobs.
--Jay
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
One Percent is a LOT, More on LexJet Papers
Since my last posting I've made a number of prints, spread out over those nine days. In some cases I made several prints on the same day, with some hours between those jobs. In all cases I printed a nozzle check as usual prior to the first job of the day. If I printed later that day I didn't bother with the nozzle check print. Through yesterday, when I made several 13 x 19 inch (Super A3/B) prints, the nozzle check prints have shown no clogs. Given the lambasting the 7900 seems to be getting in various forums and other venues because of clogging issues, I continue to be happily surprised.
Also surprising is that the LK ink is still showing 1%. I have not kept track of the quantity and sizes of prints I've made since LK first dropped to 1%, but I'd guess it's 25-30, not including the nozzle checks. Perhaps half of the prints have been Super A3/B or B size (13 x 19 and 11x17 inches, respectively). At least two have been long panoramas on 17 inch roll paper. The rest have been letter size. This strikes me as a lot of printing from the remaining 1% of a color I suspect is used, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly every print I make.
I bought LK, VM, and C inks, those showing the lowest levels, back in December. These inks have expiration dates fairly far out—mid-2013. Still, it's clear if one prints at the low volume I do, one should not order ink too soon.
In my last posting I mentioned the LexJet Sunset Portfolio paper sample pack I have, that I wasn't impressed with the papers' overall tone, and that most of the sheets were in poor condition. Since that posting I've made a print on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Gloss 295, and on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Satin 300. Although the tone of the unprinted sheets seems a bit gray, using profiles downloaded from LexJet the resulting prints are very nice. When soft proofing in Photoshop I preferred the look with the relative colorimetric intent, so I used that when printing.
I'm still having fun photographing the snowy owls that arrived here in late December, and I've been fortunate to get some flight shots in very nice, soft light. I made the pictures on a morning when heavy fog was moving through in bands. For a time it would be so foggy I couldn't see the owls (try photographing white birds in fog!). Fifteen minutes later the fog would move out, and in another five the sky would be pure blue. A few minutes later I'd be immersed in fog again. During the transitions, when the thinning (or thickening) fog filtered the morning sun, the light was fantastic. I printed these flight photos on the LexJet papers, and was very pleased with the results. Perhaps the somewhat flat tone of the papers lends itself to the sort of light I had when photographing. I have not yet printed my usual profile test images on these papers.
Unfortunately, when I checked the prices on these papers, I found they are not bargains. I can get my favorite paper, Ilford's GGFS, for very similar prices. Even Epson's Exhibition Fiber isn't much more expensive. Clearly I've no reason to do any testing or otherwise spend time with the LexJet papers.
--Jay
Also surprising is that the LK ink is still showing 1%. I have not kept track of the quantity and sizes of prints I've made since LK first dropped to 1%, but I'd guess it's 25-30, not including the nozzle checks. Perhaps half of the prints have been Super A3/B or B size (13 x 19 and 11x17 inches, respectively). At least two have been long panoramas on 17 inch roll paper. The rest have been letter size. This strikes me as a lot of printing from the remaining 1% of a color I suspect is used, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly every print I make.
I bought LK, VM, and C inks, those showing the lowest levels, back in December. These inks have expiration dates fairly far out—mid-2013. Still, it's clear if one prints at the low volume I do, one should not order ink too soon.
In my last posting I mentioned the LexJet Sunset Portfolio paper sample pack I have, that I wasn't impressed with the papers' overall tone, and that most of the sheets were in poor condition. Since that posting I've made a print on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Gloss 295, and on one sheet of Sunset Fibre Satin 300. Although the tone of the unprinted sheets seems a bit gray, using profiles downloaded from LexJet the resulting prints are very nice. When soft proofing in Photoshop I preferred the look with the relative colorimetric intent, so I used that when printing.
Unfortunately, when I checked the prices on these papers, I found they are not bargains. I can get my favorite paper, Ilford's GGFS, for very similar prices. Even Epson's Exhibition Fiber isn't much more expensive. Clearly I've no reason to do any testing or otherwise spend time with the LexJet papers.
--Jay
Monday, February 6, 2012
Another Print Job, LexJet Papers
Things have been a little slow here lately. Although I've been chasing around the snowy owls, as mentioned in previous postings, conditions haven't been good for photography over the past two weeks or so. During that time I've been out shooting only a couple of times (in addition to the owls). I wrapped up a large art repro job in January, and also completed some client print jobs. With nothing in the pipeline I had time to do some printing of my own work.
Over the weekend I received a number of files from a client in Atlanta. He's a very interesting person who has had an amazing medical career, one from which he can't seem to retire. Photography is his attitude adjustment therapy. His photographs are among the most unusual I've seen; very creative, very colorful, often quite surreal. He's got a great eye, and most of his work is heavily manipulated in Photoshop to get the effect he likes. I really enjoy printing his stuff. This time around he sent a series of fairly traditional landscape/scenic photos. Not his usual fare, but still pretty nice.
I started as usual, by printing a nozzle check. No clogs. My LK ink is still showing 1%, as it has for weeks. I made the four prints on 13 x 19 inch ("Super A3/B") sheets of GGFS, after which the LK was still at 1%. Every time I print I expect to have to replace this cartridge in the middle of the job.
I bought the 7900 from LexJet. The sales person asked about my favorite papers. I then let him talk me into buying LexJet's Sunset Portfolio Pack, containing two sheets each of five different fiber-based papers. The salesman claimed these papers were very much like the more expensive GGFS and EEF I most often used. I'd not opened that package until a few days ago.
The first thing I saw was that the sheets were in poor condition, with scratches and other rub marks. Not a great first impression. I also discovered that the sheets are not marked, making it challenging to determine which sheets are which paper. I was about to call for clarification when I realized the sheets where in the pack in the order listed on the included advertising sheet. There's no mention of that, but after examining the sheets it becomes fairly clear.
Since I'd just completed four prints on GGFS, I compared the gloss and satin papers in the LexJet pack to the GGFS sheets drying on my drawing table. GGFS is a warm paper with a soft gloss. It is absolutely my favorite, and most-used, paper. The Sunset Fibre series in my LexJet pack are an odd tone. One is quite warm, much more so than GGFS. The others aren't warm, but they aren't bright white, like EEF, either. The best word I can use to describe the LexJet papers is "gray". The nicest of the lot is the Sunset Fibre Elite, which has a bit more surface texture than GGFS and is cooler in tone. But it's not a bright white—it looks gray to me, rather dull.
I've downloaded LexJet's profiles for these; one day I'll get around to printing my profile test images. However, given the condition of the sheets, and the overall tone of the papers, I'm not expecting much. In the sample pack this stuff cost $4.00 (US) per sheet. My recommendation today: save your money. If I feel differently after printing some test images, I'll report back here.
--Jay
Over the weekend I received a number of files from a client in Atlanta. He's a very interesting person who has had an amazing medical career, one from which he can't seem to retire. Photography is his attitude adjustment therapy. His photographs are among the most unusual I've seen; very creative, very colorful, often quite surreal. He's got a great eye, and most of his work is heavily manipulated in Photoshop to get the effect he likes. I really enjoy printing his stuff. This time around he sent a series of fairly traditional landscape/scenic photos. Not his usual fare, but still pretty nice.
I started as usual, by printing a nozzle check. No clogs. My LK ink is still showing 1%, as it has for weeks. I made the four prints on 13 x 19 inch ("Super A3/B") sheets of GGFS, after which the LK was still at 1%. Every time I print I expect to have to replace this cartridge in the middle of the job.
I bought the 7900 from LexJet. The sales person asked about my favorite papers. I then let him talk me into buying LexJet's Sunset Portfolio Pack, containing two sheets each of five different fiber-based papers. The salesman claimed these papers were very much like the more expensive GGFS and EEF I most often used. I'd not opened that package until a few days ago.
The first thing I saw was that the sheets were in poor condition, with scratches and other rub marks. Not a great first impression. I also discovered that the sheets are not marked, making it challenging to determine which sheets are which paper. I was about to call for clarification when I realized the sheets where in the pack in the order listed on the included advertising sheet. There's no mention of that, but after examining the sheets it becomes fairly clear.
Since I'd just completed four prints on GGFS, I compared the gloss and satin papers in the LexJet pack to the GGFS sheets drying on my drawing table. GGFS is a warm paper with a soft gloss. It is absolutely my favorite, and most-used, paper. The Sunset Fibre series in my LexJet pack are an odd tone. One is quite warm, much more so than GGFS. The others aren't warm, but they aren't bright white, like EEF, either. The best word I can use to describe the LexJet papers is "gray". The nicest of the lot is the Sunset Fibre Elite, which has a bit more surface texture than GGFS and is cooler in tone. But it's not a bright white—it looks gray to me, rather dull.
I've downloaded LexJet's profiles for these; one day I'll get around to printing my profile test images. However, given the condition of the sheets, and the overall tone of the papers, I'm not expecting much. In the sample pack this stuff cost $4.00 (US) per sheet. My recommendation today: save your money. If I feel differently after printing some test images, I'll report back here.
--Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)