Epson Tech Suppt Says
in [Printers]
|
Prev: Epsons designed to stop??
Next: Dye vs Pigment
From: measekite on 19 May 2005 18:02 I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it applies to all Epson printers. When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off via the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle and uses a little ink. If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will use much more ink in it's warm up cycle. Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that no air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though the head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to the contamination. They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head. They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant and snappier result. They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a couple of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of course, I do expect the best professional results that Epson is capable of producing. Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7 network.
From: Ivor Floppy on 19 May 2005 18:29 "measekite" <measekite(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:T18je.1019$mK.895(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official recommendation >on turning the printer off by its power button and it applies to all Epson >printers. > > When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off via the > power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle and uses a > little ink. > > If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go through > a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will use much more > ink in it's warm up cycle. > > Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that no > air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though the head > does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to the > contamination. > Something tells me this is total bullshit - the clean after 1 or 2 hours doesn't happen and never has on any Epson I've used/seen; my R200 uses NO ink during a power on test (the heads are lifted away from the service station), and there's no difference between the heads being parked and the printer powered on than there is with it powered down - the heads are capped and in exactly the same position. > They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should turn > their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it turned on > and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head. Wow - Epson have some magic ingredient in their inks that can detect the printer being switched off and stop the ink from setting? They should tell the rest of the world - the could make money with that. [..] > Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7 > network. Provided you don't use them much and burn the printhead out after 5 months/300 pages.
From: Frederick on 19 May 2005 19:37 measekite wrote: > I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official > recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it > applies to all Epson printers. > > When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off via > the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle and uses > a little ink. > > If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go > through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will use > much more ink in it's warm up cycle. > > Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that no > air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though the > head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to the > contamination. > > They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should > turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it > turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head. > > They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great > strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink > printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant and > snappier result. > > They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a couple > of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of course, I do > expect the best professional results that Epson is capable of producing. > > Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7 network. Thanks for that. After an awful lot of waiting and mulling over the plusses and minuses, I will get an R1800. I am well aware of the vibrancy of dye vs pigment, and that there are potential problems with clogging - so tips to minimise the risk are appreciated. I was swayed to the epson, based on reviews, much discussion, and seeing the stunning results of the R800 on photo matte paper. I have seen nothing that appeals to me more for presenting some photography. My past experience with dye inks on matte has given very poor results for fading - noticeable in weeks. One of the most attractive features of matte paper prints is a complete absense of reflection - lost when you put it under any glass. Exposed to the air, it also is exposed to airborne dust and grime. If one thing doesn't get them then something else will. They aren't going to last that long. From what I've seen, by default good pixma dye printers will almost certainly provide closer to what most people would expect a photograph from a lab to look like - in terms of colour saturation / vibrancy. Although many "serious" photographers may not like this, it is presumptuous for them to assume that this must be aesthetically compromised, and insulting to impose the view that as this is the preference of amateur snap-shooters, it must be in some way "inferior". Most people are now shooting photographs with small digital cameras which are optimised to produce images which do not accurately reproduce reality, but produce colours and tonal range for printing photos that look like what they expect a photo should look like. Many would be very disappointed by the results from a "good" camera. It is no surprise that in general printer manufacturers follow the market.
From: measekite on 19 May 2005 20:00 Frederick wrote: > measekite wrote: > >> I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official >> recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it >> applies to all Epson printers. >> >> When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off >> via the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle >> and uses a little ink. >> >> If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go >> through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will >> use much more ink in it's warm up cycle. >> >> Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that >> no air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though >> the head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to >> the contamination. >> >> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should >> turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it >> turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head. >> >> They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great >> strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink >> printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant >> and snappier result. >> >> They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a >> couple of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of >> course, I do expect the best professional results that Epson is >> capable of producing. >> >> Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7 >> network. > > > > Thanks for that. After an awful lot of waiting and mulling over the > plusses and minuses, I will get an R1800. I am well aware of the > vibrancy of dye vs pigment, and that there are potential problems with > clogging - so tips to minimise the risk are appreciated. I was swayed > to the epson, based on reviews, much discussion, and seeing the > stunning results of the R800 on photo matte paper. Have you ever seen the results from the Canon i9900? Look at that before you buy. The printer is about $150.00 cheaper and the cost of running it are substantially less. The R1800 prints will last longer. > I have seen nothing that appeals to me more for presenting some > photography. My past experience with dye inks on matte has given very > poor results for fading - noticeable in weeks. One of the most > attractive features of matte paper prints is a complete absense of > reflection Epson make two low sheen papers that I may try. One is Premium Luster and the other is Premium SemiGloss. The Luster shows a slight patern but is smooth to the touch as Explained by Epson. The SemiGloss was explained to me as an eggshell or satin finish. > - lost when you put it under any glass. Exposed to the air, it also > is exposed to airborne dust and grime. If one thing doesn't get them > then something else will. They aren't going to last that long. > From what I've seen, by default good pixma dye printers will almost > certainly provide closer to what most people would expect a photograph > from a lab to look like - in terms of colour saturation / vibrancy. > Although many "serious" photographers may not like this, it is > presumptuous for them to assume that this must be aesthetically > compromised, and insulting to impose the view that as this is the > preference of amateur snap-shooters, it must be in some way > "inferior". Most people are now shooting photographs with small > digital cameras which are optimised to produce images which do not > accurately reproduce reality, but produce colours and tonal range for > printing photos that look like what they expect a photo should look > like. Many would be very disappointed by the results from a "good" > camera. It is no surprise that in general printer manufacturers follow > the market.
From: birdman on 19 May 2005 20:06
From reading the ink cartridge box lables I see that most of the Pixma printers use the same ink as the previous i9x generation of Canon printers, most of which are not very good (personal experience in a color managed setting). How are the Pixma printers anything other than old technology repackaged as new for marketing purposes? Repackaging old technology is the lifeblood of marketing and Canon is one of the world's leaders at the practice. Canon should spend a fraction of what they spend on marketing on the software that runs their devices. |