Choice of Printer

[DanK]

Dan,

You say you've never had a clogged head but I suspect you cleared any that was developing with the head-cleaning cycle, let a printer sit long enough idle and you will eventually get missing patterns on a test print.

John, I don't recall ever having missing patterns on test prints with Canon dye-based printers. I've had them for so many years that it is possible that I am forgetting one or two incidents, but I don't remember any. I did have this problem with a few cheap HP printers.

I think my point wasn't clear. I am not saying that the printers never developed clogs that had to be cleared by the printers automatic cleaning cycles. My point was that I never had to intervene. If there were clogs, the automatic cleaning cycle cleared them. My point is that I never had to do anything other than wait for the printer to be ready. As far as I can recall, I never had to start a cleaning cycle manually, and I have never pulled the head itself (they are removable on most Canon printers) to clean it manually, e.g., by soaking it. And I never had to replace a Canon dye-based printer because of clogs.

I don't know what triggers the automatic cleaning cycles, but the behavior of my pigment-based Prograf suggests that it is triggered at least some of the time by time, not the presence of a clog. I think it uses that regular initiation of the cycle to determine whether there is a clog that needs cleaning. What leads me to this speculation is two things: the amount of time the cycle lasts, and the spent-ink monitor that shows how much ink has been used in cleaning and discarded into the waste tank. Sometimes, the cleaning cycle (at least, what I think is the cleaning cycle) starts, but it doesn't last long, and the wasted-in monitor doesn't move appreciably. Once in a while (I think two or possibly three times in the time I have owned it), the cycle continues longer, and the waste indicator does move appreciably.

That's with pigment inks. I think it is indicative that the dye-based Pro-100 doesn't even have a collection cartridge for the ink used in head cleaning. I think it just has a sponge. I never had to replace the sponges, whereas I have had to replace the cartridge in my pigment printer twice.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Dan,

You say you've never had a clogged head but I suspect you cleared any that was developing with the head-cleaning cycle, let a printer sit long enough idle and you will eventually get missing patterns on a test print.

Which is why they run the cleaning cycle. The way that modern consumer / prosumer inkjets work is that they leave a very small amount ink at each nozzle, which prevents the nozzle itself from drying out. Pro printers are less well protected because it is assumed that they will be run almost daily and some of the stories I've heard from people who have had problems with clogged heads ended up being pro printers that are not used frequently enough. Both Canon and Epson seem to have done a very good job in ensuring that "real life" duty cycles have been taken into account when they design their printers. These production printers need to be used at a minimum of once per week or they can have clogging issues.

This appears to have been the case for at least the last couple of generations of prosumer printers and ink sets. I had surgery and was on crutches for almost 1/2 year back in 2012. Handling cameras while on crutches is challenging, so my Epson 3880 sat unused for 8 or 9 months and the day I started printing again, the nozzles were fine and did not require a cleaning. This ran over the winter months, when the air is quite dry. The secret appears to be to always leave the printer plugged so that it maintains the cleaning cycle. I suspect letting them sit unplugged for long periods will cause problems.

The two problematic Canon printers I had were the low end consumer types and were my main printers before we bought the laser printers for day to day printing. This was over 25 years ago and those replaced dot-matrix printers. I'm quite certain that, like Epson, Canon has done a good job in designing and manufacturing printers that don't clog.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by DanK
when I was first starting my own printing, I used one the better Canon multifunction printers, long since discontinued. <> I never once had a clogged head that required any intervention by me--not even turning on the printer's cleaning cycle manually through the print driver. Of course, all inkjets automatically go through a head-cleaning cycle from time to time, and these did, but I never had to do anything myself. With the exception of Manfred, I don't think I know anyone who has had a serious head clog on a Canon dye-based printer.

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Dan,

You say you've never had a clogged head but I suspect you cleared any that was developing with the head-cleaning cycle, let a printer sit long enough idle and you will eventually get missing patterns on a test print.

I confirm Dan's experience, John. My Canon six-cartridge MG8120 has never clogged up and has never needed a manual head-cleaning cycle. Not my experience with three previous Epsons. I realize that personal experience is statistically insignificant but I've read similar comments re: Canon v. Epson before.

[Shadowman]

I confirm Dan's experience, John. My Canon six-cartridge MG8120 has never clogged up and has never needed a manual head cleaning cycle. Not my experience with two precious Epsons. I realize that personal experience is statistically insignificant but I've read similar comments re: Canon v. Epson before.

I don't doubt it, its been years since I've owned a Canon, currently own Epson (SureColor) and HP (photosmart), haven't had any clogging issues with the hp but do get missing patterns when the cartridges run low on ink; I do get warnings from the Epson but usually my pattern checks look good; I run the head cleaning cycles anyway.

[Manfred M]

I don't doubt it, its been years since I've owned a Canon, currently own Epson (SureColor) and HP (photosmart), haven't had any clogging issues with the hp but do get missing patterns when the cartridges run low on ink; I do get warnings from the Epson but usually my pattern checks look good; I run the head cleaning cycles anyway.

Cleaning cycles when the heads are not clogged don't do anything for you other than waste ink. Just print regularly to prevent the risk of the nozzles drying out. I generally print at least once a week and when I do print, there are a series of test prints prior to the "final", so my printer gets "regular exercise".

When it comes to pattern misalignment, I've never had to realign my heads with either the 3880 or the P800. A pattern misalignment (or clogged nozzle) is easy to spot in a print.

[rpcrowe]

Here is my work station incorporating my new Canon Pixma iP8720 printer which I was happy to learn has a far smaller footprint, as well as being lighter in weight, than my previous Pixma Pro 9000 and Pixma Pro 100 printers and it is totally sufficient for my needs...



I have a Brother multifunction printer/scanner beneath the Canon as well as a laser printer on a desktop nearby. I purchased the black work station used from a local Craigslist seller at a very good price and I really enjoy it. In fact, I now have enough space on my desktop to incorporate an editing tablet which I will set up soon.

The drawer below the printers holds my photo paper while the drawers beneath the CPU hold various and sundry items...

The wood grained cabinet beneath the black desk holds much of my photo equipment. Each drawer is for a separate category: bodies, lenses, etc...

The two eyeglass holders have been a very handy improvement to the station. They hold my reading/computer eyeglasses as well as my standard bifocals... I often do some work without wearing any glasses so holders for both pairs keep them in place.

Of course, the workstation includes the mandatory dog bed

[Astro]

Barry, two companies with a reasonable track record of providing 3rd party inks for both Canon and Epson are Marrutt and Permajet.
Both are based here in the UK.

Not all printers models are supported but, I have use both in the past and had no issues.

I'm guessing you will be looking at recharging cartridges but depending on printer model, both companies provide continuos ink systems.

James

[pbourget]

I have had the Canon Pro-100 for a few years and it works fine. I only print for display in my home and use several Canon papers plus Moab and Red River papers. All give good results using the profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer. I have found you must calibrate your display if you want your print to match what is on the screen. Sometimes it sits for months but has never clogged, though I would recommend printing at least once a month to insure it doesn’t clog. One thing to be aware of is ink is expensive, $124 US for a complete set.

[Manfred M]

I have had the Canon Pro-100 for a few years and it works fine. I only print for display in my home and use several Canon papers plus Moab and Red River papers. All give good results using the profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer. I have found you must calibrate your display if you want your print to match what is on the screen. Sometimes it sits for months but has never clogged, though I would recommend printing at least once a month to insure it doesn’t clog. One thing to be aware of is ink is expensive, $124 US for a complete set.

Two comments - these are dye based inks, so are not considered to be archival and the ink cartridges have a very low ink capacity (13ml). So it is okay if you don't print a lot, but if you do, it is far more cost effective to buy a printer with higher capacity cartridges. As an example, my Epson P800 has 80ml cartridges run at $US58, but that runs out at $US0.73 /ml whereas your ink is running at $1.31/ml. That being said, you have to print a lot to get value out of a printer (I generally print weekly and do large prints).

You are 100% correct on calibrating and profiling your screen. A colour managed workflow saves time and money when printing.

[DanK]

I have to disagree with Manfred on several counts.

First, I printed for years with a Pro 100 and now use a Prograf 1000, a pigment-ink printer which all reviews report is extremely similar to the Epson P800 in terms of final output. While I can see slight differences between the Pro 100 and Prograf 1000 images if I put them side by side, the differences are very slight. Viewing the prints normally, one can't see a difference. At least, I can't, and I would wager that no one would be able to tell me which of the prints on my walls were printed on each of the printers.

The cost per ml of unused ink is not a good measure of the cost of printing, let alone the total cost of ownership. Red River's tests, which rely on the actual ink used in printing, tell a very different story. For an 8 x 10, here are their estimates:
--Pro 100: $0.72
--Epson P800: $0.68 or 0.71, depending on the black ink used.
--Prograf 1000: $0.82 (I suspect because of the extra chroma optimizer ink tank)

But even this is misleading. If my experience is any indication, the dye-based Pro 100 wastes very little ink in its routine head cleaning. this is not true of the Prograf. I haven't kept track carefully, but I think the cost of wasted ink has added at least 25% to the cost of my prints. That marginal addition would have been less with the Pro-100.

Then there is the cost of the printer itself, which should be amortized over the prints you make. if you make a great many, this won't be much per print, but as you print less, it adds more. The Pro 100 is currently $450 at B&H, but if you are patient, you can often get it for $200. I got mine free, bundled with a camera. The Prograf is $1,300. The P800 is normally $1,200, but there is currently a special for $900. Finally, with the dye-based printer, I never worried in the slightest about periods of inactivity. Now I do, and I periodically print just to ward off a longer self-cleaning cycle. That costs money too.

So adding all of this up, especially for people printing a small amount, there is no cost penalty for using the dye-based Pro-100. If anything, it's cheaper.

As for being archival: Manfred is of course right, and that is the only reason I switched to a Prograf 1000. The question for you should be: does it matter? If you use Canon OEM inks, the Pro-100 makes prints that are quite durable. They won't go 50 or 100 years without fading, but do you care? I have lots of prints that have been hanging on a wall for over a decade that have not visibly faded--although to be fair, I typically framed them with UV protective glass to play it safe.

Some exhibits require museum quality printing: archival inks and museum quality papers. I actually have never had this requirement imposed on me, but I know it sometimes happens. IMHO, archival inks become important primarily for two reasons: if you want 50 years, or if you are going to put your prints up for sale. I am putting mine up for sale, so I would feel guilty using non-archival inks. (The gallery where my work is shown didn't require this of me, but I and some of the other photographers make it clear that we do this.)

So, the bottom line for me is that for most photographers, a very high quality dye-based printer like the Pro-100 is a very sensible choice. If you have a reason to want archival prints, however, you have no choice but to go with a pigment-ink printer.

[billtils]

... First, I printed for years with a Pro 100 and now use a Prograf 1000, a pigment-ink printer which all reviews report is extremely similar to the Epson P800 in terms of final output. While I can see slight differences between the Pro 100 and Prograf 1000 images if I put them side by side, the differences are very slight. Viewing the prints normally, one can't see a difference. At least, I can't, and I would wager that no one would be able to tell me which of the prints on my walls were printed on each of the printers.
....
Then there is the cost of the printer itself, which should be amortized over the prints you make. if you make a great many, this won't be much per print, but as you print less, it adds more. The Pro 100 is currently $450 at B&H, but if you are patient, you can often get it for $200. I got mine free, bundled with a camera. The Prograf is $1,300. The P800 is normally $1,200, but there is currently a special for $900. Finally, with the dye-based printer, I never worried in the slightest about periods of inactivity. Now I do, and I periodically print just to ward off a longer self-cleaning cycle. That costs money too.
....
As for being archival: Manfred is of course right, and that is the only reason I switched to a Prograf 1000. The question for you should be: does it matter? If you use Canon OEM inks, the Pro-100 makes prints that are quite durable. They won't go 50 or 100 years without fading, but do you care? I have lots of prints that have been hanging on a wall for over a decade old that have not visibly faded--although to be fair, I typically framed them with UV protective glass to play it safe.
....
So, the bottom line for me is that for most photographers, a very high quality dye-based printer like the Pro-100 is a very sensible choice. If you have a reason to want archival prints, however, you have no choice but to go with a pigment-ink printer.

I agree completely with what Dan says (except for his analysis on comparative ink use where I don't know enough to comment).

I have never been convinced by the archival argument as a deciding factor in choosing a printer - how may people have their prints hanging on the wall without protective glass and for more than a few years at a time? I hang my better prints but have very few on display for more than about 6 months.

[DanK]

A postscript: this left me wondering why the cost per print and the cost per ml are so different. Drawing on my faint memory of high school chemistry, I think I may know part of the answer: I think a larger volume of ink is required when using pigment inks. My speculation is that the colorant in dye-based inks is dissolved and hence has a negligible effect on volume. In contrast, the colorants in pigment ink are suspended, not dissolved, so adding them to the base increases the volume of ink by exactly the volume of the pigments.

[Manfred M]

Dan - having not used a dye based printer in decades, I can't comment on the ink use of dyes versus pigments.

Pigments are essentially extremely finely ground up minerals that are opaque and they rely on that property to create the colours. They mechanically bond with the substrate.

Dyes on the other hand are transparent that have to penetrate the paper fibres to create the colours and the opacity. The amount of a particular dye required to create a specific colour is likely to be more variable than with a pigment, so ink consumption is going to vary somewhat, based on the properties of the paper itself.

When it comes to ink waste in a pigment based printer, that is going to vary somewhat on the amount of printing one does, especially the time between prints. When I print more than once a week, the self cleaning cycle never kicks in. If I skip a few weeks between prints, then the cleaning is more noticeable.

Canon has an advantage over Epson in that it has separate ink paths for matte black versus photo black, so no ink is wasted in changing between the two paper types.

In terms of requiring specific paper / inksets, it depends on the market. In town if you want to sell through gallery space, one has to identify the inkset and paper being used and most will not accept work that is not done on archival papers and pigment ink sets. Art shows and more mass market stores don't care about archival qualities.

Bottom line is that a direct comparison of ink costs / use is extremely challenging, but still relatively low when compared to what I was paying for colour chemistry and colour paper back it the wet darkroom days.

[Ken MT]

Just a thought about power strips, multiboards (#12), the last two structure fires that I attended were caused by fires caused by multiboards. If you MUST use them then only use those with an overload cutout, or else get an electrician to install additional plugs on the house circuit.