Warning about clogging print heads

[DanK]

I just had a very unpleasant surprise and wanted to pass on a warning to others.

As most of you probably know, with a pigment-ink printer, one should print periodically to avoid clogs and also protracted, ink-hungry self-cleaning. I have done that with my Prograf Pro 1000, EXCEPT:

It never occurred to me that because the printer has a separate black ink installed for matte papers--as some new Epsons do as well--I needed to also print specifically on matte papers to to protect the head. I print very little on matte papers. I hadn't done so for many months, and I never did so for maintenance reasons.

Yesterday I had to print on a matte paper, and I found that the matte black portion of the head was clogged. Two regular cleanings and two deep cleanings did nothing but consume a lot of expensive ink; that part of the head remains mostly clogged. (It was entirely clogged before.)

The cost of a new head, with a small discount I get through my university, is about US$700. In addition, replacing the head wastes considerable ink; the printer first empties the head into the waste container. So realistically, at least $800 to replace the head on a $1300 printer!

So, profit from my dumb mistake. Make sure that you print with both black inks from time to time.

PS: With nothing left to lose, I thought about trying the isopropyl alcohol option, but that's really intended for soluble (dye-based) inks, and there is a real cost to trying it because it requires throwing out and replacing all of the ink that's now in the head.

[Manfred M]

Dan - have heard of some people leaving a damp paper towel on the print head for at least 30 minutes can help here. I was told that distilled water is best.

[DanK]

Manfred,

Thanks. I may try that. Unfortunately, it's not a simple matter. You have to first tell the machine to dump all of the ink out of the head into the waste container. Not surprisingly, the procedure for removing and replacing the head isn't complicated, but it can be messy, and touching any of 4 different surfaces can screw things up. Then, after the head is reinstalled, the printer takes 20 minutes or so to refill the head. I've tried in vain to find out how much ink that is. Then again, I've gone through a lot of ink doing cleanings, and wasting some more in a last ditch effort to save $700 is probably sensible.

All of this could have been avoided if I'd printed one matte print every month or so. It just didn't occur to me, even though I did pay attention to frequency of printing in general.

Dan

[The amateur]

Thank you very much, Dan, for this important reminder and alert.

I am one of those who, although I have a printer and print relatively infrequently, or rather, not as often as I would like, but only when I have time, which has not really happened lately.

Printing at home is a really very expensive solution, not only for the ink but also for the paper involved, making the whole thing relatively expensive.

Therefore, I have to make an effort to print regularly, and I think that something like a photo or an image every 15 days might be enough to prevent clogging.

Cheers !

[DanK]

Antonio,

Just make sure that you occasionally print on both matte and coated papers. I was pretty careful not to let the printer sit unused for too long, but I almost always printed with coated papers, so the matte black ink (MBK in Canon speak) is what clogged.

Dan

[Manfred M]

I think those of us with older Epson printers (SureColor P600 and P800) that shared the black nozzle with photo black and matte black inks likely won't have that problem. I guess that may be an upside of that "ink swap" that everyone disliked with the Epson design did have one upside. The newer ones (SureColor P700 and P900), probably have the same issue as you do, as they have separate nozzles for the two different black inks.

I had not printed on any matte papers in over 2 years and when I ran some last month, I had no problems at all. As I have printed fairly regularly (several times a month) over that period, all the nozzles would have been used.

That being said, when this printer stops working and I replace it with one of the newer models, your experience is something I will definitely keep in mind.

[DanK]

That's the first time I've heard of an advantage of the old Epson system!

I set about soaking the bottom of the printhead with distilled water this morning but ran into an obstacle. The firmware routine for removing the head assumes that you will insert the new one immediately, but I'll be soaking the head for a day or two. I need to call Canon on Monday to see if I can restart the installation portion after an interruption of a few days.

[LenR]

Dan, not a vey welcome surprise to be sure. Hope you can get it sorted without the expense of a new head.
In the absence of frequent image printing I would assume that running a Nozzle Check Print Pattern on a regular basis would suffice to avoid clogging?

[Manfred M]

Dan, not a vey welcome surprise to be sure. Hope you can get it sorted without the expense of a new head.
In the absence of frequent image printing I would assume that running a Nozzle Check Print Pattern on a regular basis would suffice to avoid clogging?

You don't even have to do anything that complicated, Len.

I just get some plain paper and do some of my regular printing jobs on my photo printer instead of my laser printer. I believe the default is that it uses matte black ink on plain paper. When I use MS Word there is an option to use the "last used" black.

The most difficult part is remembering to bring some regular paper downstairs to where my photo printer is located.

[DanK]

What Manfred suggests should work for the black used in printing text, probably the matte black ink, and doing that might have avoided the problem I'm experiencing. however, to avoid clogs in general, you have to use all of the inks, which was the mistake I made. Simply printing a small photo--it can be at low quality to save ink--periodically should take care of this. How often depends on the printer, I think.

[DanK]

All's well that ends well. My Canon printer has three cleaning cycles in addition to the automatic one: "cleaning", "deep cleaning", and "system cleaning". The first two didn't work. The third, it turns out, is misnamed. I called Canon this morning to ask when a "system cleaning" is needed, as opposed to a nozzle cleaning, and the tech explained that the "system cleaning" is just a deeper yet, last resort nozzle cleaning that uses a considerable amount of ink. So, I figured that wasting some ink would be a lot cheaper than a new head (which also entails wasting a lot of ink), and I tried a system cleaning. It seems to have worked fine. I have appts today but will print something on matte paper soon to double check, but it seems like I may have avoided disaster.

So, folks, don't make the mistake I made. I probably avoided having to replace the head, but at the cost of a lot of time and what was probably $100 in ink.

[loosecanon]

can I second doing a print head check. Doing this a couple of times uses very little ink, but also uses every nozzle and warns of problems.

[Rufus]

I have a Canon PRO-10S and the nozzle check function prints a block of each colour, both blacks and the chrome optimiser, so all ten cartridges are used in the process.

I print one of these each month but I have never, so far, needed to initiate a print head alignment or clean. However, my print volumes are low.

I also keep my printer turned on so it mixes the inks automatically as it deems necessary; but I imagine that would only marginally mitigate the risk of blocked nozzles, if at all.

The PRO-10S has the clean and deep cleaning functions but no System Clean. I hope Dan finds the System Clean has worked for him.

[Manfred M]

All's well that ends well. My Canon printer has three cleaning cycles in addition to the automatic one: "cleaning", "deep cleaning", and "system cleaning". The first two didn't work. The third, it turns out, is misnamed. I called Canon this morning to ask when a "system cleaning" is needed, as opposed to a nozzle cleaning, and the tech explained that the "system cleaning" is just a deeper yet, last resort nozzle cleaning that uses a considerable amount of ink. So, I figured that wasting some ink would be a lot cheaper than a new head (which also entails wasting a lot of ink), and I tried a system cleaning. It seems to have worked fine. I have appts today but will print something on matte paper soon to double check, but it seems like I may have avoided disaster.

So, folks, don't make the mistake I made. I probably avoided having to replace the head, but at the cost of a lot of time and what was probably $100 in ink.

I'm glad to read that things worked out well for you. While $100 is not cheap, it is certainly a lot less than $700 for a new print head and even more for a new printer.

[pnodrog]

Thanks for the post. Since I shifted to Australia 4 years ago I haven't had a photo printer but I'm looking at buying a second hand A2 pigmented ink printer (Canon or Epson) and I will make the seller do a test print while I'm there. I will now make sure we do both a gloss and a matte test print. The last thing I want to do is buy a printer with a clogged head.

[DanK]

I have never used Epson photo printers, but with Canon printers, a simple nozzle check will give you a fair degree of assurance. In my case, the MBK (matte black) rectangle on the nozzle check printout was entirely blank most of the time and perhaps 15% filled in the other times.

I've now printed a serious print on matte paper to test that all's well, and it came out fine. Canon's firmware has detailed displays of both ink remaining and the remaining capacity of the ink waste tank, and both indicate that it took a lot of expensive ink to fix the problem, but it was still a fraction of the cost of a new head.

In that size, the Canon printer is the one I have, the imagePrograf Pro 1000. The Epson has changed since I bought mine; Manfred could tell you, but I think it's now the 900. It was the 800 when I bought mine. When it was the 1000 vs. the 800, it was a close call. Both produce gorgeous prints. The Epson handled rolls, which the Canon can't. The Canon has a more reliable sheet feed than the 800; I don't know about the 900. the 800 still had the Epson requirement that you switch black inks when you switch paper types. The Canon keeps both black inks loaded, and I think the Epson 900 now does as well.

Early in my time printing, my brother, who is also a photographer, said that in his experience, there are two distinct camps: those that fine printing frustrating, and those that enjoy it. I'm in the latter camp, despite a few rough patches. I get a lot of pleasure out of creating a good-looking print.

[pnodrog]

Thanks for your summary of the A2 printers. I had an Epson P600 (A3) which produced lovely prints. The new Epson printers tend to lighter and more compact than the Canon equivalents and as I am very limited in space is probably the reason I will stick to them.

Occasionally there are newer model A2 printers that come on the market at bargain prices often including a stock of inks. They seem to have been used for some project and the owners just want to get rid of them. I will probably just pounce on the next good one that becomes available regardless of whether it's an Epson or Canon.

[Manfred M]

Further to Dan's comment, Epson replaced the P600 and P800 with the P700 and P900 a few years ago.

With the new printers, Epson went with separate nozzles for matte black and photo black, so no more loss of ink when changing papers, but the potential of a print head drying out, like Dan had could be an issue. The P900 has a built in roll feed (which is nice) and smaller 50 ml cartridges (they cost less but I suspect the cost per ml of ink is probably higher). The P800 uses 80ml cartridges. They have also added violet ink to give a wider gamut.

I've never had a sheet feed problem with the P800 and I ran through a lot of very thin ( 50 gsm Washi paper) without any issues.

[Manfred M]

Early in my time printing, my brother, who is also a photographer, said that in his experience, there are two distinct camps: those that fine printing frustrating, and those that enjoy it. I'm in the latter camp, despite a few rough patches. I get a lot of pleasure out of creating a good-looking print.

I think your brother is very understated in his comment. Some folks seem to think that all they have to do is press the print button to get a high quality print. They are then very disappointed to find out that their assumption was incorrect.

Becoming a competent fine art print maker takes time and practice.

[DanK]

I'd go further than Manfred: to become a competent not-so-fine-art printer takes time and practice.

However, once one has the drill down, it's much simpler. And it becomes far simpler to implement your decisions if you print from Lightroom rather than Photoshop because of Lightroom's use of templates. Using LR does cost a small amount of control, but I've found in practice, and with a few A/B tests, that the control offered by LR is in most cases sufficient. I've exhibited a fair number of prints printed with LR, and the only comments I've received about print quality have been positive.

As an example, I just finished a project requested by one of my grandkids, restoring and printing photos of both sides of the family going back to her great great great grandparents. I did a bunch of 5 x 7 (roughly A5, but narrower and longer) borderless prints, all on the same paper, a nice but not archival luster (Moab Exhibition Luster). The first one took the usual amount of time, setting the software to control color, calling up the right ICC, setting borderless highest-quality printing, setting the media type, setting the output sharpening, etc. etc. All fairly automatic for me now, but a lot of steps. However, after the first one, I literally only had to hit print for the rest. LR retains the last print settings until you change them. In addition, with a few mouse clicks, you can save the entire set of settings to a template and recall it at any time. I do that frequently, and while I always check a few settings after I call up an existing template to make sure it's all OK, it's in principle not necessary.

I'm not advocating that people do what I do. I know a number of printers for whom the small amount of additional control offered by Photoshop is worth it. However, for people just getting into printing, I do recommend spending a little time looking at alternatives, LR and Photoshop if you use Adobe, before investing the time to learn one package well.