Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
Terry, I was, in fact trying to balance out the posts, and was 
responding to what I thought was an unblanced post. I think this list, 
in particular, has a high percentage of members disgruntled with 
Piezo. I should know better by now to post this kind of thing here. 
Without turning this into a big back and forth thing, I'll simply tell 
you why I think what I think.

> I am glad that, as you say, there are those that can use Cone Inks 
> with little or no problems, but feel that you are perhaps in the 
> minority, not the majority as you say.

I have no idea why you would say that since I've seen nothing to 
support it, although you have no reason to accept what I say either.  
My opinion rests on my own and the experiences of every user I have 
regular personal contact with, as well as what I have been told by 
people who know more about the user base that I shouldn't quote. 
Again, you have no reason to believe them, or me. But Terry, I've seen 
nothing to support your statement that successful Piezo users are in 
the minority. I have never, ever, had a clogging problem with Piezo 
ink in an 1160 or a 3000. At the same time, I'm not denying some 
people have had unsolvable problems.

> Cone has always had problems with his inks.

I just don't know how you can make such a statement. There are 
problems with the color ink, but they seem unrelated to reported 
problems with the mono ink.

>B/W Piezo has a long history of clogging, forming crystal 
> type deposits, and creating sludge in printheads.

I've been on every Epson printing related list for a long time. I've 
seen a few isolated posts relating to some of the problems you 
mention, and as I mentioned in the first post there are those who've 
not been able to resolve clogging issues. I've never implied 
otherwise. But again, I don't see how you can make the above broad 
statement.

 The vast majority 
> of third party inks (MIS, Generations, etc...) do not exhibit these 
> problems,

I've had clogs with Lysonic, Fotonic, MIS color, and Generations. I 
don't recall problems with MIS mono clogs way back when. What else is 
there?

> Here is where I take a big issue with your statement. I have been 
> using the CIS systems for well over a year now in a wide variety of 
> printers (1200, 1160, 1270, 2000P), and I have never had a problem 
> related to the CIS. You will note that even Cone himself sells these 
> systems (although he does blame them for the 1270, 1280, and 2000P 
> problems with the Color Piezo - talk about a contradiction, he 
> himself can't even get those inks to work with carts, but blames the 
> CIS?!).

So you are implying Jon Cone is lying? I never said the problem was 
the CIS itself. I'm saying the combination of CIS and Piezo inks seems 
to be where the problems are occurring. One poster suspects, after 
careful examination, there was some chemical reaction between a 
sealant used in the CIS and the ink creating a greenish by product 
coming from the sealant working it's way into the ink flow. This has 
yet to be played out. I have no more idea than anyone else what the 
solution will be. These system and ink combos are relatively new, that 
problems are emerging doesn't justify claiming it's badly designed 
ink. 
> 
> >Any cartridge users 
> > reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?
> 
> Yes, go read the Color Piezo board.

I'm talking B&W

There are also those 
> using the Piezo B/W carts that report clogs, crystal deposits, etc...

Well, you've got me there. I don't recall particular posts or anything 
suggesting suggesting such an epidemic with cart users. I've never 
heard of crystal deposits.

> If the problem is only with the CIS as you state, why would he need a 
> chemist to fix it?

See above.

 Better yet, why would he need a chemist at all 
> since he "developed" these inks? They are a derivative of another 
> brand (that was not designed to be an Epson ink replacement) that are 
> manufactured for him by that company, plain and simple. There are 
> truly only a few companies that manufacture all of the inks made for 
> inkjet printers. The specialty inks are made from those.

Perhaps because it's a new problem requiring special techical 
expertise, or because developing an ink and being specifically 
involved at the chemcial level aren't necessarily the same thing? I 
don't know, who cares? It seems he's on the problem, why bash him?
> 
> This is exactly how the CIS works, it recharges the cart as it 
> empties, how would refilling by hand be any different?

Because of the syphon/gravity issues with CIS. Why else are people 
raising the bottles or the printer to overcome problems. Is it so hard 
to believe inks of different densities may have new problems with CIS?

> Actually hand 
> refilling is worse since it introduces much larger quantities of air 
> into the cartridge, which as we all know can and does lead to even 
> more problems.

I filled my own 1160 carts with Piezo, no problem.
> 
> You may actually be onto something with this, but it isn't the fault 
> of the CIS.

Again, I think it's the combination, and a new one.

...This is an evolving situation and the gap will 
> narrow 
> > > with time.
> > 
> > I personally think that's a ways off.
> 
> Why?

Because of the methods I see being used to address it, and the 
difficulties involved with making these quad worflows perfect. You 
forget how long quad inks have been around and how many people have 
been working on it, I don't see a great advance coming to light 
recently to accelerate progress.

> Didn't this user also have the 7000 for only a few weeks?

There were more than one, and I brought that up only in the context of 
the tinker factor. As far as whatever situation you refer to above, 
there are some who would say even a few weeks is too much tinkering, I 
wouldn't be one of them. Keep in mind all this was in reference to 
advising a new user of the pros and cons of the two approaches, what 
might their reasonable tinker factor be? He was advised it was 
minimal. Mike Kravitz, who was also appalled at my post, decided he 
needed to get some prints done and went back. He's also had Piezo 
issues as I recall, I'm not ignoring that. The subject here is the 
tinker factor.

Also, does 
> the Piezo 7000 use dithering? The desktop versions don't (there 
> Steadman, that is one of the clues you were looking for), which leads 
> to the banding, window screening, etc... of those "less than perfect 
> printers" that we hear so much about.

All drivers and RIPs of every kind dither, I don't know what this 
means.
> 
> Bottom line Tyler, is that no one system is perfect. You may be right 
> about the "tinker factor", but if Piezo leads to mechanical problems 
> right off the bat or in the very near future, that "tinker factor" 
> for fixing the Piezo problems (clogs, sludge, having to replace an 
> otherwise perfectly good printer, etc...) may prove to be more of a 
> problem than the "tinker factor" for these other alternatives.

I agree, and again, I sympathize those who have had insurmountable 
problems. In fact I mentioned a few in my post. My opinion is simply 
that the majority of Piezo users don't have problems, and most of them 
that do are here.
> 
> I am not advocating that one sytem is better than the other at this 
> point, but do believe that what you were trying to do was balance out 
> the conversation so to speak, but then took it a little too far in 
> the other direction

I can only say what I honestly think, based on my experiences, my 
friends experiences, any "inside" info I can get my hands on, and 
posts on lists. I also clearly said there are users with problems.
If we are both faced with the same info, and coming to different 
conclusions, I guess we are simply exposing the folly of being human.
Tyler