Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

I'm currently eyeing an Epson 9500 that is offered for sale in my 
neighborhood. The idea would be to convert it to a dedicated B&W 
using Paul's Carbon-6. However, I have some questions:

- What would be a decent price? 
- What are the caveats to look out for when testing the machine? (of 
course a nozzle check, but what else?)
- I have been looking around for empty refillable cartridges but have 
found none so far (e.g. MIS offers the cartridges, but not the 
chips). Any pointer?
- If the above fails, could I start with a MIS prefilled Eboni-6 set 
and refill thm with Carbon-6? Are these sets not compatible?
- Any further considerations?

Thanks for any advice

Joost

> - I have been looking around for empty refillable cartridges but have 
> found none so far (e.g. MIS offers the cartridges, but not the 
> chips). Any pointer?

MIS appears to have the funnel fill carts.  
See http://www.inksupply.com/funnelfill.cfm

You can also rinse and refill.  I'm still working with what sure look 
like refurbished Epson carts for my 7500.  They were originally from 
MIS, and I get the impression they still have the old style cart like 
this available.

I'm not sure about Carbon-6 and Eboni-6 compatibility.  I have not used 
them in the same machine, but I know of no problems.  If the systems 
were rinsed between uses, however, I'm sure it'd be fine.

Good luck with the 9500.  With Eboni-6 or Carbon-6 it ought to give 
fine results. 

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

I would not offer more then a few hundred dollars assuming it works  
good. How about Cone's inks, already filled and chipped carts. You  
will also need cleaning carts to flush out the color inks.
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.1248/.f


Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Joost Horsten wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently eyeing an Epson 9500 that is offered for sale in my
> neighborhood. The idea would be to convert it to a dedicated B&W
> using Paul's Carbon-6. However, I have some questions:
>
> - What would be a decent price?
> - What are the caveats to look out for when testing the machine? (of
> course a nozzle check, but what else?)
> - I have been looking around for empty refillable cartridges but have
> found none so far (e.g. MIS offers the cartridges, but not the
> chips). Any pointer?
> - If the above fails, could I start with a MIS prefilled Eboni-6 set
> and refill thm with Carbon-6? Are these sets not compatible?
> - Any further considerations?
>
> Thanks for any advice
>
> Joost



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

> MIS appears to have the funnel fill carts.  
> See http://www.inksupply.com/funnelfill.cfm

Thanks. I missed those. I only found the normal spongeless 
refillables. They are labeled "no chips" but they're no 9500 chips in 
the chip area. However, reading a bit between the lines, it looks 
like the 9500 cartridges have no chips at all.... Right?
 
> You can also rinse and refill.  I'm still working with what sure 
look 
> like refurbished Epson carts for my 7500.  They were originally 
from 
> MIS, and I get the impression they still have the old style cart 
like 
> this available.

If they're no chips involved, that should work indeed. Then I could 
consider indeed to go with the color cartridges that come with the 
printer. What would I need to rinse and use as cleaning fluid?

Or are these funnel cartridges much handier to fill? Looks like it...
 
> Good luck with the 9500.  

I first have to get a decent price for it and it should be in 
sufficiently good condition ;-) But thanks!

> With Eboni-6 or Carbon-6 it ought to give 
> fine results. 

Frankly, I'm still a bit in doubt between C6 and 4K+. Aside from the 
obvious differences of low cost and pure carbon longevity (C6) vs 
toning and gloss capability (4K+), would you consider the shear print 
quality on a 7500/9500 of C6 noticably superior to that of 4K+?

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia 
<mark@...> wrote:
>
> I would not offer more then a few hundred dollars assuming it 
works  
> good. 

Thanks. That's indeed what I had in mind, but I was not sure if I was 
too optimistic.

> How about Cone's inks, already filled and chipped carts. 

With a 9500 I'm obviously aiming for a low budget solution. The C6 
approach is in that respect so much more attractive. My assumption is 
that quality-wise they should be very, very similar. Or do I miss 
something?

> You  
> will also need cleaning carts to flush out the color inks.
> http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.1248/.f

I realise that. Thanks nevertheless. Also the Cone cleaning carts are 
much more expensive than those from MIS :-(

Joost

You don't beed to buy cleaning carts or fluid.

Just use some of the base for the Carbon 6.  Add ammonia and 
isopropyl alcohol (about $3 each.) Run an INIT fill 3-4 times using 
the refillable carts you are going to buy before you put any -
ink in them.

Are the carts for the 7500 the same as for the 9500? Lyson has carts 
for the 7500 for $210.  You can have them drop shipped through 
inkjetart.com

http://ink2image.com/WFRefillablecartridges.html

I ordered a set for the 7600 and they worked perfectly the first time 
I installed them. I have had trouble with quality control with other 
vendors and had to returnm 1/3 to 1/2 of the carts I received, could 
not get them to work.

The biggest "drawback" to Carbon 6 is thAt it is matte only. I am 
trying to move to all Photo Black printing for color. I also want to 
print on the new fiber papers. So i will probably move to the Cone 
inks for glossy. But no hurry, I have 1/2 of a liter of Carbon 6 to 
use up first. ;>)  

Very nice prints from Carbom 6. I am proofing on Epson Enhanced 
Matte, final prints on Moab Entrada Bright White. The Ultrasmooth and 
Somerset Velvet also produced very nice prints with Carbon 6.

Good luck!

Best,
Michael

OK, here we go. Many people are going to consider this as off topic,
but tough, deal with it.

#1 the 9000/9500 do not have carts in the chips. You can reset the
counters in the service menus, or by removing the empty carts. This
makes it nice for refillers.

#2 price... Kind of hard to decide as there are a lot of things that
could go wrong depending on how often this printer has been
maintained, and which accessories it has. Up to $1000 if it has few
prints on it. Maybe a little more if it has the motor powered take up
spool and new heads.

Things to look for:

If the heads have been used hard, and run dry, a nozzel check may be
fine. But when you get to printing the individual nozzel piezo can
heat and loose its function. So you really need to run a print to find
out if nozzels drop out in the print. This is more common when you
start running it with a RIP that can drive the heads at their real 100%.

Another thing that can cause the nozzels to drop out in the print is a
clogger damper or restricted ink tube. The plastic tubes get crushed
where they attach to the dampers, and over time the hole gets smaller
and smaller until you get flow problems.

Note also that the 9500 does not have a firewire card available, and
no USB connection. So you will need to deal with an old operating
system that has support for a parallel port (maybe win2000) or get a
USB-par adapter.

At this point in the life cycle of a 9000/9500 you should really just
go in with the thought that you will need to replace heads, dampers,
ink lines, capping station, wiper and ink waste pads. I haven't priced
these parts lately so I'm not sure of the price. Many of these parts
are used in Mutoh and Mimaki printers, so they should remain available
for a while. If you get lucky and all these parts last you a good long
time, then you got a bargin. Better to go in expecting the worst than
expecting the best and have to shell out a bunch more money to get it
working.

Also you really should build a separate computer to run this printer.
It is very slow in the modes that you will want to use (multipass,
highest resolution), so you don't want to tie up your main computer
while this thing spits out a big print.

I also meant to add that you should go to the Image Specialists web
site and find a dealer in Europe. That way you can get all the inks
for eboni 6 and cleaning fluids, etc locally. Yes it will take 7500
carts if you only want to deal with 100ml at a time. For inks that
could settle, this may be the best choice because you may go through
them fast enough to keep the probelms away.

>
> maintained, and which accessories it has. Up to $1000 if it has few
> prints on it. Maybe a little more if it has the motor powered take 
..

> system that has support for a parallel port (maybe win2000) or get a
> USB-par adapter.
> 
...

> go in with the thought that you will need to replace heads, dampers,
> ink lines, capping station, wiper and ink waste pads.
> I haven't priced


Hi Greg! I am not sure why you would think that was OT? Very usefull 
post!

I am not familiar with the 9500. Interesting that it is parallel 
only, etc.

FWIW in terms of pricing: Looks like the going price for an Epson 
9800, shipped, on Ebay lately is about $2,000. That is a **much** 
newer machine than the 9500.  So you could look for a 9600, say, 
which is also older than the 9800, for around $1,000.

Given that, I don't think I would go up to $1,000 US on the 9500.

You might also look at a 7600. They tend to be run less hard than the 
9600. They are more often personal machines, where the 9600 are 
usually production. I bought a like-new 7600 for $650 off of Ebay. 
Only 1000 ml through the system, barely on it's second set of carts!

There is a 7600 at Luminous Landscape for $700 in the NE USA. I am 
sure he would take a bit less.  Also a 9600 in Western Canada.  I 
know that may not help you, just an FYI for others.

Best,
Michael

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael T.
Murphy" <uriel_bear@...> wrote:

> Hi Greg! I am not sure why you would think that was OT? Very usefull 
> post!
> 
>

It's considered off topic because some people have moaned about talk
like this in the past.

Are these machines really going for that little now? And honestly, the
9000/9500 is an entirely different class of machine than the really
Epson built 9600 and 9800. The 9000/9500 is a tank that was designed
by either Mimaki or Mutoh (I don't remember which) in some sort of
agreement to use the Epson printheads in the other printers. It got
Epson into the wide format market faster than if they did all the
design themselves. And both Mimaki and Mutoh build industrial machines
that are meant to last a very long time and push a lot of material
through the rollers. The 9000/9500's are great machines (within their
limits) and very easy to service. Glad I own one, even though it is
currently mothballed.

Hi Greg,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

> OK, here we go. Many people are going to consider this as off topic,
> but tough, deal with it.

Perhaps others, but I really appreciate your feedback. Extremely 
useful!

> Things to look for:
> 
> If the heads have been used hard, and run dry, a nozzel check may be
> fine. But when you get to printing the individual nozzel piezo can
> heat and loose its function. So you really need to run a print to 
find
> out if nozzels drop out in the print. This is more common when you
> start running it with a RIP that can drive the heads at their real 
100%.
>
> Another thing that can cause the nozzels to drop out in the print 
is a
> clogger damper or restricted ink tube. The plastic tubes get crushed
> where they attach to the dampers, and over time the hole gets 
smaller
> and smaller until you get flow problems.
[...]
> At this point in the life cycle of a 9000/9500 you should really 
just
> go in with the thought that you will need to replace heads, dampers,
> ink lines, capping station, wiper and ink waste pads. I haven't 
priced
> these parts lately so I'm not sure of the price. Many of these parts
> are used in Mutoh and Mimaki printers, so they should remain 
available
> for a while. If you get lucky and all these parts last you a good 
long
> time, then you got a bargin. Better to go in expecting the worst 
than
> expecting the best and have to shell out a bunch more money to get 
it
> working.

Thanks, these are very good expert insights...
 
> Note also that the 9500 does not have a firewire card available, and
> no USB connection. So you will need to deal with an old operating
> system that has support for a parallel port (maybe win2000) or get a
> USB-par adapter.
[...]
> Also you really should build a separate computer to run this 
printer.
> It is very slow in the modes that you will want to use (multipass,
> highest resolution), so you don't want to tie up your main computer
> while this thing spits out a big print.

This is not a problem. I'm already running an old PC as print server.


Thanks again!

Joost

> 
>

Hi all,

Encouraged by your feedback I went out to buy the Epson 9500. But 
alas... it was already sold :-(

I've been looking further around and spotted a 9600 (no doubt a very 
good printer, but they ask too much). I found a 9000 as well. All 
comments given on the maintenance need on the 9500 apply here as well 
of course. So I am rather cautious...

But apart from that, is this "antique" type of printer (6 inks, fixed 
10 pl droplets) able to create high quality B&W prints? I expect that 
a 4K+ inkset is a no-go for this printer. But would a 
Carbon/Eboni/Cone-6 give top-notch results? I am willing to give up 
the toning/glossy capabilities of 4K+, but I am not pepared to settle 
with substandard print quality. Then I'd rather look around further 
for another 9500 or a cheaper 9600. 

Joost

My understanding was that the 9000 should have slightly better image quality than the 
9500... at any rate, a 4k+ inkset would do quite nicely in a 9000, I've seen many 
wonderful quad prints by excellent workers made this way. A 6k inkset would, of course, 
be optimal in terms of more photographic output from that model, and would certainly 
give outstanding results.
Just my opinion, but if one is happy with the hue provided by an available inkset, the 
variable hue options are over rated. Many great darkroom workers found something they 
liked and printed to that same look for decades. Personally, for my work, I love to do 
subtle hue tweaks to my images, but often have second thoughts seeing more and more 7 
and 7k output these days, particularly on different papers.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:

>
> Hi all,
> 
> Encouraged by your feedback I went out to buy the Epson 9500. But 
> alas... it was already sold :-(
> 
> I've been looking further around and spotted a 9600 (no doubt a very 
> good printer, but they ask too much). I found a 9000 as well. All 
> comments given on the maintenance need on the 9500 apply here as well 
> of course. So I am rather cautious...
> 
> But apart from that, is this "antique" type of printer (6 inks, fixed 
> 10 pl droplets) able to create high quality B&W prints? I expect that 
> a 4K+ inkset is a no-go for this printer. But would a 
> Carbon/Eboni/Cone-6 give top-notch results? I am willing to give up 
> the toning/glossy capabilities of 4K+, but I am not pepared to settle 
> with substandard print quality. Then I'd rather look around further 
> for another 9500 or a cheaper 9600. 
> 
> Joost
>

Hi Joost:

Buying used printers is a lot like buying used cars. There are a  
number of little things that can go wrong compared with buying a new  
printer.

I recommend considering the option purchasing a used 24" or wider  
printer to use as a trade-in for a new printer. Some companies are  
offering about $1000 for trade-ins, and they will often pay for the  
pick up of the old printer. If you can find a printer for $50-500 in  
your neighborhood that qualifies, that might be the best option. I  
would check the websites of Canon, Epson and HP to see current  
offerings.

The advantages of a new printer are: warranty (usually 1 year), a  
new, full set of inks, and generally much faster print speeds. The  
print speed is probably the biggest factor for me. The 9000 is still  
a great printer (if you can find one that works well after 6 years),  
but it is really slow. I still have one, and once you start using it,  
I think you'll agree.

Of course that assumes you like the look of the prints on the new  
printer using the full color inkset.

Just some food for thought.

All the best,

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// 
www.inkjettips.com


On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> My understanding was that the 9000 should have slightly better  
> image quality than the
> 9500... at any rate, a 4k+ inkset would do quite nicely in a 9000,  
> I've seen many
> wonderful quad prints by excellent workers made this way. A 6k  
> inkset would, of course,
> be optimal in terms of more photographic output from that model,  
> and would certainly
> give outstanding results.
> Just my opinion, but if one is happy with the hue provided by an  
> available inkset, the
> variable hue options are over rated. Many great darkroom workers  
> found something they
> liked and printed to that same look for decades. Personally, for my  
> work, I love to do
> subtle hue tweaks to my images, but often have second thoughts  
> seeing more and more 7
> and 7k output these days, particularly on different papers.
> Tyler
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost  
> Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Encouraged by your feedback I went out to buy the Epson 9500. But
> > alas... it was already sold :-(
> >
> > I've been looking further around and spotted a 9600 (no doubt a very
> > good printer, but they ask too much). I found a 9000 as well. All
> > comments given on the maintenance need on the 9500 apply here as  
> well
> > of course. So I am rather cautious...
> >
> > But apart from that, is this "antique" type of printer (6 inks,  
> fixed
> > 10 pl droplets) able to create high quality B&W prints? I expect  
> that
> > a 4K+ inkset is a no-go for this printer. But would a
> > Carbon/Eboni/Cone-6 give top-notch results? I am willing to give up
> > the toning/glossy capabilities of 4K+, but I am not pepared to  
> settle
> > with substandard print quality. Then I'd rather look around further
> > for another 9500 or a cheaper 9600.
> >
> > Joost
> >
>








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The 9000 is mechanically exactly the same as the 9500 unless it has 
original heads which were updated somewhere along the 9500 production 
line. If you know what you are doing you can make some wonderful 
prints with the 9000/9500, but it takes work. I have no doubts that 
you can make fantastic prints with a custom 3KCMY inkset and the 
correct RIP. I mothballed my printer before I tried this new feature 
of the Evolution RIP from Digifab, but seeing what I could do with 
the 6 ink set, I have no doubts that I could get extremely fine 3K 
monochrome prints, as well as decent color prints. You will need to 
be willing to sheel out for things like good profile creation 
software that will make fully controllable CMYK profiles, a good 
supported spectrophotometer (supported by the RIP) like the i1 or 
Pulse, possibly a tool like Colorthink Pro or ColorshopX, and a lot 
of paper and ink.

My suggestion would be to use full black, light light black, and 
dilute the l l black so that it reaches about 25% normal print 
density. Mix those into the single black channel in the RIP, profile 
in CMYK and create a profile with a very steep GCR, maybe even linear 
from 100% to 0%. The hard work and lots of paper will be in getting 
the black channel mixed properly so that you get fine graduation from 
white to black, with no dots. It will not be a simple overlap between 
25% to 50%, and 50% to 100%, the 25% will need to be mixed back into 
the full black at some point. This is of course the part that I 
haven't worked out yet.

Adding more inks will make the black transitions better, and you 
could certainly make a gloss and matte inkset if you wanted to run 4 
or more black inks, or just go with eboni6 for matte prints. Or buy 
whatever Cone is producing in the K6/K7 line.

So in summary, I have no doubts that this dinosaur of a printer (back 
to 1998 or 1999) will still produce the level of print that will make 
youhappy, if yo are willing to invest the time and money for the 
tools you will need. Those tools and that knowledge will carry you 
along to much better things in the future.

Since upgrading the firmware on a 9000 is probably going to be next 
to impossible, I would suggest that you look for a 9500. They changed 
the dithers, and the way the heads are driven between the two 
printers (change from dye ink in the 9000 to pigment ink in the 
9500). Once upon a time you could get your 9000 upgraded to a 9500, 
and the printer that I own was one of these upgrades. I know how to 
do it, but the flash memory cards needed have pretty much dried up.

I want to make sure the positive aspects of pursuing this printer and
other x000-x500s, are not thrown off track here. There are many
outstanding and demanding B&W printers out there using these models.
There is a strong sense of "self-help" amongst the users out there,
giving a lot of back and forth advice about function and repair. These
models can be maintanenced by those so inclined, the newer models are
much more difficult to work on.
Software solutions are very straightforward. With Cone K6 inks and
QTR, provided profiles get you up and going imediately. Without in
depth knowledge of Paul's K6, my impression is the same for that
inkset and workflow. Please correct me if I am wrong. I belive we had
a lovely sample of that output at the recent workshop.
Outstanding workers out there using these printers, that I am
personally aware of are- Steve Meyers, Tom Mallonee with his gorgeous
custom mix inks, Craig Carlson, and I'm pretty sure Paul Roark uses a
7500, as well as Roy Harrington. Some of these people use StudioPrint,
but the user friendly QTR and supported inksets are very viable
options. There are many others I've failed to mention. Steve has a
7000 and a 9000, and moves large quantities of prints, very successful.

Members of the printing community not regularly in contact with the
dedicated B&W ink workers may not be aware of all of this. Equipment's
age does not rule it out, and sometimes you have to look at the right
tool for the job. Newer printers may have attributes that relate more
to other concerns. I used two 3000s for many years with quad inks,
those prints still hold up. If not for transport problems, I may still
have kept them around.
Tyler

Tyler -
   
  You should be expecting a 'how dare you' letter from Canon, HP, and especially Epson after posting this.  With your attitude they won't be selling as many new printers.
   
  This was a very good, and reassuring piece.
   
  THX
   
  Tom Baker

Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
          I want to make sure the positive aspects of pursuing this printer and
other x000-x500s, are not thrown off track here. There are many
outstanding and demanding B&W printers out there using these models.
There is a strong sense of "self-help" amongst the users out there,
giving a lot of back and forth advice about function and repair. These
models can be maintanenced by those so inclined, the newer models are
much more difficult to work on.
Software solutions are very straightforward. With Cone K6 inks and
QTR, provided profiles get you up and going imediately. Without in
depth knowledge of Paul's K6, my impression is the same for that
inkset and workflow. Please correct me if I am wrong. I belive we had
a lovely sample of that output at the recent workshop.
Outstanding workers out there using these printers, that I am
personally aware of are- Steve Meyers, Tom Mallonee with his gorgeous
custom mix inks, Craig Carlson, and I'm pretty sure Paul Roark uses a
7500, as well as Roy Harrington. Some of these people use StudioPrint,
but the user friendly QTR and supported inksets are very viable
options. There are many others I've failed to mention. Steve has a
7000 and a 9000, and moves large quantities of prints, very successful.

Members of the printing community not regularly in contact with the
dedicated B&W ink workers may not be aware of all of this. Equipment's
age does not rule it out, and sometimes you have to look at the right
tool for the job. Newer printers may have attributes that relate more
to other concerns. I used two 3000s for many years with quad inks,
those prints still hold up. If not for transport problems, I may still
have kept them around.
Tyler



                           


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler -
>    
>   You should be expecting a 'how dare you' letter from Canon, HP, and 
especially Epson after posting this.  With your attitude they won't be 
selling as many new printers.
>    


I don't think they are worrying at all. Most people do not want 
to "tinker" with inksets and software. Most people want to press the 
print button and get a print in their hands as fast as possible (time = 
money?). And as we all know, a 9000/9500 printing at 40+ inches wide 
with multipass on takes a long time to print.

QTR and the Cone inks are a good way to go, even better if you throw a 
supported measuring device in the mix so that you can tweak the 
profiles (the devil is in the details?).

Tyler is 100% correct in his assessment of all this. All of the old
Epson printers from the 3000 on are quite capable of making prints
anyone could be proud of.
As Greg suggests the devil is indeed in the details but when is that
not the case. Plug and play on the highest levels is non-existent in
MHO irrespective of the printers age.
If one takes a close look at some of the characteristics of these
printers and their drivers over the years, it becomes clear that the
newest ones aren't necessarily always using the latest and greatest
features when you assume they would be. I've been working with my old
7000 with custom ink sets(color) over the last couple of summers. The
need for a RIP led me to look at the Gutenprint software( Yes Greg.I
know commercial folks aren't and wouldn't be interested in such a
solution.). A lot of information has gone through this leaky old brain
during the course of this and there were some surprises about the
printers operations. In an effort to puzzle out how to effectively use
Gutenprint, I've haunted some of the developer threads around and
about for it.If one really wants to be educated on the under the hood
aspects of these printers, check out the ruminations of the people
writing the software. There is a good deal more to it than smaller dot
sizes and finer steps.

Regards
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> I want to make sure the positive aspects of pursuing this printer and
> other x000-x500s, are not thrown off track here.
> Tyler
>

Duane,

Several years ago I looked into Gutenprint, but it wasn't supported on 
Windows, so I stopped. It offer the low level control that any good RIP 
will give you. The reason I went with the Evolution RIP was the ink 
control aspects, I have yet to find a RIP that gives you this much 
control without having to jump through a huge number of hoops. 
Studioprint offers similar control, but I could not make it find my 
printer no matter what I tried, so I just tossed the demo and went on 
to the next. Ended up with the Evolution and spent time learning the 
ins and outs of it's ink mixing. I'll have to take another look at 
Gutenprint and see how far it has come, hopefully they have done a 
Windows port by now.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

> QTR and the Cone inks are a good way to go, even better if you throw 
a 
> supported measuring device in the mix so that you can tweak the 
> profiles (the devil is in the details?).


Hi all,

Thanks once again. I really appreciate the advice. I'm not afraid for 
the profiling part. QTR and my Eye-one should bring me a long way. 
Today I contacted the guys that are selling the 9000, but the expert 
was not around. Tomorrow another try...

Joost

Hi Greg. 
I don't think it is in windows yet. The Gimp for windows is using the
epson drivers. I am using Ubuntu in a WUBI windows folder partition
and printing through the Gimp with it's Gutenprint plugin driver. It
has  mega controls but as yet they are not tied directly to instrument
measurements so are a bit sticky to learn how to use. I believe the
color management aspects are under development currently so it
shouldn't be too much longer before they are available too.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> Duane,
> 
> Several years ago I looked into Gutenprint, but it wasn't supported on 
> Windows, so I stopped. It offer the low level control that any good RIP 
> will give you. The reason I went with the Evolution RIP was the ink 
> control aspects, I have yet to find a RIP that gives you this much 
> control without having to jump through a huge number of hoops. 
> Studioprint offers similar control, but I could not make it find my 
> printer no matter what I tried, so I just tossed the demo and went on 
> to the next. Ended up with the Evolution and spent time learning the 
> ins and outs of it's ink mixing. I'll have to take another look at 
> Gutenprint and see how far it has come, hopefully they have done a 
> Windows port by now.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
<dlruckus@...> wrote:

> Hi Greg. 
> I don't think it is in windows yet. The Gimp for windows is using the
> epson drivers. I am using Ubuntu in a WUBI windows folder partition
> and printing through the Gimp with it's Gutenprint plugin driver. It
> has  mega controls but as yet they are not tied directly to instrument
> measurements so are a bit sticky to learn how to use. I believe the
> color management aspects are under development currently so it
> shouldn't be too much longer before they are available too.
> 
> Regards
> Duane

Duane,

Would could Gutenprint do that QTR cannot? I'm currently using QTR on 
a "medium-advanced level", using the QTR algorithms for curve creation. 
I expect this to be insufficient to get the best out of 
eboni/carbon/cone-6 inksets. But the option to create user curves 
should bring this much further.

I could consider to run a linux printserver iso a windows-based one. 
But I'm only going to do that if they're real advantages.

Joost

Joost,


I agree with Greg, Tyler and others, the 9500 can make great prints,
albeit "slowly". As long as you use a black and at least 3-4 grays the
droplet size doesn't seem to be a factor. 5 grays is best.

As for the parallel port, USB adapters were easy to find, built by
Epson I believe. They worked seamlessly.

Regarding using the smaller (7x00) carts, I wouldn't try to install
them in a 9500 because you'll have a hell of a time getting them out!

The main advantages of these printers now is that
(a) it's easy to get the service manuals and be able to clean the
heads or reset counters that would otherwise stop you  from finishing
a job.
(b) as has been pointed out, the carts have no chips and that makes
life easier with third party inks
(c) low price for the size (all other factors considered)

The benefit of the newer machines is, of course, speed
but also the 7+ positions that allows for a more flexible inkset.
In the case of Canon, it also includes a set of gray inks that don't
bronze on glossy papers - which may or may not be a big deal to you.

If you lived in Los Angeles, I'd offer to sell you my 9500. It's
dedicated to a Piezo K7 bw inkset, has a bypass that drains the waste
ink into a bottle rather than the pads and has seen very light use.
It also has a USB adaptor. If anyone else is interested, you can
contact me at antonisphoto at gmail.com  The only catch is you pretty
much have to come and haul it away. Too big for me to crate.

Of course the way the dollar is going, it may be worth it for you to
come over from Holland and pick it up.... I'll take any Euros I can
get my hands on!...
: )

Antonis 







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

....

> is this "antique" type of printer (6 inks, fixed 
> 10 pl droplets) able to create high quality B&W prints? I expect that 
> a 4K+ inkset is a no-go for this printer. But would a 
> Carbon/Eboni/Cone-6 give top-notch results? I am willing to give up 
> the toning/glossy capabilities of 4K+, but I am not pepared to settle 
> with substandard print quality. Then I'd rather look around further 
> for another 9500 or a cheaper 9600. 
> 
> Joost
>

Joost,

Since you are already using QTR, that makes the most sense at least to 
start. For a purely monochrome or toned monochrome inkset you may want 
to move to the Bowhaus RIP
http://www.bowhaus.com/services/IJCOPMmain.php4

The curve creation was more friendly the last time I compared it to 
QTR, but that has been more than a year ago, so may not apply now. Also 
not sure how the price compares to something like StudioPrint or the 
Evolution RIP.

Hi Joost.
Gutenprint has all the capabilities but--I think, for B&W, that QTR is
still the one to beat. It's (QTR's) facilities for curve generation
and ink limiting are an advance over those currently in gutenprint, in
my estimation. It's not that gutenprint can't do the same things. It
is just that it is not as friendly to use with instrumentation. A jump
from what you describe as your current level with QTR to learning how
to make advanced curves is likely to be much easier than starting over
again with gutenprint. You already have all that you need for the
task. If you haven't done so yet check out Paul Rourk's site for all
the information he has set out for doing the sort of thing you are
looking for with QTR. He has written some tutorials on the topic.

 I still use QTR for all of my B&W printing. The only reason I began
exploring and using Gutenprint is because I had to have some sort of
an advanced RIP for color work that I've been doing. I only wish it
had some of the same functionality that QTR does. It would make it far
easier to use and learn. As it stands, a lot of the parameters in
Gutenprint are still buried within it's drivers. You can make
adjustments to them but, unless you look at the source code itself,
the base parameters are not directly visible to you so your changes
are made somewhat blindly. They are not set up as log10 density or Lab
values or percentages etc. Also any color management has to be done
outside of gutenprint. I hope all that will change as time goes on but
it may be awhile.

Hope this helps.
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

> Would could Gutenprint do that QTR cannot? I'm currently using QTR on 
> a "medium-advanced level", using the QTR algorithms for curve creation. 
> I expect this to be insufficient to get the best out of 
> eboni/carbon/cone-6 inksets. But the option to create user curves 
> should bring this much further.
> 
> I could consider to run a linux printserver iso a windows-based one. 
> But I'm only going to do that if they're real advantages.
> 
> Joost
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joost.
> Gutenprint has all the capabilities but--I think, for B&W, that QTR 
is
> still the one to beat. It's (QTR's) facilities for curve generation
> and ink limiting are an advance over those currently in gutenprint, 
in
> my estimation. It's not that gutenprint can't do the same things. It
> is just that it is not as friendly to use with instrumentation. A 
jump
> from what you describe as your current level with QTR to learning 
how
> to make advanced curves is likely to be much easier than starting 
over
> again with gutenprint. You already have all that you need for the
> task. If you haven't done so yet check out Paul Rourk's site for all
> the information he has set out for doing the sort of thing you are
> looking for with QTR. He has written some tutorials on the topic.
> 
>  I still use QTR for all of my B&W printing. The only reason I began
> exploring and using Gutenprint is because I had to have some sort of
> an advanced RIP for color work that I've been doing. I only wish it
> had some of the same functionality that QTR does. It would make it 
far
> easier to use and learn. As it stands, a lot of the parameters in
> Gutenprint are still buried within it's drivers. You can make
> adjustments to them but, unless you look at the source code itself,
> the base parameters are not directly visible to you so your changes
> are made somewhat blindly. They are not set up as log10 density or 
Lab
> values or percentages etc. Also any color management has to be done
> outside of gutenprint. I hope all that will change as time goes on 
but
> it may be awhile.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> Duane
> 

Yes it does. Thanks for the elaborate explanation. I will just stick 
with QTR as planned. I already constructed a "dummy" setup for 6 
overlapping ink curves by using the QTR user curve feature. Looks not 
too difficult to do, although I still have a few questions on what 
would be the best strategy to overlap these curves for getting the 
best possible results. But I'll come back to that later.

Joost

I'm just back from the Golden Trout Workshops, and this thread caught 
my attention.  In general I agree with the positive comments.  I 
wanted to add that with the 100% carbon solutions I'm now using, the 
larger dot/droplet size used by my 7500 actually makes more neutral 
prints than the smaller droplet sizes of the more modern printers.  
That is, while all the 100% carbon pigment mixes I've experimented 
with show some warmth or relative rise in Lab B in the midtones, the 
maximum Lab B relative to the paper white is lower with larger drop 
sizes.  As such, for those who like the most neutral prints, the 
older printers may actually be better than the newer, smaller drop 
size versions.

As to smoothness, I have a comparison on page 9 of my Eboni-6 notes 
at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf   The 1600 dpi scan 
(flatbed) shows some smoothness advantage to the more modern 220 
(which would be similar to a 9600) that is included in the 
comparison, but these enlargements are so extreme that the slight 
difference is not noticeable at normal viewing distance in display 
prints.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

pr_roark wrote:
> I'm just back from the Golden Trout Workshops, and this thread caught 
> my attention.  In general I agree with the positive comments.  I 
> wanted to add that with the 100% carbon solutions I'm now using, the 
> larger dot/droplet size used by my 7500 actually makes more neutral 
> prints than the smaller droplet sizes of the more modern printers.  
> That is, while all the 100% carbon pigment mixes I've experimented 
> with show some warmth or relative rise in Lab B in the midtones, the 
> maximum Lab B relative to the paper white is lower with larger drop 
> sizes.  As such, for those who like the most neutral prints, the 
> older printers may actually be better than the newer, smaller drop 
> size versions.
> 
> As to smoothness, I have a comparison on page 9 of my Eboni-6 notes 
> at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf   The 1600 dpi scan 
> (flatbed) shows some smoothness advantage to the more modern 220 
> (which would be similar to a 9600) that is included in the 
> comparison, but these enlargements are so extreme that the slight 
> difference is not noticeable at normal viewing distance in display 
> prints.
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com  
> 
> 

I see enough difference however between the 9000 quad prints 
with 11 picoliter droplets compared to the Z3100 4-6 
picoliter droplets. The 10000 and possibly the 9600 will be 
around 5 picoliter but unlike the Z3100 there's still a 
larger droplet used as well in the black channel in normal 
quad configurations. It is only with more heads used for 
black that the smaller droplet will stay. The 9000's heads 
have no range of droplet sizes  with the normal driver so 
the 11 picoliter is all you can expect, in 360, 720 or 1440 
dpi resolution, it's all the same size.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

I want to clean out the ink system on my 7600 and I'm
having trouble finding where MIS sells bulk cleaning
solution on their website (assuming they even do).  

I don't want to buy cartridges of the stuff because I
want to use it to flush out my existing refillable
cartridges as well as the lines and printhead.

Has anyone seen where they sell the solution in
bottles?

Thanks in advance,

Ken

1 gal $85. Part number:

ESC-BASEGL-UC

Or buy some glycerine and mix your own. 

Add some amonia and alcohol to the Carbon 6 base.  A gallon of 
glycerine will make about 5 gallons of base for less than $85.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<edinkla@...> wrote:
> ... 
> I see enough difference however between the 9000 quad prints 
> with 11 picoliter droplets compared to the Z3100 4-6 
> picoliter droplets. ...


Just to set the record straight, and while I don't dispute that one 
can see differences in output, it appears the 7000-9000 series has an 
8 picoliter fixed droplet size, compared to the 7600-9600 smallest 
droplet size of 4 picoliters.

See http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1020264609.html
and http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-20-01.html 

I think it was the 3000 that had the 11 pl droplet.

I suspect the differences in output are more visible on glossy paper 
than matte paper also.


> It is only with more heads used for 
> black that the smaller droplet will stay. ...

I'm not sure if this is the same issue, but Joe at Bowhaus indicated 
to me that the huge number of nozzles the thermal heads allow is a 
major advantage to that technology.  This had less to do with seeing 
dots than seeing microbanding and raw speed of printing, which is 
critical for a business setting where time is money. 

But, in any case, for my uses the 7500 and with the 6 dilution 
inksets seem very capable; I think the older 7000-9000 series 
machines can be very good bargains.

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
> <edinkla@> wrote:
> > ... 
> > I see enough difference however between the 9000 quad prints 
> > with 11 picoliter droplets compared to the Z3100 4-6 
> > picoliter droplets. ...
> 
> 
> Just to set the record straight, and while I don't dispute that one 
> can see differences in output, it appears the 7000-9000 series has 
an 
> 8 picoliter fixed droplet size, compared to the 7600-9600 smallest 
> droplet size of 4 picoliters.
> 

Depending on how you drive it, you can get either 11 picoliters or 8 
picoliters, but from what I remember it can not change in mid job 
like the DX3 heads can (76/9600). There are settings for normal dot 
size and micro dot size in my RIP, they do make a difference but I 
would always print with micro dot. I saw no gains in dmax using the 
larger drops and was getting 1.7ish on Hanhemuhle matte papers with 
Eboni. In order to prevent banding with the larger dots, multipass 
must be used which slows the printing down to a crawl.

> 
> But, in any case, for my uses the 7500 and with the 6 dilution 
> inksets seem very capable; I think the older 7000-9000 series 
> machines can be very good bargains.
> 

And because they are tanks that will probably continue to print long 
after some of the newer models fail. The easy head replacement on the 
HP Z series would be way better for a big commercial place where time 
is money, and down time costs a lot.

Thanks Michael!

Ken


--- "Michael T. Murphy" <uriel_bear@...> wrote:

> 1 gal $85. Part number:
> 
> ESC-BASEGL-UC
> 
> Or buy some glycerine and mix your own. 
> 
> Add some amonia and alcohol to the Carbon 6 base.  A
> gallon of 
> glycerine will make about 5 gallons of base for less
> than $85.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
> digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
> Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who
> persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
> from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd
> in the Files section:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/join
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
> 
mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-digest@yahoogroups.com
> 
>    
>
mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> 
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>

Greg wrote:

> And because they are tanks that will probably continue to print long 
> after some of the newer models fail. The easy head replacement on the 
> HP Z series would be way better for a big commercial place where time 
> is money, and down time costs a lot.


Greg,

The two printers can not be compared in any environment. 
Whether the Z3100 is used day in day out or stays idle for 
three weeks the moment you start it up it will print and no 
heads have been replaced on the one here in the 18 months of 
intermittent use. I still have a 9000 quad and a 10000 and I 
am very familiar with their behaviour.

The actual tank in the Epson family is the 10000 but when it 
gets in trouble you face costs like replacing a head of 
about a 1000 $ (but here the costs are more like 1200 Euro). 
There's one in that state here now. There's no printer as 
easy to repair as the 9000 but it is also one that needs 
more maintenance. Easy except the aligning of two heads 
instead of one on the more recent models.

I have followed this thread for a time and thought the 7000 
up to 9500 were almost made holy in the discussion. I do not 
share that feeling and think that if someone needs a 
secondhand model he may be better off with more recent 
single head models like the 7600 9600 as long as heads etc 
are available directly from the distributors. Epson changed 
its policy on any part purchase in the US.

It is that I have quad prints on the wall of both the Z3100 
and the 9000 and though I like the 9000 ones as much there's 
a definite difference. Smoothness, detail and Dmax are all 
better on the new printer. The 9000 was driven by QTR on its 
highest resolution. The Z3100 total 4000 nozzle number on 
the 4 quad heads is the reason for that, Joe of Bowhaus has 
it right. It is more than two years ago that I suggested to 
use more heads for BO printing on Epson desktop models as it 
forced the printer to smaller droplets and more nozzles, the 
HP and Canon models showed that that idea can be stretched 
even further.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst, a couple of major points here. The Z is certainly a fine
printer, no question.
First of all, this thread began with requesting advice about a used
9000, then 9500, as an economical B&W purchase. One can certainly not
put the few thousand dollars for a Z into the same discussion as the
few hundred mentioned for a used 9xxx.
Secondly, even though a larger dot quad print can still hold up as a
thing of beauty, no one recommended they look for an older quad set to
go with. Certainly these days a smaller dot, or variable dot, is a
better choice for quads. A 6K approach mentioned by both myself and
Paul on one of these printers will give wonderful results with little
work, setup, or cost, and newer ink sets put the older quads sets
under the table when it comes to nozzle performance. I have a K7 7800
test printer that sits for weeks sometimes, and starts right up perfectly.

I have a print of an image made from the Z3100, and also with a 10k
and the Cone NK6 inkset in front of me right now.
Other than a barely perceptable increase in dmax with the Z, the 10K
K6 print is clearly better. Less apparent mechanical pattern and dots,
smoother, more represented subtle grays, uniform hues as opposed to
the reddish Z shadows, etc..
I haver a lot of good HP output here to see, quad, tones RGB, matte
and gloss. The Z is a beautiful printer and makes wonderful out of the
box B&W, but these new mono sets and approaches have come a long long
way from the old large fixed dot quads.

I have no particular reverence for an old 9xxx beast, but for a
dedicated B&W printer for (probably) under $500 it's going to be very
very hard to beat, or even match, for any amount of money.
Tyler

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<edinkla@...> wrote:

>
> Greg wrote:
> 
> > And because they are tanks that will probably continue to print long 
> > after some of the newer models fail. The easy head replacement on the 
> > HP Z series would be way better for a big commercial place where time 
> > is money, and down time costs a lot.
> 
> 
> Greg,
> 
> The two printers can not be compared in any environment. 
> Whether the Z3100 is used day in day out or stays idle for 
> three weeks the moment you start it up it will print and no 
> heads have been replaced on the one here in the 18 months of 
> intermittent use. I still have a 9000 quad and a 10000 and I 
> am very familiar with their behaviour.
> 
> The actual tank in the Epson family is the 10000 but when it 
> gets in trouble you face costs like replacing a head of 
> about a 1000 $ (but here the costs are more like 1200 Euro). 
> There's one in that state here now. There's no printer as 
> easy to repair as the 9000 but it is also one that needs 
> more maintenance. Easy except the aligning of two heads 
> instead of one on the more recent models.
> 
> I have followed this thread for a time and thought the 7000 
> up to 9500 were almost made holy in the discussion. I do not 
> share that feeling and think that if someone needs a 
> secondhand model he may be better off with more recent 
> single head models like the 7600 9600 as long as heads etc 
> are available directly from the distributors. Epson changed 
> its policy on any part purchase in the US.
> 
> It is that I have quad prints on the wall of both the Z3100 
> and the 9000 and though I like the 9000 ones as much there's 
> a definite difference. Smoothness, detail and Dmax are all 
> better on the new printer. The 9000 was driven by QTR on its 
> highest resolution. The Z3100 total 4000 nozzle number on 
> the 4 quad heads is the reason for that, Joe of Bowhaus has 
> it right. It is more than two years ago that I suggested to 
> use more heads for BO printing on Epson desktop models as it 
> forced the printer to smaller droplets and more nozzles, the 
> HP and Canon models showed that that idea can be stretched 
> even further.
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Tyler Boley wrote:
> Ernst, a couple of major points here. The Z is certainly a fine
> printer, no question.
> First of all, this thread began with requesting advice about a used
> 9000, then 9500, as an economical B&W purchase. One can certainly not
> put the few thousand dollars for a Z into the same discussion as the
> few hundred mentioned for a used 9xxx.
> Secondly, even though a larger dot quad print can still hold up as a
> thing of beauty, no one recommended they look for an older quad set to
> go with. Certainly these days a smaller dot, or variable dot, is a
> better choice for quads. A 6K approach mentioned by both myself and
> Paul on one of these printers will give wonderful results with little
> work, setup, or cost, and newer ink sets put the older quads sets
> under the table when it comes to nozzle performance. I have a K7 7800
> test printer that sits for weeks sometimes, and starts right up perfectly.
> 
> I have a print of an image made from the Z3100, and also with a 10k
> and the Cone NK6 inkset in front of me right now.
> Other than a barely perceptable increase in dmax with the Z, the 10K
> K6 print is clearly better. Less apparent mechanical pattern and dots,
> smoother, more represented subtle grays, uniform hues as opposed to
> the reddish Z shadows, etc..
> I haver a lot of good HP output here to see, quad, tones RGB, matte
> and gloss. The Z is a beautiful printer and makes wonderful out of the
> box B&W, but these new mono sets and approaches have come a long long
> way from the old large fixed dot quads.
> 
> I have no particular reverence for an old 9xxx beast, but for a
> dedicated B&W printer for (probably) under $500 it's going to be very
> very hard to beat, or even match, for any amount of money.
> Tyler

Tyler,

On most we actually agree here but I do not share the idea 
that the 9000 is that reliable and easy in maintenace and I 
actually think it isn't cheaper right now than a secondhand 
9600s if one looks for spare parts and maintenance. Some of 
the 9000s are 9 years old now. I would have written that at 
the start of the thread but the majority there had other 
ideas so I skipped that but mentioned it in the messages now.

When Paul added that the print quality of the 9000 was still 
close to heaven I thought the balance was lost and replied 
that there is a visual difference with the Z3100, the 
printer that I have here so can compare to. Your observation 
that more recent Epson models with dedicated 6K 7K inksets 
beat the Z3100 again doesn't surprise me, a 3.5 picoliter 
dot and an inkset perfectly fitting a 7600 or 7800 model 
probably beats everything around right now and must be miles 
better than a 9000.  A dedicated 5 picoliter, 6K, enough 
weaving, 10000 is probably at the same level and still fast. 
But I sketched the head price, you can find enough 10000 and 
10600 printers at 500 $ that need a head replacement. There 
are other reasons not to use them if one is looking for an 
economic solution.

It is true that I didn't check newer B&W inks over the last 
18 months and the compatibility must have been improved. 
Maybe not from all sources though. The Eboni has been a 
reliable ink here and the new developments based on it are 
interesting, I have been less happy (18 months ago) with 
MIS's other inks including color. I like to have a printer 
though that can deliver me both excellent color and 
excellent B&W and I am not willing to try the maybe 30 
customised B&W solutions that meanwhile exist. I can get my 
inks now with a call today and a 10 minutes bicycle ride 
next day. It's frugal on ink which made it easier to switch 
to more expensive inks.

Loading a 6K inkset of whatever origin on a 9000 could be 
better than the quad I have here but one thing remains the 
same. Both 9000s I have do not consistently lay down a 
smooth black with Eboni, I disguise the small grey lines on 
the quad one with the next ink, in this case the PK. While 
the Eboni is the most stable ink (little clogging etc) the 
uniformity has not been optimal with several heads and two 
9000s so I think it is the head design itself not being 
optimal for that ink. If QTR allowed the split of the black 
channel over two heads while keeping the partitioning on the 
other heads it would be a nice solution, any other solution 
has been a compromise in my experience.

I do not share your observation of the red shadows in Z3100 
prints either. If the B&W mode is used in the right way and 
the printer calibrated for HPR (and using a custom QTR 
profile like I do) it will print an excellent neutral print 
on HPR, other paper whites will need toning and that's an 
art on any machine. Where B&W shadows shift to the paper 
whites and related color toning because you can't load the 
black and shadows with enough hue you hit a problem any 
dedicated B&W inkset has and the tools you then have with a 
set of CMYRGB inks next to the quads is way better than on a 
6K or 7K machine. But my intention wasn't to put the Z3100 
forward as the alternative for a secondhand 9000, as written 
there are used 9600 and even 9800s on the market that have a 
better price/maintenance/performance ratio than the 
9000/9500 if converted to B&W use.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

...
> When Paul added that the print quality of the 9000 was still 
> close to heaven ...

That's a bit over the top.

Look, I'm simply saying that these old machines are getting so cheap 
they can be very good values for B&W.  Additionally, for the Eboni-6 or 
Carbon-6 100% carbon pigment approaches I now favor, the larger drops 
allow a bit more neutral printing.  The smaller the drop, the more Lab 
B tends to rise with dilute Eboni inks.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com