Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by Bob Marsolais

While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18, I've had
my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting with
cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages of purge
patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are now
unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again.  It's made
me think back as to which printer required less maintenance: the 1800
or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not much
difference maintenance-wise, and the 1280 did a real nice job with
it's 3.5(?) picoliter drops.  It a whole lot slower than the 1800, but
it has a paper thickness adjustment which the 1800 does not.

I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth midtones
because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted tends to go
rather warm.  Is this correct?  If so, then the 1280 would use a wide
format ink set as compared to a 1.5 picoliter inkset.

Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer and leaving
the 1800 for color?  You have my permission to say so it I am!

Bob

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by pr_roark

Bob,

> While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18, I've had
> my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting with
> cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages of purge
> patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are now
> unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again.  It's made
> me think back as to which printer required less maintenance: the 
1800
> or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not much
> difference maintenance-wise,

You were one of the lucky ones with the 1280.  There was a much 
higher rate of problems with that printer than I've heard with the 
1800 in general.

...
> I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth midtones
> because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted 
> tends to go rather warm.  Is this correct? 

Yes, but not as warm as MIS PK or LK, and the paper makes a 
difference.


> Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer and leaving
> the 1800 for color?  

If you don't need glossy and are OK with the 1800's 3-MK smoothness, 
the most reliable system would be the 1800 with color and 3-MK.  You 
can print sepia by toning the MK with R and Y, using QTR. If you need 
warmer, put an LK (or PK) into one of the slots -- you'd get smoother 
as a side benefit.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by hp9180profile

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" 
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18, I've had
> my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting with
> cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages of purge
> patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are now
> unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again.  It's made
> me think back as to which printer required less maintenance: the 
1800
> or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not much
> difference maintenance-wise, and the 1280 did a real nice job with
> it's 3.5(?) picoliter drops.  It a whole lot slower than the 1800, 
but
> it has a paper thickness adjustment which the 1800 does not.
> 
> I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth midtones
> because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted tends to 
go
> rather warm.  Is this correct?  If so, then the 1280 would use a 
wide
> format ink set as compared to a 1.5 picoliter inkset.
> 
> Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer and leaving
> the 1800 for color?  You have my permission to say so it I am!
> 
> Bob
>

After being somewhat critical about the 1800 on this site, I am 
coming round to seeing it as a useful BW only printer. I have one 
loaded with 3mk, 3pk and 3 GO. Very flexible setup for neutral to 
warm BW prints on mk and pk paper. Enables printing of the following 
using only carbon and GLOP and no color at all:

1. The 3mk gives neutral to warmish (paper dependent) carbon only on 
matt paper
2. By firing one pk into the darkest tones and some GLOP over the mk 
together with a 2nd pass of GLOP and you get neutral to warmish 
(paper dependent) carbon prints on photo paper.
3. By firing pk into the mid and lighter tones you get more control 
over the warm variations on photo papers.

This may or may not give you the sepia tones you are after but since 
it avoids using any yellows (or any color for that matter), it may be 
worth some time and paper to see if a paper/curve combination will 
give you the tones you want.

I am using the 4k version of PK which is all carbon and gives me a 
Dmax of up to 2.5 depending on paper. The k2 version is optimised for 
maximum Dmax and will go quite a lot higher than this at 3.2+ but as 
I understand it K2 contains color pigments to achieve this Dmax so I 
have stuck with the 4k in this R1800.  

One does need to be ever vigilant of banding with the R1800 but I 
have found that with multiple inks in this set up it has not reared 
its head again.

I am now looking at the possibilities of diluting one or two of the 
ink positions as I am seeing a little too much grain (for my taste) 
on photo papers in areas of very gradual light tone transitions. Matt 
papers are very smooth, grain perhaps visible under a microscope but 
not to my eyes.

Regards

Alistair Owens

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by Bob Marsolais

Paul and Alistar,

Thanks for your perspective.  I'll put this foolishness behind me and
continue with the 1800.  Present issues probably have dulled the
memory of past clogs.  And having individual carts gives me a whole
lot more flexibility that the 5 color single cart in the 1280.

I guess I'm just too cheap to get rid of a working printer.  I think
I'll check around for some local charity that might be able to use it.

Bob

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by hp9180profile

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" 
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> Paul and Alistar,
> 
> Thanks for your perspective.  I'll put this foolishness behind me and
> continue with the 1800.  Present issues probably have dulled the
> memory of past clogs.  And having individual carts gives me a whole
> lot more flexibility that the 5 color single cart in the 1280.
> 
> I guess I'm just too cheap to get rid of a working printer.  I think
> I'll check around for some local charity that might be able to use it.
> 
> Bob
>

Before doing that, if no one else on the group has not already done so, 
you might like to retain it to test this product:

http://www.image-specialists.com/catalog_speciality_products.aspx

The Krystal TopKote product at the bottom of this page. 

I do not have a spare printer in which to load it but it looks 
interesting. Its incompatability with inks indicates it is a different 
product to GLOP. 

Just a thought!

Re: [Digital BW] R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by Brubaker family

Hi Bob,

I've used Paul Roark's UT-R2 inks in my 1280 with success.  I started in making B&W prints with an Epson C84 and the EZ B&W Neutral (Matt) inks.  The UT-R2 inks in the 1280 easily equal the results I get with the C84 and the EZs. (On Epson Heavyweight Matt with the EZs I get a good 21 step wedge using the Epson driver with Paul's recommended settings for Epson Enhanced Matt [Bright=+3, Contrast=-15]).  With the 1280 I can make the larger prints I like for wall display.

Mike Brubaker



--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Bob Marsolais <bob@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Bob Marsolais <bob@...>
> Subject: [Digital BW] R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 2, 2009, 12:19 AM
> While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18,
> I've had
> my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting
> with
> cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages
> of purge
> patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are
> now
> unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again. 
> It's made
> me think back as to which printer required less
> maintenance: the 1800
> or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not
> much
> difference maintenance-wise, and the 1280 did a real nice
> job with
> it's 3.5(?) picoliter drops.  It a whole lot slower
> than the 1800, but
> it has a paper thickness adjustment which the 1800 does
> not.
> 
> I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth
> midtones
> because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted
> tends to go
> rather warm.  Is this correct?  If so, then the 1280 would
> use a wide
> format ink set as compared to a 1.5 picoliter inkset.
> 
> Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer
> and leaving
> the 1800 for color?  You have my permission to say so it I
> am!
> 
> Bob

Re: [Digital BW] R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-02 by Brubaker family

Bob,

I forgot to mention that I developed some Epson 1280 driver settings with the UT-R2 inks that I'll be happy to share with you if you end up going this route.

Mike Brubaker



--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Bob Marsolais <bob@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Bob Marsolais <bob@...>
> Subject: [Digital BW] R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 2, 2009, 12:19 AM
> While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18,
> I've had
> my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting
> with
> cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages
> of purge
> patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are
> now
> unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again. 
> It's made
> me think back as to which printer required less
> maintenance: the 1800
> or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not
> much
> difference maintenance-wise, and the 1280 did a real nice
> job with
> it's 3.5(?) picoliter drops.  It a whole lot slower
> than the 1800, but
> it has a paper thickness adjustment which the 1800 does
> not.
> 
> I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth
> midtones
> because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted
> tends to go
> rather warm.  Is this correct?  If so, then the 1280 would
> use a wide
> format ink set as compared to a 1.5 picoliter inkset.
> 
> Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer
> and leaving
> the 1800 for color?  You have my permission to say so it I
> am!
> 
> Bob

Re: [Digital BW] R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-03 by Bob Marsolais

Mike,

Thank you for the offer.  You may have picked up from the thread that
I used to use UT-2 with the 1280 with good success.  The heads clogged
a while back and I could not unclog them so I put the printer on a
shelf.  
Well, they just unclogged.

Alistar's suggestion is interesting.  I just may try that.  Taking
glop out of the R1800 would give me another slot for another ink to
combat banding.  But then I'd be combating clots in the 1280!  If I
wasn't so cheap, I'd just buy a 1400 plus yet another batch of cartridge!

But then I wouldn't be having all this fun with the mixing and
experimenting.  I guess I'm just picking my poison!

Bob

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-24 by lilspeedbump1

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hp9180profile" 
<owens@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob 
Marsolais" 
> <bob@> wrote:
> >
> > While experimenting with various mixtures for a new UT-R18, I've 
had
> > my 1280 (which I wrote off due to a clogged head) sitting with
> > cleaning carts installed.  I've run a couple of pages of purge
> > patterns every night for about two weeks and the heads are now
> > unclogged and giving a perfect nozzle test pattern again.  It's 
made
> > me think back as to which printer required less maintenance: the 
> 1800
> > or 1280 with pigment inks.  My memory says there was not much
> > difference maintenance-wise, and the 1280 did a real nice job with
> > it's 3.5(?) picoliter drops.  It a whole lot slower than the 
1800, 
> but
> > it has a paper thickness adjustment which the 1800 does not.
> > 
> > I'm assuming the 1280 would require LK inks for smooth midtones
> > because of the dot size, and, if I remember, Eboni diluted tends 
to 
> go
> > rather warm.  Is this correct?  If so, then the 1280 would use a 
> wide
> > format ink set as compared to a 1.5 picoliter inkset.
> > 
> > Am I crazy to consider using the 1280 as my B&W printer and 
leaving
> > the 1800 for color?  You have my permission to say so it I am!
> > 
> > Bob
> >
> 
> After being somewhat critical about the 1800 on this site, I am 
> coming round to seeing it as a useful BW only printer. I have one 
> loaded with 3mk, 3pk and 3 GO. Very flexible setup for neutral to 
> warm BW prints on mk and pk paper. Enables printing of the 
following 
> using only carbon and GLOP and no color at all:
> 
> 1. The 3mk gives neutral to warmish (paper dependent) carbon only 
on 
> matt paper
> 2. By firing one pk into the darkest tones and some GLOP over the 
mk 
> together with a 2nd pass of GLOP and you get neutral to warmish 
> (paper dependent) carbon prints on photo paper.
> 3. By firing pk into the mid and lighter tones you get more control 
> over the warm variations on photo papers.
> 
> This may or may not give you the sepia tones you are after but 
since 
> it avoids using any yellows (or any color for that matter), it may 
be 
> worth some time and paper to see if a paper/curve combination will 
> give you the tones you want.
> 
> I am using the 4k version of PK which is all carbon and gives me a 
> Dmax of up to 2.5 depending on paper. The k2 version is optimised 
for 
> maximum Dmax and will go quite a lot higher than this at 3.2+ but 
as 
> I understand it K2 contains color pigments to achieve this Dmax so 
I 
> have stuck with the 4k in this R1800.  
> 
> One does need to be ever vigilant of banding with the R1800 but I 
> have found that with multiple inks in this set up it has not reared 
> its head again.
> 
> I am now looking at the possibilities of diluting one or two of the 
> ink positions as I am seeing a little too much grain (for my taste) 
> on photo papers in areas of very gradual light tone transitions. 
Matt 
> papers are very smooth, grain perhaps visible under a microscope 
but 
> not to my eyes.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Alistair Owens
>
I was just looking at an 1800 because the price was marked down. I 
was going to use my 200 as a b&w printer.(too old and slow?) So can 
someone tell me where to get the b&w carts for the 1800?

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-25 by hp9180profile

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lilspeedbump1" 
<lilspeedbump1@...> wrote:

> I was just looking at an 1800 because the price was marked down. I 
> was going to use my 200 as a b&w printer.(too old and slow?) So can 
> someone tell me where to get the b&w carts for the 1800?
>

Are you looking for empty carts or prefilled ones?

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-28 by Bob Marsolais

If you haven't found the carts yet, you can get R1800 carts at
www.inkjetcarts.us for about $27.00 a set of 8 carts.  I have 3 sets for
various uses and have not had any significant problems with them. 

 

Bob

 



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

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-02-28 by Greg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais"
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> If you haven't found the carts yet, you can get R1800 carts at
> www.inkjetcarts.us for about $27.00 a set of 8 carts.  I have 3 sets for
> various uses and have not had any significant problems with them. 
> 
>  
> 
> Bob


That's good to hear because I have a set of their carts for my RX680
that I'll be using for testing different inks. Hopefully inexpensive
will be separated from cheap with these carts. I paid somewhere around
$25+shipping for carts with anti-UV dye ink in them. Inexpensive
indeed, but I'll have to wait until I use them for a little while to
decide if the are cheap or not.

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by Bob Marsolais

Greg,

 

None of the cart retailers manufacture their own carts.  InkJetCarts.us
tries to get good products and stands behind what they sell.  I purchased
one of their CIS units and had some problems with it.  They replaced it with
another one with no hassles.  No problems after that.

 

Bob

bob@...

 



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

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by hp9180profile

Bob,

Have you ever experienced the inkjetcarts draining their load of ink 
down through the heads, any ideas how to stop this? I have tried the 
offerings of a few different ebay vendors. Their products all look the 
same (and like the inkjetcart ones). 

regards

Alistair

Re: [Digital BW] Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by RobLee

talk to Leo at inkjetfly. my r1800 carts don't drain.

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, hp9180profile <owens@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: hp9180profile <owens@....nz>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 6:05 AM











    
            

Bob,



Have you ever experienced the inkjetcarts draining their load of ink 

down through the heads, any ideas how to stop this? I have tried the 

offerings of a few different ebay vendors. Their products all look the 

same (and like the inkjetcart ones). 



regards



Alistair 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

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

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by Greg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais"
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
>  
> 
> None of the cart retailers manufacture their own carts.  InkJetCarts.us
> tries to get good products and stands behind what they sell.  I
purchased
> one of their CIS units and had some problems with it.  They replaced
it with
> another one with no hassles.  No problems after that.
> 
>  
>

Good, maybe I should buy a couple more empty carts for the testing
that I need to do. At the price it sure would make life easier. I'll
check that tonight and see how much I want to throw at this round of
tests. Some of that might depend on if I can get my Spectroscan
working again, which I need to go solder in new parts right now.

Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by Bob Marsolais

> 
> Have you ever experienced the inkjetcarts draining their load of ink 
> down through the heads, any ideas how to stop this? I have tried the 
> offerings of a few different ebay vendors. Their products all look 
> the same (and like the inkjetcart ones). 
> 

Yes, I have, with carts from MIS and InkJetCarts both.  I have found 
that reseating them in the printer usually fixes the problem.  It 
appears that sometimes the carts don't sit quite right in the carriage 
causing them to leak.  This is probably due to dimensional differences 
in the carts.

Bob

Re: [Digital BW] Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding

2009-03-02 by RobLee

so far I don't think that I have this problem with carts from inkjetfly, but time will tell. I refill my carts in the printer. I don't take them out. This may help carts life span also. In addition I installed waste ink system on my R1800.

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Bob Marsolais <bob@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Bob Marsolais <bob@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800/R1900(?) vs 1280, Clogging and Banding
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:24 PM











    
            > 

> Have you ever experienced the inkjetcarts draining their load of ink 

> down through the heads, any ideas how to stop this? I have tried the 

> offerings of a few different ebay vendors. Their products all look 

> the same (and like the inkjetcart ones). 

> 



Yes, I have, with carts from MIS and InkJetCarts both.  I have found 

that reseating them in the printer usually fixes the problem.  It 

appears that sometimes the carts don't sit quite right in the carriage 

causing them to leak.  This is probably due to dimensional differences 

in the carts.



Bob




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.