9000 v 9000 MkII

[3dogs]

It depends on how much sheen these Xerox papers have but I think the Photo Paper Plus Semi Gloss would be the one to use.
The Xerox Gloss you haven't used yet is the gloss fairly glossy?
The Mk2 is just faster I think Andrew & maybe there were more paper options.

I am thinking that will be the setting for the Xerox Gloss coated. I have compared a sample of Epson Gloss (standard) with the Xerox and whilst the surface of the Xerox does show some gloss its more of a reflective sheen than a straight out high gloss.
A bit like the difference between a car that has just had a good wax and polish and the same car (still clean) a week or so later. It is also MUCH whiter than the Epson paper which to me has a gray blue in it. Put the 6 x4 Gloss on the A3 Xerox and the Xerox looks like a bright white matte board surround!!

I can send a few sheets up if you wanted a play before you bought, just MESSAGE your details and I will happily send.

Just did a couple of prints:

Epson with pigment and with closest profile is a dud no go the shadow areas are blocked up solid, no detail

Canon using Photo paper Plus Semi Gloss and Canon Pro GL1 a dud too better detail, and where its an ok print its acceptable but where it is falling down those parts are awful. I have text (black) and it is looking washed out, for me further evidence that a custom profile is called for as the 'canned' profiles are not matching the surface characteristics of the Xerox at all well.

Going to have to do a profile later I think, will post further.

Rgds,

Andrew

 

[3dogs]

Rod,

Do NOT purchase the Gloss Coated for use with dye inks.......it bleeds like all hell making profiles and comes out WET.

I just did clean, nozzle check, and bottom plate clean.......all is well but I will not be putting this stuff through my 9000 again.
Also switched back to the plain stuff and that is ok tho the test patches printed a bit streaky???

I will look at profiling the 3880 on pigment a bit later on...

The Munki patches in particular the yellow and green go real agro with each other!!

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[rodbam]

Geez Thanks for the warning Andrew. I mainly want the Xerox for the pigment printer so I look forward to how the 3880 handles that paper.
If you get a decent print then I might take you up on your offer of a sample as having a 100 sheets of the stuff is a bit off if I don't like the prints.
I'm finding my pigment prints so far on the cheap Canon Matte paper are not overwhelming me so far as they look a touch bland to the semi gloss ones. I wish Canon still made the Fine art premium matte it printed up great & was only $47 for 20 A3+ sheets. (blimey I said only)

 

[3dogs]

I just profiled :

a) Canon Matte Photo Paper

to compare against

b) Xerox iGen3 Plain Laser paper

First the colours were Much more vibrant on the Canon paper so I set the printer Matte Photo Paper and wound up the colours to HIGH

that gave a MUCH better profile, BUT the colours are somewhat pastel rather than ink........I like that

Then I printed an image that is Blown white to ink black shade with lots of orange yellow green but no distinguishable blue.

I have printed that on the 6ink Multifunction on Canon Matte Photo Paper

The iGen3 is " MUCH MORE BETTER!!!! "

I will keep this stuff and send it up if we go that way.

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[3dogs]

Rod re iGen3 Gloss coated paper.

I have tried a number of different settings on the Epson 3880 trying to print a set of patches with the ColorMunki on the iGen3 Gloss coated. All attempts have failed so far. The ink is coming out wet and patches are bleeding into each other!!
I am not going to continue with this its a dud which is a great pity as the paper looks to be the same stuff used by the Better Photoshop Techniques magazine. in weight it sits between the internal pages(slightly heavier) and the cover pages ( slightly lighter)

If this had worked it would have made a cheap and easy Photobook...........back to the drawing board!!

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[jtoolman]

You paper is not compatible with Epson K3 inks due to it NOT having an Inkjet compatible coating. Besides, isn't it for a xerox book publishing type printer using toner?
It's not made for inkjet ink and that's why you are experiencing ink puddling.

 

[3dogs]

You paper is not compatible with Epson K3 inks due to it NOT having an Inkjet compatible coating. Besides, isn't it for a xerox book publishing type printer using toner?
It's not made for inkjet ink and that's why you are experiencing ink puddling.

Joe,

Yet again you got it in one! All the other non-coated stock I am messing with say color laser and color copier. ( the coated stock does NOT) and they (almost) all take both the K3 and the Dye ink. I say almost because I made a profile with A4 then switched to A3, in the same paper...the sky, predominantly grey, has printed as a series of light and dark squares about 1/4" just as if a person had sprayed paint through a piece of 1/4" steel mesh. As I type, the second test patch of another profile for the A3 paper is drying. I am thinking that in settings when I made the original profile I did not check Custom and turn the no color adjustment on!!!!!!

Rgds,

Andrew

Added: This A3 is now printing like matte photo paper!! BUT ( always has to be one!!) now its looks like a surface texture very feint but there and it comprises minute BLACK dots as if made with mosquito mesh???? Platen is set at Auto?

Setup as follows:

Current settings < Photo Quality ink jet Paper > in Quality Options turn off High speed ( have not messed with the others YET!!) > Custom > Off ( no color adjustment)

Added 2: Printed A3 image Range from 100% BLOWN - well exposed camel under cover, beautiful detail, this print is as good as the screen!!!!!! I am in AWE of this K3 ink.....so its not the printer, its in the image I used and it is HEAVILY PROCESSED in both Topaz and Photoshop so the fault is in my processing, not the printer or the ink.

Rod - get some of this paper.......its SICK as the kids say double S I C K!!

 

[mikling]

There are parameter that you guys have not tried and this drying time and ink desnity.
Most of the better printers have this in their driver. When experiencing puddling, the first thing to do is to try and slow down the printing. The required slowdown can sometimes be very large to achieve proper results. The other thing to try is attempt to find what the ink limits ( via the density settings) are for the paper. Again, these are variable inside the driver of better printers geared for professional use.

I've mentioned this before. There is actually more to building a profile than just checking off a similar media type and making targets. Drying time as well as ink density comes into play as well. These sometimes need to be varied quite a bit to achieve good results. Sometimes nothing you do will achieve the result you want due to incompatibility and sometimes, good results can be had if the settings are properly set up through trial and error.

Check to see if the profiling package you use allows certain targets to be printed that will give an idea of what the better combinations of ink limits and drying time will offer. You'll need a pattern that will allow you to view what the effects of a ramp will produce to get an idea of the effect being produced.

Even something as simple as copy paper has now moved into the colorlok process where the layer on the surface is treated to minimize ink penetrating too deeply. This paper ink thing has a lot more involved that what meets the eye.

 

[3dogs]

There are parameter that you guys have not tried and this drying time and ink desnity.
Most of the better printers have this in their driver. When experiencing puddling, the first thing to do is to try and slow down the printing. The required slowdown can sometimes be very large to achieve proper results. The other thing to try is attempt to find what the ink limits ( via the density settings) are for the paper. Again, these are variable inside the driver of better printers geared for professional use.

I've mentioned this before. There is actually more to building a profile than just checking off a similar media type and making targets. Drying time as well as ink density comes into play as well. These sometimes need to be varied quite a bit to achieve good results. Sometimes nothing you do will achieve the result you want due to incompatibility and sometimes, good results can be had if the settings are properly set up through trial and error.

Check to see if the profiling package you use allows certain targets to be printed that will give an idea of what the better combinations of ink limits and drying time will offer. You'll need a pattern that will allow you to view what the effects of a ramp will produce to get an idea of the effect being produced.

Even something as simple as copy paper has now moved into the colorlok process where the layer on the surface is treated to minimize ink penetrating too deeply. This paper ink thing has a lot more involved that what meets the eye.

You make a good point by necessity Software is averaged so output on my setup may NOT be the best it can be. I understand that so I already tried slowing the print head between passes and reduced the feed speed to allow the gloss paper to 'soak' as well as reducing the volume of ink delivered. However, as jtoolman pointed out the media is just NOT made for either dye or pigment! Having slowed the process as much as the 3880 would allow with the shipped driver I resorted to the finger and count test its an oldie but a goodie. involves a regular count and swipe a finger through the ink........(very scientific) and I'd appreciate you keeping it to yoursef!! I quit counting after 60 and came to the same conclusion as jtoolman.

A post on Luminous Landscapes set me to thinking about the uncoated paper tho. I am getting super results with the standard profile off my ColorMunki with the settings outlined above. Even at A3 it is better than I had ever hoped for. BUT.......the output could have a bit more zing, even given the media which is in effect a matte. There is no reason for it to be less than striking. That is where the tools you are reminding folks to think about come into play. With the 3880 I can mess with some of those settings. The Munki allows me to scan additional patches but as yet I am not fully across all the things it can and cant do..........it may be that I will be swapping to a Pro set up in the future, but that will be after I have sorted this one out and found where it comes up short THEN decide if its something I just cant live with or get around.

So thanks for the reminder, and the prompt to keep exploring even after you THINK you ave done all you can....I appreciate that help and I will certainly keep looking for a better result.

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[The Hat]

3dogs wrote: All attempts have failed so far. The ink is coming out wet and patches are bleeding into each other!!

Regarding the unsuitability of some paper to accept ink from an inkjet printer, well Jtoolman is right in some respect
so you could try to create an acceptable surface yourself that would be suitable to your inks
by putting a very light coating of GO down prior to printing, that may well work.

The surface of this glossy paper is waterproof so it is much harder for a water based inks to stay stable on it
and take a strong hold without flooding, it will dry over night but will still rub off if touched much later.

mikling wrote: This paper ink thing has a lot more involved that what meets the eye.

Semi and glossy papers are made to print industry standards and have a higher content of starch in them
which tries to eliminate and minimises the porous surface,
even some of these gloss papers when put thought a laser printer will bubble and blister..

This is probably what mikling was talking about when he mentioned slowing down the ink drying process..