In the past few weeks I have come across something that I think cannot be emphasized enough especially when printing with third party inks and third party papers.
A while ago pharmacist had been experimenting with using inks that had been destined for the HP B9180 on a Canon i9950. In the spirit of trying new things I had extended some sample to him as I was curious myself as to the effectiveness of using these inks on another printer. Now previously some had tried using pigment inks meant for Epson printers on their Canon without success. This was somewhat expected as the properties of the ink used in Epson piezo heads are different. In layman terms, the inks generally used on Canon printers as well as most Hp desktop printers are "runnier" as compared to Epson. Additionally, the Epson printhead uses a cold process for printing as opposed to the thermal heads used by HP and Canon where heat is applied to the ink.
In addition to pharmacist experiments, I had also been doing some cleaning out of my collected "stuff" over the years. This included the acqusition of some 13x19 HP Glossy Premium Plus photopaper which I had acquired for a very attractive price. When I first got these, I quickly tried them and discovered that theywere not useable on my printers. First I discovered that they were a gel based paper and took a few days to properly dry. I had tried them on the Epson R260 and RX580 printers ( both same engines) as well as the MP500, i950, as well as the i9900. What I had found was that despite the fact that they took ever so long to dry, all printers exhibited signs of ink pooling on darker areas. This was when droplets just sat on top of the paper and then coagulated into a larger drop. So after all of this, I simply stored the paper away.
So if you are still with me, where is this leading?
When I had tried the paper I bought, it had been before I acquired a printer profiling package. After I had acquired that and started to feel my way around, I ran into this article. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/media_settings.html
So before I decided to come to a decision as to what to do with my paper which I had deemed of no use I decided to give it a full workout and try it once again with my printers and see what came of it. This time I would now try all the media settings available and make sure it was not useable before letting it go. What I discovered was very surprising. By treating the paper as Ultra Premium Luster and unchecking the high speed option and using the finest setting on the Epsons I was now able to use the paper and all my patches now exhibited no pooling. Furthermore, the output with the paper was now stunning and it exhibited one of the best output I had ever seen the printers make. The downside is that printing time on the paper increased dramatically and it still took over a day to dry properly before handling. On the Canon machines, I was not so fortunate. No matter what media setting I tried, I ended up with signs of ink pooling. Was it because of droplet size or speed? I simply don't know but the paper remains unusable on the Canons. As too much ink or it being put down too quickly appears to be the problem. However, I now have paper that at least is usable and produce really nice output on the Epson Claria machines.
The significance of the above is this, when testing papers do not always assume because the surface finish is glossy that some glossy setting must be used. All the media settings change the way the printer outputs the ink both in droplet size and quantity of ink. Remember that the manufacturer tunes the printer to create an ideal match for their paper and ink. Paper characteristics vary widely so one needs to test setting to determine the best match.
This is especially important for those trying to use custom color profiles. When you are printing at that the level that you want a profile, you will also want to make sure that you are optimizing the paper.
Will the profile not adjust the amount of ink to compensate. In my experience, I find it cannot. You need to find the best setting to give the most detail and proper printing characteristics and then profile from there. My experience fully supports the article.
So back to pharmacist problems with the pigment ink. I had not had any reports of problems using this ink before pharmacists had reported of smudging problems. So I was bothered by this. I had mentioned to him about using a swab to test the streaking as if too much ink is laid down by the printer, smudging will occur. Not hearing back from him about his results with my suggestion I decided to try this myself with the HP ink to see if smudging is a problem.
What I found was that it could be with his experiment. Pharmacist assumed that because the Pro9500 used similar heads and that the droplet size spec was simialr that the ink laid on the paper would be the same. Whether or not it is I do not know, and both he and I are guessing.
With the swab test, I used a swab, dipped it in some pigment ink meant for the HP then squeezed out much from the swab. Do not use it soaking because inkjet never put out that quantity on ink at once and will oversaturate the paper. Then I proceeded to make swipes down the page. The longest swipe is the last one made and represented the dryest point the swab was at. ( Still a lot of ink left though) . By taking multiple swabs I was trying to see if there was a point at which the characteristics changed depending on the ink put down on the paper. The paper I used was Kirkland professional glossy. A popular and inexpensice microporous photpopaper.
What I found quickly was that even after 15 minutes there was smudging. On my Epson printers using the Epson caompatible pigment inks, this was not so. So I then wondered if there was something special about the HP compatible pigment inks. I then did the swab test on some matte paper and it was water proof and exhibited no smudges after 15 minutes as well.
After I had left it overnight the ink could still exhibit some smudging on the very top but at the end of the longest swipe, it was smudgeproof. From this I determined that when too much ink is put down, it will smudge even after a longe period of drying. However, when the correct amount of ink is put down, it can work well. So the ink appears to not be the problem in pahramcist's experiment with his i9950.
What is significant I think is that an assumption that printheads always output the same amount of ink when in operation regardless of the property of ink is not true. I suspect this is not the case. That the property of the ink has a bearing on the how the bubble is formed and thus ejected is important. So either the HP compatible pigment ink allows the Canon printhead on the i9950 to output too much ink or the media setting on the i9950 is programmed to output too much ink are all possibilities. My conclusion is that the ink and printer combination that pharmacist tried is not good. ( Just like my i9900 and the HP Premium Plus Glossy paper)
Media settings that control how much ink and how it is deposited is vital to producing proper output and one should ideally test all settings to determine which one produces the best output. This unfortunately will require that some photopaper is wasted. ( If you ask any person how much photopaper is consumed in creating proper profiles it could be shocking. I've used as much paper through testing than actual ouput myself. However, once I settle with a good match there is now zero waste.)
A while ago pharmacist had been experimenting with using inks that had been destined for the HP B9180 on a Canon i9950. In the spirit of trying new things I had extended some sample to him as I was curious myself as to the effectiveness of using these inks on another printer. Now previously some had tried using pigment inks meant for Epson printers on their Canon without success. This was somewhat expected as the properties of the ink used in Epson piezo heads are different. In layman terms, the inks generally used on Canon printers as well as most Hp desktop printers are "runnier" as compared to Epson. Additionally, the Epson printhead uses a cold process for printing as opposed to the thermal heads used by HP and Canon where heat is applied to the ink.
In addition to pharmacist experiments, I had also been doing some cleaning out of my collected "stuff" over the years. This included the acqusition of some 13x19 HP Glossy Premium Plus photopaper which I had acquired for a very attractive price. When I first got these, I quickly tried them and discovered that theywere not useable on my printers. First I discovered that they were a gel based paper and took a few days to properly dry. I had tried them on the Epson R260 and RX580 printers ( both same engines) as well as the MP500, i950, as well as the i9900. What I had found was that despite the fact that they took ever so long to dry, all printers exhibited signs of ink pooling on darker areas. This was when droplets just sat on top of the paper and then coagulated into a larger drop. So after all of this, I simply stored the paper away.
So if you are still with me, where is this leading?
When I had tried the paper I bought, it had been before I acquired a printer profiling package. After I had acquired that and started to feel my way around, I ran into this article. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/media_settings.html
So before I decided to come to a decision as to what to do with my paper which I had deemed of no use I decided to give it a full workout and try it once again with my printers and see what came of it. This time I would now try all the media settings available and make sure it was not useable before letting it go. What I discovered was very surprising. By treating the paper as Ultra Premium Luster and unchecking the high speed option and using the finest setting on the Epsons I was now able to use the paper and all my patches now exhibited no pooling. Furthermore, the output with the paper was now stunning and it exhibited one of the best output I had ever seen the printers make. The downside is that printing time on the paper increased dramatically and it still took over a day to dry properly before handling. On the Canon machines, I was not so fortunate. No matter what media setting I tried, I ended up with signs of ink pooling. Was it because of droplet size or speed? I simply don't know but the paper remains unusable on the Canons. As too much ink or it being put down too quickly appears to be the problem. However, I now have paper that at least is usable and produce really nice output on the Epson Claria machines.
The significance of the above is this, when testing papers do not always assume because the surface finish is glossy that some glossy setting must be used. All the media settings change the way the printer outputs the ink both in droplet size and quantity of ink. Remember that the manufacturer tunes the printer to create an ideal match for their paper and ink. Paper characteristics vary widely so one needs to test setting to determine the best match.
This is especially important for those trying to use custom color profiles. When you are printing at that the level that you want a profile, you will also want to make sure that you are optimizing the paper.
Will the profile not adjust the amount of ink to compensate. In my experience, I find it cannot. You need to find the best setting to give the most detail and proper printing characteristics and then profile from there. My experience fully supports the article.
So back to pharmacist problems with the pigment ink. I had not had any reports of problems using this ink before pharmacists had reported of smudging problems. So I was bothered by this. I had mentioned to him about using a swab to test the streaking as if too much ink is laid down by the printer, smudging will occur. Not hearing back from him about his results with my suggestion I decided to try this myself with the HP ink to see if smudging is a problem.
What I found was that it could be with his experiment. Pharmacist assumed that because the Pro9500 used similar heads and that the droplet size spec was simialr that the ink laid on the paper would be the same. Whether or not it is I do not know, and both he and I are guessing.
With the swab test, I used a swab, dipped it in some pigment ink meant for the HP then squeezed out much from the swab. Do not use it soaking because inkjet never put out that quantity on ink at once and will oversaturate the paper. Then I proceeded to make swipes down the page. The longest swipe is the last one made and represented the dryest point the swab was at. ( Still a lot of ink left though) . By taking multiple swabs I was trying to see if there was a point at which the characteristics changed depending on the ink put down on the paper. The paper I used was Kirkland professional glossy. A popular and inexpensice microporous photpopaper.
What I found quickly was that even after 15 minutes there was smudging. On my Epson printers using the Epson caompatible pigment inks, this was not so. So I then wondered if there was something special about the HP compatible pigment inks. I then did the swab test on some matte paper and it was water proof and exhibited no smudges after 15 minutes as well.
After I had left it overnight the ink could still exhibit some smudging on the very top but at the end of the longest swipe, it was smudgeproof. From this I determined that when too much ink is put down, it will smudge even after a longe period of drying. However, when the correct amount of ink is put down, it can work well. So the ink appears to not be the problem in pahramcist's experiment with his i9950.
What is significant I think is that an assumption that printheads always output the same amount of ink when in operation regardless of the property of ink is not true. I suspect this is not the case. That the property of the ink has a bearing on the how the bubble is formed and thus ejected is important. So either the HP compatible pigment ink allows the Canon printhead on the i9950 to output too much ink or the media setting on the i9950 is programmed to output too much ink are all possibilities. My conclusion is that the ink and printer combination that pharmacist tried is not good. ( Just like my i9900 and the HP Premium Plus Glossy paper)
Media settings that control how much ink and how it is deposited is vital to producing proper output and one should ideally test all settings to determine which one produces the best output. This unfortunately will require that some photopaper is wasted. ( If you ask any person how much photopaper is consumed in creating proper profiles it could be shocking. I've used as much paper through testing than actual ouput myself. However, once I settle with a good match there is now zero waste.)
