Skip to content

Printer head cleaning vs cost

I recently had someone ask: “…how long can an ink jet printer can go unused before head-cleaning uses more ink than regular printing uses…” and the answer to that is easy: head cleaning -always- uses more ink than printing a simple photo. Probably (I’m making an educated guess here) about 10 times as much on average.

The situation with inks drying out is not as simple as your fountain pen skipping.

There are two kinds of inks – pigment and dye. Pigment is little bits of “paint” (Epson encapsulates them in resin) suspended in a liquid (usually water.) Grinding the pigments must be done to high precision so that they suspend, rather than dissolve (as with dye) and are of an appropriate size to pass thru the holes in the print head. Further, they must be significantly smaller (in the case of Epson) because the piezo electric propulsion allows for several different size drops to be dispensed thru those holes.

Pigment inks are often 0.1 microns in size, and the hole in the head is around 20 microns, so it’s not a bunch of particles blocking the hole.

Pigment inks are, as a suspension, subject to settling out, hence the recommendation that the cartridges be shaken. Part of the chemical skill in making an ink and cartridge involves keeping the particles suspended as long as possible. Epson can do it for up to a year or so. (I can’t speak to how well a 3-room Taiwanese third party supplier will succeed at milling, resin encapsulating and suspending, but one suspects that Seiko/Epson are probably more successful at it…)

And this ink dries almost instantly when it contact paper and air. Thus it is invariably dry on the head as well. In fact, it’s the wet ink in the feeder tubes behind the head that must dissolve the dry ink at the mouth. Yes: one of the properties of inkjet ink is that it must dissolve inkjet ink.

What happens then if you let air get in the lines?  There is no way for that ink in the head to be dissolved, because there is no fresh ink touching it, and the air bubble acts like a shock absorber, preventing the ink from feeding.

So, on some professional printers, the heads are parked on a moist sponge when not in use. A cleaning cycle may run ink thru the head under pressure, or may clamp a unit around the head and use suction to try to pull ink out. Commonly, a rubber blade can be run over dirty heads.

Some cheaper printers don’t have separate heads, and the cartridge itself is the delivery mechanism. Some printers use only one size droplet, which is larger, allowing for less refined milling, and hence less clogging.

OK… TMI.

So, what is the cheapest way to keep an inkjet printer running?

Print with it.

Your own environment, the particular printer and the particular inks you use,  will determine how long you can go before your printer needs to run an expensive cleaning cycle. Then print at least one image the day before that time runs out, and you’re good to go.

Or, seen the other way: if I’m right and a cleaning uses enough ink for 10 images, and your time-to-print is once a week, then if you don’t use your printer more than once every 2 1/2 months, I’d start questioning whether or not you were wise to buy the printer in the first place…

Permanent photo archives? (followup)

I just got the bare drive and discs. The drive installs as any SATA-based drive does: easily. I put mine in an external enclosure.

First thing I notice is that the discs themselves are heavier (literally) than other DVD-R’s, and they are about 70% transparent.

Mac sees the drive; Toast writes to it; writes are pretty slow: 13 minutes for a full disc + about the same or slightly less to verify.

The discs are made somewhere in the EU.
They are more transparent after burning (a light smokey gray) that is transparent enough to read a book thru;

Disc was readable by my LG Blu-Ray burner/drive and by my Optiarc burner/drive.

So: no problems; everything worked as advertised.

See you in 3011…   :-)

 

Tracy

 

 

 

The changing tide

I started shooting 55 years ago, and built my first darkroom at age 10. The point is just that I’ve been around for most of the changes, and of course the change to digital is the largest one of all. There was a time when saying that I was a photographer put me in a pretty small group of people; now it’s the world’s most popular hobby, and millions of images are uploaded and shared every day.

That’s fine with me, of course, because none of that impinges on my own skills or artistic vision. But I will admit to some consternation when I see over-saturated, color-altered, HDR’d garish over-manipulated images touted as “the world’s most beautiful photos.” (Google it – you’ll find dozens of such sites.)

The question is why?

And the answer, I have come to suspect, is television, and television quality images, which are low resolution, over-contrasted, sRGB color-space, blurry and pixelated.  And that is what most people have grown up with. That is their frame of reference.

Digital cameras are wildly popular, and I’m delighted that more people are exposed to photography… but look at what is happening just now (late 2011) – the rise of the cell-phone camera, and the introduction of video into digital still cameras.

Cell-phone camera are improving rapidly, but they will take years (if ever?) to rival the quality of a pro’s DSLR. And while that is going on, the other front encroaches: video.

And what is happening there is that people are taking stills from the video stream. That’s lower resolution, lower quality… but perfectly satisfactory for 99.5% of all those millions of uploaded snapshots every day. Perfectly fine to email to your sister.

Even Google is aware of this trend, as they are currently pushing the webP image format – which is based on video.

So, here’s my prediction – the use of dedicated digital cameras will wane in the general public, as both better technology for embedded cameras (cell phones, iPads etc) comes along, and the use of video as a source for stills grows.

Images will fall into two camps: those taken with embedded cameras, and those taken by dedicated cameras, with the former gaining popularity. Web-quality images (low resolution; sRGB color; high contrast; over-saturated) will predominate.

And, because of the quality of those images, fine art photography will once again separate itself from the pack.

Tracy

Size Matters

Most of you know I’m an old-school “straight” photographer. I also am a “fine art” photographer (as opposed to a journalist, fashion, product etc shooter.) My work is sold to collectors, and hangs in galleries. It is meant to be studied and enjoyed, and to live a long life on someone’s wall because it “clicks” with them.

To that end and context then, size matters.

These days, the photo trend is toward larger and larger prints. I’ve sold a few 60″ prints myself, when a collector requests one. There seems to be some belief that “he must be good – look at the size of his prints!” That’s nonsense, of course, but look at the trend: 50″ televisions; triple-decker hamburgers; SUV’s… the list goes on.

The problem I’m pointing out however is this: like a billboard, you cannot look at it up close. And like a billboard, its sheer size invites only cursory glances, and intimates that it is completely forgettable.

In short, many giant images have a tendency to be just pretty pictures, destined for corporate lobbies, or stately homes.

There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with “pretty pictures” and they brighten our lives. There is nothing wrong with large prints either… but neither is (in my opinion) proper for fine art photographs.

In fact, I’ll suggest that a fine art photo needs to be relatively small; certainly 16 x 20 or less, and frequently it should fit on 11 x 17 paper.

Why so small? Because with a smaller size, the viewer must intentionally approach it – walk up to it; stop what he or she is doing and take a moment to observe it. A walk-by will not suffice, simply because the image is too small to be observed and recognized at a glance.

Further, this almost mechanical contrivance promotes intimacy. Standing close to an image removes the rest of the environment from the observer’s consciousness. Attention is focused, and the self is opened up to the artist’s intent. (This sense of intimacy is usually enhanced by a matte which has a border half the size of the image itself, or at least several inches, surrounding and isolating the image with a uniform backdrop. You will likely never see a 60″ print with a matte.)

Ultimately, the size of the print depends on the intended use of the collector, but in the case of true art, which allows for immersion and new insights on repeated viewings – in short, withstands the test of time – then I’d suggest that a smaller print is the appropriate choice.

Size matters.

Permanent photo archives?

Well, OK: maybe “only” 1000 years…

(see more recent initial review, above, somewhere)

(Before I go any further, I’d like to make a point. I think this technology is a milestone in the entire history of computers, and perhaps the most important invention since the computer itself.*)

Yep: there is digital technology coming in a mere few weeks that will yield DVDs with a 1000 year expected lifetime.

The burner will cost $150 – 200, (with the bard drive costing $49) and the discs around $3 each. 4GB.

You can at last archive your photos (and anything else that can go on a DVD).

I have already pre-ordered one.

Here’s the article:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/reviews/personal-tech/storage-memory/231500076

and here’s where you can pre-order one:

http://millenniata.com/preorder/

Now, someone is sure to say “So what? The DVD player will be gone long before the DVD media dies, and you’ll have no way to recover the data.”

That, of course, is a common problem with all digital technology

Our TV’s were recently replaced; have you read a Jaz drive lately? Syquest?

That comment, however, misses the point: digital technology is “forever” only if it is maintained. That is, every few years (somewhere between 5 and 10 in the case of DVDs) one must re-store the data on new media. The problem, of course, is that one cannot know exactly _when_ a DVD will start going bad. It depends on several different factors, including storage direction, light, humidity, oxygen levels, temperature and so on.

Thus, to ensure continuity, one has to constantly check the readability of optical media, and even then it’s a crap-shoot, since while it may read fine in year four, at year 5 it may fail. So… did you make a backup in year 4?

The benefit of the new DVDs therefore isn’t so much that they last forever, as that they _will_ be readable when you need them to be… including the point at which DVDs are about to become passe, and you need to move the data to, say, holographic filing, or whatever comes next.

hth

——————–

followup, longer-winded explanation


>ALL< digital technology will be superseded. RAM, drives, CPUs, power supplies, motherboards, cases, connectors… everything. The only practical way to look at computers is as consumables, with a time-to-live, and a need for replacement.

Data storage in particular is most subject to media deterioration and/or mechanical obsolescence. The price is constant diligence, and as I noted above, the crap-shoot nature of needing to second-guess when failure will occur. (Of course you can’t, so you have to keep -at least- two copies of everything… and that -doubles- your need to periodically inspect.)

 

I’ve personally seen “laser-rot” and other media issues; several variations on “mechanical” issues as well. About a year ago, I got concerned that I didn’t have all my photos, (some of the files going back nearly 20 years [ scans of film shots taken 40 years ago]) on a hard drive, but only on optical media. So I resigned myself to going through several hundred discs… to discover  that 6 of them would not read an any device I tried. I got a few of then to read by digging out of the garage a very old DVD drive and powering it up. But the other three, I was forced to dump. (I did not lose those photos, at least according to the labels because I had other backups of them.)

So, I was able to put all my photos on to a large hard drive. And, having just been thru all this, onto yet -another- large hard drive; and on to (way too many) Blu-Ray discs; and on to newer Taiyo Yuden optical.

I was lucky… and surely within a few years (weeks?) of having lost much more. (One of my correspondents said he’s counting on his DVDs lasting “15 or 20 years.” Given that we have not even hit that benchmark in the entire history of optical media, and that I’ve already personally seen failures, I expect that he’s in for a very rude awakening…)

So: the point of the long-lived DVDs is NOT that they will readable in 1000 years, or even in 30. The point is that they will be readable >when we need them to be readable< and we can eliminate the annual “replenish and replace” and attendant anxiety that comes with not knowing if your files are safe.

Yes: the DVD will eventually go the way of IDE  and Jaz drives… but at least when you must move to the latest and greatest new storage technique, you won’t have to cross your fingers and hope that your precious files are still there.

That has never been the case before, and is why this new technology is so important.

Tracy

___________________________________________

* Why? Because throughout the history of computers, whose job it is to manipulate data and save it, the “save” part has always been temporary. One has always had to go back and verify the integrity of the saved data. Never before has it been possible to save the data, and forget it until the replacement came along. This is a huge development.

FCP X – a simple suggestion to Apple

Dear Apple

You can mitigate the FCPX disaster somewhat by doing this:

1) mea culpa

2) timeline for the fixes

3) put FCP suite back up for sale

4) hope that’s enough.

A Video Tangent: the FCP X hysteria

I wrote this letter to a friend who also edits video (as I have, since 1972) and it’s regarding the fact that some professional editors have become irrational when discussing Apple’s new Final Cut Pro X (“ten” not “ex”) editing software. FCPX is a version 1 release, and is missing several features pros need, and is a bit “too user friendly” to use in an industrial environment, unlike the previous version, FCP7.

Some of these folks have gone ballistic, claiming that they are going to throw out their entire Apple hardware and software setup, and switch to Avid.

Not all responses have been quite so over the top, and some have been quite reasoned. Here’s my take, and I think it fits in the latter category…

Regarding FCPX: your choice  (and every one else’s) is just to hold your horses. Wait.  Keep using the software you have. It isn’t suddenly inoperable. There’s nothing -forcing_ you to convert NOW. Pretend you never heard of FCPX and edit away!  True, there won’t be any -updates- to FCP7, but by the time you’re dying for an update, Apple will likely have resolved the version 1.0 issues.

I have my 44 minute Bullock video here. I loaded it back into FCP7 today, and it works just fine. It didn’t suddenly become inoperable because I purchased FCP X.

And while they are no longer selling FCP7, where did you read the statement from Apple that they will no longer support it? [I doubt that's the case.]

I really don’t understand the hysterics. Not you, of course… yours is merely disappointment…but that is exactly my point – it’s that people are disappointed, not that FCPX magically destroys your copy of FCP7.

[You asked if ] I blame them for switching horses? Yes, frankly, I do. Making decisions about the next NN-years of their life and costing in the 5,6 or 7 figure range .. > 2 DAYS< after a version 1.0 release? They are not being mature enough to say “OK – not ready for prime time yet… Bummer. I guess I’ll just keep going as is, and take a look at it later when it’s more fully featured.”

Why is everyone assuming that version 1.0 is the way it’s going to be _forever_? Has Apple EVER not updated it’s products? Why assume that’s the case now? If you were a cutter for my studio and announced that you were going to gut the hardware and software of the entire editing department because you didn’t like version one of the new editing software, I’d fire you for being a fool… right after asking “Who said you HAD to use it?”

Yes: the release is not what we all hoped it would be. But it will be. FCP version 1 from 10 years ago wasn’t suitable for pros either… and it took at least 8 years to get to where it is today…So we’re comparing a version One release with a version Seven release… and rationally expecting parity?

Apple never billed it as the next update. They billed it as the _NEW_ FCP.

My friend, I’m not one of those blind “Apple People” but neither am I irrational, and a lot of the reaction I’ve seen so far is exactly that: irrational.

All the things you’ve pointed out in your reply are legitimate gripes about the version 1 release… but NONE of them are not solved by just staying with FCP7 a while longer. It still works just fine.

Meanwhile, Apple is breaking some eggs for the sake of making a better omelet a ways down the road. If technology didn’t move forward, we’d all still be using the horse and buggy.

I just can’t get around feeling like most of these people just discovered there’s no Santa Claus.

So, yes: jumping ship right now (2 working days after the release) is simply immature and short-sighted. This is a transition period from an old way to a new way. Transitions don’t happen overnight.

To all those who jump ship and switch to Avid or Premiere, I say “Good luck to you.” In less than a year, I’ll be using a more-capable (than Avid), faster(than Avid), better(than Avid), more stable (than Avid) FCP X version 1.5 which will do all the things that version 1.0 is missing… and likely more.

Meanwhile, I’ll take the time to learn the new paradigm, and come up to speed.

I expect you’ll hear something from Apple during this coming week.

And that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!  :-)

Tracy

“The way that can be named is not The Nameless Way.”

On choosing “the best” photo paper

I’m frequently asked to name “the best” paper for fine-art inkjet printing. (And, please, let’s call it what it is: “inkjet” or “pigment print” and not “giclee” which is way too affected – like “faux” pearls.)

This is, actually, an complex and “non-trivial” question, and I’ve considered doing a day-long seminar on this one subject alone. The answer, however, is simple:  ”The paper you like.”

Not particularly helpful, though, is it? There are photographers of great skill, whose prints i admire, and whose choice in paper does not agree with mine. So, when asking about “the best paper” one is really asking “What paper do you like?” and you need to bear that in mind in what follows. Only you can decide what you prefer. Buy a bunch of sample packs and have a go at it.

With that said here’s my own take on it, as an abbreviation of my forthcoming seminar.

One bit of common wisdom is “Just pick one you like and stick with it. Become an expert at printing on that paper alone.” Personally, I don’t agree. There certainly is some wisdom in that approach, not the least of which is the implied “printing isn’t easy.” But it falls down in a couple of places, in my opinion.

First, you’re choosing either matte or coated paper, and that’s a severe limitation. You’re choosing one texture, with the same complaint. Ditto for temperature, and weight. In short, you’re forcing all your photos to fit the output, when, IMHO, your photos should dictate the paper you choose for the final print.

Matte papers have no “sparkle” and an image of snow, or city lights, or water, or glassware are better served by a coated paper with some sparkle to it. Yes: we do get off into “mood” here – snow on a matte paper conveys a different feeling to the viewer than snow on a coated paper… and that is at least one of the considerations you make as a printer of your own images… one of the things that makes it “an art.”

My point here is that if you limit yourself to one paper, then you no longer have the freedom to make that choice in the first place; your snow photos are all going to be sparkly or all going to be moody.

Being comfortable with different papers only goes to serve your own interests and versatility as an artist.

Papers have different “levels of whiteness” – color temperature of the reflected light. Some, particularly with optical brighteners (OBs) can be almost blindingly white, while others verge on a muted yellow. The former might be well-suited for a crisp mountain lake at noon, while the latter, the same lake during the golden hour.

Some papers are better for black and white, while others are superior for color. Some are better for highly saturated colors, while others (even matte) are better suited for muted colors.

You can see where I’m going with this. Temperature, surface, texture, weight, OBs or not… all of these things are dictated by the image itself, and how you want the viewer to respond to it.  Honestly, only by printing a lot of images will you come to learn the interplay between the paper and ink and image… but you can see by the foregoing that there are some guidelines to get you started.

Second: if you limit yourself to one paper, you’d opting out of the march of technology. Papers (and inks, and printers) improve with time. You are not making it easy on yourself by putting all your eggs in one basket… and you are putting an artificial fixed limit on your print quality. My prints would be nothing like they are now, had I limited myself to an Epson 2000 and Epson Enhanced Matte paper.

Third, just because there are various opinions, doesn’t mean that some papers are not better overall than others. It is generally conceded that a Mercedes is in a different class than a Chevrolet. The same can be said for papers. There’s a very visible reason we pay $3 or $5 or more for a single sheet of paper.

That reason, of course, is how the paper and the inks react together. How dark can you print the shadows without them “clotting up” and turning solid black? How much detail can you preserve in the highlights without them simply disappearing into the paper’s native color? And very importantly, how smooth a gradation can you print – what the width of the tonal range?

Want a great test to check on that latter issue? Do this: in Photoshop, create a circle about 1 1/2 inches in diameter (not critical, just approximate) at 300/360 dpi. Create it using the gradation tool, (in fade to transparency mode !) placing pure black at the center, and dragging out the radius. You’ll end up with “a soft spot” that’s absolute black at the center and fades off to the white of the paper at the edge.

Save it out in a nice wide gamut that your printer can handle, and print that little puppy on various papers, using identical setting each time. If your results are like mine, you’re going to be very surprised at the difference you’ll see between the papers.

I won’t spoil it for you, but let’s just say that you’re looking for a perfect duplication of that spot, and that with many papers you won’t get it. (And you won’t get it in various ways…)

Don’t use those papers for your prints!

—–

Well, let me wrap this up with what you’ve been waiting for: my paper recommendations. There’s much more to consider than the highlights I’ve skimmed through here, but I hope this will help you get going.

Best all around paper brand: Canson (aka Arches). These folks have been making paper for nearly 500 years, and their art papers were used by the world’s most artists, including Picasso, Miro,  Renoir.. the list goes on and on. Their paper is expensive, but the final print quality (which is after all, the whole point of photography) cannot be beat. My personal choice. Their baryta Photographique for a coated paper, and their Velin Museum Rag for a matte, are the two papers I’d choose to use on the proverbial desert island.

Best bang for the buck, and certainly gallery quality too: Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. Ilford’s Galerie Smooth Pearl is a good paper that’s a bit brighter.

If you want blast your eyes out white, Hawk Mountain Paper’s Sharpwing Luster is my choice.

For a really white Baryta for B&W work, Mitsubishi’s Gekko Green is suitable. (The rest of the Gekko line is sub-par, IMHO.)

Red River makes very acceptable, and less expensive papers, and I use Polar Satin as a general workhorse, where the Canson would be overkill.

Those are the papers I keep on my work-shelf.

Here are some others I don’t hesitate to recommend:

Epson Exhibition Fibre is a bright white paper. Their Watercolor is very good, and the stand-by (aka grandfather) of the fine-art papers is Velvet Fine Art, which still holds its own.

Moab is well liked, as are Legion, Hansen and Museo (although I obviously prefer the Canson products. ) Frankly, I found Hahnemuhle over-rated for the price, but perhaps my expectations were too high.

 

All that said, I suggest you remember the open paragraphs of this missive: the best paper, is the paper YOU like. Your tastes may be wildly different from mine, and the only way to tell is via sample packs. I hope that my opinion, however, gives you a decent starting point for your investigations.

 

Best

Tracy

 

Believing your own press

I’ve been a teacher and an author and taking photos on and off for over 50 years now. Also as a programmer of some 35 years experience, I’m more than a little familiar with things digital, and how they work.

And I’ve got to say, some of the new self-proclaimed experts in photography, especially those who materialized out of nowhere in the last 10 years, and with large followings, need to stop reading and believing their own press releases. Over the past few years, when I’ve tried to politely correct some bit of misinformation they’ve published, I think only once have I been met with thanks.

Most of the time, I’m treated as if I were a moron, and “how dare I question them?. Don’t I know who they are?” (I’ve actually had a couple of them say exactly that!)

OK… it’s human nature. It’s particularly embarrassing for a writer to get caught saying something wrong, and because their credibility is vitally important to their careers, it’s understandable that they would be defensive.

But I’m a member of the photographic community… and have been for decades. We are, in person, and have been over those years, kind and giving and sharing. We learn from each other, and appreciate corrections… or at least that’s the way it used to be… and still is with my friends.

I have to say that I miss that spirit in the printed press however… or at least the authors with whom I’ve dealt. When was the last time you saw a correction, a mea culpa, in print?

Outside of this blog, I’ve given up on trying to share corrections based on my aggregate experience of over 85 years with digital & photography. Even 85 years doesn’t make me infallible however… I’m still learning… and I love it. But being a programmer and photographer has made understanding digital pretty easy for me.

On this blog, I hope we share ideas and opinions openly. I hope to learn from you and will easily admit it when I’m wrong about something, because that pushes the art of photography forward for all of us.

Anything less, including believing your own press, simply holds everyone back.

 

My smeary, oily, camera display screen

… is far less trouble now that I’ve applied this stuff:

www.nu-screen.com

…which is advertised for iPods, iPads and iPhones, but “works a treat” on my cameras as well. Heck, I’ve even used it on my eyeglasses.

(It repels oil, such as from your fingers, or cheeks, and at the very least, makes cleaning it off with a soft cloth, far easier.)

I’m very happy with my purchase.

YMMV, but HTH!  :-)

Tracy