Cone Color Inks vs Epson Color Inks in Epson 9900

InkjetMall Customer Support ConeColor Inks & Printing
, , ,
21

Hi stillrivereditions~

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. It’s been a very busy week, but I have made several test prints of the image you sent, and wanted to follow up with my results.

Since we use ConeColor inks for color printing, we only have a R3000 that we just received that still has Epson inks installed. For ConeColor, I used our 9900- so my tests are not only comparing the two inks, but two different printer models, as well as two different print systems (I used Mac 10.9.2/Photoshop CC when printing to the R3000, and Windows 7/Photoshop CC with the 9900).

After evaluating the image in Photoshop, and checking different areas with the info window and eyedropper tool, I can see that the image contains a lot of purple, magenta and cyan tones, with a few areas of green, yellow/peach and black. I printed on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper with both setups, using the standard Epson Premium Glossy profiles.
My results from the two systems are VERY close, especially in overall density, and dMax, though my ConeColor print has slightly darker shadows than the Epson print. The Epson ink print is a tad more purple/magenta than the ConeColor print (which sounds opposite of what you reported experiencing).

As I said before, I recommend printing from your computer using your profiles and known stable print system. View the image thru the soft proof profile, then edit as necessary to make your output match the client’s desired match print, then save the edited file to print from your system and retain an approved proof/BAT for future printing to maintain consistency.

I hope this helps.
Best regards and happy printing~ Dana :slight_smile:

22

OK, time for an update on my original post. Just by chance I had a client who wanted to sell their Epson 9900 that had only 21 print count on it. The deal was too hard to pass up, so… I took the troublesome customer file and printed it and WOW, it matched my customers first hit. This printer has Epson inks in it. So what does this mean?

Epson inks
Epson “canned” profile
Epson Premium Glossy paper

23

What are the firmware versions of your original 9900 and new 9900?

24

Dana,
Both the same, I made sure of that before tests. Did you ever see anything wrong with that file I sent you? If you would like, I can print that test chart/image on both and send them both to you? I will use exact same settings for both.

25

My name is Kelly, I will be covering for Dana while she’s away on maternity leave.

Yes, please send us the test chart images from both printers using the same exact settings & papers.
Also, please re-install the driver both times you send the print to either machine (just to rule that out).
Mailing address:
Inkjetmall
attn.Kelly/Tech Support
17 Powder Spring Road
Topsham, VT 05076

I have been “in the loop” on your concerns and have collaborated different ideas and solutions with Dana.

Dana is in accessible for a couple of days, I will send her an email asking if she found anything wrong with your file. If she did I would have assumed she would have gotten back to you, but will double check just in case.

26

Kelly,

I will do that, and please tell Dana congrats!

27

I’m at home playing the waiting game until contractions intensify, but wanted to respond to say I didn’t find anything wrong or strange with the file you sent, and see lots of purple/magenta in the main area, so feel my test prints are accurate with a touch of purple in the main area, and light cyans and blacks look as they do on our NEC monitor as well. I noticed it’s a 16-bit file, but that shouldn’t cause any issues.
Yes, it would be helpful to see your print output of the test image I sent you, as well as your output of the file you sent me for comparison. I printed most of my tests on Epson Premium Glossy Paper, so if you could use the same paper, that would be great.

Thanks~ Dana :slight_smile:

28

Shipped them off to Kelly today. Now don’t even think about it and get busy on the baby delivery. Congrats! :smiley:

29

I received your images today, just to verify, these are all printed with the printer in question (your original 9900) & their MacMini, correct?

Can you please tell me what OS their MacMini is? I know your system is 10.6.8, but didn’t see if you posted what their OS version is.

I reviewed your images and they are VERY similar to the ones Dana printed using our R3000 & 9900. I don’t see any significant differences, I was expecting a much lighter image with much greater difference in colors.

30

The prints I sent you were all printed on my two 9900s, one with Cone inks, ones with Epson inks. Same paper used in both, same computer, same network connection, same firmware version, same OS, same printer driver, same paper profiles. This was a test between the two printers and the two inks. I hope my markings on each print make sense.

You mention you do not see a “big” difference between the samples I sent you and the ones Dana printed, but I hope you can see the obvious major difference between the two inks sets I used for the tests??? The Epson ink ones have a better d-max, better tonal separation, less gloss differential, and better contrast.

Concerning the prints of the purple image, the one done with Epson inks and Epson’s canned profile by me, are a dead match to the print supplied to me by my client. Their setup was the Mac Mini, OSX 9.4, Epson 9900, printed out of Aperture.

So my conclusion is my Epson printer with the Epson inks, even printing out of Photoshop, matches their results. Which means that setup will work.

But the overall concern is that Cone’s inks are suppose to “replace” the Epson inks at a lower cost. Perhaps yes, but not really.

Mark

31

Any other thoughts on what is happening?

32

Dana & Jon have previously responded to your questions, Jon will be back next week and will continue this discussion with you.

Kindly,
Kelly

33

OK, thanks Kelly.

34

BTW Have not heard from Jon yet.

35

Sorry Mark, but I thought I addressed this very early on in the Epson users group with you back in July and that Dana had as well.

Just to sum things up from a workflow perspective as we practice.

If you were to make an image and take 100% ownership of its color management on your own computer. That is to say that if you originated the image and you used a color management system (an ICC you produced and a recommended workflow for it) and Epson inks/whatever media that you were with confidence able to repeat over and over as if second nature and produce identical prints with day after day - and then using the same exact system (computer, OS, software, printer, CM) but changed out the inks on your printer to ConeColor and produced a new ICC that took the ink changes into account - you should be able to repeat it with out any stress at all. You could go from Epson inks to Cone inks this way because you control what is happening on the same system and the same versions of OS, etc. This is a professional workflow. If and when something changes such as you buy a new paper batch that does not seem to match the ICC made for the older paper batch - you then just make a new ICC profile. But if you leave the printer sitting for three weeks and then make a print that no longer matches you DO NOT make an ICC. You freshen the inks in the printer by shaking the carts and performing an INITIAL INK CHARGE removing the variable of stale inks or pigment falling out of suspension from inside the printer, etc. This is all just basic stuff really that any Pro shop should practice and most do.

If you were originally using Epson media with Epson inks - you could use the Epson ICCs and Epson recommended workflow for both Epson and the change to ConeColor inks. If you were using a 3rd party media and supplied ICC - you should replace the ICCs with your own making using a reliable system such as Eye1 Publish on both the Epson inks and ConeColor inks.

But my understanding from you is that you are not necessarily using everything the same as the client supplied image/print including printer/OS/software - and possibly CM workflow. You have one or more variables in place from what I understand as well as printing from a program not known for its color management savvy (Aperture). <- That alone scares me…

Forget Mac OSX as being standardized. It is not since 10.4.7. You can not produce ICC profiles on 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, or 10.9 that can be used on any other version without using something like QTR Print Tool to turn off color management (so that you can make an ICC profile.) This may or may not effect you meaning that you are using the exact same version of Mac OSX as the client is and both you and the client perform exactly the same steps from Aperture (should not be used for professional printing) to print the results you both get.

In any event - you and the client should standardize to same exact version of Mac OSX, same exact version of Adobe Photoshop (Adobe CM works), same exact color management workflow including Adobe settings and Epson settings. Same exact ICC profile. Then the variable is now only the 9900 printer each of you is using and/or the age and condition of the printer, and/or the age and condition of the inks inside the printer (a huge biggie). So you both insert fresh inks - perform an initial INK CHARGE - and now the only remaining variable is the printer condition and print head age (ability to make the smallest dot declines with age). It would probably require two custom ICCs to get these two systems as close as possible.

Now change your inks to ConeColor. Produce ICC. You should be good to go. THis is a basic workflow.

You have to control variables not just in the same exact workflow and use of ICCs but also OS and condition of the printer. You may not want to believe that something as benign as an OS version, or computer, or printer sitting in one location which you know nothing about, and your printer, etc should make a difference but they do and it can be significant.

We can take a set of Epson inks and a set of ConeColor inks and make prints that are or are nearly identical in our studio. We do have a printer setup on Epson inks - I believe an R3000 or 3880 but we can match it to the 9900 running ConeColor inks. It’s not a rocket science to do so.WE do it regularly. But the condition of the inks and the printers and our taking 100% responsibility for the image and workflow (all computers in the studio are on same OS, etc…) All ICCs made with same system, etc.- this is all standardized including keeping an eye on humidity. We have to in order to be able to repeat.

I understand that you want this client’s work - but you have to be able to set them up correctly first in a way that will reliably mesh with your studio and the workflow you recommend and practice. Have you?

36

I just wrote a very long response and when I posted it it went away. I really do not want to type it again. Is there anyway you can call me when you get a chance so we can just have a normal old fashion conversation? 203-791-1474

37

Hi Mark,

I’m working with clients today and tomorrow at Cone Editions Press - so can not get a time out to call. But, I can keep up with emails here and there. Next week we are exhibiting at Photokina and I am out of the office until Sept 23. If you can retype and keep mindful of the timeout (just copy your text every once in awhile in case it times out on you). I will check back to read the forum again about noon our time.

Best,

Jon

38

OK, I will write it offline in Word and cut and paste it in when done.

Thanks.

39

If you were to make an image and take 100% ownership of its color management on your own computer. That is to say that if you originated the image and you used a color management system (an ICC you produced and a recommended workflow for it) and Epson inks/whatever media that you were with confidence able to repeat over and over as if second nature and produce identical prints with day after day - and then using the same exact system (computer, OS, software, printer, CM) but changed out the inks on your printer to ConeColor and produced a new ICC that took the ink changes into account - you should be able to repeat it with out any stress at all. You could go from Epson inks to Cone inks this way because you control what is happening on the same system and the same versions of OS, etc. This is a professional workflow. If and when something changes such as you buy a new paper batch that does not seem to match the ICC made for the older paper batch - you then just make a new ICC profile. But if you leave the printer sitting for three weeks and then make a print that no longer matches you DO NOT make an ICC. You freshen the inks in the printer by shaking the carts and performing an INITIAL INK CHARGE removing the variable of stale inks or pigment falling out of suspension from inside the printer, etc. This is all just basic stuff really that any Pro shop should practice and most do.

I do.

If you were originally using Epson media with Epson inks - you could use the Epson ICCs and Epson recommended workflow for both Epson and the change to ConeColor inks. If you were using a 3rd party media and supplied ICC - you should replace the ICCs with your own making using a reliable system such as Eye1 Publish on both the Epson inks and ConeColor inks.

I do that with all the papers I use.

But my understanding from you is that you are not necessarily using everything the same as the client supplied image/print including printer/OS/software - and possibly CM workflow. You have one or more variables in place from what I understand as well as printing from a program not known for its color management savvy (Aperture). <- That alone scares me….

I think you are misunderstanding the setup. They brought their Mac Mini in, printed right out of Aperture (I know it sucks) and we printed directly to my Epson 9900 with your inks via USB, just like they do to theirs at their office. So the only thing different is the inks, Epson in theirs, yours in mine. We did tests using Epson’s canned profiles and a custom profile I made. The sample print they brought in looked so different. They are using nothing but Epson’s canned profile at their office.

Forget Mac OSX as being standardized. It is not since 10.4.7. You can not produce ICC profiles on 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, or 10.9 that can be used on any other version without using something like QTR Print Tool to turn off color management (so that you can make an ICC profile.) This may or may not effect you meaning that you are using the exact same version of Mac OSX as the client is and both you and the client perform exactly the same steps from Aperture (should not be used for professional printing) to print the results you both get.

I use Adobe Print Utility when making my charts and basICColor to read and make the profiles.

In any event - you and the client should standardize to same exact version of Mac OSX, same exact version of Adobe Photoshop (Adobe CM works), same exact color management workflow including Adobe settings and Epson settings. Same exact ICC profile.

I know that, but again, we were using their computer, only variable was my printer vs their printer and of course they use Eposn’s canned profile, mine a custom one (I also tried using the canned one).

Then the variable is now only the 9900 printer each of you is using and/or the age and condition of the printer, and/or the age and condition of the inks inside the printer (a huge biggie). So you both insert fresh inks - perform an initial INK CHARGE - and now the only remaining variable is the printer condition and print head age (ability to make the smallest dot declines with age). It would probably require two custom ICCs to get these two systems as close as possible.

I agree with that. It appears both printers have the latest firmwares, but theirs is an original head, I am on my second one. My printer has printed thousands of prints, they the same (they print 50-100 copies of every image they print).

Now change your inks to ConeColor. Produce ICC. You should be good to go. This is a basic workflow.

I am confident my workflow is working well. I have been using your inks for some time now, done a shitload of prints with them. Have been very happy.

You have to control variables not just in the same exact workflow and use of ICCs but also OS and condition of the printer. You may not want to believe that something as benign as an OS version, or computer, or printer sitting in one location which you know nothing about, and your printer, etc should make a difference but they do and it can be significant.

I agree.

We can take a set of Epson inks and a set of ConeColor inks and make prints that are or are nearly identical in our studio. We do have a printer setup on Epson inks - I believe an R3000 or 3880 but we can match it to the 9900 running ConeColor inks. It’s not a rocket science to do so.WE do it regularly. But the condition of the inks and the printers and our taking 100% responsibility for the image and workflow (all computers in the studio are on same OS, etc…) All ICCs made with same system, etc.- this is all standardized including keeping an eye on humidity. We have to in order to be able to repeat.

I understand that you want this client’s work - but you have to be able to set them up correctly first in a way that will reliably mesh with your studio and the workflow you recommend and practice. Have you?

This is where it gets tricky. They are kind of secretive about their business. Not that its a CIA operation or anything, more of a cult. Yep, you heard right, a cult.

[B]So let me close with this new factor (as mentioned in the thread at some point). I recently acquired a very slightly used Epson 9900 with OEM inks in it. I invited that client back in with her Mac Mini setup, we connected to that printer and first test was EXTREMELY close.

So later I made some more tests on both printers (my setup, test image Dana sent me, Epson glossy, Epson canned profiles and my own custom made profiles; the two did not match. The Epson inks have a better “snap” to them, almost a better D-Max, not much, but just enough to make difference.

Just a few days ago another client came in with some 8x10 prints they had made on their Epson 4900 (maybe a 3880), OEM inks, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. I made a test on my printer with your inks, a test on the 9900 with the Epson inks, same settings for both, both with custom profiles. The 9900 with the Epson inks matched perfect, the printer with your inks was dull.

So can it just be the printer, perhaps yes. I am not looking to blame anyone, just was trying to figure out what was happening. Now that I have the Epson with the OEM inks in it, and that client is 99% happy, I will just get back to making a living printing. I am going to keep both printers as is for awhile, kind of get a feel for why the difference, maybe the two will even out someday :wink:

Mark[/B]

40

Mark,

I’ve read this interesting thread several times but I’m confused about one thing. In your first post you say that the client brought in several prints made from the same roll stock. But nowhere in the thread does it say that you printed on YOUR printer using the exact same paper as what the client used. I don’t mean just the same brand and type, I mean printing on your printer using paper from the exact packaging and batch as used by the client to make their original prints. If in fact you did that, please ignore this post and my apologies for not reading more closely.

Otherwise it seems to me that you don’t really have a valid comparison. As you know paper coatings and substrates can be affected by many environmental factors, and may not be obvious by just looking at the paper. So to eliminate those things as possible cause for the difference in the prints, you’d need to make your prints using their paper from the same packaging, batch and storage conditions as used for the original prints.

Also, I noted you’ve had the head replaced in your 9900. I recently replaced the head in my 7900 and did the work myself. I did a lot of preparation and reading of the service manuals before doing this and learned that Epson recommends a Colorimetric Calibration step after installing a new head (also if the Main Board or Power Supply Board Assembly have been replaced) whenever there is a need for critical color accuracy from the printing system overall. I suspect that 99% of the time when techs replace heads they do NOT do this calibration. I didn’t do it either, not because I couldn’t, but because I had no need for matching multiple printing systems. But for sure I built a complete set of new profiles for the papers I use after installing the new head and doing all the alignments etc.

It actually involves writing a “Color ID” to the main board memory after printing test targets and measuring them. The Color ID setting registers and controls ink droplet delivery from the head and “improves calibration accuracy and ensures stable color quality” to reduce differences in color among individual products (quoted text from the Epson service manual). The fact that this step is documented in Epson’s service manual makes it pretty clear that a head change can affect color, maybe enough to be noticeable to the human eye, especially when comparing output from two different heads using the same printer model. In terms of color management for the printing system, changing a head can have the same level of impact as changing ink, paper, or media settings.

It might be interesting to know whether your tech did the color calibration step when your head was replaced. And also if he did all the other required mechanical adjustments as well, things like Head to Platen Gap distance adjustment, CR Slant, and PF Slant. I don’t think these would be the cause of major color shifts, but if something were way off (especially Platen Gap distance) I could see some possibility of that.

FWIW,
Dave