Printing "Slick" Brochures - Should I Use IRIS or Epson?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mark Conrad - 28 Apr 2006 17:33 GMT

I am a newbie who is confused by the debate between printer users.

Epson users claim several things against IRIS printers.

They claim:
***************************************
IRIS is old technology, largely unnecessary now because
of advances in Epson technology, i.e. "banding" is now largely
eliminated by automatic printer head alignment.

IRIS printers need constant use and expert maintenance,
otherwise the print nozzles will clog.

IRIS printers can not be used by newbies, because the
learning curve is long, tedious, confusing, prone to
misunderstanding by anyone other than an expert.

Finally, Epson advocates claim that the added quality
of the finished print, if any, is not detectable at all by a
"critical-viewer".
**************************************

How much of the above is true, and how much is just "sour-grapes"?

I for one, even though I am a newbie, can see how IRIS technology can
benefit me when trying to print from high-end digital cameras.

As I understand it, IRIS printers avoid "banding" by printing the
entire print from edge to edge in one slow pass, i.e. no jerky
advancement of the paper, therefore no banding.

The paper itself is firmly attached to a rapidly rotating drum. The
print head with its ink nozzles traverses the entire length of the
rotating drum in one slow pass. Very slick way of avoiding even a
hint of banding, in my opinion.

Epson relies on automatic print-head "alignment", which is supposed to
avoid any detectable banding.

It seems to me that no matter how well the print head is aligned, if
the paper advancement mechanism is a little sloppy, then all bets are
off as regards banding.

From my brief Googling, there appear to be many other benefits to using
IRIS printers, such as the ability to spray heavier deposits of ink
onto local areas of the print that would benefit by those heavier
deposits.

I think I am talking myself into a modern IRIS printer.<g>

Opinions welcomed from any Epson users though, because I can be swayed
either way.

Mark-

Reply to this Message

tomm42 - 28 Apr 2006 18:22 GMT

> I am a newbie who is confused by the debate between printer users.
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> Mark-

Everything Epson says about IRIS printers is true. I They also make
fantastic prints, with the right operator, the printer kept in the
right environment.n the early 90s they were the only act in town. A
technician told me that IRIS printers were like jet engines, complete
rebuild after X hours. IRIS ink is dye based and prints don't last
that long. I had some on the wall for about 5 years then there was
noticable fading.
Epsons especially the x800 series make great prints too. I haven't
heard about Epson banding since the 9000 first came out, most of that
was too little ink for a certain paper. The Epson K3 inks are rated at
100 years +. Check the Wilhelm page for life of IRIS inksets. If you
are looking at printers and want to drop $40000 or so (price of a large
IRIS, I would check out Roland. I understand that Nash Images is now
using Epsons, Museum of Fine Arts in Boston uses Epsons.
IRIS has a mystique about it, but a lot of things I hear are false. If
you are not an IRIS technician I'd go Epson or Roland.

Tom

Reply to this Message

Mark Conrad - 29 Apr 2006 01:05 GMT

> Everything Epson says about IRIS printers is true. I They also make
> fantastic prints, with the right operator, the printer kept in the
> right environment.n the early 90s they were the only act in town. A
> technician told me that IRIS printers were like jet engines, complete
> rebuild after X hours.

That is the same impression I get.

Furthermore, it appears that digital camera technology is advancing a
lot quicker than printer technology, with the introduction of the most
recent 39 MP camera from Hassleblad, for a mere $43,000 US.<g>

According to Hasselblad's press releases, that monster even has Moire
reduction features built in.

Presently I am struggling along with a Canon 12.8 MP camera. (5D)

> Epsons especially the x800 series make great prints too. I haven't
> heard about Epson banding since the 9000 first came out, most of that
> was too little ink for a certain paper.

With all due respect, I am an opinionated person who remains to be
convinced about that. If I could see it with my own eyes, at some
Epson demo' location, I would believe it.

I just do not see how any printer that relies on mechanical paper
advancement techniques can avoid banding.

The IRIS does not advance the paper at all. The paper is held rigidly
on a large diameter rapidly rotating drum, as I understand it. Am I
wrong?

The print head slowly advances across the rapidly rotating drum,
spraying ink, under control of computer software of course.

Result, no banding - - - no relying on advancing paper stock to
1/1000th inch tolerances.

Why can't Epson adopt the same technique for their high end printers,
patent infrigement or something?

Mark-

Tom's entire post - - -

> Everything Epson says about IRIS printers is true. I They also make
> fantastic prints, with the right operator, the printer kept in the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Tom

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 29 Apr 2006 02:21 GMT

> > Epsons especially the x800 series make great prints too. I haven't
> > heard about Epson banding since the 9000 first came out, most of that
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> on a large diameter rapidly rotating drum, as I understand it. Am I
> wrong?

And why do you think that rotating the paper and moving the print head
slowly is somehow magically easier than scanning the print head back
and forth and moving the paper slowly?

I've printed hundreds of prints on various inkjet printers, the
current batch all Epsons, without ever seeing any banding issues.
I've seen many more Epson prints in exhibitions, hand-bound photo
books, and other stranger situations, and none of them show any
banding either. To me, your fixation on banding suggests you've been
out of the loop for many years.

> The print head slowly advances across the rapidly rotating drum,
> spraying ink, under control of computer software of course.
>
> Result, no banding - - - no relying on advancing paper stock to
> 1/1000th inch tolerances.

> Why can't Epson adopt the same technique for their high end printers,
> patent infrigement or something?

Why would they want to? It's high-maintenance, slow, and not as good.

Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to this Message

J. Clarke - 28 Apr 2006 19:20 GMT

> I am a newbie who is confused by the debate between printer users.
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> Opinions welcomed from any Epson users though, because I can be swayed
> either way.

Are you talking about going into the business of printing brochures or
printing brochures for your own business or what? What kind of volume are
you talking? What's the budget per brochure?

> Mark-

Signature

--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Reply to this Message

Mark Conrad - 29 Apr 2006 01:05 GMT

> Are you talking about going into the business of printing brochures or
> printing brochures for your own business or what? What kind of volume are
> you talking? What's the budget per brochure?

Right now I am talking about printing brochures and pamphlets for
public seminars of approx' 100/200 people.

I was planning to have the brochures printed up using offset
lithography, which has no problems with "banding" but generally has
more problems in other areas like accurate color rendition.

Offset lithography is very expensive for short runs.

I think I am dazzled and intrigued by a lot of the technical aspects of
the IRIS printers, such as their method of avoiding banding.

Why can't "regular" printers like high end Epsons adopt methods like
that? Patent restrictions? I for one would be willing to pay high
printer prices for the added quality of the resulting prints.

Noticable banding has plagued every Epson printer I have bought up to
date. It yells CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP on all my printing efforts,
despite using custom photo paper stock - - - so I have not bought any
regular printers for the last three years.

Sorry for the rant, but I am really disgusted by the poor quality
results I had from "regular" Epson printers, as compared against the
quality output of slick magazines like "Arizona Highways".

Mark-

Reply to this Message

Greg - 29 Apr 2006 01:21 GMT

> Noticable banding has plagued every Epson printer I have bought up to
> date. It yells CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP on all my printing efforts,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Mark-

Offset has often exceeded user prints-nothing new-but depends on the
publication-perhaps the print dept.

Your results are use related, banding "IS" because the printer goes
unused YEs a problem but directly related to how you use it-Not enough.

Good or bad- the printer probably needs to be turned on and maintained
not like photochemical processors, that can be drained and cleaned to be
used next month for that big job that suddenly comez along.

What I see as the issue is all Pro imagers now need to be enabled to
some form of retouch work and since the down fall fall of labs leaves us
with the sole choice of doing our own prints -its a quandary.

Signature

The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Reply to this Message

Al Dykes - 29 Apr 2006 02:17 GMT

>> Are you talking about going into the business of printing brochures or
>> printing brochures for your own business or what? What kind of volume are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Offset lithography is very expensive for short runs.

FWIW, Hewlett Packard is talking about "glossy brochure on demand"
printing. You might look at the business side of HP.com to see what
they have now.

The example I saw was a real estate sales office being able to print a
really slick one-off brochure for a specific house for a prospective
client.

Signature

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. Proudly then, even more so in hindsight.

Reply to this Message

Little Green Eyed Dragon - 29 Apr 2006 02:46 GMT

> FWIW, Hewlett Packard is talking about "glossy brochure on demand"
> printing. You might look at the business side of HP.com to see what
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> really slick one-off brochure for a specific house for a prospective
> client.

Ok lets say you have a slick glossy brochure versus an epson matte
double side book,...do you think a one page slick beats a 6x page
catalog?

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Reply to this Message

Mark Conrad - 29 Apr 2006 16:56 GMT

Thanks very much, I will check it out.

Mark-

Reply to this Message

J. Clarke - 29 Apr 2006 03:31 GMT

>> Are you talking about going into the business of printing brochures or
>> printing brochures for your own business or what? What kind of volume
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Right now I am talking about printing brochures and pamphlets for
> public seminars of approx' 100/200 people.

How often do you do this?

> I was planning to have the brochures printed up using offset
> lithography, which has no problems with "banding" but generally has
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that? Patent restrictions? I for one would be willing to pay high
> printer prices for the added quality of the resulting prints.

You're talking about paying on the order of 100 times the price. Epson
could no doubt make a giclee printer if they wanted to compete in that
market, but apparently they don't.

> Noticable banding has plagued every Epson printer I have bought up to
> date. It yells CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP on all my printing efforts,
> despite using custom photo paper stock - - - so I have not bought any
> regular printers for the last three years.

If you've had noticeable banding on _every_ Epson printer you've used and
you've tried a quantity of them then I'd suspect a systematic problem with
your production process. As for this custom stock, is it intended for use
with Epson inks? Do you get the same banding on Epson's paper?

> Sorry for the rant, but I am really disgusted by the poor quality
> results I had from "regular" Epson printers, as compared against the
> quality output of slick magazines like "Arizona Highways".

Those slick magazines don't use giclee printers for production.

> Mark-

Signature

--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Reply to this Message

elcoggins@bee.net - 29 Apr 2006 12:39 GMT

Mark said:

"Noticable banding has plagued every Epson printer I have bought up to
date. It yells CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP on all my printing efforts,
despite using custom photo paper stock - - - so I have not bought any
regular printers for the last three years.

Sorry for the rant, but I am really disgusted by the poor quality
results I had from "regular" Epson printers, as compared against the
quality output of slick magazines like "Arizona Highways"."

------------

Well, you get what you pay for! How can you compare an Epson consumer
printer against the IRIS?

Have you looked at the Epson 2400? Or how about the professional 4800?

If you are getting banding on a 2400 and above, you have something set
incorrectly. You are not going to get Aizona Highways out of a consumer
inkjet printer!

Gene

Reply to this Message

Mark Conrad - 29 Apr 2006 16:56 GMT

> > Noticable banding has plagued every Epson printer I have bought up to
> > date. It yells CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP on all my printing efforts,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Well, you get what you pay for! How can you compare an Epson consumer
> printer against the IRIS?

I am inclined to agree.

The claim that IRIS printers are dead is likely exaggerated. No doubt
they are still alive, selling those high priced printers to people who
can afford them.

I can't afford them, but I like to look.

I was amazed by the technical complexity of those printers, no wonder
they break down every 5 minutes. ;-)

> Have you looked at the Epson 2400? Or how about the professional 4800?

I looked at the Epson 4800 - - - sent an email to Epson complete with
my "rant". Poor guy at Epson did not know how to handle my email, so
he merely suggested I contact Epson sales dept'.

I _will_ contact their sales dept' to see whether or not they will
sanction a demo' for their model 4800, or suggest a retail dealer who
will offer a demo'.

> If you are getting banding on a 2400 and above, you have something set
> incorrectly. You are not going to get Aizona Highways out of a consumer
> inkjet printer!

As I mentioned, I have not bought any printer for the last 3 years,
perhaps printers changed for the better since then.

We all know what banding is caused by, or we _should_ all know.

The ink is sprayed by multiple nozzles in a swath about a third of an
inch wide onto the paper.

The sheet of paper is advanced by rickety mechanical means.

If the printer's paper advance mechanism moves the paper too far, by
say 1/200th of an inch, an obvious white stripe is observed where
no ink was deposited.

BTW, that obvious white stripe will occur with "custom" paper stock
also, so diddling around changing paper stock does no good.

It is the imprecise paper-advance-mechanism, for crying out loud, not
the paper stock, that is the root of banding problems !!!

Why can't some of the respondents here get that fact through their
thick skulls. grr

Sorry 'bout that mini-rant, back to the topic.

So printer manufacturers err on the side of moving the paper not far
enough, to avoid the obvious white stripe.

Moving the paper not far enough results in a thin stripe where ink was
applied twice, instead of just once.

Although the double deposit of ink is not nearly as obvious as a white
stripe, it is still noticable by a critical viewer, especially in
lighter areas where little ink is applied in the first place.

Any double deposit of ink in such areas stands out like a sore thumb.

IRIS printers avoid banding by printing the entire paper from
edge-to-edge in one fell swoop, _not_ in seperate 1/3rd inch
swaths, so it is not possible for banding to occur.

...but IRIS printers are way too expensive, their ink nozzles clog,
they need too much maintenance, their "special" inks fade, they are
difficult to learn to use "properly".

Did I leave out any drawbacks? <g>

So we are stuck with Epson, and perhaps HP, trusting them to minimize
banding in their high-end printers so much as to make it unnoticeable,
even by guys like me.

Think I will clean my glasses with sandpaper. That should cure the
banding problem for me. ;-)

Mark-

Reply to this Message