28A.I873 <28A.I873@noabzba.net> wrote:
> John Forkosh wrote:
>> 28A.I873 <28A.I873@noabzba.net> wrote:
>>> <<snip>>
>>> Alas if you aren't printing every day the
>>> ink dries up and clogs the print heads ....
>>
>> Any advice how to unclog them? I've googled the heck
>> out of that question, tried various solutions (i.e.,
>> both various procedures and various liquids) without
>> success. Two printers in particular,
>> not-so-important: HP Envy 4500
>> important 11x17" printer: Brother MFC-J6920DW
>> I only got the HP for occasional color requirements,
>> with most printing on B&W lasers. And the Brother's
>> actually mostly for scanning large-format originals.
>> So neither gets much printing use. Hence the clogs.
>> And if I ever do manage to unclog them, I figure the
>> heads should then probably be cleaned after each use,
>> before they clog. What would be the proper procedure
>> for that?
>
> Unfortunately "it depends" on the particular printer.
> A mix of pure isopropanol with about 5% acetone will
> dissolve most printer inks.

Thanks, I'd tried alcohol and hydrogen peroxide, separately,
but hadn't come across your particular suggestion before.
Not sure if the drugstore alcohol I used was specifically
isopropanol.

> The PROBLEM is that you can't be sure what the printheads
> can tolerate. It might melt THEM too.

I'll try isopropanol alone first, no acetone, and if that
fails (which it probably will), maybe successively try
adding 1%,2%,... acetone to find the minimum that hopefully
works. And will google a little further.

> So, after throwing away several decent inkjets because
> they always clogged-up ... well ... I only buy lasers now.

Yeah, I'd considered that, but color lasers are way more expensive
than the ~$79.95 (when I bought it circa 2016) Envy 4500. And the
tabloid Brother is primarily for scanning large documents (which
it still does quite well, with its sane driver working very nicely
with my slackware linux).

> The ONLY excuse for inkjets these days is if you do
> lots of really high-qual photos. Ink IS still better
> for that.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

On 3/2/23 18:56, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:50:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> [...] USB ties the machine to one computer, unless you implement a
>> print server on it. Its more reliable to have network access to the
>> printer for small office style use.
>
> Someone threw out a HP 5100 laser (I seem to recall) from 2007 with
> additional cartridge, as he wanted network. Gave it away so I took it,
> connected via the sole USB port. Then made it available over WIFI via
> CUPS. :-)
>
> I mailed him and offered to set this up for a small for him too, but he
> already laid down some $800 for a big ass office printer.

It is best to remember that many users swear (at their printers) and
that the computers were designed in hell! Not so much
the lasers but the inkjets.

bliss - “Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am... Again..

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 03/03/2023 04:47, 28A.I873 wrote:
>> And if I ever do manage to unclog them, I figure the
>> heads should then probably be cleaned after each use,
>> before they clog. What would be the proper procedure
>> for that?
>
>   Unfortunately "it depends" on the particular printer.
>
>   A mix of pure isopropanol with about 5% acetone will
>   dissolve most printer inks. The PROBLEM is that you
>   can't be sure what the printheads can tolerate. It
>   might melt THEM too.

Acetone is an *extremely* aggressive solvent. It is along with
nitromethane, one of the only two commonly available solvents that will
undo superglue, that I am aware of.

>
>   So, after throwing away several decent inkjets because
>   they always clogged-up ... well ... I only buy lasers now.
>
I have to agree. I had a huge A1 inkjet plotter at one point when I was
doing a lot of drawings.

Every time it had been out of use fora few weeks the heads needed
unclogging. And the colors faded in daylight

Eventually I put it in the skip.

It is cheaper to get the odd print run off at a print shop.

>   The ONLY excuse for inkjets these days is if you do
>   lots of really high-qual photos. Ink IS still better
>   for that.

Even there my local photo processing place does extremely competitive
prints of digital media.

OTOH my first color laser was bought to do one job, that the print shop
had quoted at more than the cost of the laser printer.

I have its successor to this day. I hardly ever print anything now
though. Rather the reverse. I have taken to scanning in most of the
paper documentation I receive and throwing the paper away.

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 03/03/2023 02:50, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:57:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 02/03/2023 06:04, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 02.03.23 um 00:22 schrieb pH:
>>>> Hi Folks.
>>>> Our printer is showing signs of croaking so I've just been looking at
>>>> printers.
>>>>
>>>> I had heard that Epson plays well with Linux but I'm only seeing HP, Brother
>>>> and Lexmark in "top 10 linux printers" sites I've been glancing at.
>>> My clear recommendation is HP. I had a couple of HP printer/scanners
>>> working together with various Linux-distris. Never had an issue.
>
> I can say the same for HP laptops. While three by Acer or their resellers
> (anyone remember Gateway 2000?) died just outside of the warranty time
> (less than two years) and HP 2000 I bought 2012 still works, even with
> its ridiculous hardware specs today. If I can choose I'd again get a HP.
>
I used to think so, but I am now in possession of a fully functional HP
laptop, whose plastic case has completely disintegrated.

> On the other hand this here is a DELL in from of me. My first. Also old
> (from 2013 or 2014) but in the attic for five years or so. Will see how
> long this lasts.
>
>>>> My question:
>>>> All the HP printers are advertised as "wireless", but I'm assuming that
>>>> there *MUST* be a USB or some such interface as well...am I wrong?
>>> They have but they are not necessary with new printers. Our current
>>> printer/scanner was hooked to our WLAN-network (wifi) and worked
>>> flawlessly since then.
>>>
>> How did you set SSID/password?
>
> I have a HP 6600 here (I think made 2011), and IIRC it comes with a
> unique pre-set password and SSID. You can also change them on the
> printer's touch-screen.

Ah. I set up my ethernet printers IP address on its own screen.

Once set, it has an onboard web server that allows you to fiddle with
its settings

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 03/03/2023 02:56, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:50:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> [...] USB ties the machine to one computer, unless you implement a
>> print server on it. Its more reliable to have network access to the
>> printer for small office style use.
>
> Someone threw out a HP 5100 laser (I seem to recall) from 2007 with
> additional cartridge, as he wanted network. Gave it away so I took it,
> connected via the sole USB port. Then made it available over WIFI via
> CUPS. :-)
>
> I mailed him and offered to set this up for a small for him too, but he
> already laid down some $800 for a big ass office printer.

TBH, I can understand his attitude. You are offering cost savings at the
price of increased complexity.

For many people the peace of mind that comes from brand new kit that is
plug and play and comes under warranty, that is Someone Else's Problem
is worth its weight in, if not gold, probably silver, anyway.

Certainly in a commercial environment, with tax rebates on capital
assets and support contracts also being tax deductible a 'buy new, scrap
after 5 years when the warranty expires' is actually sound business
practice. Especially if you don't know your Ethernet from your USB.

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:08:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2023 02:56, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:50:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] USB ties the machine to one computer, unless you implement a
>>> print server on it. Its more reliable to have network access to the
>>> printer for small office style use.
>> Someone threw out a HP 5100 laser (I seem to recall) from 2007 with
>> additional cartridge, as he wanted network. Gave it away so I took it,
>> connected via the sole USB port. Then made it available over WIFI via
>> CUPS. :-)
>> I mailed him and offered to set this up for a small for him too, but
>> he
>> already laid down some $800 for a big ass office printer.
>
> TBH, I can understand his attitude. You are offering cost savings at
> the price of increased complexity.

Nah, we worked together before and he was happy with my service. In this
particular case my mail just came a few days too late. He might had taken
my offer otherwise. He already happily ran Linux. Setting up CUPS to allow
access from all machines in the intranet would had been quick, and he
could continue to use his trusty old printer. I might had charged $50, or
just a couple of beers.
--
Andreas

On 3/3/23 4:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 03/03/2023 04:47, 28A.I873 wrote:
>>> And if I ever do manage to unclog them, I figure the
>>> heads should then probably be cleaned after each use,
>>> before they clog. What would be the proper procedure
>>> for that?
>>
>>    Unfortunately "it depends" on the particular printer.
>>
>>    A mix of pure isopropanol with about 5% acetone will
>>    dissolve most printer inks. The PROBLEM is that you
>>    can't be sure what the printheads can tolerate. It
>>    might melt THEM too.
>
> Acetone is an *extremely* aggressive solvent. It is along with
> nitromethane, one of the only two commonly available solvents that will
> undo superglue, that I am aware of.

Yes, it's VERY good at dissolving organics - hence
the warning. YOUR brand of print-heads might NOT
be able to withstand it. You'll know really quick ...

You can buy "technical" isopropanol from Amazon
usually (I bought a liter at the dawn of Covid
when there was NONE left on retail shelves).
It's a pretty good solvent, but not as aggressive
as acetone. MIGHT work for yer particular problem.

Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore.
If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up
and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there
goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all
the teeny tiny little holes. The common 600-dpi
lasers will do a spectacular job and DON'T gum up.

>>    So, after throwing away several decent inkjets because
>>    they always clogged-up ... well ... I only buy lasers now.
>>
> I have to agree. I had a huge A1 inkjet plotter at one point when I was
> doing a lot of drawings.

My first color printer (Epson) ... was good for maybe 3
high-rez pages per HOUR (and faded in about 6 months).

BUT we printed the reports for The Board on it - which
justified the price :-) (still using the exact same
reports like 30 years later BTW 'cause they're pretty,
mixed graphs/tables - ez-view+details)

> Every time it had been out of use fora few weeks the heads needed
> unclogging. And the colors faded in daylight

Yep, that old ink was nefarious for fading. A few months
under fluorescents + oxygen and you could barely see them.

> Eventually I put it in the skip.
>
> It is cheaper to get the odd print run off at a print shop.

"Print shops" are OK for "odd jobs" - these days usually
meaning BIG PAPER.

>>    The ONLY excuse for inkjets these days is if you do
>>    lots of really high-qual photos. Ink IS still better
>>    for that.
>
> Even there my local photo processing place does extremely competitive
> prints of digital media.

They are probably using an ink-jet - BUT - they are
printing continuously all day. No clog problems.

THE BEST is dye-sublimation ... but that requires
$special paper.

> OTOH my first color laser was bought to do one job, that the print shop
> had quoted at more than the cost of the laser printer.

Yea, the "Print Shops" lost a LOT of biz real quick ..

BUT, if you need 36"x36" prints ......

> I have its successor to this day. I hardly ever print anything now
> though. Rather the reverse. I have taken to scanning in most of the
> paper documentation I receive and throwing the paper away.

A lot of people have. In some respects it's good - but
for "historical" reasons it's BAD. Daguerreotypes from
150+ years ago are still accessible ... but will yer
digital format vanish without a trace in a tenth that
time ?

Guess if it's a collection of quarterly reports it MAY
not seem so relevant.

Silver or palladium prints ... nearest thing these days
to "forever". Palladium is $$$ but BEAUTIFUL.

OK, Ok ... a guy I know went to Taos for a month to learn
dye-transfer methods. Start with a low-ISO 4x5 color
transparency and make 40x50 inch prints. Absofuckinlutely
SPECTACULAR - and the dyes are good for like 1000 years.
Very $$$ though and easy to do wrong.

On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote:
>   Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore.
>   If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up
>   and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there
>   goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all

A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly speedy,
duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and black. Yes, nice.

One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the
printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can see
where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of cartridges in
purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low again. £50 down
the drain in short order.

I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a
laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our
printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no
gumming up just because it's been idle for a week.

--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

On 04/03/2023 10:33, Mike Scott wrote:
> On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote:
>>    Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore.
>>    If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up
>>    and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there
>>    goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all
>
> A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly speedy,
> duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and black. Yes,
> nice.
>
> One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the
> printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can see
> where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of cartridges in
> purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low again. £50 down
> the drain in short order.
>
> I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a
> laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our
> printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no
> gumming up just because it's been idle for a week.
>
>
My HP color laserjet runs on 3rd party cartridges at around £200 a full
set, but does about 1000 color pages for that. More if its just a bit of
color - like documents with a few illustrations
It came with cartridges that do around 200 pages and the whole shebang
was not much more than £200

Generally only one cartridge runs out at a time. I had one issue with a
bad cartridge that went stripey way before it was empty, A new one fixed it.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> My HP color laserjet runs on 3rd party cartridges at around £200 a
> full set, but does about 1000 color pages for that. More if its just a
> bit of color - like documents with a few illustrations
> It came with cartridges that do around 200 pages and the whole shebang
> was not much more than £200

My experience is very similar. I got sick of inkjets and bought a
laserjet in 2013, it’s still going strong. I don’t print particularly
often (even accounting for the fact that I act as a free print shop for
people close to me l-) but I do care about having nonsense-free printing
available when I need it.

Really that means I’m more interested in cost per unit time (which is
pretty low) than cost per page.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 04/03/2023 11:30, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> My HP color laserjet runs on 3rd party cartridges at around £200 a
>> full set, but does about 1000 color pages for that. More if its just a
>> bit of color - like documents with a few illustrations
>> It came with cartridges that do around 200 pages and the whole shebang
>> was not much more than £200
>
> My experience is very similar. I got sick of inkjets and bought a
> laserjet in 2013, it’s still going strong. I don’t print particularly
> often (even accounting for the fact that I act as a free print shop for
> people close to me l-) but I do care about having nonsense-free printing
> available when I need it.
>
> Really that means I’m more interested in cost per unit time (which is
> pretty low) than cost per page.
>

I actually find that as you get a tad more affluent and aged, time
becomes a more precious commodity than money.

The last words a friend said to me before he died were 'at least I dont
have to worry about money any more'

It is important to recognise what is really important [to you] when
making decisions.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 2023-03-04 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 04/03/2023 10:33, Mike Scott wrote:
>> On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote:
>>>    Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore.
>>>    If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up
>>>    and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there
>>>    goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all
>>
>> A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly
>> speedy, duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and
>> black. Yes, nice.
>>
>> One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the
>> printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can
>> see where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of
>> cartridges in purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low
>> again. £50 down the drain in short order.
>>
>> I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a
>> laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our
>> printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no
>> gumming up just because it's been idle for a week.
>>
>>
> My HP color laserjet runs on 3rd party cartridges at around £200 a full
> set, but does about 1000 color pages for that. More if its just a bit of
> color - like documents with a few illustrations
> It came with cartridges that do around 200 pages and the whole shebang
> was not much more than £200
>
>
>
> Generally only one cartridge runs out at a time. I had one issue with a
> bad cartridge that went stripey way before it was empty, A new one fixed
> it.

I also had a Canon inkjet printer (BJC4200, I think), and I got tired of
it. The colour cartridges were expensive (50€, maybe), and did not last
long. I learned how to refill them relatively cheap, but that non
original ink tended to clog. Cleaning was easy in theory, just remove
the cartridge, put a few drops of alcohol on the head, wipe it, then
blow a bit with my mouth with the heads on a paper tissue. Repeat till
the three colours came out. And refill. And clean cycle, test.

This meant that every time I needed to print something important after
two weeks of not using the printer I had to waste an hour or two till
the thing would work and work well.

Eventually I bought an HP colour laser printer. Toner is expensive, yes,
but it works every time I power it up, even after months of not using
it. Considering the number of ink cartridges I wasted, I'm not sure the
laser is more expensive.

And my heart health improved, no more swearing :-D

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"28A.I873" <28A.I873@noabzba.net> writes:

R> On 3/3/23 4:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 03/03/2023 04:47, 28A.I873 wrote:
>>>> And if I ever do manage to unclog them, I figure the
>>>> heads should then probably be cleaned after each use,
>>>> before they clog. What would be the proper procedure
>>>> for that?
>>>
>>>    Unfortunately "it depends" on the particular printer.
>>>
>>>    A mix of pure isopropanol with about 5% acetone will
>>>    dissolve most printer inks. The PROBLEM is that you
>>>    can't be sure what the printheads can tolerate. It
>>>    might melt THEM too.
>> Acetone is an *extremely* aggressive solvent. It is along with
>> nitromethane, one of the only two commonly available solvents that
>> will undo superglue, that I am aware of.
>
> Yes, it's VERY good at dissolving organics - hence
> the warning. YOUR brand of print-heads might NOT
> be able to withstand it. You'll know really quick ...
>
> You can buy "technical" isopropanol from Amazon
> usually (I bought a liter at the dawn of Covid
> when there was NONE left on retail shelves).
> It's a pretty good solvent, but not as aggressive
> as acetone. MIGHT work for yer particular problem.

Years ago I dissolved the print heads of an Epson
Inkjet with non-technical alcohol. Caution is advised.

--
Dan Espen

On 3/4/23 5:33 AM, Mike Scott wrote:
> On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote:
>>    Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore.
>>    If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up
>>    and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there
>>    goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all
>
> A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly speedy,
> duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and black. Yes,
> nice.
>
> One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the
> printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can see
> where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of cartridges in
> purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low again. £50 down
> the drain in short order.
>
> I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a
> laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our
> printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no
> gumming up just because it's been idle for a week.

Many have similar tales - yet people STILL buy lots
of inkjets. The up-front price IS lower, which I think
is the main attraction, but the downstream ink/gumming
issues ruin it all quickly.

The guy who invented the Schick razor so so long ago
made a smart decision - sell the actual razor body
real cheap ... and make it up on the BLADES afterwards.
His patents meant he could keep clones away for a
very long time so ... well ... the company is STILL
in biz :-)

Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
the color cartridges except when you really need
color. Win-win.

28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> <<snip>>
> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
> the color cartridges except when you really need
> color. Win-win.

Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

On 05/03/2023 08:16, John Forkosh wrote:
> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
>> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
>> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
>> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
>> the color cartridges except when you really need
>> color. Win-win.
>
> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.

11x17" - that's a bit non standard That's A3 (11.7 in x 16.5 in) isn't
it? Completely outside the 'consumer' and into the 'professional' ,

To get a colour laser that does that new will not be cheap, HP want
£1000+ ...you might be better looking at a used one out of a bankrupt
company

Ebay has a few at the sort of £500 level, In the UK

--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 05/03/2023 08:16, John Forkosh wrote:
....
> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.

Word of warning: I've had trouble with PPDs supplied by the
auto-discover printer install stuff. It seems "True" and "true" are not
interchangeable in PPDs, and someone somewhere used the wrong one, the
result being that multi-copy printing doesn't "just work" for my
Brother. I've had to manually install the printer and fix the PPD.

I'm still hazy as to how and where the auto-detect PPDs are generated.

--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

On 3/5/23 3:16 AM, John Forkosh wrote:
> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
>> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
>> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
>> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
>> the color cartridges except when you really need
>> color. Win-win.
>
> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.

Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap
lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal'
paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format
scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how
you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need
to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on
like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser.

I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked
like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like
48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it
past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.

28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap
> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal'
> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format
> scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how
> you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need
> to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on
> like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser.

I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually.
Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the
lens distortion in software one day...

I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken
photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to
work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test.

> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked
> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like
> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it
> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.

They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the
cartridges go out of production those large format printer models
go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> John Forkosh wrote:
> ...
>> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
>> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
>> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
>> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
>> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
>> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
>> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.
>
> Word of warning: I've had trouble with PPDs supplied by the
> auto-discover printer install stuff. It seems "True" and "true" are
> not interchangeable in PPDs, and someone somewhere used the wrong one,
> the result being that multi-copy printing doesn't "just work" for my
> Brother. I've had to manually install the printer and fix the PPD.
>
> I'm still hazy as to how and where the auto-detect PPDs are generated.

Yeah, I'd recommend that you >>do not<< use the default PPDs
supplied with the slackware distro, at least not for Brother.
For my Brother HL-L2395DW laser, and also MFC-J6920DW inkjet,
I just googled
linux HL-L2395DW install [substitute your own model]
and the very first hit (for the HL-L2395DW) took me to
https://support.brother.com/g/b/downloadtop.aspx?
c=us&lang=en&prod=hll2395dw_us_as
that lets you download "Driver Install Tool" scripts for that
printer which set up everything correctly. Sets up /etc/cups/
and the various cups-related directories under /usr, and also
creates an /opt/Brother/ directory with various other stuff.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> John Forkosh wrote:
>> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>>> <<snip>>
>>> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
>>> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
>>> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
>>> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
>>> the color cartridges except when you really need
>>> color. Win-win.
>>
>> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
>> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
>> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
>> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
>> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
>> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
>> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.
>
> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap
> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal'
> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format
> scanner + large-format printer.

My real need was just for 11x17" scanning, and back in 2015
I first bought a Plustek scanner. POS (Piece Of you-know-what).
To begin with, scsi interface, so I had to buy a scsi card
for the pc. Then no linux drivers, just windows. And even then
I couldn't get it working properly. Finally tossed it in the
garbage, and bought the Brother MFC-J6920DW a year or so later.
Several hundred US$ cheaper, and works perfectly under linux.
Printing just a bonus, at least till the heads clogged up.

> That's $$$ no matter how you do it. Anything wider than 11"
> and you'll likely need to take a stick to a print shop -
> or spend kilobucks on like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser.

Yeah, okay, you've re-convinced me back to the inkjet for
larger-than-letter/legal requirements. In my case, that's
a fortunately very rare requirement.

> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an architect's ... it looked
> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like
> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it
> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.

--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> John Forkosh wrote:
>> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>>> <<snip>>
>>> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable
>>> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most
>>> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing
>>> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up
>>> the color cartridges except when you really need
>>> color. Win-win.
>>
>> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already
>> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the
>> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid
>> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what
>> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation
>> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good
>> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks.
>
> 11x17" - that's a bit non standard That's A3 (11.7 in x 16.5 in) isn't
> it? Completely outside the 'consumer' and into the 'professional' ,
>
> To get a colour laser that does that new will not be cheap, HP want
> $1000+ ...you might be better looking at a used one out of a bankrupt
> company. Ebay has a few at the sort of $500 level, In the UK

11x17" scanning was my only real requirement; printing just a bonus.
And the all-clogged-up MFC-J6920DW is still scanning fine, so I'll
probably just stick with what I already have. Thanks.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap
>> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal'
>> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format
>> scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how
>> you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need
>> to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on
>> like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser.
>
> I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually.

At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.

> Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the
> lens distortion in software one day...
>
> I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken
> photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to
> work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test.

The Brother MFC-J6920DW does complain about the "printer part"
every time I power it up, but it's easy to proceed past the warning.

>> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked
>> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like
>> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it
>> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.
>
> They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the
> cartridges go out of production those large format printer models
> go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly.

--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

On 3/6/23 3:44 AM, John Forkosh wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>>> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap
>>> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal'
>>> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format
>>> scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how
>>> you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need
>>> to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on
>>> like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser.
>>
>> I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually.
>
> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.
>
>> Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the
>> lens distortion in software one day...
>>
>> I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken
>> photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to
>> work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test.
>
> The Brother MFC-J6920DW does complain about the "printer part"
> every time I power it up, but it's easy to proceed past the warning.
>
>>> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked
>>> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like
>>> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it
>>> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.
>>
>> They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the
>> cartridges go out of production those large format printer models
>> go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly.

Well, that's "cost of doing business" I suppose ...

For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a
decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They
may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large
format scanner. That you say these are bound books
is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind
of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed.

If you are a a biz, also consider that you can sometimes
LEASE equipment like this rather than buying. Somewhere
I mentioned those big chest-high Kyocera 'office'
all-in-ones (that WILL do 11x17) ... but few biz ever
BUY them.

20 years ago I'd have suggested medium or large format
Technical Pan, and then get the negs scanned. But they
don't make that film anymore (and it was B&W).

John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.

That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.

Scan Tailor is the software that I tried out for doing the
post-processing (removing lens distortion, cropping) and it seems
quite good. Post-processing with it is still a fair bit of work
(hence I haven't got around to it) depending on how good your
rig is, but you'd make up for that easily with time saved doing
the actual scanning.

https://scantailor.org/

Rigging up something like the professional book scanning tables
where you can lift up a piece of glass and then rest it down on
the paper to make it sit flat after you turn each page might be
worthwhile for your application as well.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#