# The ongoing Oki 5500 color issue...



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

Basically, the color reproduction is atrocious. Oki should be ashamed of this printer. I know they can make a decent printer. The C8800 is fantastic. Maybe the C5800 is the one I need. It's almost like the printer needs an ICC profile to get the colors right.

Anyway...I'm venting...and trying to decide whether to take this one back as well. Staples doesn't have a C5800 and I need something before Thursday.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

wow the OKI5500 is at the top of my newbie initial setup dont fkup list !!!

I am glad I saw that... I heard the Samsung CLP-300 smallest Color Laser in the world is nice on color but i have no idea about anything else. (30lbs)


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

I think I recall youdid get the 5800... how is it? even compare it to the 8800


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

I did not get the C5800. I got the C5500. I'm taking the C5500 back today. I'm going to find a way to take the C8800 on the road. The reason for going with a smaller format was because of the size of the C8800. Charles is using the C5800 but I think he prints vector artwork form Corel most of the time. In that capacity, the C5500 does OK, but with photos, it has a problem. I don't know if the C5800 is the same, and at this point I'm not real inclined to try a third printer...When I have the C8800 sitting right here. I would try the C5800 if staples had it, but they don't, so returning it would mean return shipping charges. My educated guess would be that I WOULD be returning it.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

I wonder if the CLP-300 will work with ImageClip and DuracottonHT....


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

rrc62 said:


> I wonder if the CLP-300 will work with ImageClip and DuracottonHT....


I have the CLP-600. if the 300 is anything like it, stay away. I was never able to get a decent print from Duracotton. One of the toner carts went south before I could really test the imageclip. Registration was *always* off and it kept auto registering every 3rd page.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

Can you explain the registering bit?

I understand that if one prints more than one pass on anything, the device that prints must lign up exactly correctly or the immage will be distorted...

Did the printer print the same image OK if on standard plain jane paper?

Sounds like different drums are used for each color and they just did not dance in harmony?

Thank you.


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

You just explained it all by yourself. 

On my printer (CLP-600) the magenta layer was always a few pixels off and you would see gaps at color edges. Text was also never razor sharp unless it was all printed with the black toner only. Didn't matter what paper I printed on.

The price ain't bad for a CLP -- $199 at staples right now. It's an ok printer, it just wouldn't do what I wanted it to. I plan on keeping it for a little while to do non-critical everyday stuff.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

I am sure you were in contact with the Samsung support? what was theri take on that?... perhaps a damaged unit? etc...

From what you are saying, I would not even keep it, I would dump it back into whoever's lap it came from... PISSED!


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

NicMartel said:


> I am sure you were in contact with the Samsung support? what was theri take on that?... perhaps a damaged unit? etc...


I was and they were fairly useless. I damaged the shell while moving it and figured it would be more work trying to convince them that the registration had nothing to do with the crack. It only cost $300 at the time so it wasn't that big of a deal.

Besides, printing on shirts ain't exactly a precision thing. You get what, 50-60 dpi at best? Most of the time you can't see imperfections like you can on paper at 600dpi.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

ummmm! go see reviews on the CLP-300 on Staples site... it's a piece of junk and Samsung Support is double garbage... there we go... sad... but I did not write the reviews... I want to think that perhaps one could remove the feed tray and find a way to feed it manually... since transfers are usually fed manually one at a time(true or not?) ...and it might be ok... but read all the reviews... and tell me what you think!!!!


----------



## freebird1963 (Jan 21, 2007)

I have the C5500N and have no problems with it.
Prints beautifully.
I have even used the magic touch laser which they said might leave a gray box and it didn't.
I used duracotton in it too. One stuck to the fuser. Def have to run several sheets of paper thru before you run the duracotton thru tho.
I read somewere to change the saturation and lighting and I did. I think 17 and 
25. (Have to check. haven't had to go in and change since I set it)
Its connected to the network and no problems.
Other than being big I like it.

Mark


----------



## cbs1963 (May 31, 2007)

I also use the C5500N. It isn't a photo printer, but does good for printing Duracotton HT. Have to warm it up with a few sheets of regular paper first. I have done some photo's with good luck, some not on duracotton. I'm not convinced the duracotton paper is great for photo type images, seems best for spot color. Hope this helps.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

The one I just returned had the latest driver on CD. This driver version has a bug where your saved settings do not remember the saturation and brightness settings. Oki did confirm that when I called them. The only way I could get a half way decent print was to turn the saturation way down and the brightness way up. Saturation -40 and brightness +25...and because of the driver bug, I had to to it for every print.

Nic...I would try the C5800 if you can find it locally AND the store has a liberal return policy. I haven't used a 5800, but in the color tab of the driver, if it has a bunch of radio buttons and one of them is "Graphic Pro" you should be good. In graphic pro mode, the printer uses the ICC profile that installed with the driver.

I'll tell you though, after using the C3400, C5500 and C8800, the C8800 is worth every bit iof $2000.


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

rrc62 said:


> I'll tell you though, after using the C3400, C5500 and C8800, the C8800 is worth every bit iof $2000.


Which is the way it should be. You're comparing $500 printers to a $2000 one. 

In any event, I posted this on another thread. You might want to try it if you haven't already returned the 5500.

--

Did a little digging and found that ICC profiles are cheap nowadays. For $40 you can get one made. I think it's worth the effort. Brings the cost of the printer to a whopping $440.

--

Heck, if a few people with 5500's want to chip in we can get one done and split the cost.


----------



## norwalktee (Nov 10, 2005)

Most laser printers, from what I've seen, don't reproduce photos well. The 5500 is a great printer for transfers, but it doesn't do a good job with poor quality photos. It does a good job with high res images. I use both laser and inkjet for my work and use the printer that works best for the job. My R1800 reproduces colors better than my Oki, so I don't use the Epson if the customer wants a close color match.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

I think I am good for the loonie house...,


me LOW budget/LOW volume is driving me to suicidal thoughts...

*Oki C3200 $xxx ?x? moot point, that machine had serious problems
**Oki C3400* $300 8.5x47 (= 3200 without the 3200 problems)
*Oki C5500* $500 8.5x47 marginal (reviews are mixed)
*Oki C5800* $800 8.5x47 wish I could
*Oki C8800* $2,000 ?x? wish I could

*Epson C88+* $80 8.5x44 CMYK *I don't need more than 8.5x11* 
*Epson 1400* $300 13x19max C, lt.C, M, lt.M, Y, B
*Epson 1800* $400 13x44max B, MB, C, M, Y, R, B
...is either the 1400 or 1800 worth getting over a C88+?
will the image show that much better than C88+?
*in a GARMENT CONTEXT not photo paper!!!*

$800 is pushing my limit for printer devices, whether it be done with 1 or 2.
and I mean, hanging off the cliff as Will Smith in the WildWildWest...

I could on the outside justify the *5800* if it allows me to do both sublimation and regular transfers from 2 different sets of cartridges that I would swap... and I get good results on both T-Shirts and Hard susbstrates.

I also see that if I do not jump to the *5800* or the *8800* I will be disappointed with the color... thus in this case, the *Epson 1400* sounds like my option.

But is a *1400* that much better than a *C88+* if I don't need the extra width
*Will I cringe* when I see a 1400 output and wish I had invested in it?

...and if it is not that much better... then I could live with 2 *C88+*, 1 on pigment, the other on artenium...

*and let me add another variable*... I do not want to go with the Bulk Ink System
I want to use refillable cartridges... I am too LOW volume to justify bulk.

I am neither a spot-print(colors conducive to separation) nor a photo-level scenario, I am in the middle... and think I might as well not box myself in and try to keep open the option of photo-level.

Dang Rodney! hiting the tab key saves prematurely grrrrrrrrr!

so 1 ? 2 ? printers... and how... which prints on what with what setup?


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

Norwalktee answers one of my questions... the 1800 does better on color accuracy!!! and I had gotten that feeling long ago... (versus laser ouptut)... I just needed a confirmation from experience(side by side as norwlktree shows)
Thank you...

I bet Ross comes back and says my C8800 will smash that 1800 lol...


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

NicMartel said:


> I think I am good for the loonie house...,
> me LOW budget/LOW volume is driving me to suicidal thoughts...


You can stop fretting. You've answered your own question right there. 

C88+ with Iron All. It will cover most of your bases until you can afford something better. I've got two - one for sublimation and one for pigment ink transfers.

Bang/$ you can't beat that combination.

You can look at lasers and higher quality inkjets later on. Remember that printing on fabric isn't the same as on photo paper. You just don't need the gazillion dpi specs that the higher printers offer. Six inks to tend to give more pleasing images but if you're not printing photos, who cares?


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

I already returned it. I wasn't real happy about the size limitation anyway, so it's all good. The 8800 is just a bit more to move around doing shows. A custom ICC profile should do the trick though. It needs some color correction, especially in the blues (blues print as teal) and some saturation and brightness correction. Should be able to select that custom profile in PS and let PS handle the color correction.


----------



## norwalktee (Nov 10, 2005)

The 1400 is probably not a good option for transfers. It uses dye ink. The 1800 is the best printer to get for larger images, other than a 4800/4880. I have a high volume shop and most of my transfers are 8x10 or smaller. You can get by with the C88/C120 for most jobs. The 1800 can be found online for under $500. Just look around.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

The 1400 is a good printer. You'll be adding a bulk system anyway. Just add a bulk pigment system. The 1400 will print 13x19 and it's cheap. I can get away with 8.5 x 14, but a larger print looks much better on a XL or larger shirt. Most of my prints are at least 10x13.

Actually Nic, I think the inkjets produce better quality prints when it comes to photos. The main reason I went to Laser for transfers was so I could use ImageClip, which is currently the only true no-trim paper available in the US right now. 

Print speed is another concern. If you do busy shows, you'll REALLY appreciate the speed of a laser. There are pros and cons. Just have to weigh them all and pull the trigger.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

norwalktee said:


> The 5500 is a great printer for transfers, but it doesn't do a good job with poor quality photos. It does a good job with high res images.


I beg to differ. I shoot at 10.2 megapixels in RAW format with a Nikon SLR. Using a higher res image does not correct the printers color shift and saturation issues.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

NicMartel said:


> But is a *1400* that much better than a *C88+* if I don't need the extra width
> *Will I cringe* when I see a 1400 output and wish I had invested in it?
> 
> ...and if it is not that much better... then I could live with 2 *C88+*, 1 on pigment, the other on artenium...
> ...


The 1400 is a 6 color printer, so it will deliver better color than the C88. It is also large format. If you are doing sublimation, you will be limited in what you can print with a C88. It is just not big enough to print adult shirts. That's another thing I wasn't happy about with the C5500. Had I not decided on the C8800, my plan was to use one 1400 on Artanium bulk and one 1400 on pigment bulk. with that setup, you could print just about anything. Not sure if they are junk, but there are bulk pigment systems for the 1400 on eBay for very little money.

Everyone is low volume when they start out. If you're serious about making this work as a business, you're better off investing in equipment that you will not outgrow when the business grows. Better equipment will also produce better, more consistent results, which in turn will help your business to grow.


----------



## norwalktee (Nov 10, 2005)

What I meant, when refering to high resolution images, is that a good photo will reproduce well on the 5500. It will not look as good as an inkjet print, but doesn't get comlaints from my customers. My pics from my 6.1 SLR look good when printing art samples for my customers, but truer color is attained on my Epson. The 1400 is a good option if you're using a bulk pigment system. I based my comments on using Epson inks. I'm considering the 1400 with bulk or refillable cartridges, because it'll be cheaper than the 1800 since I'll only need six inks. The C88/C120 is probably the best option if you're starting out and have a limited budget. The 1400/1800 with pigment inks, will be better than the Oki if you can spend more. The larger print size is a major plus. The 5500 is great as an additional printer that is used for some jobs. I just printed more than a 1000 transfers on my 5500, because it was the best printer for that order. The order would have taken longer with the 1800. The image quality and washability is great with the 5500 and Magic Touch 3.3


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

ENTERING THE FUN PHASE

Excerpt: "...So now I am sure that I will order all of my stuff tomorrow,..."
boy I bet you are glad to hear that!

ok gents(& gentettes)... am not fretting and I am serious... I just have a very unique scenario that required more diligence than average... Man! if I was not serious, this ordeal here would have done me in long ago! ...but I know what you mean.

At first I will not be in a setting where I have to produce on demand... my stuff will be pre-printed, ready. But I will go out ready to take a one-off on a limited basis, just to have the option.

I like the 1400 tandem... and I like the refillable cartridges approach(in my case).

- - - - - - - A *large format on both type inks*(pigment,sub) eliminates all ink swapping problems...
- - - - - - - *Empty refillable cartridges* are so low cost that even if I explode in increased volume...(yeah right!), it won't take much to upgrade to bulk ink... and by then I will be comfortable with everything else in the process.

*So now I am sure that I will order all of my stuff tomorrow*, I will only buy *ONE 1400* and test it on the pigment inks... and then go pickup my next printer based on that experience... more than likely another 1400, but possibly just a C88+.

I can see my first step will be to run a cleaning on the printer to eject any OEM ink out of the head... or will the printer come (un)primed?

Who has the best:
- - - - - - - - - empty refillables . . . . . . inkjetcarts.us OK?
- - - - - - - - - pigment ink . . . . . . . . . inkjetcarts.us OK?
- - - - - - - - - sub ink . . . . . . . . . . . . . inkjetcarts.us OK?
- - - - - - - - - ICC to match? . . . . . . . inkjetcarts.us OK?

My gratitude to all, Thank you so much.
and OFF I go...


----------



## Moo Spot Prints (Jul 16, 2006)

Nic, Do you have any experience with printing shirts? 

I'm asking because you've made it very clear that price is a big concern, yet you're going to invest in a somewhat expensive printer to try things out on. I'm all for buying the right tool for the job, but if you're looking to get your feet wet, stick to the 88. It's cheap. really cheap. Throwaway cheap. You will waste more ink testing on the more expensive model than the 88 costs. 8 1/2x11 is adequate for a LOT of jobs. You might have to get creative with placement, but it can be done. You can delegate is as a sublimation or backup printer if you decide to upgrade.

Are you planning on pre-printing & pressing or just printing the transfers? Printed inkjet transfers don't store well. If you're going the other route (keeping an inventory) seriously look into outsourcing it. Find a good printer with reasonable rates and use them. Making stuff yourself is a LOT of fun but printing hundreds and hundreds of transfers and then pressing them is tedious and very time consuming. Not a problem if your time is cheap. If you have a day job like I do, it really cuts into your profits.

Good luck. You really can't go wrong with any of the printers you're looking at. You will find both good and bad aspects in all of them.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

Good point...If you're not planning on opening the doors to the public for a while, but rather just practicing and getting your feet wet, the C88 is a cheap way to do it. I was under the impression you were ready to take your business public.

Another good point is to consider outsourcing your transfer printing if you are printing stock images. That will save you a lot of money. I can't remember if you talked about your business model or not.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

Jose and Ross,

I heed both your advice... believe me, I am a listener.

Thank you both.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

Moo Spot Prints said:


> Nic, Do you have any experience with printing shirts? ...no, that is why I am here... and the idea is to come out of here well versed, so that I can minimize the losses you speak of. In my view, getting my feet wet needs to be done here... then make the exact 'right' decision to buy the equipment that best fits my scenario so I can jump in and swim not just get my feet wet.
> 
> I'm asking because you've made it very clear that price is a big concern, yet you're going to invest in a somewhat expensive printer to try things out on. I'm all for buying the right tool(right-tool, that is a keyword no doubt, my very dilema and that of other's I am sure) for the job, but if you're looking to get your feet wet, stick to the 88. It's cheap. really cheap. Throwaway cheap. You will waste more ink testing on the more expensive model than the 88 costs. 8 1/2x11 is adequate for a LOT of jobs. You might have to get creative with placement, but it can be done. You can delegate is as a sublimation or backup printer if you decide to upgrade. Ok, may get the C88+ first, do testing then add the 1400 as second printer. I can do some of my 10x6 portrait orientation on the C88+, unless someone demonstrates that the 1400 produces superior color... then I think it is worth the expense, as I will use it for a long time. I would get the 1800 if I could and be done with the haggling.
> 
> ...


I am almost home... I have a couple answers I am waiting on and poof! the magic starts.

Thank you.


----------



## NicMartel (Sep 13, 2007)

actually I should have mentioned... although I am not doing photo, I am reproducing art that has a near or full color requirement and that is why I lean towards the 1400 rather than the C88... moreover, I would prefer that the option of photo is still available rather than corner myself... and that is not solely on garments, I have hard surfaces too... but again if the color reproduction quality between the C88 and the 1400 are not really noticeable... then a moot point.


----------

