xerox rep is trying every move she has to get us to take a 700 [we currently have a 252]. it has the high cap feeder and a finisher, but i'm not sure which finisher [i think it's the standard finisher] i'm gathering a list of questions/concerns for her. anybody have a question they wish they had asked before you got your 700, or impressions now that you have it in production? i have concerns with registration from front to back on the 252, it's terrible at running coated sheets and you can only feed 12x18" in the bypass tray. how does the 700 compare? here are some questions i'm going to ask the rep. let me know if there's anything i'm missing:
what is the max cover weight for booklets? on our current machine, 65# uncoated cover is the max. will the 700 stitch/fold 12x18? coated text/covers? max number of sheets/weight for booklets?
will the 700 auto duplex coated sheets? what is the max weight it will auto duplex [coated/uncoated]?
can i change tray attributes from my workstation? currently if paper is loaded the paper type has to be set at the machine. can i load paper, walk back to my workstation and set it from there?
our current machine struggles with screens/gradients/certain spots. any info on how the 700 handles them?
Not familiar with the 700, but I can tell you that the 2060, and the 5000 (we're looking at) and the 7000 (that I asked questions about when helping out another local print shop) will duplex up to 10pt. (100#). The 2060 uses an older Fiery, but the 5000/7000 uses a newer Fiery. One thing I can tell you is that CWS on the newer Fiery gives you ability to move a sheet, and has far less skewing when duplexing/backing up. That's an ability I wish I had on my current unit, and the main reason we'll be upgrading soon. We have a dedicated tray (3) that can run up to 19.2 x 12.6, but can't duplex over 18 x 12. We do not have the stitcher/folder option. We can run up to 12 pt (120#) single sided (not duplex) without issue. I've been told that the 5000/7000 can duplex 12 pt. (120#) but can't confirm. We don't really have trouble with screening, but color got A LOT better when we turn off "spot color matching" in CWS. With the proper driver, and CWS on your Fiery, you can send a job with all the programming it needs (except quantity for some reason); duplex, gsm, coated/uncoated, stitch (if equipped), fold (if equipped), etc. Since I have an older Fiery, technically it's driver isn't supported on Mac OS X 10.6 +, so I have to "trick" it using an older driver. I have also "tricked" the machine into duplexing 12 pt. (120#) by changing the gsm in CWS, but usually in the end it damaging parts of the machine and you end up calling service. Then service will tell you, "Don't do that!" and you'll get a lecture.
We have 2 700's. My advice:
Get 2.
Get a service contract that covers your entire proposed daily schedule.
This applies to any digital press though really.
We have two 700s both run by Fierys. Alignment from to back is more a suggestion than anything precise. Cover stock skews far more than text. All the paper feeders and the bypass tray will feed 13x19. We don't make many books on the machine so I can't speak for that. We do them all flat then let bindery put them together. I have run 120# cover duplexed on them, though the highest stock it will allow you to duplex is 220 gsm.
Above all, these are still a copier class machine and they act as such. I think you have to go to the 8080 series and above before you get into the digital press realm.
We have one. 2-sided registration is a constant issue. Cover stock skews terribly and Xerox always blames the paper. Sometimes I run one side from Tray 6 (high capacity) and then back it up from Tray 5 (bypass).
Yesterday I tried duplexing 70# uncoated text and the engine was crawling...like 4 sheets a minute even on the lowest weight setting. So I ended up doing 2 passes.
All these comments pretty much apply to any copier, I mean digital press. Have fun.
the "it's the paper" routine has GOT to be part of their training. our tech pulled that on us a while back. it was a stock that we had been running from day one on our machine. we've run miles of it, but all of a sudden, the paper was the problem.
same problems with skewing and registration on the 252 but they claim it's "much closer" on the 700. these machines are the fast food of our industry...
I concur with T-pat's, Lammy's and Gnubler's comments.
As a former user of a KM6500, I hate, hate, hate the Xerox. It's a huge piece of plastic crap. but it does make copies that are sellable. :laugh:
I found it easier to manipulate the copier settings on the KM, from roller temp, alignment adjustment, color control, etc.
Hey Xerox users: do your machines smell like an old lady? Because the 4110 (BW) I used had that smell, then at this place they have a 700 and it smells the same?
we have one X 700 with the firey...
nice..... and what they said
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on October 25, 2012, 12:06:39 PMAs a former user of a KM6500, I hate, hate, hate the Xerox.
Ditto. I've gone from Xerox to KM back to Xerox.
I hate KM slightly less than I hate the big X.
You may already know this too, and I can only really compare it to a NexPress 2500 (41ppm 14x20 1 sided), but the 700 feels on the slow side IMO. It's rated at 70ppm, but I'm sure that's for a letter size sheet printed one sided, delivered face up. I can tell you we run a TON of 80# dull text, 2 sides and 1200 sheets takes a several of hours. The rough math works out to like 12ppm (prolly less) for 12 x 18 2 sided.
I was also told the stacker makes the machine run slower than the top delivery. I haven't "timed" it to see if it's true but the people here that have used it longer than I have insist on it.
I'm battling 2-sided registration right now and I'm feelin' fine. Just put in service call #87 for the same ongoing problem that they never fix.
Bosslady is requesting a new engine.
Quote from: gnubler on October 25, 2012, 02:09:41 PMI'm battling 2-sided registration right now and I'm feelin' fine. Just put in service call #87 for the same ongoing problem that they never fix.
Bosslady is requesting a new engine.
Good luck! Let us know how that turns out. All digi-press manufacturers are good about giving the ole runaround.
Just be the sqeekiest wheel there is and you might get it replaced.
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on October 25, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Good luck! Let us know how that turns out. All digi-press manufacturers are good about giving the ole runaround.
Just be the sqeekiest wheel there is and you might get it replaced.
[/quote]
Quote from: agent_orange on October 25, 2012, 12:04:01 PMthe "it's the paper" routine has GOT to be part of their training
Tech showed up and whipped out a ruler and decided our stock is cut bad. It's ream-wrapped house stock that we use all the time. :laugh: I told him he must have a special ruler.
At my last shop Bossman bitched and bitched until Xerox replaced the engine but it was going from like bad to a different bad.
is different bad so different it's good?
since we're talking 700s here, I've got a nagging intermittent problem. Ours will randomly back up things upside down. Resubmitting from the Spire will result in it being backed up correctly. It doesn't seem to be isolated to any particular type of job.
Quote from: david on October 26, 2012, 11:02:28 AMis different bad so different it's good?
No.
Anyway, our tech came back today and noticed one of the mystery trap doors in the finisher wouldn't open. Turns out the entire machine was "crooked" and off its foundation a bit, so he moved it. The alignment is way better. For today, anyway.
Quote from: gnubler on October 26, 2012, 12:12:02 PMQuote from: david on October 26, 2012, 11:02:28 AMis different bad so different it's good?
No.
Anyway, our tech came back today and noticed one of the mystery trap doors in the finisher wouldn't open. Turns out the entire machine was "crooked" and off its foundation a bit, so he moved it. The alignment is way better. For today, anyway.
the X does have many mystery trap doors, some with no labels to let you know it indeed does open. :laugh:
Engineered by psychotics.
We've got a 700. One thing I noticed is with the last machine, the tech profiled our most common stocks. Now they want the customer to do it. Even with that, front to back registration is iffy, and changes through the run. I'm always bawled out by bindery for inconsistent registration, but the tech says it's within specs.
One big problem is with NCR. The tech says don't use it in this machine, but we have several customers who just want what amounts to 25 sets to run. Even with digital NCR, it sometimes prints as many doubles as good sets.
That's why we drink.
one of the many reasons why we drink...
We had a Xerox 700 for a least couple of years.
Nothing but problems with it and the service.
Spent a lot of time feeding one sheet at a time.
Beginning of the year we ditch the 700 and got a Konica Bizhub.
New monster, new problems.
Boy, printing industry is a bitch!
Quote from: Syphon on October 29, 2012, 07:47:10 PMSpent a lot of time feeding one sheet at a time.
12 pt C1S. Joy of my life. :death:
The 700i is supposed to handle up to 300 gsm, but you'd better have a high capacity feeder with it if you're going to try to auto duplex. 10 pt. won't even make the turn out of the regular trays, and you can't auto duplex out of the manual feeder. It works a lot better from the hi cap feeder, which feeds it straight out.
The big X be gettin' a tongue lashing right now. Yes!
Xerox f'd us today. Same old story.
Quote from: gnubler on October 31, 2012, 11:45:18 PMXerox f'd us today. Same old story.
Did they buy dinner before the event?
Quote from: Joe on November 01, 2012, 12:01:36 AMQuote from: gnubler on October 31, 2012, 11:45:18 PMXerox f'd us today. Same old story.
Did they buy dinner before the event?
When it's early on in the courtship process and they want to get in, it's always the same old wine and dine...
sweet talking....
Broadway show going...
hand holding, kiss on the cheek....
Now you just like on your back and close your eyes until it's over.
I hate Xerox.
I feel bad for the service techs.
I like one of our techs....
one
Some of them should get into paper manufacturing...since they know so much about the qualities of paper. :laugh:
Quote from: gnubler on November 01, 2012, 12:41:39 PMSome of them should get into paper manufacturing...since they know so much about the qualities of paper. :laugh:
they are. They sell xerox paper. It's expensive, of course. One will never know if it is actually the solution.
It's not. They gave us a couple cartons of Xerox cover stock to make up for "problems" and the crap jammed so I stopped using it.
Quote from: gnubler on November 01, 2012, 02:17:07 PMIt's not. They gave us a couple cartons of Xerox cover stock to make up for "problems" and the crap jammed so I stopped using it.
Xerox tech back in Colatown said that Xerox VB was a superior VB compared with other brands. WTFE X
Quote from: gnubler on November 01, 2012, 02:17:07 PMIt's not. They gave us a couple cartons of Xerox cover stock to make up for "problems" and the crap jammed so I stopped using it.
Obviously you weren't using it correctly.
Quote from: gnubler on November 01, 2012, 02:17:07 PMIt's not. They gave us a couple cartons of Xerox cover stock to make up for "problems" and the crap jammed so I stopped using it.
Xerox paper is best used to make a "Jump to Conclusions" mat
Quote from: DigiCorn on November 01, 2012, 03:11:05 PM
Xerox paper is best used to make a "Jump to Conclusions" mat
[/quote]
they make that in wall to wall carpet. Our entire office is done in it.
Which square is your chair on?
"Loose One Turn"
Should say, "Lose," but someone made a typo.
(http://danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg)
Quote from: DigiCorn on November 01, 2012, 12:00:31 PMI like one of our techs....
one
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/430620/JohnnyDangerously.jpg)
Quote from: gnubler on November 01, 2012, 03:39:25 PMWhich square is your chair on?
I am not in the office, we have a VCT floor in prepress and they're mostly green squares. We don't jump to conclusions, we just assume the worst.
lol
that's a keeper
Quote from: t-pat on November 01, 2012, 03:58:17 PMWe don't jump to conclusions, we just assume the worst.
You must work in printing...
Yesterday we had a litho-gnome bite us. (or would this be a digi-litho-gnome?)
We received Indy files from customer. I generate the PDF for our 700 (w crops and bleeds) and printed out a proof for the job jacket and put in the "digital press bin" to be done.
Production manager runs job in the afternoon, imposes it using the Fiery feature, prints one out for me to color check, which I approved. This is a 1,400 2 sided run and about a 3rd of the way in someone notices odd art on the back side. I overhear conversation as I'm burning some metal, walk into the room and see the mysterious and questionable art. I'm like, "WTF is that?", they were asking the same question. STOP THE JOB!
check proof I ran out earlier, it's not there
it's not on screen when viewing the PDF
it's not in the illustrator file (the background image) even in keyline
we deduced :laugh: that it happened during the impose, but how? why?
Have any of you seen anything like then when using the Fiery Impose "feature".
maybe the stray graphic was a feature and we should have let it run. :laugh: :laugh:
Nice. Was quark involved in any way?
On the Creo I get transparency stitching when using imposition. But only sometimes. :laugh: And 1-up prints fine.
I LOVE PREPRESS.
To the person who got an additional "artifact" on their DCP700 output --
Under the "Image" selections/options in "Job Properties" in Command Workstation, did you have anything selected other than "Normal", or did you have "Apply Image Enhancement" selected?
I ask because a similar thing happened to me about a year ago, and I had either something changed from "Normal" to "Best" or that "Apply Image Enhancement" on.
The resulting piece had a weird artifact (an enlongated triangle) on the topmost of the two-up image I was running, and this wasn't caught until partway through the folding and boxing process. :wtf:
We begged our boss (who was doing the folding) to let me re-run all of the pieces he'd already folded and boxed, but he wouldn't hear of it. And sure enough, either the customer got one in the mail with that weird triangle, or the mailhouse ratted us out -- not sure which.
In either case, the customer wanted a refund on the job AND this resulted in their pulling most of their work from us... :death:
And guess who got the blame for all this? :hello: I told the higher-ups that I'd take responsibility for not catching the the artifact while the job was running, but that I wasn't going to take the blame for the customer being pissed, because I and another employee had both pleaded for the job not to go out the way it was, but we were overruled. I still caught hell, but stood my ground.
Ever since that incident, I haven't used any of those enhancement features on the DCP700...
thanks, good to know!
Quote from: opsprinting on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 PMon the topmost of the two-up image
Are you saying you imposed in CWS? As I typed a few posts ago, my Creo RIP does weird things involving transparency when I use the in-RIP impo. If I run it 1-up it's fine. :drunk3:
Quote from: gnubler on January 24, 2013, 08:20:53 PMQuote from: opsprinting on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 PMon the topmost of the two-up image
Are you saying you imposed in CWS? As I typed a few posts ago, my Creo RIP does weird things involving transparency when I use the in-RIP impo. If I run it 1-up it's fine. :drunk3:
I second that question...did you use an impose feature?
good info tho about the normal vs. best...have to do some T&E and find out...
We've seen a few oddities on the XC1000 when imposing in CWS. I can't say for sure if we've had anything that strange, but there are definitely some shenanigans going on with their Impose Tool. If I think of it, I'll ask our Operator if he ever got any resolution from Xerox on the problems.
Quote from: gnubler on January 24, 2013, 08:20:53 PMAre you saying you imposed in CWS? As I typed a few posts ago, my Creo RIP does weird things involving transparency when I use the in-RIP impo. If I run it 1-up it's fine. :drunk3:
I just double-checked and no -- I had imposed the job two-up in InDesign before ripping a highest-quality PDF from the imposed file.
Because my boss was initially too tight to spring for the imposition dongle, I had to manually impose most of our InDesign jobs that required impositions... :rolleyes:
Cheers, John
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on January 25, 2013, 11:41:25 AMI second that question...did you use an impose feature?
good info tho about the normal vs. best...have to do some T&E and find out...
Nope, I did not use the CWS impose feature. I manually imposed the job in InDesign before creating a highest-quality PDF from said InDesign file.
This was the first -- and to date, last -- time that I ever got this weird artifact through some combination of the "best" / "improved" features, and after getting my ass burned, I've never tried them again.
This file from hell originally began life as a Publisher file, and had gradients in it, so I have to wonder if that was where the problem originated? But then again, when I put all the CSW settings back to normal, the artifact disappeared... :banghead:
So if in your experimentations you are able to recreate this glitch, I'd be happy to know what NOT to do in the future! ;)
Cheers, John
Quote from: opsprinting on January 28, 2013, 08:27:28 AMThis file from hell originally began life as a Publisher file, and had gradients in it, so I have to wonder if that was where the problem originated?
Doubt it. Microsoft makes solid, professional graphic software that never really causes problems in commercial printing. I blame prepress. :laugh:
Quote from: gnubler on January 28, 2013, 09:56:36 AMQuote from: opsprinting on January 28, 2013, 08:27:28 AMThis file from hell originally began life as a Publisher file, and had gradients in it, so I have to wonder if that was where the problem originated?
Doubt it. Microsoft makes solid, professional graphic software that never really causes problems in commercial printing. I blame prepress. :laugh:
All the cool kids use it.
Quote from: Joe on January 28, 2013, 10:02:35 AMQuote from: gnubler on January 28, 2013, 09:56:36 AMQuote from: opsprinting on January 28, 2013, 08:27:28 AMThis file from hell originally began life as a Publisher file, and had gradients in it, so I have to wonder if that was where the problem originated?
Doubt it. Microsoft makes solid, professional graphic software that never really causes problems in commercial printing. I blame prepress. :laugh:
All the hip kids use it.
Fixed
I use it too!
Quote from: Joe on January 28, 2013, 10:02:35 AMAll the cool kids use it.
No they don't, they use "Adobe". :laugh:
They use mud bricks?! Kids these days....
They learn it here.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6834657005_9ce23ab7d8_z.jpg)
There may be a better thread to post this question, but here goes...
Has anyone here had issues with a Fiery losing it's networking capabilities?
Our Fiery can't see the network, therefore the folder we use to put digital jobs into...
This has happened 4 times in a week. Never happened before?
A cold boot fixes the problem. However, operator is saying after a cold boot today, it's still not seeing network.
:death:
static ip or dhcp?
Try a different network cable to the Fiery. They can go bad.
Thanks for the tips!
Quote from: Joe on August 01, 2013, 11:49:38 AMTry a different network cable to the Fiery. They can go bad.
well, if it's dhcp it should be okay, but if it's static, check for a conflict in address. cable is a good idea too. one other thing to check is see if energy/power setting put the ethernet to sleep. it won't always wake when data is received. disable the "put hard drive to sleep." could also be bad network card, wrong dns (if manually entered), different workgroup, bad input on your switch or a host of other issues.
just have the Xerox guy look at it...
oh yea, righttttt
It's the paper.
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on August 01, 2013, 11:27:03 AMThere may be a better thread to post this question, but here goes...
Has anyone here had issues with a Fiery losing it's networking capabilities?
Our Fiery can't see the network, therefore the folder we use to put digital jobs into...
This has happened 4 times in a week. Never happened before?
A cold boot fixes the problem. However, operator is saying after a cold boot today, it's still not seeing network.
:death:
Make the 700 a static IP address on your network -- this should solve
that particular problem with the Xerox CLC700 digital color press...
:wink:
Cheers, John the Fontaholic
Fuck.
yea, we got one, you can have it if you need it...
oh, and it works great on our network... :sarcasm:
Yeah we had a 700, it was slow and didn't backup worth a crap. We had the Xerox service guys practically living at our facility. Finally were able to build a case for the thing being a total lemon and worked a deal to trade back in for an 8080. It is an improvement on the 700 but it is still more of a copy machine than a press as they attempt to define it. We found that black and white halftones actually output a lot better on the 700 but we get a lot more productivity with the 8080. Also have to screw with the colors quite a bit as they do not reproduce very accurate off the 8080.
We have a 700i with server. The engine has already been replaced once. The server has crashed at least twice that I know of and the techs they send out to fix the box seem to be bottom level techs. "What's Firefox?" I'll never forget that one.
I hate xerox just because. I used to run a KM 6501 with Creo RIP and it was *better* but the truth is that all copiers I mean digital presses fucking suck. Duplex registration is the biggest problem, especially when xerox says a 1/16" skew is within spec. :drunk3: I presume they don't actually try to print jobs for resale.
Quote from: Fontaholic on August 01, 2013, 12:44:31 PMQuote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on August 01, 2013, 11:27:03 AMThere may be a better thread to post this question, but here goes...
Has anyone here had issues with a Fiery losing it's networking capabilities?
Our Fiery can't see the network, therefore the folder we use to put digital jobs into...
This has happened 4 times in a week. Never happened before?
A cold boot fixes the problem. However, operator is saying after a cold boot today, it's still not seeing network.
:death:
I'll second this, especially if you have a tendency toward power outages at your place. We found out anytime the power goes out, our wide format Xerox will change its ISP randomly. Fun tracking that down when the power blinked out for a few seconds over the weekend and we had no idea.
Make the 700 a static IP address on your network -- this should solve that particular problem with the Xerox CLC700 digital color press...
:wink:
Cheers, John the Fontaholic
Quote from: gnubler on August 02, 2013, 09:41:44 PMWe have a 700i with server. The engine has already been replaced once. The server has crashed at least twice that I know of and the techs they send out to fix the box seem to be bottom level techs. "What's Firefox?" I'll never forget that one.
I hate xerox just because. I used to run a KM 6501 with Creo RIP and it was *better* but the truth is that all copiers I mean digital presses fucking suck. Duplex registration is the biggest problem, especially when xerox says a 1/16" skew is within spec. :drunk3: I presume they don't actually try to print jobs for resale.
Didn't know where to put this link, this one seems right.
http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning? (http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning?)
go xerox! :sarcasm:
What I meant to say recently was to second the notion of the static IP address. We've got a wide format machine that changed IP addresses anytime the power went, even for a second. It was fun to try to figure out what was wrong when the power blinked out overnight and we didn't know about it. With all the other problems it had, it took a while to isolate this particular problem.
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on August 06, 2013, 07:29:59 AMDidn't know where to put this link, this one seems right.
http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning? (http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning?)
go xerox! :sarcasm:
Whoa!!! :shocked:
As the blog noted, I can see several instances where this issue could be a BIG problem!!
Cheers, John the Fontaholic
Quote from: Sabrina The Turd Polisher on August 06, 2013, 07:29:59 AMQuote from: gnubler on August 02, 2013, 09:41:44 PMWe have a 700i with server. The engine has already been replaced once. The server has crashed at least twice that I know of and the techs they send out to fix the box seem to be bottom level techs. "What's Firefox?" I'll never forget that one.
I hate xerox just because. I used to run a KM 6501 with Creo RIP and it was *better* but the truth is that all copiers I mean digital presses fucking suck. Duplex registration is the biggest problem, especially when xerox says a 1/16" skew is within spec. :drunk3: I presume they don't actually try to print jobs for resale.
Didn't know where to put this link, this one seems right.
http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning? (http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning?)
go xerox! :sarcasm:
Well now...that is a nice little "feature". :laugh:
Yeah, right?
makes you wonder what else is going on :huh:
Think of the companies and agencies around the world that have used these systems to digitize originals and shred the paperwork.
Now the digitized originals are wrong.
Nice one xerox...but who knows...could be another NSA backdoor or something. :laugh: :shocked:
Also, you know that copiers put microdot signatures on everything so it can be traced back to that device.
Doomed.
looks like a pile of crapasslowres scans to me, but hey, any chance to stick it to the man!
Quote from: Farabomb on August 06, 2013, 10:52:39 AMAlso, you know that copiers put microdot signatures on everything so it can be traced back to that device.
Doomed.
yep...and for color copiers they employ some fancier technology if I'm remembering right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography)