George Alexander writing at Beyond Print asks, Does HP Indigo use “toner” or “ink”?
This is a great question that many printers within industry ask or are confused about when evaluating digital printing systems. As Alexander points out in the article:
I tend to agree with Alexander and the HP's European patent and will say HP's ElectroInk is a liquid toner-based ink.The effort to avoid admitting that Indigo machines use “toner” seems to be an intentional marketing tactic by HP Indigo (and by Indigo itself, prior to the HP acquisition). If you are charitable, you could say it is just an attempt at product differentiation. If you are cynical, you could call it an outright attempt to mislead. I believe HP Indigo is avoiding the use of the word “toner” (and encouraging the use of the words “ink” and “offset”) to try to make its product seem similar to offset lithography. Whatever you think of the company’s motivation, this approach has certainly created confusion in the marketplace and even among some HP Indigo employees.
Discussion
By Andrew Tribute on Sep 10, 2008
I have to agree 100% with my ex colleague George Alexander. At Seybold Publications we both were very early in assessing the Indigo system when it came to market in 1993. I started working with Indigo in a consultancy role in December 1992. At that time Indigo's founder Benny Landa openly referred to Electroink as liquid toner when he compared it with the other suppliers powder toner.
I also was one of the initial consulting team that included Frank Romano and Charlie Pesko that came up with the term 'digital offset color' as it used a blanket to transfer the Electroink to the substrate. I think you will find that a number of xerographic dry toner systems also use an intermediate carrier to transfer the toner to the substrate, but they don't refer to the process as offset. The use of the term Electroink is a great marketing message, but it is not ink. You cannot smear it on an offset roller and distribute through the rollers to put it on a plate. It also costs a little bit more than real ink. As with many things it is all about marketing messages. HP Indigo does not like their technology being referred to as xerography, however their electrophotography process is a xerographic process that uses charged toner particles.
I have no problem with Electroink but I do have a problem with the term ink. The problem is that I find that many of HP Indigo's customers and some of their salesmen really appear to believe that it is the same thing as ink, and the HP Indigo presses are the same as real offset presses. HP Indigo presses are really great presses that produce exceptional output. Why muddy the water with dubious claims when the product sells itself on its output, productivity and ability to make profits.
By Fred Buck on Sep 11, 2008
I always refer to the ink in the Indigo as liquid toner. I then explain the difference between other xerographic devices and the Indigo this way: The Indigo press uses toner that is suspended in mineral oil. This way, the particle size of the toner can be much smaller than in a dry toner system.
I also try to show samples of Indigo printing whenever possible.
:o)
By Scott Tilden on Sep 11, 2008
There is a key distiction: toner holds a charge; ink does not. I concur; "Electroink" is good, "ink" is not.
By Adam Dewitz on Sep 11, 2008
The typical definition of ink is that it is comprised of three fundamental substances: a vehicle, a pigment, and a variety of different types of additive, such as driers.
How does toner not fit this definition?
By George Alexander on Sep 11, 2008
Adam, I agree that toner fits your definition of ink, but so does house paint. I suppose we could call house paint "ink", but would that be useful? I don't think we should call toner "ink" either.
Scott's comment is right on: toner particles must carry a charge; otherwise the toner cannot be used for imaging. That's what makes it different from ink.
By Adam Dewitz on Sep 11, 2008
That's not my definition. That's the definition found in the Encyclopedia of Graphic Communications (and PrintWiki). It's also the basic definition Kipphan provides in the Handbook of Print Media.
By Peter Muir on Sep 11, 2008
Let's get another perspective. Tomorrow I will be in front of a room full of print buyers at the Print Buyers International conference in Boston. I will ask them if 1. They can describe the difference between ElectroInk and dry toner 2. Do they care and 3. Most importantly can they say that their organization sold more products or services because of ElectroInk or dry toner used in their marketing collaterals, direct mail campaigns and transactional documents?
I'll let you know what I hear.
By Tom Gostkowski on Sep 12, 2008
I have heard HP reps as well as those who own Indigos erroneously cite the superiority of the Indigo as the only color digital press to print with "liquid ink." I have even had some argue with me when I told them it was liquid-suspended toner. And if it's so superior why do I keep receiving Indigo-printed mail in protective, clear cello wrappers?
By Eliot Harper on Sep 12, 2008
Peter, If they don't care, then maybe they should start to. While it might be a nice marketing spin to call the stuff "ink", the term is technically misleading, and in turn, HP are deceiving the market and their customers.
By Adam Dewitz on Sep 12, 2008
Eliot, I don't see why the print media buyer should care about the classification of an ink other then how their decision to use one material or process over the other will effect the use of the printed product. Such as postal stream durability as Tom points out. Or folding and creasing.
By Adam Dewitz on Sep 12, 2008
Jake Van Ness of Prepressology has also commented on this at http://blog.prepressology.com/is-it-ink-or-is-it-toner-in-the-indigo/
By Eliot Harper on Sep 12, 2008
Adam, you're right. Maybe the print media buyer shouldn't care, but the printers should. If Xerox, Canon or Oce we're to state in their product specifications that their electrophotographic devices use ink rather than toner, then their documentation would be deliberately misleading. I'm not sure why it's different for HP. They've obviously done a good job of convincing the market that Indigo's use "ink" (refer to the above Prepressology blog link for one example).
By Octavian Cretu on Sep 12, 2008
Electroink is a more accurate term and that is what I tell my customers. However, it is an oil based product and the way the ink is applied to paper makes it look "almost" like offset printing. Toner based printing is not the same, particularly in the dark areas where toner "piling" is very obvious.
When it comes to uncoated papers the Indigo printing is actually vastly superior to offset due to lack of dot gain. I have been using Indigo presses since 2001 and from time to time looked at toner based systems but have not been able to justify switching. I am more distressed by the term "digital printing press" used by a lot of manufacturers which I believe is misrepresenting.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 13, 2008
Just an observation. I've heard from a couple of designers. At least some of them do seem to see the Indigo as "more like offset". On the other hand, I've always gotten rave reviews from toner based products.
It seems that the smoothness and the lack of "shinyness" they see in the indigo can be important to them.
By Jeff Lazerus on Sep 13, 2008
Yes, technically, you could call it "toner", if you wanted. Technically, you could call it "ink" if you wanted. People are used to calling the substance that sits on top of the paper "ink". That's what HP Electroink does, regardless of the ink's ability to be electrostatically charged. Why even have this discussion? And yes, HP/Indigo IS (gasp!) trying to differentiate themselves, and rightly so. That's what you do when you sell something. And, it is ACTUALLY different.
Are printers offended that "digital" is entering their turf? Just another example of the arrogance of some printers and press people that they, and THEY ALONE, posses the secret key to the universe, or some such gobbledy. Offset printing (and, by the way, the process the indigo uses is actually an offset process, unlike any other digital press, and because of that, their ink/toner/whatever has to be in a liquid state) is not rocket science. Digital printing is. I've met scientists at HP Labs in Palo Alto and some engineers from Indigo R&D in Israel, and they are not messing around with issues like this.
The developers don't care. Our customers don't care. Why should we care?
By Steven Harns on Sep 14, 2008
HP has been misleading folks for years with the term 'Electroink' and quite often refers to their Indigo's as using ink and not toner. They are very emphatic that the Indigo isn't toner based while pointing out toner device limitations in colour gamut reach and applications. However, HP's process is simply electrically charged toner carried in vegetable oil as a process to lay down the image on a substrate. To a printer, mixing colors is something they are used to. There is a compelling argument that toner based technology offers a more pure delivery without contamination that occurs in mixing. Kodak NexPress uses an "imaging blanket" similar to an offset press and chose to market their process as a "dry ink" rather than a reference to toner.
Xerox touts iGen3's high speed and installation base using a xerographic process. Canon and Konica Minolta focus on the smaller micron of a polymeried wax encapsulated toner delivery. At the end of the day the only measure of worth of any press is the final output. HP's Indigo may be loosing both overall quality and color consistency against the newer toner based digital presses on the market so this discussion is timely.
By Paul Felber on Sep 15, 2008
It's really only about perception. Call it what you like. If a printer out to buy a device doesn't do the homework to get past the marketing hype and find out if the press they're buying fits their market, tough luck.
What does your audience want? The distinction between all print devices is about the market. Would you print a coffee table book on a web press? Or a 4 color job on a 1 color press (yes, I know it's been done)?
Output from a dry toner press looks different than offset - not better or worse, just different. For that matter, so does Hp Indigo output, although it looks more like offset. Buy what works in your market. Smart companies have been successful with all this technology. Others have failed with all this technology - including offset. In none of those cases did the words used to name the ink matter.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 15, 2008
Steven-
you say "At the end of the day the only measure of worth of any press is the final output."
Just a small quibble: at end of the day, the measure of worth is what the buyer thinks they see and how efficient and stable is the final output.
I think that no buyer cares, knows or wants to care and know about how.
I do agree this is an important discussion for printers. Just wanted to reframe it a bit so that incorporates the customer's point of view.
You also say,
"HP’s Indigo may be loosing both overall quality and color consistency against the newer toner based digital presses on the market so this discussion is timely".
My impression from scanning the internet is that HP is doing lots and lots of deals. I don't know if this is a press release advantage or reflects real numbers on the ground.
I always keep betamax and VCR in mind. The "better" technology lost that one because they looked at through the lens of product, instead of the lens of the customer.
By Elizabeth on Sep 15, 2008
The reason why everyone should care if they call it ink or liquid toner is because it makes some significant fundamental differences in the printing technology and limitations compared with other digital technologies. First their are two main digital printing technologies one is ink jet and the other is electrophotographic or more commonly known as laser.
With electrophotography or Laser it involves many steps:
1. you are writing to a drum with lasers (the Indigo 4050 uses 13 lasers to write to the drum) this process charges the drum with one charge.
2. the drum passes under each color (CMYK, LC, LM or whatever) each color is charged that charge pulls the colors onto the drum.
3. the full colors on the drum are transfered to a belt often known as an intermediary transfer belt.
4. the belt then transfers the toner to the paper or substrate
5. the fuser (heating element) fixes the toners onto the substrate
this is exactly what indigo's do, as well as Xerox, Canon, Xeikon and ever other laser/electophography product. the only difference with indigo is that the toners are encapsulated in a liquid carrier. Why is this important? because if you look at all those steps involved most of them also have an associated consumable, which will increase your running costs. For example the drum or PIP (as indigo calls it) will need to be replaced in some cases up to 1X per day (with heavy use) the fuser also needs an oil to heat up which also needs to be replaced. The belt will also need to be replaced. Over time the lasers can also need to be replaced. This is the same for Indigo as it is for all of the other laser vendors.
In ink jet technology which uses true ink pigments suspended in a carrier. The ink is jetted out of the nozzles of the ink jet head direct to the paper. Depending on the type of ink users (water, solvent or UV) depends on how you need to dry or fix the ink. UV is fixed with a UV light just as it would be in an Flexo process. Water needs to be dried off, solvent also needs to be dried off (just as in Flexo or Gravure). But in general it is a much simpler process then laser. The only consumables are the ink and the ink jet heads (which will need to be replaced say every few years with an industrial head or more often with a disposable head).
I think when Indigo refers to their technology as ink it is misleading to everyone in the industry, especially the printers. It gives the sense that it is a simple process with few consumables, which is not the case. They should be aware that it is a toner based technology and exactly the same base process as any other laser printer. The only difference is instead of using dry toner they use liquid toner. It is not fair to the end users to have to figure this out themselves. They should be informed on all the pros and cons of different technology so they can make an educated decision and not have to be confused.
If you don't believe me that the processes are the same, open up any color laser printer and compare it to that of indigo. Or better yet check out all of Indigo's listed Patents where they refer to the technology as "Liquid Toner"
http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/IndigoNV.html
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 15, 2008
I learned a lot from the last post. Thanks for taking the time. I just wanted to not lose sight of the customer -facing end of our business.
When you say "It is not fair to the end users to have to figure this out themselves". I understand that you mean the printer as the end user. All the issues of simplicity of technology is very important to them - appropriate in this context.
Just a little ping to say that the "end user" of the product being produced is the customer paying for printed product.
I mention this only because I've heard so many sales people talking to customers about VDP.
very, very fewer customers care about what goes into making the sausage.
For all those sales people out there, be careful about subjecting customers to a discussion that should probably stay within the family.
By Ron on Sep 16, 2008
We are considering the purchase of the Indigo press as a replacemnet to our printing press in an effort to capture the lost market of short run color work. My question is; if this is a toner based product and we reproduce letterhead which is sent to "other" areas throuout our facility to use on Xerox type units will the so called ink smear when they pass a second time on high heat units? I realize that toner based prints cannot go through again to print the body of the letter onto the letterhead if it is toner based. HP informs me that their system is "ink" and therefore can pass through a Xerox unit without smear. To me ink is ink and toner is toner; toner based products also crack along the fold area where ink does not. These are two examples of concern, I really don't care what they may call the product as long as it works for our end use. Does anyone have any ideas?
By Ron Beckman on Sep 16, 2008
I get the question is it or is is it not ink!
Digital communication has a much more important factor than toner or ink use. ROI is the name of the game and nobody cares where it comes from but that isn't in the pigment.
Don't forget to track all efforts in marketing communication and that has nothing to do with toner or ink.
Ron Beckman
By Paul on Sep 16, 2008
Elizabeth, one major distinction (and correction of your assertion) is that an Indigo press does not have a fuser (no step 5, in your set of steps). It uses a rubberized blanket, much like an offset press. It uses a combination of temperature and pressure to transfer the ink/toner/whathaveyou from the blanket to the substrate. This is a fundamental difference.
Is it ink or toner? If you suspend pigment in a liquid, I'd call that ink. Semantics, I suppose.
By Ralf Schlozer on Sep 16, 2008
As usual, it is more complicated than it looks at first. Not all ink and not all toner is the same. I agree that Indigo technology uses toner, although a liquid one (btw. liquid toner is used since the 50's) and that makes the difference. The process uses a solvent which is extracted actually before the Electroink is transferred onto the paper. It is difficult to liquefy again, unlike dry toner which uses a thermoplastic resin. Therefore handling is different and it would have advantages for overprinting (although I would try this first in your set-up). Also in dry electrophotography there are many nuances which do influence the printing properties and one device might be able to do something the other cannot - although both use dry toner.
Btw. Xerography derives from the Greek word for "dry writing" and applies to dry toner processes only , so electrophotography would be a better expression when including liquid toner.
Even if a print buyer does not care, the type of colorant used has many implication in finishing, handling, storage,... so it is important to know what kind of process is used apart from any marketing terms.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 16, 2008
Ron -
I agree that "nobody cares where it comes from but that isn’t in the pigment".
But I don't believe that "ROI is the name of the game" except for the very best customers. If you are talking to someone who really gets ROI.
The old adage is that people are motivated by fear and/or greed. I submit that many more are motivated by fear. Fear of making a visible mistake, fear of getting someone in the organization upset or fear of getting fired or fear of .....
By Liz on Sep 17, 2008
OK, I am a print buyer and I disagree with the statement that "no printer buyer cares or wants to care". That's insulting. I supervise a dept. and I require every one of our buyers to understand the technology and its limitations so we can recommend the right process to fit the type of job. Digital printing (no matter what machine or type) looks different from offset and it's my job to understand why. It's also the sales rep's job to understand his/her product well enough to explain it.
By Noel Ward on Sep 17, 2008
For what it's worth, the boxes containing the toner bottles for Xerox and Oce production printers are labeled "Dry Ink," and have been for years. Always got a kick out of that.
Electroink is liquid toner, just as it was when Benny Landa initially developed it. He called "liquid toner" back then, too. It wasn't until the Indigo came out in 1993 that it was referred to as Electroink.
HP just likes to confuse people and irritate competitors by calling it 'ink." Their process is still electrophotographic and relies on toner particles taking a charge. Try that with a can of Van Son cyan and see what happens.
SO...
do Indigo owners with offset presses call it "ink," while owners with only digital presses call it "toner?"
By Bob on Sep 17, 2008
I was hoping someone would answer Ron's questions from September 16:
1. Can we run letterhead printed on Indigo through a laser printer or will the heat from the fusion process smear the ink/toner put down by Indigo printing?
2. When scored through a solid printed on a Indigo, will it crack as it does with Xerox or Canon toner printing?
By Kelly on Sep 17, 2008
This conversation is very interesting, especially considerring 2008 is the "green" year.
whether we want to let HP get away with calling the oil-suspended toner Electroink... is less relavent than the environmental hazards HP and HP users are posing.
There is significant question as to whether Electroink can be de-inked effectively, posing a risk to the entire paper recycling chain.
In addition, the Electroink oil is Isopar, which requires special cleaning systems and agents also posing environmental hazards... let alone hazards to the operators.
see snip from MSDS:
This material is considered to be hazardous according to regulatory guidelines (see (M)SDS Section 15).
POTENTIAL PHYSICAL / CHEMICAL EFFECTS
Combustible. Material can release vapors that readily form flammable mixtures. Vapor accumulation could flash and/or explode if ignited. Material can accumulate static charges which may cause an incendiary electrical discharge.
Oh yes... if it is ink... why does it scuff so easily. By far the worst product on the market for deliverring quality printed product (through the mail stream) to a consumer.
In sales you always look for diferentiators and value for your customers. This is a clear and compelling story why anyone who cares about the environment should reconsider HP Indigo printed materials.
By Pat Berger on Sep 17, 2008
Indigo printed pieces can go through a laser printer IF THEY ARE TOP COATED TO KEEP THE INDIGO(pigmented vehicle carrier) FROM MELTING AND STICKING TO PARTS IN A LASER PRINTER.
I have seen some crack and some not.
It depends on the substates ability not to crack after it has been heat treated .
By Debbie on Sep 18, 2008
Since Indigo is indeed an electrophotographic process, is salt required or even adviseable to have in the paper for Indigo printing? Is it there in electrophotographic papers only to control static build-up or does it contribute to the toner particle transfer in any way? BTW, I think "ink" and "toner" are both correct. Small toner particles suspended in a liquid = ink. Wasn't it the Electropress that used the isopar, which I believe is a derivative of kerosene? Most Indigo presses I have been around have environmental controls such that there is virtually no smell and no risk to the operator.
By Keith Bax on Sep 19, 2008
HP-Indigo has done a good job of positioning their offering as using liquid ink, which appeals to graphic arts customers, because they are comfortable with the concept. The sad part is that a majority of customers may not know any differently, and as my good friend Peter Muir suggests, many may not even care.
Let's not split hairs...HP-Indigo and Xerox, Kodak, Xeikon, etc. all use electrophotographic technology. What they decide to call it for marketing purposes is a different discussion. Xerox calls their colorant "dry ink". It certainly isn't ink from a chemical perspective, but the term "toner" implies copier/cheap laser printer, etc., so they don't like to call it toner.
The point here is that it's all marketing-speak. Is it misleading, probably so. Astute customers should ask the questions, and do the required research so they understand exactly what they are signing up for.
Bottom-line is that digital printing is here to stay. The train is coming down the tracks, and printing companies need to get on board or get out of the way. No matter what you buy today, tomorrow there will be something out there that's better and cheaper. Ante up, and get in the game!
By Keith Bax on Sep 19, 2008
I almost forgot...it is my opinion that Indigo developed the Electroink process in order to avoid violating Xerox electrophotographic patents in effect during the development of the Indigo technology. Somehow, Heidleburg/Kodak managed to avoid patent infringement with the NexPress. Those of us who have been around a while recall that Xeikon had to settle with Xerox back in the 90's for patent violation, the result being Xerox selling re-badged Xiekons under the DocuColor 100 and 130 moniker.
By Michael Josefowicz on Sep 19, 2008
Just want to interupt this discussion to respond to Liz's reasonable and useful post on Sept 17.
First, sorry for giving offense. I want to think that it was a "fingers faster than brain problem", but in any case the sentence I wrote on Sept 15 was,
"I think that no buyer cares, knows or wants to care and know about how".
It might have been better written as
"Most designers don't care, know or want to care and know about how and why?"
In my defense, I spent 7 years teaching print production to designers, and when I was in the game all of my customers were designers.
I had very limited experience with professional buyers. I think most of the growth of that profession happened after I left the day to day business.
Liz, thanks for reminding me.
By Paul on Oct 06, 2008
Kelly:
HP has shown that Electroink prints are indeed de-inkable using standard processes and get results similar to dry xerography. Not sure that issue has much merit.
As for the imaging oil, it's not catgorized as hazardous or toxic by the EPA (it's mineral oil) and the only two things you ever clean anything on an Indigo with is imaging oil and isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol). I wouldn't drink either, but neither are exactly agent orange.
Ever actually use an Indigo? Or do you just listen to everything your Xerox rep tells you?
By Jack on Oct 07, 2008
Paul, MSDS sheets don't lie. The stuff just ain't safe.
By Jeff Lazerus on Oct 07, 2008
Jack
Traditional printing chemistry is far less safe than anything - I repeat - ANYTHING that comes out of an Indigo, starting with VOCs and ending with the massive amount of waste that gets dumped because the content was neither relevant nor timely.
In addition, I've known half a dozen pressmen with missing digits. The worst industrial accident I've ever seen due to an Indigo was... oh yeah, I've never seen one.
Saying "the stuff just ain't safe" is akin to saying your carpet ain't safe. If I eat enough carpet, yes, it ain't safe. Good logic there. Gasoline ain't safe. Aspirin ain't. Your computer ain't safe.
And as for recyclability of the Indigo sheet, just print relevant content then we won't have to worry about it, instead of throwing 40% of your print job in a landfill.And don't tell me that you "recycle" that, because once it leaves your plant, you're done with it. When you de-ink a traditional sheet, you end up with a toxic sludge and paper fiber. De-ink an Indigo sheet (yes, they cal it "de-inking", so that must mean the liquid toner acts like ink!) you end up with recyclable plastic and paper fiber. Digital printing is friendlier to the environment in every way compared to traditional offset. Argument OVER.
By ron on Oct 19, 2008
Jack stated that the ink the digital process is eco-friendly.
my quiestion is, how non-toxic is the ink itself?
By Andrew Tribute on Oct 20, 2008
Just a brief comment on Paul's post on October 6 (I don't read these posts very often). "HP has shown that Electroink prints are indeed de-inkable using standard processes and get results similar to dry xerography."
I am afraid this is just a distortion of the facts. HP has never shown this and just quotes it in an information paper. Recent post-drupa tests by the deinking industry have shown this to be a distortion of the facts. Almost any paper can be deinked in specific environments when it is treated separately from other papers, but not in the the high volume approaches that paper makers use in real life deinking operations. There are certain printed products that are not considered by the paper makers who run the deinking process as being unsuitable for deinking. These include flexo printing, most aqueous inkjet printing and HP Indigo output.
To deink HP Indigo output requires a further flotation and disperging process after initial flotation and screening. No paper making company would want to operate in such a fashion as it wastes pulp and uses substantially more power.
By Don on Oct 22, 2008
ElectroInk was developed using very small toner particles. So small that they easily become airborne unless suspended in liquid form. Hence liquid toner was "invented".
The benefit of these small particles is improved color gamut and resolution, Indigo's strength. The downside is trying to de-ink (Flotation) these really small particles. Micro-bubblers have been investigated but the cost to upgrade flotation systems vs the small amount of Indigo prints does not support the business case.
This de-inking nonsense is all a red herring anyway, since most recovered printing-writing papers are exported (52%) or recycled into carton board (14%) and tissue (19%). Source PIAC
The only folks having issues are the testing labs themselves. If they can't create problems, they have no purpose. There are no recyclers today that cannot process the few sheets of Indigo in a mixed batch of paper. Unless you're with the government, designing anything for 100% failsafe compliance isn't financially justified. Accept the few sheets and be done with it.
BTW, the number one litter item in Canada is the Tim Horton's coffee cup. Who wants to fix this environmental catastrophy?
OK now I'm ranting. Sorry.
By Jack on Nov 14, 2008
I can tell you one thing, the imaging oil will leave a rash if you don't get it off your skin. I had the misfortune of having some splash into my sock unbeknownst to me. I was driving home and felt a burning at my sock line and discovered I had doused my sock in it. But other than that it is an easy machine to work with and like was said above it doesn't take me a couple hundred sheets, per color to get my job done.
As far as the ink or toner debate:
If you have ever cleaned an indigo you will see and feel it is ink. It might be a so called toner with suspended particles in the can but when it gets mixed with the imaging oil in the tank and the imaging agent it is an ink. If you don't think so, come stick your hand in my tank and try getting it off in the sink with just soap and water.
As far as the buyers:
No it is not offset and should not be sold as offset. It has its limitations (three quarter banding being one of them when you are trying to print colors which are mostly transparent). That is why it is called digital printing. Heck, I get tired of the offset guys not running enough sheets or blowing through their paper as make ready and then I am called upon to MATCH their sample. It ain't happening!
As for cracking and melting:
We have many customers who we do letterhead for, one being a full-bleed throughout the sheet and have not had any of them say that the ink melts when they run it through their machine. If it doesn't melt when you run it through the indigo on one side and flip it over and run it on the other side, I am thinking (don't know the temperature of a laser printer) it wouldn't melt. If you score it it doesn't crack, if you try to fold it without scoring it it will crack just like paper will.
By Mike on Dec 07, 2008
Does anyone have an opinion about the new Xeikon inks, they claim to be eco-friendly. How does the Xeikon technology match up to HP and Xerox
By Jack on Dec 15, 2008
Jeff, when you compare the Indigo to the other digital presses out there (Xerox, Oce', Kodak, etc.) the Indigo's materials are much more hazardous. Period.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free