Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on October 19, 2007, 06:44:33 am
-
Dear all,
I am still shopping for a 24/44 printer and have a hard time figuring out what to do.
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
Thank you,
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Dear all,
I am still shopping for a 24/44 printer and have a hard time figuring out what to do.
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
Thank you,
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I still have on and still don't like it. If I would buy one right now again, I would even prefer the 7880 or 9880 even IF you have to switch the inks.
HP service is only bad. I would never buy a printer from them again. I can't tell ion public why I still have the printer at home if I hate it so much, but it has to do with legal stuff ;-)
your three points:
- scratching is still there on quite a few papers... Funny thing is that there is no real pattern. On some printer it's only glossy on some just matte papers and on some both or none ^^
- reds still suck. On Glossy OK, on Matt hm ok don't wanna talk about it... Just sad
- profiling solutions hm yes great... a solution which works as good as photographing without a lens. On Glossy it's Ok for normal use but on Matt never.
-
Dear all,
I am still shopping for a 24/44 printer and have a hard time figuring out what to do.
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
Thank you,
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it's a pretty simple decision at this point if you're looking for a 24 or 44" wide inkjet printer. It just depends on the type of work you do. If you print solely on matte fine art papers and don't think you'll need to swap blacks, then you can't beat Epson's 7880/9880 for color gamut and reliability, plus a wide range of 3rd party support. The Epson gamut in the reds on cotton rag papers does appear to be better than HP's. Likewise, if you'll only be printing color images on coated/semigloss/photo papers, the Epsons are still a good choice.
However... if you need to switch between matte and photo black inks, this will drive you crazy. Either you shell out for two printers, or you waste lots of time and money every time you switch. Bill Atkinson pointed out that even after you swap out the inks, there is residual ink in the lines that may take many prints to competely clear, resulting in unpredictable color or d-max behavior until it stabilizes.
If black & white is an important part of your work, I think the HP Z3100 is the only way to go, with 4 black inks, excellent D-max (noticeably better than Epson's on matte papers) and a very clever black & white mode in the driver. Yes, the printer has some issues. I have on one or two occasions seen very faint roller marks on satin papers, visible only in glancing light. Red gamut is quite good on semigloss or satin papers, but only satisfactory on matte papers, where it's about the same as I get with my old Epson 7600. As far as profiling goes, I'm perfectly happy with the profiles I get with the built-in I-one (non-APS). It has the same limitations as all I-one based profiling systems, meaning a relatively brain-dead method of compressing out of gamut colors into the printer's gamut, but it surely meets my needs. If critical color accuracy for fashion or product shoots is your need, then you'll have to invest more $ regardless of which printer you choose.
Finally, it's a delight to load either matte or semigloss paper at will depending on the needs of the image and just hit the print button.
As far as print durability goes, prints from the Z3100 seem about as fragile as those from my 7600, and not quite as tough as those from the K3 printers.
Given Canon's apparent deafness to user concerns and their abysmal documentation I didn't even consider the i6100, but others on this site may have experience with it.
Just my two cents.
-
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't have a Z3100, but a poster on the Canon iPF Printer Wiki sent me prints of the Outback Printer Evaluation target made on Harman Gloss FB Al on both iPF5000 and Z3100. The iPF5000 used a profile from Booksmart Studio, while the Z3100 made a profile (non-APS). The glaring difference in the prints was in the red strawberries. They were completely unacceptable on the Z3100. They looked ripe on the iPF5000 print, and a couple of days away from ripe on the Z3100.
This was not an optimal test, but does suggest that the reds also suffer on Glossy papers on the Z3100 when the automated (non-APS) profiling is used. Z3100 media setting was "Glossy", perceptual rendering intent was used to make both prints on both printers. I don't know if perhaps a non-optimal media type selection on the Z3100 could be responsible for this difference rather than a poor automated profile or lack of capabilities of the ink set on this paper.
--John
-
The reds need work. It's that time of year in Canada -- autumn -- and prints from the z3100 that should show the brilliance of the fall foliage instead mostly resemble pizza sauce that's gone bad. The only way to get a reasonable print without a bunch of maroon blotches (this is as much a problem of the crappy Monaco ICC profile engine as the printer) is to pull the saturation of the reds so far back that they're not vibrant and brilliant any more, but instead just... sort of red.
This is not a fall foliage printer.
You can resurrect these images mostly by spending time in Photoshop with the out-of-gamut warning enabled. Make some adjustment layers that scale the reds back until the blotchiness is gone. It's not hard to do, but you do have to accept that the print is going to look different than your original vision.
It's great for a lot of other purposes, but if you love reds, this isn't your printer.
I'm hoping the new firmware will have much updated mixing algorithms for reds.
We'll see.
Great printer for B&W -- perfectly neutral prints, and lovely toning. Deep black, but you must use the gloss enhancer on gloss/satin media or the differential is excessive. Once applied the prints are fine. I love the depth of the matte black on uncoated traditional media -- it's amazing. Prints are quite durable once the ink has fully cured -- hit it with a hairdryer if you're in a hurry or it is humid.
New media will also help with the colour gamut. I've got a stack of new canvases and papers to try that is toppling over, waiting for the new firmware. I've got high hopes things will be sorted soon.
I spent a lot of time and frustration screwing with profiles after the last firmware drop. The native engine and scanner are acceptable for most purposes, but out-of-gamut mapping is really bad. I recommend doing manual remapping (in photoshop as above) for difficult prints.
You should temper the above whining and moaning by noting that my customers are invariably thrilled with the output of the printer -- including fine artist repro and ltd edition purchasers -- and that it is an absolute breeze to manage and maintain from a physical point of view and remarkably frugal with ink. We tend to focus on the problems because that's where we expend extra effort in coping; well, this printer is wonderful from many points of view.
-
Dear all,
I am still shopping for a 24/44 printer and have a hard time figuring out what to do.
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
Thank you,
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All papers are NOT universally acceptable on the Z printers. What is strange is there are some in the same categories that work well and others not at all. Some media types show excessive pizza wheel marks, others show the drive rollers, although to a lesser extent. I had some information that HP are working on a hardware fix for this, but I have not tested it , nor have any new information.
I will have to qualify here. The reds on more heavily coated papers are actually quite nice. On the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Smooth or Epson Enhanced matte the reds are good only slightly behind the K3 Epson printers, not at all behind Canon in this respect. Yet say Hahnemuhle Photo Rag or any other relatively less coated papers of a rag nature are not good in reds. Nor are Canon. Epson reigns here. I cannot see anything wrong with reds on satin or gloss though with APS profiles built internally or externally. In that respect Canon reigns, with a very bright red primary. Yet gamut is only one criteria to look for, I still prefer realism over pure gamut, so from what I have seen the HP holds its own against Canon and exceeds Epson.
Yes the latest update to the APS profiling kit has improved every aspect of profiling and is essential for photographic repro. I will agree that the smoothness of Monaco Profiler profiles is better than Gretag Profile Maker profiles or better yet Graeme Gill's open source Argyll but it is very usable and on par with typical GMB Profile Maker 5 profiles. It makes all the difference in the world when using the printer to automate profiles over hand done.
I am not sure that the delayed firmware update will do anything for reds though , as a poster said below. It's more about the media handling, naming, and management over the printer.
-
The reds on more heavily coated papers are actually quite nice. On the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Smooth or Epson Enhanced matte the reds are good only slightly behind the K3 Epson printers, not at all behind Canon in this respect. Yet say Hahnemuhle Photo Rag or any other relatively less coated papers of a rag nature are not good in reds. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neil,
A variety of times (including the quote above, in your Z3100 review, and on an earlier "red matte" thread that I started)... you say that "on the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Smooth or Epson Enhanced matte the reds are good only slightly behind the K3 Epson printers". My experience is more like "significantly behind".
Since these are the two papers that I intended to use the most for landscapes... what are your suggestions of which media type to use (I tried the FA >250g/m for the HSFA without much luck), how to get a good profile, and whatever else might be good to know.
I am wondering when the "latest update to the APS profiling kit" was (I do not have APS). I would happily get someone to do the APS profiling (Ron sent me an APS one for EEM awhile back) or pay for a profile (have people tried this).
I would love to find out I am doing something wrong... so I could fix it. Rereading, I sound a bit aggressive... I do not mean to .
Thanks, Alan
P.S. My greens seem to have a bit too much gamut compared to Espon... something I expect to happily get used to!
-
Neil,
A variety of times (including the quote above, in your Z3100 review, and on an earlier "red matte" thread that I started)... you say that "on the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Smooth or Epson Enhanced matte the reds are good only slightly behind the K3 Epson printers". My experience is more like "significantly behind".
Since these are the two papers that I intended to use the most for landscapes... what are your suggestions of which media type to use (I tried the FA >250g/m for the HSFA without much luck), how to get a good profile, and whatever else might be good to know.
I am wondering when the "latest update to the APS profiling kit" was (I do not have APS). I would happily get someone to do the APS profiling (Ron sent me an APS one for EEM awhile back) or pay for a profile (have people tried this).
I would love to find out I am doing something wrong... so I could fix it. Rereading, I sound a bit aggressive... I do not mean to .
Thanks, Alan
P.S. My greens seem to have a bit too much gamut compared to Espon... something I expect to happily get used to!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Epson K3 inks are in every case going to fetch more density and more saturation in the darker reds than HP and surprisingly Canon, no doubt, and visibly better. By how much it depends on which red, how much transition, and the actual profile and rendering intent used. By looking at soft previews, looking at prints , and gamut boundaries the HP still prints a nice red on the papers listed. Let's be perfectly clear though, as this is not the case with rag papers or at least those I have tried.
I do think the reds are questionable with both the APS, and the built in profiler, neither being accurate , nor precise. For H Smooth FA APS is better overall, but the soft preview is of less quality than the actual print. If I could I would use Monaco or Argyll to make the profiles, but I haven't had the license for Monaco for too long, and Argyll is command line that I cannot use ( Unix illiterate). The latest APS corrected UI things and paper handling, but reds are not changed. I can't see a firmware changing reds once again, as although possible , every action has a reaction and all the other characteristics would also move, normally for the worse.
I spent a lot of time measuring, tweaking, recommending changes for the reds, which were first alerted here, yet before I had problems with transitions that were corrected before the printers were released. I can see that image specific characteristics can leave holes in a global perception of the situation. So it's a good thing that the issues are brought to light, and they can have differing opinions, based on which actual imagery is printed. The sad thing will be that then for some images the correlation will be fine, acceptable, or that the client will pay, or the opposite, which has consequences much more serious for everyone.
What still shocks me though is we never hear about the missing or lesser colour attributes on the Epson side when the users of HP and Canon are rejoicing in printing them. I still would like the perfect printer, one that does it all, and all well. Ideally, Epson Vivid magenta UC inks but with RGBadditional primaries, triple loading as Canon, and the built in spectro of the HP plus true r=g=b grey only of HP in a 18" form factor......
-
Bernard
Other folks have explained their view and these are some hints :
From the memory and if not wrong, the Epsons are off your list because of swapping the blacks. Then the question is 3100-24" vs. 6100 or 3100 42" vs. 8100"
3100 suffers from transporting system, resulting roller marks on some sensitive papers; Reds are better in Canon; Gloss enhancer is a good choice to have on 3100; B&w seems to be better on 3100; Canon is much faster ...
Still there are many other questions which we don't know the answer yet : When the new firmware for 3100 will be release and what might be the improvements. In the other hand we have not seen a full review of 6100 or an in depth comparison between these 2 printers. If you are not in a rush , it may worth waiting a bit more to see some reviews. I consider the 6100 a strong competitor.
For the larger format, the IPF8100 - although not available yet - has 2 other winning points over 3100 : 3100 is 42"and 8100 44" . Also the 8100 might have a considerable lower retail price. This is the case at least with the available 8000.
And if decided to get 3100, it is good to consider APS or make custom profiles.
All the best - Avalan
-
The z3100 is available in 24" and 44" models.
I did some experimenting yesterday with ICC profile editing, and the results are impressive. By creating a extremity reducing saturation curve (maintaining low and mid saturations unchanged while pulling high saturations back somewhat), it is possible to acceptably print intense reds and blues that the Z is otherwise incapable of printing, without blotchiness. Also, by giving a very slight kick to the deep, deep shadows while preserving black level, it is also possible to render a B&W print with acceptable shadow detail when viewed in non-gallery style illumination.
However, the profile editor I'm using doesn't permit hue-specific saturation adjustments, so where the Z otherwise excels in yellows and magenta it is pulled back too far and the prints suffer. A better profile editor would undoubtedly help significantly; my budget doesn't allow for one at this time, however. In the meantime, selectively choosing the stock profile vs. edited profile for prints that need it is a simple workflow -- and easy to determine via soft proofing.
-
The Z3100 44" model is a 44" even if the majority of the papers supplied are 42".
The next firmware 6.0 has already been documented. It is more about paper handling than anything.
-
The z3100 is available in 24" and 44" models.
I did some experimenting yesterday with ICC profile editing, and the results are impressive. By creating a extremity reducing saturation curve (maintaining low and mid saturations unchanged while pulling high saturations back somewhat), it is possible to acceptably print intense reds and blues that the Z is otherwise incapable of printing, without blotchiness. Also, by giving a very slight kick to the deep, deep shadows while preserving black level, it is also possible to render a B&W print with acceptable shadow detail when viewed in non-gallery style illumination.
However, the profile editor I'm using doesn't permit hue-specific saturation adjustments, so where the Z otherwise excels in yellows and magenta it is pulled back too far and the prints suffer. A better profile editor would undoubtedly help significantly; my budget doesn't allow for one at this time, however. In the meantime, selectively choosing the stock profile vs. edited profile for prints that need it is a simple workflow -- and easy to determine via soft proofing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be glad to edit some profiles for you (for free) if you think it would help in the reds you're after. In Profile Editor GMB you can have hue or colour selection edits in an edit list. However PE breaks the profiles, the more you hack the more the profile disintegrates.
-
Bernard
3100 suffers from transporting system, resulting roller marks on some sensitive papers; Reds are better in Canon; Gloss enhancer is a good choice to have on 3100; B&w seems to be better on 3100
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As stated, the z3100 is 44". Excellent built in auto-profiling for the majority of users. And regarding the problems with the transport system that some individuals are experiencing with some papers, there is a fix for this issue from HP that should put this issue to rest:
[/QUOTE]The issue you are describing has been already identified and the solution is on their deployment phase. It is due to the material of the Pinch wheel, the printer mechanism that holds the paper. And, as you said, it appears more in thick papers or in environments with high humidity.
A new pinch wheel to solve the issue will be available during December as service kit, this means that a customer will call hp support and an on-site engineer will come and replace the part.
-
Forgive a little B9180 printer from joining in here, but the red failure thing seems, then, to be common throughout the HP range.
I´ve been knocking my brains out with a series of out-of-focus shots I did of flowers (close-up) and the colours are fantastic on the monitor. However, regardless of how I try to brighten the print or otherwise tweak it away from how I like it on-screen, the reds still suck and the dull, muddy, ´puce´ effect someone mentioned is always there, only a bit lighter but never red.
I´m fortunate that, to quite an extent, my pics are mainly in b/w which the machine handles very well; but nevertheless, it sucks to find colour not being very satisfactory on the occassion when I think I have something good.
Could it just be that the inks aren´t that good?
Rob C
-
Forgive a little B9180 printer from joining in here, but the red failure thing seems, then, to be common throughout the HP range.
I´ve been knocking my brains out with a series of out-of-focus shots I did of flowers (close-up) and the colours are fantastic on the monitor. However, regardless of how I try to brighten the print or otherwise tweak it away from how I like it on-screen, the reds still suck and the dull, muddy, ´puce´ effect someone mentioned is always there, only a bit lighter but never red.
I´m fortunate that, to quite an extent, my pics are mainly in b/w which the machine handles very well; but nevertheless, it sucks to find colour not being very satisfactory on the occassion when I think I have something good.
Could it just be that the inks aren´t that good?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On what paper? What profile?
-
Hi. I'm new to this site, but i wanted to let everyone know that there is a document on HP site that really helped with reds. In fact, they look excellent - yes on matt paper.
here is the link. I follow this always and it has helped all my prints, but really helped on the matt papers.
The document is titled:
Technical Newsletter:
Ability to print saturated red on HP Designjet Z3100 Photo printers
site:
https://h41186.www4.hp.com/Data/printingkno...?pageseq=939257 (https://h41186.www4.hp.com/Data/printingknowledge/Ability_to_print_saturated_reds_on_Z3100.pdf?pageseq=939257)
Good luck!
-
Thank you for your kind answers!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have a 24" Z3100 and could not be happier. Just because there are more problem posts with the Z3100 does not mean it is a bad printer. It is THE popular printer right now and a lot of people have them. You won't see a lot of posts concerning other printers when not that many people have them. And from what I have seen, HP has worked very hard to correct problems.
-
I have a 24" Z3100 and could not be happier. Just because there are more problem posts with the Z3100 does not mean it is a bad printer. It is THE popular printer right now and a lot of people have them. You won't see a lot of posts concerning other printers when not that many people have them. And from what I have seen, HP has worked very hard to correct problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dan,
Not sure about this. IMHO Epson is still the monster and HP a dwarf trying to catch up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry Bernard, I should have been more clear. I feel Epson is scrambling to catch up to HP on features, when it comes to large format printers. For instance, HP has the built-in spectrophotometer, Gloss Enhancer cartridge, matte and glossy black ink alwyas installed, economical ink use, incredibly easy workflow, great software, 200 year ink life, etc. Sure there are glitches here and there, but every product has that. Epson's last printer update was incremental, in order to stop the bleeding of customers to HP. That is my take on the large format situation. I am just glad Epson has competition - that benefits us all!
-
Neil,
A variety of times (including the quote above, in your Z3100 review, and on an earlier "red matte" thread that I started)... you say that "on the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Smooth or Epson Enhanced matte the reds are good only slightly behind the K3 Epson printers". My experience is more like "significantly behind".
Since these are the two papers that I intended to use the most for landscapes... what are your suggestions of which media type to use (I tried the FA >250g/m for the HSFA without much luck), how to get a good profile, and whatever else might be good to know.
I am wondering when the "latest update to the APS profiling kit" was (I do not have APS). I would happily get someone to do the APS profiling (Ron sent me an APS one for EEM awhile back) or pay for a profile (have people tried this).
I would love to find out I am doing something wrong... so I could fix it. Rereading, I sound a bit aggressive... I do not mean to .
Thanks, Alan
P.S. My greens seem to have a bit too much gamut compared to Espon... something I expect to happily get used to!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alan,
I think that Neal sums up the red issue quite nicely. Another consideration that is often overlooked is the coating on the paper. There's a reason that HP supplies their own version of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, HSFA. The coating is optimized for the Vivera inkset.
A couple of years ago Epson was the only show in town so it was easy for all the people making and selling paper to optimize for the Epson inksets. That's changed. We now have three inksets (Epson, Canon and HP) and the best results will likely be acheived with coatings optimized for the particular inkset. I've got a feeling that a coating that worked equally well on all three inksets might be a nasty set of compromises.
With regards to profiles for Epson Enhanced Matte that handle reds better, I've been holding off for the next firmware release as I don't feel like wasting paper and time to create TC9.18 targets and have to do it all over again. I have little doubt I can improve on the last profile I shared with you. It will be better and acceptable but probably not quite equal to what can be acheived with Epson inks. I've just ordered a roll of HP litho-realistic to see if that might be a nice replacement for how I use Epson Enhanced matte. I'll post results as it should be delivered this week.
-
Sorry Bernard, I should have been more clear. I feel Epson is scrambling to catch up to HP on features, when it comes to large format printers. For instance, HP has the built-in spectrophotometer, Gloss Enhancer cartridge, matte and glossy black ink alwyas installed, economical ink use, incredibly easy workflow, great software, 200 year ink life, etc. Sure there are glitches here and there, but every product has that. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, I understand and agree.
Featurewise, the HP is hard to beat, but it feels like a young product still. I would think that they'd be able to release an updated version of the printer that corrects most issues, even if the inkset problems with reds on Matte might be incurable.
My point was, as you probably understood, that Epson still had a much larger installed base and probably more mature products, even if they are clearly flawed specwise for fine art printers (ink swap non sense).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are correct, Bernard: there are many more Epsons in use right now. I just wanted to make the point that there a lot of people buying the HP 3100s now for their large format needs.
-
Dear all,
I am still shopping for a 24/44 printer and have a hard time figuring out what to do.
I was wondering if there had been any recent progress on the HP Z3100 side in terms of:
- print scratching with some papers,
- poor colors on matte (mostly reds if I recall),
- mess with embedded and optional calibration/profiling solutions?
Thank you,
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
If I were you I would keep "shopping" (i.e. window shopping) for a while if that is at all possible. I just returned from Photo Plus East in New York City, where all the vendors were showing their wares and outputs from the latest models. One cannot make scientific comparisons at a venue like this of course, so it is all impressions. But my impressions are clear based on what I saw. The new Epson 11880 with Vivid Magenta, a nine channel print-head (end of ink purging problem) and their forthcoming Exhibition Fiber Paper is hands down the star performer on the block. The reds are outstanding, the detail is outstanding, the quality of blacks is outstanding (in fact the same can be said of the new paper in a 3800 - Greg Gorman during his session produced some stunning B&W prints with this new paper from a 3800 Epson provided.) Now of course the downsides are the size and price of this machine. It is about 14,000 dollars and occupies the same width as a king-size bed, but why I mention all this is the reasonable expectation Epson should be marketing all this technology in a slate of smaller more affordable versions at some time within the coming year.
I think it is also critically important to evaluate the corporate attitude toward customer relations and customer satisfaction in the printer sphere. I won't make any broad sweeping statements about that because every one has different stories about their experiences with different companies. I'll only relate my first hand experience, which is with Epson, and it has been highly satisfactory in every conceivable respect. In my experience, and I've had issues, they are responsive and they back what they sell.
Any one buying a new printer should read the commentaries on the attitude factor for each of the big three and take this into account when making a decision. I think the differences of print quality between them may be less significant than the useability factors and the corporate culture.
Mark
-
Any one buying a new printer should read the commentaries on the attitude factor for each of the big three and take this into account when making a decision. I think the differences of print quality between them may be less significant than the useability factors and the corporate culture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree with you here. While I have had my problems with Epson printers, I always felt that they stood behind their printers 100%. My Epson 9600 was so problematic that they ended up buying it back for full purchase price after many months. While I wasn't happy with that particular printer, I will return to Epson in a heartbeat if their product fixes the clogging/black ink swap issues. They really work on doing right by the customer, and I think it pays off long-term for them.
Canon on the other hand has a technological tour-de-force, but doesn't pay much attention to what consumers (at least those printing photos) want/need. While the service issues with the iPF5000 have been pretty well resolved, we can't get them to unlock the Media Types or even get a serious response from them on this issue.
--John
-
I have to agree with you here. While I have had my problems with Epson printers, I always felt that they stood behind their printers 100%. My Epson 9600 was so problematic that they ended up buying it back for full purchase price after many months. While I wasn't happy with that particular printer, I will return to Epson in a heartbeat if their product fixes the clogging/black ink swap issues. They really work on doing right by the customer, and I think it pays off long-term for them.
Canon on the other hand has a technological tour-de-force, but doesn't pay much attention to what consumers (at least those printing photos) want/need. While the service issues with the iPF5000 have been pretty well resolved, we can't get them to unlock the Media Types or even get a serious response from them on this issue.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John - have the service issues really been resolved? I know they were under tremendous pressure to act on the defective print head issue. But, have they produced better product documentation since that dreadful html manual? Have they issued new firmware fixing the communication of settings between the computer and the printer? And thanks to people like you who did the heavy lifting some stuff got resolved, but look at the time, effort and frustration that was involved. From the day I cancelled my order for that printer, I can't say my confidence in Canon's printer department is restored enough to consider buying one yet.
-
But, have they produced better product documentation since that dreadful html manual?
I don't know, as I don't have a next generation iPFX100 printer.
Have they issued new firmware fixing the communication of settings between the computer and the printer?
I don't think anything is changed in this regard. If you are talking about having to set paper, etc. on both printer and in software, I don't think so. Personally, I consider this a very minor issue. If you are talking about locked Media Types that don't allow some paper paths (a significant problem for 3rd party papers with pre-made profiles in some cases), we haven't heard anything back from them re: our complaints.
--John
-
Any one buying a new printer should read the commentaries on the attitude factor for each of the big three and take this into account when making a decision. I think the differences of print quality between them may be less significant than the useability factors and the corporate culture.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree completely with the above , especially with image quality. There is so little room left for the other two to play, it is only in features that innovation can offer advantages not found in Epson. One could argue for a little more gamut or gamut boundary extensions for an HP or Canon but simply stated , the overall image quality on the majority of media will be equal or exceed all others.
As far as features go, there are a lot of things to look at, each one having it's own merit (s).
I'm not going to say that Epson have respectfully answered their users demands for correcting their own less than stellar engineering on things like black ink swapping, nor adapting improvements for future products. Yet if Canon or HP really would have everything together, then there would be reason for Epson to come clean. Until then they will still continue to be the market leader, and the users will have to accept the good and the less than great things or look at the other two which also have their good and less than good characteristics.
-
I don't completely agree, but the arguments are subjective and each has his preferences, for color printing. You can get great prints from Epson, HP and Canon. Turn to black-and-white, however, and HP takes the cake. If you are printing a lot of black-and-white (I do), the HP z3100 is the clear choice. The z3100's use of only gray and black inks, plus the gloss enhancer (not found in any Epson's I've used), enable one to produce the first digital B&W's that are at least as good as traditional B&W darkroom prints in a production printer. B&W's on the z are free from metamerism and the gloss enhancer has eliminated gloss differential. I have printed the same B&W file on the z3100 and the Epson 7800 on any glossy / satin paper, and it's not even close, the z is a B&W photogs dream come true. Also, been printing with the z since May and still not one clog.
People who are shopping really should just go and have their files printed on the models they are considering. That's the only comparison that matters. If one prints mostly color images on matte papers and already has a profiling system or canned profiles are adequate, one can safely stick with Epson (I haven't used Canon), although I moved away from Epson because of clogging issues with every Epson printer I used over the last 7 years. If one needs to print on matte and glossy, needs good profiling, the z deserves a serious look; and if one prints a significant amount of serious black-and-white I think the z is the only way to go.
-
There is no problem on some media but in an overall sweeping statement (which of course is not a good way to classify complex devices) Epson have the edge. I would have liked to print on Innova Ultra but the Z without the new rollers wouldn't allow it without roller marks. So as much as I love the B&W ability on the Z without the overall scope to print this quality on all papers , it lowers it's score as an OVERALL top performer in the IQ sector. I also think GE is a great thing, for which I have often said is THE greatest feature of the 12 ink system, but it does not eliminate all gloss uniformity, but does reduce it significantly.
I think I said on an overall image quality standpoint, which qualifies what I said. Taken out of context will make what I said to be something very dissected from the truth, which is as always the Z is a very fine printer with innovative options that no others have, nor will they.
-
The reds need work. It's that time of year in Canada -- autumn -- and prints from the z3100 that should show the brilliance of the fall foliage instead mostly resemble pizza sauce that's gone bad. The only way to get a reasonable print without a bunch of maroon blotches (this is as much a problem of the crappy Monaco ICC profile engine as the printer) is to pull the saturation of the reds so far back that they're not vibrant and brilliant any more, but instead just... sort of red.
This is not a fall foliage printer.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just spent the whole day yesterday with a landscape photographer and one of his stunning P45 fall foliage images that was surprisingly hard to print. With Epson K3, Canon iPF, HP Z series and lightjet prints all on the table the reds on the internally profiled HP Z prints were far and away the worst. It's is my understand that the reds are poor due to 1) HP's Orange ink that they call red 2) HP's s poor ink mixing in the driver (more magenta and yellow are needed) and 3) HP's implementation of GMB (not Monaco) profiling technology. Re-profiling his Z series printer externally with Monaco Profiler resulted in a hugely superior reproduction of his fall foliage image. Don't blame Monaco - I've tested and proved over and over again that they are the best solution for HP Z series problems!! Still, the reds aren't like Canon's which are impressive.
-
Where's one supposed to get Monaco profiling tools these days? There's no "monaco" on X-rite's site anymore. My Pulse ColorElite suite got discontinued when X-Rite and GMB merged -- to my intense dismay. Reds produced with the Pulse aren't much better than HP; Argyll does better but is a pain to use. PM5 (several year old version) was wretched. What's changed?
-
While the service issues with the iPF5000 have been pretty well resolved, we can't get them to unlock the Media Types or even get a serious response from them on this issue.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For what it's worth I have spoken with Canon's senior tech reps and the media type limitations have already been internally identified as area to be improved. Canon's other large format printers already have more flexible media configuration capabilities like customization - they just need to extend this to the iPF fine art printers. CanonUSA is hoping to see a solution from CanonJapan in the near future.
On a similar note I didn't realize until yesterday that they now have a dedicated support line just for wide format printers - 800 423 2366
They also have three new US wide format tech reps (one each for the east, west and central) that anyone can contact direct for feedback and support. I spoke with one such rep (Scott Jo on the west coast) and was surprised with his knowledge, experience (he was formally with Epson) and willingness to discuss geek issues.
-
I don't completely agree, but the arguments are subjective and each has his preferences, for color printing. You can get great prints from Epson, HP and Canon. Turn to black-and-white, however, and HP takes the cake. If you are printing a lot of black-and-white (I do), the HP z3100 is the clear choice. The z3100's use of only gray and black inks, plus the gloss enhancer (not found in any Epson's I've used), enable one to produce the first digital B&W's that are at least as good as traditional B&W darkroom prints in a production printer. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is technically incorrect. You have two choices for doing black and white work with the newer Epson printers: Let Photoshop Determine Color, or use the Advanced B&W mode in the Epson driver. Greg Gorman discussed this issue during his seminar at Photo Plus Expo in New York City last week and produced comparison prints using an Epson 3800 with the new Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. I attended that session. As for the theory of which is better, Gorman pointed out that when Photoshop determines colours there may be some involvement of yellow ink, which may have no visible effect for a long time, but is there; whereas, using the Advanced B&W Epson driver, only the three black/grey inks are at play (without tinting), eliminating risk of metamerism or longer-term deterioration attributable to the yellow ink. As for the practical outcome, both prints were STUNNING. Of course there was no HP comparator on the podium, but I think any printer would be very hard-pressed to out-do what Gorman produced with the 3800 and the new Exhibition Fiber paper.
-
Where's one supposed to get Monaco profiling tools these days? There's no "monaco" on X-rite's site anymore. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=148358\")
You can purchase direct from any XRite reseller or direct from them. Monaco Profiler products are right there on their products page. [a href=\"http://www.xrite.com/top_Products.aspx]http://www.xrite.com/top_Products.aspx[/url]
Monaco Profiler is the industry's best kept secret that gives it's users and edge over their competition.
My Pulse ColorElite suite got discontinued when X-Rite and GMB merged -- to my intense dismay. Reds produced with the Pulse aren't much better than HP[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Discontinued but not unsupported. Monaco Profiler's perceptual rendering creates *much* better reds than ColorElite's.
Argyll does better but is a pain to use. PM5 (several year old version) was wretched. What's changed?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Things are changing and merging. XRite and GMB apps are using pretty old code - now may not be the best time to buy any profiling software. Monaco developers are still onboard. Hold on and you'll see good changes. I can't say more than that.
-
I just spent the whole day yesterday with a landscape photographer and one of his stunning P45 fall foliage images that was surprisingly hard to print. With Epson K3, Canon iPF, HP Z series and lightjet prints all on the table the reds on the internally profiled HP Z prints were far and away the worst. It's is my understand that the reds are poor due to 1) HP's Orange ink that they call red 2) HP's s poor ink mixing in the driver (more magenta and yellow are needed) and 3) HP's implementation of GMB (not Monaco) profiling technology. Re-profiling his Z series printer externally with Monaco Profiler resulted in a hugely superior reproduction of his fall foliage image. Don't blame Monaco - I've tested and proved over and over again that they are the best solution for HP Z series problems!! Still, the reds aren't like Canon's which are impressive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not clear if you mean the internal Easy profiles or APS profiles. Easy Print Center profiles are 100% proprietary, APS are co-developed HP X-Rite. Gamut boundaries shouldn't be much different between Monaco Gold and GMB PM profiles as they are dependent on the spectral measurements. The smoothness on Monaco is better than GMB, but the accuracy , not always.
According to X-Rite there will be in the near future some melting of the two prominent apps, so perhaps there will be some trickle down to APS in future (far off) upgrades for APS.
Included is a sc of HP Z3100 Satin made with APS, vs Durst Lambda. HP in full color , Durst in white.
There is a portion of darker than L40 that the Durst covers and protrudes but it is a small angle and not that different. On all the top end and bright reds the Z easily walks all over the darkroom process. Also something to note, most Epson prints repro of red is less than accurate but nonetheless very pretty in it's inaccuracy.
-
There is no problem on some media but in an overall sweeping statement (which of course is not a good way to classify complex devices) Epson have the edge. I would have liked to print on Innova Ultra but the Z without the new rollers wouldn't allow it without roller marks. So as much as I love the B&W ability on the Z without the overall scope to print this quality on all papers , it lowers it's score as an OVERALL top performer in the IQ sector. I also think GE is a great thing, for which I have often said is THE greatest feature of the 12 ink system, but it does not eliminate all gloss uniformity, but does reduce it significantly.
I think I said on an overall image quality standpoint, which qualifies what I said. Taken out of context will make what I said to be something very dissected from the truth, which is as always the Z is a very fine printer with innovative options that no others have, nor will they.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It looks like HP is addressing the roller problem some people are having. Somewhere on here there is a statement from HP that improved replacement rollers will be installed at no charge. I never got that level of response from Epson, but I'm one othose people Epson screwed with the 2000P. Remember that one? One of the biggest intentional marketing scams ever. I did go on to use many Epson printers, however, and tolerated the clogging and got acceptable results, but I also continued to use my darkroom for B&W printing as Epson just doesn't have it in that department. As I have stated elsewhere, Epson support / customer relations is still the worst support I've encountered in any of my numerous interactions with technology companies.
The Gloss Enhancer has effectively eliminated gloss differential for me and my very (sometimes overly ) critical customers. If I have to roll a print around under a spotlight and ask for 5 opinions to try to find something that may or may not be there, it's gone in my world.
All that said, I would just reiterate, that if you're looking to spend serious $$$ on a printer from whomever, HP, Epson, Canon - I wouldn't waste too much time on the forums and the ensuing pissing contests of "HP vs. Epson vs. Canon". You need to have prints made from the type of files you will be printing the most of on each model, see the results yourself and make your choice. The best way is to see for yourself with the files you actually print.
'Nuff said. I'm getting back to work.
-
You can purchase direct from any XRite reseller or direct from them. Monaco Profiler products are right there on their products page. http://www.xrite.com/top_Products.aspx (http://www.xrite.com/top_Products.aspx)
Monaco Profiler is the industry's best kept secret that gives it's users and edge over their competition.
Discontinued but not unsupported. Monaco Profiler's perceptual rendering creates *much* better reds than ColorElite's.
Things are changing and merging. XRite and GMB apps are using pretty old code - now may not be the best time to buy any profiling software. Monaco developers are still onboard. Hold on and you'll see good changes. I can't say more than that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The profiling library in APS is V 6.0x so it is indeed a newer library than PM 5 which uses or used V5 library. I cannot say if that is good or bad, but it was developed after the X-Rite merger was announced.
Yes you are right , in fact it was a lot of the ex-Logo people who left so there will be a bias of Monaco people to make the X-Rite apps to come to be of a very high level, marrying the best from both one would think.
-
Of course there was no HP comparator on the podium, but I think any printer would be very hard-pressed to out-do what Gorman produced with the 3800 and the new Exhibition Fiber paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The z outdoes it for my needs. The 3800 isn't really a comparison to the z. With the z I am getting not just outstanding B&W, but I can get it at the size's I need: 24x30, 32x40, 40x50.
-
You can get great prints from Epson, HP and Canon. Turn to black-and-white, however, and HP takes the cake. If you are printing a lot of black-and-white (I do), the HP z3100 is the clear choice. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looking at prints made from Epson K3, Canon iPF (both x00 and x100 series) and HP Z Series printers on the same papers I find the Canon IPF x100 black and white prints take the cake with the least bronzing and gloss differential. HP's gloss enhancer can help reduce or even help *increase* (in Econo made) the gloss differential - either of which can be nice and that capability is certainly unique to the Z. The gloss enhancer doesn't help much with bronzing though. Papers like Harman GLass FB Al do yield far more bronzing than say Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. I would suggest doing your bronzing comparison tests on the Harman.
The z3100's use of only gray and black inks, plus the gloss enhancer (not found in any Epson's I've used), enable one to produce the first digital B&W's that are at least as good as traditional B&W darkroom prints in a production printer. B&W's on the z are free from metamerism and the gloss enhancer has eliminated gloss differential. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All three printer series have advanced black and white modes that are smart about prioritizing black and grey inks and minimizing color inks. I think it's safe to say that they all make fantastic black and white prints that rival silver gelatin. I do think it's worth mentioning that Canon's new black and grey inks in the x100 printers appear to me to clearly have the least gloss differential and bronzing without gloss enhancers or overcoats.
-
Looking at prints made from Epson K3, Canon iPF (both x00 and x100 series) and HP Z Series printers on the same papers I find the Canon IPF x100 black and white prints take the cake with the least bronzing and gloss differential. HP's gloss enhancer can help reduce or even help *increase* (in Econo made) the gloss differential - either of which can be nice and that capability is certainly unique to the Z. The gloss enhancer doesn't help much with bronzing though. Papers like Harman GLass FB Al do yield far more bronzing than say Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. I would suggest doing your bronzing comparison tests on the Harman.
All three printer series have advanced black and white modes that are smart about prioritizing black and grey inks and minimizing color inks. I think it's safe to say that they all make fantastic black and white prints that rival silver gelatin. I do think it's worth mentioning that Canon's new black and grey inks in the x100 printers appear to me to clearly have the least gloss differential and bronzing without gloss enhancers or overcoats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's what I'd like to see with HP too. Less Gloss differential without the need for much or any GE. I haven't had any x100 Canon B&W prints to look at yet, but would love to see them. Surpising to hear they are even better than Epson which are pretty good without using GE. I find the Z B&W prints with GE very good and before the Canon x100 the best in class.
Thus the problem of third party papers again. I just tried the newest Hahnemuhle 325 g/m2 Baryta FA, and the bronzing and Gloss Diff, was so strong that I had to use GE on whole page. It still shows substantial GD, and some bronzing. Same goes for Harmon but I don't have anything but some scraps of paper as the French supplier never kept his word of sending samples. I did use some Harmon Baryta matte but in my opinion it is a lifeless matte paper that is way to brightened. There I think Hahnemuhle's Bamboo is excellent. The more I print on Bamboo the more I like it. I would like to print on Harmon AL FA too though as the surface is magic.
Oh I forgot, GE on the Z reduces bronzing quite a bit on their papers. Almost completely on all the HP media I tried.
-
I think any printer would be very hard-pressed to out-do what Gorman produced with the 3800 and the new Exhibition Fiber paper.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But the fact that most people haven't seen a comparison on the three printers on the same paper with the same images is a problem! One that Epson and said photographer could be addressing at sales oriented presentations like that. Personally I think there is a great need for such comparisons to be done by independent parities without any corporate sponsorship or affiliation. I do this type of thing for my clients and workshop students so that they can make educated, unbiased decisions but I think we need a larger organization for this type of thing. Funding such an organization and more formal public testing, viewing and reporting is a challenge. Seeing is believing - I like to let prints speak for themselves and let people draw their own conclusions. Boy, if I didn't have to work for a living... Magazine reviewers tend to be horribly inexperienced. Webzines and furoms are full of hype and could be better informed. Today cooperate sponsorships rule the industry and dictate what and who we see and trade shows like PhotoPlus and common workshop venues.
-
But the fact that most people haven't seen a comparison on the three printers on the same paper with the same images is a problem! One that Epson and said photographer could be addressing at sales oriented presentations like that. Personally I think there is a great need for such comparisons to be done by independent parities without any corporate sponsorship or affiliation. I do this type of thing for my clients and workshop students so that they can make educated, unbiased decisions but I think we need a larger organization for this type of thing. Funding such an organization and more formal public testing, viewing and reporting is a challenge. Seeing is believing - I like to let prints speak for themselves and let people draw their own conclusions. Boy, if I didn't have to work for a living... Magazine reviewers tend to be horribly inexperienced. Webzines and furoms are full of hype and could be better informed. Today cooperate sponsorships rule the industry and dictate what and who we see and trade shows like PhotoPlus and common workshop venues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said. I'm not so sure I know of anyone that has all three brands, and makes a totally fair comparison. I certainly don't, neither the space required, time, or even desire to have all three brands. On Dpreview Tom Monega? has both an HP 9180 and a Canon 5000 and his comments are straight and unbiased. Ernst has Epson and HP now and knows Canon quite well too. Of course MR has all the latest and does a very good job on reporting what he finds. Yet at trade shows someone has to pay the lunch.
-
Well said. I'm not so sure I know of anyone that has all three brands, and makes a totally fair comparison. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, through my daily onsite consulting I get my hands on just about everything including prerelease inkjet, solvent and UV Curable printers as well as a variety of RIPs, applications and media. I have Epson, Canon and HP printers in my own studio as well but not every size and configuration - it's printing with my clients that gives me that range of hands-on experience and evaluation prints that is nearly impossible to have otherwise.
-
Personally I think there is a great need for such comparisons to be done by independent parities without any corporate sponsorship or affiliation.....
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=148382\")
Does [a href=\"http://www.wide-format-printers.org]FLAAR[/url] fill the need?
-
FLAAR seems to be so intent on cross promoting themselves and hyping their information that the content is overwhelmed by the form. They come off more as rug merchants or shady car salesmen than consultants. I've been unimpressed by them, unfortunately, as they seemed to be quite promising when I first encountered them. I bought a couple of reports and downloaded several other free ones and felt like I could not trust much of what they said as there was a whiff of some sort of hidden agenda in most of their writing. My $0.02 only, of course.
-Ron H.
-
I have zero respect for FLAAR. They are an embarrassment to those who really do know anything about IT colour devices. Yet thanks to their Google cross ads their so called review on the Z which is simply a statement that they saw it at a trade show still places high on the Google search above other more honest reviews or informative.
They look at only ways to capitalize on any potential sources, not for any relationship to the users.
Honteux we'd say in French.
-
I have zero respect for FLAAR. They are an embarrassment to those who really do know anything about IT colour devices. Yet thanks to their Google cross ads their so called review on the Z which is simply a statement that they saw it at a trade show still places high on the Google search above other more honest reviews or informative.
They look at only ways to capitalize on any potential sources, not for any relationship to the users.
Honteux we'd say in French.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, FLAAR just seems interested in pushing more books and articles than provide any real information... based on what I have seen. The concept sounds nice, but their execution leaves a lot to be desired.
-
Bernard,
If I were you I would keep "shopping" (i.e. window shopping) for a while if that is at all possible. I just returned from Photo Plus East in New York City, where all the vendors were showing their wares and outputs from the latest models. One cannot make scientific comparisons at a venue like this of course, so it is all impressions. But my impressions are clear based on what I saw. The new Epson 11880 with Vivid Magenta, a nine channel print-head (end of ink purging problem) and their forthcoming Exhibition Fiber Paper is hands down the star performer on the block.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Thanks for the advice, it is indeed probably what I will be doing.
Regards,
Bernard
-
...why I mention all this is the reasonable expectation Epson should be marketing all this technology in a slate of smaller more affordable versions at some time within the coming year. Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Thanks very much for your comments & impressions about the trade show. But do you seriously think it's likely Epson will obsolete the other brand-new x880 models (9880, 7880, etc) within a year? I hope not! I have to buy a 44" wide printer in the next couple of months to fulfill a commission for a series of large-format color prints.
I've been planning to go with the Epson 9880 for several reasons, but just today I was chatting with the printer salesman at Calumet Chicago, and he was pushing the HP Z3100 hard. I would like to to do test prints of my work on both the 9880 and Z3100, but I'm afraid this isn't very realistic for me.
I generally print via the ColorBurst RIP on my 4800, using my own custom ColorBurst / SpectralVision ICC profiles (IT8 target). This has come to be my current standard of excellence, so I'd want to follow the same workflow on the larger-format printer.
Fortunately, I have a few weeks to study and research this choice. Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
Thanks,
Brad
-
Mark,
Thanks very much for your comments & impressions about the trade show. But do you seriously think it's likely Epson will obsolete the other brand-new x880 models (9880, 7880, etc) within a year? I hope not! I have to buy a 44" wide printer in the next couple of months to fulfill a commission for a series of large-format color prints.
I've been planning to go with the Epson 9880 for several reasons, but just today I was chatting with the printer salesman at Calumet Chicago, and he was pushing the HP Z3100 hard. I would like to to do test prints of my work on both the 9880 and Z3100, but I'm afraid this isn't very realistic for me.
I generally print via the ColorBurst RIP on my 4800, using my own custom ColorBurst / SpectralVision ICC profiles (IT8 target). This has come to be my current standard of excellence, so I'd want to follow the same workflow on the larger-format printer.
Fortunately, I have a few weeks to study and research this choice. Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
Thanks,
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's probably more reasonable in your case to stick with Epson, upgrade your rip to the LFP version, and continue using the workflow you know. The only change would be now with 16 bit drivers you may not need the rip any longer, and replace it with a PC and Qimage.
That said I like the built in spectro and calibrations on the Z to the point of accepting issues of certain media ( in theory to be corrected by a part replacement) and the overall software being very nice to use on the Z. The simplicity of printing B&W batched with colour alongside is undeniably unique to the Z as well , so you'll not want to dismiss it before giving it a serious look. There are many capable owners of the Z here that could make you a print of your image , yet not sure if anyone has a 7880 yet other than Bill Atkinson, J Holmes et company.
-
Mark,
Thanks very much for your comments & impressions about the trade show. But do you seriously think it's likely Epson will obsolete the other brand-new x880 models (9880, 7880, etc) within a year? I hope not! I have to buy a 44" wide printer in the next couple of months to fulfill a commission for a series of large-format color prints.
I've been planning to go with the Epson 9880 for several reasons, but just today I was chatting with the printer salesman at Calumet Chicago, and he was pushing the HP Z3100 hard. I would like to to do test prints of my work on both the 9880 and Z3100, but I'm afraid this isn't very realistic for me.
I generally print via the ColorBurst RIP on my 4800, using my own custom ColorBurst / SpectralVision ICC profiles (IT8 target). This has come to be my current standard of excellence, so I'd want to follow the same workflow on the larger-format printer.
Fortunately, I have a few weeks to study and research this choice. Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
Thanks,
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brad,
Epson obsoleted its own 4000 model in less than a year when it introduced the 4800. You may recall many 4000 owners were furious with them. I was a 4000 owner but I was not furious for reasons I explained in this Forum at the time. So it's not safe to make any of the usual assumptions about the timing of technical change in this industry. There is some opinion (which will go nameless) to the effect that the new x880 models are interim products for marketing the new flavours of Ultrachrome ink and giving people a wider colour gamut if they think the specs for these machines would meet their needs. There is also a view - on what basis I have no idea - that the technology embodied in the 11880 printers will seep down to the full size range by some time next summer.
I think Michael Reichmann's review of the Z3100 confirms what I've seen that printer deliver, but I haven't seen a hugely wide sample of outputs which really test the colour gamut to the fullest and I can't say whether it would meet your particular expectations. It does lovely B&W work, but so does the new generation of Epson printers. Greg Gorman prints his B&W work with Epson printers, so that should tell you something. As well, there must be other top-flight photographers who print theirs in HP Z printers. All it says is that for B&W these machines are probably in the same ball-park. I don't know whether B&W is important to you.
It's very difficult to give others advice about what to buy because there are so many variables, and each of these variables would affect different folks in different ways. One thing I could venture forth with, however, is a view that if it were me I would be reluctant to let one job deadline determine a longish-term decision like this. I don't know where you live, but I do know, for example, here in Toronto, there is at least one studio from whom you can rent machine time and do your work on their printers. As a one-off, this may be viable for you, and it frees you to take your time about the next printer purchase.
Mark
-
Hi Neil & Mark,
Thanks both of you for your comments & suggestions.
Neil--
>It's probably more reasonable in your case to stick with Epson, upgrade your rip to the LFP version, and continue using the workflow you know. The only change would be now with 16 bit drivers you may not need the rip any longer, and replace it with a PC and Qimage.
Very sensible suggestion to stick with a familiar workflow, thanks. But sorry, what do you mean by the "LFP version" of ColorBurst RIP?
Also, not to get off-topic, but FWIW I would respectfully challenge the assertion that a 16-bit printer driver obviates the need for a RIP. I've found that going through the tedious process of "linearizing" the printer in ColorBurst before creating a custom profile makes an enormous difference in shadow separation.
Maybe in theory the extra resolution of the 16-bit driver can improve print quality. But consider that an 8-bit driver is supposed to be able to generate 256 distinct ink levels per cartridge (if I understand correctly). Realistically, of course, we users often get suboptimal print results with 8-bit drivers, when printing images with only 10 or 20 steps in a particular ink primary (e.g. using a classic "ramp" test image). A priori, I don't see how being able to generate 65K distinct ink levels is going to solve this problem.
My experience is that a *lot* of improvement can be made in the 8-bit regime, using a good RIP & a spectrophotometer. I wouldn't forgo using a 16-bit driver (currently I don't believe they're available from Epson for Windows), but I'll need to see the results of extensive, rigorous testing & comparisons of the two paths before I believe that 16-bit drivers are a quantum leap forward.
Back on topic now...
Mark--
Thanks for reminding me of the 4000 / 4800 scandale. I appreciate your suggestion to look around for a rental lab, but to date I haven't found any in Chicago
Also, I should say that I'm not really in a one-off situation with this commission (as my original posting may have suggested) b/c I also have a major show coming up next April, which I want to print in larger-format for as well.
Based on Neil's suggestion, it feels like the "safest" path for me, in the sense of minimizing the unknowns, risks, and changes, may be to go with the Epson 9880. I would definitely love to have that wider set of inks in the Z3100, but OTOH I don't need the built-in spectrophotometer. I'll be sorry to be limited to PK ink with the Epson -- that still really irks me -- but I guess I'll have to accept the evil.
Brad
-
Hi Neil & Mark,
Thanks both of you for your comments & suggestions.
Neil--
>It's probably more reasonable in your case to stick with Epson, upgrade your rip to the LFP version, and continue using the workflow you know. The only change would be now with 16 bit drivers you may not need the rip any longer, and replace it with a PC and Qimage.
Very sensible suggestion to stick with a familiar workflow, thanks. But sorry, what do you mean by the "LFP version" of ColorBurst RIP?
Also, not to get off-topic, but FWIW I would respectfully challenge the assertion that a 16-bit printer driver obviates the need for a RIP. I've found that going through the tedious process of "linearizing" the printer in ColorBurst before creating a custom profile makes an enormous difference in shadow separation.
Maybe in theory the extra resolution of the 16-bit driver can improve print quality. But consider that an 8-bit driver is supposed to be able to generate 256 distinct ink levels per cartridge (if I understand correctly). Realistically, of course, we users often get suboptimal print results with 8-bit drivers, when printing images with only 10 or 20 steps in a particular ink primary (e.g. using a classic "ramp" test image). A priori, I don't see how being able to generate 65K distinct ink levels is going to solve this problem.
My experience is that a *lot* of improvement can be made in the 8-bit regime, using a good RIP & a spectrophotometer. I wouldn't forgo using a 16-bit driver (currently I don't believe they're available from Epson for Windows), but I'll need to see the results of extensive, rigorous testing & comparisons of the two paths before I believe that 16-bit drivers are a quantum leap forward.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let's see. I did say that with 16 bit drivers and perhaps the use of Qimage you would be able to replace a rip for workflow reasons. With You can linearise the Epson with their utility, but I hardly think it is really necessary with a better separation sent through the 16 bit drivers. I could be wrong but I have seen concrete examples of what a 16 bit driver means to gradients and separations.
You are as many would mixing up various functions all under the guise of 16 bit. The new op systems accept 16 bit drivers which previously was only circumvented by the use of a rip. No longer true, so the reasons of the need for a rip are based on other features that are not available at driver level (yet).
LFP is large format printers, you'll need a license for the larger version , that's all.
The 16 bit driver isn't going to provide many more levels currently available , but will provide extra points of resolution for separations which make a world of difference in gradients.
What is too bad is Epson don't use the spectral information for linearisation per media as the Z printers. Epson denies at this point any need for linearisations of this type leaving the work up to the profile creation. This would be tricky waters to venture into. All I know is the latest printers are performing well without rips. I think for prepress it is necessary for per media calibrations, but I'm not so sure about that for Epson. For thermal head printers it's a good idea. For a heavy user, even the Piezo heads have wear. In that case the Epson utility should take care of that with a LUT to adjust the output back to factory spec.
You are also correct in that a well balanced 8 bit workflow will yield little difference over the same on 16 bit, outside of course the new printers with added primaries. Canon really show an advantage when using their plug in which is a rip with 16 bit for the same reason said above.
Epson have a large gamut considering their CMYK inkset, yet will not have a higher gamut with 16 bit, but will fetch better gradients, less plugging of shadows, etc.
Don't get me wrong, a good rip is something that adds value. Currently it's the only way to save spooled jobs for example, where you will be sure to reprint correctly. Other features of course, easily justify the outlay. It's just it's no longer a necessity in terms of image quality.
-
Hi Neil & Mark,
I'll be sorry to be limited to PK ink with the Epson -- that still really irks me -- but I guess I'll have to accept the evil.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brad,
Don't be too sorry until you've tested the new Epson Exhibtion Fiber paper which should hit the market within the next several weeks. It is gorgeous and would be one reason for me to enjoy the marriage to PK ink. No doubt it will be much costlier than Epson Enhanced Matte (almost everything is), but for high-end client work, and especially for an exhibition you may well find this paper very attractive.
Mark
-
Hi Neil & Mark,
Thanks for your further comments.
Neil, regarding the reputed 16-bit driver advantage, I thought you might be interested in reading this post from Sarah Smith at ColorBurst, which I had completely forgotten about when I wrote to you last week:
I did do some testing a few months back with a full 16-bit workflow and the Windows RIP. I performed both visual and measured analyses of prints, and there was no discernable difference (visably or colorimetrically) when compared to our current workflow. Had there been a significant improvement, we would have moved towards implementing that workflow.
http://www.colorburstrip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1840 (http://www.colorburstrip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1840)
Mark, yes I'm also very looking forward to checking out the Epson Exhibition paper! I've also been toying with the idea of experimenting with Lumijet Glossy Two Sides 265gsm, but am going to wait till I can an upclose look at Epson Exhibition.
Brad
-
Gee........ Am I missing something?
I've had my plain vanilla 24" Z3100 for a few months now and I couldn't be more pleased. Admittedly I don't print much on gloss paper for the same reasons I didn't print much on gloss paper back in the day when I had a wet darkroom, so I can't offer much information in that area.
In addition to making prints of my photographs, I reproduce large watercolor paintings, usually on Premier Artist Watercolor Paper 310gsm, a rag paper with a textured matte surface. Earlier this week I reproduced a painting of a Red Winged Blackbird, which has wing markings including a brilliant saturated red as well as some oranges and yellows.
Based on what I've read here recently, I was prepared to be disappointed; however, the reds were outstanding; nothing like old pizza sauce at all. Compared with the original, I can't imagine how the reds could have been a more perfect reproduction in both hue and saturation. The artist was thrilled.
In short, I like this printer and I'm quite satisfied with the output, especially on matte watercolor paper and satin photo paper. My satisfaction makes me feel quite out of step with the experts here, perhaps because I'm not fully educated. Furthermore, my experience with HP service (both on the telephone and when they came out to repair my earlier DJ-130) has been very pleasant. I have no complaints with HPs service. What's wrong with me? Bad drugs in the 60's?
Would someone offer some hints about how I could further educate myself so that I could learn to hate my printer and the HP company? I'm longing to be part of the "in" crowd.
-
Gee........ Am I missing something?
........................
Would someone offer some hints about how I could further educate myself so that I could learn to hate my printer and the HP company? I'm longing to be part of the "in" crowd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob, you are not missing anything, there's no reason to hate your printer or HP and there is no "in crowd". Your personal experience is perfectly valid in the sense that if the printer is meeting your requirements satisfactorily it is fine. Beyond that, objectively, I've seen Bill Atkinson's printer test target printed in the Z3100 and the reds -and all the rest of it - came out well. I think they've largely corrected that problem. I've had dealings with HP here in Canada on two pieces of equipment (not photographic printers) and I must say once the issue was brought to the attention of the right level in the company they were appropriately responsive.
-
I've had my plain vanilla 24" Z3100 for a few months now and I couldn't be more pleased...What's wrong with me? Bad drugs in the 60's?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't do drugs in the 60's...and I really like my Z.
Fred
-
Gee........ Am I missing something?
Would someone offer some hints about how I could further educate myself so that I could learn to hate my printer and the HP company? I'm longing to be part of the "in" crowd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps.... many of us really, really like our Zs but can see ways to improve it or find additional features or capabilities we'd like to see. Nothing wrong with that.