Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jpgentry on February 17, 2008, 01:40:53 am
-
I just wish the reviews had more factual, usable info these days. I'll leave it at that...
-
"the reviews "
which?
-
MR doesn't do "reviews" in the sense you're looking for. His articles are about his impressions and experience. He's said a number of time that if it's reviews you want with all the gory technical details, there are other sites out there that fill that need.
-
I just wish the reviews had more factual, usable info these days. I'll leave it at that...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not quite sure what you mean.
If you mean reviews of cameras with pixel-peeping technical details, try DPreview. On the other hand, I greatly value Michael's attention to practical issues that don't show up in those other technically obsessed reviews. Like, is the viewfinder a piece of crap, or can you actually see anything through it in dim light? Or are the menus and controls so obtuse that you can never access those spiffy features the other sites drool over? And can you actually use the camera while wearing gloves? I also live in a snowy location, so this is really important to me.
-
I think JpGentry is referring to the iPF6100 review, which doesn't come across as very factual to those of us who own an iPF printer. For individual critiques of the review and alternate opinions, see this Wiki thread:
http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/2747670 (http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/2747670)
--John
-
I think JpGentry is referring to the iPF6100 review, which doesn't come across as very factual to those of us who own an iPF printer. For individual critiques of the review and alternate opinions, see this Wiki thread:
http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/2747670 (http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/2747670)
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
I just read through the replies on the Wiki, and to tell the truth, most sound like they come from Canon fans who'd like an unequivocal endorsement of their machines. I thought MR did a decent job of pointing out the various strengths and weaknesses based on experience, rather than on gamut arguments; and the basic conclusion, that most people couldn't reliably pick out which printer made which print, based on IQ, is hardly biased against Canon.
I had to deal with all of this early in the winter when I needed a new printer, and after some research, went with the Epson 3800. The HP cost quite a bit more, and the Canon (as far as I knew at that point) still had documentation problems -- and I also made my decision based on some comments that you'd made about the difficulty of setting up and using a Canon, which I think was the reason that the Wiki was established, was it not? But the thing that made me most nervous was that there doesn't seem to be any good documentation on the archival quality of the inks. Why is that? I think Wilhelm tested them, but I can't find the results.
Anyway, I think if you read MR's conclusion closely, there is a factual nugget: that experienced printers (and others) asked to judge the final product, can't reliably assign prints to a given printer based on IQ. Of course, MR does mostly landscape and travel, and somebody who mostly does portraits might come to a different conclusion, based on eye judgments. I would be interested in such an opinion, if there's one floating around.
JC
-
I just wish the reviews had more factual, usable info these days. I'll leave it at that...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you want 'facts' read the press releases that many 'review' sites post.
Michael's user based reviews are so much better than most of the fluff on the web.
And contain lots of very relevant real world facts too.
-
John,
I just read through the replies on the Wiki, and to tell the truth, most sound like they come from Canon fans who'd like an unequivocal endorsement of their machines. I thought MR did a decent job of pointing out the various strengths and weaknesses based on experience, rather than on gamut arguments; and the basic conclusion, that most people couldn't reliably pick out which printer made which print, based on IQ, is hardly biased against Canon.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well stated.
-
I just read through the replies on the Wiki, and to tell the truth, most sound like they come from Canon fans who'd like an unequivocal endorsement of their machines. I thought MR did a decent job of pointing out the various strengths and weaknesses based on experience, rather than on gamut arguments; and the basic conclusion, that most people couldn't reliably pick out which printer made which print, based on IQ, is hardly biased against Canon.
Agreed that image quality is probably a wash, with the exception of reds on the HP. I didn't so much disagree with Michael on the facts, as the conclusions drawn from the facts. My summary would read more like this:
1) If archival properties are most important, pick HP. Epson & Canon are both a distant second, roughly tied from available data (although adequate data on the Canon is definitely in somewhat short supply).
2) If avoidance of dealing with clogging is most important, pick HP or Canon. This would be a big issue for me, as I have had clogging problems (some major, some minor) with every Epson I have owned.
3) If cheap/easy black ink switches are important, pick HP or Canon. Epson doesn't cut it here.
4) If you are concerned about weak reds and marks on papers from the transport mechanism, avoid HP (we know the paper marks are a problem, since HP is working on a hardware solution). Epson and Canon are better choices.
5) From the few test prints I have seen, the automated profiling of the HP (without APS) is not of high enough quality that I would want to use it. The prints I saw made with automated profiling were instantly identifiable as visually inferior to a custom profile made with Eye-One or from a profiling service. This was especially true in the reds. Even with APS, you are stuck with the Logo Colorful rendering when using perceptual. Personally, I don't care for that rendering because too much detail is lost in the saturated tones that are too squished together. I always use Logo Chroma Plus (available with Profilemaker 5) instead.
This way of looking at the information shows that each of the printers has strengths and weaknesses in terms of usability. In my reading of Michael's review, the weaknesses of the Epson & HP were glossed over in the conclusion section. When I look at the list of strengths and weaknesses, the best choice for me is the Canon. Obviously each person will come to their own conclusion depending on their needs.
I had to deal with all of this early in the winter when I needed a new printer, and after some research, went with the Epson 3800. The HP cost quite a bit more, and the Canon (as far as I knew at that point) still had documentation problems -- and I also made my decision based on some comments that you'd made about the difficulty of setting up and using a Canon, which I think was the reason that the Wiki was established, was it not?
Absolutely. However, Canon has come quite a ways since then (almost a year ago), and the wealth of information on the Wiki makes this pretty much a non-issue at this time (IMO). I would say that the chief differentiation between the Epson 3800 and the iPF5100 is the roll feed and the space requirements. If you need roll feed and have the room, go for the Canon. If not, the Epson 3800 is a better choice.
But the thing that made me most nervous was that there doesn't seem to be any good documentation on the archival quality of the inks. Why is that? I think Wilhelm tested them, but I can't find the results.
Check the front page of the Wiki to find links to both Wilhelm's results (released by Canon) and Canon's own testing. Agreed that the quantity of results is lacking.
--John
-
I waited a long time for these two reviews to come out when they were promised to come along.
I have no special interest in Canon over Epson, I just wanted the reviews on this site to help me make a decision and there was hardly a fact stated that MR dug up other than repeat what everyone else had already said (a few things actually correct.) Then he touts points of the Epson which they should have corrected a long time ago. People with HP's and Canon's have already passed the discussion about nozzel checks, ink clogs and black swaps.
A 60-64 inch machine is really about production. How about the speed it prints a 24x36 vs the ipf6100. Now someone who prints volumes could have used that info to make a purchasing decision. First he says the Epson is the fastest he's seen, then the Canon is the fastest in the ipf review followed by the fact that he didnt time it with a stop watch. We'll that would have been the very thing he could have done that would have helped me and others preparing to buy.
Other examples of this... why not just grab two papers, profile them and show us a gamut volume with map? How about one matte and one glossy. It sounds like he could have thrown that in his review since he says he's got alot of prints to compare. How about shadow detail, etc?
His reviews seem to fly by the seat of the pants and in some cases reflect the popular opinion of hardward instead of the facts to back up his opinions. If you're not going to include alot of personally uncovered facts you have no right to sway the masses first by saying image quality is a wash and later in the review saying Epson is the best print quality. STATE WHY YOU SAY THAT SO AT LEAST WE KNOW.
Is pixel peeping what I want? YES... You pay this kind of money for a printer and you would like to see a little pixel peeping to make your decision easier.
I'm being critical in hopes it will improve in the future. If the information I seek is posted on another review site please let me know.
-
You raise good points. Buying printers of this caliber isn't cheap and its unusual to find people who have all the various printers in their shop let alone the time to do the testing you (and everyone) would want.
Let me ask a related question. If some who had all the printers in question were to do the type of testing you suggest what would you be willing to pay for the report?
-
$25-100.00 but it would have to be comprehensive and there should be indications of the tests done before I buy. Honestly I was about to send WayneFox $50 just to tell me what his results of speed on the various settings were on the ipf vs. 11880. He's trying to get something more comprehensive but I just want to know the times so I know if the differences are 30%, 50% or what...
If the speed differences were small i would possibly buy the Epson even at this point as it has some advantages over the Canon.
You raise good points. Buying printers of this caliber isn't cheap and its unusual to find people who have all the various printers in their shop let alone the time to do the testing you (and everyone) would want.
Let me ask a related question. If some who had all the printers in question were to do the type of testing you suggest what would you be willing to pay for the report?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
$25-100.00 but it would have to be comprehensive and there should be indications of the tests done before I buy. Honestly I was about to send WayneFox $50 just to tell me what his results of speed on the various settings were on the ipf vs. 11880. He's trying to get something more comprehensive but I just want to know the times so I know if the differences are 30%, 50% or what...
If the speed differences were small i would possibly buy the Epson even at this point as it has some advantages over the Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I've dropped several hundred dollars in ink and paper testing this. I don't need the money, I'm just curious. Hopefully I'll get an answer to one question on the wiki and then I can post the PDF that's ready to go.
As a preview I will tell you that in no way is the Canon faster, unless you are happy with it's 8 pass mode ... a setting I personally never use. Even then, we're talking 66 sq.ft hour vs the Epson at 50 Sq ft per hour at it's lowest high quality setting (and a setting which is higher quality in my opinion), a far cry from the 60 to 70% slower than Canon claims in their competitive brief. At the highest quality setting possible on both printers (2880 dpi on the Epson, 600dpi Highest with precision on, or 32pass on the Canon), the Epson is faster (21 sq. ft/hour vs 17.45 sq ft. hour). Of course you have all those speeds in between ... where to they "match" up quality wise.
What I might add, and please don't take this personally because it isn't intended that way, but most buying this caliber of printer are far more interested in output quality that raw production speed.
I understand pixel peeping is what you want, but the problem is very simple. Both printers have 8 different potential quality settings for high quality papers. Each step down from the maximum potential quality results in faster production, and results in a slightly lower quality image. Still extremely high quality, but slightly lower. The challenge is where to they match up?
Anyway, hopefully I can post the PDF tomorrow.
-
All the speed in the world will not get the clients cheque in your bank any faster if there is fiddling or worse , reprints to make before print delivery.
There are faster poster printers out there, but in our niche group they don't count for much.
Before Canon or HP were actually in this arena, the facts on Epson came and still come from users. Only those with test or early production units will ever have just enough lead time to figure out the true merits of the printers. What changes occur when the printers are shipping then can easily render null the original findings. It is actually a good thing that users post their findings here. The cumulative knowledge has been at it's peak since LL has taken over in the LFP multi brand forum.
Michael's review adds his very experienced user's stamp on a new printer that he has just now had time to get to know, use, learn, and write about between so many other things he is doing, most of which are of benefit to all of us rather than personal projects.
There are others who intimately know the devices but cannot know all three brands to this level. Joe Holmes comes to mind. By being under NDA though has it's built in limits. You'll find limits in any review. Where the fill in the blanks come from are actual users, as each of us use the devices differently. Whereas I don't appreciate magazine reviews as they are obviously succinct reports mostly based on marketing docs, reviews such as Michael's are really valuable as a start point to understanding printers that we are interested in.
-
4) If you are concerned about weak reds and marks on papers from the transport mechanism, avoid HP (we know the paper marks are a problem, since HP is working on a hardware solution). Epson and Canon are better choices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just to put my 5 Swiss "centime" oil on the fire.
In the past (3-4-5 years ago), it happened that I bought an HP PhotoSmart printer in the 800 CHF range (400-500$). Well, right, it's not a "professional" printer but it's also not a "cheap" low-end printer. So? This printer badly suffered from pizza wheel marks on the prints. I called the HP support. They vigourously denied the "problem" but... reluctantly replaced the "defective" printer. The new printer came with the same problem! I had to fight 2 more times for changing the printer! And eventually (gosh!), the 4th printer that I received was free of these pizza wheel marks. It took more than 6 months for the whole process. Oddly, HP claimed several times that my support request "file" was lost and that some of my contacts on their support line "did not longer work for them"... mysteriously. I am a polytechnical engineer and it was obvious for me that there was a mechanical design flaw with their printer. From that time on, I said to myself "never again an HP printer, I don't want to deal again with them".
Recently in this forum, I read claims from people owning a Z3100 (this brand new high-end HP printer) concerning the infamous "pizza wheel marks". This printer is no more a 800 CHF printer. Right?! In Switzerland, it's 10 times this price (at least)! And there is still this "problem" of pizza wheel marks on glossy media. Don't let me laugh! And I also read that some people had to fight again with HP support (in the US this time) for making HP admit that there is indeed a design flaw in their printer. Oh yeah! And eventually (after some amount of fighting) HP changed their mind.. There is a now a new "mechanical design" coming from HP Barcelona (if I'm right). Personally, what I read between the lines, is that there is always the same recurrent problem with HP printers from 4 years ago! A problem also encountered in their low-end printers. Dot. It's a shame that such a problem occurs in their expensive printer dedicated to pro market. Not only there is a design flaw but people had to fight with HP. That's even worse! Eventually HP moved. Oh yeah? Of course! They were forced to because at that level of price (it's expensive a Z3100!), it's assumed that problems ought to be solved: if you bought a Porshe, you are expecting everything to work fine! Right?
Eventually, I went for Epson. Never had any problem with their printers. These printers are not heaven, of course. They have some "limitations" and irritating features (_not_ design flaws) such as wasting black inks when swapping black inks. There is also this so-called "clogging" problem that I never encountered. Yes, there is sometimes some clogging if I left the printer unused for several months. But this is quickly fixed with a nozzle clean up. Is this a problem? It's just maintenance. Don't you sometimes add oil apart from gasoline in your car? Nozzle clean-up is a part of maintaining the printer. It's like cleaning or vacuuming the printer. There is also some technical advantages to fixed printing heads: once you calibrate the heads (= the printer), they remain so forever. If the heads are changed each time you change the ink cartridge, you have to recalibrate the printer because it is not feasible (due to manufacturing tolerances) to get an absolute perfect match amongst all the heads on any ink cartridges.
Now, for replying the original subject header "state of reviews". As an engineer, I admit that Epson does a pretty good job. Their quality checks also satisfy me as expected. This is definitely _not_ the case with HP. There is also some problems with Canon but not to the extent of HP. My job as an engineer is to provide a good working solution to my clients with no design flaws. Today, I see more and more such "flaws" in products coming from big companies. Do not forget that we struggle with big companies. Design flaws in a niche market (high-end photo printers) will not impinge that much on HP revenues. They move because they want to grab some of the Epson market. On the other hand, Epson is not in a hurry resolving the black ink swap problem because part of their revenues come from selling their inks. As for the reviews in general, I think that most of them are biased (IMHO) except for some of them. I agree with many people in this forum (I think) to say that Michael testing procedure is not biased so far (IMHO again). What's important in the reviews is to clearly reveal the problems or design issues, instead of hiding them. A review ought to be the counterpart of marketing campaigns.
Well, all I said is purely IMHO of course.
_michel moreaux
Switzerland.
-
As a preview I will tell you that in no way is the Canon faster, unless you are happy with it's 8 pass mode ... a setting I personally never use. Even then, we're talking 66 sq.ft hour vs the Epson at 50 Sq ft per hour at it's lowest high quality setting (and a setting which is higher quality in my opinion), a far cry from the 60 to 70% slower than Canon claims in their competitive brief. At the highest quality setting possible on both printers (2880 dpi on the Epson, 600dpi Highest with precision on, or 32pass on the Canon), the Epson is faster (21 sq. ft/hour vs 17.45 sq ft. hour). Of course you have all those speeds in between ... where to they "match" up quality wise.
I really am interested in the time it took to print not sq ft/hour calcs. I don't use 32pass on the Canon as I was very happy with the highest setting (for photos) on my ipf8000 before that mode was available.
What I might add, and please don't take this personally because it isn't intended that way, but most buying this caliber of printer are far more interested in output quality that raw production speed.
We'll just have to disagree. The majority of photographers and readers of this forum will not be buying anything over a 24 inch printer. The majority of 11880 and ipf9100 printers will be repro shops. Repro shops will benefit greatly from good speed but with quality results that please their customers. Quality of print is of course a high concern to everyone, but buyers of these 60 inch printers will be much more concerned with speed than photographers printing and selling their own work. The only reason in my opinion people (on this forum) are interested in the big Epson is that it represents the next gen 17, 24 inch. The 9100 prints at a very high quality for this size. Anything more is a bonus which is why I'm less interested in quality comparison. The consensus is that print quality is a wash and my guess is Epson will have a slight edge in gamut though Scott Martin who works in color says the gamut advantages of the Canon are better suited to photography.
The jump in price from the 44 inch printer to the 60 inch is big. The price doubles for only 16 extra inches of width. Most photographers are not going to go there, and subtle differences are less important on images of that size. Gamut of course IS important at any size and thus my interest in the Epson.
I understand pixel peeping is what you want, but the problem is very simple. Both printers have 8 different potential quality settings for high quality papers. Each step down from the maximum potential quality results in faster production, and results in a slightly lower quality image. Still extremely high quality, but slightly lower. The challenge is where to they match up?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A little pixel peeping is what I want from the review sites (a more thorough review.) I really am just interested in the times it took to print an equal sized image from the three or four primary settings of the Epson and Canon. I don't need unidirectional as I don't think it's necessary on the new generation of Epson or Canon as it was on my old 9600.
-
Slaughter, it's hard to find much of anything about "reviews" in your post.
As for the rest it seems that you are happy with your Epson but still angry at HP. You go on to claim things about a printer you don't have upon which you are quick to throw stones at engineering problems which you are assuming are a continued conspiracy that is somehow a carry over problem from the Photosmart you had 4 years ago.
If you really want to know, any printer that uses multiple rows of traction wheels rather than aspiration will run the risk of some marks depending on paper, ink density, no matter what the brand.
You'd be hard pressed to find any transport marks on any of the media that were designed for and available at the time of dev on these printers. Any marks will always be on third party media, and the few that do are enough concern that a solution was made according to posts here.
Is that something that reviewers should put in their reviews? Probably. But it is not a curse as you want to make it sound, but a choice of technique in the feed path.
Where you won't get any argument is with the build quality of the Epson LFP's , they are very well done, and have had many more years to perfect them with incremental changes to where they are now.
-
All the speed in the world will not get the clients cheque in your bank any faster if there is fiddling or worse , reprints to make before print delivery.
There are faster poster printers out there, but in our niche group they don't count for much.
Neil, I've had the Canon for a year and don't do any fiddling. That is an area where I am most happy with the Canon. The suction feature is excellent and the driver is a one click affair once presets for media types are made. I also had the Epson and no fidding. Fiddling hits the HP hard. I fiddled alot with the dj130 and I hear people are fiddling alot with the Z's when it comes to paper handling. Rear paper loading and frequent squewed messges are not issues with Epsons or Canons. Additionally HP does not make the 60 inch size that I'm interested in so the two choices for me are clear. That said I love what I hear about the Z for print quality of black and white.
Before Canon or HP were actually in this arena, the facts on Epson came and still come from users. Only those with test or early production units will ever have just enough lead time to figure out the true merits of the printers. What changes occur when the printers are shipping then can easily render null the original findings. It is actually a good thing that users post their findings here. The cumulative knowledge has been at it's peak since LL has taken over in the LFP multi brand forum.
Michael's review adds his very experienced user's stamp on a new printer that he has just now had time to get to know, use, learn, and write about between so many other things he is doing, most of which are of benefit to all of us rather than personal projects.
I appreciate your comments on Michael. I don't have anything against him and I'm here because I greatly appreciate his reviews. I just wish there had been more put to it and that more balance was included in the review. I also of course greatly appreciate user reviews.
There are others who intimately know the devices but cannot know all three brands to this level. Joe Holmes comes to mind. By being under NDA though has it's built in limits. You'll find limits in any review. Where the fill in the blanks come from are actual users, as each of us use the devices differently. Whereas I don't appreciate magazine reviews as they are obviously succinct reports mostly based on marketing docs, reviews such as Michael's are really valuable as a start point to understanding printers that we are interested in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good points.
-
Fiddling for me is going to happen with any printer. Not necessarily the fault of the printer, as drivers and operating systems cause their own printing problems. Environmental shifts printing image quality quickly so there too you have to take into account these operating conditions. RIPS are by nature things that need to be fiddled with. Cleanings and checks are things too to be done.
Please note, I did not address any particular make, just the way printmaking has to be looked at.
Only those who have two or more current brands can really compare paper loading, for which I cannot. When I did have a Z I quickly learned to load it efficiently, and assume that I am not over-gifted in loading printers more so than anyone else. The few times I loaded on Epson I didn't find any problems either, but I'm not an expert there, not having an Epson LFP. I do like the fact that Canon have triple load on the 5000 done in a way that makes since.
-
michel moreaux,
your experience is the exact opposite from mine so I guess our data together cancels out?
I've had 3 epsons - a 3000, a 4000, and a 7600. While I was able to produce nice prints from all three printers they all suffered from clogs, paper loading problems and many other issues to the point where I would often waste days sorting out the problems and wasting a lot of ink and paper along the way. Epson never was helpful with my problems. The 4000 was the worst IMHO because it would constantly do stuff like work great on one print, then fail to load the second sheet or print half a print then stop or fold the corner over on a print. Sometimes it would just leave marks. The user interface was just stupid and not intuitive. On many occasions I wanted to either bash the printers to bits with a sledge hammer or toss it out the window.I swore I would never, ever buy another Epson after those were sold.
I bought an HP B9180 which worked flawlessly and made very high quality prints without any hassle. After a few months my printer experienced a problem and HP replaced it with overnight shipping. That printer has performed perfectly for me. I've never had any problems. Everything works and works well. The UI is designed well.
I sure hope that HP comes out with a 17 inch with paper tray model like the 9180 or its bigger brothers.
-
Michel, it's hard to find much of anything about "reviews" in your post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No? I just meant to mention that there are quite many people biased (or paid?) by some huge companies just for giving good reviews. I am far from being the only person to think about it. I can even give you reports of consumer associations in some countries that agree with me.
As for the rest it seems that you are happy with your Epson but still angry at HP. You go on to claim things about a printer you don't have upon which you are quick to throw stones at engineering problems which you are assuming are a continued conspiracy that is somehow a carry over problem from the Photosmart you had 4 years ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Come on! Are you blind or completely affiliated to HP? Why are you so pro-HP? Personally, I am not affiliated with any brand. I don't mind with the brand. I just want a tool that do the job as expected with the requirements/specifications provided by the manufacturer. If there is a failure with their specs, then the problem is theirs, _not_ mine. I don't identify myself with my printers, nor do I with my car (too many people does).
Please read this thread in the forum "z3100 current status of roller marks?, any updates or real fixes re?". HP was really reluctant admitting there _is_ a problem. And now, they provide a new mechanical design. I don't need to own this printer to understand the problem. And I really thank a lot the people that has reported this problem in the forum. For me, that's what I am expecting from reviews.
Also, are you an engineer? I am, and I am confident with my technical knowledge. I have more than 24 years of experience. You say "conspiracy"? Are you paranoid? When I mentioned the problem with HP, it is _not_ a "conspiracy" but simply an issue related to money, "$$$". I just mentioned facts. I did not invent anything. Dot.
Producing a new product costs some amount of money. A failure, especially with technical issues, is hard to admit for big companies because there are so many money involved (research, quality test, production, etc). When Mercedes had to call back many of its A100 (If I am right about the model) in the past, this was merely because of the pressure of their customers and several public tests performed by some consumer magazines. I think that your vision of the world is quite naive in the sense that you think that big companies are leaded by philanthropical mindset. Come on! If you think that HP or Epson are producing printers just for bringing you some "pleasures", I think that you are really subdued by marketing campaigns.
Michel, it's hard to find much of anything about "reviews" in your post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't agree with your statement. The thread concerns the "state of reviews" in general. jpgentry wrote: "I just wish the reviews had more factual, usable info these days. I'll leave it at that...". I entirely agree with him/her. What I mentioned concerning HP is just fact. Pure fact. What people reported concerning HP in the aforementioned thread is also facts. It's a fact that the new problem with Z3100 is similar to the problem I encountered with some HP printers in the past. There is _nothing_ subjective. If it's hard to admit for you, then you are entirely subdued by HP marketing ideas and you identify yourself to this company. If you work for HP or are affiliated with, you ought to write it down and admit you are biased. Otherwize, you entirely agree with what I said when I wrote that many reviews now are spoiled by reviewers being highly biased (for whatever reasons of their own) and hiding it (=not admitting it).
_michel moreaux
Switzerland.
-
Actually pal, I am an engineer. Yet I chose photography to be the more interesting route to follow.
I don't want to reply to your other flames. If you don't have anything to say here or if it is crap like the stuff you wrote above and before, then why post at all. If you do, ignoring you and your posts would be best.
-
Actually pal, I am an engineer. Yet I chose photography to be the more interesting route to follow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's right. According to you bio, soon after you finished a degree in engineering, you turned into photography. That makes you an engineer. For sure! Concerning myself, for 24 years, each day, my professional job was to engineer systems to deliver to our clients (projects around several million CHF).
Dear M. Neil, you should learn to lower your arrogance when speaking about domains in which you cannot claim any experience. Personally, I will not pretend I know anything concerning the problems of professional photographers because I am not one of them: I don't do any business with photography.
I don't want to reply to your other flames. If you don't have anything to say here or if it is crap like the stuff you wrote above and before, then why post at all. If you do, ignoring you and your posts would be best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From your statement, I understand that correctly arguing and being refined is not part of your personality. You apparently also prefer direct personal attacks using some kind of puerile mockery: calling me "pal", using "crap", etc. About your so-called "flames", that's you!, M. Neil that started to attack me personally.
The subject of this thread was about "facts in reviews" and the "states in reviews" generally speaking. I presented facts concerning past problems with HP printers and just noticed the similarities with current wheel problems on the Z6100. Dear M. Neil, these are _facts_. From your site, I noticed that you apparently only use HP printers...
Ah, also excuse me, M. Neil, but I am not your "pal".
_michel moreaux
Ph. D Research and Development Manager
Dartfish Ltd.
-
Ooops, I forgot to mention, Dear M. Neil, that you are also strongly affiliated with HP, as many testimonials on HP US official site certifies. In some ways, that rules out any objectivity from your reviews, and let them wide opened to the field of subjectivity.
_michel moreaux
Ph. D Research and Development Manager
Dartfish Ltd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
...all that being said, I'm still not happy with reviews
-
This is too valuable a thread to degenerate into a slanging match. Please cool it or I will start to delete
Chris S
-
I'm currently on vacation, and have no real inclination to drive into the debate or reply in detail to any of the accusations.
But, I will make a blanket statement, and let it stand on its own for now, with more to come in the form of an essay on the subject when I'm back in mid-March.
The digital photography industry is now reaching a level of maturity in certain areas (cameras and printers being the two prominent ones) where image and print quality differences between major equipment maker's devices are so close as to almost be a quibble. As I wrote in my iPF6100 review and the 11880 comments, when comparing prints on the same paper with custom made profiles, the actual visible differences are so small as to almost defy differentiation.
The same typically applies to cameras of comparable sensor size and resolution. Yes, there are a few stand-outs. The Nikon D3 has high ISO capabilities beyond anything else currently available, and the Canon 1Ds MKIII has resolution bested only by MF backs costing three times as much.
Much more important, in my view, are the differences in features and handling, and in printers features and support and operational differences.
A gamut plot comparison was requested by this thread's original poster. In fact I did one between all five printers that I currently have at my studio, and planned on including it. The problem was that in the end, after comparing standard test prints on a viewing box, and having other knowledgable viewers do a double blind comparison, the minor plot differences didn't correlate well enough with the visible tiny differences to make the exercise worthwhile. People would see one plot being bigger than another in one part if the spectrum and likely draw the conclusion that images would therefore reproduce significantly differently. This is not necessarily the case and so I though that showing these plots would be misleading, and they were therefore omitted.
The demand for nitty gritty image and print quality differentiation when reading a review is understandable. But I can't pander to people's needs when the differences in the real world simply aren't significant enough to warrant more than a quibbling differentiation.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with a chaise lounge by the pool in Maui.
Michael
-
Well said Michael!
Have an umbrella drink for me.
Jim
www.jimcolephoto.com
-
A gamut plot comparison was requested by this thread's original poster. In fact I did one between all five printers that I currently have at my studio, and planned on including it. The problem was that in the end, after comparing standard test prints on a viewing box, and having other knowledgable viewers do a double blind comparison, the minor plot differences didn't correlate well enough with the visible tiny differences to make the exercise worthwhile.
Some are blowing way out of proportion what these plots say (not much). There was a time in recent history most photographers didn't even know what the heck they were looking at. Now folks seem to think its an indication of print quality (not by a long shot). Further, if you can't spin multiple plots in 3D, just showing a 2D plot is almost not even worthwhile to a color geek.
-
Hey guys. Everyone's efforts are very appreciated (especially Michael who came up with this great site articles, reviews, etc.) I think I heard it said one time that being a good teacher is helping others appreciate how to differentiate one thing from another.
Yes gamut and print quality are a quibble on glossy and satin photo papers and most photographs look great from all the printers these days (due to the fact that much of what you find in the world falls in gamut.) That said most photographers these days are pushing their images beyond what is in the real world and testing the limites of displays, printers, etc.
When a review is written critical thinking needs to go into what it is that IS different between two items formost. I identified some things that I think ARE different and do matter in my personal images. Some of these are speed of printing, paper handling, gamut especially on matte paper and canvas where gamut is limited and inks will make a difference, etc.
Now gamut plots do say alot on matte paper. If you print on matte canvas there is alot of a tipical image that may fall out of gamut especially in the darker tones. Inks on the HP, Epson and Canon can make or break an image on this limited gamut media.
Anyway, critical thinking needs to go into exactly what situations DO make the difference between two printers as someone may find themselves needing the very thing that they didn't know the competition did better.
Some are blowing way out of proportion what these plots say (not much). There was a time in recent history most photographers didn't even know what the heck they were looking at. Now folks seem to think its an indication of print quality (not by a long shot). Further, if you can't spin multiple plots in 3D, just showing a 2D plot is almost not even worthwhile to a color geek.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
When a review is written critical thinking needs to go into what it is that IS different between two items formost. I identified some things that I think ARE different and do matter in my personal images. Some of these are speed of printing, paper handling, gamut especially on matte paper and canvas where gamut is limited and inks will make a difference, etc.
Now gamut plots do say alot on matte paper. If you print on matte canvas there is alot of a tipical image that may fall out of gamut especially in the darker tones. Inks on the HP, Epson and Canon can make or break an image on this limited gamut media.
Anyway, critical thinking needs to go into exactly what situations DO make the difference between two printers as someone may find themselves needing the very thing that they didn't know the competition did better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course gamut matters. No question there. Gamut plots are always a mapping with some ambiguity included. There is an interesting thread going on right now on Apple Colorsync forum about gamut boundary extrapolation for processing the limitations of the data in the profile. None are perfect. As Andrew said , without a 3D movie of the plots there is little valuable info in a 2D plot. MR said correctly that this would or could be misinterpreted. So while it is interesting and something we do look at very closely, it's relevance to most in reviews is not that high up on the list, although can be a good indicator of other points.
As far as gamut plots on on matte go, the plots themselves are not going to simulate what your eyes are going to see in proportion to the same type of plots on photo paper. The differences between plots, soft proofing return tables and the actual prints are too important to base potential image quality on those details compared to the actual prints. I think that is what MR is saying. Who is to judge image quality better than your own eyes? How one can write that into a review, is something that doesn't take a PhD, but an understanding of the photographic potential of the devices tested. Even then, photographs and artwork printed have such an array of styles and content that it is not conceivable to define every output intent by any single reviewer.
If you have a 3D viewer , perhaps you can find profiles for all the printers you want and compare the plots yourself. On Apple, there is a basic viewer in the Colorsync utility, yet Gamut Works, Colorthink, and others are much more adept at doing this.
Gamut volume is a recent addition to the geeking specs. There too it has only limited relevance outside hard core pixel peeping. It is good for comparing changes in print settings though and similar paper types on the same printer.
-
That's right. According to you bio, soon after you finished a degree in engineering, you turned into photography. That makes you an engineer. For sure! Concerning myself, for 24 years, each day, my professional job was to engineer systems to deliver to our clients (projects around several million CHF).
The subject of this thread was about "facts in reviews" and the "states in reviews" generally speaking. I presented facts concerning past problems with HP printers and just noticed the similarities with current wheel problems on the Z6100. Dear M. Neil, these are _facts_. From your site, I noticed that you apparently only use HP printers...
_michel moreaux
Ph. D Research and Development Manager
Dartfish Ltd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't qualify who you are nor care, where you are from, who you are or pretend to be. Best you leave flaming off this forum. Now I use HP at this time. It wasn't that long ago that photographers had no choice but to use Epson. A rare few have enough space and time to have more than one LFP which most of us would love to do. Don't see your point about using HP printers as adding anything of value.
-
When I make a profile the first thing I do is look at the gamut plot in comparison to previous plots using gamutvision. I print the same images over and over. I know where the problem areas are for many of the most popular images that I print for my artist. Most of the images I print will always have parts out of gamut. The blues/purples are one problem area in particular.
A gamut plot for me says a whole lot but I can see why as a printer for an artist who prints a more limited number of images, I am not in the same boat as someone who is printing so many different images as in the case of a photographer. I think this is why I seem to be speaking a different language on this board. There just isn't a fine art board that seems to have the fresh info on all the printers so I enjoy reading and posting here.
Anyway I think if you look at the plots long enough and you are familiar enough with the images you are printing and the media you can "see" what's going to happen. You know where you're going to have issues.
This is no pixel peeping matter. This means color transitions that are jagged and other major issues with the final print.
Again, when you have a much smaller bucket of color to work with as is the case when you are printing on matte canvas, you appreciate whatever little extra you can get and you do see the difference in the final print.
Of course gamut matters. No question there. Gamut plots are always a mapping with some ambiguity included. There is an interesting thread going on right now on Apple Colorsync forum about gamut boundary extrapolation for processing the limitations of the data in the profile. None are perfect. As Andrew said , without a 3D movie of the plots there is little valuable info in a 2D plot. MR said correctly that this would or could be misinterpreted. So while it is interesting and something we do look at very closely, it's relevance to most in reviews is not that high up on the list, although can be a good indicator of other points.
As far as gamut plots on on matte go, the plots themselves are not going to simulate what your eyes are going to see in proportion to the same type of plots on photo paper. The differences between plots, soft proofing return tables and the actual prints are too important to base potential image quality on those details compared to the actual prints. I think that is what MR is saying. Who is to judge image quality better than your own eyes? How one can write that into a review, is something that doesn't take a PhD, but an understanding of the photographic potential of the devices tested. Even then, photographs and artwork printed have such an array of styles and content that it is not conceivable to define every output intent by any single reviewer.
If you have a 3D viewer , perhaps you can find profiles for all the printers you want and compare the plots yourself. On Apple, there is a basic viewer in the Colorsync utility, yet Gamut Works, Colorthink, and others are much more adept at doing this.
Gamut volume is a recent addition to the geeking specs. There too it has only limited relevance outside hard core pixel peeping. It is good for comparing changes in print settings though and similar paper types on the same printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
A gamut plot for me says a whole lot but I can see why as a printer for an artist who prints a more limited number of images, I am not in the same boat as someone who is printing so many different images as in the case of a photographer. I think this is why I seem to be speaking a different language on this board. There just isn't a fine art board that seems to have the fresh info on all the printers so I enjoy reading and posting here.
Anyway I think if you look at the plots long enough and you are familiar enough with the images you are printing and the media you can "see" what's going to happen. You know where you're going to have issues.
This is no pixel peeping matter. This means color transitions that are jagged and other major issues with the final print.
Again, when you have a much smaller bucket of color to work with as is the case when you are printing on matte canvas, you appreciate whatever little extra you can get and you do see the difference in the final print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I agree in most part. That's why I said no single point of view /review can cover all the types of output intent out there. Art work is a very interesting field, one that is extremely technical , yet fewer forum or reviews specifically for art repro exist as this one does.
Again if you do as most of us do, look into the gamut mapping, things are going to paint a clearer picture of what can be done, and it's potential problems/defiances , agreed as well.
Yet it is still pixel peeping, nothing at all wrong with that BTW. Where the gamut maps, and profile tables etc all indicate the potential output, the real deal is in the print. Many reasons why this is so, the main one is all the data passes through many manipulations and conversions before making the print. How much smoothing, profile creation application special math, grid precision and so forth can all create an impression that is not aligned with the actual output.
As time moves on we see the gamut of source capture increasing and the output doing quite well too. The day when we'll see spectral matching will be a long way off if ever. I have seen some advanced work in this already though and for out of gamut (destination) art work and spectrally tweaked source show surprisingly convincing realism that just cannot be done in the current ICC structure.
Just to make it clear, I am all for gamut maps and other in depth testing results. It is even so much better when someone else does it as it takes up so much time. For specific uses it would be very valuable, but in most cases it could easily be misconstrued.