Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: alan a on October 18, 2008, 08:32:44 am
-
Neil Snape correctly criticized me for not starting a new topic on a comparison between the two new hot printers on the market -- the HP Z3200 and the Epson 7900. I buried my questions in other threads on other topics. So I am correcting my mistake and doing that here. Repeated below is the set of questions I posted in another thread, which I will now go back and delete from that thread. (I hope I'm not causing more confusion and apologize if I am doing so.) Directly below this, in a separate posting, I will include verbatim the response that Neil posted in another thread, so that the responses that compare the two printers can be collected in one place -- as Neil wisely suggested.
************************
There will be many glowing reviews on these two new printers, each one focusing on why this particular printer is the greatest known to mankind. What we, the consumers, really need is an honest comparison of the two models. These two printers cost about the same, and is these two printers that many of us will be directly comparing. Any responses that do so would be a real service for readers of the forum, and I thank you in advance for responding.
Both printers will presumably be great when only using their own branded papers. Many of us use papers from other manufacturers for the simple reason that we think some do a better job than the Epson or HP offerings. And in many cases those papers cost less. We would like to have that flexibility in a printer costing $4,000. That is specifically addressed below and throughout this posting.
COLOR GAMUT AND PRINT QUALITY HP Z3200 VS EPSON 7900
Which one has a better color gamut and overall better print quality -- the new HP Z3200 or the new Epson 7900?
Which one has a better color gamut based on tech specs and looking at tech tests, and which one appears better based on real world printing? I've seen posts that argue that one manufacturer is better in reds, or in greens or in blues. What about these two printers?
PRINT QUALITY USING PAPERS FROM DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS -- EPSON 7900 VS HP Z3200?
How does the Epson 7900 do with non-Epson papers in colors, gamut and print quality and how does HP Z3200 do with non-HP papers?
BRONZING AND GLOSS DIFFERENTIAL -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
The HP has Gloss Enhancer -- the Epson does not. Is the GE on the HP a big advantage or not? If it is an advantage, can you name some of the papers where GE is a big plus for HP -- where Epson doesn't print as well on those papers without GE?
Or does Epson generally do as well on most 3rd party media without GE as compared with HP with GE?
In the sales literature, Epson says that the new inks have "Improved Microcrystal Encapsulation™ Technology for reduced gloss differential; Virtually eliminates any bronzing of basic pigment chemistry; Significantly improves the gray balance while eliminating color casts."
BLACK AND WHITE PRINTING -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
Both the same on black and white? If not, how many hoops do you have to jump through with each printer in photoshop or in the print driver to optimize the printer for B&W?
MECHANICAL ISSUES WITH PAPER AND MEDIA, SUCH AS ROLLER AND STARWHEEL MARKS -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
Epson has used a vacuum. HP does not. Do you think that this mechanical difference results in any difference in how the two handle media? Does the Epson design with a vacuum work better than the HP design without a vacuum?
Which one successfully handles some of the media that have been prone to problems with roller or star wheel marks on the Z3100?
How well they handle the media from other manufacturers? Epson with non-Epson media and HP with non-HP media?
SHEET AND MANUAL FEEDING -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
Which one does a better job at sheet feeding? When you manually feed a sheet, is the alignment almost always correct and you are done? Or is the alignment almost always wrong, and it then requires you to manually align the sheet a second time -- and this happens most of the time?
"AUTOMATIC" PRINT FEEDER AND NO SPINDLES -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
What is the automatic print feeder on the Epson and how does it work?
The new Epson doesn't use spindles? How does that work?
Can the roll feeder be reached on the Epson by leaning over the front of the printer, for those of us who must shove it up against a wall?
PRINT SPEED -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
What is the actual print speed comparing the two printers, In knocking out the same image in a 16x20 versus 22x34 or some larger size? Is one significantly faster than the other?
SOFTWARE AND DRIVERS -- WHEN USING THIRD PARTY PAPERS -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
BAD DRIVERS AND SOFTWARE can cripple the best mechanical design. How do they compare? Does the manufacturer have a reputation for producing stable drivers and software. This is important, because a printer is just a large cube to hold a door open without software and drivers to run it and do so consistently and reliably.
DRIVER COMPATIBILITY WITH 3RD PARTY PAPERS -- Which works better with papers from DIFFERENT manufacturers rather than branded papers? Eposon with non-Epson papers and HP with non-HP papers?
SETTINGS FOR GENERIC PAPERS -- HP includes generic paper types in their driver. Epson never did. Is that still the case? Or is that a non-difference, as you can tell that Epson luster works with that as well as generic pearl, satin, etc?
PAPER THICKNESS in the driver? Adjustable in both?
INK LOADING Do they both include the ability to change to less, standard or more ink? Or is it a non-issue?
REPRO AND ART WORK -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200
Not my area of expertise, but those in this business want to know about repro of detail with super fine screening, and the possibility of 16 bit high bit workflow for highly detailed and accurate repro.
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND TECH SUPPORT -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
Obviously opinions differ. But any comments on this are obviously important, as it is dumb and really naive to assume that we will never have a problem with such a complex piece of equipment. The other issue is the degree to which the printing platform is mature and all the bugs have been worked out.
SPECTROS THAT ARE INCLUDED -- EPSON 7900 VERSUS HP Z3200?
We all understand that the spectro is included in the price of the HP Z3200 and is an expensive add-on for the Epson 7900. And we all understand that the 7900 unit is aimed at the prepress, RIP, and proofing professional business. Nonetheless, it is a very nice feature to have on-board automated profiling of papers -- as the Z3100 has demonstrated. Many of us may later add on the Epson profiling device even given the cost difference. A critical question is therefore whether the Epson spectro can be used for the profiling of papers, and how well it works for that purpose or whether it is only suitable for proofing work.
So, acknowledging the price difference, how do the two units compare for profiling papers if someone who purchases the 7900 decides to also buy the spectro? If someone chose to pay the difference and buy Epson anyway, how do the two spectros and their software compare for PROFILING PAPERS?
MECHANICAL DESIGN -- The biggest difference is that Epson uses a more expensive and removable spectro, whereas HP uses a built-in spectro at a significantly lower price that is included in the price of the printer.
How easy to take the Epson on and off the printer? Fast and easy or time consuming and a big operaton? The Epson apparently includes something to dry the prints, based on sales literature? What exactly does it do, and how does it do it?
Is the Epson design superior because it is removable, includes more features, and is not in the path of spraying ink, or is it just more expensive?
HP includes their spectro in the print head. Does the HP unit ever suffer from ink spraying on the spectro? Problems with lens alignment or fouling? It would logically seem that should happen. Does it?
SOFTWARE AND TARGETS -- How sophisticated is the software that drives the spectro? If it is a basic version, it might produce basic profiles.
How large is the target? How many color patches does it print and measure? There is apparently an important correlation in this regard, and a small target results in poor profiles.
Does the software include features to fine tune the profile after it is produced?
Does the software include options to change from D50 to D65, or change the gray balance, etc?
Critically, can it print and measure targets on smaller sheets? The earliest version of the APS from HP could only do it on 24" rolls, so if you decided to try out a new paper in a smaller size, whether sheets or rolls, you couldn't profile it. (HP revised the APS to correct that problem.)
-
Here is the response from Neil Snape to some of the above questions as posted in another thread. I have copied verbatim with no editing.
*********************
Many questions that all interested in a LFP should have. I want to add what I know so far. Real world tests will come after.
I'll just cut and add in the below quote....(Responses from Neil in bold)
QUOTE (alan a @ Oct 18 2008, 03:41 AM) *
I am interested in both, and in a comparison on the following, since they both sell at about the same price:
Which one has a better color gamut -- the new HP 3200 or the new HP 7900?
Different gamuts , different extensions, both good, both more than enough for most printing. What is and has been obvious is the ability of Epson to print well on any media you throw at it. HP does well on certain papers with GE that Epson struggle with. Nothing to do with gamut but to do with media types. Gamut cannot be disassociated with media types, hence the GE although almost neutral is an ink advantage on some media. Epson have the edge on other media especially matte papers in saturated three quarter tone on downward. This is a result not only being ink but also that of software, color maps, hardware tech.
Which one has a better color gamut based on tech specs and looking at tech tests, and which one appears better based on real world printing? I've seen posts that argue that one manufacturer is better in reds, or in greens or in blues. What about these two printers?
Again which images, what is the reference, what is the viewing goal. Better is subjective. Accurate is objective but only an indication of the visual appearance that again becomes subjective. True the HP has a very natural realistic green output in all the greens you would see in landscapes, leaves etc. I didn't see anything to say the x900 would not produce images in that range that would not equal or surpass that of the 78800 etc, but the increase in greens with Epson x900 is in areas that were not really a problem in for the K3, and VM inkset before. Where Epson say the new printers are for prepress, there is a misnomer as they can print everything as before just that much better, but the new big change is the additional purity in flat colours large areas of less modulation that take over in saturated areas, and not so saturated areas alike.
So better needs to be referenced to the image type. If so the Epson has everything it needs to produce great imagery, and vector art, and everything in between. HP can do well on photo papers, but will not do as well on less than ideal coated surfaces including very diffuse matte paper, some third party media, but otherwise can do just as well in particular on optimised OEM media. Where Epson will and still do have a big advantage is in the repro of detail with super fine screening, and the possibility of 16 bit ( I don't know what the actual screen depth is ) with high bit workflow for highly detailed and accurate repro.
Both the same on black and white?
Hmmm. HP have an interesting trick> when the rgb numbers are equal the printer simply runs pure and total GCR , in other words, you have only blacks going into greyscales or the areas of grey. The HP greys are a tad blue, but very neutral throughout.
Epson to get that type of black only printing you need to print as ABW. Epson have much much less gloss differential and almost no bronzing so the output is neutral at more angles than HP which without Gloss Enhancer is well, not very good. The max density on Epson is now higher than HP, but both are very black. Both have very good Dmax and D range on matte papers. Detail is again finer on the Epson depending on the driver settings of course. When you print on Epson with the settings for finest detail, the drop size allows rendering of fine contrast areas possible with the smallest droplet size.
To recap, the Epson on photo media will be an almost ideal B&W without the use of a fragile Gloss Enhancer. On the other hand, HP can batch print B&W side by side full colour with GE which in most cases has reduced gloss diff, reduced bronzing. both of which are almost eliminated on optimised media.
Which one successfully handles some of the media that have been prone to problems with roller or star wheel marks on the Z3100 and, I believe, to some degree with Epson?
HP does not use aspirated media feed. This is surely needed on some media. The star wheel marks are noticeable only on some media, and under some conditions, other than if you have defective roller assembly/carriage planety.
What about the mechanical operation? Epson has used a vacuum. HP does not. Is that still the case? Do you think that this mechanical difference results in any difference in how the two handle media?
See above.
Some of us would like to know about the new spectro on the Epson. I recognize that Schewe says it is not recommended for simple profiling of papers at the price, but it would still be useful to know how the two units in the two printers compare. How easy to take on and off in the case of Epson? How does Epson compare to the APS software used by HP? What is the number of color calibration squares used by both -- how large is the largest target? Which is better for how large the color target is? Which calibration software and hardware works better?
At this time the Epson spectro doesn't look interesting for photographic repro. Will they offer an SDK for third party dev?
In any case it's off to a false start which is unusual for Epson. Are there some impending patent problems? Likely.
You should assume that they will not be leaving the spectro as a prepress RIP accessory for ever.
The HP spectro/APS set up is really really nice. It does have its long term questions though like calibration, lens cleanliness, alignment. The spectro is on all Z models, APS costs just a little more than the i1D2 that is included. You can like or dislike the profiles created by LOGO libraries, equivalent to Profile Maker.
HP includes their spectro in the print head. Does it ever suffer from ink spraying on the spectro? It would logically seem that should happen. Does it? Is the Epson design, that is removable, superior, or just more expensive?
Yes see above.
What about the drivers? HP apparently includes generic paper types. Epson does not -- correct? Or is that a non-difference, as you can tell that Epson luster works with that as well as generic pearl, etc?
It is not a problem on Epson drivers with any printers I know. Why should it be with the 7900?
What about paper thickness in the driver? Adjustable in both printers?
HP drivers are less user adjustable as they are included in the media presets. Don't forget the Z accepts a max thickness of 0.8mm otherwise you risk roller marks of all sorts. Epson need and do employ platen gap to it's advantage with all the LFPs.
What about less, standard or more ink settings? Do they both include that? Or is it a non-issue?
On HP you can have some funky results when you touch any of these. Since I've always relied on custom profiles I think there would be less problems in linearised graduations printing smoothly without adjusting these sliders. Yet maybe that's just me.
-
HP does well on certain papers with GE that Epson struggle with. Nothing to do with gamut but to do with media types. Gamut cannot be disassociated with media types, hence the GE although almost neutral is an ink advantage on some media. Epson have the edge on other media especially matte papers in saturated three quarter tone on downward. This is a result not only being ink but also that of software, color maps, hardware tech. Epson have much much less gloss differential and almost no bronzing so the output is neutral at more angles than HP which without Gloss Enhancer is well, not very good. To recap, the Epson on photo media will be an almost ideal B&W without the use of a fragile Gloss Enhancer. On the other hand, HP can batch print B&W side by side full colour with GE which in most cases has reduced gloss diff, reduced bronzing. both of which are almost eliminated on optimised media.
At this time the Epson spectro doesn't look interesting for photographic repro. Will they offer an SDK for third party dev?
In any case it's off to a false start which is unusual for Epson. Are there some impending patent problems? Likely.
You should assume that they will not be leaving the spectro as a prepress RIP accessory for ever.
Neil --
Thanks very much for the excellent and detailed response! Greatly appreciated!
Can you offer some examples of the papers that HP "does well on" and that "Epson struggle with." This is an important issue for many of us.
Which papers specifically does HP do better with (with or without GE?) as compared with "Epson struggle with?"
Also where "GE is an ink advantage on some media." Also that "Epson have much less gloss differential and almost bronzing" --
That suggests that GE is not needed on Epson and may not be that big an advantage as compared with the fact that it is included on HP?
On the whole, for most Epson and non-Epson papers, does Epson without GE do a good job for color and BW work on photo papers as compared with the results on the HP Z3200?
On the spectro you said "At this time the Epson spectro doesn't look interesting for photographic repro. Will they offer an SDK for third party dev? In any case it's off to a false start which is unusual for Epson."
Why doesn't it look interesting for photo repro? Because of the expense?
Or are you suggesting that even the high price, it just doesn't work well for profiling papers?
-
Why doesn't it look interesting for photo repro? Because of the expense?
The onboard accessory spectro is designed for the needs of a proofing biz in that it's designed to do linearizations needed by RIPs and the making of RIP profiles for simulating various offset papers.
Also understand that Epson making this unit available is NOT because Epson photo printers NEED it. Epson's unit to unit variation is a very, very low Delta E where Canon and HP pigment printers tend to be very different. So, if you are using Epson papers and use the Epson provided profiles (which have been very good that last couple of rounds of printers) you really don't have to make "custom" profiles. If you are using 3rd party papers then yes, you'll need custom profiles but there are plenty of lower cost solutions for photo printing profiles than the Epson spectro.
The spectro is really designed to be a useful and needed piece of equipment that proofing houses need. And, while the 79/9900 printers themselves make for really nice photo printers, they were first and foremost designed to suit the needs of the proofing industry. Epson will, I think, NOT suggest the spectros for general purpose and photo printers. That's one of the reasons that the cost is so high. For the proofing industry, these printers are a drop in the bucket and the added cost of the spectros are no skin off their noses.
NOTE: the form and manner in which you've asked a vast multitude of questions in one SOLID block makes for very difficult reading and answering...you really might concentrate you questions on similar topics and keep them simple to make it easy to get your answers. Seriously, my eyes glazed over trying to read your original post...
-
The onboard accessory spectro is designed for the needs of a proofing biz in that it's designed to do linearizations needed by RIPs and the making of RIP profiles for simulating various offset papers. The spectro is really designed to be a useful and needed piece of equipment that proofing houses need.
So, if you are using Epson papers and use the Epson provided profiles (which have been very good that last couple of rounds of printers) you really don't have to make "custom" profiles. If you are using 3rd party papers then yes, you'll need custom profiles but there are plenty of lower cost solutions for photo printing profiles than the Epson spectro.
NOTE: the form and manner in which you've asked a vast multitude of questions in one SOLID block makes for very difficult reading and answering...you really might concentrate you questions on similar topics and keep them simple to make it easy to get your answers. Seriously, my eyes glazed over trying to read your original post...
To address the last suggestion, I went back and reorganized the posting by topics as per your suggestion. I hope that helps.
I am seriously considering the Epson rather than the HP. I am admitting that bias to you because I want you to understand that my questions are not intended to be slanted against Epson. I nonetheless tried to pose my questions in a fair manner. The simple facts need to be addressed. HP has Gloss Enhancer and Epson does not. HP has an on-board spectro that is included in the price whereas the Epson unit is an add on at a high price, and most critically, no one has yet forthrightly addressed its abilities to profile papers. On the other hand, Epson has a vacuum, whereas HP does not. That appears to make a big difference in the ability to handle a wide range of media without all of the reported problems with the HP printers related to starwheels and pinch roller marks. Finally, the HP Z3100 is terrible for manual loading of sheets. Any fair list of questions must cover those issues.
So, on those three issues:
(1) SPECTRO -
The spectro happens to be a key question, at least for me. There will be some of us who would buy the Epson spectro even at the high cost. Or we at least want to have the option. The HP Z3100 has demonstrated how convenient it is to have an automated on-board spectro. Yes, I understand that there are many other profiling packages, and I own one that I could use for that purpose. I also understand that I could just limit myself to Epson papers and profiles, but I won't do that, and very few would do so when spending $4,000 on a printer.
So I would still like to know whether --regardless of the price -- the Epson spectro can profile papers, and do it as well as the APS software used with the Z3100 and 3200?
I'm honestly confused by the responses from you and Neil. Both of you continue to report that it is primarily aimed at the proofing business and for RIP simulations. Neil appears to suggest that it might not even work for profiling papers (although I might have misunderstood). I have limited knowledge of RIPS and proofing. Does that mean that a device that is made for those uses can automatically profile papers, or possibly can't do it at all?
Jeff, you might not be able to speak to the comparison between HP and Epson, but you can let us know if the Epson can even do the job to profile papers, and if so, how well? Not just that it is designed for professional proofing.
Here are the questions posed, specifically on the Epson spectro:
How easy to take the Epson on and off the printer? Fast and easy or time consuming and a big operaton? The Epson apparently includes something to dry the prints, based on sales literature? What exactly does it do, and how does it do it?
Is the Epson design superior because it is removable and thus not in the path of spraying ink, or just more expensive?
What is the number of color calibration squares used by Epson -- how large is the largest target?
For the price, the Epson software should be the equivalent of a top-of-the-line Xrite or Gretag profiling package, at least for papers. Is it?
We need to know if Epson just plain can't do a good job of profiling papers with the add-on hardware and software, in which case that might be an Achilles heel, or whether it is a first rate package in light of the price.
(2) GLOSS DIFFERENTIAL AND BRONZING
The other important issue is that of bronzing and gloss differential on photo papers. The HP GE can really help in this area. But it appears that well designed inks and drivers can address the problem as well, even with 3rd party papers -- and recent innovations in ink and printer design have gone a long way in this regard since the Epson 4000.
Since Epson does not have GE, any reports on its abilities to print on 3rd party photo media are obviously important. As quoted in my newly revised post, Epson claims that their new inks reduce or eliminate these problems.
But is that true with non-Epson media as well?
(3) VACUUM AND PAPER PATH
Finally, mechanical marks on paper pretty well cripples a printer. Those problems have been widely discussed in this forum with regards to the HP Z3100. Epson may have the advantage in that area if the 7900 uses a vacuum and wider platen as in previous models. Does it?
It is a pain to manually load sheets on the Z3100, since you almost always have to correct the alignment. How easy is it load sheets in the new Epson, and do they correctly align the first time and every time; or align correctly most of the time when first loaded; or only a minority of the time, or none of the time and must always be reloaded and realigned?
-
Here is the response from Neil Snape to some of the above questions as posted in another thread. I have copied verbatim with no editing.
*********************
Where Epson will and still do have a big advantage is in the repro of detail with super fine screening, and the possibility of 16 bit ( I don't know what the actual screen depth is ) with high bit workflow for highly detailed and accurate repro.
Can someone give me some further information regarding this? I am trying to decide between these two printers too strictly for art repro. On the HP website it states "support for 16-bit TIFF and JPEG files are standard on HP Designjet Z3200ps Photo printers only", so how exactly is this different than what Epson offers?
-
(1) SPECTRO -
The spectro happens to be a key question, for me personally.
The spectro is designed specifically for the proofing industry. The ONLY people who have advance versions of the spectro are people _IN_ the proofing industry. To my knowledge there are only 3 or 4 people who are testing early prerelease units for fine art.
So...you questions can't be answered (unless somebody from the proofing industry also frequents these forums).
But the spectro really should NOT be a factor in the decision on these printers...get yourself ProfileMaker & an i1iSis (even if you DO get an HP) because these will be far better (and more useful) than an onboard spectro. Seriously, this is NOT a factor you should be weighing...
(2) GLOSS DIFFERENTIAL AND BRONZING
HP MUST include a gloss agent because otherwise their pigment prints look awful. Epson pigment inks do not and the Ultrachrome HDR inks are improved over even the K3 inks...
(3) VACUUM AND PAPER PATH
The Epson's are capable of very fine detail and the new Epsons use new math for even finer detail and 360 nozzles/inch. Epson felt the need to have a very accurate paper feed so that the stepper motors could move the paper even more accurately. And the 7900 I have does that...more detail and less "grain" than the 7880 I just got rid of...the 7900 is also very quiet, and faster than the 7880. No shaking, the printer itself is rock solid (and very heavy) because of the head track that is needed for fine control.
Look, these printer are not shipping...so, the amount of information is very small. You are just gonna have to wait, see one for yourself and then decide. I'm more than happy to talk about stuff, but you really need to ask precise questions that are simple and easy to answer, otherwise I won't bother.
-
But the spectro really should NOT be a factor in the decision on these printers...get yourself ProfileMaker & an i1iSis (even if you DO get an HP) because these will be far better (and more useful) than an onboard spectro. Seriously, this is NOT a factor you should be weighing...
Look, these printer are not shipping...so, the amount of information is very small. You are just gonna have to wait, see one for yourself and then decide. I'm more than happy to talk about stuff, but you really need to ask precise questions that are simple and easy to answer, otherwise I won't bother.
Jeff, thanks very much for your response. Greatly appreciated.
I didn't know that you don't have one of the spectros, as that was not clear in your previous responses, which is why I asked my questions. I incorrectly assumed you had one of the spectros. I still greatly appreciate your response.
There are many readers of the forum who will never have the ability to see one of these printers. We don't all live in LA, Chicago, NYC or a large metro area. For those who live in small towns, small cities or rural areas, we must rely on the opinions and reviews of people like you, for better or for worse. We will be ordering the printer and having it shipped to us. So it is, in fact, impossible for many to go "kick the tires" and see the printer in operation.
That's why I tried, however unsuccessfully, to pose precise questions. My knowledge is limited, and in some cases I may not know what to ask. To quote an old expression, admitting what you don't know is as important as proclaiming what you do know. I at least admitted that I don't know if something that works for RIPs and proofing also works for paper profiling. That might be a dumb question, but at least I admitted my ignorance.
For better or worse, I asked the most precise questions I could. I shall not bother you again, but still appreciate your response.
P.S. I looked up the i1iSis on the Xrite web site. I found two models selling for $4,160 and $5,200. Not exactly a very practical option, since both cost as much as the printer itself.
More practical options that are reasonably advanced -- but manual -- have an MSRP of $1,500. That happens to be the same price as the Epson unit for the 7900. Therefore, the choices that we all have are (1) to buy the HP with a built in spectro for the same price as the Epson printer itself; (2) buy the Epson spectro once we have more information and know whether it even works for paper profiling and if so, how well it works; or (3) buy a manual package where we have to manually print and measure the patches -- even for $1,500.
I've done option three -- manually reading patches. A real pain. If the Epson spectro can't do the job for $1,500 (and we won't know until more information is available), then my advice is to buy the HP Z3200 unless you are prepared to manually read the patches.
-
Jeff, thanks very much for your response. Greatly appreciated.
I didn't know that you don't have one of the spectros, as that was not clear in your previous responses, but still greatly appreciate your response.
There are many readers of the forum who will never have the ability to see one of these printers. We don't all live in LA, Chicago, NYC or a large metro area. For those who live in small towns, small cities or rural areas, we must rely on the opinions and reviews of people like you, for better or for worse. We will be ordering the printer and having it shipped to us. So it is, in fact, impossible for many to go "kick the tires" and see the printer in operation.
That's why I tried, however unsuccessfully, to pose precise questions. My knowledge is limited, and in some cases I may not know what to ask. To quote an old expression, admitting what you don't know is as important as proclaiming what you do know. I shall not bother you again, and appreciate your response.
P.S. I looked up the i1iSis on the Xrite web site. I found two models selling for $4,160 and $5,200. Not exactly a very practical option, since both cost as much as the printer itself.
Alan,
You did a beautiful job with posing a set of questions that I suspect many of us here would love to have answered as we plan our LFP purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, it appears that we will need to wait for a detailed comparative review written by someone with access to both printers and who is skilled at writing such reviews. The beta testers are not necessarily the review writers. (Although I hasten to add that I appreciate the comments from Neil and Jeff, however sparse. After all, is their prerogative to say as much or as little as they wish.)
In an ideal world, Epson and HP would have shipped the printers to Michael Reichmann at the same time as they shippped to the beta testers. (Maybe they did, for all we know, and Michael is just finishing up his review; but somehow I doubt it.) The manufacturers may not wish for reviews to be published before they correct the final bugs discovered by the beta testers.
IMO these are casualties of Epson (and maybe HP too) having pre-announced these products an outrageously long time before the product availability.
Bruce
-
That happens to be the same price as the Epson unit for the 7900. Therefore, the choices that we all have are (1) to buy the HP with a built in spectro for the same price as the Epson printer itself; (2) buy the Epson spectro once we have more information and know whether it even works for paper profiling and if so, how well it works; or (3) buy a manual package where we have to manually print and measure the patches -- even for $1,500.
I've done option three -- manually reading patches. A real pain. If the Epson spectro can't do the job for $1,500 (and we won't know until more information is available), then my advice is to buy the HP Z3200 unless you are prepared to manually read the patches.
There is also the option (4) - to purchase the Epson 7900 and post away test targets to someone who has a reputation of making good profiles.
Most often a person who has a good reputation for making profiles knows a lot more about colour, making profiles and tweaking it after you have tried it, than both you and I... well me in particular. So I vote for getting the printer you like the printed result of best in conjunction with ease of purchase and agent support, print a test target, let your test sample dry for 24 hours, then post it off and get your profile done that way. Not an instant profile, but another feasible option.
Julie
-
Alan,
You did a beautiful job with posing a set of questions that I suspect many of us here would love to have answered as we plan our LFP purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, it appears that we will need to wait for a detailed comparative review written by someone with access to both printers and who is skilled at writing such reviews. The beta testers are not necessarily the review writers. (Although I hasten to add that I appreciate the comments from Neil and Jeff, however sparse. After all, is their prerogative to say as much or as little as they wish.)
In an ideal world, Epson and HP would have shipped the printers to Michael Reichmann at the same time as they shippped to the beta testers. (Maybe they did, for all we know, and Michael is just finishing up his review; but somehow I doubt it.) The manufacturers may not wish for reviews to be published before they correct the final bugs discovered by the beta testers.
IMO these are casualties of Epson (and maybe HP too) having pre-announced these products an outrageously long time before the product availability.
Bruce
Bruce, thanks for the compliment. Hopefully the reviewers will read read this forum and see that list of questions -- I will continue to add to the list as I see other postings below mine, so the list might reflect everyone's concerns. I tried to post a fair and objective list, for what that is worth.
The problem with the reviewers is that they get free equipment, and then just praise the printer or camera. Or they praise it to get advertising revenue from the company in question. I note that this issue, of people getting free product, and not disclosing that fact, has been a point of controversy in this forum. (I'm not taking sides on that controversy, only noting that it exists. Also, that is not the case with Jeff Schewe, as he openly acknowledges his work with Epson. With regards to Michael Reichmann, he does publish critical reviews and I commend him for that. This web site does not obtain revenue from advertising, so that is not an issue.)
I'm hoping for the impossible. That someone with both printers will actually do an honest printer versus printer review, and actually compare the two units.
For that matter, an honest review of the 7900 with spectro versus the Z3100 would be great, since we can then mentally note where the 3200 has included improvements as compared with the 3100, such as in the reds.
Hopefully Michael Reichmann, who I believe has a Z3100, will do just that -- publish an honest and critical comparison of the Z3100/3200 and the Epson 7900 with the 7900 spectro included and covered in the review. If anyone can get a 7900 spectro and software for review, it should be Reichmann. The only valid review would be of both printers WITH spectros -- that would be an even-handed review. It would be a great service to all of us.
On the other hand, it would be unfair to Epson and an inaccurate review to commend the spectro built in to the HP Z series, and criticize Epson for not having a spectro, when in fact they do. We need a review that compares the Z3100/3200/with spectro and the 7900 with spectro.
I totally agree on how outrageous it is for these companies to announce equipment and then delay the release for many, many months. Just call the large retailers, complain about that, and then mention one word -- "Epson" -- and they will all agree. Epson is notorious in that regard. (I can say that since I may buy their printer!)
It was Jeff, who in a previous posting, said that the 7900 might be in short supply at first, so we should order now. But what information should such an order be based on?
Julie, your recommendation to mail off profiles for proofing is also a great recommendation. In this era of instant gratification, the HP solution is very attractive. But your recommendation is also an excellent option.
-
In an ideal world, Epson and HP would have shipped the printers to Michael Reichmann at the same time as they shippped to the beta testers.
While I'm sure Michael would like to have one (I believe Epson Canada has retrieved his 11880) and I'm very sure he WILL be getting one, it's simply too early for that. The printers have not even been officially announced in the US. That will be coming soon...and the fact is there are very, very few preproduction units available. So you all are simply going to have to wait a while. The fact that Epson released me from my NDA so I could talk about it before the US announcement is very unusual. But Epson in Europe was VERY keen to have the first announcement at Drupa (last May), which is very, very unusual to reveal something that far in advance. But they were vying for the attention of the printing industry in general and the proofing industry in particular. That is, after all, where these units are expected to sell large quantities...yes, indeed they will also make really, really nice fine art printers–something Epson is also very aware of (and keen to take advantage of) but again, it's just very early...Epson will be making a big splash at Photo Expo very soon and again at Graph Expo at the end of Oct. I suspect a lot more information will be made available then and the odds are there will be more seed units. But I can't say who will be getting them. We will also have a 7900 unit traveling with us with the US launch of the Epson Print Academy (which is one of the reasons that Mac Holbert and I got early units). We will be traveling to 13 or 14 cities around the country. Maybe somebody can come and see them in action at one of those events.
-
While I'm sure Michael would like to have one (I believe Epson Canada has retrieved his 11880) and I'm very sure he WILL be getting one, it's simply too early for that. The printers have not even been officially announced in the US. That will be coming soon...and the fact is there are very, very few preproduction units available. So you all are simply going to have to wait a while. The fact that Epson released me from my NDA so I could talk about it before the US announcement is very unusual. But Epson in Europe was VERY keen to have the first announcement at Drupa (last May), which is very, very unusual to reveal something that far in advance. But they were vying for the attention of the printing industry in general and the proofing industry in particular. That is, after all, where these units are expected to sell large quantities...yes, indeed they will also make really, really nice fine art printers–something Epson is also very aware of (and keen to take advantage of) but again, it's just very early...Epson will be making a big splash at Photo Expo very soon and again at Graph Expo at the end of Oct. I suspect a lot more information will be made available then and the odds are there will be more seed units. But I can't say who will be getting them. We will also have a 7900 unit traveling with us with the US launch of the Epson Print Academy (which is one of the reasons that Mac Holbert and I got early units). We will be traveling to 13 or 14 cities around the country. Maybe somebody can come and see them in action at one of those events.
Yes, the Epson Print Academy idea is a good one, Alan. It is the best that you can do at this point if not living in a Megatropolis. I have already signed up for the Dallas Academy on December 13th (I live in San Antonio). Of course, I do not expect that this event will satisfy the thirst for a detailed comparison to HP. However, the hands-on training should provide a very detailed look at the 7900 itself.
Bruce
-
We will be traveling to 13 or 14 cities around the country. Maybe somebody can come and see them in action at one of those events.
I will attend one of those events, and will introduce myself to Jeff during one of the breaks. I will try to ask precise, specific questions!
Maybe one of your fellow instructors will have worked with the spectro and can respond to questions, such as Holbert.
-
Can someone give me some further information regarding this? I am trying to decide between these two printers too strictly for art repro. On the HP website it states "support for 16-bit TIFF and JPEG files are standard on HP Designjet Z3200ps Photo printers only", so how exactly is this different than what Epson offers?
I added your concern to the list, in the probably foolish hope that one of the reviewers will consult that list when writing a review.
-
While I'm sure Michael would like to have one (I believe Epson Canada has retrieved his 11880) and I'm very sure he WILL be getting one, it's simply too early for that. The printers have not even been officially announced in the US.
For what it is worth, they have only been announced in Japan on Oct 16th, of course with different model numbers...
http://www.epson.jp/osirase/2008/081016.htm (http://www.epson.jp/osirase/2008/081016.htm)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But the spectro really should NOT be a factor in the decision on these printers...get yourself ProfileMaker & an i1iSis (even if you DO get an HP) because these will be far better (and more useful) than an onboard spectro. Seriously, this is NOT a factor you should be weighing...
Sure, but i1 Sis retails for 8000 US$ in Tokyo, that is 4 times the price of the built-in spectro and nearly wtice more expensive that the printer itself... it better be amazingly better than the built-in spectro for that price... and notice that I am not even factoring in the price of the software...
Any cheaper recommendation?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I also want to buy a 24" printer, either the new Epson 7900 or the Z3200. I've got one question though, how do you calibrate/linearize the Epsons without a spectro in the unit?
Many thanks
Colin
-
Also understand that Epson making this unit available is NOT because Epson photo printers NEED it. Epson's unit to unit variation is a very, very low Delta E where Canon and HP pigment printers tend to be very different. So, if you are using Epson papers and use the Epson provided profiles (which have been very good that last couple of rounds of printers) you really don't have to make "custom" profiles. If you are using 3rd party papers then yes, you'll need custom profiles but there are plenty of lower cost solutions for photo printing profiles than the Epson spectro.
New unit to new unit variation is one thing but unit variation over time is quite another. Epson prints heads last a long time but high volume printing shows that piezo heads do change over time. Production staff in high volume shops that keep their printers working 8+ hours a day 5+ days a week know this all too well. Epson heads open up with heavy use and put down more ink eventually causing shadow detail to plug up. The proofing market is often high volume and is concerned about this type of change. RIPs like GMG can access an on board specto for regular relinearization and profiling if necessary. Many such proofing systems use a small label printer that prints a certification label noting the condition of the printer on that day complete with Delta E variances. These labels are put on the corner of a customers proof. Having an on board spectro automates these processes and is a *really nice* (workflow automation is a big buzzword in the offset printing world right now).
Thermal heads are kinda like CMOS sensor technology. Once laughed at for their inconsistencies, thermals head tech has come a long way and is now surprisingly good. Not only are the new unit to new unit variances surprisingly small now but many have suggested that they are more consistent over their lifetime than piezo heads. While I don't know of anyone that has published numbers comparing any variables other than new unit to new unit piezo head variances, I don't think it's fair to write off thermal head technology.
As far as profiles go, HP Z series printers have a huge notable advantage for being able to make profiles for any paper you put in them. Canon is embracing popular 3rd party papers and is making and delivering their own profiles for them. We'll see a bunch more of this in the new few months. Epson is the only one that's providing profiles just for their own branded papers. Several paper companies are releasing profiles for their papers but I've generally find the quality of their profiles to be unimpressive. Expensive licensing and experience keeps them from using top notch profiling technology like Epson and Canon are using. Cheers!
-
But the spectro really should NOT be a factor in the decision on these printers...get yourself ProfileMaker & an i1iSis (even if you DO get an HP) because these will be far better (and more useful) than an onboard spectro. Seriously, this is NOT a factor you should be weighing...
HP MUST include a gloss agent because otherwise their pigment prints look awful. Epson pigment inks do not and the Ultrachrome HDR inks are improved over even the K3 inks...
I'm more than happy to talk about stuff, but you really need to ask precise questions that are simple and easy to answer, otherwise I won't bother.
Sure, but i1 Sis retails for 8000 US$ in Tokyo, that is 4 times the price of the built-in spectro and nearly wtice more expensive that the printer itself... it better be amazingly better than the built-in spectro for that price... and notice that I am not even factoring in the price of the software...
Any cheaper recommendation?
Cheers,
Bernard
As far as profiles go, HP Z series printers have a huge notable advantage for being able to make profiles for any paper you put in them. Canon is embracing popular 3rd party papers and is making and delivering their own profiles for them. We'll see a bunch more of this in the new few months. Epson is the only one that's providing profiles just for their own branded papers.
Bernard --
I'll attempt to explain in this post why I have emphasized the 7900 spectro in my above posts, and respond to your question, which happens to be one of the key issues.
If the new Epson with its new ink doesn't have a problem with gloss differential or bronzing, as suggested by Schewe above, then the 7900 will be the rough equal of the HP Z series in that regard. In all of the other areas listed in my original posting, my guess is that the 7900 will likely beat the HP Z3200. That is only a guess based on early reports and the tech specs, and we must wait for HONEST reviews to confirm that (not the usual worthless reviews that simply praise equipment without any critical commentary). The Epson spectro, as explained above and below, is one of the important unknown variables at this time.
So there may be those who buy the 7900 for about the same price as the Z series, because the 7900 may prove to be superior to the Z series in most if not all areas. Again, the jury is out and we must wait to see if that is the case with regards to the overall performance of the 7900.
You then posed the key question. If you buy the 7900, what is the best way to profile papers with that printer, and not pay $5,000 for an automatic profiling Xrite device as recommended by Schewe?
As I explained above, any other high quality profiling solution that is an alternative to the US$5,000 i1iSis would be the same price as the Epson spectro, about $1,500. That is one of key issues -- that the Epson spectro would cost the same as any high quality alternative. Those high quality profiling packages include pucks to calibrate monitors, and we already own those and don't need them. These are MANUAL packages -- meaning that you must scan the targets yourself. The larger the target, the better the profile, and the longer that it takes. By contrast, the HP Z series includes a built-in spectro and the APS includes a very large target and prints and scans it automatically.
So the Epson spectro would be the best choice for that printer, at $1,500, since the process would be automated -- IF AND ONLY IF it includes paper profiling software to drive it. The Epson spectro is likely to be of very high quality as a mechanical unit, since it has been built for the professional printing and proofing industry. So the only remaining question is whether Epson, in their wisdom, included high quality software for profiling papers along with the spectro that is at least as good at the APS. (Number of patches in the target, etc.) Scott Martin is absolutely correct that the HP Z series offers a huge advantage because it can profile papers automatically using the APS software. It was that new innovation that set HP apart from Epson and Canon.
That explains why I included a detailed list of questions in my original posting on the spectro. (Apparently not precise enough, though.) That is a key issue IMHO. That is why I reposted those questions for Schewe, because he kept commenting on the spectro, leading me to incorrectly conclude that he had one of the spectros in his possession.
The engineers of Epson would have to be morons to include a high quality spectro but not include the software (like APS) to profile papers. If they are that dumb they will continue to lose market share to HP because the Z series includes a spectro and the APS software to drive it. Because the other Epson printers, as I recall, still have the problem of not being to auto switch black inks -- another problem solved by HP in the Z series.
Epson has dominated the market for the last decade, and it shows in their approach. As Scott observed, Epson only includes profiles for their own papers, and only list their own paper types in the driver. Epson behaves as if there is no other competition, and if there is, it can be ignored. That attitude reminds me of the US automakers 40 years ago, and we know what happened to them. (Note that I included the issue of the Epson driver not including generic papers in the original posting as well, because HP has a more flexible driver in that regard.) But HP and Canon are hot on the heels of Epson, and Epson needs to include these new innovations in their new printers, or they will continue to lose market share in our end of the market.
But engineers have been morons before. It may be that the hubris of Epson results in a $1,500 spectro that is only good for RIPs or proofing and fails to include APS-type software to profile papers. So my view is that the jury is out on the 7900 until we get definitive answers on how the spectro works. And have detailed, yes even precise answers, on the software that is, or is not, included to profile papers.
In closing, I agree with Scott Martin that the HP Z series has a "huge notable advantage" in including a built in spectro along with high quality software that makes profiling ANY paper an automated process.
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree with Schewe that automated paper profiling should not be a significant factor in which printer to buy. Anyone who has gone through the laborious process to manually scan targets knows what a pain that is. HP set a new standard in that regard for a completely automated approach. Epson needs to meet that standard.
If the Epson spectro fails to include software to drive it for profiling papers, then we must all make our own individual buying decision. Is the Epson superior enough in all other areas, as compared with the Z3200, to justify buying it even when it does not include automated paper profiling? Or is the Z3200 pretty close to being as good as the Epson in all other areas, so that the added bonus of automatic paper profiling tips the balance in its favor? Each of us will have to make that judgment call, and it is a personal decision. And even if the Epson does include paper profiling with the spectro, the total cost of the printer and spectro might be about $1,500 higher than the Z3200, and that is yet another factor for each person to consider.
The only alternative that is automated for the profiling of papers, as Schewe himself noted by recommending it, costs about $5,000. That is more than the price of the printer itself.
-
But engineers have been morons before. It may be that the hubris of Epson results in a $1,500 spectro that is only good for RIPs or proofing and fails to include APS-type software to profile papers. So my view is that the jury is out on the 7900 until we get definitive answers on how the spectro works. And have detailed, yes even precise answers, on the software that is, or is not, included to profile papers.
In closing, I agree with Scott Martin that the HP Z series has a "huge notable advantage" in including a built in spectro along with high quality software that makes profiling ANY paper an automated process.
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree with Schewe that automated paper profiling should not be a significant factor in which printer to buy. Anyone who has gone through the laborious process to manually scan targets knows what a pain that is. HP set a new standard in that regard for a completely automated approach. Epson needs to meet that standard.
Depending on how many different papers you are using, and the variance in the characteristics of those papers, we might have 3 other options:
1. Have someone make profiles for the papers. Personnally, I intend to standardize on 2 papers probably, namely Hanemhule Photorag and Photorag Baryta,
2. Use profiles created by the paper manufacturer. One can reasonnably expect the 7900 and 9900 to belong to the list of printers for which companies like Hanemule would consider creating profiles
3. Use a RIP like Imageprint with built-in profiles for major printer/papers combinations. The problem with this being that Colorbyte is usually way too slow in supporting new printers, and tend to charge their customer a recurrent license fee each time they support a new set of printers by only supporting the printer with a new version of the software. Imageprint for large format printers is also pretty expensive.
As a result, option 1 is probably the best if you can find a suitable company to handle these matters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree with Schewe that automated paper profiling should not be a significant factor in which printer to buy. Anyone who has gone through the laborious process to manually scan targets knows what a pain that is. HP set a new standard in that regard for a completely automated approach. Epson needs to meet that standard.
I guess I really, really don't see it. Sorry...but my experience is that once the 78/9800 printers came out and I went through the process of building profiles using ProFileMaker and my Eye1 IO and compared the results with the profiles supplied by Epson I lost a lot of incentive to build my own profiles. Yes, I tend to use almost exclusively Epson papers (and even then I'm down to 2 primary papers, Sommerset for Epson and Exhibition fiber). Yes, I was involved in helping Andrew Rodney build the EFP profiles that PixelGenius released...but seriously, unless you are printing on a dozen papers and always needing to rev profiles (something you simply don't have to do with Epson pro printers), I really, really don't see the onboard spectro as a big deal.
It is a big deal to proofers and other people who pump a tone of prints through rips...and that's what the Epson spectros are designed for. I have no idea what software will come with the spectros for non-rip use. All the major rip makers have signed up to offer support for the the new printers.
Again, I really think a person should buy a printer based on the merits of the printer, print quality and one's return on the investment. Not what "accessories" are optionally available.
-
But the spectro really should NOT be a factor in the decision on these printers...get yourself ProfileMaker & an i1iSis (even if you DO get an HP) because these will be far better (and more useful) than an onboard spectro. Seriously, this is NOT a factor you should be weighing...
Again, I really think a person should buy a printer based on the merits of the printer, print quality and one's return on the investment. Not what "accessories" are optionally available.
We agree with regards to your important point. Our fundamental agreement on the most important point apparently got lost in my long posting.
In my long posting, a few sentences may have been overlooked: "Is the Epson superior enough in all other areas, as compared with the Z3200, to justify buying it even when it does not include automated paper profiling? Or is the Z3200 pretty close to being as good as the Epson in all other areas, so that the added bonus of automatic paper profiling tips the balance in its favor? Each of us will have to make that judgment call, and it is a personal decision."
I therefore agree with you. The core qualities of the printer -- the merits of the printer and print quality -- must shape any decision on a printer more than whether it has an on-board spectro and software. A bad printer with an on-board spectro will always be a bad printer. It might make great profiles and do so accurately, but it would still be a bad printer.
As I said above, if the Epson is superior in the areas that matter -- as a printer -- we'd all buy it and that is true regardless of whether it has a spectro that can do paper profiling.
To illustrate that we agree on this point, I also modified my original posting at the top of this thread, and moved the spectro to the bottom of my original posting. I agree with you that all of the other qualities of a printer are more important -- and the spectro is icing on the cake and should be on the bottom of the list.
Our only disagreement comes down to this. In your earlier posting you asserted that having a spectro that can automatically produce printer profiles is not important at all and, based on your earlier post, should not even be a factor deciding what printer to buy. (Those who own a Z3100 would, I believe, strongly disagree with you that it should not be a factor at all.)
I am simply saying that is a great feature, and should be a factor in making a decision about what printer to buy, although print quality and the other issues I listed in my original post clearly should take priority. We do agree on the latter point.
The question will come down to whether the Z3200 is equal to, or pretty close to, the standards of the 7900, if the 7900 spectro can't do paper profiling. Then some consumers might feel that the addition of the spectro and APS is an "added bonus" that "tips the balance" in favor of the Z series.
My basic point is that if Epson is producing a spectro, that sells for same price as high quality profiling packages, it would be great if the Epson spectro included software to produce printer profiles. Those who want to purchase that option could then do so.
Surely, we can all agree that Epson is better off to be able to advertise that option -- automatic creation of printer profiles with the accessory spectro -- than to not be able to do so?
Even if the price is higher for the printer plus spectro as compared with the HP Z series, Epson would then have the option and can compete directly with HP Z series. To produce and market a spectro, but not include profiling software to drive it, would seem to be an illogical marketing decision by Epson. Epson would be handing that sales pitch and feature to HP and the Z series. On the hand, if they include a spectro with profiling software, it is certainly plausible that Epson will be say that BOTH the printer and the spectro are of higher quality and meet higher standards -- and that justifies the higher price for the package of both combined.
Common sense says that Epson is better off to be able to make that argument, and to at least be able to compete with HP with regards to that feature, than not at all. That is my point, along with the obvious observation that if the 7900 and Z3200 are about equal as printers, consumers might opt for the one with the very nice additional feature -- a spectro with software to profile papers. The Z3100 provided tangible proof that it is an important consideration for many consumers, all other things being equal.
-
Epson maintains that their LFPs are calibrated and linearized at the factory and will never need to have those tasks performed again. Some will question this, some won't.
Epson seems to be saying that the onboard spectro will be used in conjunction with RIPs. RIPs are handy for their ability to perform linearization in addition to layouts, etc. Unless Epson is going to release its own RIP they'd have to provide some open APIs to the RIP providers to take advantage of the onboard spectro. Otherwise its just a cable out the side of the printer.
At this point I think we simply don't know enough about the onboard Epson spectro to make any statements or judgements.
-
At this point I think we simply don't know enough about the onboard Epson spectro to make any statements or judgements.
Agreed!
So the back and forth with Schewe might have been a bit dumb, at least on my part. We should just wait to see what Epson announces.
And when the printers are released and reviewed, I hope that the list of items in my original posting can help guide that process. I tried to present an impartial list that included the strengths of both printers, and am happy to modify or add to it in that regard.
-
Epson seems to be saying that the onboard spectro will be used in conjunction with RIPs. RIPs are handy for their ability to perform linearization in addition to layouts, etc. Unless Epson is going to release its own RIP they'd have to provide some open APIs to the RIP providers to take advantage of the onboard spectro. Otherwise its just a cable out the side of the printer.
As far as i know, all the major rip makers out there are going to be supporting the onboard Epson spectro. I don't know for an absolute fact that the software makers such as X-rite will be including the Epson spectro in ProfileMaker or Profiler. I just don't know. I also don't know what sort of Epson supplied software will be made available. These are questions that Epson will no doubt explain when they officially announce the printers here in the US...all I DO KNOW is that people at Epson USA have stated, repeatedly that they are doing this to address the needs of the proofing industry and that it's not designed (nor suggested) for general fine art printing use.
-
From Northlight images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer....html#austraiia (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson9900-7900.html#austraiia)
Half way down page on link above in the "from Australia" information-
From Epson Australia
Epson's optional integrated spectrophotometer with mounting device uses the latest X-rite technology to provide automatic colour measurement data to the printer, allowing user profiling and linearisation, enabling professional colour management while at the same time reducing labour costs.
"The spectrophotometer works with both Epson colour management software and third party RIPs. For customers using the Epson printer driver, the Epson software performs the complete process from print to measure, automatically, and can calibrate all resolutions at the same time."
Julie
edit ; added one paragraph in quote.
-
Common sense says that Epson is better off to be able to make that argument, and to at least be able to compete with HP with regards to that feature, than not at all. That is my point, along with the obvious observation that if the 7900 and Z3200 are about equal as printers, consumers might opt for the one with the very nice additional feature -- a spectro with software to profile papers. The Z3100 provided tangible proof that it is an important consideration for many consumers, all other things being equal.
The spectrometer aboard has been an important feature for the purchasers of the Z3100 and the same will happen again for the Z3200.
The Adobe Postscript version of both models addresses the pre-press needs as well and that one includes the APS profiler extension in its price.
The Z3200 Pantone color descriptions are another feature included and the Z3200 will be as frugal on ink use as the Z3100 is.
In short, pre-press shops could decide to get the Z3200 PS solution instead of an Epson x900 + spectrometer + RIP.
If RIP support for the Z3100 and iPF9000 is an example of what to expect of RIP support for the new N-channel models with and without spectrometers then I would be very critical of what they actually bring. On color control iPF9000 + Z3100 and spectrometer support for the Z3100 I know at least 3 RIPs that couldn't deliver the goods the normal driver already made possible, not to mention the OEM PS version. They are fine when the CcMmYK inks are involved and will lay down a nice spot color mix including the RG( inks but for real complex N-color mixing in photography and art reproduction it has to be seen whether they can cope as good as the OEM drivers do right now. For pre-press work CMYK + spot could be all that is needed but one has to check the other RIP abilities carefully if one aims for more RIP tasks than pre-press. The Wasatch SoftRip supported the Z3100 calibration but nothing more. It did a lousy job in 10 ink mixing on the Z3100. Its use of gloss enhancer was however more controllable but I understand that the Z3200 driver got the same control now. Where the gamut size on different media could be a criteria to select a specific printer in photography and art reproduction, any printer that covers the gamut of the conventional presses to be proofed will do its job in pre-press and it gets a premium if it covers the spot colors as high as 95%. So the Z3200 PS will not be inferior in that market either. For pre-press the shops will check what Fogra tested on a variety of paper, printers and printer/RIP systems. Next comes convenience, speed and price.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
From Northlight images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer....html#austraiia (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson9900-7900.html#austraiia)
Half way down page on link above in the "from Australia" information-
From Epson Australia
"The spectrophotometer works with both Epson colour management software and third party RIPs. For customers using the Epson printer driver, the Epson software performs the complete process from print to measure, automatically, and can calibrate all resolutions at the same time."
Julie
I'm not sure I understand the quote. Calibration is a long way from creating profiles in my mind. Then again, we could all be using terms inappropriately.
-
I know at least 3 RIPs that couldn't deliver the goods the normal driver already made possible...
I've found EFI and GMG both deliver superior color on the Z3100 than what the driver is capable of. The driver's separation parameters (ink mixing) leaves something to be desired and these RIPs are simply smarter in this respect. The end result is a larger color gamut and lower Delta E variances for spot and process colors.
As for the other printers, I agree, the drivers are excellent and it can be challenging (but not impossible) to meet or exceed the quality of the driver with a RIP. That's a nice change to have watched happen over the last 5 years.
-
I've found EFI and GMG both deliver superior color on the Z3100 than what the driver is capable of. The driver's separation parameters (ink mixing) leaves something to be desired and these RIPs are simply smarter in this respect. The end result is a larger color gamut and lower Delta E variances for spot and process colors.
As for the other printers, I agree, the drivers are excellent and it can be challenging (but not impossible) to meet or exceed the quality of the driver with a RIP. That's a nice change to have watched happen over the last 5 years.
May I guess, superior color in the darker slices of the gamut shape?
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
May I guess, superior color in the darker slices of the gamut shape?
You bet, especially in the reds. The Z series driver prioritizes the orange ink (I can't call it red) for red colors while these RIPs are smarter about mixing orange with magenta and yellow to achieve a better red primary, for example.
-
If any owners of a Z3100 will actually be seeing an operational 7900 at one of the upcoming photo shows, I have a suggestion -- for those of us who will not be so fortunate.
Select one of your photos than when printed without gloss enhancer suffer from serious gloss differential and/or bronzing on photo paper. Such as a shot of a mountain with dark rocks against snow. Take two samples -- one with GE applied and without GE applied. Along with a DVD containing the master photo file. Ask the Epson rep to make the same size print on photo paper -- and then compare. Compare the Epson version to the two versions from the Z3100 -- with and without GE.
I suppose this test is best done using Epson paper, especially one that illustrates the problem, like Epson Premium Semi-Matte photo paper. Or any Epson paper that clearly results in gloss differential with the photo in question. Even better, take a few sheets of the Epson paper with you and ask them to use their own paper. Epson can't complain that a test using their paper with their own ink is in anyway unfair.
The GE is a great feature on the Z3100, and certainly makes a big difference compared to my last Epson printer, the 4000.
I find it hard to believe that Epson has totally conquered the problem of gloss differential. The only way to know for certain is for someone who owns a Z3100 to run a head-to-head comparison and report back.
-
If any owners of a Z3100 will actually be seeing an operational 7900 at one of the upcoming photo shows, I have a suggestion -- for those of us who will not be so fortunate.
Select one of your photos than when printed without gloss enhancer suffer from serious gloss differential and/or bronzing on photo paper. Such as a shot of a mountain with dark rocks against snow. Take two samples -- one with GE applied and without GE applied. Along with a DVD containing the master photo file. Ask the Epson rep to make the same size print on photo paper -- and then compare. Compare the Epson version to the two versions from the Z3100 -- with and without GE.
I suppose this test is best done using Epson paper, especially one that illustrates the problem, like Epson Premium Semi-Matte photo paper. Or any Epson paper that clearly results in gloss differential with the photo in question. Even better, take a few sheets of the Epson paper with you and ask them to use their own paper. Epson can't complain that a test using their paper with their own ink is in anyway unfair.
The GE is a great feature on the Z3100, and certainly makes a big difference compared to my last Epson printer, the 4000.
I find it hard to believe that Epson has totally conquered the problem of gloss differential. The only way to know for certain is for someone who owns a Z3100 to run a head-to-head comparison and report back.
Great idea!
-
Great idea!
I plan on doing just that at the Epson Print Academy. We'll see if they will run the test during one of the breaks.
But there could be a number of reasons that they might not do it for me -- too busy, short break, non-functional 7900 -- you name it. So if anyone else can do that same at one of the photo shows, we would all appreciate it. As you can tell from the response by Bruce.
-
It can't be said that I am not trying to be fair and even handed. Above I comment that we need proof that Epson is as good at dealing with gloss differential as HP, since the Z series includes the great gloss enhancer. Below I report that the Epson 7900 might be twice as fast as the HP Z series -- not insignificant for those of you who print large print sizes in volume quantities.
Here is an unscientific test of printer speed. Stress unscientific. A reliable test would be printing the same file under identical conditions on both printers. That is not the case in the below report, since I only have access to one of the two printers.
The Epson spec says that the 7900 can print a 16x20 in Superfine Mode at 1440 dpi in high speed and bidirectional mode in 3:47.
It can print in Fine Mode at 720 dpi in high speed and bidirectional in 2:53.
Here are the speeds for printing a color 16x20 on the Z3100. These aren't based on any published spec, they are my own times based on printing a color 16x20.
Best print quality, Maximum Detail On, Extra Passes Off, 1200x1200 dpi -- 17:55
Best print quality, Maximum Detail off, Extra Passes Off, 600 x 600 dpi -- 10:20
Normal print quality, Max Detail On, 600 x 600 dpi -- 5:35
(Max Detail off is reported in the driver as 300 dpi)
Fast print quality, Max Detail On, 600 x 600 dpi -- 5:10.
(Max Detail off is reported in the driver as 300 dpi)
The Z3100, as far as I can tell, does not allow for bidirectional printing in the Best mode at 1200x1200. At least I don't think that is bidirectional. Thus the very slow time for the Z3100 of 17:55 at 1200 dpi or 10:20 at 600 dpi, as compared with the Epson time for 1440 dpi of 3:47.
But surely the Z3100 Normal print quality at 600 x 600 is a fair comparison at 5:35, and that is bidirectional from what I can tell. The 7900 is roughly 50% faster by comparison, that is comparing the Epson 1440 dpi speed of 3:47, and Epson is twice as fast at 720 dpi at 2:53 -- assuming the published spec can be believed and is reliable.
When I have similar times for 20x30 I will add to this same post. So stay tuned.
I never bothered to actually time the Z3100 until now. If these times are the same for a 20x30, then it would make a significant difference for those of you have print multiple copies of really large prints.
Twice as fast is quite a speed difference for those printing large prints in volume.
I don't believe that HP is claiming that the Z3200 is any faster, so comparing the 7900 and the Z3100 is a fair comparison for speed -- if the Epson published spec is accurate.
-
I hadn't been able to print my images on the same or similar paper at Photokina but can say that what I saw confirms gloss differential is controlled by HP to the point of a non issue for GD, but don't forget the increase in cost and printing time, and fragility of the surface. Epson has very GD by nature, but is not completely eliminated, nor is it for any pigment printer I have seen to date.
It is extremely variable though on different surfaces. For example, at the Innova stand they had all three brands of printers. Kind of surprising to see , they had many great images printed on bad combinations of media and image style. On certain media the Epson VM inkset and the 7900 had substantial GD on glossy Innova (can't remember the name), as did the Canon too. HP with GE there was little or rather none in the highlights.
So say what you will, but remember the media is just as important as the inkset. The same is true on HP, as without GE it can sometimes be quite poor, whereas both Epson and Canon get the job done well. One of the reasons I felt when the Z 3100 was released the GE was not marketed as an important element as it should have been. It is a good solution, one that works. IF not for GE, the inkset they have is not up to par with the others as far as gloss diff goes.
As far as speed goes ; the Epson is faster period. How's that for unscientific. I suppose you'd have to wait for a review by someone like Julian who had or has both, who can record spool times etc on the same host computer.
-
I plan on doing just that at the Epson Print Academy. We'll see if they will run the test during one of the breaks.
But there could be a number of reasons that they might not do it for me -- too busy, short break, non-functional 7900 -- you name it. So if anyone else can do that same at one of the photo shows, we would all appreciate it. As you can tell from the response by Bruce.
Add to that list of reasons the policy on exhibition booths that no USB stick of a stranger is accepted.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
You bet, especially in the reds. The Z series driver prioritizes the orange ink (I can't call it red) for red colors while these RIPs are smarter about mixing orange with magenta and yellow to achieve a better red primary, for example.
Well, that's what the Wasatch Softrip media presets + profiles have in common. Little black generation and mixing of all the hues available in the total space, even up to the neutral spine. Comes closer to the Epson gamut of the 9800 etc. It probably is done better in the EFI and GMG systems but on the Wasatch Softrip it is a waste of ink, longer drying, harder to keep neutrality and I didn't find the color better in practice. What's more I asked them to improve the few generic media presets + profiles and it got worse. Next Time I asked they threw in the towel with the reply that they didn't do custom profiling. I wrote that they didn't do generic ones either for the Z3100. If you check the media presets available it is far less (3) for the Z3100 than for any other supported printer. In my opinion an indication that it is a difficult job for them.
Are their many media presets of EFI and GMG available or is it limited to proofing papers right now ? Is it doable for the user to design the right CMYKxxxxx profiles with the suitable profile creators ? External spectrometers and no support for the integrated spectrometer ?
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
I guess I really, really don't see it. Sorry...but my experience is that once the 78/9800 printers came out and I went through the process of building profiles using ProFileMaker and my Eye1 IO and compared the results with the profiles supplied by Epson I lost a lot of incentive to build my own profiles. Yes, I tend to use almost exclusively Epson papers (and even then I'm down to 2 primary papers, Sommerset for Epson and Exhibition fiber). Yes, I was involved in helping Andrew Rodney build the EFP profiles that PixelGenius released...but seriously, unless you are printing on a dozen papers and always needing to rev profiles (something you simply don't have to do with Epson pro printers), I really, really don't see the onboard spectro as a big deal.
It is a big deal to proofers and other people who pump a tone of prints through rips...and that's what the Epson spectros are designed for. I have no idea what software will come with the spectros for non-rip use. All the major rip makers have signed up to offer support for the the new printers.
Again, I really think a person should buy a printer based on the merits of the printer, print quality and one's return on the investment. Not what "accessories" are optionally available.
From my (very) limited printing experience view I would agree, even with profiles you still need to learn how a paper will look when printed. So limiting your choice of paper is the first step, I don't see the need to spend a fortune on print profile calibration machinery when you only need a small number of papers and profiles. Find a paper you like and stick with it, unless something super wonderful comes along that really improves your printed images, then get a profile made and learn that one.
Kevin.
-
From my (very) limited printing experience view I would agree, even with profiles you still need to learn how a paper will look when printed. So limiting your choice of paper is the first step, I don't see the need to spend a fortune on print profile calibration machinery when you only need a small number of papers and profiles. Find a paper you like and stick with it, unless something super wonderful comes along that really improves your printed images, then get a profile made and learn that one.
Kevin.
There are not many users that will use the profiling part of the printers for a lot of papers. For the amount of profiles needed often not more than 5-10 will be all that will ever be needed. With an i1 and the sliding ruler it's not so hard to do, and for these few profiles will avoid having something like a full IsIs etc.
Where the onboard spectro becomes interesting is for controlling the calibrations and verification of the before and after states of the printer.
Epson are known to be more stable over thermal heads, but you'd be surprised to see variations in relatively extreme conditions.
Calibrating the printer per paper before jobs is a great thing. From what we read you can do so with the 7900 as you can with the HP Z. After the calibration is done, the profile will be able to repro any job with that much less deviation.
On the outside, reading of control strips is a big plus, exactly why Epson describe the 79+9900 series as a prepress printer.
Of course this doesn't have to be a prepress only thing, photographers and FA printers are someday going to want to validate the printing state at the job time. Digigraphie with Epson in Europe is a very strong argument for an archival print, yet print verification could be a strong addition to Digigraphie.
-
Is it doable for the user to design the right CMYKxxxxx profiles with the suitable profile creators ?
RIPs allow for CMYK profiling of 6-12 ink printers. The final 6-12 ink separation is done after the CMYK conversion (in some cases on the printer's processor(fast!), in other cases in the RIP(slow)). This separates the very different roles of color space conversions and complicated multi-ink separation parameters. It's easier for the end user and the results are fantastic. No need to make multicolor profiles.
External spectrometers and no support for the integrated spectrometer ?
They all support external spectros. GMG brings a new level of hands-off workflow automation though it's support of the on-board Z spectro. The response to that has been fantastic. HP has done well and Epson is scrambling to get into that game ASAP. I hope we'll see more products taking advantage of on-printer spectros. With prices coming down the way they are, we might one day see spectros in every large format printer. I personally like the consistency of being able to calibrate and profile all the printers in a large shop with a single software and hardware solution.
-
There are not many users that will use the profiling part of the printers for a lot of papers. For the amount of profiles needed often not more than 5-10 will be all that will ever be needed. With an i1 and the sliding ruler it's not so hard to do, and for these few profiles will avoid having something like a full IsIs etc.
Where the onboard spectro becomes interesting is for controlling the calibrations and verification of the before and after states of the printer.
Epson are known to be more stable over thermal heads, but you'd be surprised to see variations in relatively extreme conditions.
Calibrating the printer per paper before jobs is a great thing. From what we read you can do so with the 7900 as you can with the HP Z. After the calibration is done, the profile will be able to repro any job with that much less deviation.
On the outside, reading of control strips is a big plus, exactly why Epson describe the 79+9900 series as a prepress printer.
Of course this doesn't have to be a prepress only thing, photographers and FA printers are someday going to want to validate the printing state at the job time. Digigraphie with Epson in Europe is a very strong argument for an archival print, yet print verification could be a strong addition to Digigraphie.
So is this variation a paper batch thing like we would of had with colour paper in the wet days or a machine drifting off spec more like a chemical thing. I don't for one minute count myself as anything but a novice dabbler at fineart printing but if I do a reprint from something that was done several months ago it still looks the same to me. I can see it's need in the proofing environment where there is much more everyday variety. Most of these machines sold will be run by one guy making a few prints a day that learns how the softproof relates to the paper print and any slight variation over time will be compensated for without realising it.
I can see for large commercial batch runs ongoing checks would be a bonus, but for most here would be overkill.
For me to get prints of a standard I would like I don't see the need for constant paper profiling with the consistency of materials companies like Epson make, in fact that is one of the big improvements over wet printing for me.
If there are big variations in before and after printing having a Spectro will not solve the problem only prove it and if you need to measure it to see it, does it matter to the average photographer/Fineart printer? For me it would be just a load more information to worry about.
Cheers,
Kevin.
-
So is this variation a paper batch thing like we would of had with colour paper in the wet days or a machine drifting off spec more like a chemical thing. I don't for one minute count myself as anything but a novice dabbler at fineart printing but if I do a reprint from something that was done several months ago it still looks the same to me. I can see it's need in the proofing environment where there is much more everyday variety. Most of these machines sold will be run by one guy making a few prints a day that learns how the softproof relates to the paper print and any slight variation over time will be compensated for without realising it.
I can see for large commercial batch runs ongoing checks would be a bonus, but for most here would be overkill.
For me to get prints of a standard I would like I don't see the need for constant paper profiling with the consistency of materials companies like Epson make, in fact that is one of the big improvements over wet printing for me.
If there are big variations in before and after printing having a Spectro will not solve the problem only prove it and if you need to measure it to see it, does it matter to the average photographer/Fineart printer? For me it would be just a load more information to worry about.
Cheers,
Kevin.
Variations in inking, inks, paper, humidity, conditions of the print heads, all are part of the parcel.
The idea of a spectro onboard is for those who want to control and verify. There is no obligation, and it's a good thing that Epson do not do so.
I'm not sure if it is overkill or not. I do know that if you have to reprint limited edition prints then it makes the difference between what is a better guarantee of that edition in the eyes of all concerned.
For one offs , pleasing colour has always been fairly easy to achieve. Accurate and repeatable colour though needs extra steps. Nothing says it has to be an onboard spectro BTW, as this has been done off line for a long time too. The onboard part takes out uncertainty by it's repeatable consistency in measure.
If the variations of the prints are large enough for you to see , they are indeed larger than what you would want on sellable prints.
Not all prints need this kind of precision, nor do users all need this kind of tolerance in printing, but those looking at the 7900 +9900 might well be the few that do.
-
Variations in inking, inks, paper, humidity, conditions of the print heads, all are part of the parcel.
The idea of a spectro onboard is for those who want to control and verify. There is no obligation, and it's a good thing that Epson do not do so.
I'm not sure if it is overkill or not. I do know that if you have to reprint limited edition prints then it makes the difference between what is a better guarantee of that edition in the eyes of all concerned.
For one offs , pleasing colour has always been fairly easy to achieve. Accurate and repeatable colour though needs extra steps. Nothing says it has to be an onboard spectro BTW, as this has been done off line for a long time too. The onboard part takes out uncertainty by it's repeatable consistency in measure.
If the variations of the prints are large enough for you to see , they are indeed larger than what you would want on sellable prints.
Not all prints need this kind of precision, nor do users all need this kind of tolerance in printing, but those looking at the 7900 +9900 might well be the few that do.
Neil,
I can see why you would need it. I also think a lot will think they need it and buy it when they don't need or know exactly what they are trying to achieve with it. Your needs are not far removed from what Epson is saying it's aimed at.
Kevin.
-
Neil,
I can see why you would need it. I also think a lot will think they need it and buy it when they don't need or know exactly what they are trying to achieve with it. Your needs are not far removed from what Epson is saying it's aimed at.
Kevin.
Actually I can see your point. True, the vast majority of users would never be able to distinguish a difference between runs, and for good reason: the inks are stable and the paper mills between batch lots are very close.
I think I get caught up in this trip all too often... LOL I better get back to printing on my less than ideal A3+ printer for my portfolio pix that are supposed to get me work.
-
Finally got the Epson SpectroProofer to work last night. Very interesting unit. Don't know if this has been answered but it look as if the included utilities do not allow for profile creation. Yes this seems totally counter intuitive but this was backed up by the documentation. Of course this could change. What it does do out of the box is perform linearizations. The process of linearizing a media for all of the resolutions takes about 45minutes. I was surprised by the speed of the spectro, simply measuring strips it is blazingly fast, however to advance to the next line of a patch takes several seconds meaning that in the end it's not a lot faster than the Z series spectro. The chart size however is drastically smaller, somewhere around the size of an i1 chart. By default the printer will also print measure and then save a CGATS measurement file which can then be dropped into your profiling package to produce a profile. Also I thought that the bronzing on the 7900 was not much different than the 7880. Granted this is based on making prints on the premium luster 260 paper, but I was a bit let down. Not that it's bad in any respect, I just didn't notice any improvement. I'll go back and review this, and likely this could improve with new firmware, but that's my observation at this point.
-
Finally got the Epson SpectroProofer to work last night. Very interesting unit. Don't know if this has been answered but it look as if the included utilities do not allow for profile creation. Yes this seems totally counter intuitive but this was backed up by the documentation. Of course this could change. What it does do out of the box is perform linearizations. The process of linearizing a media for all of the resolutions takes about 45minutes. I was surprised by the speed of the spectro, simply measuring strips it is blazingly fast, however to advance to the next line of a patch takes several seconds meaning that in the end it's not a lot faster than the Z series spectro. The chart size however is drastically smaller, somewhere around the size of an i1 chart. By default the printer will also print measure and then save a CGATS measurement file which can then be dropped into your profiling package to produce a profile. Also I thought that the bronzing on the 7900 was not much different than the 7880. Granted this is based on making prints on the premium luster 260 paper, but I was a bit let down. Not that it's bad in any respect, I just didn't notice any improvement. I'll go back and review this, and likely this could improve with new firmware, but that's my observation at this point.
I hadn't been able to print my images on the same or similar paper at Photokina but can say that what I saw confirms gloss differential is controlled by HP to the point of a non issue for GD, but don't forget the increase in cost and printing time, and fragility of the surface. Epson has very GD by nature, but is not completely eliminated, nor is it for any pigment printer I have seen to date.
It is extremely variable though on different surfaces. For example, at the Innova stand they had all three brands of printers. Kind of surprising to see , they had many great images printed on bad combinations of media and image style. On certain media the Epson VM inkset and the 7900 had substantial GD on glossy Innova (can't remember the name), as did the Canon too. HP with GE there was little or rather none in the highlights . . .One of the reasons I felt when the Z 3100 was released the GE was not marketed as an important element as it should have been. It is a good solution, one that works. IF not for GE, the inkset they have is not up to par with the others as far as gloss diff goes..
When I began this thread, I acknowledged in an exchange with Schewe that I was leaning towards buying the Epson 7900. I'm not so sure based on these reports. From my perspective, as only one consumer, these reports represent two strikes against the Epson 7900 and in favor of the HP Z3200/3100 series with Gloss Enhancer (GE) and a built-in spectro that can perform paper profiling.
We now have two reports, from two experienced reviewers, who have used both printers.
Strike 1 -- Both report that Epson still suffers from gloss differential (GD). Julian reports that it has not improved from the 7880 to the 7900, and that "I was a bit let down." (The last Epson I used was the 4000, and it is my frame of reference. I don't know how GD compares between the 4000 and the 7880. Julian, is GD on the 7880 and the 4000 about the same?) Neil reports "substantial GD" with the 7900 in the case of one paper type and with HP "there was little or rather none in the highlights" with the same paper type.
From my own experience with the Z3100, the paper type used by Julian, Epson Luster, is not one of the worst for gloss differential by any means. Luster would not be the paper choice to test GD. Others are even better examples of gross GD without the HP GE and almost no GD when HP GE is used. So I assume that the 7900 looks even worse with other papers than what Julian is reporting. If I was to buy the 7900 I'd be kicking myself everytime I looked at a print on photo paper with GD, remembering how well controlled GD is with the HP GE.
Strike 2 -- Julian addressed the issue of the Epson spectro with the included utilities. So the jury is still out as to whether it could make profiles with Profilemaker 5 or some other software. But note that the MSRP on that is $2,500 on the Xrite web site, and B&H lists it as a discontinued item in any event.
To again acknowledge one point, the spectro is not the most important issue for a printer. A bad printer with a spectro is still a bad printer. Other issues, such as GD, GE, and overall print quality, are more important. I also recognize that opinions vary on the value of an on-board spectro for profiles based on the above posts, but I strongly suspect that some of those who have posted have never actually used such an HP Z series printer and haven't learned what a wonderful convenience it represents. Some who have used the Z series, such as Neil, point out that you can do profiling with various hand-held and manual packages. But why bother when automation is available and included with the HP Z series?
Having said the above, Epson shot themselves in the foot on this one. As I previously argued, for Epson to produce and market a spectro, but not include profiling software to drive it, is an illogical marketing decision by Epson. Epson is handing that sales pitch and feature to HP and the Z series. Common sense says that Epson is better off to be able to compete with HP with regards to that feature, than not at all. If the 7900 and Z3200 are about equal as printers, consumers might opt for the one with the very nice additional feature -- a spectro with software to profile papers. The Z3100 provided tangible proof that it is an important consideration for many consumers, all other things being equal.
I also wondered, in an earlier posting, if the Epson engineers might be shortsighted enough and bad enough at marketing to build an expensive spectro but not include the necessary software to drive it and fully utilize its potential. We have our answer.
Different people have different needs and will buy different printers as a result. For me, as one consumer, this represents two big strikes against the Epson 7900.
-
By all accounts, this printer was not originally designed for the photography/fine art market but for the press market which works through RIPs. Since the printer is going to be supported by the major RIPs, it is there where you are likely to find the profiling feature if it is going to be found anywhere. Epson's literature says "When driven by the latest software RIP front-ends, the Epson SpectroProofer can automate virtually any color management process in your workflow".
Not defending the decision given the HP Z printers have a spectro, but given Epson's main target audience for this printer, it's not too surprising.
Jim
-
By all accounts, this printer was not originally designed for the photography/fine art market but for the press market which works through RIPs. Since the printer is going to be supported by the major RIPs, it is there where you are likely to find the profiling feature if it is going to be found anywhere. Epson's literature says "When driven by the latest software RIP front-ends, the Epson SpectroProofer can automate virtually any color management process in your workflow".
Not defending the decision given the HP Z printers have a spectro, but given Epson's main target audience for this printer, it's not too surprising.
Jim
Jim,
It could be more complex though. And "automate virtually any color management process in your workflow" is as vague as it is broad in its definition.
Before you actually can create profiles with an x900 there may be more steps needed: Epson x900 + optional spectrometer + optional RIP + optional profile creation software.
In some cases the last two come in one package or the profile creation is optional for the RIP solution. Some RIPS do not have an extension for profile creation. There's another (unlikely) possibility where the profile creation software can approach the printer independently, sending it targets and let the spectrometer read them. But I doubt you could get RGB-device like profiles that way, usable for the normal driver like the basic HP solution does. If it creates CMYK(XXX) style profiles you need a RIP anyway to use them on that printer.
I think it is wise to start the quest for an Epson integrated package at the other side of the chain, let the RIP or Profiler manufacturer demonstrate that the profiler and RIP work on the Epson x900 and ask the price of the total there. That's not unusual in the pre-press market.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Honestly, and I'll argue against myself here, I wouldn't make any decisions yet. Remember that the prints were working with have not even shipped yet. The Z3100 in it's early state was almost unusable on matte paper. I expect the Epson and the HP to be further improved by the time they are shipping in quantity. Let me also add that the bronzing on the 7900 is not bad by any means, it's still really limited to the highlights and there is just a hint of gloss differential in the blackest black.... Okay I made some new prints this morning using a different profile and I'll add that there is some improvement over the same print on the 7880, I notice it in the green going to blue highlights. After staring at prints for the last 10 minutes I'll say that as usual the problem still mostly affects the magenta regions of a print. So depending on how picky you are, you may not have any issue with it. I'm sorry I cant be any clearer than that. I can also confirm that you can easily make a profile with the cgats file that the 7900 spits out. Interesting to note that this option is now included in the Z3200 color center as well(measuring and saving a cgats file).
On last thing. While this printer may not have been designed for the photo fine art market, it's going to be a very capable high volume photo printer. In this case it's likely that a RIP will be used or that some form of print automation will be employed. In this respect the spectroproofer should be well suited. It's a very interesting product, looks well built, includes a print dryer, records the ambient temperature, although would have liked it to be a bit faster. It's also possible that Epson may include some sort of profiling option as well. There are also free profile creation utilities (Argyle) that you could use to generate a profile with. That said this is a vastly different approach to color management than HP has taken. I actually have a lot more respect for the color center and it's ability to manage, create and maintain paper presets.
-
In my prints, the z3100 eliminated gloss differential. YMMV
The spectro on the z is not just handy, its value is not just in its accuracy, but its ease of use and convenience. It doesn't require one to have any special knowledge or skill, and it doesn't take any of my time. With the z, you literally just click and the z3100 does its thing and prints the target, scans the target, creates and installs the profile. While it's doing this, I can be doing other work, then come back 20 minutes later and your paper is profiled and your prints are a perfect match, provided you have a well calibrated monitor.
-
Honestly, and I'll argue against myself here, I wouldn't make any decisions yet. Remember that the prints were working with have not even shipped yet. The Z3100 in it's early state was almost unusable on matte paper. I expect the Epson and the HP to be further improved by the time they are shipping in quantity. Let me also add that the bronzing on the 7900 is not bad by any means, it's still really limited to the highlights and there is just a hint of gloss differential in the blackest black.... Okay I made some new prints this morning using a different profile and I'll add that there is some improvement over the same print on the 7880, I notice it in the green going to blue highlights. After staring at prints for the last 10 minutes I'll say that as usual the problem still mostly affects the magenta regions of a print. So depending on how picky you are, you may not have any issue with it. I'm sorry I cant be any clearer than that. I can also confirm that you can easily make a profile with the cgats file that the 7900 spits out. Interesting to note that this option is now included in the Z3200 color center as well(measuring and saving a cgats file).
On last thing. While this printer may not have been designed for the photo fine art market, it's going to be a very capable high volume photo printer. In this case it's likely that a RIP will be used or that some form of print automation will be employed. In this respect the spectroproofer should be well suited. It's a very interesting product, looks well built, includes a print dryer, records the ambient temperature, although would have liked it to be a bit faster. It's also possible that Epson may include some sort of profiling option as well. There are also free profile creation utilities (Argyle) that you could use to generate a profile with. That said this is a vastly different approach to color management than HP has taken. I actually have a lot more respect for the color center and it's ability to manage, create and maintain paper presets.
Alright, so with a profile creation program at hand one can make profiles already without the need of an integrated profile creation program ? Based on the targets available in the printer/driver or feeding the printer any target (any cgats file) from the external program ?
There was a volunteer who liked to make cooperation between the Z3100 and ArgyllCMS possible. I had some doubts whether that would work with the interface the Z3100 uses but with the cgats output of the Z3200 it should be quite easy. Is it already in color center and not in an optional extension of it ? Upgrading to the Z3200 becomes more interesting every day.
Strange that both companies more or less cover up the cgats feature in their specs of the machines.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
I am not sure if clogging is a factor any more with the epson printers.
I had an epson 7800 and had no end of problems with clogging. I now have had the z3100 for a year and have never had an issue with clogging. The only issue is the printer wakes my wife up at night when it cycles. My office is above our master bedroom.
I would be interested to know if the clogging is still an issue with the new epson 9880/9900 series of printers. I tend to go away for a month at a time for photo shoots so the printer doesn't run on a daily basis.
I print for other photographers (they bring their own paper as they have differing paper needs compared to mine)- I have to say the profiling ability of the z printers is a huge benefit.
Steven
www.friedmanphoto.com
-
The spectro on the z is not just handy, its value is not just in its accuracy, but its ease of use and convenience. It doesn't require one to have any special knowledge or skill, and it doesn't take any of my time. With the z, you literally just click and the z3100 does its thing and prints the target, scans the target, creates and installs the profile. While it's doing this, I can be doing other work, then come back 20 minutes later and your paper is profiled and your prints are a perfect match, provided you have a well calibrated monitor.
An excellent explanation of the practical advantage of the spectro on the Z3100.
Some of the above postings have argued that the 7900 is only intended for prepress shops and similar commercial operations. That had better be the case, because if the printers are demonstrated side-by-side to photographers, the advantages of the spectro on the Z series will be immediately obvious, and just as Roscolo described it.
Epson can certainly release software in the future that would fully utilize the capabilities of their expensive spectro, and neutralize the marketing advantage now held by HP with regards to having a spectro that can profile papers very conveniently as described by Roscolo.
And then we have the issue of GD using a paper that is vulnerable to it, with a photo file that really makes it obvious -- like gray mountains or rocks against white snow, and a comparison of both printers in that regard.
If the 7900 is more vulnerable to GD than the HP Z series with GE, there probably isn't anything that Epson can do about it at this point, since Epson chose not to utilize an ink like the GE used by HP.
-
I read this on X-rites site.
With the Epson SpectroProofer, the following color control workflows can be achieved automatically and very precisely: color calibration, color certification, daily color checks, profile creation, spot color matching, color shift tracking and target measurement. Furthermore, a color certification label, like the Fogra wedge, can be printed to support the ISO certification process. The SpectroProofer allows initiation of a printer color calibration test either automatically, at a predefined interval, or at the request of a service technician.
A compact, carriage-mounted in-line spectrophotometer, with completely self-contained optics and electronics, X-Rite’s ILS platform enables seamless non-contact measurements for fast moving media and provides direct feedback for color calibration/management and control of Epson Stylus Pro color printers. It quickly sends the calculated color data to a host RIP such as the Epson SpectroProofer software, via a direct USB interface link, providing on-the-fly calibration and closed loop, accurate color management of the print process and patented remote control capabilities.
The newly launched Epson 24” Stylus Pro 7900 and 44” Stylus Pro 9900 set new standards for the professional large format printer market. Improved ink formulation, a new printer mechanism and a raft of new technologies make these two new additions to the Epson Stylus Pro range ideal for production and contract proofing, as well as for the highest quality fine-art and photographic applications. They will also enable printers to extend their business into the demanding packaging proofing and flexographic markets.
It seems to answer some of our questions.
Thank you all for your posts, please keep them comeing.
-
I read this on X-rites site. . .It seems to answer some of our questions.
Before you actually can create profiles with an x900 there may be more steps needed: Epson x900 + optional spectrometer + optional RIP + optional profile creation software.
In some cases the last two come in one package or the profile creation is optional for the RIP solution. Some RIPS do not have an extension for profile creation. There's another (unlikely) possibility where the profile creation software can approach the printer independently, sending it targets and let the spectrometer read them. But I doubt you could get RGB-device like profiles that way, usable for the normal driver like the basic HP solution does. If it creates CMYK(XXX) style profiles you need a RIP anyway to use them on that printer.
I think it is wise to start the quest for an Epson integrated package at the other side of the chain, let the RIP or Profiler manufacturer demonstrate that the profiler and RIP work on the Epson x900 and ask the price of the total there. That's not unusual in the pre-press market.
Unfortunately, the X-Rite PR piece does not answer our questions. We've already read similar vague summaries, none of which specifically explain which of these functions are performed by the software included with the spectro versus other RIPS. Nor do any of these summaries explain specifically which RIPs could do this and whether they require additional profile creation software to accomplish this. The combination of all of that could add thousands of dollars to the price. Ernst is correct -- we need the RIP or profile manufacturer to demonstrate an integrated package that works with the Epson spectro and then, and only then, will we know how it works, whether it works, and what it costs.
According to Julian the included Epson utilities do not accomplish some of these functions, especially paper profiling. The X-Rite description appears to be a great piece of company propoganda to applaud their role in creating this device. But what X-Rite declines to disclose is their likely role in creating the utilities that drive the device, and that those utilities failed to provide profiling of papers.
Remember that the Epson spectro already adds $1,500 to the price of the printer. I can envision some photographers buying the Epson solution for an additional $800 as compared with the cost of the HP Z series that includes a spectro in the price of the printer. (Not sure what the Z3200 with APS will cost, but the MSRP on the HP web site says $4,700. If the 7900 and spectro is $5,500, then the price difference is $800.)
But that assumes that the included Epson software would perform paper profiling. It does not, and while X-Rite is busy patting themselves on the back, they didn't design the utilities to perform that function according to the report from Julian. So as Ernst said, we need to know what the actual added cost would be with additional software. Such a software solution is probably very expensive.
P.S. -- Before the usual responses come in that we don't really need spectros; that hand-held laborious manual solutions work as well; or that the PQ of a printer is more important -- see the above postings from Roscolo and me, as well as others, that address those points. No need to repeat all of that here. I will again repeat that the printing capability of a printer is more important than a spectro. A bad printer with a spectro is still a bad printer. The point is that an automated spectro for profiling on a high quality printer is a wonderful feature, all other things being equal, and all the more so if the price is $800 less.
-
My original posting included a long list of issues that must be considered when looking at the HP Z series versus the Epson 7900, so let me focus attention on three others that have not been commented on.
Mechanical reliability; Software and driver reliability; and Customer Service and tech support.
That was one of the reasons that I was leaning to Epson, and honestly disclosed that in an earlier response to Schewe. It is impossible to quantify customer service and tech support. What we need is the equivalent of a consumer report survey for printers, with thousands of responses, so we get an accurate representation of consumer experience.
Lacking that, each of us needs to make his or her own gut determination. That requires setting aside anecdotal and isolated reports from a few people, and looking at the big picture. Probably only people with problems post in this forum, and people who have no problems do not. Even if that is true, this forum, in only the last several months, let alone the last two years, has had more reported problems with HP than Epson.
Those problems with HP, and there are many more such reports as compared with Epson, are related to mechanical issues, software and driver issues, and customer service and tech support. I based that just on a quick scan of the topics that are posted.
If Epson included a spectro and utilities for paper profiling, and even if Epson was a little worse on GD on some papers, I would lean to Epson even if costs $800 more. Because I am guessing that the 7900 might prove to be superior in other areas as compared with the Z3200, and my own gut impression is that Epson is clearly superior on mechanical reliability, software and driver reliability, and customer service and tech support.
Unfortunately, Epson dropped the ball on the spectro; can't compete with HP in that regard; and might be significantly worse on GD.
(On GD I'll take a DVD with a photo file to one of the Epson Print Academies and see if they will make a print on Epson paper that I'll bring with me, so I can make my own determination. As noted in a previous posting, they won't do that from a USB memory stick, presumably due to viruses, so I don't know if they will from a DVD. But I will nonetheless try, as my local area will never have a 7900 set up to demo.)
-
Again I think the questions will be answered about the spectro , which applications will drive it, and eventual options on using it.
The biggest part of the first development was by GMB, and I can imagine there are a lot of patents out on the process. Since a lot of this is till in the same hands , I'm quite sure there will have to be some concessions before Epson can integrate in ways that HP have locked up.
It took GMG quite some time to tune their RIP with the HP, but when done I'm told it has worked very well since. The same will be true with Epson, it will take time and some rounds of updates. Even the APS package was released a little prematurely.
Image quality was and is still something of it's only flavour on each brand. Where one can time pondering which can do one task well, the decision on which printer does well at most things takes less time.
Tech support is not something I know much about as I didn't or haven't had any problem that needed any attention or onsite repair (on any shipping model that is). I read reports here though which go to both extremes.
Build quality is important though, and attention to details. So comparing price alone doesn't cover build quality. I didn't find the HP to have a bad overall build quality, just the opposite, things like the stand were way ahead of others. Yet certain details , little things like a switch or wiring, guides, catch tray all take away from being the best they could be.
Epson have shown that they are very serious about photography, photographers, and FA printers. It's not about how much money you throw at names, but the care going out to users, their choice of who represents them, and the connection between them all. Funny though , that the less than perfect history is quickly forgotten as soon as the problems are solved. Not true for tech support though as the contact you have is a determining point that will be remembered long after the fact.
In the end to hold some prints in your hands will tell you what is right for you. But only since through this forum there is a lot of shared knowledge.
-
Just returned from Photo Plus East in NY today. Not to muddy the waters any more, but I will share a few thoughts. First, I applaud Hp for often enlisting its engineering staff from Spain to help out on the trade show floor. It's great to talk to highly knowledgeable people about products they have worked on and are justifiably proud of. I happened to remark to one such Hp engineer that I was a potential customer but the on-board spectro actually seemed redundant because I already own a Spectroscan with Profilemaker 5 software. My remark prompted a very interesting and refreshingly honest reply from this Hp engineer. He said essentially that the spectro was necessary to achieve the printer's closed-loop calibration consistency, but my standalone version of Profilemaker 5 would actually build an even higher quality profile than those produced by the printer software, even the APS option. He then advised "you can import your own custom reference target data to print, use the on-board spectro to generate your measurements, then export the measured color patch data as a text file to build an even better profile with your external application". That advice confirms others' comments about the Z3200 spectro's data exporting feature, and presents a justification why one might want to do just that. Kind of reminds me of Bill Atkinson's "bouquet of profiles" made with different profiling apps.
I had the following exchange with an Epson rep about the HDR ink in the 7900: I said "I assume the orange ink in the HDR set is being blended and swapped for yellow and magenta inks to make skin tone colors". He replied, "Absolutely! The orange ink improves the skin tone reproduction and our beta testers have told us they see noticeably better skin tones". I then asked" How does the new orange ink affect the light fastness of the skin tones". He replied - "It's been tested by....(an independent lab)". I said "but this lab's published testing methodology doesn't include any colors other than two levels of cyan, magenta, yellow, and gray. Do you happen to know if the testing was modified to handle the new HDR ink set?" He then answered "Well, the orange ink is not the limiting factor". Our discussion had quickly reached what I know to be the current limits of light fade testing in the industry. The legacy testing procedures of the traditional color print era which are still in use today for inkjet prints are not well equipped to rate the fading response of new multi-colorant systems. I am looking forward to getting some samples into my own tests which can differentiate skin tone performance, but the printer's limited availability probably mean it's going to be a while before I can get some test targets printed.
Epson also had a very nice set of three prints mounted side-by-side that were made from the same digital image file on a 7800, 7880, and 7900. The image was one of those anorexic looking models dressed in a bright "floral pattern" dress and vivid lime green hat to illustrate the respective color gamut differences in the K3, K3 vM, and HDR Ultrachrome ink sets. The dress pattern had a dizzying array of magenta, red-magenta, violet-magenta, and lime green color regions. The dress pattern was obviously chosen to accentuate and reveal the differences in color gamuts of the three ink sets. My take was this: Yes, you could indeed see subtle increased color vividness in the magentas, and greens in the expected order from K3 to K3vM to HDR. But the difference was extremely subtle even for this image purposefully chosen to illustrate the differences. These differences would not be considered significant by the vast majority of viewers or even noted in anything other than a direct side-by-side comparisonof prints. Moreover, there were other more significant lightness and contrast differences in the prints which were probably attributable to the three translations of the file rendered by three different profiles. Thus, there were various local regions in all three prints that I favored slightly. Likewise, for skin tone reproduction. Kind of like making three "identical" custom prints in the old darkroom days, and preferring one slightly better than the other two because the hand dodging and burning came out ever so slightly differently! I think the printmaker(s) did a good job with a very challenging assignment, ie., to take a single digital file and reproduce it exactingly on the same paper type using three different printers in order to illustrate very subtle differences indeed between the three printers and their respective ink sets.
With respect to GD, bronzing, and Gloss enhancers, by examining a variety of prints not under glass, I think that neither the Z3200, nor the Canon, nor the Epson offerings have totally eliminated the need to choose substrates wisely, and in some cases resort to post coatings if residual GD and bronzing issues are still of concern. In theory, a gloss enhancer should eliminate GD and bronzing for all glossy/semigloss papers, but this pigment-free clear ink can sink right into a number of third party papers, in some cases making image surface appearance worse rather than better. Hp to its credit has recognized this tendency of the clear ink to sink right into some image coatings rather than stay on top, and therefore more user control over GE inking levels has been added to the Z3200. The HP engineer I mentioned above conceded that despite the added control over GE, some third party papers are still not always responding well to the GE. Again, I found his candor very refreshing.
My sense from the 7900 samples I saw, is if you already own a 7800 or 7880, IQ improvements from the HDR ink technology on the 7900 are subtle and not a compelling reason to upgrade, but increased speed, likely improvements in clog-free reliability with Epson's teflon nozzle coating technology, plus easy PK/MK switching are all a nice step forward. I don't pay much attention to what the official customer demographic is for the Epson 7900. Photographers and fine art printers are going to embrace it for sure. Schewe, your 7900 print with the image of clasped hands superimposed with the world map that was on display at the Epson booth was truly captivating, and it also left no doubt about the technical precision of the 7900.
Lastly, I was amazed to see learn how deeply various dealers at the show were willing to discount the price of a Canon ipf X100 series printer. This printer line has the requisite internal calibration/linearization technology to handle printer/environment/media variability, but not the full spectro/profiling capability. However, at it's current street price point, one aught to take a good hard look at the Canon printer line before settling on a Z3200 or Epson 7900. You can buy a lot of custom made profiles for the price differential!
-
Very good post , thanks.
I have always said, the Z spectro is firstly there for linearisation. Profiling afterwards is optional, and open enough that they have a SDK that the rip makers took them up on. One can argue the drift on thermal heads has more deviation than Peizo, thus Epson don't need linearisation per media/session . For the average photographer this is probably true, and the same level of tolerance and acceptance goes with it. What an onboard spectro does is removes as much variation from the total package and ultimately brings repeatability to it's highest level whatever the print head technology. If you throw in the options for profiling and print verification , so much the better.
Canon have a colorimeter of sorts, filtered lights to make a LUT for the measured response of the system. This is not the same as a spectro, and is really necessary for larger deviations in mechanical changes, much less so than environmental, or subtle media / ink changes.
I have always appreciated HP having the makers of the printers on show floors in recent times. They are the ones who built it, thus can answer anything in their capacity about HP printers. Both Epson and Canon have engineers there too but they are not as accessible. I have always appreciated Epson having top tier users that, although are doing their promotion, are in fact , very qualified users that also can answer almost any question thrown at them. Canon and HP have some of them too , but it seems on Epson stands, these power users are more present.
One last thing, the fade testing has to be done with accelerated tests. WIR has proposed new changes and applied a lot of new tests to better adapt to things like humidity, OBA, etc. Until now all tests were based upon flat colours mean change over time extrapolated for fade predictions. Yet these are flat colours , images and composites might well react differently with different proportions of inks and their dilutions.
It is probable that the primaries aren't as lightfast as the darker colours. Yet to be seen.
When you said the primaries replace the CMYK inks it is actually a replacement in certain densities , and a color map by screening that determines the actual content in images. Only through a rip will the single channel control be possible for total replacement.
-
From my (very) limited printing experience view I would agree, even with profiles you still need to learn how a paper will look when printed. So limiting your choice of paper is the first step, I don't see the need to spend a fortune on print profile calibration machinery when you only need a small number of papers and profiles.
Kevin.
So if the paper makers supply profiles for the best printers and the 7900 and 9900 will be bests... why do your own profiling or pay a 3rd party for it? With the tremendous standardization of chemical ink making and CNC milling equipment that makes such exact parts I'm wondering if there is enough variation as a practical matter to need a rip or profile from anyone but the paper maker?
-
So if the paper makers supply profiles for the best printers and the 7900 and 9900 will be bests... why do your own profiling or pay a 3rd party for it? With the tremendous standardization of chemical ink making and CNC milling equipment that makes such exact parts I'm wondering if there is enough variation as a practical matter to need a rip or profile from anyone but the paper maker?
If you buy an Epson 7900 or 9900 and limit yourself to Epson papers I think you'll be happy with the profiles Epson provides. I think a number of them have been crafted by Pixel Genius and are of very high quality.
If you choose a paper from another source, Hahnemuhle, Moab, Harmon, Ilford, etc, the profiles they provide probably aren't going to be as high a quality as Epson provides for its papers.
-
If you buy an Epson 7900 or 9900 and limit yourself to Epson papers I think you'll be happy with the profiles Epson provides. I think a number of them have been crafted by Pixel Genius and are of very high quality.
To be accurate, PG has only made profiles for Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. The rest of the "SP" profiles have been made by Epson US. As for 3rd party paper, my experience is that they vary wildly from maker to maker and printer to printer. To the point that somebody buying a printer like this would not be the sort to use "generic" paper profiles from 3rd party paper makers.
-
Printers now, especially the Epson 900 series, are capable of excellent results. Standard profiles are still generic and results are average. To get what is possible from these printers , one requirement is a number of custom profiles. You need diferent profiles for 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi, and for different renderings. For example Perceptual renderings can be made using different remapping priorities eg for perceived luminosity or colour. Special profiles are required for certain colours eg gold and silver.
Seperate profiles are requires for monochrome prints. Profiles can be built to optimise viewing under specified gallery or museum lighting conditions. The use of RIPs and differing dithering algorithms will necessitate different profiles.
It all depends on the quality you require.
Most photographers not involved in exacting work like products, reproduction or fine art, will be perfectly happy with Epson profiles when using Epson products and a good custom profile from a highly regarded profile builder for non-Epson media.
In fact most would be perfectly happy , and save money buying a 880 printer or even an old ,and now very cheap, 800 printer, especially if not into high volume or lots of photo-matte ink swaps.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
Printers now, especially the Epson 900 series, are capable of excellent results. Standard profiles are still generic and results are average. To get what is possible from these printers , one requirement is a number of custom profiles.
So far, with the exception of Epson Exhibition Fiber (which Epson doesn't provide a profile for), the current driver installed profiles are just as good as the custom profiles I've made to compare them against, so I don't believe this is true with the 900 series (nor my experience with my 7880).
The unit to unit variation on Epson Pro printers is down in the area where spectro accuracy may get in the way of producing a better profile. Yes, both ProfileMaker and Profiler software offers options that can impact the resulting profile (Epson US has been using Profiler and an i1iSis to make the US released SP profiles and PG used an i1iSis with OBC and ProfileMaker for ours). When we tested multiple targets from 4 separate targets printed on 4 different printers for the 7880/9880 there was less than a 1.0 Delta E in the targets readings...
However, the moment you move off of the Epson media, the quality of 3rd party paper profiles vary...alot!
Also note that both HP and Canon user MUST make custom profiles for their printers (one of the reasons HP included a spectro) because neither can really achieve anywhere near the same unit to unit variations.
So, yes, I had to make an EFP profile for my 7900, but after doing a few custom profiles for Epson media, I gave up. YMMV...
-
Also note that both HP and Canon user MUST make custom profiles for their printers (one of the reasons HP included a spectro) because neither can really achieve anywhere near the same unit to unit variations.
Actually, I think that the calibration performed in the HP with the spectro brings each printer to a state that is close to the Epson unit to unit variations. That has allowed many to share profiles across the Z printers with good results. I don't have any test data to verify this though. Creating profiles is a different activity from calibration in the HP Z machines.
-
Actually, I think that the calibration performed in the HP with the spectro brings each printer to a state that is close to the Epson unit to unit variations. That has allowed many to share profiles across the Z printers with good results. I don't have any test data to verify this though. Creating profiles is a different activity from calibration in the HP Z machines.
Not sure, I think it's the way Jeff said it. True , the inter device agreement on the Epson is a very tight tolerance. HP with user replaceable heads, and thermal tech, have a larger deviation. This is also a deviation that moves about during the life of the heads more than Piezo.
With the spectro the mean deviation is brought down to similar deviation of Epson inter device "deviation" agreement or tolerances if you like. The biggest variation with HP Z printers then is the instrument precision and spectro inter device agreement in proper terms.
That is surprisingly a larger deviation than the printer calibrations themselves.
And yes I have seen studies on all three printers deviation stats. Jeff is right in this sense, the only omission is humidity changes the standard deviation by an amount larger than the HP spectro calibration will bring it back into calibration. Unless there is a hygrometer onboard for the 79+9900 I don't know. There is on the HP 6100, 5500 etc, which corrects for RH with a lut.
-
Not sure, I think it's the way Jeff said it. True , the inter device agreement on the Epson is a very tight tolerance. HP with user replaceable heads, and thermal tech, have a larger deviation. This is also a deviation that moves about during the life of the heads more than Piezo.
With the spectro the mean deviation is brought down to similar deviation of Epson inter device "deviation" agreement or tolerances if you like. The biggest variation with HP Z printers then is the instrument precision and spectro inter device agreement in proper terms.
That is surprisingly a larger deviation than the printer calibrations themselves.
And yes I have seen studies on all three printers deviation stats. Jeff is right in this sense, the only omission is humidity changes the standard deviation by an amount larger than the HP spectro calibration will bring it back into calibration. Unless there is a hygrometer onboard for the 79+9900 I don't know. There is on the HP 6100, 5500 etc, which corrects for RH with a lut.
But to what degree does it have an effect on printing practice ?
I see all the recent Epson and HP models represented and qualified in Fogra etc tests like mentioned on the GMG site.
The tests are stringent enough for proofing so ....
http://www.gmgcolor.com/fileadmin/user_upl...MG_21894_EN.pdf (http://www.gmgcolor.com/fileadmin/user_upload/gmgdata/pdf/Fogra_Gutachten_GMG_21894_EN.pdf)
I'm sure GMG will do its best to get the printers in perfect condition/control but it is unlikely that they start with a model that isn't consistent enough in its basics.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
But to what degree does it have an effect on printing practice ?
I see all the recent Epson and HP models represented and qualified in Fogra etc tests like mentioned on the GMG site.
The tests are stringent enough for proofing so ....
http://www.gmgcolor.com/fileadmin/user_upl...MG_21894_EN.pdf (http://www.gmgcolor.com/fileadmin/user_upload/gmgdata/pdf/Fogra_Gutachten_GMG_21894_EN.pdf)
I'm sure GMG will do its best to get the printers in perfect condition/control but it is unlikely that they start with a model that isn't consistent enough in its basics.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
On the Colorsync forum there are users who calibrate for the drift to keep them in tolerance. So for those who care enough they all have to be calibrated regardless of brand. It is just very easy when you have an onboard spectro, both for which Epson x900 and HP Z series have.
-
My digital print research program is still in its very early formative stages with only a limited number of "early adopters" contributing print samples at this time, but as the program grows, one of the studies that will eventually come out of this research is generic versus custom profile quality. One needs a good statistical sampling submitted by users on numerous machines of the same make and model and a few key models in the study before definitive conclusions can be drawn. That said, I have a sense already that a study of generic versus custom profiles will demonstrate significant benefit by the use of custom profiles. Samples submitted by members of my research program already seem to confirm some of the trends already mentioned in this thread. I can summarize my observations so far as follows:
1) With Epson X800 series printers and K3 ink when using Epson media and Epson (or Pixel genius) supplied generic profiles, the sample prints submitted to me have been excellent, and hard to distinquish by eye from samples where custom profiles were made on these printers with Epson media (.e.g, Epson Premium Luster, Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art, etc). A standardized target with 12 distinct hues at varying chroma levels plus specific skin tones, grays, and near gray scales is being printed by all members that submit samples to me.
2). Generic profiles from third party paper manufacturers (Hahnemuhle, Crane, etc) show far more inconsistencies, even for the Epson X800 printers. They are made with different profiling software, some of which produce significant "hooking" and tonal inversions in high chroma colors. The target colors being printed by my members are all within gamut of the sRGB colorspace, so the high chroma colors are not pushing the boundaries of color all that hard yet some goofy transitions occur nonetheless. Another big problem with generic profiles is that the instructions for use of these profiles is often inadequate. It is sometimes exceedingly difficult to figure out what the correct driver settings are for use with the generic profile. When I visit the media manufacturer websites, download profiles and documentation, and then try to match vendor data with the appropriate driver settings I am often left with an incomplete list of the required menu settings. Apparently, my members are guessing as well at times when printing with these profiles, because they submit samples with documented driver settings that I often can't verify from the chosen media/generic profile documentation. Thus, generic profiles appear to be problematic on three counts, a) they can't account for specific inter device variability when it exists b), temperature and humidity effects on ink/paper performance are real and may not be accounted for (even with a custom profile if only one calibration/profile is used across four distinct seasons), and c) reproducing the third party generic supplied profile settings is sometimes very questionable!
One more issue to consider.... do relatively inexpensive profiling apps like Xrite colormunki or Datacolor Spyder Print do better at making custom profiles when compared to generic profiles supplied by media manufacturers? Are budget profiling apps a better alternative for some users who don't need lots of profile making productivity, but do intend to profile enough to justify purchasing the budget priced profiling software?
These are challenging questions to which one can merely speculate without a larger statistical study and a well executed design of experiment. I am beginning to address the parameters of such a study because this information is highly relevant to today's digital printmaking environment. I hope to get some pragmatic answers with the help of my contributing members.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
One other thing to consider, is ink wastage. I had an epson 7600 it wastes ink rapidily my hp z3100 is much more frugal with ink. I do not know how the epson 7900 is but epson's track history with ink wastage is huge.
-
I do not know how the epson 7900 is but epson's track history with ink wastage is huge.
Correct, you don't and the 79/9900 (as well as the 11800) have redesigned all new style heads with intensive anti-clogging and reduced ink consumption (for other than printing). Really, the 7600 is now three generation old...really old tech.
-
The Z 3100+3200 have GE that effectively reduces bronzing and gloss differential to a bare minimum. From what I have seen it does better on certain papers than others. When it does better that is to say it does better than any other printer out there in LFP. Yet on some or many third party papers the underlaying inks actually bronze and or have large Gloss Diff problems, so adding GE over this does not mask or correct it. In those cases Epson K3, VM, and the new inksets do better except for the small amount of GD that will be around the paper whites against blacks.
I just got back from the Patrick Demarchalier expo where all prints were inkjet, which I presume on an Epson 11880. You have to get down on your knees and look for any GD, and there is no bronzing.
With the little time I had looking at the 79+9900 prints I didn't look into the new primaries , how if, or where they have problems of GD, and or bronzing. If there were any glaring problems I would have seen it straight off. There aren't but I cannot say as GD is sometimes infrequently seen in composite colors at certain densities, and certain papers.
-
My question is about bronzing on the 7900 using Epson Prem Luster and Semi Gloss papers.
Bronzing or gloss differential? Two very different things...I've not seen any "bronzing" since the original UltraChrome K3 inks were introduced in the original 800 series printers. As far as gloss differential, it can be there depending on the paper. To me, it's not a thing I worry about. Matted and framed, I would challenge anybody to consider it a "big deal".
HP on the other hand with their pigment inks was FORCED to deploy a gloss enhancer because their inks resembled the original Epson pigment inks with really bad GD. Epson had played with a GE in their R890 & 1800 printers designed to print on really glossy paper. So, rather than have to devote an entire channel for a clear glop, they redesigned the resins in the inks to minimize it, which they have done. Can you see it if you look hard enough? I suppose...is it objectionable? Not to me and it's invisible once matted, framed and hanging on a wall. YMMV
-
As far as gloss differential, it can be there depending on the paper. To me, it's not a thing I worry about. Matted and framed, I would challenge anybody to consider it a "big deal".
HP on the other hand with their pigment inks was FORCED to deploy a gloss enhancer because their inks resembled the original Epson pigment inks with really bad GD. Epson had played with a GE in their R890 & 1800 printers designed to print on really glossy paper. So, rather than have to devote an entire channel for a clear glop, they redesigned the resins in the inks to minimize it, which they have done. Can you see it if you look hard enough? I suppose...is it objectionable? Not to me and it's invisible once matted, framed and hanging on a wall. YMMV
I hadn't been able to print my images on the same or similar paper at Photokina but can say that what I saw confirms gloss differential is controlled by HP to the point of a non issue for GD, but don't forget the increase in cost and printing time, and fragility of the surface. Epson has very GD by nature, but is not completely eliminated, nor is it for any pigment printer I have seen to date.
It is extremely variable though on different surfaces. For example, at the Innova stand they had all three brands of printers. Kind of surprising to see , they had many great images printed on bad combinations of media and image style. On certain media the Epson VM inkset and the 7900 had substantial GD on glossy Innova (can't remember the name), as did the Canon too. HP with GE there was little or rather none in the highlights.
So say what you will, but remember the media is just as important as the inkset. The same is true on HP, as without GE it can sometimes be quite poor, whereas both Epson and Canon get the job done well. One of the reasons I felt when the Z 3100 was released the GE was not marketed as an important element as it should have been. It is a good solution, one that works. IF not for GE, the inkset they have is not up to par with the others as far as gloss diff goes.
I'm not a big fan of HP. I own a Z3100 and have noted in this thread and other threads that I have seriously considered selling it and switching to Epson. I think HP customer service, tech support, software and drivers are clearly inferior to Epson. And the new 7900 is probably superior to the Z3200 in yet other areas. So I am not a partisan defender of HP, and in fact have been very critical of HP.
Having said that, the above criticism of HP, and implied defense of Epson by Schewe, is simply not balanced. Or accurate.
The readers of the forum only have to run their own test. Take a print on photo paper that has clear evidence of gloss differential** (GD). Put a piece of glass over it. I did that in response to the above posting by Schewe and his flat assertion that GD is "invisible once matted, framed and hanging on a wall." I used examples of GD printed on Epson Luster from both the Epson 4000 and the HP Z3100 when printed without gloss enhancer.
Can you see the GD? Yes. You can see GD just as clearly through glass as without a mat and glass. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. Test it yourself.
Partisan attacks on HP don't change that. Schewe's reference to GE as "clear glop" is simply a cheap shot, and a debating ploy to change the subject, that doesn't address the issue. The plain fact of the matter is that HP solved GD with the Gloss Enhancer (GE). Did they have to do it because their inks fail some other standard as asserted above? I don't know. What I do know is that combination of HP inks with GE has come very close to entirely eliminating GD. On top of it, I understand that the Z3200 works even better in that regard with control over the application of GD, although I can't personally attest to that.
See the above quote from Neil Snape, who has used both printers, and his assessment of GD and GE on the HP Z series. Neil states that "what I saw confirms gloss differential is controlled by HP to the point of a non issue for GD," and that "I felt when the Z 3100 was released the GE was not marketed as an important element as it should have been. It is a good solution, one that works." With regards to Epson, Neil reports that "On certain media the Epson VM inkset and the 7900 had substantial GD."
Here is my interpretation of the above assertions on behalf of Epson. Epson has not solved GD, based on statements from those who have used both the Z3100/3200 and the 7900. So that assertion that GD doesn't matter when framed is a weak defense of a problem that still exists with the 7900.
The degree to which GD still exists is something that we each must individually evaluate -- assuming that you live near one of the largest metro areas in the US and can see both printers in operation. If you don't live in such an urbran area, you must depend upon the reports from those who have used both printers.
Finally, there is a real pattern here in the approach used to defend Epson. Epson has, thus far, failed to address two of the strengths of the HP Z3100, even though it appeared on the market two or three years ago. HP revolutionized the market with their on-board spectro for PROFILING PAPERS and GE.
So the current defense of Epson is to assert that these features are not important, and therefore it is not an issue that Epson has still not included these features in their new printers. That is about all that Epson can say, when HP has the features, and Epson does not.
The fact of the matter is that HP is marketing a printer for about the same price that still includes two very nice features that Epson lacks. The Epson marketing guys blew it, especially on the spectro, when they didn't include utilities to make profiles (based on reports in in this thread). Epson has had close to three years to address these advantages in the HP printers as compared with Epson printers that lack those features.
Epson just plain dropped the ball, and arguing that these features aren't important doesn't change that.
The degree to which these HP features matter to a consumer is a decision to be made by each consumer who is looking at both printers in the same price range. But calling GE "clear glop" does not change the fact that it works, and works well. And then there are those who argue that an on-board spectro is not important, and the profiling of papers can be handled through other options -- even though it is available on a very good printer for about the same price as the Epson so why not buy a printer with that option instead of one without the option? Others argue that a spectro is not critical to the actual performance of a printer. But the same can't be said for GD and GE, can it? GD has everything to do with the actual performance of the printer. In the case of the spectro, the argument is also made that a manual package can be used so there is another alternative. But that is not the case with GD, unless some spray in a can that can be applied outside in an open area. Frankly, I'll take the HP solution, that is applied indoors, and as part of the printing process, rather than spray in a can.
Individual consumers can judge GD for themselves, if they can find a dealer with both printers who can run the tests, assuming that you live in one of the largest urban areas of the country. I will see if Epson will print a test image from a DVD at one of the Print Academies demos for that purpose, since a 7900 will not be available in my area. If Epson declines to do such a comparison, I will report that, and I suspect that they will use any of a number of excuses to refuse to spend three minutes to print an 11x14. If so, I'll report that as well. If Epson has come very close to eliminating GD with its new inks, I will be the first to eat crow, report that fact, and applaud the Epson solution.
** (I am using the term GD to refer to a clear difference between areas with ink versus plain white paper for complete white, and also when that appears in areas of gray or black. If this bronzing, rather than GD, then use that term.)
-
I used examples of GD printed on Epson Luster from both the Epson 4000 and the HP Z3100 when printed without gloss enhancer.
Ya see, the problem there is you are using an ink set in the 4000 that is 3 (count them 3) full generations away from the 79/9900. The UC K3 improved on the GD and so does the UC HDR...so, you are comparing old tech against the HP. I suggest you check it against a print from the 78/9880 series to see the improvements already made and then compare against the UC HDR and see that it's minimized yet again against your old tech.
I haven't dealt with a print from the old 600 series for several years, I was talking about prints from the 7880 and now the 7900 that I've made and framed...GD is simply not an issue.
As far as the "clear glop", that's not an attack on HP...Epson did the same thing with the R1800 and R1900 printers...and to me it is a clear glop. With the R1900 printing on super glossy photo paper (which I only do for 4x6 snapshots) the clear glop helps eliminate any GD which is useful when looking at tiny prints. Make no mistake, HP _HAD_ to address the inherent GD of their inks which, like the earlier Epson inks produces more GD. Epson chose to address the issue with a redesign of the new ink resins because their current inks don't show the GD the way HP's current inks do. Also note that HP pretty much HAD to put on an onboard spectro because of the inherent unit to unit variations. Epson chose to provide an onboard spectro for the proofing industry to address printer linearizing and to pass proof certifications. Two entirely different reasons and product solutions...will photo printers want the spectro? I don't know, but it wasn't designed for that use case, so prolly not.
If Epson declines to do such a comparison, I will report that, and I suspect that they will use any of a number of excuses to refuse to spend three minutes to print an 11x14. If so, I'll report that as well. If Epson has come very close to eliminating GD with its new inks, I will be the first to eat crow, report that fact, and applaud the Epson solution.
The schedule for the day of the Epson Print Academy Track II is tight enough as it stands so I'll pretty much tell you that the odds of us doing test prints from YOUR images is slight. The only paper we'll be printing on is either 17x22 or 24x30 Epson Exhibition Fiber paper unless JP want to print on Ultrasmooth Fine Art. The only Luster we'll have are small sheets for doing head alignments.
You'll be welcome to look at all the example prints that we'll be printing but they are not intended to be taken away.
What the individual dealers will or won't be able to do isn't up to me. You are welcome to try them...
As for the rest of your "assertions", you are welcome to your opinions...they are not shared by me.
-
Oh, and by the way, I believe Michael _IS_ getting a 7900 pretty soon...and I think he has a 3100 that he can compare it against, should he be so inclined to do so...
-
Hi Jeff,
I've asked Wayne Fox the same question in a different thread but didn't get back to me, he's maybe away. My question is about bronzing on the 7900 using Epson Prem Luster and Semi Gloss papers. I want to buy one more printer to use along the 44in Z3100 I'm using right now and I'm looking to get either the new 7900 or the Z3200. I went to one of the big labs here in London to print a test file on their 9800 and I was really surprised at the amount of bronzing. The test file was printed on Epson Semi Gloss and the Bronzing was unacceptable. You're one of the few using a 7900. Have you've printed with any Epson luster, gloss/semi gloss papers on a 7900 and if yes, is bronzing an issue. New Epson printers will be available in UK towards end 08 or beginning 09. If bronzing is not an issue I could wait for the 7900 otherwise I'm going to get a Z3200 now...
Many thanks.
Best
George
Sorry George, I must have missed that question.
I am in agreement with Jeff here ... I have not had an an issue with bronzing since the 9800 printer was introduced, and my 11880 printer has no issues with it. Perhaps he is correct in thinking you were referring to gloss differential?
I am not aware of how the GO on HP printers work, but I do know it can be use to control both bronzing and gloss differential. I was sent an ipf5000 printer by Canon shortly before they were introduced and bronzing was a major problem on some papers. They also sent me an ipf6100 when they were introduced, and the new black inks have addressed that problem quite well. Whether HP is using it to control both problems or just gloss differential I do not know.
The ability to see gloss differential is a function of ink and paper, as well as the image itself and the viewing conditions. For gloss differential to become visible with the 11880 on Epson Luster it seems to require a nearly pure white area, which is bordered by a very dark area ... even then it is not obvious. A soft light source makes it more visible, small direct spot type lighting makes it pretty much non visible.
I also feel that once you mat and frame the image under glass, gloss differential becomes pretty irrelevant. To see gloss differential on a stationary print, you have to move around and look for it. You can't see it from straight on which is how the print is typically viewed ... especially by someone examining it closely. You have to get the right angle of light reflecting off of the print. If it is in your hand and you are moving it around there is a higher likelihood for you to spot the problem. Also the type of light counts ... with a big soft light (like the banks of color corrected fluorescents in my print room) it can be more apparent - if you are looking for it. Take that same print to a location where it is under pretty direct light such as spots ... much less likely to see it. Finally, under glass on a wall the reflections of the glass also comes in to play. So I'm with Jeff on this one as well.
I guess what I'm saying is if you put everything in perspective, it seems to require a perfect storm of circumstances for gloss differential to become an issue for a well done print on a wall under glass. I pay no attention to gloss differential in preparing my prints on the 11880. Of course, there are very little areas of almost 0 ink in most of my work.
However, tonight I happen to be printing a new version of an old image. I've attached a small version so you can see what I was looking at. The sun is 255,255,255 - blown might one way to describe it. While it isn't next to a real dark area, there is enough of an ink load to make gloss differential viewable. There are also quite a few highlights in the water which are blown. So I tried a few things just for fun. I had a test print on Epson Premium Luster, and final prints done on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. In my print room, which is lit by 2 banks of 4 foot color corrected fluorescents under a heavy diffuser (very soft), it was a struggle to see Gloss differential on the Luster print anywhere - it took a fair amount of tilting and shifting to get an angle that would show any. With the Exhibition fiber I could move the print around and the gloss differential was more apparent ... not objectionable but visible. Laying the print on a table I could move around and see the gloss differential, but it took quite a bit of angle. I then placed a mat and glass over the print, and it was more difficult - yes I can see it if I tried, but in no way would I feel this an issue if selling the print.
I took the prints upstairs to my kitchen which is lit by ceiling can lights that contain small reflector bulbs - small very directional lights. I really couldn't see any gloss differential on the Luster, and had to look really hard and move the paper around just right to get an angle where I could see it on the exhibition fiber - barely. Laying that print on the counter under the mat and glass I could not see any gloss differential.
Not sure if any of this is useful or not. I do know that I tested the z3100 for 2 weeks ... specifically for the appeal of the GO, and felt it's output wasn't much better than the 9800 I was using at the time. I would never even consider giving up my 11880 and whatever minute gloss differential it exhibits to gain that feature from a z3100. (nor would i give it up for any other feature of the z3100 for that matter, including the on board spectro).
[attachment=9366:LaJollaBird_500WEB.jpg]
(PS .. just a quick plug for LR 2.0 and ACR 5.0 .. I have processed this image, from the original Kodak DCS back, on several occasions over many years, and have always fought banding and other issues. My RAW processing skills have improved over the years, but this image has always been challenging ... until now. For the first time I finally have an image I like, thanks to these new tools from Adobe with the new local adjustments.)
-
The sun is 255,255,255 - blown might one way to describe it. While it isn't next to a real dark area, there is enough of an ink load to make gloss differential viewable.
Out of curiosity Wayne, have you ever tested how much you'd have to lower the "blown" values to completely eliminate GD? Just wondering if lowering to 252 or 253 would be sufficient with the newer ink sets.
Jim
-
My understanding is that Gloss Differential and Bronzing are the same thing. Harald Johnson in his book "Mastering Digital Printing" page 216 and Amadou Diallo in his book "Mastering Digital Black and White" page 243, refer to both as one and the same.
Am I missing something?
No they are not the same at all.
Bronzing is the change in appearance to a metallic look often being coloured towards copper or bronze , hence it's name.It is usually most noticeable at 30-45 degrees off center viewing. It is possible to have bronzing in any ink colorant not only grey inks.
Gloss differential is the amount of reflection at oblique angles where the different ink densities reflect different and sometimes inverse of the expected reflection density. Mostly noticeable in the paper white (zero ink) to the grey ink or composite grey +pk ink.
I said that GD is still present on even the x900 prints on certain third party media which simply are unsuitable IMO. There would be even more GD on the same paper with an HP, but with GE applied it is reduced if not covered up by it.
In any case bronzing is very reduced if not non-present on most papers with Epson K3, VM, and the HD new inks.
GE on the HP is a fairly complex application that is much different than Epson R1900 GLOP. IT does a good job but is fragile. It has it's own coloration at oblique angles, usually seen as a magenta tint but this is at 10 degrees or so.
To find GD on the Demarchalier prints exposed to mixted light, I had to get down on my knees and find a spot or bright light onto areas as above printed on a heavy weight lustre on an Epson 11880. No bronzing at all, and only a little GD when really sought. This was on non glass mounted prints, but I cannot see how glass mounting takes out GD.
Personally I don't see the need to bring down levels to 252 just to reduce GD , as noted here, you only see it at oblique angles , hence if the print is anything but huge, I don't see the point for viewers as it is NOT a problem on optimised papers on Epson.
Remember , I did say I saw prints on all three, the HP3200, it was Joshua Greene on the stand, and a 7900, and some Canon LFPs at the Innova stand at Photokina. I'm not sure why they didn't think to show prints on adapted media, as Innova do have some nice products. At the Epson stand there were zero defects on any prints exposed or being printed. That goes to show choose your media carefully.
-
I said that GD is still present on even the x900 prints on certain third party media which simply are unsuitable IMO.
Just curioius which media. I don't use a lot of different media types, but have found gloss differential on Kodak Professional Luster is very similar to Epson Premium Luster. Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk, which I use when my print is too big for Epson Exhibition Fiber is not quite as good as the EEF, but still very acceptable.
I was planning on trying a few of the other new baryta based papers, so I'm curious if perhaps some of those were among papers you saw and had problem with.
-
The schedule for the day of the Epson Print Academy Track II is tight enough as it stands so I'll pretty much tell you that the odds of us doing test prints from YOUR images is slight. The only paper we'll be printing on is either 17x22 or 24x30 Epson Exhibition Fiber paper unless JP want to print on Ultrasmooth Fine Art. The only Luster we'll have are small sheets for doing head alignments.
I said that GD is still present on even the x900 prints on certain third party media which simply are unsuitable IMO. There would be even more GD on the same paper with an HP, but with GE applied it is reduced if not covered up by it.
In any case bronzing is very reduced if not non-present on most papers with Epson K3, VM, and the HD new inks.
GE on the HP is a fairly complex application that is much different than Epson R1900 GLOP. IT does a good job but is fragile. It has it's own coloration at oblique angles, usually seen as a magenta tint but this is at 10 degrees or so.
To find GD on the Demarchalier prints exposed to mixted light, I had to get down on my knees and find a spot or bright light onto areas as above printed on a heavy weight lustre on an Epson 11880. No bronzing at all, and only a little GD when really sought. This was on non glass mounted prints, but I cannot see how glass mounting takes out GD.
Personally I don't see the need to bring down levels to 252 just to reduce GD , as noted here, you only see it at oblique angles , hence if the print is anything but huge, I don't see the point for viewers as it is NOT a problem on optimised papers on Epson.
Remember , I did say I saw prints on all three, the HP3200, it was Joshua Greene on the stand, and a 7900, and some Canon LFPs at the Innova stand at Photokina. I'm not sure why they didn't think to show prints on adapted media, as Innova do have some nice products. At the Epson stand there were zero defects on any prints exposed or being printed. That goes to show choose your media carefully.
(1) As Neil and others have explained, the degree to which you see bronzing or GD is related to the media. You will see less with the 7900 when using Epson media that is optimized for that printer. The same would be true for HP. So if you plan on exclusively using media that is optimized by the manufacturer for their own printer, then all of these issues are less important.
However, if you plan on enjoying the wide range of papers that are now available from other manufacturers, then it becomes an issue. Then GD is a serious factor when evaluating the quality of the printer. Profiling papers is also an issue, or the need to obtain high quality profiles. Several people with significant experience in the industry have explained that the profiles from paper manufacturers are often inadequate, so that is not a solution that can be relied on. You must turn to an on-board spectro such as the HP Z printers, or a hand-held manual approach, or find someone who also makes high quality profiles and isn't using a $500 package that you could have bought for yourself. (Many of the guys who make profiles for $50 are doing just that, so sending away for a profile is often not a solution either.)
(2) This becomes significant when evaluating printers at trade shows. It is a serious issue at the Epson Print Academy. Both Epson and HP will pick media, and images, that puts their printers in the very best light. Manufacturers will use their own media that reveals little GD, little bronzing, or color shifts. Schewe admitted as much in the above quote, because the media used by Epson at the Print Academy is the type that would be far less vulnerable to GD than would Epson Glossy, for example.
(3) Lighting is also a factor at trade shows. Manufacturers will use indirect lighting so that it is next to impossible to see GD even if it is present. Neil also explained that he had to get down on his knees to see these effects due to indirect lighting.
GD and bronzing will show up in an office or home with very bright direct lighting, such as from a window. In a bad case of GD you don't have to be at very much of an angle to see it with stronger direct or indirect lighting.
Neil was able to see clear evidence of GD on the Epson 7900 when directly examining third party media. Not getting down on his knees due to dark, indirect lighting, and not when viewing cherry-picked media and lighting by the manufactuers.
(4) I am not surprised that Epson will refuse to take five minutes to print a sample at the Print Academy. (For the record, I planned on bringing Epson semi-gloss or gloss media WITH ME due to the likely excuse that "sorry we don't have that media," and to take that excuse off the table.)
No matter. They won't do it, as strongly suggested by Schewe. They want us to look at their carefully selected images, that due to the choice of colors and inks, minimize GD and all problems. And then look at those images under lighting conditions that further hide any issues.
That is why I assumed, at the very start, that the images on display at the Print Academy will not fairly and accurately represent GD and other issues on the 7900. As I explained above, Epson will carefully select images, paper and lighting to minimize any issues at all. Epson would be damn fools to do anything else. HP would do the same, as would all manufacturers.
The real fools would be those who buy the 7900 based on the prints at display at the Epson Print Academy, or buy a Z3200 based on what HP puts on display. On the other hand, if you can evaluate third party media, printed on both printers -- as Neil was able to do -- you will see a much different story, with GD present on the 7900 and other manufacturers.
(5) I also agree with Neil when he said that "This was on non glass mounted prints, but I cannot see how glass mounting takes out GD." Glass has absolutely nothing to do with it, contrary to the assertions made by those defending Epson. Again, just test it yourself with a piece of glass. It is just plain silly to assert to the contrary, when it is so easy for all of us to show that glass has no impact -- none at all -- on the impact of GD or bronzing.
The advocates for Epson are simply using a bad debaters ploy to change the subject, and try to defend Epson. That is deliciously ironic, when they also so strongly defend Epson, and just as strongly attack the quality of HP inks. Either Epson has a problem or it doesn't. Glass and the mounting prints has nothing to do with it.
(6) Finally, I welcome the acknowledgment by Schewe that he works for Epson as part of the Print Academy. Many of us already knew that, and Schewe has previously acknowledged that. It is nonetheless useful information for a casual reader of the forum who might not know that. They have the right to know of any affiliations of those who post, and the readers of the forum can then evaluate any statements made through that lens.
I am a strong believer in "sunshine" laws and policies to forthrightly reveal conflicts of interest. I hope everyone will follow the example set by Schewe. If you are compensated by a manufacturer, say that. If you receive free equipment either on loan, or permanently as an out-right gift, say that. We, the readers of the forum, have the right to know that and evaluate statements in that context.
That does not, in any way, diminish the importance of the participation of experts who are compensated by manufacturers. They are compensated by manufacturers precisely because they are experts. They are exactly the people we need in this forum due to their expertise. The fact that they are compensated does not diminish their expertise or the importance of their contributions.
But they should also always step into the bright sunshine, and disclose any conflicts of interest. Schewe did that here, and had done so previously. He is to be applauded for doing so. Anyone else who is compensated by manufacturers either in direct payments, or free equipment, should do so as well. (Speaking for myself, I am not employed in any field that is anyway related to photography, graphic arts, or anything that is in anyway related to the issues discussed in this forum. I am employed in a field where conflicts of interest are forthrightly disclosed and have learned of the importance of doing so.)
-
(2) This becomes significant when evaluating printers at trade shows. It is a serious issue at the Epson Print Academy. Both Epson and HP will pick media, and images, that puts their printers in the very best light. Manufacturers will use their own media that reveals little GD, little bronzing, or color shifts. Schewe admitted as much in the above quote, because the media used by Epson at the Print Academy is the type that would be far less vulnerable to GD than would Epson Glossy, for example.
Aside from the fact you write posts on the forum that seem as long as War And Peace, you also have a way of interpreting what I write the way you feel like rather than reading what I write. I never said anything about EPSON choosing the paper...I choose the friggin' paper I print on. For my own prints, there's really only two paper I use (except for testing and head alignments or other purposes than making a fine art print). I print on EFP and Sommerset for Epson. I print both and choose the paper based on the image's needs...not based on what Epson tells me to use. I don't try every new paper that's introduce because I like to have a very stable set of parameters to deal with. I choose based on my needs and I'm not terribly likely to flail about trying everything under the sun. I don't care how other papers print on my printers cause I ain't gonna be using that other paper.
With regards to the Epson Print Academy, Andrew Rodney, Mac Holbert, JP Caponigro, Greg Gorman and I decide what we're going to cover during the course of the day. We only have so much time and a lot of stuff to cover to get our information out. The timing of the production is pretty set based on the start time in the morning and the fact the room must be cleared by a certain time or Epson gets hit for a hell of an overtime charge for the venue. We've already done about 20 of these show over the last couple of years...we're good at it and we've got it down pat. Mac has helped a lot...he used to be a roadie for Crosby, Stills, Nash and sometimes Young as well as a variety of other 1960's rock groups.
The topics we cover and the manner we cover them is up to us, Epson only dictates the start and stop time and what cities we go to (with a little input from us). The EPson Print Academy is not a "trade show", it's an educational seminar.
You also kinda misread what Neil wrote as well...it's not indirect light that trade show venue use, it's well lit DIRECT LIGHT that Epson uses...in the Epson trade show booth, they light the matted and framed prints with Solux (http://www.solux.net) lighting which are nice, daylight DIRECT lighting that makes the prints look really good...is that "cheating"? I don't think so...the aim of fine art printing is to make a print worthy of framing and hanging with good light. That's what Epson's "selling". Not sure what you sell...
I am a strong believer in "sunshine" laws and policies to forthrightly reveal conflicts of interest.
Wow, sounds like you have some real baggage...Yes, I'm an Epson Stylus Pro (Epson pays me in equipment and ink and pays me in cash to teach and speak). I'm a consultant and alpha/beta tester for Adobe (most recently on Camera Raw and Lightroom where I was involved in developing the capture sharpening in CR/LR and the output sharpening in Lightroom, for money). The testing I do for Adobe is uncompensated work. Although they have paid me to teach and write for them. I also write (coauthored with the late Bruce Fraser) the Real World Camera Raw book I'm a good friend of Michael Reichmann and Chris Sanderson and we work on projects together that Mike & Chris sell and I get a piece of....I used to be a Canon Explorer of Light, but I don't do that any more. I ride a BMW R1200 GS (a new Adventure model, just got it and it only has 18 miles on it) and drive a Honda CRV. I prefer to wear all cotton clothing and light-weight shoes (now with more arch support as I get older). Since I quit smoking, I chew Nicorette 4mg Fresh Min Gum (it's the only flavor that doesn't taste like shit). I'm a newly registered Democrat that will be voting for Barack Obama on Nov 4th. My wife of 35 years is Rebecca (shortened to Becky) and I have a 26 yr old daughter Erica. My favorite color is...B&W.
And no, I won't disclose my tax return...but I have enough money that I really don't have to work for a living, which pretty much frees me up to be, say and do whatever I feel like (much to some people's chagrin).
Hey, you can never be too transparent, right? Now, how about YOU Alan, what's YOUR agenda?
-
Aside from the fact you write posts on the forum that seem as long as War And Peace, you also have a way of interpreting what I write the way you feel like rather than reading what I write.
And no, I won't disclose my tax return.
Hey, you can never be too transparent, right? Now, how about YOU Alan, what's YOUR agenda?
You accuse me of misinterpreting your comments. Well, you have done the same to me, only you have done so deliberately, not accidentally.
I applauded your disclosure that you work for Epson. I did not criticize you. Go back and read what I wrote.
Nor did I ask for any other disclosures on your part. The fact that you are compensated by Epson, and you already disclosed that, is what matters. So stop the silly debater's ploys and raising non-issues. No one asked you to disclose your tax return. Stop talking about tax returns, glass, and other irrelevant issues.
But there are others on the forum who do the opposite, and only defend HP, and who probably receive free equipment from HP. My comment was directed at them, and my comment was specific --I applauded your example, and urged all others to follow your example.
I also said this, that you chose to ignore: "That does not, in any way, diminish the importance of the participation of experts who are compensated by manufacturers. They are compensated by manufacturers precisely because they are experts. They are exactly the people we need in this forum due to their expertise. The fact that they are compensated does not diminish their expertise or the importance of their contributions."
You also deliberately chose to ignore, to misrepresent and to misquote my posting, but I will say it again here. I receive no compensation; no free equipment; and absolutely no benefits, financial or otherwise, from anyone in the fields of printing, photography, graphic arts or any field related to this forum. I am employed in a field that has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with any of the topics on this forum. I included that disclaimer in my original posting because I expected someone to pose the question to me, so I covered it advance. Except that you chose to ignore it.
I am NOT suggesting that every person who posts needs to disclose that, or repeat what I said I above. What I said is that if you compensated by a manufacturer or receive free equipment, then you should disclose that fact. If you are either an amateur or a professional who does not receive compensation or free equipment, then there is no need to affirmatively state that.
I am an amateur photographer, who started this thread to seek answers on one question. Which is the better printer, the Z3200 or the 7900.
If I have an agenda, that is the agenda.
-
Which is the better printer, the Z3200 or the 7900.
The 7900...
:~)
Course, that's just my opinion, for what's it's worth...(some people actually pay for that opinion)
-
The 7900...
:~)
Course, that's just my opinion, for what's it's worth...(some people actually pay for that opinion)
Ironically, I probably agree. Even with the issues of GD and the spectro, I assume that the 7900 and Epson are superior on the other criteria that I posted at the very start of this thread. Customer service, tech support, mechanical quality and reliability, print quality, and speed -- to name only a few where Epson and the 7900 probably beat HP and the 3200.
We are actually more in agreement, than in disagreement.
I'm hoping that Epson releases a new utility for the specto that includes printer profiling, with software and targets at least as good as the HP APS. Assuming that GD on the 7900 is, in fact, miinor, I might pay the extra $800 for the Epson and spectro as compared with the combined price of the Z3200 and APS. (The Epson and spectro costs $800 more than the Z3200 and APS as listed on the HP web site.)
(Any good printer profiling package costs at least $1,000 for use with the Epson without the spectro. So paying the extra $800 for the Epson spectro, if it included printer profiling, would actually save money if someone chose to buy the Epson.)
I just have to be sure to look at the Epson prints straight on to not see any GD! :~)
Seriously, even if the Epson spectro software is modified so that it can produce paper profiles, I will still withhold final judgment until I can actually see the degree of GD on the 7900 with Luster or Semi-gloss papers, and compare that to the largely non-existent GD on the HP printers using GE.
-
I just have to be sure to look at the Epson prints straight on to not see any GD! :~)
Actually although we do travel with a gallery of framed and well lit prints from various members of the Epson Stylus Pro members, the prints we produce during the show are loose prints we put on a table with about 6 or 7 strong and direct Solux lights shining on them. You can pick them up and turn them any angle you wish...so you certainly can inspect them for any evidence of GD or bronzing...you can even pull out a loupe to inspect the grain structure of the ink droplets (something the 7900 is remarkable for). And we'll teach you how to optimize your images to take full advantage of the new printers; Pro Photo RGB, 16 bit processing and printing, soft proofing to have absolute control over rendering, output sharpening to get the most out of your image detail and discussions on print handling and framing (I interviewed Michael for that video and shows how he matts & frames his prints) and longevity with an interview Micheal did with Henry Wilhelm (you even find out why Henry was put into jail).
Lunch is included....and every attendee gets the chance to win the sweepstakes (see the rules for details :~)
-
Actually although we do travel with a gallery of framed and well lit prints from various members of the Epson Stylus Pro members, the prints we produce during the show are loose prints we put on a table with about 6 or 7 strong and direct Solux lights shining on them. You can pick them up and turn them any angle you wish...so you certainly can inspect them for any evidence of GD or bronzing...you can even pull out a loupe to inspect the grain structure of the ink droplets (something the 7900 is remarkable for). And we'll teach you how to optimize your images to take full advantage of the new printers; Pro Photo RGB, 16 bit processing and printing, soft proofing to have absolute control over rendering, output sharpening to get the most out of your image detail and discussions on print handling and framing (I interviewed Michael for that video and shows how he matts & frames his prints) and longevity with an interview Micheal did with Henry Wilhelm (you even find out why Henry was put into jail).
Lunch is included....and every attendee gets the chance to win the sweepstakes (see the rules for details :~)
Mr. Schewe:
I make the below request respectfully. I intend no disrespect, and I am not trying to be argumentative. Just the opposite.
My own request would then be for you to make a print that we can all agree would demonstrate GD. A print of a mountain and snow, to use an example, would be perfect. Because it will have paper white and grays and blacks.
I'd also request that such a print be made on Epson luster, semi-gloss or gloss paper.
That would pretty well put the debate on GD to rest, once and for all. We could then see a good example of GD, on a paper that is vulnerable to it, and as you say, we could pick it up under direct lighting and examine it.
If the new inks really minimize GD, then many of us might decide that it is not a significant problem with the 7900 -- or even that it is not a problem at all.
If you indicate that this would be possible, I'll be the first to acknowledge that many of the statements in my last "war and peace" posting would be just plain wrong.
Then, going back to my last posting, all of the other areas where Epson and the 7900 are superior come into play and would be deciding factors on which printer to buy.
-
I'm hoping that Epson releases a new utility for the specto that includes printer profiling, with software and targets at least as good as the HP APS. I'd pay the extra $800 for the Epson and spectro as compared with the 3200 and APS in a nanosecond. (Any good printer profiling package costs at least $1,000, so paying the extra $800 for the Epson spectro, if it included printer profiling, would actually save money.)
I just have to be sure to look at the Epson prints straight on to not see any GD! :~)
That's just it, on most papers there just is so little GD it's not a concern. Just use the right papers and all's well.
Exactly what Epson show, recommend , and strongly promote.
HP don't have a problem when using GE on still optimised paper, yet using GE to correct it presents it's own cost and disadvantage too.
Personally I don't think you'd see see much difference on the same media like Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta or if you used Epson Tradition on both. If you studied the smoothness and gamut potential the Epson has and will do better than other printers. Take Bill Atkinson's 28 ball tiff and softproof the graduations through profiles on Epson then other printers. It doesn't say what the print will really look like, but it does say the potential upfront is where you want it to be.
The added options like take up spool, build quality, aspirated platen, all make it an obvious choice for those who need that or those features.
HP have their own merits too, and fit in well with users who prefer the options on HP side.
With today's choices of quality paper, there is no reason to use any media that is not up to snuff. I recommend of course Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta, for which I received one box of 20 A3 sheets apart prototype samples, just to disclose what I got for testing. HP , I had done a lot of testing for, and assisted some shows a few years back to meet the user base, but haven't done anything in years with them. Who knows, if I have more time, I'd like to test and report for both of these printers.
-
Out of curiosity Wayne, have you ever tested how much you'd have to lower the "blown" values to completely eliminate GD? Just wondering if lowering to 252 or 253 would be sufficient with the newer ink sets.
Jim
Haven't ever done that. I've heard of the technique, but as I mentioned I don't believe gloss differential is a problem on the media I use.
If I had a particular image where this was problematic, I would be more inclined to use a protective spray coating over the print rather than this. It's a pretty easy fix, and some do it anyway, since it seals and protects the some what fragile print surface ... and may even increase print longevity. (I haven't used them but that's what I would try anyway).
-
The fact that the HP Z series can put the GE over just the image area, and not the rest of the page (when using the "Econo Mode") like a spot varnish effect is really an asset. Those that bash HP for needing the GE aren't recognizing this unique look and what an advantage HP has as the only printer that can do it. I apply a liquid laminate to some of my Epson and Canon prints but I can't simulate that spot varnish effect with the laminate just over the image area (and sometimes caption text) as I can on the Z series printers. Again, there really are advantages to each brand.
I think it would be really cool if, at some point in the future, the GE could be applied to matte surface papers to further take advantage of the spot varnish look, just as so many fine art books are produced on press. This capability is another reason the proofing market likes the Z series printers. Epson and Canon would be wise to adopt similar technology. It's not always just about reducing GD, it can be about using creating GD for an excellent effect.
-
The fact that the HP Z series can put the GE over just the image area, and not the rest of the page (when using the "Econo Mode") like a spot varnish effect is really an asset. Those that bash HP for needing the GE aren't recognizing this unique look and what an advantage HP has as the only printer that can do it.
You explained it better than I have, and covered an additional advantage of GE.
I continue to believe that GD DOES matter. Given a choice between a print that suffers from GD when viewed through glass, versus one that does not, why not take the print, and the printer, that eliminates GD?
And with regards to viewing from an angle, many of us have to mount some photos in our homes of offices that are not at eye height -- two or three feet lower or higher than eye height. It is not that difficult to end up an angle where you can see GD. I base that on prints that suffer from GD made on the Epson 4000 or the Z3100 without GE. As Schewe has noted, the 4000 is several generations old. It suffers from worse GD than does the Z series without GE. With GE the HP Z series simply has zero GD in my opinion.
So the question is still whether the 7900 suffers from GD and if so, to what degree. I repeat below my request of Schewe. I just don't think that I'm asking too much here, and others who have posted in the thread made similar requests with regards to the Epson Print Academy. Such a print could be made right on the spot by the instructors to show -- to prove -- that the 7900 has low or non-existent GD. Or it could even be printed in advance and put out on the table as described by Schewe for all of us to examine under lights. If the instructors would do that, it would put to rest the issue of GD once and for all.
If the 7900 has very low GD, as asserted in this thread, then what it is there to fear in meeting this request?
Repeated below:
Mr. Schewe:
I make the below request respectfully. I intend no disrespect, and I am not trying to be argumentative. Just the opposite.
My own request would then be for you to make a print that we can all agree would demonstrate GD. A print of a mountain and snow, to use an example, would be perfect. Because it will have paper white and grays and blacks.
I'd also request that such a print be made on Epson luster, semi-gloss or gloss paper.
(Mat papers won't show GD and Epson Exhibition Fiber will have much lower GD than a gloss or semi-gloss paper.)
That would pretty well put the debate on GD to rest, once and for all. We could then see a good example of GD, on a paper that is vulnerable to it, and as you say, we could pick it up under direct lighting and examine it.
If the new inks really minimize GD, then many of us might decide that it is not a significant problem with the 7900 -- or even that it is not a problem at all.
If you indicate that this would be possible, I'll be the first to acknowledge that many of the statements in my last "war and peace" posting would be just plain wrong.
Then, going back to my last posting, all of the other areas where Epson and the 7900 are superior come into play and would be deciding factors on which printer to buy.
(With the caveat that the issue of the spectro in the Epson versus the spectro in HP is still be to resolved when more is known about the spectro and software for the Epson.)
-
My own request would then be for you to make a print that we can all agree would demonstrate GD. A print of a mountain and snow, to use an example, would be perfect. Because it will have paper white and grays and blacks.
I'd also request that such a print be made on Epson luster, semi-gloss or gloss paper.
I don't cherry pick images to print that hide any inherent Epson defects...one of the images that I have already printed is of a mountain in Antarctica that has snow, ice, water and a nice sunset look. That's already covered (I also print out B&Ws using the ABW mode)
As for the paper, I suppose I can also ask that the 7900 is also loaded with a roll of Luster (which we can also use for head alignments/nozzle checks). So, we'll see....
As for changing the topics and curriculum of the Print Academy, that ain't gonna happen. We've already done about 20 of these and know what's important to teach. We aren't product demo bunnies trying to sell printers to people at a trade show...so come and see for yourself. If you don't learn what you think you want to learn, ask for a refund (pretty sure you'll get it).
-
I don't cherry pick images to print that hide any inherent Epson defects...one of the images that I have already printed is of a mountain in Antarctica that has snow, ice, water and a nice sunset look. That's already covered (I also print out B&Ws using the ABW mode)
As for the paper, I suppose I can also ask that the 7900 is also loaded with a roll of Luster (which we can also use for head alignments/nozzle checks). So, we'll see....
The Antarctica image on Luster should be perfect as illustration of the lack of or presence of GD. I'm sure that many of us attending the Academy will look forward to seeing that print on Luster, and then leave it on the table where it can be examined under lights, as you described in your previous posting. I also look forward to seeing your other outstanding work.
I did not mean to suggest any change to the curriculum and apologize if my posting caused any confusion in that regard.
Thanks very much.
-
The Antarctica image on Luster should be perfect as illustration of GD or the lack thereof.
A more complete comparison would include prints from a Z series and/or Epson R1900 with and without GE/GO and a silver halide print on a similar surface. That's the kind of comparison that really puts it all in full perspective. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll see that kind of comparison at a sponsored marketing event, except perhaps Noritsu's which have printers that do all three.
-
A more complete comparison would include prints from a Z series and/or Epson R1900 with and without GE/GO and a silver halide print on a similar surface. That's the kind of comparison that really puts it all in full perspective. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll see that kind of comparison at a sponsored marketing event, except perhaps Noritsu's which have printers that do all three.
I agree, and would have brought Z3100 prints with me to the Academy as printed on Luster, along with an image on a DVD to print on the 7900 using luster during one of the breaks. But printing my own image at the Epson event is not possible, for understandable reasons, based on the previous postings in this thread.
As an alternative, I will gladly welcome the opportunity to see the Antarctica print on luster, as it will demonstrate the lack of or presence of GD and I can make my own mental comparison based on seeing many prints on luster from the Z3100 using GE.
For many of us who participate in this forum, the Epson Academy will be our only opportunity to see the 7900, and the Antarctica print on luster will be the only chance to chance to assess how the 7900 does with regards to GD.
I know we all greatly appreciate his offer in that regard.
-
Out of curiosity, I went to Epson's site and looked at the 7900 and there on the lower right side of features page was a listing for papers that Epson considers best to use with the printer: Premium Luster 260, Proofing Paper White Semimatte and Premium Semimatte 260.
-
Out of curiosity, I went to Epson's site and looked at the 7900 and there on the lower right side of features page was a listing for papers that Epson considers best to use with the printer: Premium Luster 260, Proofing Paper White Semimatte and Premium Semimatte 260.
Uh huh...and I like to print on EFP....that's what I use.
-
Uh huh...and I like to print on EFP....that's what I use.
I mentioned the papers due to the concerns about gloss differential and luster paper. Epson wouldn't recommend a problem paper.
Since you mentioned Exhibition Fiber, I did find it interesting that Epson didn't make a point of mentioning that paper as well in the recommended list since that is one of their proudest accomplishments.
-
I did find it interesting that Epson didn't make a point of mentioning that paper as well in the recommended list since that is one of their proudest accomplishments.
Well, considering the 79/9900's main market, the proofing industry, I suspect that Epson marketing is thinking more along those lines than fine art printing.
-
It sounds as though the7900 9900 will prove to be excelent photo/fine art printers,but what steps in the preparation of files for printing are really necssary to take advantage of the larger colour space and smoother graduations from these printers. I hear that we need to process raw files in the ProPhoto colour space to 16bit tiff and therfore to use Mac OS 10.5 or higher to print from to take advantage of the highest quality printing?
I work on a PC platform,I print principally for pro marine photographers(yatching).They are working fast in a harsh environment with large numbers of photos, hence, jpeg from Canon Ds1&D1.You do not want to change cards with lots of salt water flying about, hence they tend to use the compressed files of jpeg.
Do I need to move to a Mac? Do I need to persuade the photographers to always work in raw?
I would also like to hear how they handel cut sheets?
Thanks again for every ones input so fare.
-
You should consider using Pro Photo RGB in 16 bit, yes...but the jury is out about NEEDING the full 16 bit print pipeline to take advantage of the new Epsons, Lightroom and Photoshop can both handle the 16 bit to final printer profile in 20 bit/channel precision before sending the final 8 bit/channel to the printer, so that's not a major roadblock. No "need" to switch to Mac for that...
As far as shooting jpeg, well, DOH, that's obviously a sub-optimal workflow if you care about image quality, but that's a different debate and has nothing to do with the new printers...yes, you won't get get optimized images for fine art printing if you start life with a JPEG...
-
I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.
I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.
Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.
Michael
-
Sorry George, I must have missed that question.
I am in agreement with Jeff here ... I have not had an an issue with bronzing since the 9800 printer was introduced, and my 11880 printer has no issues with it. Perhaps he is correct in thinking you were referring to gloss differential?
I am not aware of how the GO on HP printers work, but I do know it can be use to control both bronzing and gloss differential. I was sent an ipf5000 printer by Canon shortly before they were introduced and bronzing was a major problem on some papers. They also sent me an ipf6100 when they were introduced, and the new black inks have addressed that problem quite well. Whether HP is using it to control both problems or just gloss differential I do not know.
The ability to see gloss differential is a function of ink and paper, as well as the image itself and the viewing conditions. For gloss differential to become visible with the 11880 on Epson Luster it seems to require a nearly pure white area, which is bordered by a very dark area ... even then it is not obvious. A soft light source makes it more visible, small direct spot type lighting makes it pretty much non visible.
I also feel that once you mat and frame the image under glass, gloss differential becomes pretty irrelevant. To see gloss differential on a stationary print, you have to move around and look for it. You can't see it from straight on which is how the print is typically viewed ... especially by someone examining it closely. You have to get the right angle of light reflecting off of the print. If it is in your hand and you are moving it around there is a higher likelihood for you to spot the problem. Also the type of light counts ... with a big soft light (like the banks of color corrected fluorescents in my print room) it can be more apparent - if you are looking for it. Take that same print to a location where it is under pretty direct light such as spots ... much less likely to see it. Finally, under glass on a wall the reflections of the glass also comes in to play. So I'm with Jeff on this one as well.
I guess what I'm saying is if you put everything in perspective, it seems to require a perfect storm of circumstances for gloss differential to become an issue for a well done print on a wall under glass. I pay no attention to gloss differential in preparing my prints on the 11880. Of course, there are very little areas of almost 0 ink in most of my work.
However, tonight I happen to be printing a new version of an old image. I've attached a small version so you can see what I was looking at. The sun is 255,255,255 - blown might one way to describe it. While it isn't next to a real dark area, there is enough of an ink load to make gloss differential viewable. There are also quite a few highlights in the water which are blown. So I tried a few things just for fun. I had a test print on Epson Premium Luster, and final prints done on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. In my print room, which is lit by 2 banks of 4 foot color corrected fluorescents under a heavy diffuser (very soft), it was a struggle to see Gloss differential on the Luster print anywhere - it took a fair amount of tilting and shifting to get an angle that would show any. With the Exhibition fiber I could move the print around and the gloss differential was more apparent ... not objectionable but visible. Laying the print on a table I could move around and see the gloss differential, but it took quite a bit of angle. I then placed a mat and glass over the print, and it was more difficult - yes I can see it if I tried, but in no way would I feel this an issue if selling the print.
I took the prints upstairs to my kitchen which is lit by ceiling can lights that contain small reflector bulbs - small very directional lights. I really couldn't see any gloss differential on the Luster, and had to look really hard and move the paper around just right to get an angle where I could see it on the exhibition fiber - barely. Laying that print on the counter under the mat and glass I could not see any gloss differential.
Not sure if any of this is useful or not. I do know that I tested the z3100 for 2 weeks ... specifically for the appeal of the GO, and felt it's output wasn't much better than the 9800 I was using at the time. I would never even consider giving up my 11880 and whatever minute gloss differential it exhibits to gain that feature from a z3100. (nor would i give it up for any other feature of the z3100 for that matter, including the on board spectro).
[attachment=9366:LaJollaBird_500WEB.jpg]
(PS .. just a quick plug for LR 2.0 and ACR 5.0 .. I have processed this image, from the original Kodak DCS back, on several occasions over many years, and have always fought banding and other issues. My RAW processing skills have improved over the years, but this image has always been challenging ... until now. For the first time I finally have an image I like, thanks to these new tools from Adobe with the new local adjustments.)
Wow; gorgeous image, Wayne!
-
I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.
I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.
Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.
Michael
Sounds like fun. Look forward to hearing what you think.
-
Wow; gorgeous image, Wayne!
Thanks.
-
I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.
I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.
Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.
Michael
Michael --
Can you tell us with the dimensions of the printer itself, without the stand? The specific question is the size of the printer with regards to getting it through narrow doors. The printer is then installed on the stand once it is inside. Some of us without wide access doors are forced to bring the printer inside separately, and install it on the stand once it is in the house.
Epson provides the height with the stand, but not the height of the printer itself without the stand. Thus my question.
(If the height is less than the depth, one option is to tip the printer on its side as it is carried in through the narrow door way in a century-old house. That's what I have done in the past.)
Also, what is the depth if any removable pieces, like paper guides, are not included. The Epson figure for the depth (26") might include pieces that can be detached.
Thanks very much!
I'm looking forward to reading your review.
P.S. It was your review, many years ago, of the 1Ds MkI, that prompted me to switch to digital. In that review you compared the camera to the Pentax 645. You told your critics to run their own tests if they thought you were wrong. At the time I was shooting a Pentax 67II. I rented a 1Ds, ran my own tests as you recommended, and as a result of those tests, sold all my film gear on ebay one week later. I still credit your review for my complete switch to digital, and have always had high respect for your views and reviews ever since that time.
-
Michael --
Can you tell us with the dimensions of the printer itself, without the stand? The specific question is the size of the printer with regards to getting it through narrow doors. The printer is then installed on the stand once it is inside. Some of us without wide access doors are forced to bring the printer inside separately, and install it on the stand once it is in the house.
Epson provides the height with the stand, but not the height of the printer itself without the stand. Thus my question.
(If the height is less than the depth, one option is to tip the printer on its side as it is carried in through the narrow door way in a century-old house. That's what I have done in the past.)
Also, what is the depth if any removable pieces, like paper guides, are not included. The Epson figure for the depth (26") might include pieces that can be detached.
Thanks very much!
I'm looking forward to reading your review.
P.S. It was your review, many years ago, of the 1Ds MkI, that prompted me to switch to digital. In that review you compared the camera to the Pentax 645. You told your critics to run their own tests if they thought you were wrong. At the time I was shooting a Pentax 67II. I rented a 1Ds, ran my own tests as you recommended, and as a result of those tests, sold all my film gear on ebay one week later. I still credit your review for my complete switch to digital, and have always had high respect for your views and reviews ever since that time.
This was my same question to Jeff. I ended up buying a 7880 as the 7900 was too big for my small doorway.
Here is his answer
It ain't tiny...
Without the base;
Length about 53.5"
Depth about 24.5"
Height about 26.5"
(27" more or less if you count the rubber feet on the base–which can slide into a tabletop)
And this thing is built heavy. Since they went to 360 nozzles/inch the head track is much beefier (which is why I don't see the head design fitting into a small carriage printer any time real soon)
-
Revised on Tuesday, Nov 18, to reflect additonal information from the Epson 7900 manual. Additional comments below reflect additional information and insights based on the manual, as well as to clarify other points.
I received four PM messages in the last week requesting that I post my opinion of the Epson 7900 based on seeing it at the Print Academy. These comments are based on those very limited observations, and I have attempted to compare to the Z3100 based upon owning one. Since the Z3200 is almost identical to the Z3100 in many areas, that is a fair basis for comparison. I also apologize for the length of this posting, so yes, Jeff, this may be another War and Peace posting. But I am responding to requests for a detailed review of the 7900.
There was another review of the Z3200 posted recently, and it just comments on the features of that printer in isolation without any comparison. That is not very useful. What we all need is a direct comparison of the two printers. That's why I started this thread, and what I attempt to accomplish below. Again, note the caveat this is based on superficial observations from seeing the 7900 in action for only one day.
I have tried to be objective in the evaluation based on what I saw at the Academy, and placed any additional observations beneath that evaluation in each category.
PRINT QUALITY IN TERMS OF COLOR AND DETAIL:
The prints from the 7900 were, as we would all expect, absolutely outstanding in color and overall quality.
The only way I could judge the two printers would be to have them both printing identical photos from the same source, and be able to lay the prints side-by-side. In isolation, if I was to examine prints from each printer at this type of trade show event, and do so in complete isolation from the other printer, I'm sure that to my eye they would both look very good. Maybe others, who spend more time around large format printers, would notice something that I did not.
Michael Reichmann still has a Z3100 in his possession, so hopefully he will offer comments in his review that compare that the two printers in terms of color, detail and print quality.
MECHANICAL BUILD QUALITY:
I didn't open any covers or really have a chance to "kick the tires" of the 7900. Nonetheless, the 7900 appeared to have more metal and was much more solid in construction. The Z3100 is light weight in construction by comparison. The 7900 gives you an impression of a solid and professional product, as compared with the plastic of the Z3100.
The 7900 also appeared to be much quieter than the Z3100 when printing, but that is a very subjective observation on my part and made in a noisy room that could mask any such operational noise.
With regards to mechanical quality, the 7900 clearly is the "winner" IMHO and based on very limited observations.
Several other operational and mechanical issues, that weren't addressed at the Print Academy or I didn't see demonstrated, but that any potential buyer of either printer should be aware of:
(1) I understand that the 7900 uses a vacuum, and my view is that this is a superior design as compared with HP, given the large number of reported problems reported with the Z3100 related to marks from star wheels and rollers. I am not an engineer, but my amateur observation is that Epson doesn't have to rely on such mechanical devices to the same degree by using a vacuum. (This is not a small issue. See comments at the bottom.) The bottom line is that Epson vacuum approach does not have the same type of serious problems regarding marks and damage to paper based on their existing printers that use a vacuum as compared with the Z3100. We don't know if that will also be the case with the 7900.
(2) The 7900 has a new system for holding rolls that does not use spindles. I did not see a demonstration of that system. If it works it could be a strong selling point. Personally, I'm tired of pulling rolls off of the overly tight HP spindles. For that reason, I tend to invest in 5 or 6 spindles, and this new Epson system would save that additional cost. See below for loading of rolls.
(3) Both printers now periodically check the print heads to avoid clogs. It should be noted that the HP system is not fool-proof. About every six to eight months I have to physically remove the printheads and manually clean them to avoid ink marks on paper, but that process takes less than an hour. (See this forum for postings on how to do that.) Presumably the Epson avoids this, since I don't believe the printheads are removable or can be accessed by the user.
(4) Both printers now allow for changing from mat black to photo black inks without flushing all inks. Based on the information on the Epson web site, Epson does have those two inks share one channel, so there is a small loss of that specific ink when making the change. But it is a very small amount of ink. The Epson reps asked me why I bought the Z3100, and I listed the previous problem of swapping the inks as a primary issue, but Epson has now solved that. Both printers appear to use a similar system to monitor the prints system and avoid cots
LOADING OF SHEETS AND ROLLS:
I watched as they loaded the sheets. It appeared to me that the 7900 loaded the sheets correctly the first time, every time.
If you plan on using sheets, this must be a significant factor in your decision. The sheet loading of the Z3100 never lines up correctly the first time. If you print on sheets as well as rolls, the operation of the HP Z series will be a source of frustration as you load and then must restraighten the skew of the sheet. By contrast, the Epson appeared to just plain do it -- to load the sheets with a minumum of hassle and fuss. That is what we should expect, and what we should demand, of an expensive professional printer. The HP Z series flunks that test.
The 7900 had another great feature. It held on to the sheets, preventing them from dropping into the basket. It literally held on to them as they were hanging vertically. When I asked the rep about that, he said it does the same with rolls -- only cuts when you tell it to. (I assume it can be set to automatically cut though.) I liked this feature. If you are printing on expensive sheets, you'd rather take them off the printer yourself, and stop from hitting a basket. With the Z3100 you have to stand there to be present at the right moment to catch the print. Not so with the 7900.
(A later edit -- as Neil notes below, you can tell the Z3100 to only cut the print off the roll when so directed. But it will still drop an expensive sheet into the basket. The 7900 literally hangs on to the print until you tell the printer to release it. For fragile media this is a nice feature.)
The 7900 is clearly the winner when it comes to hassle-free feeding of sheets.
Based on reading the manual, the 7900 can be loaded with rolls entirely by standing in front of the printer. Rolls on the Z3100 are loaded in the rear, and the printer is designed to be loaded while standing behind the printer. It can also be loaded from the front, but you have to lean all the way over the printer. If you are in cramped quarters and must shove either printer up against a wall, then the 7900 offers a signficant advantage in terms of loading rolls easily from the top and the front of the printer.
SPEED OF PRINTING:
I literally timed the prints, which was possible because the instructors had the print dialogues on the overhead projector. From the moment they started printing, to when the print finished, was three minutes. This was to print an image on 17 x 22 paper. I'm not sure that the setting was in terms of print quality and dpi, but this is significantly faster than the Z3100.
The 7900 is clearly the speed champ and winner in that category.
SOFTWARE, DRIVERS AND TECH SUPPORT:
The 7900 appears to have a number of new settings in the driver regarding thickness of paper and ink. Jeff can better respond to any questions in that regard. My impression is that the 7900 has the same degree of flexibility as the Z3100 software and drivers with regards to dialing in different settings for thick paper and the amount of ink that is laid down. The Epson rep said that that the 7900 also senses the thickness of paper automatically for the platen gap, and that is not something that the Z3100 can do.
I did not see the next point demonstrated at the Print Academy, and it is based on reading the Epson manual for the 7900. Both the 7900 and the Z3100 allow the user to create custom papers. HP allows the user to change the settings for paper thicknessmore/less ink, lock those in and name those settings for one paper. Epson allows the same, as well as including even more variables that can be modified for up to ten custom papers.
Finally, the Z3100 includes data on printing jobs, paper and ink use, etc. Based on the info on the Epson web site, Epson will provide the same information, in a more detailed format, on a web site that a user will eventually have to pay to access. An Epson rep said that Epson is thinking about charging $99 per year for that after an initial free trial period. With HP it is free. With Epson you get more info, but must pay a nominal annual fee. $99 is not a deal breaker IMHO. If Epson charges more than $200 for that service then it might be a significant issue for some people.
Conclusion -- It is a tie with both having roughly the same features.
What I can't measure is the stability of Epson drivers versus HP drivers. We will only be able to judge when people buy and start using the 7900 in large numbers. On the other hand, based on the postings in the forum for the last two years, Epson appears to have more reliable Windows drivers and software, or at least fewer complaints posted here as compared with HP, and fewer issues with tech support. Any printer can be crippled by problems with drivers. If you have them, with either manufacturer, then it is a critical and overriding factor. See my comment at the end of this posting regarding my own personal experience with HP.
GLOSS DIFFERENTIAL:
The papers used at the Print Academy were Epson Luster, Epson Exhibition Fiber, and the Epson Ultra Smooth mat paper. To the degree that any GD was present it was more on the Luster prints, as is to be expected. On Luster, there were several color prints of Antarctica, as well as several black and white prints. I assume the ice prints were from Jeff, and I'd like to thank him for providing those prints for our observation.
Again, as noted above, a side by side comparison using the same photo file as used on the Z3100 was not possible. Nonetheless, I have seen many examples of GD on an older generation Epson 4000 with Luster, as well as on the Z3100 when Gloss Enhancer (GE) is not used, versus when GE is used, again on Epson Luster. So even though a side-by-side comparison was not possible, I am more comfortable at making an attempt at a comparison in the case of GD, but do not feel I can do so on Print Quality in color or printed level of detail.
Jeff Schewe at least needs to give me credit for trying to be as honest as possible in the following assessment. I held the various prints at right angles under a bright and direct solux light. This is a very tough test for any printer -- and is, if anything, an unfair test. No one looks at prints under such conditions normally. I looked at them very critically for any sign of GD.
Only one print of Antarctica showed any noticeable GD. Even then, it only showed up when the light was reflecting right off the print, which is an absurd torture test. And it showed up on only one small part of the print. Again, no one looks at prints under those conditions. Under less extreme angles, it displayed very little GD. Basically none at all. The other Luster print of Antarctica that had whites, blacks and grays had no noticeable GD. At least not any that was discernible. Another print on Luster, of flowers against a white background, showed a very small amount of GD but so small as to normally not be noticed. Ditto with black and white prints on Luster and Exhibition Fiber. Some very small amounts of GD -- but you had to be really looking for it to even notice it.
My conclusion is that the 7900 has largely eliminated GD, at least on Epson Luster and Exhibition Fiber. By comparison, the Z3100 is far worse -- significantly worse -- when GE is not used. It is not even a close call. The prints off the z3100 would simply bomb the above torture test without GE. In fact, the Z3100 shows far greater amounts of GD under far less extreme light angles -- again, when GE is not used.
When Gloss Enhancer is used, GD is simply eliminated on the Z3100.
Where does that leave us? The 7900 suffers from so little GD that it was, to my eye, no longer an issue. Again, that is with Epson Luster. But the 7900 did still have a very small amount of GD; the Z3100 has essentially zero GD when using GE; and I have not seen the 7900 in operation with any papers other than the three used at the Print Academy.
The fact that it is no longer an issue with the 7900 with Luster is quite an achievement on the part of Epson, and they have done it without resorting to the clear GE coating. So Jeff Schewe is right in that regard. Jeff, I am eating a large dish of crow while typing this.
However, I must note that I didn't have an opportunity to judge GD on any other third party paper or gloss paper. Only the three Epson papers. (Note that Neil Snape reported on a comparison of the 7900 and the Z series with regards to GD using third party papers at the very start of this thread, when he saw both printers in action, so you should also read his comments. Neil reported GD with the Epson using third party papers. I'm assuming that this is less than in the past, given what I saw with Epson Luster.)
The 7900 may be the winner in this category.
The 7900 is almost as good with regards to GD as the Z3100 with GE when printing on Epson Luster. The 7900 does not have to rely on clear coating of GE ink to accompish this feat. However, as noted above, there may be papers where the Z3100 is better with regards to GD than the 7900 that I have not seen, thus my use of "may" that the 7900 may be the winner. The 7900 is far superior to the Z3100 when GE is not used by the HP printers.
SPECTRO AND SOFTWARE TO CREATE PAPER PROFILES:
If this feature matters to you, the Z3100 is clearly the winner. I recently compared the profiles made by the Z3100 spectro and APS software to profiles built with Monaco and the 1iSis. The profiles built with the $4000 iSis and Monaco package are slightly superior in some areas, but the APS is remarkably close. For making profiles on roll paper, the Z3100 spectro and APS software to build paper profiles is simply wonderful and very convenient. I candidly shared my own view on that with the Epson reps.
If you use a lot of third party papers, and like to experiment, then the automation of the HP Z series spectro and APS offers a big advantage. If you don't already own a $1000 profiling package, then the Z series includes that for about $600 more than the cost of of the 7900. The package included with the Z series is entirely automated and doesn't require manual reading of patches -- a wonderful feature. If you already own a profiling package, then this might not be an important selling point.
If and when Epson provides profiling software to drive their spectro, then they would be the same in regard to features, but not price. Here's what I would suggest that Epson should consider in order to compete with HP. If Epson includes profiling software with their spectro at $1500, then the price difference compared to the Z series with APS would be about $800. Note that any high quality stand-alone profiling package would cost $800 anyway. Some might therefore decide that spending an additional $800 to the 7900 and spectro is worth it to buy the Epson, in light of the other issues discussed here, assuming that Epson eventually supplies such software with the spectro for $1500. To be clear, that is entirely speculation on my part -- and my own recommendation if Epson wants to compete with HP with regards to this feature. No one from Epson said anything in that regard, one way or the other, about the spectro at the Print Academy.
The Z series wins this category, since they have the spectro and software to build paper profiles. Epson offers a spectro as an accessory, but does not provide software to build paper profiles. Epson states that their spectro is designed for pre-press shops and to be used with RIPs and is apparently not aimed at this market segment for the purpose of printer profiles.
On the hand, I have listed the spectro last because it is last in importance. Including a spectro doesn't change any of the other factors listed above -- print quality, sheet feeding, mechnical construction, the reliability of drivers, or tech support. All other criteria listed above are more important, and it is that argument made by others in this thread that finally persuaded me on that issue. Finally, if you only use a few papers, then the on-board spectro is far less important, since you can have a few custom profiles made. It has also been reported in this forum that Epson supplies excellent profiles for their own papers.
********************
I hope the above report is useful. Again, it is based on only one day of seeing the 7900 in action, and no opportunity to do any head-to-head direct comparisons.
The above attempts to provide an objective summary based on the Epson Print Academy. Here are some personal observations, not based on what I saw on the Print Academy, but based on my own experiences with the Z3100. Other owners of the Z3100 have had a more positive experience. I'm very dissatisfied with the HP windows drivers and software, and tech and customer support. With regard to windows drivers, the problem with PCs is that they vary enormously in terms of hardware and drivers -- so some users have crippling problems (like me) and others have no problems whatsoever. You should read all the comments in the forum for the last year regarding the experience of participants on the forum with regards to HP as compared with Epson. With regard to the star wheels and rollers, HP knows that the star wheels and rollers in the Z3100 were defective, and that is why they designed replacements. Some got them replaced without any hassle. Others weren't so lucky. I was one of those. I was told by HP tech support that to get the replacements I had to mail prints to HP -- using HP paper -- showing that I had a problem. I had to appeal up the HP chain of command, and told them that such a policy was absolutely outrageous. Either HP is the universal printer or it is not, and this should not be based only on HP paper. Also, if the old parts aren't causing a problem, then why did HP make the replacements? Either the parts are defective and should be changed in every printer, or not. By going up the chain of command I got the parts replaced, but that should not have been necessary in the first place.
I'm ready for a change -- and will sell my Z3100. If you live in the DC-Baltimore area and want a Z3100 with the new star wheels and pinch rollers, send me a PM. It is still a great printer especially when sold used for less than half the price of a retail Z3200.
Overall, I was very impressed with the 7900.
-
Very good report on neutral observations.
One little detail, not significant , but the Z has an easy to use cut off after the print, or manual cut when you want. You can do this at the printer, of course but can set it to a per job setting in the driver.
You can also set it to cut off and place the image on any size to print and cut only the imageable area plus some margin.
A note on the Z and gloss diff. On the optimised papers GD is essentially eliminated. On some third party papers , there is still a significant amount underlying the GE. So it is an altered GD, not eliminated but diminished. I saw this last week on a Z3200 and Ilford Silk.
A direct comparison of side by side prints would be the best. I did just that last week with an Epson 3800 and HP 9180 on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta. In terms of GD of course all Epson K3 or better are not a problem, and far superior to HP. Yet in image quality, there are a lot of subjective things that one has to see. For example in expanses of sand, the HP prints a grain, whereas the Epson becomes quite smooth without grain at all. Which is more correct?
No real answer , just have to see this for yourselves.
I do appreciate your report. We have come a long way, and this high of print quality is a milestone. The media selection is now almost on par with the printers , so it has become very easy to get a great print without much learning.
The new Epson with the spectro will be up to the challenge of prepress with a rip like GMG, but that is not the market of this forum. If the new x900 printers combined with the spectro can indeed send out a CGATs file then even with the non rip version profiles can be built for rgb.
PS the new HP APS uses Monaco tables for profile building ( hence the APS profiles are equal to Monaco Profiler profiles), and the internal profiling has been greatly improved to the point that it's questionable if APS is still needed.
-
[quote name='alan a' date='Nov 17 2008, 04:36 AM' post='237515']
In the case of Epson, I think you can only use the Epson media type. If that is the case, then just using one of the Epson media types that also allows for a thicker mat paper and appropriate ink would do the same thing. That was my experience with the 4000 several generations and several years ago.
alan,
I went and spent half a day at a main Epson distributer and played with a 9900, they had only put it together the day before. I was very impressed. I have a 9900 arriving tomorrow .
On Saturday i found the 9900 Users Guide on line, which i have started to read through in preparation. On page 157 Printing with Non-Epson Media, it says that you can register up to 10 types of custom paper,so more good news. There are a number of media settings that can be made, Paper type,media type, platen gap, paper feed adjustment, drying time, paper suction, roll paper tension. plenty to play with. I hope that is of some help.
-
On Saturday i found the 9900 Users Guide on line, which i have started to read through in preparation. On page 157 Printing with Non-Epson Media, it says that you can register up to 10 types of custom paper,so more good news. There are a number of media settings that can be made, Paper type,media type, platen gap, paper feed adjustment, drying time, paper suction, roll paper tension. plenty to play with. I hope that is of some help.
All that I've found is a features guide for the 7900 -- not the Users Guide. Can you provide us for the link for the 9900 Users Guide, and did that web site also have the 7900 guide?
If the 7900 can do everything that you list for the 9900, then the Epson driver is absolutely the equal to the HP drivers in terms of flexibility, and might even be superior.
Jeff Schewe -- are the 7900 and 9900 identical in the operation of the driver as described by Tony?
-
The 7900 European manual can be found here (thanks Tony):
http://esupport.epson-europe.com/ProductHo...wW0Wo1&tc=5 (http://esupport.epson-europe.com/ProductHome.aspx?lng=en-GB&data=6KFR1luA22qEBeBX7Al3C8dJG9wW0Wo1&tc=5)
-
Jeff Schewe at least needs to give me credit for trying to be as honest as possible in the following assessment.
-snip-
The fact that it is no longer an issue with the 7900 with Luster is quite an achievement on the part of Epson, and they have done it without resorting to the clear GE coating. So Jeff Schewe is right in that regard. Jeff, I am eating a large dish of crow while typing this.
No, I don't need to give you credit for anything...if anything you actually own me an apology for the way you've attacked my integrity throughout this and other threads and going back in and re-editing what you wrote doesn't un-ring those bells ya know?
Everything I've said (and always say) is what I know for a fact or what I believe to be true. You've implied that since I'm under the employ (for the purposes of the Print Academy) of Epson that some how I'm some sort of Epson puppet or stooge and had stated (although now re-edited) that if I DIDN'T print out any prints on Epson Luster that I was refusing to do so because Epson did still suffer from GD. You were at the Print Academy...was there ANY time in the program to go off-script? Did we waste any time at all during the day? You actually implied that paying attendees should have the right to expect the presenters to jump through the hoops designed to answer YOUR personal questions and failure to do so was some sort of major flaw with the event.
So, no...I'll not give you any special credit for anything other than not misrepresenting the event. Ironically, you never introduced yourself nor asked any questions (that I'm aware of) and never thanked me for spending time late Sat night doing the Luster prints so you could inspect them the next day. That was not part of the program. My personal choice of paper for my images is Exhibition Fiber Paper and Sommerset Velvet. And those are the papers I much prefer to print on. So, I printed those images on Luster to satisfy you rather than printing them out on EFP (which I think looks better than Luster).
-
I note for the record that my above postings did not discuss what actually occurred at the Epson Print Academy. I only reported on my impressions of the 7900. But Schewe has opened the door to the topic of what he said and what occurred at the Epson Print Academy.
Jeff, you are quite the class act. I at least have apologized to you. I also acknowledged that your summary of GD with the 7900 was accurate, and that any suggestions or assertions on my part in that regard were wrong.
Your assertion that I have not thanked you and expressed my gratitude to you is false. With regards to thanking you for taking the time to print on luster, I did that right here -- in this forum.
Consider the below report on what actually happened at the Epson Print Academy. Despite Schewe's actions at that event, I still provided an honest report, to the best of my ability, as to my impressions of the 7900. I acknowledged that Jeff was correct on the issue of GD; I apologized to him in that regard; and I thanked him for providing the prints on luster.
Epson should be quite pleased by the above posting. Who better to defend Epson, including on GD, than someone who doubted that they had fully dealt with that problem, and who has personal experience with Epson's competition? I seriously doubt that anyone at Epson objects to my above summary. Epson is probably delighted. Only Schewe is objecting.
I did all of that despite what actually occurred at Print Academy, as summarized below.
It should be noted that Schewe began the Print Academy event by calling out my name from his perch on the stage, and trying to publicly single me out. Jeff, that was poor form and ungracious, even for you. After you pulled that egregious stunt I was not presupposed to thanking you for anything, at least not at that event. My impression was that you only wanted to provoke an argument, or single me out even more. So for the remainder of the day I did not identify myself, nor did I seek you out for a public debate.
Yes, I could have stood up. I could have debated you. I am not shy. What would that have gained? No one else in the audience attended to hear the two of us debate the issues. They certainly did not attend to hear from me.
By refusing to be goaded by you, and standing up and debating you, I took the high road. I behaved in a professional, polite and civil fashion, by asking factual questions from the audience; asking questions to the Epson reps; and looking at your luster prints to arrrive at my own conclusions.
I also paid to attend the event, and your actions were all the more inappropriate for that reason.
So, to anyone attending other Epson events, I counsel you to not post here, and certainly to not criticize Jeff Schewe. If you do so, he will probably try to single you out as well at a future Epson Print Academy. Only he will do so from the stage, at an Epson sponsored event.
I have a higher opinion of Epson and the 7900 as a result of attending the Academy. I was very impressed by the Epson corporate representatives at the event, both for their professional conduct and their knowlege of their products.
I do not hold Epson responsible for Schewe's actions even though he was a paid representative of Epson at that event.
After I returned from the event, and despite what occurred at the Epson event, I still posted a report on the Epson 7900 that everyone can agree is largely favorable.
Again, I am posting this in response to Jeff Schewe. I did not open this door or begin the discussion of the topic of what occurred at the Epson Print Academy.
-
Your assertion that I have not thanked you and expressed my gratitude to you is false. With regards to thanking you for taking the time to print on luster, I did that right here -- in this forum.
Care to point me to that post?
-
Care to point me to that post?
In the posting on the Epson Print Academy I said this:
"I attended the Academy. It was very good and I strongly recommend it. There were a number of prints done on luster, and I thank Jeff Schewe and the instructors for doing so."
AND, IN ADDITION, in the posting directly above, reporting on my impressions of the 7900, in the section on GD, I said this:
"The papers used at the Print Academy were Epson Luster, Epson Exhibition Fiber, and the Epson Ultra Smooth mat paper. To the degree that any GD was present it was more on the Luster prints, as is to be expected. On Luster, there were several color prints of Antarctica, as well as several black and white prints. I assume the ice prints were from Jeff, and I'd like to thank him for providing those prints for our observation."
-
Geez, Alan. Enough is enough. Please go ahead and buy the x900 Epson. This has been interesting and informative but I think this thread has run its course.
Kudos to Jeff Schewe for patience and going the extra mile.
-
Well, in the Print Academy thread, your post on Nov 16 2008, 10:40 PM was then edited again "This post has been edited by alan a: Yesterday, 09:58 AM" so I have no idea what you said originally in that post, which is why I posted what I did Nov 16 2008, 10:45 PM. If you HAD thanked me in the original post just before, do you think I would have posted that I didn't even know if you attended?
Personally, I don't trust people who go back into previously posted messages and change the content and context of their posts. That's like trying to re-write history. You've written what you've written, then gone back and changed what you've written. That's disingenuous at best...I judge people by what they say WHEN they say it, not afterwards...
As for my singling you out at the Print Academy, hey, I was trying to have fun...that's what I do, I wasn't being mean to you. I tried to explain why I had made prints the nite before on Luster. I can be mean if I want to, believe me, I wasn't being mean.
And again, to my way of thinking you still haven't atoned for the implications and allegations you've made in this and other threads (and then gone back and changed what you originally wrote–which ain't the same at all).
And...I could care less if you ate crow (or any sort other of fowl). The 7900 is a really good printer...it doesn't suffer from the same GD that HP's without glop do (nor the 600 series Epson printers), the spectro for the Epson is designed for the proofing market and photographers would be better served getting a whole color management package rather than the Epson spectro because by nature, the Epson printers don't need to resort to constant profiling that the HPs seem to. And, Epson's Exhibition Fine Art paper ain't a matte black printing paper...see, I answered all of your questions in 100 words or less.
-
I hate to say it but the Pro7/9900 can still display GD, it's a fact of life this pigment inks and the inks in these units are still K3VM with O & G added.
edit: still a great printer though
-
Geez, Alan. Enough is enough. Please go ahead and buy the x900 Epson. This has been interesting and informative but I think this thread has run its course.
I agree. I plan on buying the Epson as I already stated. I did not raise the subject of the events at the Epson Print Academy, and have nothing more to say on that topic. My summary of those events speaks for itself.
I won't add to this thread. I leave to others to judge whether the information presented is useful or not. Maybe not to you, but others have sent me PMs thanking me for the breakdown of the issues with both printers. So some have found it to be useful. But I have nothing more to add, in any event.
I hate to say it but the Pro7/9900 can still display GD, it's a fact of life this pigment inks and the inks in these units are still K3VM with O & G added.
edit: still a great printer though
As I explained, I based my summary only on the three Epson papers. Have you seen prints from the 7900/9900 on any other papers where GD continued to be an issue?
-
Well, there's only two ways to completely get rid of GD on an aquarius pigment ink and that's with a lacquer or by setting the white point to something like 251.
There's no doubting now the level of GD on the Prox880/x900 is so low it doesn't warrant a costly GO channel. Another point for GO is for covering up for bronzing in B&W prints.
Has anyone ever tried printing a B&W on a Z3100 without GO?? It's a special effect
-
Yes, it is special....
OTOH, the Z really is a great printer for B&W, whether on matte or PK papers
And to Jeff and Alan, please give it a rest! you both have really come out on the short end on this one, IMO.
Bill
Well, there's only two ways to completely get rid of GD on an aquarius pigment ink and that's with a lacquer or by setting the white point to something like 251.
There's no doubting now the level of GD on the Prox880/x900 is so low it doesn't warrant a costly GO channel. Another point for GO is for covering up for bronzing in B&W prints.
Has anyone ever tried printing a B&W on a Z3100 without GO?? It's a special effect
-
There's no doubting now the level of GD on the Prox880/x900 is so low it doesn't warrant a costly GO channel. Another point for GO is for covering up for bronzing in B&W prints.
I've not seen any bronzing on any Epson printers in the pro line since the introduction of the 800 series printers in either color or B&W. With the papers I use, GD is not an issue either since the 800 series and even less so with the 900 series.
-
I agree. GD is not an issue on the x800 upwards and lets face it, If you print on RC media it should really be mounted behind glass.
I have seen VERY minor bronzing on all Epson's, I am talking VERY SLIGHT you really have to be looking for it.
-
And to Jeff and Alan, please give it a rest! you both have really come out on the short end on this one, IMO.
Well Bill, you are entitled to YOUR opinion...but since this is your first post in this thread, I'm not sure how valid your opinion is unless you've read the entire thread–both the original posts by Alan and the edited version left here now. I only edit post for grammar and typos, never to content and context...too bad I didn't do a PDF of what Alan had said...hey, maybe it in Google cache...then you might understand my point of view in the issue.
:~)
-
FWIW, I agree with you completely on the editing.
And unfortunately, I have wasted entirely too much time reading this thread! It's because I read so much from both of you that was unpleasant, that I was moved to post here. Wow!
Bill
Well Bill, you are entitled to YOUR opinion...but since this is your first post in this thread, I'm not sure how valid your opinion is unless you've read the entire thread–both the original posts by Alan and the edited version left here now. I only edit post for grammar and typos, never to content and context...too bad I didn't do a PDF of what Alan had said...hey, maybe it in Google cache...then you might understand my point of view in the issue.
:~)
-
FWIW, I agree with you completely on the editing.
I promised to drop this, and probably should have stuck with that. The issue of editing is a red herring IMHO. I edited one post -- not in this thread, but the thread on the Epson Academy -- by simply deleting it, because I was wrong. In that post I suggested that Jeff wouldn't bother to print anything on luster. Schewe had said just that, and said it repeatedly, so my assumption was not misplaced. Schewe had said he only prints on Exhibition Fiber, and would only do so, but we all know that this would not be a very useful test. So I kept pressing him. I had one chance, and only once chance, to judge the issue of GD on the 7900, and that was at the Print Academy. (In the past no DC stores had large format printers on display.) In the end, he did print on luster. I thought the most gracious approach was to admit I was wrong, to apologize, to thank him for posting on luster, and to delete the post. If I edited any posts in this thread, it was to add content, not to change any statements about Schewe. Anyway, in the future I will not edit posts, since Jeff is making a big deal out of that.
I am being criticized by Schewe for being gracious enough to apologize and delete a post that criticized him. Schewe protests a bit too much. Go back and read my summary of his behavior at the Print Academy. It was entirely inappropriate and an abuse of his position with Epson. He dragged this debate, from this thread, into an Epson-sponsored public event, and did it at the very start of the event by trying to single out one person in the audience. Nothing I have said or done can remotely match that.
And I was not the one that dragged that event into this thread. Schewe did that. Despite his actions at an Epson event, I tried very hard to post an honest summary of the issue of GD with the 7900. And I thanked him for printing on luster; I was gracious about it -- and I did NOT raise the issue of Schewe's conduct at that event.
If this thread took a bad turn in the last several pages, I was not the person who prompted it. How hard would it have been for Schewe to quote my statement about eating crow and acknowledging that he was right all along, he could add a few smiles to his response, again let us know that his intellectual superiority has again been demonstrated and proven, and thank me?
Bill, as you noted, there is more than enough in this thread to get a good impression of who said what and when. With or without any editing.
I plead guilty for my own intemperate statements and contribution to this. Enough said.
-
I don't want to be accused of editing! I probably wasn't clear above. I think the issue is that I deleted one post, and that's what I tried to say above. I did edit other posts, but did so to clarify and add to content, not to change the message. In the above posting that reported on the Epson Print Academy, I added a disclaimer on the top that I edited and added content based on the 7900 user manual. Ironically, I added that disclaimer even before this tempest in a teapot about editing.
I received four or five PM requests for a comprehensive summary on the 7900 based on the Print Academy. I put in quite a time consuming effort to try to honor those requests.
Those of you who asked me for that input -- it would be nice, at this point, if you'd post and thank me for the effort.
Because all that is happening here is a pile of criticism and attacks for what I believe was a good assessment of a large number of issues regarding the two printers. An assessment that some of you asked for.
Why bother, if this is the result?
I guess I can demontrate that with the reverse. Those of you who are considering buying the 7900, and wanted a review of the issues. Would it be a loss if I just went in and entirely deleted that posting? After all, it does not have any criticism of anyone, aside from thanking and complimenting Schewe. The rest of it covers issues related to the printers -- done at the request of those who sent me PM messages.
But if no one sees any value in that, aside from Neil, then maybe at this point I should just delete it and be done with it.
-
In that post I suggested that Jeff wouldn't bother to print anything on luster.
Is that really all you said? You didn't put a slightly nasty spin on it? Sorry, since that post is gone, all I can do is use what might possibly be a faulty memory of that post...the fact that you DO edit posts for content make is very difficult to keep track of EXACTLY what you did say (or not say and the manner and nature of what you said).
Really, I can't remember what you DID say only that I found it offensive as I have with a variety of posts you've made in reference to me. And to be honest, yes, I DID mention you in the very beginning of the Print Academy, why not...there were a number of people there who are members of this forum in DC as well as Atlanta and I suspect who will be in future EPA's around the country...what happens in the forums is germane to real life and visa versa...I didn't call you any bad names..I mentioned "Alan from the Luminous Landscape" and that we had some discussion and he had wanted me to print on Luster, so I did. I don;t recall saying anything nasty about you in public (but then maybe my memory really is going)...
:~)
-
Is that really all you said? You didn't put a slightly nasty spin on it? Sorry, since that post is gone, all I can do is use what might possibly be a faulty memory of that post...the fact that you DO edit posts for content make is very difficult to keep track of EXACTLY what you did say (or not say and the manner and nature of what you said).
Really, I can't remember what you DID say only that I found it offensive as I have with a variety of posts you've made in reference to me. And to be honest, yes, I DID mention you in the very beginning of the Print Academy, why not...there were a number of people there who are members of this forum in DC as well as Atlanta and I suspect who will be in future EPA's around the country...what happens in the forums is germane to real life and visa versa...I didn't call you any bad names..I mentioned "Alan from the Luminous Landscape" and that we had some discussion and he had wanted me to print on Luster, so I did. I don;t recall saying anything nasty about you in public (but then maybe my memory really is going)...
:~)
Yes, I probably put an inappropriate spin on it. Thus my apology. My apology to you in that thread; my apology to you in this thread; and my apology here.
-
Yes, I probably put an inappropriate spin on it. Thus my apology. My apology to you in that thread; my apology to you in this thread; and my apology here.
And that's pretty much all I wanted to accomplish in all of this and I'm prepared to move on as well. Fact is, I wondered about even bringing you and your request up at the Epson Print Academy...but since you had made such a big deal out of my making prints for you I thought it would be fun to point you out at the event, show you the prints and have a discussion at the break or at lunch. I wasn't really sure if it was gonna be DC or Dallas that you were attending. I'm sorry you took offense to being mentioned and I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to meet. Heck, I would have bought you a drink (or let you buy me one). I also hope you found the event useful and the speakers providing useful content.
...and just to be clear, (in the event that anybody wonders) I am in person the way I am on line...what you see is what you get. I am what I am...
Also, I hope you got the chance to talk to one of the dealers there...I think both CD area dealers will be showing 7900 when they actually start shipping. I also hope that meeting and talking with the Epson reps there–did you meet Todd? He's very good, if he gave you a card, keep it, he can come in real handy.
The fact is, the 7900 and its big brother 9900 really are very good (and big and heavy) printers...really the state of the art in digital printing at the moment. But of course, I'm biased so take whatever I say with a grain of salt...
:~)
-
The 7900 is a really good printer...it doesn't suffer from the same GD that HP's without glop do (nor the 600 series Epson printers), the spectro for the Epson is designed for the proofing market and photographers would be better served getting a whole color management package rather than the Epson spectro because by nature, the Epson printers don't need to resort to constant profiling that the HPs seem to.
I agree with this view. I bought the base model ESP 7900 without Spectro on the basis that my Eye One Pro package would do just fine and indeed it does. I am producing lovely ESP 7900 Mk prints on Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Ultrasmooth profiled with the Bill Atkinson 4096 test chart.
(Edit: fixed a typo.)
-
The fact is, the 7900 and its big brother 9900 really are very good (and big and heavy) printers...really the state of the art in digital printing at the moment. But of course, I'm biased so take whatever I say with a grain of salt...
:~)
I am just as biased, but to add to the above: how many ways can it be put? The x900 printers are the top of the top in photo printing (LFP) period. It is more than just the image quality, it is build quality,media compatibility, media handling, personalization through software adjustments, controllability, etc, etc. Going beyond that user support, tech support, sales support, support by the likes of the very helpful Jeff Schewe and his colleagues, and the foundation of excellence in R&D who really understand photographers.
The other brands have their rightful advantages, like initial price, some feature sets, ink stability, and what not that make them an option for whichever user decides those points are justifiable for their operation.
That said , it's always good to look into all the advantages of each brand. The information coming back from users who know the machines intimately is in the end valuable , as valuable as the source that it comes from.
-
Wow this thread is getting a bit long, and heated. Just posted the X900 review to the website.
I'm somewhat reluctant to post the link in this thread since I dont really have any interest in inflaming an argument. What I'll say is that I think the X900 is a wonderful printer, although I come down a bit on the Spectroproofer. In terms of absolute "quality" I think the Z3200 has a few advantages, although they are very subtle. Also I do mention bronzing, which i'm almos sorry for now On luster paper it's there if you look for it. Do I think it's a big deal? No not really. Other than evaluating nuances of image quality the X900 is a real impressive machine and it's mix of speed and quality is unrivaled. Ohh, and I'm officially tired of comparing gamuts. I really don't want to spend any more time on questions regarding what is better the HP or Epson. The short and long answer is that they are both good enough.
Epson 7900 and 990 review
http://www.spectraflow.com/index.php?optio...4&Itemid=67 (http://www.spectraflow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=67)
Should I put this link in a new thread?
-
Yes!
Long Live the new Thread!
Thanks, Bill
Should I put this link in a new thread?
-
Epson 7900 and 990 review
http://www.spectraflow.com/index.php?optio...4&Itemid=67 (http://www.spectraflow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=67)
An excellent and very comprehensive review. We will all benefit from your thorough evaluation and coverage of the issues related to both printers. Thanks very much.
PS In my own report on the 7900 from the Print Academy, above, I noted that the 7900 appeared to be very quiet. But I said that any operating noise might have been masked by the noise in the room. You confirmed my impression, that it is indeed a quiet printer. Thanks also for reporting on how the new roller system without spindles works, since I didn't see a demo of that.
-
Hey gang,
I’m totally new to the whole big printer game but I have been eying the HP Z3200. Is it worth the extra money for the Z3200ps?? Keep in mind I have no clue what a RIP is. Frankly the colour could be a little off now and then because this is for personal use. I’m partially colour blind anyways so how would I know if it was correct or not. I just want to print be able to print a few large shots a couple times a month. I normally shoot a lot of BW. So is it worthwhile to get the PS version or am I wasting my money?? Thanks!!
-
Hey gang,
I’m totally new to the whole big printer game but I have been eying the HP Z3200. Is it worth the extra money for the Z3200ps?? Keep in mind I have no clue what a RIP is. Frankly the colour could be a little off now and then because this is for personal use. I’m partially colour blind anyways so how would I know if it was correct or not. I just want to print be able to print a few large shots a couple times a month. I normally shoot a lot of BW. So is it worthwhile to get the PS version or am I wasting my money?? Thanks!!
Seems to be a mistake in marketing that HP doesn't want to admit. There is no clear answer as to what the PS version or rather who it is targeting. There are many advantages to having an onboard rip, especially being a true Adobe Postscript motor. It let's you send almost any file format, any length, color format and so forth. It has a larger hard drive and more memory for processing and saving the spooled jobs to.
It does not change anything in color output goes though. There are Pantone libraries on board though but I've not met a photographer that is using Pantone (other than possibly duo-tri -quadri-tone EPS) in imagery. Since using Lightroom , I cannot see any reason to ever touch multi layered toned images again.
What HP should do of course, is to bundle the APS that comes with the PS version for a very reasonable price, and leave the PS for those who need connectivity etc for production needs.
It seems to me that the new Z has a much different profiler onboard which makes APS redundant for rgb profiling.
So if you want a printer for rgb (and greyscale) and it be a Z3200 then the non PS version is all you need.