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.)
