Move from 9180 to Z3200?

[jtmiller]

Our experience with a 9180 has been pretty bumpy. Whether with WinXP32 or now with Vista64 we seem to constantly battle to maintain correspondence between our profiled monitors and the 9180 output inspite of room light control and D50 proofing lights.

We print most often from LR2.6 but also from PSCS4.

Is there any reason to believe our results would improve with a Z3200? Are the drivers better written? I get the impression that the 9180 tries to straddle the prosumer line  and sacrifices quality as a result.

For example it gets embraced by whatever software is installed for the HP All in One printer we add to the computer for quick printing/scanning. I wouldn't expect that from a professional device.

tnx
jtm

[David Saffir]

the 9180 and the Z3200 series use the "Vivera" family of inks.

Having said that, the 3200 ink set uses 12 channels (including gloss optimizer), the 9180 uses 8.

The 3200 is equipped with an X-Rite spectro, which will both "linearize/calibrate" the printer, and will also create paper profiles for just about any media type. The 9180 has a much more basic "calibration" cycle.

My experience with both printers has been good. (I also own a 3100). Certainly the 3200 is a much more consistent, controllable platform for all the usual reasons. I have no issues with the 3200 in getting screen to print match using CS4 and soft proofing. I use only RGB workflow pre-production - generally use ProPhoto RGB or Adobe 98 RGB. I print from CS4.

BTW, I'm using Mac OS X.

David

[Damir]

I have 9180 and Z3100 GPPS, both of them works without any problem.

You can never exactly match print and monitor, they are different systems, but for me it is pretty close, especially Z3100, wonderful machine, shows details in the print that people can not see on most of the monitors, my only problem with 9180 is absence of gloss enhancer.

I print from 32 bit Windows XP / PS CS3, and I always use option "Printer manage colors".

Your problem may be in workflow, not in printer.

What paper do you use?

[jtmiller]

We shoot RAW with Nikon, work in ProPhoto space exclusively and print relative colorimetric application managed colors. We use HP Ink and Advanced Photo Paper Glossy exclusively with the HP paper profiles. We view the prints with a Solux D50 lightbar.

My daughter is a painter with extreme sensitivity to color mismatch so perhaps that is part of the problem. However even I can see enough mismatch to be dissatisfied.

Vista64 has been better for us than XP32 likely due to the fact that Vista64 has only had one driver model whereas XP32 has had a transition. I don't know what has caused the latest disruption. She's very careful about ensuring all of the necessary settings are in place before printing.

It seems we get everything working fine but after a time something happens and we start getting color shifts. We've never figured out what actually goes wrong but I often find myself reinstalling the driver after calibrating everything before we get back to a satisfactory result.

I'd just like to get something stable and was thinking that more separation between HP product lines might deliver that. I get worried when the All in One consumer software stack starts putting its sticky mitts on the 9180 settings.

jtm

[Ernst Dinkla]

We shoot RAW with Nikon, work in ProPhoto space exclusively and print relative colorimetric application managed colors. We use HP Ink and Advanced Photo Paper Glossy exclusively with the HP paper profiles. We view the prints with a Solux D50 lightbar.

My daughter is a painter with extreme sensitivity to color mismatch so perhaps that is part of the problem. However even I can see enough mismatch to be dissatisfied.

Vista64 has been better for us than XP32 likely due to the fact that Vista64 has only had one driver model whereas XP32 has had a transition. I don't know what has caused the latest disruption. She's very careful about ensuring all of the necessary settings are in place before printing.

It seems we get everything working fine but after a time something happens and we start getting color shifts. We've never figured out what actually goes wrong but I often find myself reinstalling the driver after calibrating everything before we get back to a satisfactory result.

I'd just like to get something stable and was thinking that more separation between HP product lines might deliver that. I get worried when the All in One consumer software stack starts putting its sticky mitts on the 9180 settings.

jtm

To match the 10 or more pigments used in painting, color pencils etc a printer that starts with 6 hues clearly has an advantage to printers that only have 3 hues to simulate the 10 or more pigments. That said the reproduction stage has to be sound as well, if anything goes wrong from a digital scan of the painting till the print driver gets in action it still could shift colors. The 6 hue printer with a spectrometer aboard that both calibrates the printer and allows custom profiling for specific papers should be more consistent too.  The grey inks taking care of the more neutral colors in the image creates even more consistency, at printing time and years after that. The flaws in the latest Z3200 and Z3100 drivers are far less if I read about what can go wrong in the B models:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/febru...5a8293e7ee3f0bb


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[jtmiller]

Ernst

Thanks for the links. I've got several things to try on Monday and I'll post results.

My daughter often makes up larger references by putting several 13x19 prints together. So although the Z3200 is a monster and often overkill I suspect she'd make good use of it.

I think if we make the jump to a Z3200 we would go with the 44 rather than the 24. Other than an increase of ~2ft in width are there any downsides to doing so? Does the 44 have problems handling 24" (or so) paper which would most often be used?

USD4K+ is a lot of dosh but wasting time that could have been better spent at the easel costs money as well.

tnx
jtm

[Colorwave]

The paper handling is the same between the two sizes, so if you have the space and money, there is no downside to the bigger model.  I use cut sheets for material efficiency all the time on mine.  I try not to waste the offcuts from printing on rolls, so I use those offcuts for proofs and small prints.  There isn't much wasted material.

[howseth]

On my 24" Z3100 I often use the 17" width rolls. Does not really matter. I do not use cut sheets however - at least not for some time.

Howard

[jtmiller]

Thanks to all for your advice. Now I need to think about this further while I try to sort out the 9180 issues.

My lingering concern is that now that the 9180 is EOL and the 8850 is the closest replacement is what to do when the printer eventually dies. Of course it will die at the most inopportune time, i.e., in the middle of an important print job.

I'm working on a backup strategy and also trying to figure out what to buy when the time comes so that I don't have to make a snap decision that I'll regret soon after.

Thanks again

jim miller

[GGordon]

I often had often wondered if I should have switched from HP to Epson and continue to wonder today even after having great results with my B8850.
I spent many hours reading the posts from the B9180 yahoo group and still found the need to learn a few things for the touchy HP. For some reason
I found that switching from ProPhoto, which I have used for years, to straight RGB throughout PP produced truer results. I also found that perceptual
and relative intent was quite important and actually different papers produced differing results with just those two choices. Having used HP papers
for years, I found wonderfully better results using other brands. My current favorites are Canson and Hahnemuhle papers and Hahnemuhle, Ink
Press and Moab canvases.  
I do most of my printing through Lightroom 2 and some through CS4. While other people appear to have no problems using ProPhoto I just had some
strange results using it. I also found that with some papers that letting the printer manage the printing, scandalous at best I know, works best. It is
sometimes worth experimenting with small sheets of the printing papers you are using.
While the B9180 and the B8850 can be more then finicky, I have found that I can acquire some fantastic prints from the HP. I am sure the same can be
said about the Epson's and they probably do not have the problems of the HP's. There are also some unpublished (by HP) maintenance issues that  
can help lengthen the life of the printer discussed in the Yahoo group such as cleaning of the NEDD and sponges.

[Damir]

Excellent description - I found out that:

- letting the printer manage the colour is best choice - I really don't understand what is the big deal with that option, why should Photoshop be better than printer? just use what give you the best results!

- that aRBG gives me excellent results, much better than other RGB spaces - I don't see any advantage of using ProPhoto if it contain mostly out of gamut colours - you will just get shifts while mapping the colours - also entering rendering intent as much more important choice

- advance photo paper is, at least here, cheapest paper on the market, so it gives the worst results - which is logical, for much better result you should use professional satin photo paper or some paper from HP Hahnemulle range. I never get so good results to render what I see on the monitor with what I get on advanced photo paper - especially with strong saturated colours in the picture

Getting reproduction of painting on print is not a trivial job because you have in front of you direct reference, human vision is extremely sensitive when do the comparison of two colours that are placed side by side - you don't have to be the painter to see the difference. Z will definitely give you much better results it is superb printer in all the aspects, just be sure to get version with spectrophotometer.

I also suggest that you invest in Gamutvision software which will tell you more about your print than you can imagine, I suggest you checked out following links to see what is this piece of software capable of:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...964&start=0
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...767&start=0

you will see that ProPhoto is not very good choice for printing on advanced photo paper

[attachment=20405:avanced_...prophoto.jpg]

as you can see gamut's differences are just huge

digital print workflow is more about making right decisions than having the latest equipment and using the biggest colour space you have, therefore I suggest you try another paper, and aRGB before you invest in Z

[Ernst Dinkla]

I guess there's no other choice than using sRGB or AdobeRGB when you let the printer driver manage color. It can even be just one of the two it expects for input.
Other color spaces are only usable with application color management and only when that is possible the question arises whether the printer's gamut is anything close to ProPhoto or alike. Most are closer to AdobeRGB, some smaller, some larger and ARGB not uniformly fitting either space. ProPhoto + 16 bit bit can still be a good choice for your Raw conversions though.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[Damir]

Ernst - you should write a book about printing  

Whenever I have some doubts you clear them.

So if I use aRGB it is obvious that printer can do the great job - which always happen in my case.

Regarding ProPhoto - sure it can be excellent choice for RAW conversion - but on the other hand how big is gamut on digital camera? This is also one basic question - any information?

[Wayne Fox]

Ernst - you should write a book about printing  

Whenever I have some doubts you clear them.

So if I use aRGB it is obvious that printer can do the great job - which always happen in my case.

Regarding ProPhoto - sure it can be excellent choice for RAW conversion - but on the other hand how big is gamut on digital camera? This is also one basic question - any information?

A good digital camera can capture colors outside of sRGB or AdobeRGB.  Using 16bit ProPhotoRGB as a working space is the only choice that can contain all the colors. Whether there are colors in the scene that exceed sRGB or aRGB ... who knows?  Of course once you are in the raw converter you can easily push colors outside of sRGB and aRGB.  If the converter or working space is set to one of those then your colors are pushed back into those spaces.

In scanning this thread however, your decision to let the printer manage color means you aren't using a fully color managed workflow, and thus are using your working space to contain your image data to more closely match the printer space.  While I certainly don't advocate it, if the results satisfy you then all is good.  

If you are photographing original art (it sounds like this might be what you are doing), getting a good match is extremely challenging.  We see the colors of some of the pigments differently than the camera, making each piece unique to deal with. To get the best match requires very good files, a good color managed workflow, and a good understanding and ability to use softproofing to tweak the image colors.  Very challenging.  And even the best reproduction compared side by side with the original will probably reveal some differences if examined closely.

[Wayne Fox]

I spent many hours reading the posts from the B9180 yahoo group and still found the need to learn a few things for the touchy HP. For some reason
I found that switching from ProPhoto, which I have used for years, to straight RGB throughout PP produced truer results.

I do most of my printing through Lightroom 2 and some through CS4. While other people appear to have no problems using ProPhoto I just had some
strange results using it.

Well, if you are printing from lightroom you are basically using ProPhotoRGB.  The only way to avoid this would be open every file you print in CS4, force it to adobeRGB, save it as a new file, and then print the resulting file from Lightroom.  Lightroom is still using ProPhoto, but this step would clip your colors into AdobeRGB.

[GGordon]

Well, if you are printing from lightroom you are basically using ProPhotoRGB.  The only way to avoid this would be open every file you print in CS4, force it to adobeRGB, save it as a new file, and then print the resulting file from Lightroom.  Lightroom is still using ProPhoto, but this step would clip your colors into AdobeRGB.

This is not really so. It is true that when working with RAW files that during the develop mode LR converts the image to ProPhoto but when it comes print time, you select the color space most suitable
for that paper thus the ICC profile. This is why some papers are said to have a better color gamut than others. When developing images other then RAW, the image's embedded color profile is used.
With the B8850 and I suspect the B9180, if one chooses to have the printer manage colors, one has the choice of using aRGB 1998 or the printer's srgb. While I agree the ProPhoto would support a
larger print color gamut, I suspect that the printer has to use one's selected relative or perceptual intent to figure out what colors to print because those printers cannot print a ProPhoto color gamut.
So if I take an image in RAW with my camera that is using aRBG anyway, the only time ProPhoto comes into play in LR is at the develop stage, my printer will not except ProPhoto unless it is
converted or a paper's ICC profile is involved or the printer manages color at which time I would select argb 1998.
I believe only the very high end, and relatively new pro printers will print ProPhoto, others must convert through "intent" to srgb, argb 1998 or the selected paper's ICC profile.  In CS4 it is similar
except you can select what working space you want to work in after using the RAW converter through preferences.

[GGordon]

A good digital camera can capture colors outside of sRGB or AdobeRGB.  Using 16bit ProPhotoRGB as a working space is the only choice that can contain all the colors. Whether there are colors in the scene that exceed sRGB or aRGB ... who knows?  Of course once you are in the raw converter you can easily push colors outside of sRGB and aRGB.  If the converter or working space is set to one of those then your colors are pushed back into those spaces.

In scanning this thread however, your decision to let the printer manage color means you aren't using a fully color managed workflow, and thus are using your working space to contain your image data to more closely match the printer space.  While I certainly don't advocate it, if the results satisfy you then all is good.  

If you are photographing original art (it sounds like this might be what you are doing), getting a good match is extremely challenging.  We see the colors of some of the pigments differently than the camera, making each piece unique to deal with. To get the best match requires very good files, a good color managed workflow, and a good understanding and ability to use softproofing to tweak the image colors.  Very challenging.  And even the best reproduction compared side by side with the original will probably reveal some differences if examined closely.

If you printed very large prints and art work AND your printer can print in the ProPhoto color space you would be ahead of the game for sure. But when printing no larger than 13 x 19 I am not sure one can tell
the difference between printing in argb and ProPhoto. When you print using ProPhoto from CS4 or a in LR coming from a RAW photo you still must select a rendering intent so that LR or CS must still figure out
what to do with colors outside the printers or paper's gamut. Yes perhaps one could tell the difference between a srgb 13 x 19 print and one that is argb, I'm not sure because my old eyes probably cannot. With
fine art though one needs every bit of edge. Yes, there is a stigma about letting the printer handle color management but when one of the choices you have when using the printer is to use argb 1998, one cannot
be too far off especially is you are in the same color space as the printer.

[jtmiller]

I read through the Z3200 manual and couldn't see how the heads are kept clean. Do they use the same spit sponge method as the B9180 and have the same cleaning issues (gloppy mess)?

The B9180 manual makes no mention of the need for cleaning either of the sponge area or the NEDD.

Cleaning the NEDD is no big deal but the sponge area on the 9180 seems like a someone forgot to finish the design at HP.

I measured the office today and it appears that the 24" Z3200 will fit comfortably. The 44" version would be a bit clumsy but manageable.

I still would like to get the 9180 stable however. I printed today with LR2.6, PSCS4 and Qimage with all three using application managed color, relative intent. PS and Qimage were identical. LR was considerably different. We've had this divergence before and never really figured out what caused it. Reloading the drivers seemed to fix it. More work tomorrow...

The images we're struggling with right now are just newborns on a bedsheet shot in Nikon RAW. There really shouldn't be any gamut issues with this. We often capture her finished artwork and have gamut issues with that.

tnx
jtm

[Ernst Dinkla]

I read through the Z3200 manual and couldn't see how the heads are kept clean. Do they use the same spit sponge method as the B9180 and have the same cleaning issues (gloppy mess)?

The B9180 manual makes no mention of the need for cleaning either of the sponge area or the NEDD.

Cleaning the NEDD is no big deal but the sponge area on the 9180 seems like a someone forgot to finish the design at HP.

I measured the office today and it appears that the 24" Z3200 will fit comfortably. The 44" version would be a bit clumsy but manageable.

I still would like to get the 9180 stable however. I printed today with LR2.6, PSCS4 and Qimage with all three using application managed color, relative intent. PS and Qimage were identical. LR was considerably different. We've had this divergence before and never really figured out what caused it. Reloading the drivers seemed to fix it. More work tomorrow...

The images we're struggling with right now are just newborns on a bedsheet shot in Nikon RAW. There really shouldn't be any gamut issues with this. We often capture her finished artwork and have gamut issues with that.

tnx
jtm

The Z3x00 models have a cleaning unit with 12 sponges, 12 wipers. No filth from one head is wiped over another head. In practice the only thing that sometimes makes a mess is ink accumulating on the lid where the heads park. Ink can transfer to the head/head carriage from there and drip or offset to the paper. Cleaning that lid from time to time helps but asks for discipline. I may have lost 5-7? prints in 3.5 years that way, far below 1%.

If Qimage does the job, use it. I do. It is in no way inferior to LR and much more transparent on its color management, even more than Photoshop.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinklal

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[jtmiller]

I've made some progress in obtaining better color match after finding that LR has some problems responding to attempts to set values in some of the Page and Print Setup dialogs. Truely bizarre behavior. I have no good ideas on how to figure out if it is the fault of LR2.6, some weird Vista64 filehandling/permission issues or HP9180 profile contents. There are no errors on screen or in the Event logs to indicate access violations.

I started the day by uninstalling the HP9180, cleaning out the profiles from the spool directory, running a registry cleaner then reinstalling the HP9180. I then began print testing again and found some strange results.

For example printing the PDITest jpg image from LR to the HP9180 is the same whether application managed printing is selected in LR or the printer driver or not. All four combinations of those two variables results in the same output. Yet Qimage and PS respond properly to those setting generate the same results as each other and both show a softproof which is borne out by the printed result. The softproof and prints from these two differ significantly from LR prints for this image file.

Suspecting something may be unusual with that image file I tried printing a NEF of a newborn on a white bedsheet from LR and it differs from the on screen image apparently only by the "whiteness" of the paper (HP APP Glossy).

I then moved the image to PSCS4 and softproofed it and it again differs even less which can probably be attributed to the color temp of the monitor (profiled at 5800K) vs the color temp (D50) of the viewing lights. The resultant PS printout is to my eye indistinguishable from that of the LR printout.

I've got more testing to do to see if the PDITest jpg is unusual in some way compared to jpgs shot by our cameras. QImage seems to think there is an embedded aRGB1998 profile in it. Perhaps LR is choking on that and passing it through to the printer unmodified.

In the meantime I need some paper advice. Is there a place to go to get a comparative information on paper whiteness which would be valid for this pigment printer. I'm not so much concerned at this point with feel or gloss issues. Even though we're using glossy at this time a reduced gloss short of matt would be acceptable. Suggestions for specific papers welcomed that would be available in 8x11 or 13x19 that would have a whiter white than that of the HP APP Glossy.

Thanks

Jim Miller