Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Zachary Goulko on December 24, 2016, 08:49:32 pm
-
I've been a faithful Epson user for 17 years, and have always been happy with the print quality I've gotten from all the printers starting with the 4000, then the 4800, and now the 9900 (since 2011), but at this point I've had enough aggravation with the clogging/cleaning/ink wasting/print head failure nightmares. So far the worst of the bunch has been the 9900. In 2013 after owning the 9900 for only 2 years I got the infamous clog of death, and had no choice but to replace the head, costing me $1,700. I don't print often, sometimes going for 2 weeks at a time, so after replacing the head the first time I took an extra precautionary step by scheduling and automated task to print a color bar test strip twice daily (every 12 hrs). While this didn't eliminate the clogs, it did help to reduce them but nevertheless, 3 years later (yesterday) I once again got the clog of death, 30% of the K bars are missing. I've tried everything I can think of, pair cleanings, service mode cleanings, windex, etc. etc., and aside from buying a sledge hammer to crack this thing in half, I refuse to spend another penny on an Epson.
I'm hoping to get some advise on a new 44" printer, and the one I've been looking at is the proGRAF 4000, but welcome other suggestions. I print mainly on glossy paper, mostly vibrant, highly saturated colors, so I'd like to have the widest gamut possible. The other very important factor is being able to replace the head manually, without having to pay Epson 2 grand every 2 years.
-
Although I understand the Epson turn-off, the 4900/9900 machines were most prone to clogging issues. The SureColor replacement P9000 (with the new ink set and other changes) was designed in part to overcome these issues. (There are a couple of variations of 44" Epsons with the new inks). FWIW, there's a $1000 rebate until year end, and I wonder if you could negotiate a sweeter deal with Epson or a dealer considering your woes and past loyalty. I haven't seen user reports to verify improvements, but might be worth checking if you're not adamant.
Jeff
-
Gorgeous work on your website Zachary.
Gamut-wise, depending on the paper, there is still nothing to beat the Epson x900 series. For example on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, measured in ColorThink Pro you'll get a gamut volume from a good custom profile in the range of 960,000 to 977,000. The Canon Pro-1000/Pro 2000 I've evaluated (and the same would go for the Pro-4000 -same inkset and printhead) will give a gamut volume of about 847,000. Frankly, the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most prints, but it could be for photos having colours within a very limited portion of the colour palette - I've discovered mainly in the range of very bright yellow/green, that one finds for example on some birds and flowers. But even here the difference, while noticeable is not monumental. The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part. For your printing frequency this may be the option giving you the most peace of mind. I've been working on and off with the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 for quite some time now and never experienced clogs on a nozzle check. But before going there, you should take into consideration that the new line of Epson printers that replaces the x900 models may be more "clog resistant" than the predecessors and give you some extra gamut if you really want it and think you'll need it. My measurement of Epson's Premium Luster profile for the SCP9000/7000 indicates a gamut volume of about 875,000 - not terribly higher than the Canon on a similar kind of paper. So my recommendation would be to learn what you can about the new Epson line (personally I haven't tested one yet but Keither Cooper on Northlight Images has) and then make your choice. I don't know of anything else on the market competing with these two new printer lines for the purposes you want them. But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything out there!
-
On glossy papers iPF PRO is so much better that it's not even funny - do yourself a favour, get a sheet of Canon Platinum Pro, make a test. CO does wonders, offering OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/pro4000b.jpg)
It's also better at virtually every other aspect. I absolutelly love mine - it's a printer's printer, a real joy to use.
http://www.designsupply.co.uk/blipdfs/Canon%20PRO-4000%20vs%20Epson%20SC%20P9000.pdf
-
Does anyone know what 'other brand/label/OEM paper' (or if) Canon Platinum Pro is?
-
The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part.
Good guess. $675.00 in the U.S. (and in stock) from a quick google search:
http://www.colorhq.com/PF-10-Replacement-Print-Head-for-PRO-2000-PRO-400-p/0861c003aa.htm
-
Vividness of Cibachrome, and being able to replace the print head is exactly what I need/want. I wonder how the new Canon's gamut compares to the Epson's 900 series, specifically with blood reds and deep blues which is what I print a lot of. I wonder if B&H has it on display. Would love to see some test prints.
OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:
-
Gorgeous work on your website Zachary.
Gamut-wise, depending on the paper, there is still nothing to beat the Epson x900 series. For example on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, measured in ColorThink Pro you'll get a gamut volume from a good custom profile in the range of 960,000 to 977,000. The Canon Pro-1000/Pro 2000 I've evaluated (and the same would go for the Pro-4000 -same inkset and printhead) will give a gamut volume of about 847,000. Frankly, the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most prints, but it could be for photos having colours within a very limited portion of the colour palette - I've discovered mainly in the range of very bright yellow/green, that one finds for example on some birds and flowers. But even here the difference, while noticeable is not monumental. The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part. For your printing frequency this may be the option giving you the most peace of mind. I've been working on and off with the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 for quite some time now and never experienced clogs on a nozzle check. But before going there, you should take into consideration that the new line of Epson printers that replaces the x900 models may be more "clog resistant" than the predecessors and give you some extra gamut if you really want it and think you'll need it. My measurement of Epson's Premium Luster profile for the SCP9000/7000 indicates a gamut volume of about 875,000 - not terribly higher than the Canon on a similar kind of paper. So my recommendation would be to learn what you can about the new Epson line (personally I haven't tested one yet but Keither Cooper on Northlight Images has) and then make your choice. I don't know of anything else on the market competing with these two new printer lines for the purposes you want them. But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything out there!
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your detailed reply. The gamut difference is pretty substantial between the Canon and Epson. Given that I'm heavily invested into the 9900 ink at this point, I might attempt replacing the head myself, and make the decision once the head fails again in 2 years.
-
Zachary, the gamut volume difference is far less apparent in reality than the data would make one think it should be, so I wouldn't lay too much emphasis on this variable unless you really need every last drop of gamut the printer can achieve. As for replacing an Epson print head on your own I recommend caution. A qualified tech could save you a lot of time and stress unless you are adept and experienced with this. Most of the cost will be the component not the labour, if you can buy it.
-
Vividness of Cibachrome, and being able to replace the print head is exactly what I need/want. I wonder how the new Canon's gamut compares to the Epson's 900 series, specifically with blood reds and deep blues which is what I print a lot of. I wonder if B&H has it on display. Would love to see some test prints.
Be aware that the apparent gamut of iPF PRO is much larger than measured dE^3 numbers would suggest ;)
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
-
I agree with Marcin on this point. My experience examining gamut differences indicates as I mentioned above and in my pro-1000 review is a slight gamut difference in certain images featuring a narrow band between highly saturated yellow/very bright green.
-
Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.
-
Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.
Printing is one of the most enjoyable parts of photography. Shooting is like a seduction, post processing is like a foreplay, printing is like having sex - not something I'd really like to outsource ;)
-
Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.
You can say this for a lot of specialized lenses people have. Many are used very sparingly...but when they are used they can deliver magic.
I went the used market for my large format printers and saved bundles. I have a 24" and 44" HP Z3100 printers, have been using them sparingly for the last 7 years and have learned a great deal about printing. I saved myself at least $5,000 over those years in print costs.
-
Another plus for HP Z Series printers. I have a 44" Z3100, a 24" Z3200, a 44" Z3200ps and another new 44" Z3200ps coming on Tuesday.
There are so many advantages of owning the Z3200ps especially for occasional or light duty printing.
I like Canon's Glossy paper and use it in my Z's a lot.
The Z Series printers have quite a few Kudos:
The Z series really has stood the test of time, and in hindsight may very well be the most practical choice for photographers printing for themselves rather than trying to be in the print service provider business for others. The jury is truly still out on whether the latest Canon ink set has equal light fastness to the older LUCIA EX ink set, or whether Canon has elected to go backwards in light fastness meanwhile Epson has definitely moved the ball forward and closer to what HP accomplished with the Z's. I hope both Canon and Epson achieve parity with the HP Vivera Pigments, but I doubt any of the new printers exceed the Z's in print longevity ratings. With further print longevity testing, I would love to prove myself wrong ;D
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Here are some of the advantages of this printer:
The printer is the most lightweight of all available today.
It has a proven track record of excellence
Printheads are inexpensive and easily user replaceable
Micro drop technology - little or no clogs when left alone for months at a time
Embedded spectrophotometer comes standard, no extra charge (all other printers are charged extra for embedded ESP)
Easy creation of in-house ICC profiles
Vivera inks have outstanding longevity and are in some cases still state of the art
One of the best printers for B+W - exceptionally neutral black and whites
No swapping inks for gloss or matte
12th cartridge is gloss enhancer - cuts bronzing way back on gloss and semi-gloss
The printer is easy to work on and there is a lot of documentation and an abundance of spare parts
It is the most printer for the least money on the market (currently $2,995 and free shipping at IPS)
Probably the simplest learning curve of all 44" printers today
There are some cons to this printer but most people who get them overlook them or use work arounds.
Loading sheets can be a pain - have to load from the back of the printer
Printer is slower in comparison to its counterparts
Can't use the internal cutter for cutting canvas (people use a blade in a conveniently located slot for cutting)
Sometimes software is finicky until HP updates it
There used to be a known issue with the carriage belt fraying. Now it appears they have improved that issue.
There are a few experts on this forum, Ernst Dinkla, Geraldo Garcia, John Dean and others who continue to use their HP Z3100 printers in addition to other Canon or Epson printers in their shops. Many people go out of their way to keep their HP printers going because of the quality they get.
This is not a production printer as such, as it will not be able to keep up with the new Epsons or the new Canons. But in terms of quality and print longevity, it a close race still. The printer has been at the forefront since it rocked the LF world in the beginning nearly 10 years ago and HP has maintained an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" stance, only upgrading the Z3100 to the Z3200, with the inclusion of chromatic red. Now, HP continues to sell the post script version of the 3200 printer with no specific end of manufacture being disclosed. Could be next year, could be 5 years, could be who knows when. They must provide service and support at least 5 years after end date manufacture.
Unquestionably, the very best deal on a 44" printer today, particularly for light yet careful use, with expectations of excellence in output is the HP Z3200ps printer.
When a printhead goes bad, it's $70 for two colors. The Printer has 6 replaceable printheads. When one goes bad, it's an easy thing to replace it. Like putting in a cartridge. Not pulling the printer apart and replacing an entire printhead assembly.
Unquestionably, the new Canons and the new Epsons are exceptional printers. Put prints side by side with the HP Z3200ps, and it will be extremely difficult to say which is which, and in 200 years, all will likely be there.
Put the three printers side by side and leave them idle for 2 months, and I can almost guarantee the HPZ3200ps will print.
Don't know about the others.
I'm hoping to get some advise on a new 44" printer, and the one I've been looking at is the proGRAF 4000, but welcome other suggestions. I print mainly on glossy paper, mostly vibrant, highly saturated colors, so I'd like to have the widest gamut possible. The other very important factor is being able to replace the head manually, without having to pay Epson 2 grand every 2 years.
If that is the case, I recommend you look at the HP Z3200ps. No kidding.
Mark
-
I, too, print sporadically. I left Epson years ago for Canon and haven't looked back. I run an iPF8300. Far fewer clogs, user replaceable heads and an excellent color gamut. It's solidly built and just keeps on running. I'll come back from 3 or 4 weeks away and it starts up & prints without a hitch.
-
Printing is one of the most enjoyable parts of photography. Shooting is like a seduction, post processing is like a foreplay, printing is like having sex - not something I'd really like to outsource ;)
You made my day :-)
The more that it isn't a car analogy.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
+1 For the HP!!!
Had mine 9 years now. Still prints like a champ. At $3000, a deal you should not pass up. Canon is a good printer too, but their print heads seem to only last 1 1/2-2 years, whether you use it much or not, and then it's like $500 to replace one of two. I've only replaced 2 full sets of print heads in mine.
Also, it is VERY stingy on ink usage, unlike the Epsons, which end up putting a lot in the waste ink cartridge.
-
Go with Canon. I've run Epson, HP Z printers, Canon 8300 and 8400. Canons the winner for me, hands down. No clogs. Insanely faster than the HP. Replaceable heads. Durable and reliable. The Photoshop Print Plug-in is fantastic and intuitive.
-
Maybe the new Epson P 10K which is a totally redesigned 44". but there is no one out there reporting on it on this site.
john
-
This review is for killing !!!!
On glossy papers iPF PRO is so much better that it's not even funny - do yourself a favour, get a sheet of Canon Platinum Pro, make a test. CO does wonders, offering OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:
http://www.designsupply.co.uk/blipdfs/Canon%20PRO-4000%20vs%20Epson%20SC%20P9000.pdf
-
Maybe the new Epson P 10K which is a totally redesigned 44". but there is no one out there reporting on it on this site.
john
John, the Epson SCP-10000 is quite a specialized printer, to quote from Epson: "Designed for high-production photographic, fine art and indoor display graphics printing..." The OP says he doesn't print often, so that tells me this is probably not the printer for him. Once Epson defines it that way, for prudence I would take that not only as information that it is built for continuous operation, but also as a suggestion not to buy it for infrequent use.
-
This review is for killing !!!!
I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less. There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles. Image quality is close enough between the top printer manufacturers that the larger variable imho is selecting the equipment that suits your needs and personal tastes/workflow best.
ken
-
I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less. There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles. Image quality is close enough between the top printer manufacturers that the larger variable imho is selecting the equipment that suits your needs and personal tastes/workflow best.
ken
I wouldn't give much weight to undermining the test without substantive arguments.
The test confirms many real world observations of Epson users that had switched to Canon - iPF PRO uses much less ink for printing, maintanance and black swiching, it's faster, more convenient and the amount of ink in the ink carts is not cheated.
Quality wise LUCIA PRO's Chroma Optimizer gives noticeable advantage over Ultrachrome HDX on photo papers, period.
-
I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less. There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles.
ken
There are certain scientific and methodological principles and procedures that need to be applied to the comparative testing of complex equipment whose performance could be affected by a variety of factors. To mention some key ones for clarity on what I mean, firstly, the object or objects of the test need to specified in objective terms. Secondly the testing procedure needs to be capable of replication and validation. Thirdly, it is most important to isolate, by neutralizing them or keeping them the same, all extraneous variables so that cause and effect can be isolated with confidence. This would take care of the "other variables" issue you mention above.
Regarding integrity, BLI has been in this business for over fifty years using a network of two labs and 40,000 professionals world-wide. They say they've tested 15,000 products in the digital imaging and document management fields. So I would be inclined to at least take them seriously regardless of who pays for their services and to examine their report on these printers for adherence to the basic principles and procedures that make for valid reporting. If they've done the work correctly, fine; if they haven't the report would be inadequate. I have downloaded this report but not examined it in detail yet. I intend to. My question to you is whether - before smearing this report - you have, and whether you have found specific methodological defects that would point to bias or inadequacy in their reporting. If you have, please let us know what you think they are.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for making those points. It is far to easy to shoot the messenger when you don't like the message.
Best regards
Erik
There are certain scientific and methodological principles and procedures that need to be applied to the comparative testing of complex equipment whose performance could be affected by a variety of factors. To mention some key ones for clarity on what I mean, firstly, the object or objects of the test need to specified in objective terms. Secondly the testing procedure needs to be capable of replication and validation. Thirdly, it is most important to isolate, by neutralizing them or keeping them the same, all extraneous variables so that cause and effect can be isolated with confidence. This would take care of the "other variables" issue you mention above.
Regarding integrity, BLI has been in this business for over fifty years using a network of two labs and 40,000 professionals world-wide. They say they've tested 15,000 products in the digital imaging and document management fields. So I would be inclined to at least take them seriously regardless of who pays for their services and to examine their report on these printers for adherence to the basic principles and procedures that make for valid reporting. If they've done the work correctly, fine; if they haven't the report would be inadequate. I have downloaded this report but not examined it in detail yet. I intend to. My question to you is whether - before smearing this report - you have, and whether you have found specific methodological defects that would point to bias or inadequacy in their reporting. If you have, please let us know what you think they are.
-
It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold. It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.
I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo
It's not a novel approach.
Ken
-
It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold. It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.
I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo
It's not a novel approach.
Ken
Telling the world to take such a report with a "grain of salt" reads pretty much to me like a smear, but I won't quibble over semantics. You seem unwilling to answer my question, but rather pivot around it by repeating your inference that the source of support necessarily renders the report unworthy of serious attention. What you're saying of course is not out of the question, but I'll choose to disagree by saying it deserves much more serious scrutiny than you are prepared to give it.
-
Hi Ken,
The problem is that subjective test are, well, subjective. Testing by fanboys is far more subjective than testing by a lab.
I am pretty sure that Canon hast tasked BLI with the comparison test as they were fairly sure they would win. It is really easy, if you win you publish the results if you come in as number two than you analyse the findings, put the report in the archive and improve your product.
One very obvious difference was that the Canon used much less ink, that may have a significance regarding ink costs over the printers lifetime. The lab did not report on clogging issues on either. Canon's print heads are user changeable so that is probably a benefit.
The report also indicated that the Canon had less aliasing on fonts and fine detail, indicating that the Epson driver is not interpolating very well. But that is no new knowledge as we have been informed on that issue by Jeff Schewe many times.
Regarding photographic printing I think the impression was that they were quite close, with a small win for the Canon.
An area where canon came to advantage was speed. That may matter for a throughput oriented operation.
The executive summary was a bit single sided, I would say.
Best regards
Erik
It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold. It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.
I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo
It's not a novel approach.
Ken
-
Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):
"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
-the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers.
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
-I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
-I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution.
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
-when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
-They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
-But, did the Canon prints match the originals?
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/).
The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive.
It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.
Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. Please don't tear me apart!
thank you.
Tony
-
Show where the report is inconsistent!
We can not accuse without proving something to the contrary.
It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold. It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.
I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo
It's not a novel approach.
Ken
-
Exact,
I was an Epson user, the service is very bad all over the world.
The Matte Black and Photo Black swap system is terrible.
Consumption is fact is greater! This I have experienced.
The heads do not even have to say much, Epson is terrible!
In addition to the report buy everything I've tried with Epson.
Att
Hi Ken,
The problem is that subjective test are, well, subjective. Testing by fanboys is far more subjective than testing by a lab.
I am pretty sure that Canon hast tasked BLI with the comparison test as they were fairly sure they would win. It is really easy, if you win you publish the results if you come in as number two than you analyse the findings, put the report in the archive and improve your product.
One very obvious difference was that the Canon used much less ink, that may have a significance regarding ink costs over the printers lifetime. The lab did not report on clogging issues on either. Canon's print heads are user changeable so that is probably a benefit.
The report also indicated that the Canon had less aliasing on fonts and fine detail, indicating that the Epson driver is not interpolating very well. But that is no new knowledge as we have been informed on that issue by Jeff Schewe many times.
Regarding photographic printing I think the impression was that they were quite close, with a small win for the Canon.
An area where canon came to advantage was speed. That may matter for a throughput oriented operation.
The executive summary was a bit single sided, I would say.
Best regards
Erik
-
Exact,
I was an Epson user, the service is very bad all over the world.
The Matte Black and Photo Black swap system is terrible.
Consumption is fact is greater! This I have experienced.
The heads do not even have to say much, Epson is terrible!
In addition to the report buy everything I've tried with Epson.
Att
Have you tried Epson service all over the world?
I have used Epson service at one time or another for every Epson printer I've owned (Canada) and I can confirm that I received very good, correct service from Epson.
The MK/PK ink switching is a nuisance which I too wish they had designed out of a long time ago, but saying the system is "terrible" is a bit of a stretch.
When you say "consumption is greater", please explain how you have tested this, and whether it includes ink for both printing and maintenance.
I simply don't understand your last two lines. What did you mean to say?
-
Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):
"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
-the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers.
On Epson, photo and matteshare same nozzles, so lines must be purged and refilled
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
-I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
-I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution.
They were just, using inaccurate terms, stating that they used each printers highest quality settings.
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
-when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
-They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
-But, did the Canon prints match the originals?
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
A slightly unclear way to say that consistency can be maintained across all printers if required.
From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/).
The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive.
It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.
Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. Please don't tear me apart!
thank you.
Tony
The subjective pieces we consistent with many of the other Canon reviews and Epson comparisons. You seems to want a scientific justification for their subjective jusgments, E.g good skin tone and vibrant color.
This is the only review where I have seen measurements of ink usage, so is quite valuable. With more cartridges, assuming equivalent cost per, the Canon will have higher initial investment due to more carts. However, if the usage is correct, the carts should last quite longer, so overall costs would be lower.
Obviously a lot of detail is missing from this high level report. Not sure many of us would want to slog through the details. The weight of the reviews I have read seem to say Canon has a winner.
-
Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):I HAVE ENTERED MY FEEDBACK IN BOLD BLACK WHERE THE MATTERS ARISE FOR EASE OF DISTINCTION FROM YOUR COMMENTS.
"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
-the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers. OR MAYBE IT WAS A SLIP AND THE WRITER MEANT TO SAY "CHANNEL".
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
-I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant. NOT REALLY. IT DEPENDS ON THE COLOURS IN THE PHOTO. FOR MOST PHOTOS IT WOULD BE UNNOTICED.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
-I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution. OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE COMPARING MAXIMUM DPI FOR BOTH PRINTERS, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A BIT DIFFERENT, AND NO THIS NEED NOT AFFECT INK CONSUMPTION
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
-when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. COLOUR ACCURACY AND COLOUR APPEARANCE ARE TWO SEPARATE PHENOMENA AND NEITHER YOU NOR THE BLI REPORT SHOULD CONFUSE THEM.And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
-They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.AND WHY DIDN'T YOU QUOTE THE REMAINDER OF THAT PARAGRAPH TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY WERE TESTING A PRE-PRODUCTION PRINTER HAVING A PRE-MATURED MECHANICAL STRUCTURE
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
-But, did the Canon prints match the originals? AGAIN, SEPARATE QUESTION FROM COLOR APPEARANCE; THEY ARE TALKING APPEARANCE HERE, NOT ACCURACY.
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/).THIS COMMENT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE POINT BLI IS MAKING. BLI ISN'T TALKING ABOUT PROFILING, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT CALIBRATION. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive. CHROMA OPTIMIZER IS PART OF THE CANON INK SET AND WOULD/SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN INK COSTS. PERHAPS THEY ASSUME THIS AND THEREFORE NEED NOT SINGLE IT OUT FOR MENTION. AS FOR THE COMPARATIVE COST OF INK, THAT PROBABLY DEPENDS IN PART ON WHERE ONE BUYS IT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY AND MORE RELEVANT - I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF INK COVERAGE INCLUDING MAINTENANCE OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE YET.
It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.
Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. BUT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH IS YOUR INFERENCE OR OPINION, NOT A FACT. Please don't tear me apart! OF COURSE NOT; BUT I WOULD HOPE YOUR READERS ARE PERMITTED TO POINT OUT SOME AREAS OF YOUR ATTEMPT TO BE FACTUAL THAT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY "ON POINT"; THAT SAID, GOOD THAT YOU HAVE MADE THE EFFORT TO DIGEST THIS REPORT AND RAISE MATTERS THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE PROBLEMATIC.
thank you.
Tony
-
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
So they compared the printers using different papers and (presumably, doesn't say) manufacturers profiles and found one was subjectively more pleasing than the other.
This tells me that if I use this specific Canon paper on the Canon printer and have exactly the same aesthetic taste as the reviewers I will be happier with the Canon than the Epson. In other words, meaningless information for most of us, especially since we haven't seen the images, and would want a level playing field to do a comparison (same paper in each printer, high quality custom profiles for each printer/paper combination). Not impressed by this "commissioned review"--and that is from a dyed in the wool Canon printer owner.
-
Has Canon ever released the ink longevity numbers for the Pro-2000 or 4000? I had heard that the Wilhelm Research numbers would be released in September. Yet obviously that date has come and gone and still nothing.
-
Yea, Wilhelm hasn't released the numbers for the new Epson inkset either. Both companies want him to suggest things that he hasn't finished evaluating yet. It seems to me Epson and Canon should have had these tests finished long before they released the printers, like HP did with the Z series a decade ago, that still out performs them on some media by a factor of 2x. Fade testing shouldn't be an after thought.
As to which 44' printer to buy, at this point no one knows. The new Canon and Epson printers haven't been around long enough to see what is up and the fade tests aren't in. I don't believe any preliminary results. If he knew he wouldn't have to test them.
1. The permanence of the new Canon Lucia Pro ink is in question, we just don't know. And the new head design hadn't been around long enough to see how it functions either, having one head instead of two. How long will the heads last and how much ink will they waste? We can speculate but we don't know.
2. As for Epson we don't know if their "new and improved" ( everything is always new and improved for Epson ) head designs are really cutting down on the horrible ink waste the 9900 series was exhibiting, along with all the ink pressure issues and over all bad quality control. I hope they are greatly improved, if so I might buy one. Will the totally redesigned heads of the P10K show us a whole new capability of piezzo head reliability? We don't know the answer to any of these questions. We just have sales gossip so far. My strategy is to wait 1 year before buying anything that has been redesigned. Sometimes redesigning things is really a way to improve them in a minor way or a major way, and sometimes it is just a sales gimmic. I have always found the service people Epson uses at Decision One to be totally unreliable, going around replacing expensive parts with expensive labor until the problem might be solved. I always found the Canon and HP techs to be great and fast. But other parts of the country and the world may show the opposite experience.
The only printer out there now with a track record you can evaluate is the Z3200. They used to have fantastic warranty protection. I don't know about now.
John
Has Canon ever released the ink longevity numbers for the Pro-2000 or 4000? I had heard that the Wilhelm Research numbers would be released in September. Yet obviously that date has come and gone and still nothing.
-
So they compared the printers using different papers and (presumably, doesn't say) manufacturers profiles and found one was subjectively more pleasing than the other.
This tells me that if I use this specific Canon paper on the Canon printer and have exactly the same aesthetic taste as the reviewers I will be happier with the Canon than the Epson. In other words, meaningless information for most of us, especially since we haven't seen the images, and would want a level playing field to do a comparison (same paper in each printer, high quality custom profiles for each printer/paper combination). Not impressed by this "commissioned review"--and that is from a dyed in the wool Canon printer owner.
Hi John,
I've not delved into this report in detail yet (which I intend to do soon), however in skimming through it, that statement you pulled up struck me also as complete nonsense; Epson professional printers are capable of delivering fine skin tones; so much of this depends on the quality of profiling and the papers used, but more forcefully the profiling - and image editing. But then if you read further up the page they kind of contradict themselves, so no - that part of it (for starters) is "not brilliant".
-
I've not delved into this report in detail yet (which I intend to do soon), however in skimming through it, that statement you pulled up struck me also as complete nonsense
It is that sort of nonsense that makes the entire review suspect. There is no way an independent reviewer who was not paid by one of the manufacturers would make a statement like that, especially without any supporting evidence and detailed discussion of methods to insure a level playing field.
-
Personally I think all this tit for tat about color gamut, resolution, image quality, is irrelevant these days with the three companies. They are all so close.
My concern is how reliable is the printer, how often do I have to replace parts, does it waste ink, and when it does need to be worked on are the techs reliable and affordable. I have all three brands and the only image quality issue I ever think about is when I use the HPZ for black and white work on matte media I'm getting a much darker 1.8 dmax which is noticeable, but not reason enough to buy the printer.
j
-
I hope to comment at some length on the Epson P10000 (and P20000) at some point in the future. Time is never sufficient to do everything I want to do.
For now, a couple of brief comments on the P10K that we've been running for a few months now. As background, we're a large format digital print shop that strives for the highest quality we can achieve, without implementing processes that would cost more than 95% of our customers could afford. :) We run multiple elderly 9880's, only a single remaining 7900 (having disposed of our other x900's), multiple 11880's, some other random stuff. And now a P10K, plus a P20K that we just took delivery of.
First, these new models increase the trend towards electronic "fly by wire" controls for everything. Gone are the days where you can just load or eject media by a manual lever control and a single electronic button press in a matter of a few seconds, for example. These new printers suffer from an increasing issue I find with many modern high tech products. I call it nagware and "verbing instead of working". The printer takes a lot more button pushes to get common things done -- invoking a function, then confirming we want to do it, then confirming we really want to do it, then confirming that we actually want to start doing it, etc. And we spend more time standing at the control panel while the printer says "waking up", "preparing", "waiting", blah blah blah -- verbing of some kind, instead of actually working.
Once the printer is actually doing something, it's really fast and smooth. The new head is massive, but the printer feels more solid than ever while that giant head is moving around. It's also much quieter than before. The rotary cutter is fast and solid. We're not finding any feed or head strike issues so far, except with really aggravating papers that always used to cause issues, such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, Hahnmuhle Fine Art Baryta, and the like.
I've made a bunch of custom profiles and the new inkset is a welcome update. Much better Dmax and colour gamut compared to our stalwart 11880's. I'd say more or less as good as the x900 inkset for gamut, but with better colour gamut in the deeper shadow tones. The 4th grey ink is a win, I believe. I haven't tried any hard core B&W testing yet, but in routine printing we're seeing good things that I attribute to having that extra shade of grey. I anticipate good things from the reformulated yellow ink, if independent testing confirms the improved yellow longevity that Epson is claiming. The shift to a 300/600 PPI head design instead of the traditional 360/720 PPI Epson has used for everything else has brought no downside that I can see. Things still look as detailed and smooth as ever, absent a controlled test with a loupe.
The new print area in the hardware is arranged horizontally, as opposed to at an angle like all previous Epson large format models of the past 10+ years. This means paper is fed in & down through the loading slot, then goes through an angled bend to get leveled out under the print head, with prints feeding straight out the front still on a horizontal orientation. This cause a bit of difference in handling some papers, but doesn't seem to have a significant plus or minus in operation, so far. A minor downside is that it appears 11 inches is now the minimum length of media that can be printed, probably because of the feed mechanism changes. On the upside, large rigid plates or heavy card stock can be dealt with more easily since they load & print completely horizontally, given sufficient space in front and in back.
Bugs -- there have been a few. For the first time in I don't know how many years, we had multiple incidents where the printer got confused while trying to load media with multiple jobs queued up, and started printing when no paper was actually loaded. This liberally sprayed ink all over the interior until the job could be killed. This happened several times until we narrowed it down to one specific situation for sure -- queuing up multiple jobs on cut sheet stock, something we don't do any more now. When we need to print on cut sheets, we run the jobs one at a time. We've already had one or two driver updates for the P10K, I'm betting there will be a firmware update before long as well. One example of a more benign bug is that on Windows, the Epson printer driver enforces the 11 inch minimum media length I mentioned above, changing any smaller dimension entered to 11 before commencing the print job. On Mac, the driver will let you enter a smaller dimension and submit the print job, but the print is then oddly rotated and truncated. It's impossible to get a correct print until you put at least 11 inches in for the media length. These things demonstrate the continued decline of vendor QC, and the role of paying customers as beta testers.
Ink supply was a bit of an issue to start. We took delivery of the P10K with its pathetically small starter ink cartridges, which lasted about 24 hours. That was how long it took before one cart was depleted far enough that the obligatory head clog couldn't be cleared. The printer was then unusable as it appeared that Epson Canada had no supply of P10K / P20K ink anywhere in the country. So our brand new device sat collecting dust for over a month while we raised hell weekly through our vendors, trying to get ink. When we ordered the P20K, we told everybody involved that if a full ink set didn't arrive conjointly with the printer, we would refuse delivery. :)
My final comment for now is on clogging. Yes, the P10K continues to clog as much as any Epson we've ever run. I've disabled as many of the auto-cleaning functions as possible, because if we didn't, our initial observation is that the machine would spend an enormous amount of time trying to run self-cleaning cycles, many of which would prove to be ineffective anyway. Even with everything cut to a minimum, the printer constantly tells us that it has detected a clog that automatic cleaning couldn't clear up, and so the printer stops to give us the chance to clean again or continue printing. This requires manual intervention on the control panel. If we cancel the job and run a nozzle check, I'd say about 80% of the time there's no clog in evidence. But quite frequently, whether the auto-clog detect has found something or not, a clog will develop. Often it linearly spans 2 - 3 contiguous nozzle slots. Rather frequently, multiple channels will clog at once. At least now the paired channel cleaning function allows us to select one, several or all channels for cleaning, which speeds up cleaning with less wasted ink than before, where it was either clean all channels, or only a single channel pair. Clogging happens pretty regularly, so we run manual nozzle checks with the requirement for manual head cleanings all the time. We manage environmental dust, temperature and humidity as well as we reasonably can without running a clean-room type of environment.
Time will tell whether the new 600 PPI head is more reliable than the disastrous x900 heads. If it is, and if Epson can work out some of the driver and firmware bugs soon, then on the whole we'll consider the P10K / P20K printers a worthwhile upgrade. The most significant benefit we see on day 1 is from the new inkset. But the printer currently is not without its annoyances, and on the clogging front it appears to be no better than any other past model. Based on what we're seeing with these, I don't know that we'll ever bother to try the P9000 or other smaller models, but we'll see. We print a lot, and we print large a lot, so the production throughput that the P10K / P20K are designed to deliver make them the natural fit for us.
I will say that we do plan to evaluate the Canon PRO-4000 in the new year...
-
I have now read the BLI Report in some detail and I have quite a few comments sprinkled throughout written-up as "stickies" in the document. My comments are on matters of fact, approach and relevance and have nothing to do with who paid for the work. I have written to BLI asking whether there would be any copyright implications to my posting a resaved copy of the document containing the stickies. From auto-responses I see they are all on holiday till January 3rd, so I may not hear back until then. It would save me a lot of writing and referencing, because it is not possible to copy extracts of the report. I shall therefore wait until I hear back from them before posting, out of abundance of caution.
For now, let me say I am not prepared to condemn the whole report because I have queries, quandaries or possible issues with this or that aspect of it, nor am I prepared to say it is necessarily a flawless piece of work despite the large effort they obviously devoted to it.
-
I will say that we do plan to evaluate the Canon PRO-4000 in the new year...
Royce, thanks a lot for the informations about SC-P10/20K!
I think you may actually like PRO-4000 ;)
Absolutely ZERO clogs ever. The most beautiful effect on baryta papers that I've ever seen, plus it makes fragile surfaces (like IGGFS) much, much more robust, so framing is safer and easier. No head strikes nor feeding problems, even with the thickest, most curled media.
There's also a "fly by wire" tendency with massive know-all touch panel trying to organise your life, but the good news is you can ignore it completely, load or change the paper the old fashioned, manual way, with only one press of the button.
You also get reasonable, 190ml ink carts with the printer (we had a promo in Poland, so I had also received additional set of 160ml carts).
Good luck with the tests, and please let us know your findings!
-
After looking over the specs and features of the Canon PRO-4000 it is a very nicely designed printer - robust, for sure.
The printhead assembly works by re-mapping clogged nozzles which is great. Only problem is if one of the 3 printhead units in the main assembly fails, the whole assembly must be replaced. Basically that's about $525 US.
(http://www.on-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Pro-4000_PF10_printhead-768x768.jpg)
If and when a printheads fails in the Z3200ps you replace one printhead that has two colors:
(http://robogravure.com/images/articles/printhead_cleaning/PRINTHEADS/printhead-diagram.gif)
One printhead has two colors, for example matte black and red:
(http://robogravure.com/images/articles/printhead_cleaning/printhead.gif)
One printhead for the HP Z3200ps costs about $70.00.
So you fix the failed printhead, not the entire printhead assembly.
The OP said:
I don't print often, sometimes going for 2 weeks at a time...
I'm hoping to get some advise on a new 44" printer, and the one I've been looking at is the proGRAF 4000, but welcome other suggestions. I print mainly on glossy paper, mostly vibrant, highly saturated colors, so I'd like to have the widest gamut possible. The other very important factor is being able to replace the head manually...
The HP Z3200 delivers some of the richest most saturated colors out there, especially when tweaked in the profile during a custom profile using the embedded ESP.
The cost of the Z3200ps on sale is easily 1/3 less than the price of the Pro 4000.
Just saying, I believe the Pro 4000 is a great machine, but the Z3200 is lighter, easier to move, has many features that are great for the occasional user.
I was gone for 2 1/2 months on a shoot and came back and the printer picked back up without a hitch.
For the money, it's probably the best value for quality out there.
The two issues the OP stated are the Z3200's strong points.
-
After looking over the specs and features of the Canon PRO-4000 it is a very nicely designed printer - robust, for sure.
The printhead assembly works by re-mapping clogged nozzles which is great. Only problem is if one of the 3 printhead units in the main assembly fails, the whole assembly must be replaced. Basically that's about $525 US.
(http://www.on-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Pro-4000_PF10_printhead-768x768.jpg)
If and when a printheads fails in the Z3200ps you replace one printhead that has two colors:
(http://robogravure.com/images/articles/printhead_cleaning/PRINTHEADS/printhead-diagram.gif)
One printhead has two colors, for example matte black and red:
(http://robogravure.com/images/articles/printhead_cleaning/printhead.gif)
One printhead for the HP Z3200ps costs about $70.00.
So you fix the failed printhead, not the entire printhead assembly.
The OP said:
The HP Z3200 delivers some of the richest most saturated colors out there, especially when tweaked in the profile during a custom profile using the embedded ESP.
The cost of the Z3200ps on sale is easily 1/3 less than the price of the Pro 4000.
Just saying, I believe the Pro 4000 is a great machine, but the Z3200 is lighter, easier to move, has many features that are great for the occasional user.
I was gone for 2 1/2 months on a shoot and came back and the printer picked back up without a hitch.
For the money, it's probably the best value for quality out there.
The two issues the OP stated are the Z3200's strong points.
That Canon head is one head. Price I have seen is $675...but a only need one.
-
Right - when one of those ink printhead components there on the Canon fails - you pay for the whole thing. $675.00
When one print head fails on the Z 3200ps, you replace it for $70.00
There are 6 print heads on the Z - each with 2 colors. Usually only 1 fails at a time.
There is a huge difference there.
-
Right - when one of those ink printhead components there on the Canon fails - you pay for the whole thing. $675.00
When one print head fails on the Z 3200ps, you replace it for $70.00
There are 6 print heads on the Z - each with 2 colors. Usually only 1 fails at a time.
There is a huge difference there.
Hi, Mark:
I have the B9180 and over the almost 10 year period I have replaced 2 heads. I am not a professional so my printing is limited to my own work and most years I turn off my printer for 2-3 months at a time when I travel.
I was wondering, what is the status of HP in terms of being in this business. In the next year or so I am going to be looking to buy a bigger 17" to 24" printer. Are they going to pull a B9180 on the z-series printers? I would disregard them as a choice if that were to be true...don't want to repeat the B9180 experience. Based on how good these are, I wonder why they would want to discontinue.
-
Right - when one of those ink printhead components there on the Canon fails - you pay for the whole thing. $675.00
When one print head fails on the Z 3200ps, you replace it for $70.00
There are 6 print heads on the Z - each with 2 colors. Usually only 1 fails at a time.
There is a huge difference there.
To be fair, the Canon is at least 2x faster, if not 3x. For production the price difference of the heads is no obstacle. I do not have that production volume so am happy with the Z3200.
Ernst, op de lei getypt.
-
When one print head fails on the Z 3200ps, you replace it for $70.00
There are 6 print heads on the Z - each with 2 colors. Usually only 1 fails at a time.
There is a huge difference there.
New Canon PF-10 print head is simplified, stuffed with many additional thermal sensors, carefully protected against head strikes with protective floats and massive, protruding screw for additional protection. It is the result of ~10 years of experience with PF-2, 3 and 5 print heads (that were virtually the same), should be robust and reliable. For some reason it only costs ~500$ where I live. I don't think there will be much of a cost difference in a long run, but time will tell ;)
-
Does the PR0-1000 also use the same PF-10 head or does it use a 'simplified' version (read: less $$)
-
To be fair, the Canon is at least 2x faster, if not 3x. For production the price difference of the heads is no obstacle. I do not have that production volume so am happy with the Z3200.
Ernst, op de lei getypt.
To be Fair, also, an occasional user doesn't need the speed necessarily. The OP stated his uses were occasional.
I do a lot of printing and I'm fine with the Z3200 as well.
If that changed, then maybe another Canon would be added to the shop. As it is, I'm fine with what we have.
Speed vs. output, then. I guess. Quantity vs. Quality. Fast and Good vs Slow and good. They are all good printers, what can we say?
-
Hi, Mark:
I have the B9180 and over the almost 10 year period I have replaced 2 heads. I am not a professional so my printing is limited to my own work and most years I turn off my printer for 2-3 months at a time when I travel.
I was wondering, what is the status of HP in terms of being in this business. In the next year or so I am going to be looking to buy a bigger 17" to 24" printer. Are they going to pull a B9180 on the z-series printers? I would disregard them as a choice if that were to be true...don't want to repeat the B9180 experience. Based on how good these are, I wonder why they would want to discontinue.
Given that you are still using your B9180 after 10 years, I'd say that that is pretty good longevity for a printer. Plus you can still get inks for it, right?
HP is the leader in Large Format Printing in.. the.. world. They've been working on technology in several other areas lately, particularly with their high production printers. Their Z Series printers are still going strong. Our most recent Z series printer we just got was manufactured in July of this year. They have not yet replaced the Z3200ps because apparently sales are still strong. How and what comes along next is anybody's guess. I stressed to HP your sentiments that I share: that since the printers are so good, why would they discontinue them.
Truthfully, I think you've answered your own question.
-Mark
-
Does the PR0-1000 also use the same PF-10 head or does it use a 'simplified' version (read: less $$)
PRO-1000 use exactly the same PF-10, LUCIA PRO ink set, and multisensor (spectrodenistometer)
-
Speed vs. output, then. I guess. Quantity vs. Quality. Fast and Good vs Slow and good. They are all good printers, what can we say?
As John mentioned HP is better on matte papers, but I believe that on photo paper (baryta, PE glossy-lustre-silk etc.) nothing can beat Canon iPF PRO ;)
-
As John mentioned HP is better on matte papers, but I believe that on photo paper (baryta, PE glossy-lustre-silk etc.) nothing can beat Canon iPF PRO ;)
You know, I haven't had the opportunity to put glossy/lustre-silk images from the IPF PRO side by side with the Z3200ps, so I can't really say.
I'm wondering if you have had that opportunity to do a side by side comparison?
If you are basing your statement on evidence, I'd like to see it, mainly because I just don't know.
What I do know is that glossy prints from the HP Z3200ps are stunning - absolutely breath taking.
I imagine the prints from the IPF PRO are too.
At what point are we splitting hairs - your yellow is better than mine, or Greens or blues or reds? Different shades, better gamut?
When it comes to side by side comparisons, I think it's going to be tough, but it will probably be like comparing Nikon glass to Canon glass.
All great, but subtle differences between the two.
Glad you like your Canon gear. I like Canon too. Great gear.
-
Does the PR0-1000 also use the same PF-10 head or does it use a 'simplified' version (read: less $$)
Same printhead for Pro1000/2000/4000
-
You know, I haven't had the opportunity to put glossy/lustre-silk images from the IPF PRO side by side with the Z3200ps, so I can't really say.
I'm wondering if you have had that opportunity to do a side by side comparison?
If you are basing your statement on evidence, I'd like to see it, mainly because I just don't know.
What I do know is that glossy prints from the HP Z3200ps are stunning - absolutely breath taking.
I imagine the prints from the IPF PRO are too.
At what point are we splitting hairs - your yellow is better than mine, or Greens or blues or reds? Different shades, better gamut?
When it comes to side by side comparisons, I think it's going to be tough, but it will probably be like comparing Nikon glass to Canon glass.
All great, but subtle differences between the two.
Glad you like your Canon gear. I like Canon too. Great gear.
Mark, I'll try to prepare some comparison photo samples as soon as I'll have the oportunity, but I'd also encourage you to give Canon a try - it's extremely difficult to show all differences on photos, but very easy to see on prints ;)
-
The gloss prints on both are outstanding, and both are very smooth. The Canon inks are a lot more scratch resistant, at least on the Lucia inks of the 8400 series. The Hp Z's use of the gloss overcoat is a lot more vulnerable, but they look great, bw and color. I spray both matte and gloss with the Hah spray.The Wilhelm permanence on Canson rag media is twice what the old Canon inks were acand we still don't know about the new ones. Some people don't care about that.
Everybody it talking about what revolutionary dmax their new inks are producing. The HP Vivera has had a 1.8 dmax for almost 10 years now. I just did a test print today and I'm still amazed at how much difference that makes on a paper like Canson. I can do very nice neutral bw prints on the 8300 Canon with TBW rip, but they never have the authority of the Z prints.
I'll be interested to see how the new Epson inkset is working out. There is not much talk about those printers yet that I've heard.
john
-
PRO-1000 use exactly the same PF-10, LUCIA PRO ink set, and multisensor (spectrodenistometer)
IMO, that really hurts the total cost of ownership of the -1000. Having to replace the same $650 head on a $1100 printer is a much bigger wallet hit vs. that head on a $2500+ PRO-2000 or more for the -4000
-
IMO, that really hurts the total cost of ownership of the -1000. Having to replace the same $650 head on a $1100 printer is a much bigger wallet hit vs. that head on a $2500+ PRO-2000 or more for the -4000
Howard, I would look at this somewhat differently. The head is the heart of a printer. When I decide "how much printer" I want to buy, it's not based on the cost of replacing the print head (of unknown longevity at this time) but rather on the maximum size prints I'm likely going to make. For me it so happens a 17" carriage width is ample, so I'm happy to have the same quality components in this machine as I would find in the larger ones. Canon was looking to provide total consistency through the whole Pro product line by using one technology throughout. Sharing the same head between all the printers probably provides economies of design, scope and scale that they would lose customizing a head for the smaller carriage printer, and in the final analysis the costs may not be much different but perhaps the quality would be. The head will last as long as it will last on any of these machines and the wallet hit is the same 650 bucks to replace it, regardless of the carriage width. I think this is OK, and given the fact that replacing this head is a matter of unwrapping it and dropping it into its carriage holder, in this respect gives it quite an advantage over the cost and trouble you'd go through changing an Epson head on any of the 17 inch professional models. If I had to change the head on my 4900, the printer goes into the recycle bin it's that expensive (but now into its 5th year, the head is still fine....). I don't know what they'll charge for a P800 head, but its unlikely to be much cheaper than the Canon head and on top of that requires a service tech to replace it - unless you are very adept at this kind of stuff and are prepared to put a considerable gob of time and effort into a DIY exercise. The HP solution for changing print heads is probably the most economical of the lot, but they don't make a 17" model in the Z series.
-
As John mentioned HP is better on matte papers, but I believe that on photo paper (baryta, PE glossy-lustre-silk etc.) nothing can beat Canon iPF PRO ;)
Just purchased a Z3200 based on Mark L's head's up on the great price at http://www.proimagingsupplies.com. I have wanted a Z3200PS in house at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives for a long time, but price was always a barrier in the past. Now, that I've had the Z for an entire two days ;) in my studio I can say: this printer should have captured way more of the pro photography and/or fine art printing atelier services market than it did. Print speed isn't a major factor in this market segment. Quality, Quality, and Quality is. The HP Z2300Ps has brilliant "turn key" engineering that takes pretty much any media and calibrates it (with auto adjusted ink channel ramps) and then goes further to place an ICC profile of that same media into the correct OS system folder where it magically appears in the enduser's image editing app (photoshop, etc). A photographer-first printmaker-second enduser's dream!!. Superb image quality that more than holds its own against the latest offerings from Canon and Epson. And print longevity still likely to be best in class notwithstanding Epson's latest advances in its HD and HDX ink formulations, meanwhile Canon Pro-1000, 2000, and 4000 Lucia Pro inks still have ????? longevity ratings. All of this goodness packaged into an ancient-by-digital imaging standards nearly 10 year old printer model design. Have to give HP engineers and color scientists plenty of credit for that.
What's not to like about the HP Z3200? Well, on that score, my last two days have been loaded up with plenty of WTF!!! moments. The documentation sucks, the Hp website has so many broken links to the relevant supplementary info cited in the user guides, etc., that it has been a very frustrating learning curve coming up to speed on how to make this Z3200 printer hit all of its many high notes. So, the Z3200 has a very bi-polar personality. In the manic (I'm happy) phase, the concept of start-to-finish media calibration is amazing and the image quality is great, particularly for photographers and printmakers who don't want to make color science their secondary area of expertise. However, in the depression (I'm not happy) HP Z phase, the newcomer to this printer (even one like myself with years of experience in inkjet printing) is struggling to figure out simple skills like how to reliably load a cut sheet, how to build and implement more advanced ICC Profiles than HP has built in at the basic level, or even why sleep mode still keeps a hard drive and/or fan spinning?
But on the whole, I'm definitely impressed by how well the HPZ3200 has stood the test of time. Its printer model longevity is best-in-class right there along with the prints it churns out :) And initial image quality is not really limited by any of HP, Canon, or Epson's line of printers suited for fine art printmaking these days, (except for the fact that machines with gloss optimizers/enhancers do tend to outperform on luster/gloss media unless one post coats with a spray varnish like Premier Print Shield. HP's gloss enhancer is still as good as any I've seen). IMHO, initial print quality debates should really focus on the realities of excellent digital file preparation... Garbage in garbage out as they say. Superb quality in, superb quality out ;D
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The HP solution for changing print heads is probably the most economical of the lot, but they don't make a 17" model in the Z series.
Hello Mark,
Always enjoy your posts. It's great to have you here on LuLa as a resource. Thanks for all the writing and participating that you do.
Mark, open your left hand. Spread it wide open. With a tape measure, measure the distance between the end of your thumb and your pinky finger, both at the tips.
Mine measures about 8". The distance between 17" and 24" is less than the distance of your open hand.
The 24" Z3200ps can do all 17" papers but can also go a hand-width larger to 24". A 24" roll of paper can be printed landscape to make 17" x 24" prints.
Obviously I'm simplifying things, but in my very humble opinion, the distance of the span of a hand's breadth could open enormous possibilities, especially with the embedded spectrophotometer, and the other papers available, both 17" and 24".
Again, just my perspective. If space is at a premium, then a 17" printer makes sense, but it still has a fairly large footprint as well.
The HP solution for changing print heads is probably the most economical of the lot, but they don't make a 17" model in the Z series.
And yes, it is unquestionably the most economical. But they do make a 24" printer that will do 17".... ;) :)
Mark
-
Just purchased a Z3200 based on Mark L's head's up on the great price at http://www.proimagingsupplies.com. I have wanted a Z3200PS in house at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives for a long time, but price was always a barrier in the past. Now, that I've had the Z for an entire two days ;) in my studio I can say: this printer should have captured way more of the pro photography and/or fine art printing atelier services market than it did. Print speed isn't a major factor in this market segment. Quality, Quality, and Quality is. The HP Z2300Ps has brilliant "turn key" engineering that takes pretty much any media and calibrates it (with auto adjusted ink channel ramps) and then goes further to place an ICC profile of that same media into the correct OS system folder where it magically appears in the enduser's image editing app (photoshop, etc). A photographer-first printmaker-second enduser's dream!!. Superb image quality that more than holds its own against the latest offerings from Canon and Epson. And print longevity still likely to be best in class notwithstanding Epson's latest advances in its HD and HDX ink formulations, meanwhile Canon Pro-1000, 2000, and 4000 Lucia Pro inks still have ????? longevity ratings. All of this goodness packaged into an ancient-by-digital imaging standards nearly 10 year old printer model design. Have to give HP engineers and color scientists plenty of credit for that.
What's not to like about the HP Z3200? Well, on that score, my last two days have been loaded up with plenty of WTF!!! moments. The documentation sucks, the Hp website has so many broken links to the relevant supplementary info cited in the user guides, etc., that it has been a very frustrating learning curve coming up to speed on how to make this Z3200 printer hit all of its many high notes. So, the Z3200 has a very bi-polar personality. In the manic (I'm happy) phase, the concept of start-to-finish media calibration is amazing and the image quality is great, particularly for photographers and printmakers who don't want to make color science their secondary area of expertise. However, in the depression (I'm not happy) HP Z phase, the newcomer to this printer (even one like myself with years of experience in inkjet printing) is struggling to figure out simple skills like how to reliably load a cut sheet, how to build and implement more advanced ICC Profiles than HP has built in at the basic level, or even why sleep mode still keeps a hard drive and/or fan spinning?
But on the whole, I'm definitely impressed by how well the HPZ3200 has stood the test of time. Its printer model longevity is best-in-class right there along with the prints it churns out :) And initial image quality is not really limited by any of HP, Canon, or Epson's line of printers suited for fine art printmaking these days, (except for the fact that machines with gloss optimizers/enhancers do tend to outperform on luster/gloss media unless one post coats with a spray varnish like Premier Print Shield. HP's gloss enhancer is still as good as any I've seen). IMHO, initial print quality debates should really focus on the realities of excellent digital file preparation... Garbage in garbage out as they say. Superb quality in, superb quality out ;D
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Congratulations Mark! I'm so glad you have a Z now. Nice going.
Also, it's wonderful to have you here on Lula and thanks also to you for your great work and your contributions.
You're going to love that new printer. Fantastic!
By The Way, A technique for loading sheets I learned from Ernst Dinkla many years ago, is to load the sheets from the back of the printer on top of the spindle, straight in via the path that the roll paper would take. You can leave a roll of paper on there and load straight in on top of it as well. Apply gentle pressure to the opposite side of the sheet against the hub of the spindle making sure it is parallel with the spindle hub going in and most often it will load perfectly.
I never have to reload anymore since using this technique. Thanks Ernst!!!
-Mark
-
Royce,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the P10K as it relates to your real world experience. I would rather have one description like yours than 20 " reviews " by people who borrow a machine for a week and then make useless observations.
Just in reading your experience with it I am pretty much already turned off by it and most likely the P20K that I was seriously thinking of acquiring. It's the clogs man, and the bs head cleanings, and the uncertainty of whether or not the 40x60 print you are running is going to end up in the trash because one nozzle is halfway missing for no reason at all. If you are having issues like that already in such a production environment where a lot of ink is going through it, that's a really bad sign for someone like me who doesn't run massive amounts of material through it everyday. If they can't make these piezzo heads function any better than that after, what, 18 years of development, then I don't think they ever will.
I will be very interested to hear about your experience with the P20K if you could pass on a little about it.
I know for someone like you saving on ink cost is really a big deal.
But for someone like me, I just can't imagine not continuing to use the thermal head systems. My Canon and HP are just ready to go, always. No dicking around with them, just send the file to the printer and go do something else.
John
-
Again, just my perspective. If space is at a premium, then a 17" printer makes sense, ....
Mark
I can't accommodate a printer that size in the space I have; the Z3200 is discontinued according to B&H, and the Z3200ps costs close to 4000 USD. Non-starter for any one with my kind of requirements and space, given the other choices we have.
-
I can't accommodate a printer that size in the space I have; the Z3200 is discontinued according to B&H, and the Z3200ps costs close to 4000 USD. Non-starter for any one with my kind of requirements and space, given the other choices we have.
Mark, the Z3200 printers have been discontinued long ago.
Right now, ProImagingSupplies has the 24" Z3200ps on sale at $2,795.00 and free shipping
24" Z Series 3200ps on sale (http://www.proimagingsupplies.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3418&lastAddedItemId=227365)
HP replaced the Z3200 Series with the Z3200ps (Post Script) years ago.
Not that you would buy one of these, but just for the record.
Mark L
-
Mark, the Z3200 printers have been discontinued long ago.
Right now, ProImagingSupplies has the 24" Z3200ps on sale at $2,795.00 and free shipping
.............
HP replaced the Z3200 Series with the Z3200ps (Post Script) years ago.
Not that you would buy one of these, but just for the record.
Mark L
OK thanks. I have to admit HP hasn't been on my radar as I wouldn't have been able to accommodate it.
-
Yup, and with the 44 inch HPZ3200ps version priced only $200 higher at $2995 with free shipping in the US, and space not being a serious issue for me, it was a no-brainer decision to opt for the 44 inch model :)
All the best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
OK thanks. I have to admit HP hasn't been on my radar as I wouldn't have been able to accommodate it.
I understand. I had an Epson 4800 Pro and I loved it. That thing was built like a tank. Had it on its own stand.
Now the one thing I know after having the Z3200 24" (an earlier model), is that it's easy as can be to roll the printer around.
Sometimes I store it perpendicular to the wall to save space, then just roll it out to print.
I actually roll it around to get at it to load paper from the back easier.
It's light weight and and super easy to move. It will go through doorways and down the hall.
The Epson 4800 Pro wouldn't go through a door on its stand. What a pain.
-
Yup, and with the 44 inch HPZ3200ps version priced only $200 higher at $2995 with no taxes and free shipping in the US, and space not being a serious issue for me, it was a no-brainer decision to opt for the 44 inch model :)
All the best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
I know, right? It's actually the identical printer, just 20 inches longer of extrusions and plastics, LOL
It really is a no-brainer for that price.
Hope you enjoy it Mark. Any questions, feel free to PM me.
Regards,
Mark
-
Sheet loading on the Z is really not a problem once you get beyond the 8.5x11 size IF #1- the paper is totally flat, very important #2. the paper is totally equal on all sides. What I do it flatten out the sheets cut from a roll in my dry mount press and trim it equally on my rototrim. I use 11x17 size and print two 8.5x11s on it by rotating the sheet. Never a problem. Just don't put curled roll paper in there. Better to print on the roll than do that, which I usually do.
My experience with feeding from the back has not been good unless the paper is totally flat. I actually jammed a print today when it was't totally flat feeding from the back. That knocked one of the print heads loose and I had to reload it. First time that has happened in 8.5 years. If it is totally flat then feeding from the front works just as well.
The reason this great printer never took off in the art market is clearly HPs horrible marketing. The engineers did a brilliant job and the sales people, as they often do, dropped the ball. Epson's offerings at the time, and Canon as well were way behind and HP blew it.
The other issue as Mark G. pointed out is their website is a maze of disfunctional disunity. It has always amazed me that such a giant historic tec company can't design and even basically competent website. It boggles the mind.
I spent all day trying to figure out sofware driver and firmware when Microsoft brilliantly decided to replace my Windows 8 platform with Windows 10 without my permission. That is not hPs fault, that's Microsoft.
But when the little gliches and operations are figured out, it is still the best fine art printing machine ever made for the price. For BW that machine still puts Epson and Canon to shame. And, it doesn't waste ANY ink, and it doesn't clog, ever.
John
-
Hope you enjoy it Mark. Any questions, feel free to PM me.
Regards,
Mark
Mark, I will likely take you up on your kind offer. I do want to get the very most goodness out of this printer, and you, Ernst, Dean, and others seem like you really know every nuance of this intriguing printer! I'm also very interested in using the Z for making digital film negatives to use with alternative processes (albumen, platinum, palladium, etc). I know that this workflow had been worked out very well circa 2011 by someone at HP and demonstrated in practice with amazing results by numerous others, but all of the info on how to do it seems to have been expunged from the HP website. Other leads are slim so far as I can tell. I realize it's a niche market within a niche market, probably only a handful of people worldwide keen to actually try it, but it's the halo marketing effect. The fact the the HP Z3200 could produce wonderful enlarged photo negatives on film for use with 19th and 20th century salted print and printing-out paper processes has a "coolness" factor that goes way beyond typical marketing hype for today's latest inkjet printers. I want to try this workflow and also document that work on my website if possible. My company is only 8 miles away from Chicago Albumen Works (http://www.albumenworks.com), a company owned by a colleague of mine and that specializes in these old print chemistries (go figure we both ended up here in the Berkshires of Massachusetts), so it seems logical to use the Z to make some modern digital negatives for said purpose.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark, I will likely take you up on your kind offer. I do want to get the very most goodness out of this printer, and you, Ernst, Dean, and others seem like you really know every nuance of this intriguing printer! I'm also very interested in using the Z for making digital film negatives to use with alternative processes (albumen, platinum, palladium, etc). I know that this workflow had been worked out very well circa 2011 by someone at HP and demonstrated in practice with amazing results by numerous others, but all of the info on how to do it seems to have been expunged from the HP website. Other leads are slim so far as I can tell. I realize it's a niche market within a niche market, probably only a handful of people worldwide keen to actually try it, but it's the halo marketing effect. The fact the the HP Z3200 could produce wonderful enlarged photo negatives on film for use with 19th and 20th century salted print and printing-out paper processes has a "coolness" factor that goes way beyond typical marketing hype for today's latest inkjet printers. I want to try this workflow and also document that work on my website if possible. My company is only 8 miles away from Chicago Albumen Works (http://www.albumenworks.com), a company owned by a colleague of mine and that specializes in these old print chemistries (go figure we both ended up here in the Berkshires of Massachusetts), so it seems logical to use the Z to make some modern digital negatives for said purpose.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Anytime Mark. Years ago when I was living in New Hampshire, a friend built a photo studio on my property (it was the late 60's early 70's) and he began making 4' x 5' negatives in a homemade wood and fiberglass sink that had water coming from the nearby stream to wash the negatives, gravity fed. The negatives were from original 4x5 camera negs that were taken of ancient india miniatures - drawings/etchings on loan from the Fogg Museum at Harvard. So he'd make these huge negatives from the 4x5 negs by projecting them. Then he'd develop huge 4' x 5' sheet film, wash it, dry it, then he'd make contact prints in a press that was exposed to mercury vapor lights. He coated his own paper then developed it in the daerkroom sink. Amazing prints. We had an agreement that he would stay only a year or two, then he left and went to Cambridge, and formed a specialty platinum and paladium printing paper company. So. I have an understanding about what you're talking about, particularly as we used to run a fine art printing B&W lab in NH specializing in archival prints, being influenced by Fred Picker.
You can do pretty much what you want to do along those lines with the Z3200ps, it's just that film can't be calibrated or profiled since there is no white point. Apparently Pictorico film works and can be profiled.
You would have to check with Ernst and John, but I believe you can use HP's own film and use their canned profile, and or allow the printer to control it. There are many ways to skin that (those) cat(s).
I expect you would do best figuring it out yourself however, particularly with your knowledge and experience, experimenting could in fact bring about a "gift of the machine" that could be the Eureka moment for your quest to find the best analog/digital combination process.
There's a lot on the web still. And there are videos. I agree that unfortunately the HP material has been expunged, almost as though it has been redacted. Strange.
Good luck in experimenting. I know the Z will make a great companion tool.
BTW, the Z needs to stay powered on at all times so the micro drop technology can work and do its thing.
The fan is loud, one of the cons of the printer. Forget about changing it out unless you want to tear down half the printer. I have outlined what it takes to change it out,
Here - replacing the Z3200ps Fan (http://robogravure.com/HPZ3200_Repair_Notes_Mark_Lindquist_Photography.htm#REPLACING_THE_HP_Z3200_POWER_SUPPLY_UNIT_(PSU)_FAN_)
Have fun getting your hands wet again in the darkroom.
Mark
-
BTW, the Z needs to stay powered on at all times so the micro drop technology can work and do its thing.
The fan is loud, one of the cons of the printer. Forget about changing it out unless you want to tear down half the printer. I have outlined what it takes to change it out,
Here - replacing the Z3200ps Fan (http://robogravure.com/HPZ3200_Repair_Notes_Mark_Lindquist_Photography.htm#REPLACING_THE_HP_Z3200_POWER_SUPPLY_UNIT_(PSU)_FAN_)
The noise of the machine in standby mode doesn't bother me (maybe it should, but it doesn't) It's the fact that something electro-mechanical is running and drawing power in sleep mode (how Energy Star efficiency rated can that be?) which surprised me. Seems like one should power this printer down totally at the end of business day to save on electricity consumption, but I do understand that in sleep mode the printer powers up periodically and runs some kind of nozzle check/maintenance exercise. Begs the question, could one turn it totally off at night, but power it up and let it go standby during daylight hours with enough time for the printer to run it's nozzle maintenance routine, routinely enough to keep the print heads in good health? The Z3200 user guide speaks of three different power states, including one where the printer is totally off but still connected to an electrical outlet. Again, HP documentation, when you can find the relevant bits, is just enough to give some basic insight but begging lots more questions. Aargh!!
-
Yes, I understand, about the power consumption thing, I remember reading that it uses less than a 50 watt lightbulb during the power down routine. For anyone who uses the printer in their home, it could be an issue because of the noise, etc. Still, walking into my print studio, it's just fans and the ocassional click clack of the printers going through their routines. Almost surreal.
-
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the P10K as it relates to your real world experience. [...] Just in reading your experience with it I am pretty much already turned off by it and most likely the P20K that I was seriously thinking of acquiring. It's the clogs man, and the bs head cleanings, and the uncertainty of whether or not the 40x60 print you are running is going to end up in the trash because one nozzle is halfway missing for no reason at all. If you are having issues like that already in such a production environment where a lot of ink is going through it, that's a really bad sign for someone like me who doesn't run massive amounts of material through it everyday. If they can't make these piezzo heads function any better than that after, what, 18 years of development, then I don't think they ever will.
I will be very interested to hear about your experience with the P20K if you could pass on a little about it.
No problem, John. I will be working up the P20K this week, while we're technically closed for the Christmas - New Years break. I'll pass on observations on it once I have a few ml of ink through it. :) When I do, I'll start a new thread specifically for commentary on these Epson models.
I agree, I think Epson and clogs are together forever at this point. Or at least until such time as they give up their current piezo head technology. We hoped to see some kind of -- really, even the slightest -- improvement in clogging with the P10K / P20K, given the significantly changed head design and the new inkset. But so far, no joy in that regard. I haven't given up all hope that some combination of the self-cleaning settings might reach a happier medium than we're currently experiencing. Even so we're disappointed about what we're seeing. But we're also still wedded to at least a significant Epson presence for other reasons -- just too many ecosystem tie-ins for us to drop Epson completely.
However we have certain applications where the Canon could be beneficial, so I do want to take a hard look at the PRO-4000. I spent a lot of time with the Canon 8300 and 8400 a few years back, working to set up some printing workshops in conjunction with a local Canon operation (ImageSquare) that subsequently got shut down. The printers were decent, and the PRO-4000 looks like a meaningful update that would scratch some itches for us...
-
Mark,
I had this info somewhere regarding the workflow of making inkjet negs on the Pictorico OHP film.
There was a guy who posted to this very forum who designed it and HP didn't support him, but his work was excellent by all accounts.
It is interesting you say this because I'm going to be setting up in Jan to do this myself. I'm very interested in doing platinum over inkjet and large monochrome gum bichromate. I will be setting up Cones Piezography Pro inkset in an old Epson 7800 to start. His resolution is amazing and they will have linearizations for most of the 19th C media to start from. At the same time I am going to be comparing those results with what I can get out of my Z3100. I talked to that guy about 5 years ago who set up the Hp system and he said I can do the same thing on the 3100 but he didn't offer curves that could be loaded, I would have to do that myself. Essentially he tested all the hue possibilities and he found that using green gave the best results, at least for platinum and silver contact prints. There is someone out there I know who has those curves for your printer with it all set up. We need to search for them. I used to have them but can't find them now.
I did make some curves using a self assigned green toning in photoshop and trial and error curve construction for printing a clients files on silver printing out paper. The client loved them, and to be honest I didn't spend much time on creating them but I was really surprised. It would certainly be a lot easier for alternative process. These days you can get the OHP film in big rolls so I'm dying to do some really big gum prints, brush strokes and all. Just need a giant piece of heavy glass and a big light set up.
For someone with your technical abilities I would certainly also look into Mark Nelson's precision dig negs. This guy has put more thought into this process than anyone and if you are going to silver I would definitely look into it - https://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/
john
john
-
It is interesting you say this because I'm going to be setting up in Jan to do this myself. I'm very interested in doing platinum over inkjet and large monochrome gum bichromate. I will be setting up Cones Piezography Pro inkset in an old Epson 7800 to start. His resolution is amazing and they will have linearizations for most of the 19th C media to start from. At the same time I am going to be comparing those results with what I can get out of my Z3100. I talked to that guy about 5 years ago who set up the Hp system and he said I can do the same thing on the 3100 but he didn't offer curves that could be loaded, I would have to do that myself. Essentially he tested all the hue possibilities and he found that using green gave the best results, at least for platinum and silver contact prints. There is someone out there I know who has those curves for your printer with it all set up. We need to search for them. I used to have them but can't find them now.
I did make some curves using a self assigned green toning in photoshop and trial and error curve construction for printing a clients files on silver printing out paper. The client loved them, and to be honest I didn't spend much time on creating them but I was really surprised. It would certainly be a lot easier for alternative process. These days you can get the OHP film in big rolls so I'm dying to do some really big gum prints, brush strokes and all. Just need a giant piece of heavy glass and a big light set up.
For someone with your technical abilities I would certainly also look into Mark Nelson's precision dig negs. This guy has put more thought into this process than anyone and if you are going to silver I would definitely look into it - https://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/
john
john
I have spent a good part of last few months developing my process for printing on Centennial POP (incidentally made by Chicago Albumen Works, long since discontinued) a box of which had been sitting in my fridge for about 10 years that is still good. I am using Pictorico on HP B9180 (baby brother of the z's) to make my digital negatives. My optimum color for getting the whitest white specific to that particular paper turned out to be R/G/B of 61/118/0. The correction curve can be created once you have established the exposure times and the negative color and of course the particular optical+chemical process one is embarking on. My next project is to tackle salt prints which will involves additional but non-trivial steps of preparing the sensitzed paper by coating the chemistry as well.
-
Yes, I understand, about the power consumption thing, I remember reading that it uses less than a 50 watt lightbulb during the power down routine. For anyone who uses the printer in their home, it could be an issue because of the noise, etc. Still, walking into my print studio, it's just fans and the ocassional click clack of the printers going through their routines. Almost surreal.
I just measured the power consumption of some equipment in my house...
Printer HPZ3100
standby 23 watt
standbye but active = 40 watt
printing ca 60-80 watt
i calculated it costs me about 40€ a year...but i do not have a printing business
-
I just measured the power consumption of some equipment in my house...
Printer HPZ3100
standby 23 watt
standbye but active = 40 watt
printing ca 60-80 watt
i calculated it costs me about 40€ a year...but i do not have a printing business
That's very cool Kers. Thanks for doing that. Much appreciated.
Mark
-
Against my better judgement, I decided to give Epson one final shot, and pulled the trigger on a P9000. With the $1000 rebate they currently have going, it would have been a small difference between replacing the head on the 9900 which would have cost me $2,500, and buying a new printer. I did get a 3 year warranty on it this time, but I really do hope that the printheads/inks are better with the clogging issues on these newer models. They just haven't been around long enough to really know the longevity/reliability of the heads, so I'm taking a gamble.
This is my 4th large format Epson over the course of 20 years, and the last chance I'm giving them. Hoping for the best...
The head is the heart of a printer. When I decide "how much printer" I want to buy, it's not based on the cost of replacing the print head (of unknown longevity at this time) but rather on the maximum size prints I'm likely going to make.
-
Good luck with it Zachary. We've had a very useful discussion in this thread, and I hope your new 9000 works out well for you.
-
Against my better judgement, I decided to give Epson one final shot, and pulled the trigger on a P9000. With the $1000 rebate they currently have going, it would have been a small difference between replacing the head on the 9900 which would have cost me $2,500, and buying a new printer. I did get a 3 year warranty on it this time, but I really do hope that the printheads/inks are better with the clogging issues on these newer models. They just haven't been around long enough to really know the longevity/reliability of the heads, so I'm taking a gamble.
This is my 4th large format Epson over the course of 20 years, and the last chance I'm giving them. Hoping for the best...
Back to post #2 :)
Good luck with it. You might want to check the Epson rebate site to see if they still have the additional $50 rebate for upgrading machines (don't know if yours was eligible).
Jeff
-
They gave me 3 700ml ink cartridges of my choice towards the P9000 for all the trouble that I went through, which was part of my decision to stick with an Epson. I'm not sure if they'll give me another $50 on top of that.
You might want to check the Epson rebate site to see if they still have the additional $50 rebate for upgrading machines (don't know if yours was eligible).
-
They gave me 3 700ml ink cartridges of my choice towards the P9000 for all the trouble that I went through, which was part of my decision to stick with an Epson. I'm not sure if they'll give me another $50 on top of that.
It's not up to anyone to decide....there's either a coupon for you to print and mail to the rebate center or not.....takes 6-8 weeks to process.
Jeff
-
THANK YOU SIR! That is a good hue starting point for me. I'm excited to get going with it this month and compare the Z with other methods.
john
I have spent a good part of last few months developing my process for printing on Centennial POP (incidentally made by Chicago Albumen Works, long since discontinued) a box of which had been sitting in my fridge for about 10 years that is still good. I am using Pictorico on HP B9180 (baby brother of the z's) to make my digital negatives. My optimum color for getting the whitest white specific to that particular paper turned out to be R/G/B of 61/118/0. The correction curve can be created once you you have established the exposure times and the negative color and of course the particular optical+chemical process one is embarking on. My next project is to tackle salt prints which will involves additional but non-trivial steps of preparing the sensitzed paper by coating the chemistry as well.
-
THANK YOU SIR! That is a good hue starting point for me. I'm excited to get going with it this month and compare the Z with other methods.
john
You are welcome. I was surprised at how big the difference was in the UV blocking capacities of the plain black (RGB all zero printed as a composite black) and the "green" hued negative. The z's have a couple more inks than the B9180 so may be the sweet spot is slightly different than mine. The particular UV source that you use to expose will presumably play a role as well. In any case, arriving at the exact point is less complicated than I initially thought. I will be interested in what you can report on the different avenues you are pursuing. I will keep tabs on the new thread you started on this forum.
-
I have now read the BLI Report in some detail and I have quite a few comments sprinkled throughout written-up as "stickies" in the document. My comments are on matters of fact, approach and relevance and have nothing to do with who paid for the work. I have written to BLI asking whether there would be any copyright implications to my posting a resaved copy of the document containing the stickies. From auto-responses I see they are all on holiday till January 3rd, so I may not hear back until then. It would save me a lot of writing and referencing, because it is not possible to copy extracts of the report. I shall therefore wait until I hear back from them before posting, out of abundance of caution.
For now, let me say I am not prepared to condemn the whole report because I have queries, quandaries or possible issues with this or that aspect of it, nor am I prepared to say it is necessarily a flawless piece of work despite the large effort they obviously devoted to it.
Since I wrote this post, there has been a substantial exchange of notes between BLI and me concerning the subject review. Much to their credit they have been very willing to engage, have responded to all of my detailed comments and given permission to publish it all. So the complete exchanges are in the attached. To see my comments and their replies, you need to double-click the "stickies" to open the notes. They also mentioned that the version of the report referenced in this thread is out of date and a more current one has been produced, which they would prefer be circulated. So both are attached. The dialog between me and them is still in the older version, so the newer version is "clean" - unmarked. I have not compared them.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated.
Best regards
Erik
Since I wrote this post, there has been a substantial exchange of notes between BLI and me concerning the subject review. Much to their credit they have been very willing to engage, have responded to all of my detailed comments and given permission to publish it all. So the complete exchanges are in the attached. To see my comments and their replies, you need to double-click the "stickies" to open the notes. They also mentioned that the version of the report referenced in this thread is out of date and a more current one has been produced, which they would prefer be circulated. So both are attached. The dialog between me and them is still in the older version, so the newer version is "clean" - unmarked. I have not compared them.