Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: MichaelEzra on September 22, 2018, 05:28:47 pm

Title: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 22, 2018, 05:28:47 pm
I am looking for the best 44" printer for fine art printing in color and black and white.
I am satisfied with the printing quality of Epson 7800, however head clogging is just an ink drain.

I am looking at Epson SureColor P8000, having read that it should not clog.
I could not find any rumors on next Epson printers.
Is there anything known on a horizon?

Is HP or Canon worth considering instead?

My priorities:
1. Printing quality
2. Archival Ink properties
3. Printer Efficiency (I am printing in ad-hock small batches, need to avoid clogging)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 22, 2018, 05:59:45 pm
See the deal on the HPZ3200 at Adorama. The HP inkset has twice the fade resistance of either Epson or Canon. Also the print heads are very long lasting and cheap compared to either Canon or Epson.

For clog resistance, HP has to be King. In 12 years, I've rarely had a clog. In fact I never check for clogs, like you do daily with Epsons. My Z3100 is ready to go every day. I've gone as long as 3 weeks without printing, and it's been ready to go without problems.

It's not as fast as the new Canon or Epson, but speed has not been of concern to me. I print bidirectional on canvas, art paper and photo paper, and quality is excellent.

Sheet paper handling is not great, and can be frustrating though.

Hope this helps!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: gkroeger on September 22, 2018, 06:04:56 pm
Michael:

I can't comment on others... but I went from an Epson 7800 to an Epson SC P7000. Like you, I print in small, sporadic batches. I have had far less clogging. Not that the 7800 was terrible, but it was common for nozzle checks to show problems and often a cleaning cycle was needed to fix the issue.

With the P7000, during weeks when I am not printing, I tend to print one nozzle check. Since February, only twice have the nozzle checks not been perfect, and in both cases the nozzle check itself fixed the problem... i.e. a second nozzle check was fine.  Printing speed is improved and print quality is slightly, but noticeably, better. YMMV.

Glenn
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: NAwlins_Contrarian on September 22, 2018, 06:11:41 pm
Quote
I am looking for the best 44" printer for fine art printing in color and black and white.... I am looking at Epson SureColor P8000 .... My priorities: 1. Printing quality

The Epson P9000 is a higher-print-quality device than the P8000; it adds additional ink colors (green and orange) for expanded gamut.

Quote
My priorities: ... 2. Archival Ink properties, 3. Printer Efficiency (I am printing in ad-hock small batches, need to avoid clogging)

But on these two points the Z3200 would likely do better, maybe much better. The question with the HP is do you want to buy a printer whose apparent replacement (the Z9+) has already been introduced? Conversely, would you want to buy its Z9+ replacement before anyone has tested it or its inkset? There is a whole thread on this (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126829.0 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126829.0)) that you ought to read.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 22, 2018, 06:50:23 pm
Also, remember the z3200 comes with excellent profiling built in. And the 12-color ink set is proven and well tested.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 22, 2018, 07:25:24 pm
Thank you all for chiming in.

I am looking at the Vivera ink set. The largest cartridge is only 130ml at $84. Compared to K3 220ml for $84. Whats the thing here? I Expected 44" printer to use 300/700ml cartridges at lower cost per ml. Did I miss anything?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: deanwork on September 22, 2018, 07:36:25 pm

A third of that Epson ink ends up in the waste tank. There  is NO wasted ink with the Z. None. You don’t replace waste tanks as a consumable. Their ink collector can last a decade or more. Astonishing. You actually can put bigger Vivera ink carts from their other printers in them and switch out the chips. Ernst is doing that. I don’t use my Zs for production printing because they are too slow for me. But for everything else, including my own work I use them. If I were going to buy a Z right now I’d call H P and ask if you will be protected for the next five years with parts and labor.

Thank you all for chiming in.

I am looking at the Vivera inkset. The largest cartridge is only 130ml at $84. Compared to K3 220ml for $84. Whats the thing here? I Expected 44" printer to use 300/700ml cartridges at lower cost per ml. Did I miss anyhting?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: glyph on September 22, 2018, 08:02:41 pm
Regardless of the ink cost per ML, you will find that HP is the lowest cost per square inch to run (of fine art quality printers), since it is so frugal with ink.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 22, 2018, 09:10:41 pm
Yep you can use the hp772, 300ml carts for Lt gray, yellow, both blacks, Lt magenta & Lt cyan. Just cut label holding cap with chip on. Replace cap with one from near empty HP 70 cart. Lose ability to monitor ink level in cart. You have to manually remove and check ink levels. HP772 carts available for $110-$140.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 22, 2018, 09:52:34 pm
Great info, thank you!

Lots of gear I loved and purchased seems to have the letter "Z" in the name; RZ, ZD, 645Z, etc. now this HP is also a Z:)

Any thoughts on print quality comparison of P9000 vs Z3200ps? Color Gamut / BW / Resolution / dot placement pattern.

Epson ABW works absolutely excellent on 7800, I suppose marginally better on P9000. Does HP have technology for toned BW prints?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 22, 2018, 11:33:51 pm
B&W printing is really good with the Z. It uses the two neural looking grays, and the two blacks on art papers. The gray inks are perfectly balanced already, no toning necessary like the Epson. If you want to add slight toning, just print in color mode, and adjust in PS to suit your taste. The pure B&W has no metamerism under differing lighting conditions.

One of the unique features of HP's printing, is using gray component removal and substituting the two grays to reduce metamerism. This also results in consistently neutral looking prints. Epson uses heavy application of Light magenta and Lt cyan in printing. If you have any clogged nozzles, the shift in color balance is immediately noticeable. That is also why Epsons use those two inks the most. The HP uses Lt gray the most.



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 22, 2018, 11:41:41 pm
On B&W printing, Also read John Dean's post in the next thread, about cheap price of Z3200!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: cgarnerhome on September 22, 2018, 11:45:17 pm
I have never used the HP printers but have been using the P9000 for about a year.  I often print 40x60 and I'm very pleased with the quality.  I had the 9900 before the 9000.  The 9900 clogged frequently whereas the 9000 seldom clogs even after a month of being idle.  The reliability has been exceptional for both.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: mearussi on September 23, 2018, 07:52:50 am
Great info, thank you!

Lots of gear I loved and purchased seems to have the letter "Z" in the name; RZ, ZD, 645Z, etc. now this HP is also a Z:)

Any thoughts on print quality comparison of P9000 vs Z3200ps? Color Gamut / BW / Resolution / dot placement pattern.

Epson ABW works absolutely excellent on 7800, I suppose marginally better on P9000. Does HP have technology for toned BW prints?
That's the only problem with the Z its gamut is less than the Epson and Canon.
Here's a good comparison article: http://www.on-sight.com/canon-x300-printer-review/
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 23, 2018, 08:26:31 am
That's the only problem with the Z its gamut is less than the Epson and Canon.
Here's a good comparison article: http://www.on-sight.com/canon-x300-printer-review/

Looks like Scott Martin used a 1728 patch color target to produce his color gamut comparisons in that report. From testing I've done with the Z3200PS in collaboration with Mark Linquist and John Dean over the past several months, we have all concluded that 1728 patch targets are merely the starting point for achieving optimal color reproduction on the the Z3200PS. Higher patch counts (4000+) bring out superior color and tone reproduction qualities and exceptionally smooth grayscale reproduction on the Z3200 that are subtle yet easily noticeable by discerning viewers. Hence, I'm honesty not sure how much emphasis one should place on color gamut volume plots in and of themselves. They describe the potential of a printer/ink/media combination to produce vivid colors, but they say nothing about the color and tone reproduction accuracy within that printable color gamut.

There's much more to subtle color and tone differentiation within a fine art print that simply doesn't get accounted for with gamut plots.  Moreover, unless one has an automated spectrophotometer like an Xrite iSis or the highly useful one directly built into the Z series printers, exploring the benefits of super high patch count color target profiling is not something I would ever been inclined to do ;)

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 23, 2018, 08:57:09 am

They describe the potential of a printer/ink/media combination to produce vivid colors, but they say nothing about the color and tone reproduction accuracy within that printable color gamut.

There's much more to subtle color and tone differentiation within a fine art print that simply doesn't get accounted for with gamut plots.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Which is also an aspect I would pay attention to in the Z9 output; replacing the LC LM inks with a finer 3pl droplet C M, may not deliver the subtle pastel colors the Z3x00's can make. Subtractive color mixing in the highlights is usually way better with transparent layers overall than by adding more white to less transparent dots, how tiny they are.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 23, 2018, 09:22:47 am
Which is also an aspect I would pay attention to in the Z9 output; replacing the LC LM inks with a finer 3pl droplet C M, may not deliver the subtle pastel colors the Z3x00's can make. Subtractive color mixing in the highlights is usually way better with transparent layers overall than by adding more white to less transparent dots, how tiny they are.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

And if I understand correctly, the Light gray ink has also been eliminated in the Z9 following similar logic that the dual nozzle design and new screening algorithms successfully compensate for the eliminated light colorants.  HP has great color scientists and engineers, so I have no reason to be cynical about their new approach with the Z9 engineering, especially since I haven't seen any serious attempt at fine art output on the Z9 yet.

That said, "trust but verify" seems to be the logical approach for those of us who may wish to eventually transition from our Z3200 printers to the newer Z9.  For my personal work at this time, I'm very happy with my Z3200Ps. It's a fantastic, albeit quirky, fine art print making machine well suited to the needs of low volume printmakers like photographers and artists who tend only to print for themselves and/or a very select group of clients.  Nonetheless, I'm curious to put a Z9 through its paces in a head-to-head comparison against my z3200 on both image quality and print longevity merits. I just don't have the funding for this work at the moment, but it's high on my "to do" list.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: JRSmit on September 23, 2018, 11:39:29 am
A third of that Epson ink ends up in the waste tank.
Ik have a 9000 and a 7000 now for almost 3 years. And print Dailymotion as it is my business. So far for each printer 1 maintenance tank swap after 2years of operation.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: kers on September 23, 2018, 12:12:19 pm
Ik have a 9000 and a 7000 now for almost 3 years. And print Dailymotion as it is my business. So far for each printer 1 maintenance tank swap after 2years of operation.

and about how much ink is that?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Caldwell on September 23, 2018, 07:19:37 pm
I recently chose the Canon Pro 4000 to replace our Epson 9900. My choice was based upon print quality, what I *hope* will be better clog resistance and lack of PK/MK switching; and the take-up spool option. I had a 24" Z3200 prior to the Epson 9900, and felt that the HP was very, very good, but quite slow.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: I.T. Supplies on September 24, 2018, 06:36:00 pm
Just curious on why so many are saying that HP Vivera inks are better than Epson and Canon.  Where are these results coming from to say this and what's being used to do the comparison?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 24, 2018, 11:40:44 pm
Just curious on why so many are saying that HP Vivera inks are better than Epson and Canon.  Where are these results coming from to say this and what's being used to do the comparison?
Check out results here
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Also check out Wilhelm"s results.

It's pretty conclusive that the Vivara inks pretty much have double the life. Mainly because of their nearly linear fade characteristics.

But both Canon & Epsons newest inks have slightly wider gamut in certain areas.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: mearussi on September 25, 2018, 09:30:07 am
Just curious on why so many are saying that HP Vivera inks are better than Epson and Canon.  Where are these results coming from to say this and what's being used to do the comparison?
You guys have all three in your store. Do your own tests and tell us.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 25, 2018, 02:21:00 pm
Just curious on why so many are saying that HP Vivera inks are better than Epson and Canon.  Where are these results coming from to say this and what's being used to do the comparison?

Very surprised that you would ask a question like that when it has been common knowledge, especially on this forum that HP Vivera inks have been "King of the Hill" for at least 11 years now based on test results from both Wilhelm and Aardenburg. 

But it's not just that the inks are superior in archival aspects, but fade results in terms of longevity ramps, meaning that Vivera inks fade gracefully as a whole rather than falling off a cliff turning faces purple like other insets do after certain light exposure limits.

But more importantly, with the embedded spectrophotometer (standard equipment with all z3200ps printers) hyper-profiles are possible.  The ability to make 6000 patch target ICC profiles in house, literally, using the ESP in the printer, assures amazing results mostly not done with other printers.

Vivera inks far outperform Epson and Canon inks - the literature is out there supporting it.

But wait, you actually sell these machines.  You already know this, right?  :-)

Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 25, 2018, 02:48:22 pm
Very surprised that you would ask a question like that when it has been common knowledge, especially on this forum that HP Vivera inks have been "King of the Hill" for at least 11 years now based on test results from both Wilhelm and Aardenburg. 

But it's not just that the inks are superior in archival aspects, but fade results in terms of longevity ramps, meaning that Vivera inks fade gracefully as a whole rather than falling off a cliff turning faces purple like other insets do after certain light exposure limits.

But more importantly, with the embedded spectrophotometer (standard equipment with all z3200ps printers) hyper-profiles are possible.  The ability to make 6000 patch target ICC profiles in house, literally, using the ESP in the printer, assures amazing results mostly not done with other printers.

Vivera inks far outperform Epson and Canon inks - the literature is out there supporting it.

Mark

All we need to do now is rinse and repeat some print quality and print longevity tests with a new Z9+ printer and its new Photo Vivid ink set with new screening algorithms and drop size pattern (easier said than done).

...and also hope that the embedded Z9 spectrophotometer hasn't been crippled in its target measuring capability compared to the older Z3200PS. I haven't yet spoken to an HP rep or a dealer that seems to be able to answer those key questions with any confidence, and I have tried several times to date :(

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 25, 2018, 03:47:40 pm
What about the Latest Epson HDX inkset vs Vivera -are they comparable in fade-resistance?
I was browsing through the test results and could not find apples to apples comparison of 7800/4800/K3 vs Z3200/Vivera or Ultrachrome HD vs Z3200/Vivera on the same, preferably OBA free, paper.

Mark, in case I missed it, could you please point me in the right direction?

I took the liberty to take screenshots of three reports from http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com to look at them side by side.
Mark, if you would like me to not  display it here, just let me know.

This is Ultrachrome K3 vs Ultrachrome  HD vs Vivera prints, but all on different media, all at 100 Mega Lux.
I do see the overall progression in lightfastness from left to right, but is Vivera twice as lightfast as HD/HDX ink on the same media?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 25, 2018, 04:15:40 pm
Not even close! Not on the same exact media, but you should get the idea. I do believe Mark has "comparative" data though!
(http://)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: John Nollendorfs on September 25, 2018, 05:33:44 pm
Found Wilhelm results comparing all 3 printers on Canson Paper(http://)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 25, 2018, 06:05:54 pm
Thank you John, this is very helpful.

I wonder how "poor" really is the gamut of Z3200 compared to HDX ink.
Color profiles for Z3200 are *.oms files and using Gamutvision I cannot compare them to ICC profiles which are available for the Epson printers.
Can .oms file be converted to icc, or can icc be extracted from oms?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: glyph on September 25, 2018, 06:21:44 pm
Obviously, it's just anecdotal, but I've been printing professionally for others with HP Z printers here in Hawaii for almost ten years, and I have never had a client ask for more vivid colors than I can deliver with my Z3200 (reds with the Z3100 were another story). This is not an environment that is known for its dull colors, either.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 25, 2018, 11:56:30 pm
Thank you John, this is very helpful.

I wonder how "poor" really is the gamut of Z3200 compared to HDX ink.
Color profiles for Z3200 are *.oms files and using Gamutvision I cannot compare them to ICC profiles which are available for the Epson printers.
Can .oms file be converted to icc, or can icc be extracted from oms?

Huh?  .oms files are Z3200 files that have been exported or imported, only.  "The .oms files are paper presets, as indicated in the name on each file. You can import these presets in the HP utility that has a function called Paper Preset Management." However, the Z3200 uses ICC profiles the same as all other printers.  When the spectrophotometer makes them they are installed in the library, same as all other printer profiles are. You can install icc profiles as per instructions here:

http://z3200.com/Making_Profiles_For_HP-Z3200_Printers.htm  (look for the image near the bottom of that page):

(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/install.jpg)

If you'd like to compare a Z3200 Hyper-Profile to whatever you want, try this 4357 patch target profile made for Innova Exhibit Baryta:

Best,

Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 26, 2018, 03:57:18 am
If I recall a conversation correctly on HP Vivid versus Vivera inks, the first should have a somewhat better gloss by themselves (so sans GE applied) and a better scratch resistance. That was with the introduction of the Z5600 on the Photokina.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 26, 2018, 07:50:03 am
Here is a quick gamut comparison.

The 1-st screenshot is with P9000/Ultrachome HDX with Silver Rag (notably a large gamut volume combination) vs Z3200/Vivera Innova Baryta IFA69.
Gamut volumes 1,011,383 vs 858,553.

The 2-nd screenshot is P6000/UltraChrome HD  vs Z3200/Vivera Innova Baryta ICC, both for IFA69 Innova Baryta.
Gamut volumes 883,416 vs 782,592.

Gamutvision changes the gamut volume of IFA69 in the second comparison, I suppose because the area of (858,553-782,592) lies outside the gamut of UltraChrome HD.
So one could say that Ultrachrome HD gamut volume is 883,416 and the Z3200/Vivera 858,553.

I could not find ICC for P9000/Ultrachome HDX for IFA69 Innova Baryta to compare with Z3200/Vivera, but the second attachment illustrates differences expected between the Ultrachrome HDX and Ultrachrome HD on example using Silver Rag paper - gamut volume 1,011,383 vs 850,695.

It appears that Ultrachmore HDX would lead to 15% larger gamut vs Vivera ink, and Ultrachrome HD and Vivera gamut volumes are more similar, although Ultrachrome HD and HDX inks allow a higher DMax.


Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 26, 2018, 09:35:19 am
Here is a quick gamut comparison.

The 1-st screenshot is with P9000/Ultrachome HDX with Silver Rag (notably a large gamut volume combination) vs Z3200/Vivera Innova Baryta IFA69.
Gamut volumes 1,011,383 vs 858,553.

The 2-nd screenshot is P6000/UltraChrome HD  vs Z3200/Vivera Innova Baryta ICC, both for IFA69 Innova Baryta.
Gamut volumes 883,416 vs 782,592.

Gamutvision changes the gamut volume of IFA69 in the second comparison, I suppose because the area of (858,553-782,592) lies outside the gamut of UltraChrome HD.
So one could say that Ultrachrome HD gamut volume is 883,416 and the Z3200/Vivera 858,553.

I could not find ICC for P9000/Ultrachome HDX for IFA69 Innova Baryta to compare with Z3200/Vivera, but the second attachment illustrates differences expected between the Ultrachrome HDX and Ultrachrome HD on example using Silver Rag paper - gamut volume 1,011,383 vs 850,695.

It appears that Ultrachmore HDX would lead to 15% larger gamut vs Vivera ink, and Ultrachrome HD and Vivera gamut volumes are more similar, although Ultrachrome HD and HDX inks allow a higher DMax.

Given that you are asking which is the best 44" printer, and given that you are presumably interested in print longevity, etc., (the things museum curators look at carefully) there is much more to printers than gamut plots.
I refer to Mark McCormick's previous post:

Looks like Scott Martin used a 1728 patch color target to produce his color gamut comparisons in that report. From testing I've done with the Z3200PS in collaboration with Mark Linquist and John Dean over the past several months, we have all concluded that 1728 patch targets are merely the starting point for achieving optimal color reproduction on the the Z3200PS. Higher patch counts (4000+) bring out superior color and tone reproduction qualities and exceptionally smooth grayscale reproduction on the Z3200 that are subtle yet easily noticeable by discerning viewers. Hence, I'm honesty not sure how much emphasis one should place on color gamut volume plots in and of themselves. They describe the potential of a printer/ink/media combination to produce vivid colors, but they say nothing about the color and tone reproduction accuracy within that printable color gamut.

There's much more to subtle color and tone differentiation within a fine art print that simply doesn't get accounted for with gamut plots.  Moreover, unless one has an automated spectrophotometer like an Xrite iSis or the highly useful one directly built into the Z series printers, exploring the benefits of super high patch count color target profiling is not something I would ever been inclined to do ;)

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

"Different gamut volume apps scale things differently, and there are now “inflated” ICC profiles being produced by companies like Chromix where use of polarizing filters on the spectrophotometer produce pseudo saturated colors. The extended patch profiles aren’t so much about extended gamut, rather they're are about precision and color differentiation within gamut. The gamut volume plots are largely of academic interest only. Other metrics need to be used to determine which printer is printing optimally, and that has a great deal to do with profile quality. Nothing like competently making one’s own profiles to extract more goodness out of the printer and the Z’s facilitate this goodness."  (From conversations with MHMG)

If you think the Epson Ultrachrome HDX and HD will propel your prints farther into the future than HP's Vivera inks, then there's nothing more to be said other than basicly "jump on out there".  In my view there is far more than gamut plots that define the ethereal quality of fine art archival prints, particularly in the realm of longevity and fade curves.

Choosing a printer is similar to choosing a guitar.  A great musician can make any instrument perform well.  Then there is pairing that guitar with the right amp and finally composition that makes it art. The level of artistic merit hinges perhaps more on delineations and subtleties than gamut plots?  A printer/ink/paper combination is ultimately subject to live or real time perceptions of quality. But if a minor difference in a gamut plot that indicates a slight edge tips you over to a decision of which printer to invest in, then great, your problem is solved.  Good luck with it.  I have no doubt that Epson prints look awesome.

Best,

Mark



Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 26, 2018, 11:03:36 am
Hesitating a bit to wade further into the gamut volume discussion, but as I noted earlier, gamut volume plots describe the potential of a printer/ink/media combination to produce vivid colors but say nothing about the tone reproduction curves (TRC) or the gray scale neutrality of the system, or the precision and accuracy of the printed colors and tones within the printable gamut. This is where printer linearization and custom ICC profiling really comes into play. Attached are two graph sets showing actual tone curve and gray scale neutrality achieved on a Canon Pro-1000 and with an Epson SC P600 using the respective OEM premium RC luster photo papers (which IMHO, print so darn close to one another that one can interchange those two media between the two printers without bothering to reprofile).

I made a custom profile using BasicColor RGB drop using a "meager" 918 patch color target for the Pro-1000/Lucia Pro ink/Canon Pro luster paper, and the graphs show how the 30 patch Aardenburg Color target was printed on that system. I also printed the Aardenburg 30 patch Color target on my Epson P600/UCHD ink/Epson Premium Luster paper, but in that situation I simply used the Epson supplied generic profile.

The plots show that the generic Epson profile caused the P600 to print the image tonality scaled linearly relative to the Paper white media even though I had chosen Perceptual rather than relative w/BPC rendering, and because the profile was a generic one, the grayscale neutrality is no where near as good as it could be (as shown by the lumpiness/lack of smoothness in the plot). In comparison, the custom built profile I made for the Canon Pro-1000 caused the printer to print with a much more perceptually linear response with the tone curve hugging the ideal1:1 L* input/output objective much more closely and the gray scale neutrality performing significantly better than that achieved on the P600. Note that higher patch count profiling like I routinely do with my Z3200 smoothes the grayscale neutrality response even better than the results shown here, and IT IS NOTICEABLE to discerning viewers).

Two points should also be noted: 1) had I custom profiled the P600/luster combination with same 918 color patch target, same profiling software, I have no doubt (based on a lot of printing and profiling experience) that the TRC and the grayscale neutrality response of the of the P600 would then have closely matched that of the custom profiled PRO-1000. I would then have two well behaved printers with essentially interchangeable printing characteristics, whereas in current state as shown in the graphs, any necessary image edits to achieve one's own preferred tone and color print quality on  the Canon need to be different than those used on the P600. 2). These differences are system wide differences affecting every image I would print on these two printers in their current state, whereas any differences in total printable color gamut volume would only show on a much smaller subset of printed images, i.e., images that just happen to have important out-of-gamut colors in select hues within the color space. That means it's much more difficult to rely on color gamut plot differences to assign or ascertain any fundamental amount of printmaking goodness to the printed outcome. It becomes a probability game where the accuracy of the vivid colors has to make a subtle but key difference to the viewer. What I learned from my I* metric research is that viewers weight the importance of neutral and low chroma color accuracy with much greater importance than the accuracy of vivid colors. Indeed, if this weren't the case, no one could ever make a nice looking color print on matte media due to the huge color and tone translations that need to take place from digital image file to print on limited gamut media!

Lastly, the topic of color and tone reproduction is decidedly complex/geeky, however, if you are following the discussion here and understand the visually perceivable significance of the TRC and grayscale neutrality results, you can then understand that the chosen printer linearization and ICC profiling process makes a huge difference as to how any printer/ink/paper combo is going to perform across a wide range of different image content. Custom profiles routinely invoke better outcomes than generic ones, IMHO, not in every case, but more often than not. Hence, and as Mark L. noted earlier, the advantage of the HP Z series printers is that they have this custom profiling ability baked in to both the linearization and profiling step on board the printer. Admittedly, HP's documentation is very poor on to how to do high patch count profiling by taking advantage of the on board automated spectrophotometer, but for those that know how to use it, I consider the built-in spectro to be a tremendous advantage that frees the HP Z owner from the "tyranny" of generic profiles which often introduce a lot of "mystery meat" into the tone and color reproduction cycle. Ironically, HP marketing is greatly playing down the fact that the new Zs even have the on board spectro, perhaps because HP marketing thinks it might scare away buyers in the poster printing market where digital files are much more likely to be printed in a "printer manages color" Econo print mode type of approach as opposed to the fine art print studios whose customers typically demand only the very highest output quality.

cheers,
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 26, 2018, 01:01:16 pm
Thanks again for the replies. I haven't decided Epson/HP either way yet, as there are numerous factors involved, besides fading and icc profiles.

Other things I am looking at are dot pattern, paper loading & handling, availability of ink in the long term, scratch resistance, budget, etc.
E.g. I may have to install the printer against the wall with limited access from the back.
I mount prints on aluminum using cold laminator and find scratch resistance of PK K3 ink on thick rag paper sufficient. I am not sure how would Vivera ink behave in comparison.
I print on a glossy rag paper, so bronzing & gloss differential are important to me.

In terms of archival qualities, 150 yeas vs 200 years, I think its a pipe dream (useful for marketing). Realistically, there are so many factors that could influence integrity of the print within 150 years, that lightfastness alone is likely the least of the concern. So, practically, a good archivability is sufficient.

While doing some reproduction prints from acrylic paintings with some vivid colors I did hit a gamut limit of the K3 inkset and had to resort to significant massaging of the file to make an adequate reproduction print. So, having additional gamut cannot hurt!:)

Frankly, I am *extremely* happy with the appearance of both color and black and white prints I am able to make with Epson 7800/K3 ink.
If this printer was not wasting ink and lightfastness was on par with Vivera ink, I'd get 44" without any hesitation, thus P9000 may be closer to what I am looking for.

I do have a 40"x40" color print from Z3200 in my studio and it looks spectacular. So, I certainly see that Z3200 clearly has a significant value, especially considering archival qualities of Vivera inks and the included spectrophotometer. Accuracy of a profile, however, is not an inherent characteristic of a printer. One could certainly get an extremely accurate custom profile for any printer as long as it is stable (repeatable).
Z3200 makes it just more easily accessible, having the spectrophotometer built in.

I've read somewhere that the reason Z3200 has spectro is because this printer must be calibrated frequently due to its drift.
I am curious, how frequently does Z3200 require calibration? What does the process entail - time, ink, paper?
Do the ICC profiles have to be regenerated with new printer calibration?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Doug Gray on September 26, 2018, 01:47:07 pm
Hesitating a bit to wade further into the gamut volume discussion, but as I noted earlier, gamut volume plots describe the potential of a printer/ink/media combination to produce vivid colors but say nothing about the tone reproduction curves (TRC) or the gray scale neutrality of the system, or the precision and accuracy of the printed colors and tones within the printable gamut. This is where printer linearization and custom ICC profiling really comes into play.cheers,
....
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

I largely ignore gamut size and consider it a marketing number and subject to massaging. It's also much less meaningful than the numbers would lead one to expect.

Specifically, gamut size is a 3D number but gamut clipping is a 1D phenomena. A gamut that is 15% larger actually represents, on average, only a 5% difference in the locations where gamut clipping occurs. Further, human perception of color differences is markedly lower for high saturation colors and typically is 50% to 80% lower. So the real effect of a 15% gamut volume difference is typically only 2% or so and only occurs when printed colors are touching up on that.

That said, there are important variations between printers and gamut differences can be quite large in some areas. If those areas are being printed then they can matter. A lot.  Rendering strong acrylic colors for instance. Another area is deep shadows where gamut differences can matter a lot. Images often contain fairly saturated colors in shadows even when they aren't viewed as particularly saturated. Printers vary in this regard but gamut volume numbers don't say much about this.

And, yes, linearity and especially the ability to render near neutral tone curves smoothly is really important. Gamut volume numbers are worthless here.

As an example, my Canon 9500II is much more linear intrinsically than my 9800. However, the 9800 is much more repeatable while the Canon 9500 II exhibits significant drift. The 9800 profiled with a large patch set with added near neutrals produces excellent and repeatable results. But it didn't until I was able to profile with large patch sets.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 26, 2018, 02:34:04 pm
A lot of questions/comments, Michael.

To begin with, the Z3200 is the lightest of all the available printers, so just swinging one side forward away from the wall for loading is easy.  Not so much with other printers capable of 44” wide.

You’ve got about 5 years (perhaps more) after EOL of the printer for ink availability. Who knows when the do the end of life - could be soon.

HP has a gloss enhancer cartridge built in - the GE cartridge is 1 of the 12 ink cartridges and it works beautifully.

Re: archival qualities, it’s the fade curve that matters in your (and everyone’s) case - how gracefully will your print age.

In this regard, Vivera is king.

Gamut is as gamut does, hence soft proofing with any file, any ink, any paper.

If you like what you are getting with Epson, maybe you should stick with it.

You could order prints made with the Z3200 and the Hyper-Profile (6000 patch target profile) from John Dean (Dean Imaging) and see what the Z is capable of in the hands of a master printer.  There is a steep learning curve to running the z on nitrous, (Hyper-Profiles) and I can’t even imagine what any profile making service would charge for an ICC profile of that enormity for papers for other printers.  You could, however, make your own if you’ve got the temperment to get through the learning curve.  And, you can even make your own profiles for other printers, as the Z is capable of generating a tif file to be printed on any other printer then that printed target can be fed back into the Z, scanned, then a custom profile can be had for any paper for any Canon or Epson printer.

What you may hear about the ESP from others, is probably from those who have never had a Z, and/or didn’t understand it. The ability of the Z to recalibrate according to climate variations and new rolls of paper is its strength, and no, you don’t have to remake your profiles, as recalibrating puts everything back to square 1 based on the point the paper was defined and profiled.  The slippage you are thinking about occurs with other printers that don’t have the capabilities the Z has with its ESP.

The Z is an extraordinary printer.  Many users run it like a go-cart- they get in and run it around the track for a while, then come back in a few weeks and run it around again.  Then there are users who find they have a formula 1 racer and they run the crap out of the printer striving to set new track records.

In comparison, the big Epsons and the big Canons are like stock car racers.  They go round and round the track at high speeds and they compete with each other.  They jockey with one another for position and they use special brands of tires and fuel (papers and inks). Not run hard and fast enough, they clog.

You asked what is the best printer for fine art, not what is the best printer for fine art for you.

After looking at your questions, comments and concerns, I’d say you’re better suited to the Epsons and the Canons - probably best to steer clear of the Z3200 series printers.  You could jump out there and get the new Z9+ at $8-9K, but at this point that’s a pig in a poke - no one knows how it will perform yet. Currently the 44” Z3200ps is like $2700 delivered.  Probably clearing out stock to make way for the Z6/Z9. It would pay for itself in a very few runs of prints, but that’s just one way of looking at it.

If you like what you get with Epson, stay with it - save yourself the pain of the learning curve of the Z.  And to work with Hyper Profiles, that curve is indeed steep. Particularly if the subtlties of quality aren’t that important to you. And then there is the fact that the Z3200ps for all its grace and flaws, is one quirky printer.  Amen to that.

Best,

Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 26, 2018, 03:37:57 pm
Particularly if the subtlties of quality aren’t that important to you. And then there is the fact that the Z3200ps for all its grace and flaws, is one quirky printer.  Amen to that.

Quite the contrary, actually.

But having the best printer being subject to ink availability, running it on hacked larger sized cartridges may not be the best business decision in the long term.

For my purposes, as you said, I might solve it with Epson, as it may turn out be the to best fine art printer for my needs. I tend to use a single paper mostly, so I don't really need a facility to generate ICC profiles all the time, instead I could get a high quality custom ICC profile for my paper/ink/printer combo and be done with it. I found 7800 very stable and haven't noticed variation in its output over the past 12 years. Would need to see if new Epsons are similar.

 - I'd be curious to know how easily do Vivera prints scratch on glossy baryta-like paper.
 - Do the paper and canvas prints from the Z come out basically dry, like with the Epsons?
 - In terms of clogging, based on replies and info from around the net, it appears that new Epsons solved the clogging and it is somewhere on par with the Z.
 - New Epsons still dump ink to the waste tank, supposedly in smaller quantities than 78xx / 99xx, Z seems to win here.
 - As many testify, Z3200 can deliver excellent tonal qualities. What about its dot pattern? How does that compare to the new Epsons?
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 26, 2018, 03:43:21 pm
Quite the contrary, actually.

But having the best printer being subject to ink availability, running it on hacked larger sized cartridges may not be the best business decision in the long term.

For my purposes, as you said, I might solve it with Epson, as it may turn out be the to best fine art printer for my needs. I tend to use a single paper mostly, so I don't really need a facility to generate ICC profiles all the time, instead I could get a high quality custom ICC profile for my paper/ink/printer combo and be done with it. I found 7800 very stable and haven't noticed variation in its output over the past 12 years. Would need to see if new Epsons are similar.


Let it be brother, let it be.

Get the Epson and be done with it - get back to work.

-M

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: I.T. Supplies on September 26, 2018, 06:42:41 pm
It's not that we don't do our own testing here, but the reason I was asking is because our color specialist (G7 certified, GRACoL certified, GMG certified and others) doesn't think that the HP Z series is any better than Epson or Canon (quality based); and they think Epson and Canon is better as far as quality and they've owned their own Z3200.

I was asking them on why so many mentioned that HP's inks were so much better, and he wasn't sure why they thought that they’ve tested it with color management and in their opinion that the black tones weren't that great (especially for photography).  They'd say to go with Epson or Canon for photography.

Wilhelm doesn't state anything about how accurate quality the color is testing; just the ability of how long it shows on the media before it either fades or has color issues.  Of course, it may last long, but the accuracy on the print vs screen is different.  Lightfastness is determined "in" a photo album or box for longest duration (or longevity) vs being in a frame and what not.
http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2018_09_20.pdf

So, the reason I was asking that question is to find out why everyone is stating HP ink is better.  And if certain users are getting this info from just printing on it, are we doing color management and the best profile (or custom ICC) to determine if the "quality that matches the screen accurately" is done to compare to the Epson or Canon series?  Also, our color specialist said that even the Spectro on the HP isn't the greatest for doing custom ICC profile for photography and doesn't recommend that option anyway.  If you are doing custom profiles, they recommend using a 3rd party unit like X-Rite where it provides more patch options upfront, along with other very useful features.  Of course each profiling process will operate differently, but a Spectro isn't a great option for the best custom profiling due to some disadvantages.

So, I'll ask this in a more specific way...why do so many say that their ink is so great aside from the longevity testing?  I want to pinpoint this continued comment/review as opposed to what our color specialist (who also does photography with high end equipment) comments towards these reviews against Epson and Canon's inkset.  And I'm not saying others are wrong, but when we sell tons more Epson and Canon, we want to figure out the reasoning for the other comments/reviews.  Can we also see literature about the "QUALITY" results from HP that is compared to the other 2 brands?

Mark- I spoke to our color specialist and they've done extensive testing between the 3 brands and HP wasn't as great as Epson or Canon from their results.  They did say the blacks weren't the greatest either on HP's end in general.  Are you using a RIP to achieve 6000 patches since you can't do it from the drivers themselves?  And we've rarely had any clogs with our Canon's.  Canon and HP have the exact same print head technology aside from Epson's Piezo head.

I'm not trying to start any issues against anyone, but we want to get the information (or literature) about these results to confirm this outcome properly.  It could very well be from user preference (which is completely fine), but the actual tested results can be different with all accurate color set up and if the printer is printing properly with no clogs.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: enduser on September 26, 2018, 08:56:52 pm
Why listen to a reseller's opinion rather than real expert printing people.  The retailer has many objectives that the user doesn't have such as variable selling margins, bonus payments, event attendances etc etc. Mark L and MMHG are beyond compare when it comes to experience in inkjet printing.
If you want unbiased, dead-set genuine advice never ask the guy selling something.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 27, 2018, 04:14:03 am
I'm not trying to start any issues against anyone...

Really?  I question this as you’ve hurled some pretty wild assertions that seem themselves largely based on hearsay and innuendo.
I am surprised by your remarks and that you would be threatened by a printer that is near end of life and is on its way out. And so are the Vivera inks that have had an amazing ride for over 12 years.

To be clear, my colleagues and I are not selling HP Z3200ps printers, and apparently neither are you.

No one among us in this thread has disparaged either Canon or Epson printers.  If anything, it is about extolling the virtues of all printers equally, and admitting that each printer makes equally good initial prints.
We have been extolling the virtues of the HPZ3200ps printer, and if anything are lamenting the fact that sooner or later, the printer that we as practicing professionals have come to know and love is on its way out.

The only person who has dissed the HP printer has been you, while at the same time you question why “everyone” is stating HP Vivera ink is the best:

So, the reason I was asking that question is to find out why everyone is stating HP ink is better.

Is this your sales approach going forward with the new HP Z6 and Z9+ printers?  Have you done in-depth side by side comparisons made by practicing professionals who understand how to put the printers through their paces?  I’m not talking about running canned samples through the printers, I’m talking having the printers run through extraordinary workflow by professional fine art printers who understand the potential for pushing the printer through showroom floor mediocrity to amazing heights of museum worthy prints they (Canon Epson, HP) are all capable of.

It's not that we don't do our own testing here, but the reason I was asking is because our color specialist (G7 certified, GRACoL certified, GMG certified and others) doesn't think that the HP Z series is any better than Epson or Canon (quality based); and they think Epson and Canon is better as far as quality and they've owned their own Z3200.

This is rather subjective, it seems: “They don't think the Z is up to the level of the others?”  And I submit that although they may have for a time owned and used the Z3200 they haven’t begun to put the printer through the kind of professional paces that we have, not even close.  I can safely say this, because it’s only been of late that the secrets to unlocking the amazing potential of this printer have come to light.

So, the reason I was asking that question is to find out why everyone is stating HP ink is better.  And if certain users are getting this info from just printing on it, are we doing color management and the best profile (or custom ICC) to determine if the "quality that matches the screen accurately" is done to compare to the Epson or Canon series? 

Really?  Do you think you’re talking to casual users who don’t understand a carefully managed color workflow?  How insulting and underestimating of you.

Also, our color specialist said that even the Spectro on the HP isn't the greatest for doing custom ICC profile for photography and doesn't recommend that option anyway.  If you are doing custom profiles, they recommend using a 3rd party unit like X-Rite where it provides more patch options upfront, along with other very useful features.  Of course each profiling process will operate differently, but a Spectro isn't a great option for the best custom profiling due to some disadvantages.

Well of course they and you recommend using a 3rd party unit like an X-Rite - all the more money your customers must spend on sophisticated equipment when the embedded spectrophotometer comes as standard equipment on the Z3200 (and apparently, now, the Z6/Z9 as well).  This is a wild claim that the Z’s ESP can’t do the job, when in fact, we have proof that it can, with side by side comparisons. In fact the Z can take any reference file from i1Pro or whatever, and is equally capable of scanning the resulting targets as closely and with the precision of the X-Rite, particularly when it comes to high patch count targets in the 4357 - 6000 patch realm.  That is the area we are currently testing, and several professional printers, John Dean of Dean Imaging in Atlanta, is currently using the high patch target profiles, while he has both Epson and Canon printers in his studio as well.

Here’s the problem.  Any use of the Z3200ps using the standard 368 patch target profile will yield simple, basic results. I guarantee your color specialist didn’t get to know the printer the way we have (even if using the long since obsoleted APS system) or have found out what it can really do.  I submit that to this day, they do not now even know what the Z is fully capable of, nor is there any interest in finding out, which is fine.  But it looks like there’s not much of a future for the Z6 and the Z9 going forward based on how you and your color specialist have trashed the Z3200.  Just saying.

I guess you haven't really followed this thread that carefully.  No one has said the Epson and the Canons are inferior - we have only discussed how great the Z is based on new information that has unlocked its full potential.

So, I'll ask this in a more specific way...why do so many say that their ink is so great aside from the longevity testing?  I want to pinpoint this continued comment/review as opposed to what our color specialist (who also does photography with high end equipment) comments towards these reviews against Epson and Canon's inkset.  And I'm not saying others are wrong, but when we sell tons more Epson and Canon, we want to figure out the reasoning for the other comments/reviews.  Can we also see literature about the "QUALITY" results from HP that is compared to the other 2 brands?

Aside from the fact that we’ve all been barraged by HP’s own in house testing results in their sales brochures with their longevity claims, there is Aardenburg's colorimetric testing environment and the I* process that Mark McCormick Goodhart invented. 
Come to the party.
Most of the information regarding print longevity and fade curves comes from his methodical highly ethical practice.
For your own information, (and your "color specialist's") Aardenburg imaging has published results for years:

Aardenburg Imaging & Archives (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)

Mark McCormick worked for seven years at the Smithsonian implementing their cold storage archives before working with Henry Wilhelm, after which he went on to establish Aardenburg Imaging with I* as the test engine.  He is not a color specialist, he's a color scientist and he achieves the most critical scientific results-based free service for photographers who rely on his information which is beyond reproach.  If you question this, that's your right to have your own opinions.  He simply presents the information and users of his website can draw their own conclusions.  If you want to draw down on a source of side by side comparisons, I urge you to join Aardenburg’s free service and scan and study the results for yourselves.

Questions of Gamut and D-Max are easy to solve.  Obviously you can’t because you apparently don’t have a Z3200ps in your showroom, and I assert that if you did, you would not be able to make the high patch count targets we are using in-house, using the Z’s embedded spectrophotometer.  You can put this question to rest by yourselves by making your best prints on both Canon and Epson machines on a known quality paper such as Moab Entrada Natural 300 Gsm or Canson Platine, then send us the same file you are using and we will print it using our workflow and ICC Profile generated in-house and you can have the prints evaluated by a third-party using a standardized metric to determine what the measurements actually are.  We’ll find out whose blacks are blackest, if that’s the way you judge quality in an image. 

Mark- I spoke to our color specialist and they've done extensive testing between the 3 brands and HP wasn't as great as Epson or Canon from their results.  They did say the blacks weren't the greatest either on HP's end in general.  Are you using a RIP to achieve 6000 patches since you can't do it from the drivers themselves?  And we've rarely had any clogs with our Canon's.  Canon and HP have the exact same print head technology aside from Epson's Piezo head.

Well you’ve just called into question the new HP machines that have yet to undergo any third party testing - seems like a mis-step for future customers.  But since you sell predominantly Canon and Epson, and your minds are made up, I guess that doesn’t matter.  And really?  You’re saying that when one printhead of 6 goes bad in an Epson or Canon you can simply replace the bad head for less than $80 (for two colors)?
You mean you don’t have to replace the entire print head set for thousands?  This is news to me.

I'm not trying to start any issues against anyone, but we want to get the information (or literature) about these results to confirm this outcome properly.  It could very well be from user preference (which is completely fine), but the actual tested results can be different with all accurate color set up and if the printer is printing properly with no clogs.

Well now that we’ve received a slap across the face, that information will be forthcoming, and you may not like what you see.  It won’t be user preference, although there is that, of course. but rather scientific data and studies that clearly document these issues. Meanwhile, you’ll just have to rely on Aardenburg’s longstanding test results if you have the patience to go through them.

I was asking them on why so many mentioned that HP's inks were so much better, and he wasn't sure why they thought that they’ve tested it with color management and in their opinion that the black tones weren't that great (especially for photography).  They'd say to go with Epson or Canon for photography.

Oh please.  Spare us.  Again, I question why you are so threatened by a printer that is on it’s way out, and is being off-loaded nearing the end of it’s run.  The fact that several professionals who make their living printing prefer the look, feel, and test measurements of an ink that is amazing continues to surprise me.  Of course your color tech guy says they’d go with Canon and Epson - you’ve already stated you sell tons of them, and obviously you steer your customers in that direction.  Aren't we talking about bottom line sales here, really?

On the other hand, I’m glad you are such a staunch advocate for Canon and Epson printers.  I have had them and used them, with their waste tanks and clogs, and they are built like tanks, for sure and they do make beautiful initial prints in the hands of professionals.

I wish you and I.T. Supplies the best and hope some of your questions have been addressed, even if you disagree with my answers, which is your right, of course.

Best,

Mark Lindquist
LINDQUIST STUDIOS

http://marklindquist.photography
http://lindquiststudio.us/About_lindquist_studio.htm
http://lindquiststudio.us/History_of_lindquist_studio.htm
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 27, 2018, 05:02:40 am

While doing some reproduction prints from acrylic paintings with some vivid colors I did hit a gamut limit of the K3 inkset and had to resort to significant massaging of the file to make an adequate reproduction print. So, having additional gamut cannot hurt!:)


Two week ago I made a (one print run) proof for a customer who wondered whether I could do several print runs to get close to a silkscreen print made with several overlapping transparent spot colors, so not the CMYK raster screen variety. He was pleasantly surprised by what the 11 inks on matte paper do in saturation with a Z3200. I added a dual run print as well to show that register for that geometric design would be more difficult and the surface more delicate than with a silkscreen print. Which is understandable given the difference in ink layer thickness. Matte silkscreen inks suffer however of the same problem when a nail polishes a certain spot though ......    On glossy papers the Vivera inks are as good if not better in scratch resistance than the competition inks.

I usually calibrate the Z3200 for every repeat job if that has not been done 2 months before. Takes little time and little media. Repeat jobs count to 40% of my work I estimate.  Calibration set on the printer panel so it is not interfering with any prepress work on the desktop that I can do at the same time. That the Z's thermal heads need calibration more often than piëzo heads is a tale that appeared soon after the Z models with integrated spectrometers appeared. The competition simply had not an integrated package like that available and brought solutions later, mainly for print proofing practice, that were way more expensive and still needed optional profiling software.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 27, 2018, 10:44:48 am
OK,...the title of this thread is "Best 44" printer for fine art" :) Judging by almost any objective and/or subjective metrics, I think we can all agree that "fine art" printmaking is an incredibly small market niche, so small indeed, that Canon, Epson, and HP all address it more in terms of how it helps them place their latest WF printer models into the commercial print shops and larger photo labs where print speed, ease of roll handling (sometimes cut sheet as well), reliability, cost per print are the key selling factors.  From a sales perspective, the marketing of print quality and print longevity becomes a simple sales pitch like "oh, and you can also use this printer for fine art printing as well because the output quality is so good and long lasting enough that you won't get any customer complaints". That's a low bar to jump over from where I'm coming from :)

IT supplies, when you speak of color specialists who are G7 certified, GRACoL certified, GMG certified and others, it's a different graphic arts commercial market that cares about those certifications. Those quality control standards are intended to keep big printing presses under day-to-day calibration control and smaller inkjet and digital proofing printers matched to that output. Those QC specs are just a piece of a calibrated graphic arts workflow and do not impart the skills necessary to make a great print which will please the customer. The most talented fine art printmakers I know who push the latest inkjet photo quality printers to the highest peaks of image quality don't really care what those certifications mean. They and their clients by and large wouldn't even have any idea what those certifications mean. I do, but it doesn't inform my choice of what 44 inch printer I"m going to buy next for my own personal use!

IMHO, the Printers, Papers, and Inks forum here on LULA is where those of us who truly fall into the niche market "fine art" printmaking category come to hang out, so this is indeed a great place to ask "What's the best printer for fine art".  I think it's also great that the printer manufacturers and dealers lurk here and sometimes are willing to post comments here.   In that regard, I hope this thread informs everyone that the very ancient Z3000PS does indeed still have state of the art qualities especially well suited to small volume high end printmaking studios whose clients tend to be the most demanding of all with regard to both initial print quality and print permanence. In low volume usage scenarios, the Z3200 sits unattended in a corner, happily running small nozzle maintenance checks periodically without dumping a lot of ink down a waste tank, is almost always ready to print after long periods of non use without insisting on a nozzle unclogging procedure right when you hit the print button, hits the sweet spot, IMHO, on ink cartridge capacity for the low volume user, ie. not too little and not too much to consume in a reasonable period of time respecting shelf life, and thermal head replacements when they eventually become necessary are far more cost effective than the competition... all fantastic practical stuff for the small-volume high-end print quality printmaker.  It's just that HP's default profiling feature does not lead to the highest quality prints, so a more skilled enduser must know how to coax max quality out of the Z3200 with knowledge not supplied by HP as to how to do that.  For example, HP documentation does a very poor job revealing all the hidden spectrophotometer features its engineers built into the Z3200 such as the ability to import any reference file for custom target sizes that the Z3200 can easily print and measure, and its tiff file export capability such that other WF printer brands can print the target and the Z3200 can then measure it.

When you buy a Z3200 you are getting a very competent automated spectrophotometer with a great photo printer thrown in for good measure 8) IT supplies your color specialist is misinformed. The Z3200 spectrophotometer is made by Xrite and has the same M2 illuminant measurement accuracy as an I1pro UVcut version, plenty adequate to make great measurements to build profiles with. What it doesn't have is much profiling capability built in, so I turn to modern profiling apps like i1Profiler, BasicColor RGB drop, or the very excellent (and free) Argyll profiling software. And I create the large patch count reference files with a combination of i1Profiler and BabelColor patch tool, but those files can be freely distributed to other Z3200 users (which Mark L. and I hope to post on his excellent Z3200 resource website Z3200.com, (http://z3200.com) as soon as we both coordinate our efforts in our mythical spare time). 

I'm hoping the Z9 is a formidable successor to the Z3200, but to be that good, it has to meet or exceed the Vivera Ink set on print longevity merits, B&W print quality (i.e. grayscale neutrality and smoothness into the highlights) must not be compromised, and it has to still retain all those hidden spectrophotometer features that currently reside in the Z3200 Color Utility software. I've inquired with both HP reps and dealer reps (including someone at IT supplies) and I simply can't get even basic questions about the Z9 answered. I could answer them myself if I had about an hour alone with a Z9, but I'm nowhere close to a dealer. So, the Z9 is a real sleeper in the market place at the moment. HP, are you still listening to the fine art printmaking community?

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: jmemije11 on September 27, 2018, 06:03:08 pm
Hello everyone,

I felt a need to respond to these posts.  It seems there is a lot of misperceptions on what Chris was trying to propose to the group here. 

Let me preface with saying I am the lead color consultant that works with Chris.  I am also an Avid photographer, full Sony gear hound with an A7RIII and multiple G Master lenses.  I have visited this site for countless hours in the past reading Michael R.s articles as well as many others.  I have been working with RAW files prior to Lightroom coming out using RAW Shooter Essentials which became RAW Shooter Premium.  So I am not just a Color Consultant for the print industry but I edit tons of photographs and print my own work.  How I started in the industry actually.  Enough credentials.

One thing I will say, is we do not sell one brand over another.  We sell the best tool that fits that customers workflow.  Let's be clear.  We sell plenty of HP printers and not just in the Aqueous space. We sell the HP R Series $150,000 and $220,000 photo quality flatbed printers as well for hard substrates.  Point here is we are not in bed with one manufacturer over another.  in fact our CEO prior to opening our business was one of HPs top salesman for many many years.  We love HP. 

Ok, so Chris brought this topic up to me the other day and asked my opinion.  Well, I said in terms of the Z3200 printer I did not feel the "quality" was as good as the Canon or EPSON equivalent offering.  Chris mentioned that members on this forum had mentioned they felt the quality was better and had literature to prove it.  Well it does not appear anyone has sent any literature that speaks to the quality being better than the competition other than some longevity tests put out by Wilhelm.  This is not about quality and about lightfastness basically stating within a certain amount of time the print would have faded by half.   Again no quality testing information. 

When Chris asked me why do I think the quality is not as good, I stated it is really good, just in my testing not as good as the other two guys.  I did extensive tests of color targets, Gamut mapping comparisons, and visual color targets.  In all my tests, the Canon and EPSON slightly beat out the EPSON in all those areas at least on the Z3200 printers. 

The comment about the black ink not being as good came from me as well.  If anyone has ever heard of or printed the 28 Balls file from Bill Atkinson, you would know this is a torture test file used to analyze the quality of the inkset.  Well in my tests the HP Black sphere and light Black Sphere had excessive ringing in it which basically shows a problem with that ink.  The Canon and EPSON did not exhibit anything but a couple light rings.  Very smooth spheres.   This is not an objective test.  It was very clear that the Canon and EPSON black ink were superior.

The other comments regarding the inline spectro were not to say the spectro is bad as it is the same exact spectral unit I use in the i1 Pro and i1 ISIS.  Those are the original units that do not do M! measurement conditions which basically measures with UV and without UV and averages them together.  The old Z3200 only does one measurement condition as it is based on the old i1 Pro spectral unit.  Not the new i1 Pro 2.   So when Chris is saying there are limitations in comparison to a stand alone it was not to sell units.  They sell themselves if needed.  It was to describe you are using an older spectral unit not sold in the last 5-6 years.   Also the HP profiling software at least the last time I used it has the largest color patches I have seen on an inline spectro.  The HP Latex printers have the same limitation.  So to print 6000 atches must use feet of paper.  We print 1914 patches on 2 8.5x11 pages.  Lot less media to build a more modern and perfectly adequate icc profile. 

I nor Chris have nothing against the convenience and ability of the inline spectro in the Z3200 other than those two points.  It does not make it bad, but there is better.  Sorry but its true.

So I want to end this post by saying this is not an argument on our side.  We are just trying to better understand the findings in literature another poster mentioned regarding the quality of the 3 printers.  I have never read anything that shows me this kind of information so I am also curious to read it myself. 

I know this forum has always been one about good discussions based on other photographers findings in photography and in printing.  I know Chris frequents these forums not to sell things but to see what the industry is doing and to also gain more knowledge from the leaders in the Fine Art photographic print world.

Hopefully we can have a civil discussion and not an us against them or them against us kind of discussion.

Cheers!

Jim M.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Stephen Ray on September 27, 2018, 09:02:07 pm
The comment about the black ink not being as good came from me as well.  If anyone has ever heard of or printed the 28 Balls file from Bill Atkinson, you would know this is a torture test file used to analyze the quality of the inkset.  Well in my tests the HP Black sphere and light Black Sphere had excessive ringing in it which basically shows a problem with that ink.  The Canon and EPSON did not exhibit anything but a couple light rings.  Very smooth spheres.   This is not an objective test.  It was very clear that the Canon and EPSON black ink were superior.

Perform this same test again but be sure to turn off all ICC profiles this time.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 27, 2018, 09:23:33 pm
Hello everyone,

... The comment about the black ink not being as good came from me as well.  If anyone has ever heard of or printed the 28 Balls file from Bill Atkinson, you would know this is a torture test file used to analyze the quality of the inkset.  Well in my tests the HP Black sphere and light Black Sphere had excessive ringing in it which basically shows a problem with that ink.  The Canon and EPSON did not exhibit anything but a couple light rings.  Very smooth spheres.   This is not an objective test.  It was very clear that the Canon and EPSON black ink were superior.


Nope, if anything Bill's target shows problems with the quality of the printer calibration and especially the corresponding ICC profile's treatment of out of gamut colors, not much about the inks really.  And as I noted before, any serious enduser of the HPZ3200 today will use the Z for it's measurement capabilities but not for building the profile because the modern profiling algorithms have indeed improved since the Z3200 hit the market. Furthermore, Bill's "28 balls" target is being totally misused in ways that Bill never intended by many so-called color experts. It can have imaginary colors in it depending on how it's used, so it's typically about the ICC profile algorithm's ability to map totally out-of-gamut fake colors into gamut, not really a great way to assess ink qualities and Dmax performance, IMO. When used correctly in non color managed mode it can spot flaws in the Printer driver ink channel ramps, but otherwise I don't place any stock in what people do with it.  Let's just leave it at that. We can agree to disagree.


The other comments regarding the inline spectro were not to say the spectro is bad as it is the same exact spectral unit I use in the i1 Pro and i1 ISIS.  Those are the original units that do not do M! measurement conditions which basically measures with UV and without UV and averages them together. 


Again, no. Newer Spectrophotometers capable of M1 illuminant compliance with the more recent ISO 13655-2009 standard do not merely average the UV and UV excluded measurements together. Xrite does combine two measurements together in its newer ISO 13655-2009 compliant instruments to meet the M1 specification which as you note the Z3200 can't do, but it's not a simple averaging technique. Furthermore, I researched the M1 condition very carefully and actually bought an I1Pro2 instrument to start measuring both the M0 and M1 illuminant condition with the idea that I would eventually transition the Aardenburg light fastness testing protocol to this "latest and greatest" standard. After a lot of study, I concluded M1 is too aggressive in its UV fluorescence measurements, particularly with moderate to high OBA content papers, thus better suited to printmaking for product to be displayed in outdoor sunlight conditions or very direct sunlight falling on a print indoors and thus far less suited to typical indoor museum and gallery conditions where this doesn't happen. Since this forum usually does not address outdoor signage or indoor environments with direct sunlight falling on the artwork, the M1 measurement is largely of academic interest to the fine art printmaking community.  Hence, I decided to continue publishing the Aardenburg test reports using primarily M0 illuminant condition even though I'm measuring with an i1Pro 2 instrument. Duly noted and already addressed in my earlier post is the fact that the onboard spectro in the Z3200 is measuring the the UV excluded M2 condition, which indeed essentially matches both M0 and M1 conditions when OBA-free papers are used. And the M0 versus M2 measurement difference is quite manageable without OBA compensation heroics when the printmaker chooses low OBA content paper. No serious fine art printmaker should be choosing high OBA content papers. So, again, for fine art printmaking, the Z3200 is still state of the art in terms of making measurements that will lead to a great ICC profile. What the Z3200 color utility didn't do is keep up with the advances in profile algorithm which have taken place over the last decade. But not to worry. Use the Z to make the measurements. Use modern ICC profiling software to crunch the data.


... you are using an older spectral unit not sold in the last 5-6 years.   Also the HP profiling software at least the last time I used it has the largest color patches I have seen on an inline spectro.  The HP Latex printers have the same limitation.  So to print 6000 atches must use feet of paper.  We print 1914 patches on 2 8.5x11 pages.  Lot less media to build a more modern and perfectly adequate icc profile.

Sure, the individual patch size printed with the Z's honeycomb array of printed patches is quite large to accommodate the full non contact scan of the HP Z's spectro. However, on the 44 inch Z3200, 6000 patches take less than 3 linear feet of paper which may be $10 or $20 worth of media when more expensive fine art media are considered. And yes, an Xrite iSis spectro or the like will do 6000 patches with much less paper wastage if cut sheets are used, but it's also an additional $3K capital expense, thus the added expense of an Xrite iSis probably won't match the cost of ICC profile target measurements on the Z until you've made over 300 ICC profiles give or take. Most fine art printmakers won't make that many profiles in a decade. Color management consultants will, but not endusers. And then, there's the convenience. Cueing up those smaller cut sheet target files to a 44 inch printer is an extra step in the process. If you cue them up on roll paper, guess what, you are wasting more paper! So, all and all, the bigger patches needed by the Z3200 spectro are a really trivial issue. Lastly, 2000 patch count targets are still falling short of maximum Z3200 print quality. I have come to this conclusion from studying the process and doing some round robin print testing with Mark L and John Dean, two guys who are master printmakers. I haven't published the results yet, so, sorry, you will have to take my word on that for now. Also, I can't speak for extended patch count goodness for other 44 inch printers from other manufacturers because I haven't run any extended patch count tests on them, but it's definitely true with the Z3200.

 

Hopefully we can have a civil discussion and not an us against them or them against us kind of discussion.

Cheers!

Jim M.


Yes, agreed. Welcome to this forum :) And feel free to contact me offline if you have any technical questions. Contact info is on my website.

thank you,
Mark McCormick-Goodhart
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Stephen Ray on September 27, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Is HP or Canon worth considering instead?

My priorities:
1. Printing quality
2. Archival Ink properties
3. Printer Efficiency (I am printing in ad-hock small batches, need to avoid clogging)

After a look through of your images with their smooth gradations and subtle tones, I recommend you get at least two sample 40 x 60 prints from any machines you're considering printed on your media type. Preferably, the two samples from two or three weeks apart. I'm not a fan of printing editions in ad-hock small batches. In fact, it makes no sense to me. However, I recommend the sample test above because of your particular work and plan.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Doug Gray on September 27, 2018, 10:18:39 pm
Hello everyone,

I felt a need to respond to these posts.  It seems there is a lot of misperceptions on what Chris was trying to propose to the group here. 
...
The other comments regarding the inline spectro were not to say the spectro is bad as it is the same exact spectral unit I use in the i1 Pro and i1 ISIS.  Those are the original units that do not do M! measurement conditions which basically measures with UV and without UV and averages them together.  The old Z3200 only does one measurement condition as it is based on the old i1 Pro spectral unit.  Not the new i1 Pro 2.   So when Chris is saying there are limitations in comparison to a stand alone it was not to sell units.  They sell themselves if needed.  It was to describe you are using an older spectral unit not sold in the last 5-6 years.   Also the HP profiling software at least the last time I used it has the largest color patches I have seen on an inline spectro.  The HP Latex printers have the same limitation.  So to print 6000 atches must use feet of paper.  We print 1914 patches on 2 8.5x11 pages.  Lot less media to build a more modern and perfectly adequate icc profile.  Hopefully we can have a civil discussion and not an us against them or them against us kind of discussion.
....
Cheers!

Jim M.
To expand on Mark's comment, the z3200 spectro is not based on the older spectros including the I1 Pro 2 which use tungsten illuminants. It actually uses white LED tech circa ColorMonki and i1iSis designs. The I1 Pro 2 is a hybrid that uses a tungsten source and uV LED to get M0 (base line single pass w/o the uV LED) and derives M2/M1 by using the uV LED on a second pass and either subtracting or adding an adjusted response from the uV LED pass.

i1iSis and i1iSis 2 models both use white LEDs for M2 specific measurements as does the ColorMunki and newer X-Rite printer spectros.

As for Bill's Balls, Andrew Rodney has a communication from Bill Atkinson noting the intent of the Balls was to check the smoothness of the printer's intrinsic drivers in device RGB space and was not intended to be used with a paper profile. That is they should be printed with color management disabled.

They can be useful with profiles but that use is largely an evaluation of the profile's generation software rather than the printer driver's intrinsic smoothness. There is considerable variation between profile vendors for the same printer/paper.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 27, 2018, 10:28:23 pm
Hello everyone,
I felt a need to respond to these posts.  It seems there is a lot of misperceptions on what Chris was trying to propose to the group here. 

Let me preface with saying I am the lead color consultant that works with Chris.

Jim M.

Welcome to the forum Jim M.  It’s a pity your first post after lurking here for a decade had to be about damage control.  In just about every aspect of what you and Chris have written, I and others utterly and completely disagree.  In fact your claims regarding the Z3200ps (which now we see are being somewhat slightly tempered) are so outrageous that from my perspective there is no point in discussing it with you or with Chris any further.

What this does do for me, or rather what good I find in the few recent posts from the I.T Guys, is a warning to steer widely clear from using I.T. Supplies as a source for purchasing printers, inks and papers, and particularly seeking any kind of support.

We all have our opinions, positions and perspectives. 
Good to know yours and Chris’s.

Kindest regards,

Mark L.





 
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: MHMG on September 27, 2018, 10:50:37 pm
... What this does do for me, or rather what good I find in the few recent posts from the I.T Guys, is a warning to steer widely clear from using I.T. Supplies as a source for purchasing printers, inks and papers, and particularly seeking any kind of support.

We all have our opinions, positions and perspectives. 
Good to know yours and Chris’s.

Kindest regards,

Mark L.

My dear friend Mark L. That's a bit harsh ;)

I do occasionally buy from IT supplies, and I think the company is top notch. (As an aside, I do wish you guys had kept the Atlex price on 44 inch roll Moab Entrada natural 300 gsm :). It was way better than the competition, but not anymore)
 
I'd buy more often from IT supplies, but due to my location proximity to NYC, shipments from B&H tend to reach me much faster. Other than that, both companies are great and typically free shipping in USA although IT supplies has a somewhat higher minimum purchase value to secure the free shipping. That said, IT supplies guys, I recently enquired with you about the Z9 because your website claims you have it in stock. However, as I noted earlier, nobody at your company (nor anyone else for that matter) seems to know much about this new printer. Given what you say about Canon and Epson printers outselling HP in this particular market demographic, perhaps it's time for you and other dealers to get more acquainted with the new HP Z9 product. Just sayin...

all the best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Stephen Ray on September 28, 2018, 04:38:47 am
As for Bill's Balls, Andrew Rodney has a communication from Bill Atkinson noting the intent of the Balls was to check the smoothness of the printer's intrinsic drivers in device RGB space and was not intended to be used with a paper profile. That is they should be printed with color management disabled.

They can be useful with profiles but that use is largely an evaluation of the profile's generation software rather than the printer driver's intrinsic smoothness. There is considerable variation between profile vendors for the same printer/paper.

Another use is to quickly make an initial observation of a particular ink brand from another. Some commercial printers will purchase a machine knowing they will switch to a third party ink as soon as the setup ink set runs out. (Or even immediately.) With the balls, it's usually easy to see if the new ink differs much from the factory ink. The trends I have noticed is black ink may have a different tone and be weak. Cyan, on the other hand, may be much heavier than the OEM.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 28, 2018, 06:12:02 am
As long as Fogra certifications include the Z3200 printers I think there is no reason to doubt their consistency in printing over time. Proof printing is more demanding on that aspect than other applications require.

Mark McCormick put the finger on the arguments of the M1 profiling and the media waste in profiling due to larger patches, these are non issues in the art and photography printing we do here. I actually was surprised that this M1 condition was introduced and not a warning to reduce OBA content in papers to create more color constancy under different conditions and over time, both in practice. Despite the claim that M1 offers more color constancy in changing light conditions it does not in practice due to the actual OBA content. In general for the offset printing market, packaging included, it has hardly any meaning for the actual products. It covers the pre-press proofing conditions better if all cooperating in that workflow are actually using that standard and have the corresponding equipment.  About the outdoor use one may question the M1 condition too. https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101518.0  Display conditions vary and most OBAs do not last long either outdoors, even for short campaigns.

BTW, the M1 related new Fogra/ISO or Gracol "color spaces" are still not available in Photoshop CC. They exist since 2012/2013, the old ones of 2004 are still the default profiles.

The M2 condition for non OBA content media should be more suited for prints without OBA or low OBA content that is preferred for long lasting color constancy in different display conditions. The choice that goes along with inks that have the best fade resistance. So the UV cut spectrometer of the Z3200 is suitable then, LED light source without UV output.

Non hexagonal patch targets can be used on the printer with a command line tool. Whether that reduces media waste is another thing. More instruments used hexagonal patches as in theory the optical system copes better with anything approaching round patches so that shape might actually reduce media waste that way without compromising the measurements. On the Z3200 the patch size is more a result of the distance between the spectrometer and the media to measure. Media waste on the Z3200 has been way better reduced by the on the fly adaption of the target to the media roll/sheet width on the printer.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots



Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: jmemije11 on September 28, 2018, 09:52:49 am
I agree Mark,

no sure after a decade why even bothered to chime in.  Seems like it is difficult here to find a voice of reason. 

funny though that my HP rep 3 years ago sat me down with one of the heads of the Aqueous printer divisions to ask me personally and one of my colleagues what we thought HP should do to improve the quality of the output and get back some market share from EPSON and Canon.  So even the company that provides the best 44" Printer in most opinions here, they know they need to catch up to the EPSON and Canon offering. 

There has been very little talk about the new HP and we do not even have our demo unit yet.  But I will be testing the 28 balls torture test on it to see if the black ink is improved.

Unfortunately I do not think it is worth the time to share my results here so if anyone wants to find out I guess they will have to call into IT Supplies :-)

Enjoy the Z3200s you have and I encourage the "photographers" here to not worry too much about which printer is the best and focus on how to edit your files so that the prints can be optimal because any of the high gamut offerings from the 3 main print manufacturers are pretty darn good.

Cheers.  Looks like another decade to come :-)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Doug Gray on September 28, 2018, 10:54:42 am
I actually was surprised that this M1 condition was introduced and not a warning to reduce OBA content in papers to create more color constancy under different conditions and over time, both in practice.
I believe M1 was pushed for both a technical reason and a market reason.

The market sells the higher "brightness" and lower cost of high OBA papers. And the larger part of the market could care less about longevity or yellowing over time. So more papers are out with higher levels of OBAs though not for fine art of course.

The problem with the widely used M0 is that it includes a significant, but unspecified level of uV. As large parts of the graphics/paper industry increased levels of OBA, variation between soft proofing and hard proofing increased.  Also increased was differences in hard proofing using proof papers with OBA. OBAs are used in most proofing papers because non-OBA papers simply can't do a good job of hard proofing papers containing high levels of OBAs. OTOH, OBA proofing papers work just fine for proofing non-OBA papers. But hard proofing with OBA papers requires consistent levels of uV. Hence the change to M1 and view booth uV D50 specified levels.

However, you are quite right about M1. It generally overstates uV levels actually encountered as most signage is displayed behind glass or indoors and M0 is likely a better match, unspecified though it be.
Quote
Despite the claim that M1 offers more color constancy in changing light conditions it does not in practice due to the actual OBA content.
Curious where you find that claim being made. I'm unaware of any technical basis for that claim and I doubt the claim.
Quote

The M2 condition for non OBA content media should be more suited for prints without OBA or low OBA content that is preferred for long lasting color constancy in different display conditions. The choice that goes along with inks that have the best fade resistance. So the UV cut spectrometer of the Z3200 is suitable then, LED light source without UV output.
M0/1/2 are all the same for media without OBAs. For media with low OBA content they are effectively the same for all intents except Absolute. Absolute will only be the same when the media has no OBAs and no uV active natural materials like residual starches.
Quote

Non hexagonal patch targets can be used on the printer with a command line tool. Whether that reduces media waste is another thing. More instruments used hexagonal patches as in theory the optical system copes better with anything approaching round patches so that shape might actually reduce media waste that way without compromising the measurements. On the Z3200 the patch size is more a result of the distance between the spectrometer and the media to measure. Media waste on the Z3200 has been way better reduced by the on the fly adaption of the target to the media roll/sheet width on the printer.
I'm curious if the larger, hex, patch size on the z3200ps doesn't provide much better profiling results with heavily textured canvas. The larger optical aperture should produce more consistent profiling results as it averages over larger areas than products like the i1 collection. 
Quote

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 28, 2018, 12:02:12 pm
I believe M1 was pushed for both a technical reason and a market reason.

The market sells the higher "brightness" and lower cost of high OBA papers. And the larger part of the market could care less about longevity or yellowing over time. So more papers are out with higher levels of OBAs though not for fine art of course.

The problem with the widely used M0 is that it includes a significant, but unspecified level of uV. As large parts of the graphics/paper industry increased levels of OBA, variation between soft proofing and hard proofing increased.  Also increased was differences in hard proofing using proof papers with OBA. OBAs are used in most proofing papers because non-OBA papers simply can't do a good job of hard proofing papers containing high levels of OBAs. OTOH, OBA proofing papers work just fine for proofing non-OBA papers. But hard proofing with OBA papers requires consistent levels of uV. Hence the change to M1 and view booth uV D50 specified levels.

However, you are quite right about M1. It generally overstates uV levels actually encountered as most signage is displayed behind glass or indoors and M0 is likely a better match, unspecified though it be.Curious where you find that claim being made. I'm unaware of any technical basis for that claim and I doubt the claim.M0/1/2 are all the same for media without OBAs. For media with low OBA content they are effectively the same for all intents except Absolute. Absolute will only be the same when the media has no OBAs and no uV active natural materials like residual starches.I'm curious if the larger, hex, patch size on the z3200ps doesn't provide much better profiling results with heavily textured canvas. The larger optical aperture should produce more consistent profiling results as it averages over larger areas than products like the i1 collection.

Doug, I am aware that in the "other" markets the media with OBA content is the common one and I understand that for accordance in color proofs there had to be a standard for suitable proofing conditions. Fluorescence measured, viewing conditions with the same effect. It solved an issue at the proofing stage of fluorescent papers and inks.

However it can not predict or influence the viewing conditions for the real products that come off the presses later on. In that sense the M0 or M2 conditions were as good.  That the viewing conditions for outdoor signage more likely has UV light included for 2/3 of 24 hours sets it apart. And even there it is all not so easy to get it right if lamination or glass is used or the same image gets light reflected or transmitted from LEDs during the night.

That was my claim, just common sense.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Doug Gray on September 28, 2018, 12:45:38 pm
However it can not predict or influence the viewing conditions for the real products that come off the presses later on. In that sense the M0 or M2 conditions were as good.  That the viewing conditions for outdoor signage more likely has UV light included for 2/3 of 24 hours sets it apart. And even there it is all not so easy to get it right if lamination or glass is used or the same image gets light reflected or transmitted from LEDs during the night.

That was my claim, just common sense.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Ernst, I totally agree. Didn't mean to come across as differing on your point.  I was addressing some of the forces that were propelling M1 measurements and uV included D50 in viewing illuminants.

It's sad really, because it's an obscure area of color science and mindless use of M1 is likely to produce more chaos than clarity.

I find almost all the printing I do with M2 profiles even though all are readily available.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 29, 2018, 02:08:47 pm
I was at the Photokina yesterday and spoke with the people from HP about their new Z-Series. They had both the 24 and the 36 inch of the Z9 on the booth, with the 24 being used for making A2 sized prints.

A couple of things I learnt.

I asked if they were aware that some people in the US had received bad sample prints that were printed on the new Z9 Series. They were and learnt about it via LL. They were surprised as HP was not involved in this and started an investigation to learn what images had been printed and by whom. They found out that a distributor in the US has sent those sample prints. But unfortunately used images that were edited and optimised for brochures. And these edited images were printed on a beta version of the Z9 Series.

Both the 24 and the 36 inch Z9 will have the option of the GLoss Enhancer. They themselves only have the Gloss Enhancer on there machines in their demo center in Barcelona since a couple of weeks. I was shown the difference the gloss made as the friendly lady pointed out the slight bronzing that was apparent on the print without the Gloss Enhancer. Honestly, I found it difficult to see the bronzing. But on another B&W print I did see it. The same image printed with the Gloss Enhancer eliminated the bronzing.
The Gloss Enhancer btw can be printed on the whole image.

According to HP the longevity is at least as good as with the Z-Series. The color gamut is more or less the same.

I find it difficult to judge a print when it is not one of my own images. But from what I have seen, I am very impressed! Beautiful tonality and very sharp prints!

cheers,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: glyph on September 29, 2018, 02:23:47 pm
Glad to hear this, Remko. I'm curious if better scuff resistance was a part of their in booth sales pitch, and if so, were you able to make any direct observations about it?

Did you witness any media loading to be able to compare it to previous models?

The fact that you mention beautiful tonality without mentioning the ink changes directly is, I suppose, a good sign that no visible artifacts from giving up the light inks jumped out at you. If it is a non-issue to the naked eye, it means HP succeeded in their objective.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 29, 2018, 03:11:59 pm
Glad to hear this, Remko. I'm curious if better scuff resistance was a part of their in booth sales pitch, and if so, were you able to make any direct observations about it?

Did you witness any media loading to be able to compare it to previous models?

The fact that you mention beautiful tonality without mentioning the ink changes directly is, I suppose, a good sign that no visible artifacts from giving up the light inks jumped out at you. If it is a non-issue to the naked eye, it means HP succeeded in their objective.

It was not a sales pitch, it was me asking questions 😉. And the friendly people of HP very willing to answer them. And if they were not sure about an answer they asked one of their colleagues or the EMEA Designjet Product Manager. I did not ask about the scuff resistance and they did not mention it.

The printer was loaded with a roll and was printing more or less continuously. As I myself have no experience with the previous model, I would not have been able to compare anyhow.

Yes, you are right. I indeed did not see any artifacts although I was looking for them.

As some here on LL mentioned that taking out the light cyan and light magenta, as is the case in the new Z-Series, might make it challenging to have nice transitions in the highlights, I asked about that specifically. Acc to HP the transitions in the highlights are great and they are proud (in a positive way, I mean) on what they have achieved with this printer and especially the new inks and printhead.
When I later revisited their booth I saw one print with true highlights in the sky and was really impressed with what I saw.

cheers,
Remko

N.B. Edited some typos.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: shadowblade on September 29, 2018, 08:39:27 pm
It was not a sales pitch, it was me asking questions 😉. And the friendly people of HP very willing to answer them. And if they were not sure about an answer they asked one of their colleagues or the EMEA Designjet Product Manager. I did not ask about the scuff resistance and they did not mention it.

The printer was loaded with a roll and was printing more or less continuously. As I myself have no experience with the previous model, I would not have been able to compare anyhow.

Yes, you are right. I indeed did not see any artifacts although I was looking for them.

As some here on LL mentioned that taking out the light cyan and light magenta, as is the case in the new Z-Series, might make it challenging to have nice transitions in the highlights, I asked about that specifically. Acc to HP the transitions in the highlights are great and they are proud (in a positive way, I mean) on what they have achieved with this printer and especially the new inks and printhead.
When I later revisited their booth I saw one print with true highlights in the sky and was really impressed with what I saw.

cheers,
Remko

N.B. Edited some typos.

Sounds like good news re: colour tonality.

Did you see the black-and-white output? If they can match or exceed the output of the Z3200 using multiple inks, it sounds promising.

Piezography uses six or seven different concentrations of ink to achieve its black-and-white tonality, but its main problem is that it relies on clog-prone Epson printers that need to be run constantly. It would be great if the HP could achieve the same tonality using fewer inks but variable drop size.

Of course, the elephant in the room is print longevity. No matter what HP and other manufacturers claim, I won't believe them until there are hard figures out there.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: enduser on September 29, 2018, 09:07:23 pm
I have been wondering for a while about the light cyan and light magenta not featuring in the new "Z" printers from HP.  For many years we have been using Canon 12 color iPF 24" printers. We have an HP T120 which only has cyan, magenta and yellow.(and a pigment black).  We print a lot of flowers and I have a 24 x 36 " from the Canon and the same image at the same size from the HP bth on the same paper. (Yes, I know one is pigment and the other is dye)

No one can pick which  is which by eye. On the HP you have to make sure you dial in the "best" print routine. I immediately thought that the T120 which is a relatively new design has a much improved ink placement system to be able to achieve such an outcome.  Now I see that the "Zs" do away with the same colors I'm pretty sure there's been a development at HP in ink dot layout.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on September 30, 2018, 05:52:29 am
It was not a sales pitch, it was me asking questions 😉. And the friendly people of HP very willing to answer them. And if they were not sure about an answer they asked one of their colleagues or the EMEA Designjet Product Manager. I did not ask about the scuff resistance and they did not mention it.

The printer was loaded with a roll and was printing more or less continuously. As I myself have no experience with the previous model, I would not have been able to compare anyhow.

Yes, you are right. I indeed did not see any artifacts although I was looking for them.

As some here on LL mentioned that taking out the light cyan and light magenta, as is the case in the new Z-Series, might make it challenging to have nice transitions in the highlights, I asked about that specifically. Acc to HP the transitions in the highlights are great and they are proud (in a positive way, I mean) on what they have achieved with this printer and especially the new inks and printhead.
When I later revisited their booth I saw one print with true highlights in the sky and was really impressed with what I saw.

cheers,
Remko

N.B. Edited some typos.

Remko, thank you for the information.  Confirms my experience with HP people when I met them, developers often at the booth too, not just the sales department.
Do you get an impression about the profiling targets, bigger ones with more patches possible?

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 30, 2018, 08:18:15 am
I was at the Photokina yesterday and spoke with the people from HP about their new Z-Series. They had both the 24 and the 36 inch of the Z9 on the booth, with the 24 being used for making A2 sized prints.

A couple of things I learnt.

I asked if they were aware that some people in the US had received bad sample prints that were printed on the new Z9 Series. They were and learnt about it via LL. They were surprised as HP was not involved in this and started an investigation to learn what images had been printed and by whom. They found out that a distributor in the US has sent those sample prints. But unfortunately used images that were edited and optimised for brochures. And these edited images were printed on a beta version of the Z9 Series.

Both the 24 and the 36 inch Z9 will have the option of the GLoss Enhancer. They themselves only have the Gloss Enhancer on there machines in their demo center in Barcelona since a couple of weeks. I was shown the difference the gloss made as the friendly lady pointed out the slight bronzing that was apparent on the print without the Gloss Enhancer. Honestly, I found it difficult to see the bronzing. But on another B&W print I did see it. The same image printed with the Gloss Enhancer eliminated the bronzing.
The Gloss Enhancer btw can be printed on the whole image.

According to HP the longevity is at least as good as with the Z-Series. The color gamut is more or less the same.

I find it difficult to judge a print when it is not one of my own images. But from what I have seen, I am very impressed! Beautiful tonality and very sharp prints!

cheers,
Remko

Greetings Remko,
Thanks very much for your report.  Several of us have been waiting for additional details on the new HP printers so your information is very welcome.  Thanks for clearing up the “bad samples issue”.
Do you know if the 24” model has the embedded spectrophotometer? The spec sheet does say the 44” has it. But it’s important to know if the 24” does as well. I can’t imagine that it doesn’t, but confirmation wsould be great.

There seems to be some connfusion regarding the GE slot - that it is an upgrade, according to the sales brochures.  By any chance were you able to get any more information about that?  There has been some speculation that the cartridge slot could take a UV coating among other options as well in the future.  Just wondering if there was any discussion along those lines?

Also, the achilles heel of the Z3200 printer series has always been the printer carriage belt which begins to disintegrate after 3-5 years (longer in some cases) that starts by dropping small black blotches on the print, then gradually declines until it literally shreds itself.  Replacement has been an involved process and many who have replaced belts have used a special kevlar belt that LPS sells that lasts much longer. Is there any new information about internal components of the new Z’s compared to the old?

Would you be able to shed any light regarding the rollout of this new product - why HP has been so quiet about it, and there has been no third party testing regarding ink longevity and results of ink/media comparisons?  When Carles Magrinya, Head of Worldwide Strategic Sales for HP WF from Barcelona visited my studio a few years ago, he did say the Vivid inks tested better than Vivera.  I asume it’s because of the new dual drop delivery system?

It would be good to have independent testing from Aardenburg Imaging, as many photographers rely on his testing, which has become the benchmark for Ink/media fade results.

Finally, although I have many additional questions, were you able to see the vertical trimmer in action?  Do you know how the interface or GUI for that works?  Does it trim just the margins, or can it trim the print in the center, or wherever it is specified?

It’s great that you are able to tell us your findings as we are basicly in the dark with no real reviews yet.

Thanks much,

Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 30, 2018, 10:57:54 am
Sounds like good news re: colour tonality.

Did you see the black-and-white output? If they can match or exceed the output of the Z3200 using multiple inks, it sounds promising.

Piezography uses six or seven different concentrations of ink to achieve its black-and-white tonality, but its main problem is that it relies on clog-prone Epson printers that need to be run constantly. It would be great if the HP could achieve the same tonality using fewer inks but variable drop size.

Of course, the elephant in the room is print longevity. No matter what HP and other manufacturers claim, I won't believe them until there are hard figures out there.

Yes, I was shown black-and-white output. The prints were very small and used to show the effect of the Gloss Enhancer to counter bronzing. As I hardly print B&W myself and have never seen B&W output from the Z3200, I cannot say much about any difference with the new Z9.

cheers,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 30, 2018, 10:59:23 am
Remko, thank you for the information.  Confirms my experience with HP people when I met them, developers often at the booth too, not just the sales department.
Do you get an impression about the profiling targets, bigger ones with more patches possible?

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Thank you, Ernst.

I did not ask about the profiling targets, so unfortunately cannot answer your question.

cheers,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 30, 2018, 11:20:03 am
Greetings Remko,
Thanks very much for your report.  Several of us have been waiting for additional details on the new HP printers so your information is very welcome.  Thanks for clearing up the “bad samples issue”.
Do you know if the 24” model has the embedded spectrophotometer? The spec sheet does say the 44” has it. But it’s important to know if the 24” does as well. I can’t imagine that it doesn’t, but confirmation wsould be great.

There seems to be some connfusion regarding the GE slot - that it is an upgrade, according to the sales brochures.  By any chance were you able to get any more information about that?  There has been some speculation that the cartridge slot could take a UV coating among other options as well in the future.  Just wondering if there was any discussion along those lines?

Also, the achilles heel of the Z3200 printer series has always been the printer carriage belt which begins to disintegrate after 3-5 years (longer in some cases) that starts by dropping small black blotches on the print, then gradually declines until it literally shreds itself.  Replacement has been an involved process and many who have replaced belts have used a special kevlar belt that LPS sells that lasts much longer. Is there any new information about internal components of the new Z’s compared to the old?

Would you be able to shed any light regarding the rollout of this new product - why HP has been so quiet about it, and there has been no third party testing regarding ink longevity and results of ink/media comparisons?  When Carles Magrinya, Head of Worldwide Strategic Sales for HP WF from Barcelona visited my studio a few years ago, he did say the Vivid inks tested better than Vivera.  I asume it’s because of the new dual drop delivery system?

It would be good to have independent testing from Aardenburg Imaging, as many photographers rely on his testing, which has become the benchmark for Ink/media fade results.

Finally, although I have many additional questions, were you able to see the vertical trimmer in action?  Do you know how the interface or GUI for that works?  Does it trim just the margins, or can it trim the print in the center, or wherever it is specified?

It’s great that you are able to tell us your findings as we are basicly in the dark with no real reviews yet.

Thanks much,

Mark

My pleasure, Mark.

Yes, I asked about whether the spectrophotometer was also included with the 24"model as, like you, I could not imagine it was not the case. And the spectrophotometer is indeed included. I asked if the functionality was the same as with the Z3200, and that was confirmed. So good news!

I did not ask about new components ref the carriage belt.

I asked them about the silence around the Z9 after these printers were shown some months ago at the Drupa. They are aware of that. To me it seems they were not ready yet to market the new printers, but I can be wrong of course. They said that from now on they will start marketing the new Z6 and Z9.

Yes, more than one from HP said that is the combination of the new inks with the new heads and the new dual drop delivery system that make the improvements possible.

Ref Aardenburg Imaging, I addressed that when talking with the EMEA Product Manager. A great guy. Also told him that Mark is investing his own money when buying a printer for testing, as Mark has told us here on LL. So that it would be wonderful if it was possible for Mark to have HP provide him a Z9 for some period of time. The PM was certainly interested and I gave him Mark's e-mail address after asking Mark whether that would be okay. So they will get in touch with each other.

The vertical trimmer is only available on the 44" and that one was not switched on. So I cannot tell you anything about it. What I do like is the tiltable touch screen. When I saw them operating the 24" printer, the touch screen and scrolling worked remarkably smooth.

cheers,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 30, 2018, 12:05:42 pm
Again, thanks for the information Remko, much appreciated. When Magrinya was here from Barcelona, I suggested a touch screen that could be adjusted to be used from behind the printer. Do you know if the screen on the new z’s function that way?
Thanks-
Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on September 30, 2018, 12:59:36 pm
Again, thanks for the information Remko, much appreciated. When Magrinya was here from Barcelona, I suggested a touch screen that could be adjusted to be used from behind the printer. Do you know if the screen on the new z’s function that way?
Thanks-
Mark

😀

Well, if you do not tilt the screen - so it lays flat with the top of the printer - and you have no issues reading the symbols upside down, than, yes, I could see that work.
That was a great suggestion you made to Magrinya, Mark.

Edited:
just to add: you are talking of a screen that could be adjusted for being used behind the printer. If that is implemented I do not know.

cheers,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on September 30, 2018, 01:43:10 pm
😀

Well, if you do not tilt the screen - so it lays flat with the top of the printer - and you have no issues reading the symbols upside down, than, yes, I could see that work.
That was a great suggestion you made to Magrinya, Mark.

Edited:
just to add: you are talking of a screen that could be adjusted for being used behind the printer. If that is implemented I do not know.

cheers,
Remko

What I suggested was a touch screen that could be adjusted to tilt backwards so that it would be facing the user standing behind the printer while loading paper sheets or rolls.  Additionally, I suggested that when the screen was adjusted to be read from the back, the text would “flip over” to be read properly (not upside down) the way text and images automatically correct when turning a smart phone in whatever direction.
But most importantly, I advocated for touch screen controls. That would have changed the user interface dramatically.  Our cameras work with touch screens (phase 1, Hasselblads, Nikon D850, etc.) so it’s a known current technology - should be easy to implement.

I also suggested that the loading of sheets could be done from the front, particularly since via the controls we have already with the Z3200’s, “move paper forward” and “move paper back” it should be a relatively simple process to make that jump with the new Z’s.  I read somewhere that thin sheets with size limitations can now be front loaded?

Additionaly (among other suggestions) I also advocated for a cassette tray for sheet sizes up to 17x22 be added from behind for auto feeding of up to 50 sheets for multiple runs of prints or for portfolio making.  I even sent a rudimentary concept drawing package which I was requested to do.  Actually, he asked for a simple sketch but I sent a 6 page pdf sketchup presentation.  Guess that didn’t make it either.

Still in all, I take it you were definitely impressed with the printer?

Best,

Mark
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Remko on October 01, 2018, 03:31:33 pm
Additionaly (among other suggestions) I also advocated for a cassette tray for sheet sizes up to 17x22 be added from behind for auto feeding of up to 50 sheets for multiple runs of prints or for portfolio making.  I even sent a rudimentary concept drawing package which I was requested to do.  Actually, he asked for a simple sketch but I sent a 6 page pdf sketchup presentation.  Guess that didn’t make it either.

Still in all, I take it you were definitely impressed with the printer?

Best,

Mark

Hi Mark,

I did not notice a cassette tray. IT for sure is not there when viewing the printer at the front. But I did not see anything sprecial when looking at the back of the printer. So I guess a cassette tray is not implemented unfortunately. I have one with my Epson Pro 4000 and it is really handy. So I love the idea of a cassette tray.

Yes, I was - and still am - very impressed with this printer!

All the best to you,
Remko
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Panagiotis on October 01, 2018, 04:06:49 pm
I checked the HP support page for the Z9+ and the are already two firmware updates on the initial firmware with what it seems important fixes like "IQ and color improvements" etc. Maybe the printers were not ready when they introduced back in June. Also I found some interesting pictures in the following site (bottom of the page):

http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/ (http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/)

showing among other details the LCD and that the roll 1 is loaded from the front (I thought someone said that the printer is only back loaded?)
Also I found the following picture showing the back of the printer (hope these will add some information on the mysterious new HP printers :) ).

(https://be02.cp-static.com/objects/multimedia/d/d2f/1914731_82406841_grootformaat-printers-hp-z9-w3z72a.jpg)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: deanwork on October 02, 2018, 04:11:43 pm
Bright, saturated, speedy posters with vertical trims are the new fine art. With resin coated posters from Kinkos and Office Depot who needs galleries and museums, or even art collectors, and who needs subtle monochrome? That’s all so 20th century.




quote author=Panagiotis link=topic=126853.msg1070857#msg1070857 date=1538424409]
I checked the HP support page for the Z9+ and the are already two firmware updates on the initial firmware with what it seems important fixes like "IQ and color improvements" etc. Maybe the printers were not ready when they introduced back in June. Also I found some interesting pictures in the following site (bottom of the page):

http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/ (http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/)

showing among other details the LCD and that the roll 1 is loaded from the front (I thought someone said that the printer is only back loaded?)
Also I found the following picture showing the back of the printer (hope these will add some information on the mysterious new HP printers :) ).

(https://be02.cp-static.com/objects/multimedia/d/d2f/1914731_82406841_grootformaat-printers-hp-z9-w3z72a.jpg)
[/quote]
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: shaun on October 02, 2018, 05:48:39 pm
I use 24 hp z3100. Started giving problems with red and MBlack print head a couple of years ago. Been around in circles with this and it just isn't with it to get a repair man in. Hp stopped supporting this printer so I have to run a very old version of Mac OS or else whole image isn't printed. The fact that HP just stopped supporting this printer several years ago now would be enough for me. If I were to get a z3200 no doubt that would stop being supported too. I would go epson or canon.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Christopher on October 02, 2018, 05:53:04 pm
The z3100 had many problems, but I’m not surprised there wasn’t any support a few years ago. It’s quite old already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Mark Lindquist on October 03, 2018, 10:54:40 am
I checked the HP support page for the Z9+ and the are already two firmware updates on the initial firmware with what it seems important fixes like "IQ and color improvements" etc. Maybe the printers were not ready when they introduced back in June. Also I found some interesting pictures in the following site (bottom of the page):

http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/ (http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/)

showing among other details the LCD and that the roll 1 is loaded from the front (I thought someone said that the printer is only back loaded?)
Also I found the following picture showing the back of the printer (hope these will add some information on the mysterious new HP printers :) ).

(https://be02.cp-static.com/objects/multimedia/d/d2f/1914731_82406841_grootformaat-printers-hp-z9-w3z72a.jpg)

Thanks for that link Pangiotis - it helps to have some more puzzle pieces.  Sure, one can load the top roll from the front, but after leaning over with some really heavy rolls in the worst ergonomic position, I imagine that that would be only occasionally.  Depends of course on where and how the leading edge of the paper goes in.

(https://hackworth.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Z9_44_Usability_Load_Roll_01.jpg)

Most of the discussion around loading from the front and back centers around loading sheets, which is and has been the problem.  We've been using Ernst Dinkla's solution from long ago - a work-around, loading the sheets in through the roll slot, however bypassing the so called tray, and loading straight through on top of the roll, directly in. The photos don't show any front loading, only bent over top loading and loading from the back as before.  Also no sheet loading.
We can only hope the loading issues have improved.

(https://hackworth.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Z9dr_Usability_Load_Roll_2_Back_01.jpg) 

The one good thing is that they have included cowls (covers) over each roll, which will be a great help for keeping dust off the rolls.

Thankfully, it also looks like they've kept the printhead cartridge system where each printhead cartridge has 2 colors. This means no changing an entire print head costing thousands when one clog sends the printer down.  Now, as before, if one printhead has problems it can be pulled and replaced easily and cheaply like it has been ever since the HPZ3100 through the current HP Z3200ps machines.

(https://hackworth.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Z9dr_Usability_Replace_Printhead_GE_01.jpg)

As far as understanding what and how the vertical trimming works, the following photo shows two blue tabs that apparently are positioned manually to set the vertical trimmer settings?  Not sure, but this is the first clue that we've seen:

(https://hackworth.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Z9dr_Usability_Replace_Vertical_Cutter_01.jpg)

This photo below, verifies that the screen is a touch screen, and it looks like a USB3 port has been included, which is another mystery, but an interesting one.

(https://hackworth.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Z9_24_Usability_Front_Panel_01.jpg)

Judging from the photos on that page: More HP Designjet Z9+ Photos (http://www.hackworth.co/hp-designjet-z9/)

It now seems that the new Z printers are an upgrade of what we now have in the Z3200ps printers.  An important and well thought out upgrade, given that inks, dual roll loading, tilt touch screen, controls, and the vertical trimmer are newly re-designed.

I would love to put one of these through its paces - it looks promising. But first and foremost, Aardenburg needs to do testing.  Without comprehensive testing by a credible, ethical 3rd party well established source, using I* technology, there is no way to accurately compare Vivid with Vivera other than HP's claims that "Vivid tests better."

All in all, ink issues aside, the new Z6 and Z9+ printers are looking pretty interesting.

Best -

Mark

* All images are used under "fair use" for educational purposes.
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: Roscolo on December 09, 2018, 06:17:03 pm
r claims regarding the Z3200ps (which now we see are being somewhat slightly tempered) are so outrageous that from my perspective there is no point in discussing it with you or with Chris any further.

What this does do for me, or rather what good I find in the few recent posts from the I.T Guys, is a warning to steer widely clear from using I.T. Supplies as a source for purchasing printers, inks and papers, and particularly seeking any kind of support.



Man, that is the gospel truth.

Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: kers on December 10, 2018, 06:35:19 am
I use 24 hp z3100. Started giving problems with red and MBlack print head a couple of years ago. Been around in circles with this and it just isn't with it to get a repair man in. Hp stopped supporting this printer so I have to run a very old version of Mac OS or else whole image isn't printed. The fact that HP just stopped supporting this printer several years ago now would be enough for me. If I were to get a z3200 no doubt that would stop being supported too. I would go epson or canon.

I have a 12 year old HPz3100
I am printing on 10.13.6  no problem encountered (yet)
everything seems to work fine.
About reds on matte-  that is a basic weakness of the z3100 and is solved in the z3200 with the other red ink...
12 years usages - about 6 print heads - one belt replacement- two ventilators- new guiding rods... ( replaced by HP) that is it...
prints are the same as 12 years ago. ( so also hold up)
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 10, 2018, 08:26:28 am
Just read through this thread and loved the heated debate! ;)

If I wrote half of that about my beloved Nikons I'd be called a fanboy!  ;D

As far as I am concerned, the fact that ImagePrint doesn't support the HP would be a serious downer, but I guess I would look at things differently if I had the skills and patience to fine tune my own profiles.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Best 44" printer for fine art
Post by: kers on December 10, 2018, 10:27:52 am
Just read through this thread and loved the heated debate! ;)
If I wrote half of that about my beloved Nikons I'd be called a fanboy!  ;D
As far as I am concerned, the fact that ImagePrint doesn't support the HP would be a serious downer, but I guess I would look at things differently if I had the skills and patience to fine tune my own profiles.
Cheers,
Bernard

You may call me a fanboy  :)  after 12 years of usage i am...
but must say it was pure luck i bought this printer... it was very new and there were no reviews...
It was the included spectrophotometer that made me decide to buy it.
Sometimes you are lucky- just like i bought the 14-24 nikon lens when it came out.-

I work without any problems without Qimage... but then i am not a printer but a photographer.
Once you have a good profile for a specific paper you are usually done is my experience.
The canned profiles from the paper companies are also good usually.
You can change colour in photoshop and leave the profile the same; that is i think a better and easier choice than using many profiles.
For repros of paintings and graphic design you would like to have a different profiles depending on the work and the colours used.
(I am sure some might not agreee with me...)