Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: eternal camper on November 21, 2019, 06:22:57 pm
-
I got rid of my 17" Epson 4900 in September and have been looking for a 24" printer for past 2 months.
Will not get the new Epson 7570 as I have no confidence in them that it will not clog and it is quite expensive for a 24" printer!
So, I know that there are pros and cons of each printer:
Canon Pro-2100
11 colors + CO
front loading for cut paper
the newer model will load rolled paper much faster and easier than the Pro-2000
will take 3 ink sizes, and will be more economical if one purchases the 700 ml ink
HP Z9+
is fast
only has 9 inks + CO if required as an add-on kit
has 5 new printheads that are exactly the same, are quite inexpensive to replace, and can be replaced by user.
only 1 size ink, 330ml.
prints fast
has dual droplet technology that helps when printing with using only 9 colors
newer technology
has the basics of the predecessor, the Z3200, and is engineered to print with more color gradation.
has a built in spectophotometer that can give good icc profiles on photo papers
So, my question, and I do hope I will get a few responses, is has anyone out there used either one, and what are your comments on it. Would you buy it again?
Stephen
-
I think your questions contain your answers.
Because of the points you have stated the Z9+ is awesome.
Yeah, I would definitely get another one if I needed a fifth Hp printer in my studio.
There’s a lot to like about the Z9+ for sure.
Good luck with whichever you decide to go with.
Mark
-
Are you printing for yourself only or for others in a fee-for-service production environment? Because neither printer has really garnered any serious enduser reviews with respect to total amortized operating costs or reliability overall (and may never be reviewed with that objective), it's hard to say which one will be better for you in a high production environment. For individual users, both will be entirely sufficient in terms of cost per print and output capacity, but the Z9 may well prove easier on the wallet over time with its low cost universal print head replacement and lesser number of ink cartridges.
Also, how much does print longevity matter to you? If you are in the "I can always reprint" or "it only has to last as long as I'm alive" group of users, then either printer will do. If you are looking for future generations to enjoy the prints as you made them, then Z9 has the edge.
kind regards,
Mark McC-G
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Also, how much does print longevity matter to you? If you are in the "I can always reprint" or "it only has to last as long as I'm alive" group of users, then either printer will do. If you are looking for future generations to enjoy the prints as you made them, then Z9 has the edge.
kind regards,
Mark McC-G
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark, does this mean you've done some early testing of Z9 prints?
-
Mark, does this mean you've done some early testing of Z9 prints?
I just set up a Z9+ 44 inch dual roll/vertical trimmer model in my studio this week, so some light fade test samples will be soon be printed and started in testing. Just getting acquainted with the Z9 now. It's pretty sweet :)
HP chemists would have to have gone seriously backwards on light fade resistance, 2x or more, with the Z9+ Photo Vivid ink set compared to the previous Z3200 Vivera set (which has been tested) before the HP Photo Vivid results would be on a par with the Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set. I doubt that's going to happen (see below).
I now have both a Canon Pro-4000 (ink set is the same as used in the newer Pro2100/4100 series), and the Z9+ with Photo Vivid inks and GE kit. In the interest of full disclosure, at my good friend Mark Lindquist's gentle but persistent request HP management donated the Z9+ to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives with no strings attached. We can test and publish whatever we want with it, otherwise I would not have accepted it. I believe HP's "have at it" approach with Aardenburg is a strong indication HP management is very confident in the Z9+ and the new Photo Vivid ink set. We will find out. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I just set up a Z9+ 44 inch dual roll/vertical trimmer model in my studio this week, so some light fade test samples will be soon be printed and started in testing. Just getting acquainted with the Z9 now. It's pretty sweet :)
HP chemists would have to have gone seriously backwards on light fade resistance, 2x or more, with the Z9+ Photo Vivid ink set compared to the previous Z3200 Vivera set (which has been tested) before the HP Photo Vivid results would be on a par with the Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set. I doubt that's going to happen (see below).
I now have both a Canon Pro-4000 (ink set is the same as used in the newer Pro2100/4100 series), and the Z9+ with Photo Vivid inks and GE kit. In the interest of full disclosure, at my good friend Mark Lindquist's gentle but persistent request HP management donated the Z9+ to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives with no strings attached. We can test and publish whatever we want with it, otherwise I would not have accepted it. I believe HP's "have at it" approach with Aardenburg is a strong indication HP management is very confident in the Z9+ and the new Photo Vivid ink set. We will find out. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Congratulations. Not just for getting that prize but what it could mean for other Z9+ customers. HP did the right thing here, no strings attached. I am very interested in what the Z9+ will deliver in the tests.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
what media do you want to print? I find canon to be quite nice and consistently more of a pain to use single sheets.
I know it's not what you asked, but I have heard from a great many people who get the 24" and instantly find it to not be wide enough whereas the 44" can print most anything most anyone wants, including 24 and 17" media.
I first thought I wanted a 24" printer and rapidly found that to be wrong because what I wanted to print was 24" canvases that needed a wrap and some space to handle. and once you've stepped into the world of giant expensive beasts, what's a few more pounds and feet.
-
what media do you want to print? I find canon to be quite nice and consistently more of a pain to use single sheets.
I know it's not what you asked, but I have heard from a great many people who get the 24" and instantly find it to not be wide enough whereas the 44" can print most anything most anyone wants, including 24 and 17" media.
I first thought I wanted a 24" printer and rapidly found that to be wrong because what I wanted to print was 24" canvases that needed a wrap and some space to handle. and once you've stepped into the world of giant expensive beasts, what's a few more pounds and feet.
Same problem I had. I also print canvas and the largest I can go on my 24" is 19" wide whereas my 44" can print up to 39" wide.
-
So, guys, thank you for your replies.
It certainly seems that here at Luminous the Z9 seems to get more use than the Canon.
I had thought of the possibilities of getting a 44" printer as a few of you have suggested, but I really do think that my limit will be 24"
I am a retired male who has spent the last 4 summers at a co-ed children's summer camp where I am the photographer and shoot about 50,000 each summer for past 4 summers. Before that I spent 43 summers running another children's camp.
I also do some odd gigs shooting for different functions throughout the rest of year, and will print some pics for them or for myself as I enjoy shooting mostly landscapes throughout the year.
I have till the end of this month to make a decision as to which printer to order as I do wish to get the rebates that have been given but would love to know the pros and cons of each printer if anyone has experience.
It seems that each day I move back and forth from printer to printer and there does not seem to be a lot of user experience from either printer out there.
Stephen
-
If you anticipate having to print massive amounts of small to medium size prints for the kids then you will find a 24" printer very slow to use as there is no paper tray and every cut sheet has to be fed in one at a time. For that you really need a 17" printer, all of which have paper trays.
24" printers are only really advantageous when printing from rolls.
-
Thank you mearussi for your message about printing smaller prints, and I agree with you.
I decided last summer (2019) that because of the fact that I must print about 2,000 4" x 6" prints during the summer to give to the campers as I post hundreds of pics daily on the camp website for the parents, grandparents, etc. to see but the campers never see them, I decided to prints pics every other day and encourage the kids to take them from the bulletin board where I post them to their cabins where they can put them on their walls to see them daily. They do enjoys seeing themselves.
Back to the fact that you are correct that a 24" printer is not appropriate for this size prints so during the past few years I was using an HP 8610 printer and last year I went to an Epson EcoTank ET-7750 printer which was far more economical to use than the HP.
I will use the 24" printer for pics 8" x 10" or larger.
Stephen
-
If you anticipate having to print massive amounts of small to medium size prints for the kids then you will find a 24" printer very slow to use as there is no paper tray and every cut sheet has to be fed in one at a time. For that you really need a 17" printer, all of which have paper trays.
24" printers are only really advantageous when printing from rolls.
I agree that If you envision printing picture packages for families and the jobs come in at irregular intervals where you can't gang them up on a roll, then a prosumer desktop like a Canon Pro-1000 might be just as wise a choice as a 24 inch roll printer. In all cases, you will find yourself trimming prints, but for example, the Pro-1000 cut sheet handling will be better than any WF printer like the Pro-2000, and cut sheet may be a simpler way to sort your picture package kinds of jobs.
I also agree with Mearrussi If you have any notion about printing on canvas for gallery wraps, you will quickly find the 24 inch width to be very limiting. I'd recommend saving your pennies for a 44 inch roll printer. I think 24 inch models cover the kind of traditional photo enlargement sizes people request most, ie. 16x20 with ample margins up to 24x36 borderless, but again, the 44 inch allows for large sizes and nested photo printing with much more flexibility.
cheers,
Mark
-
Thank you mearussi for your message about printing smaller prints, and I agree with you.
I decided last summer (2019) that because of the fact that I must print about 2,000 4" x 6" prints during the summer to give to the campers as I post hundreds of pics daily on the camp website for the parents, grandparents, etc. to see but the campers never see them, I decided to prints pics every other day and encourage the kids to take them from the bulletin board where I post them to their cabins where they can put them on their walls to see them daily. They do enjoys seeing themselves.
Back to the fact that you are correct that a 24" printer is not appropriate for this size prints so during the past few years I was using an HP 8610 printer and last year I went to an Epson EcoTank ET-7750 printer which was far more economical to use than the HP.
I will use the 24" printer for pics 8" x 10" or larger.
Stephen
Stephen:
I have a couple of the older Zmodels, one that's 12years old. 4x6, 5x7 and smaller prints are actually quite easy to do on the Z printers using the boarderless option and having the printer cut the full width off the roll. Then it's a simple task of cutting the strip images apart. I think that might be simpler than feeding a stack of paper into a feeding tray. You stilll get an occassional misfeed that needs to be taken care of. Using Q-image for layout makes this quite easy!
-
I have an almost new Z3200 (44") I will sell you.
Would be nice to know where you are from.(Profile is empty)
Think I printed something like 40 to 50 large prints with it, just enough to use up the starter carts.
Have a full set of ink in the printer now.
Nice printer but just not fast enough for my shop, it just doesn't fit in.
My 9900 is 50% faster and P8000 twice as fast. More then happy with the older Epson's speed. Just going to get another P8000.
I just did 92 24x36 and 16x20's and they have another batch of 150 to do so I need a backup anyway. The other P8000 is dye sub.
The Z3200 needs a good home, anyone?
-
Mark and Mark both rate the Z9, and really know what they are talking about; I'd consider the Z9+ with vertical cutters, if you're running thousands of little prints, while also wanting the option for bigger output.
For that matter, for the give away prints, something like the Epson D700 will print and cut all day long. Sure the archival nature of the media is less than stellar, but the moment the prints are in the hands of the recipients, digital versions of the images will be replicated on the social webnet. Profiled one up for a friend, and the glossy print in hand is remarkably good. Prints and cuts, prints and cuts...
I haven't looked properly at the archival nature of the Epson events printers, but should, as I occassionally find myself trimming out a few hundred 10x8's for clients, many of whom might one day put their prints into a shoe box under the bed.
-
I have an almost new Z3200 (44") I will sell you.
Would be nice to know where you are from.(Profile is empty)
Think I printed something like 40 to 50 large prints with it, just enough to use up the starter carts.
Have a full set of ink in the printer now.
Nice printer but just not fast enough for my shop, it just doesn't fit in.
My 9900 is 50% faster and P8000 twice as fast. More then happy with the older Epson's speed. Just going to get another P8000.
I just did 92 24x36 and 16x20's and they have another batch of 150 to do so I need a backup anyway. The other P8000 is dye sub.
The Z3200 needs a good home, anyone?
How much are you asking Dan?
-
$1895 for the printer and $395 for the full inks in printer.(LD)
Plus 2 or 3 other full new carts.
$2290
Picked up at my Pa. studio.
-
I just set up a Z9+ 44 inch dual roll/vertical trimmer model in my studio this week, so some light fade test samples will be soon be printed and started in testing. Just getting acquainted with the Z9 now. It's pretty sweet :)
HP chemists would have to have gone seriously backwards on light fade resistance, 2x or more, with the Z9+ Photo Vivid ink set compared to the previous Z3200 Vivera set (which has been tested) before the HP Photo Vivid results would be on a par with the Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set. I doubt that's going to happen (see below).
I now have both a Canon Pro-4000 (ink set is the same as used in the newer Pro2100/4100 series), and the Z9+ with Photo Vivid inks and GE kit. In the interest of full disclosure, at my good friend Mark Lindquist's gentle but persistent request HP management donated the Z9+ to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives with no strings attached. We can test and publish whatever we want with it, otherwise I would not have accepted it. I believe HP's "have at it" approach with Aardenburg is a strong indication HP management is very confident in the Z9+ and the new Photo Vivid ink set. We will find out. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Leaving aside print longevity how the Canons (1000/4000) compare to the HPs (Z3200/Z9+) on print output quality in color and BW? I have the 1000 and the 4000 but if the HP Z9+ is much better I maybe buy one in the future.
Thanks!
Panagiotis
-
I now have both a Canon Pro-4000 (ink set is the same as used in the newer Pro2100/4100 series), and the Z9+ with Photo Vivid inks and GE kit. In the interest of full disclosure, at my good friend Mark Lindquist's gentle but persistent request HP management donated the Z9+ to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives with no strings attached. We can test and publish whatever we want with it, otherwise I would not have accepted it. I believe HP's "have at it" approach with Aardenburg is a strong indication HP management is very confident in the Z9+ and the new Photo Vivid ink set. We will find out. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
It's a great news. Look forward to see some comparison with old Z3200 inks.
-
Leaving aside print longevity how the Canons (1000/4000) compare to the HPs (Z3200/Z9+) on print output quality in color and BW? I have the 1000 and the 4000 but if the HP Z9+ is much better I maybe buy one in the future.
Thanks!
Panagiotis
Because the Z9+ does away with LC, LM, and LLK inks, I am also very curious about initial print quality on the New Z9+ compared to my older Z3200 and also compared to my Pro-4000, also my smaller Pro-1000 and Epson SC P600 desktop printers. I've only taken a very brief look at this issue so far because I have only had the Z9+ running for a few days now. IMHO, for 99% of viewers looking at prints from these different printers at a rational (i.e. normal) viewing distance, the Image quality is excellent from all of them and in high quality printing mode, the observer does not see grain. Most printing experts I suspect will say you can't go wrong purchasing any one of them if your purchase is being determined solely by print output under "best quality" mode printing conditions.
I do plan to take a more serious look as to how we can better objectively quantify the question you are asking. Are there subtle differences where a very discerning viewer might like one printer's output over another, and would that be all the time or just for some specific imaging situations like skin tone reproduction or B&W printing? Not trying to sidestep the question in any way, but in truth, at that level of viewer sophistication, it gets complicated! How inkjet printer screening patterns and dot structures on the paper translate into the visual perception of a continuous tone print at normal viewing distances is a multifaceted issue. For example, the Iris 3047 which ushered in the Digital Fineart printmaking era, had a distinct yet precisely ordered dot structure which is unmistakeable when viewed with an 8x loupe, but at normal viewing distance Iris prints have a gorgeous continuous tone appearance that many collectors really prize.
That said, there's another reason to consider printer dot structure and screening patterns: prints sometime end up being the source original needing to be scanned because the camera source original cannot be found, and in that situation dot structure under higher magnification does play a greater role in scanned output quality.
I can say already that under higher magnification the HP Z9+ begins to show a little more noticeable grain structure overall while the Epson and Canon printers are a little smoother overall, but the Z9+ shows more uniformly pleasing grain throughout the printed color range, whereas, for example, my Canon Pro-1000 exhibits more color noise variation throughout the printed color range. Again. it's complicated.
In full color mode, the Canons and Epsons also reveal obvious color dots in the neutral RGB triplet colors whereas the HP is dead-on photo gray ink only. Those of us with HP Z3200's already know what this means for superior B&W printing, especially when printing in full color mode. The Z9+ continues in the tradition of the Z3200 with a 100% gray component replacement (GCR) method for printing RGB neutral triplets. Canon and Epson apply GCR much less aggressively. It may well be that a focus group being presented blind coded prints of a variety of subjects and being asked to do a paired comparison or rank order type of evaluation may be the only type of study printmakers would accept as a valid answer to your question. Those types of studies take time and money!
Let me close this longwinded comment by telling you my single biggest impression about the Z9+ to date. HP has built into this printer the easiest most effective color calibration/profiling routine I have ever used. Using only 464 patches for color profiling this printer's output rivals the results from my best proflling kit using much higher patch count. The underlying printer calibration/lineariation is so good, that bigger patch counts are definitely in the realm of very diminishing returns. Why HP marketing has so downplayed the on board spectrophotometer and color calibration/profling capability of the Z9+ in their marketing brochures is anybody's guess. Maybe they think color management scares people in general away from buying printers. I think HP marketing should be shouting this capability from the roof top, because for the majority of photographers and printmakers who are not and probably don't want to be color management geeks, the Z9+ handles all that color complexity with sheer elegance and grace :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
$1895 for the printer and $395 for the full inks in printer.(LD)
Plus 2 or 3 other full new carts.
$2290
Picked up at my Pa. studio.
Could it be that DPreview.com is offline? There was a thread there on purchasing a wide format and I linked this thread/message in good spirit but now I recall they can be quite strict on links like that there. I can not reach DPreview.com.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Could it be that DPreview.com is offline? There was a thread there on purchasing a wide format and I linked this thread/message in good spirit but now I recall they can be quite strict on links like that there. I can not reach DPreview.com.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
I can't either.
-
I can't either.
Alright, thank you.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Because the Z9+ does away with LC, LM, and LLK inks, I am also very curious about initial print quality on the New Z9+ compared to my older Z3200 and also compared to my Pro-4000, also my smaller Pro-1000 and Epson SC P600 desktop printers. I've only taken a very brief look at this issue so far because I have only had the Z9+ running for a few days now. IMHO, for 99% of viewers looking at prints from these different printers at a rational (i.e. normal) viewing distance, the Image quality is excellent from all of them and in high quality printing mode, the observer does not see grain. Most printing experts I suspect will say you can't go wrong purchasing any one of them if your purchase is being determined solely by print output under "best quality" mode printing conditions.
I do plan to take a more serious look as to how we can better objectively quantify the question you are asking. Are there subtle differences where a very discerning viewer might like one printer's output over another, and would that be all the time or just for some specific imaging situations like skin tone reproduction or B&W printing? Not trying to sidestep the question in any way, but in truth, at that level of viewer sophistication, it gets complicated! How inkjet printer screening patterns and dot structures on the paper translate into the visual perception of a continuous tone print at normal viewing distances is a multifaceted issue. For example, the Iris 3047 which ushered in the Digital Fineart printmaking era, had a distinct yet precisely ordered dot structure which is unmistakeable when viewed with an 8x loupe, but at normal viewing distance Iris prints have a gorgeous continuous tone appearance that many collectors really prize.
That said, there's another reason to consider printer dot structure and screening patterns: prints sometime end up being the source original needing to be scanned because the camera source original cannot be found, and in that situation dot structure under higher magnification does play a greater role in scanned output quality.
I can say already that under higher magnification the HP Z9+ begins to show a little more noticeable grain structure overall while the Epson and Canon printers are a little smoother overall, but the Z9+ shows more uniformly pleasing grain throughout the printed color range, whereas, for example, my Canon Pro-1000 exhibits more color noise variation throughout the printed color range. Again. it's complicated.
In full color mode, the Canons and Epsons also reveal obvious color dots in the neutral RGB triplet colors whereas the HP is dead-on photo gray ink only. Those of us with HP Z3200's already know what this means for superior B&W printing, especially when printing in full color mode. The Z9+ continues in the tradition of the Z3200 with a 100% gray component replacement (GCR) method for printing RGB neutral triplets. Canon and Epson apply GCR much less aggressively. It may well be that a focus group being presented blind coded prints of a variety of subjects and being asked to do a paired comparison or rank order type of evaluation may be the only type of study printmakers would accept as a valid answer to your question. Those types of studies take time and money!
Let me close this longwinded comment by telling you my single biggest impression about the Z9+ to date. HP has built into this printer the easiest most effective color calibration/profiling routine I have ever used. Using only 464 patches for color profiling this printer's output rivals the results from my best proflling kit using much higher patch count. The underlying printer calibration/lineariation is so good, that bigger patch counts are definitely in the realm of very diminishing returns. Why HP marketing has so downplayed the on board spectrophotometer and color calibration/profling capability of the Z9+ in their marketing brochures is anybody's guess. Maybe they think color management scares people in general away from buying printers. I think HP marketing should be shouting this capability from the roof top, because for the majority of photographers and printmakers who are not and probably don't want to be color management geeks, the Z9+ handles all that color complexity with sheer elegance and grace :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Thank you very much for the detailed response. I appreciate it and find it very informative and useful.
-
Well, good evening to one and all!
It has really been a learning experience reading the replies that helped me decide which printer I should get. I have come away from this challenge with 2 decisions, and you all helped!
first, I will buy the HP Z9+. It still seems to be early to get anyone who has used it for awhile but whoever has one seems to be quite happy (thrilled may be a better word),
Secondly, I am now not so sure that I should get the 24" as a few have mentioned that if I will print with canvas, I may want to move to a larger printer as the wrap around will only allow me to print at 19".
BUT
there is still one more question I would like help with, and that is the CO kit that is sold separately, and can be purchased whenever one decides.
I read somewhere and I do not remember where, that when does install it, it can not be undone, but I guess if the operator can turn it off or on whenever one wants to use it, what is the negative of getting it when one purchases the printer?
Hope to hear from someone who has used the CO and the results you can get with it very soon.
Are we able to turn it on/off whenever we wish?
Stephen
-
Hope to hear from someone who has used the CO and the results you can get with it very soon.
Are we able to turn it on/off whenever we wish?
Stephen
HP makes the Gloss Enhancer (GE) an optional channel because some folks only print on matte media and don't need it. If you wish to install it you buy the GE kit which comes with 300ml GE cartridge, USB stick w/softare to upgrade the printer firmware for GE, and a new print head. If you elect to install the GE Kit at the very beginning when you first initialize the printer, make sure to install the GE cartridge at the very beginning and follow the prompts to install the GE. Then the original print head will be used and you will be able to keep the print head which comes in the kit as a universal spare. That's a cool feature of the Z9+. Once operational the GE can indeed be turned on and off at your user discretion, but I don't see any options for different ways to lay it down. No econo mode versus full coat coverage. That said, The Z9+ lays down GE very sensibly. It does cleacoat image white areas but doesn't extend to paper margin areas like some printers do when using an "overall" mode. If you want page margins with clear coat, just add a white border into the image.
I will share with all of you, an amusing story with my new Z9+. I started using the Z9+ with a cheap roll of Glossy RC media to get familiar with it, and I noticed the color profile patch chart printed the GE into the image white areas because I'd chosen a custom media preset option to use the GE. Yet when I started printing real images, my first impression was that the printer had now defaulted to an "economy mode" where the GE was not being laid down into the pure white areas. I couldn't figure out what setting I'd missed in the driver, but otherwise, I had the impression the GE must be getting used because the glossy prints I was making have very little bronzing, not perfect, but very low and essentially what Epson achieves without use of a GO channel on its WF printers. Well, it turns out the GE feature is checked "off" by default in the printer driver, and the printer was not using the GE at all! I missed it because the HP driver locates the checkbox for GE in a very odd place. It's under the "color options" menu (at least in the Mac version of driver), which is a lame place to put it because typical printer driver practice for most printers is that anyone who uses application managed color (such as with photoshop or LR), the color option menu is never used. It's only used when one is following a "printer manages color" workflow. The "paper/quality" menu option is thus the logical place to locate a gloss enhancer/optimizer setting. It just didn't occur to me to look for the GE "on/off" checkbox in that location in the driver. I assumed that the custom media preset had "baked" in the GE ON mode, but that's not correct. It did when producing the ICC Profile, but to use the feature when actually printing, you have to check the box located under the color option menu. The tip off came when all else failed and I read the manual! ;) But even the manual only took note that a checkbox for on/off was available. It doesn't say where you will find it in the driver! Once I figured this out (it took a lot of head scratching!) the GE coats the image like it does with the ICC color profile test chart, and all is well.
If you aren't too fussy about bronzing and differential gloss, you might just want to hold off and install the kit later (albeit you will need the spare print head from the kit), but if you are very picky about gloss differential and bronzing like I am, then you are going to want the GE kit. It does what it's designed to do, namely uniformize the gloss appearance and increase the "vividness" of the printed image colors on glossy and luster type photo media.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Eternal Camper, This may be too late to do you any good but I'll toss it out anyway, just in case. ImagePrint software RIP can now be linked to a Graphtec plotter with a cutting head. You do your print and cut layouts in ImagePrint (either Black or Red version), then print the photos on sheet or roll paper in a standard Canon or Epson printer (up to 24" wide, currently). Then take the sheet/roll fragment of ganged prints to the Graphtec, insert the paper, and start it up. It will cut out the prints for you, leaving just a couple very tiny spikes per print so the prints don't just fall out. When it's done cutting, you simply pop the prints out with no real effort. I saw this in operation in early October at a shindig put on by JVH Technical in Bellevue, WA. It was pretty slick. You can "embed" the images in fancy cutouts, or just cut them right out with straight edges and square or rounded corners.
These URLs may helpful if you wish to learn more about this product pairing:
www.colorbytesoftware.com (information and videos)
https://www.graphtecamerica.com
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1514524-REG/canon_4511c001aa_24_ce6000_60_contour_cutter.html [note there are two Graphtecs here, 24" & 48" max paper length]
I don't know where you are located, but if you're in/close to the pacific NW, JVH Technical is a very helpful outfit:
www.JVHtech.com; JohnJVHtech@gmail.com
Mark G.
-
Eternal Camper, This may be too late to do you any good but I'll toss it out anyway, just in case. ImagePrint software RIP can now be linked to a Graphtec plotter with a cutting head. You do your print and cut layouts in ImagePrint (either Black or Red version), then print the photos on sheet or roll paper in a standard Canon or Epson printer (up to 24" wide, currently). Then take the sheet/roll fragment of ganged prints to the Graphtec, insert the paper, and start it up. It will cut out the prints for you, leaving just a couple very tiny spikes per print so the prints don't just fall out. When it's done cutting, you simply pop the prints out with no real effort. I saw this in operation in early October at a shindig put on by JVH Technical in Bellevue, WA. It was pretty slick. You can "embed" the images in fancy cutouts, or just cut them right out with straight edges and square or rounded corners.
These URLs may helpful if you wish to learn more about this product pairing:
www.colorbytesoftware.com (information and videos)
https://www.graphtecamerica.com
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1514524-REG/canon_4511c001aa_24_ce6000_60_contour_cutter.html [note there are two Graphtecs here, 24" & 48" max paper length]
I don't know where you are located, but if you're in/close to the pacific NW, JVH Technical is a very helpful outfit:
www.JVHtech.com; JohnJVHtech@gmail.com
Mark G.
So, Mark, are you saying that to use ImagePrint and its new option, I would have to purchase a new Graphtec plotter with a cutting head?
I am truly not that interested in using ImagePrint at all in that case as it will really cost me a lot of money to upgrade from ImagePrint V8 that I have now.
I should be getting my Z9+ printer sometime this week and I will be printing from LR Classic at this time and if needed, my try to get the Mac version of Qimage.
Stephen
-
Absolutely. Even the previous models have a capability that only people like us who use them regularly even seem to know about. I can make great profiles on Kozo, uncoated printmaking papers , silk, linen, and just about anything automatically while controlling ink limits in a few minutes and they are generally more accurate than my X-Rite i1 Pro 2040 patch hand measured equipment that can be quite demanding and a pain.
Why HP didn’t send people around to every art school and ad photographers group in the world is confounding. They started with a big push around 2007 then just went silent. I talk to excellent photographers all the time who had no idea HP was even in the art printing realm. Maybe they promote the Z series more in Europe, but certainly not here in the US. In their little blurb on the new Z9+ they don’t even mention black and white capability. Maybe they consider this still in beta test. Epson has come out with three different systems in that time frame ( too many) and promote the hell out of them.
John
I think HP marketing should be shouting this capability from the roof top, because for the majority of photographers and printmakers who are not and probably don't want to be color management geeks, the Z9+ handles all that color complexity with sheer elegance and grace :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
[/quote]