Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: thunter on December 16, 2006, 07:21:46 am
-
HP Z2100 vs Epson 4800 vs Canon Ipf 5000 shootout...
I've recently witnessed a 'shootout' of the above machines as set up by a local Melbourne distributor of the three brands... both to bring the salefolk up to speed and to engender interest in the soon to arrive HP Z series.
I'm in the market for a new Archival med. format printer. I'm very fussy about what I want and I'm wanting much in a machine.
I'm wanting a machine that will serve for many years and IMHO I think that the current market has not quite reached its zenith in value for money (like I think maybe the SLR Digital Camera market has done for example).
I'm debating which of the three machines would suit my business extention (currently I'm a conservation picture framer and oil artist) into professional-grade printing with wedding photographers in mind and other photographic and digital artists.
Below were my criteria I've been working with while researching these past 12 months... and with each new machine release one hopes more of the 'wish list' functions would be met.
My Criteria... roughly in order of preference
1. 17" or 24" archival grade inkjet.
2. Extremely fine detail with very wide colour gamut
3. Economical ink usage
4. Adequate range of Wilhelm tested photo and fine art papers available
5. Good backup service
6. Good speed and reasonably quiet
7. Can manage rolls, cassette loaded paper and matboard thick media (i.e. 1.5mm)
8. Reasonable user interface with clear colour-management instructions (if there is such a thing as I'm pretty new to this labyrinth...)
9. Size... which has only become an issue when I actually saw how much of my workshop would be dedicated to the machine after seeing the Canon!
Anyway... my somewhat naive but critical responses to the results of the shootout at the distributors...
HP Z2100
(the 3100 with the gloss optimizer was not available though some prints from HP were available... but these don't really show a great range of gamut or detail, so I like to put my own images through the machines so I can compare apples with apples). I was able to do this with the HP 2100, the Epson 7800, and the Canon IPF 5000.
Positives vs negatives.
+ built in spectro... enabled almost perfect matches from paper to paper with the same images! ... due of course to the built in spectro. This is HP's most outstanding feature and if you plan to use a wide variety of papers, this feature is a must. No more building or buying paper profiles!!
+ very good gamut & excellent detail
+ archival inks and fair range of OEM papers
+ good user interface and manual
+ good backup service (at least in Melb. Australia)
+ appears to be economical with 130ml cartridges but you have to replace print heads x 4 every 3 lots of cartridges ($95AU per head;)
+ reasonably compact for its 24" output
+ water resistant inks though they scuff easily (less so with the gloss optimized samples)
+ excellent gray scale
- built in spectro... if you use a limited range of papers, the cost is high for the machine (approx. $6800 AU inc. tax for the 24" Z2100... excl. stand & media bin = extra $522 inc. tax, compared with Ep. 7800 24" around $5000AU, and Canon 17"around $3000 AU)
- no cassettes as each single sheet must be manually fed from the rear. So the machine needs an operator there full time if you are printing on anything but rolls!
- maximum paper thickness is only 0.8mm.
Epson 4800/7800
+ good colour gamut with excellent detail.
+ excellent range of OEM & 3rd party papers with numerous 3rd party profiles available.
+ good archival grade inks
+ good after sales service
+ good user interface
+ if you use the machine constantly to prevent head clogging, it is very reliable & economical with large cartridges... if you don't change blacks!
+ 4800 (but not 7800 which apart from roll feed is a single sheet feed... and quite awkward at that), has multi sheet cassette type tray for doing unattended multiple images
+ excellent gray scale
+ does not scuff as easily as HP but appears water resistant
+ good size footprint
+ takes 1.5mm thick media
- the black ink cartridge changing = absolute waste of time and ink/money issue
- head clogging a high likelihood if machine is not running hot daily = absolute waste of time and ink/money issue (still waiting to hear about the Ep 3800 regarding this)
- need to buy specialist profiles for each paper to get best from machine (or spend on spectro & add more time and yet another steep learning curve)
Canon IPF 5000
+ excellent colour & detail
+ archival inks (still under test by Wilhelm)
+ fair range of papers (still under test by Wilhelm)
+ appears to be very economical with no head clogging issues
+ scuffing appears less than HP but inks are not water resistant
+ cassette feed + single feet tray feed + roll feed = plenty of options
+ takes 1.5mm thick media
- pathetic user interface and manual will no doubt frustrate and confuse new users (like me!)... as if colour management isn't enough of an issue even for the experienced! This is my main issue with this machine... the amount of unnecessary learning & tweeking involved.
- Canon backup appears to be somewhat lacking from reports from two distributors here in Aus.
- no 24" option offered
- inks are not water resistant (though this would not be a problem with works being framed, and you can spray on a sealer if they stay exposed)
- takes up far too much room for the size of the print it produces... though I suppose this is partly offset by the fact it needs space behind for the very thick media capacity straight through paper path
- need to buy specialist profiles for each paper to get best from machine (or spend on spectro & add more time and yet another steep learning curve)
General Conclusions
Each machine produced excellent detail and continuous tone. They each had excellent colour but the Canon with the 12 colour inkset produced wider range... particularly of blues/mauves.
Each machine offers good OEM paper selection, though Epson has more... though one rep. spoke of the annoyance expressed of late by some long term Epson users finding unacceptable variations in the Epson papers which may be due to slight alterations in paper formulations to comply with the new ink sets with the latest machines.
They each had adequate speed and quietness of operation for my purposes.
None of the machines at max. resolution showed any better detail than my Ep. 1290, which is not to say they are poor, but that technology enabling detail is no longer an issue with machines over the past 3-4 years. They're all outstanding.
All these pigment ink machines show some gloss differential on gloss papers which can only probably be really eliminated by use of a gloss enhancer which the machine sprays on (eg like the HPZ 3100 series) or do it yourself after.
I'd already discounted in my mind the 4800/7800 mainly because of the head clogging issue which so many seem to have had problems with (as I have with my 1290) and ink cartridge swaping issue... which I'd need to be doing regularly. The Epson 3800 is not yet available here for trial and while I'm currently still open to it, I'm disappointed with the lack of roll feeder, and the smaller cartridge capacity... and from forum users - it does not appear to be very economical. But I've had no samples from it to compare with my many samples from the other machines.
So where am I at in choosing a machine? Closer than 6 months ago but not convinced this is quite the right time to jump in yet.
Do I need to have a built in spectro? Just how many papers am I going to offer customers? How much money do I want sitting there in stock? How many archivally-untested papers do I want to promote or offer? How much time do I want to put in to unravelling Canon's messy directions and foibles? And why hasn't Canon forecast a 24" model? It's unlike them to leave out any segment of a market... if cameras are anything to go by.
Still ruminating... but I hope this has been helpful to someone. There are many on this forum who have been very helpful to me.
-
I can't see why HP's use of a spectro to calibrate itself will render obsolete the need of ICC profiles. In fact, I can see just the opposite. ICC profiles needing to be recreated every time the printer re-calibrates itself.
Maybe I'm missing something? Info is really scarce at this point in time on the exact use and operation of the built in spectro function.
-
NikosR, to you really need to quote the entire passage to add your comment? Pity the poor dial-up users. PLEASE trim your quoted passages.
Peter
-
What Peter said. And a built-in spectro will make the printer's print behavior consistent across multiple paper types. The whole point of a spectrophotometer is to calibrate to consistent standard; if that did not happen the spectro would be broken.
-
What Peter said. And a built-in spectro will make the printer's print behavior consistent across multiple paper types. The whole point of a spectrophotometer is to calibrate to consistent standard; if that did not happen the spectro would be broken.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, sorry for the long quote, I didn't mean to quote anything in the first place, just pressed the wrong button.
Secondly, I still can't see why the calibration would mean ICC profiles would not be required as per the OP's comments.
-
First, sorry for the long quote, I didn't mean to quote anything in the first place, just pressed the wrong button.
Secondly, I still can't see why the calibration would mean ICC profiles would not be required as per the OP's comments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My understanding was that the HP was able both to self-calibrate, but also to generate an ICC profile for the paper.
One open question was whether this really makes sense or not, since the ICC profile is generated just after the print, meaning before inks actually dry and settle to their final color.
One would expect a good match between screen and print when looking at the print just after it comes out of the printer, with some gap arising when looking at the print a few days later. I guess that the importance of the gap would depend on the type of paper used.
Someone had mentioned that it was possible to trick the beta HP Z3100 in waiting 24 hours before building the ICC profile. I wonder if this has become a feature on the final production Z3100?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To answer a couple of points:
The HP Z series uses the built-in spectrophotometer to build icc profiles through an automated process. You can, essentially, create an icc profile for any substrate loaded into the printer with one mouse click. Thus, if you're really fussy and want to do a new profile if the humidity changes or the inks get a little older, it's just a matter of selecting the option and letting the printer do its work. Obviously, this is convenient if you use lots of different media, not to mention that the process is entirely automated. The printer just reads the patches it prints out and does all the work for you. The only thing is that it prints out about 500 patches, so I don't know how the profiles compare to profiles made with considerably more patches. (Perhaps they compare just fine. I just don't know.)
In regard to the ink drying and changing characteristics, the automated profile creating software allows a second option which lets you print out the profile patches in one session, remove the substrate from the printer, and then complete the process sometime later, whenever you want (obviously, when you're convinced the ink has dried and undergone any changes its going to go through). All you have to do is put the substrate with the patches back in the printer and complete the process.
Mike
-
P.S. - Also, though the spectrophotometer is used for both calibration and profile creation, it can also be used for either one or the other. So, you can calibrate each time you profile, or do more calibrations than profiles, or vice versa.
Mike
-
Thanks for the clarification Mike.
Best regards,
Bernard
-
In regard to the ink drying and changing characteristics, the automated profile creating software allows a second option which lets you print out the profile patches in one session, remove the substrate from the printer, and then complete the process sometime later…[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wouldn't you think that the profiling takes into consideration that there will be dry down ?
I just can't imagine the HP engineers who came up with this not allowing for the patches being 'just printed' when read. And then adding the second method for the ultimate tweeking if needed.
I could of course be wrong because I also can't image Epson thinking that they should release the 3800 without solving the head clogging issues.
-
Wouldn't you think that the profiling takes into consideration that there will be dry down ?
I just can't imagine the HP engineers who came up with this not allowing for the patches being 'just printed' when read. And then adding the second method for the ultimate tweeking if needed.
I could of course be wrong because I also can't image Epson thinking that they should release the 3800 without solving the head clogging issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, you're correct, the first of the two options, the one-step profile creation, takes about a half-hour total and does allow for drying of the inks. I don't know if this time frame would allow for the colors to become stable in every possible ink/substrate combination. At any rate, the HP engineers have added the second option as well, which, I suppose, is a good option to have should it prove necessary. Perhaps an 'ultimate tweaking' option as you said.
Mike
-
Just thought of another reason for printing out the patches and then creating a profile at a later time... to get a profile that takes the effect of a liquid laminate into account. I know the printer has a gloss cart, but this wouldn't stop me from wanting the UV-blocking qualities of a good liquid laminate for stuff like canvases, which would be my primary use for the printer. Of course, you can be much more accurate if you profile after applying the same liquid laminate you plan to use on your prints.
Mike
-
P.S. (again) - I believe that the time allowed for drying during the automated profiling process is 5 minutes, which HP considers sufficient for most quick-drying media. For those instances where 5 minutes isn't sufficient, even if rare, I'm sure the two-stage profiling will come in handy (and keep people from complaining later on that they can't do accurate profiles for certain media due to this reason).
Mike
-
I just can't imagine the HP engineers who came up with this not allowing for the patches being 'just printed' when read. And then adding the second method for the ultimate tweeking if needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is just no way that HP engineers could predict how the drying of inks can affect final colors on papers that have not been tested.
I know that prints made with my Epson 4000 don't look the same 5 minutes after having been printed, and 10 hours later. Contrast gets better as blacks get a bit darker. Since the appearance of blacks and the fine control of its density is key when printing on Matte stocks, the ability of the HP to create profiles at a later stage is IMHO a central part of the offering.
I would personnally not have considered buying it had this not been possible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is just no way that HP engineers could predict how the drying of inks can affect final colors on papers that have not been tested.
I know that prints made with my Epson 4000 don't look the same 5 minutes after having been printed, and 10 hours later. Contrast gets better as blacks get a bit darker. Since the appearance of blacks and the fine control of its density is key when printing on Matte stocks, the ability of the HP to create profiles at a later stage is IMHO a central part of the offering.
I would personnally not have considered buying it had this not been possible.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, I agree with you. The Ultrachrome inks (K3 or earlier) on matte paper anyhow, I find require over-night to look right. When the prints first come out of the printer (in my case the 4800) they have a slightly muddy glazed-over look (which I believe is reflectance from ink that is not fully dried yet) and one's first instinct is to throw the print in the trash basket - but the next morning it looks super. So they don't get trashed unless they still look muddy the next day!
This is an interesting thread. I'm looking to replace my 4800 and so far the only thing that answers all the issues is the HP z3100, which is expensive and very large. It is reasonable to expect that HP will be producing a Z model in 17 or 18 inches, but there are not even any rumours out there about its specs or timing. The Canon IP% 5000 makes lovely prints but is absolutely not user-friendly; I was generally disappointed with the build quality of the Epson 3800 - but the prints are fine. Ink cost per print will likely be considerably higher than on the 4000/4800 and it is no speed demon. I think HP has an overall lead in this horse race right now.
-
So they don't get trashed unless they still look muddy the next day!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same thing here Mark, few survive anyway, but none would if I were to judge just after printing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great thread- really useful,
What worries me about the HP is the smaller 130mm carts and the head replacements- how is it going to be to run price wise next to my epson 7500 with 220 mil carts (9500 carts with tabs hacked off).
The 7500 has no head clogging compared to my 4000 which is alwaysclogged- where did Epson go wrong?
-
The twin pack of 130ml cartridges is priced the same as 1 Epson 220ml cartridge or thereabouts.
The heads are as permanent as Epson print heads thus will last a good time before nozzles start failing. When you do need to replace the head ( all are 2 color per head) you just plug in a new one. They are very reasonably priced compared to all others.
On dry times> the HP inks are stable to <0.5 dE in <5 minutes and stay put there after.
Drying time are known for all HP OEM media and assumed for others. If when profiling you prefer to read in the patches at a later time/date you simply check the radio button to do this. Not really a trick but a planned feature.
On patches. I think it is 463 patches on the built in profiler standard on all Z printers. Yet the option for a software / hardware Gretag/X-Rite Profile Maker upgrade is going to cost no more than a few ( I can't remember exact pricing) good custom profiles would. It has an excellent editor in it and can take the infamous Bill Atkinson TC 9.18 (918 patch) charts. A very worthwhile option of any photographer.
On calibration: profiles are always created after calibrating. Hence it's the calibration that brings the printer and media combo back in line for continuous use of already generated profiles. Only when media or other external influences are carrying changes would you have to re-profile. Normally the paper vendors should be meeting specification hence little change between rolls should occur.
-
Great thread- really useful,
What worries me about the HP is the smaller 130mm carts and the head replacements- how is it going to be to run price wise next to my epson 7500 with 220 mil carts (9500 carts with tabs hacked off).
The 7500 has no head clogging compared to my 4000 which is alwaysclogged- where did Epson go wrong?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen a two-pack of the 130ml carts going for as little as $92. That's, obviously, 260ml, and pretty comparable to the price of a 220ml K3 cart. Also, if the HP is indeed more frugal with ink, and far less prone to clogging, that 260ml may go quite a lot farther than it would on an Epson.
I definitely have no affiliation with HP, and have never owned a HP printer (though a Z series printer is a prime contender for a future purchase), but I was worried about the ink cost as well (considering the high cost of the Vivera carts for the B9180). Which is why I looked into this myself.
Mike
P.S. - I think I remember someone's comment about the print heads having to be changed somewhat frequently. I've looked into this, and it's not true. You may never have to replace a print head, but, if you do, it's fairly easy and inexpensive, particularly compared to an out-of-warranty print head replacement by Epson.
-
P.S. - I think I remember someone's comment about the print heads having to be changed somewhat frequently. I've looked into this, and it's not true. You may never have to replace a print head, but, if you do, it's fairly easy and inexpensive, particularly compared to an out-of-warranty print head replacement by Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi, I spoke to the same rep I believe the original poster is refering to and he told me the Z series HP print heads need to be replaced every 3 ink cartidges but didn't know if this was a recommendation by the software or it won't work until the head is replaced. Apparently HP (and Canon ipf series) use "thermal" print heads instead of the Epson piezo technology which means they are cheaper to make but wear out quickly!
I hope he is wrong on this but as he apparently has the only working Z3100 912 ink 44" machine here in Oz, he may know. Sure takes the gloss off if this is true as although cheap, there are 6 heads to replace!
He thinks that after testing they may find the Epson and HP have similar overall costs due to Epson's heavy ink use with self cleaning compared with HP's frugal ink use but head replacement costs.
Mike, can you please elaborate on your knowledge about this please?...I hope you are right!
Evo
Oh and by the way, the Z3100 12 ink machines really should be looked at as 11 inks as one is the "Gloss coating"! Does anyone know which ink colour the gloss is paired with?
-
My Z3100 review will be online in about a week to 10 days, likely with answers to all of the questions that people have about it.
There's a lot more to this printer than meets the eye. It's quite remarkable.
Michael
-
I'm getting the feeling the new HP series will end up being the "Cat's Meow" of printers. I stayed away from the Canon 5000 simply because of all the "issues" and have been waiting for the next "BIG" printer (though I did order an Epson 3800) which I believe will be the HP Z3100 and I think I'm going to take the plunge; I'll EAGERLY await Michael's review! I've had great success with HP in the past, but then Epson (and eventually Canon) just rolled over HP making their photo printers almost insignificant until recently. Competition sure is great and it's very nice to see Canon and now HP throw their collective hats into the inkjet photo ring. I agree that prints produced by all 3 manufacturers are "equal" and print speed, ease of use, features, etc. are most important.
I do have one question for Michael. Epson has a proven track record with inkjet photo printers as well as archival printing, neither Canon nor Hp do; what made you take a chance with Canon since you sell your prints? Did you have any trepidation making the leap to Canon IPF5000? I was quite surprised to see your latest portfolios being printed with the Canon printer, obviously you have no worries or concerns??
Gary
-
The biggest concerns I had about the HP (absent a review re: image quality, etc.) were:
1) Cost - over $4000 U.S. compared to $1395 I paid for the IPF5000. Of course, it includes a built in spectrophotometer, but I already own one.
2) Concerns about whether you can easily feed sheets from a Cassette like the Canon. If you don't have this, printing on sheets could be a much bigger hassle.
I look forward to Michael's review.
--John
-
Gary,
For me initially the attraction of the iPF5000 was not having to swap blacks as one does with Epson's large format K3 ink printers.
Since that move I have nothing but praise for the 5000's image quality and reliability. During early December I printed some 1,700 11X17" prints in 25 days of almost continious use, without a head clog, misfire or feed problem. Quite remarkable.
The printer still annoys with its poor user interface and lack of accesible documentation, but otherwise its a honey.
John,
The Z series printers do not have paper cassettes. There is only sheet feed or roll feed. Same as the large Epsons like the 7800 and 9800.
Also, you can't compare the cost of the iPF5000 and the Z printers, they are quite different beasts – different size, different features, different markets.
As for price, figure in the fact that they have a built-in spectrophotometer, a 40Gb hard drive and a web server, and you'll see that they are very compatatively priced.
Michael
-
I agree about not being able to compare the Canon and HP - two completely different printers. I find a need for both, and neither one will do it all. The Canon can print no larger than 17" obviously, and the HP can do 24" (or 44"). Yet the 24" printers don't do sheets well, and most of my printing is on 13x19 sheets - I don't like rolls other than for larger prints. The HP 130 was so great since it had a cassette and did 24" rolls, but I don't think we are going to see that again with any pigment printers, at least not in the near future. So my only solution is to have more than one printer - and since HP doesn't make a 17" one I now have the Canon 17" and the HP 24" (the z3100 being delivered tomorrow), plus two 13" printers to carry to workshops (Epson and HP). I should be a happy camper - at least until the next Epson line comes out...
-
I wonder how difficult it would be to make a paper cassette for the HP Z3100? I do want to print using sheets, there has to be some work around. I'm sure in 2007 we will see Epson and Canon new models with some of my top 10 desired features, however it seems that every single new printer we take 2 steps forward with 1 or 2 steps backwards. Eventually we might have the "Holy Grail" of printers, but it would probably hurt business since they depend upon all of us to upgrade as do car manufacturers. For now I just use multiple printers to handle various tasks.
Gary
-
None of these large roll paper printers, from any manufacturer, are designed to take paper cassettes, and to imagine that one could be retrofitted is to miss the point.
If you need a cassette-based printer then something like the Canon iPF5000 is a good choice, since it can handle the largest papers that are commonly made. But, be aware that the better art papers won't feed properly from the cassette, and you'll have to feed them single sheet anyhow.
One device can't do everything that everyone needs.
Michael
-
I think it would be a marvelous idea to produce a 17" version of the Z3100, has anyone heard of such a machine on the horizon? Michael, how is the print speed with the Z3100? Does the gloss optimizer slow it down? Jim
-
<<None of these large roll paper printers, from any manufacturer, are designed to take paper cassettes, and to imagine that one could be retrofitted is to miss the point.>>
Actually the HP 130 has one and it is great. A very simple concept that makes the printer useful for a wide range of media sizes from small sheets up to 24" rolls. If only it were a pigment printer...
-
If I may indulge my sarcastic sense of humor -
----------
The good news is you get a printer that relinearizes with a button press, giving repeatable prints.
The bad news is you need a linearization tool because everytime you swap out a head you really should relinearize ....
-----------
As for some here who wonder whether they should go for Canon or Epson or HP - I think all brands deliver very good quality these days, if properly profiled...Let's be thankful for the competition, at least the quality of the big three keeps getting better, even though the running costs are stratospheric.
Edmund
The twin pack of 130ml cartridges is priced the same as 1 Epson 220ml cartridge or thereabouts.
The heads are as permanent as Epson print heads thus will last a good time before nozzles start failing. When you do need to replace the head ( all are 2 color per head) you just plug in a new one. They are very reasonably priced compared to all others.
On dry times> the HP inks are stable to <0.5 dE in <5 minutes and stay put there after.
Drying time are known for all HP OEM media and assumed for others. If when profiling you prefer to read in the patches at a later time/date you simply check the radio button to do this. Not really a trick but a planned feature.
On patches. I think it is 463 patches on the built in profiler standard on all Z printers. Yet the option for a software / hardware Gretag/X-Rite Profile Maker upgrade is going to cost no more than a few ( I can't remember exact pricing) good custom profiles would. It has an excellent editor in it and can take the infamous Bill Atkinson TC 9.18 (918 patch) charts. A very worthwhile option of any photographer.
On calibration: profiles are always created after calibrating. Hence it's the calibration that brings the printer and media combo back in line for continuous use of already generated profiles. Only when media or other external influences are carrying changes would you have to re-profile. Normally the paper vendors should be meeting specification hence little change between rolls should occur.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
...Let's be thankful for the competition, at least the quality of the big three keeps getting better, even though the running costs are stratospheric.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The running costs are a total steal. What is stratospheric is the potential that's available to us.
All of these printers can produce predictable and repeatable, consistent results of much higher quality than ever before. Archival printing is in the hands of the layman and the pro alike. Paper choices are seemingly endless and readily available in sizes from note cards to murals.
Gone are the days of the toxic darkroom. My fingernails are no longer yellowed from fixer and the saturation of silver, selenium and bleach in my liver is hopefully reducing over time. None of these heavy metals are being released into the water table after I end a printing session.
The current state of the art in inkjet printing is amazing, though clearly still in it's infancy.
The discussions here are often among those who have no idea what it was like 'in the old days,' as little as 10 years ago.
-
The discussions here are often among those who have no idea what it was like 'in the old days,' as little as 10 years ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days. Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!
Gary
-
Phew!...I'm glad to see Michael thinks it's around 12 ink cartidges per print head change, thanks Micheal!
Now that's sorted I just need a comparison expected ink use with say a 9800 or ipf8000 before laying out the cash on Z3100 44", 12 inker!
Wonder if Micheal will be able to offer any info via the software data?
Evo
ps how's the gloss ink use too?
-
Anyone have an idea how fast the HP z3100 prints in high res compared to the Epson and Canon printers? Right now I am printing out 15, 30x40 full color posters @ 300dpi and it took 8 hrs just to print out ten of them on my Epson 9600 printer. Fortunately we aren't too busy but I'd like to handle more volume jobs and need a printer that can do it.
-
Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days. Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!
Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Last Sunday I spent three hours cleaning out a fair amount of my ex-darkroom-turned-storage-room, including a couple of 3.5 gal. containers with R5 developer and blix that had been fermenting for over 6 years. I needed some space so I could move some stuff from my main work room and make space for my iPF5000. I'm glad that's over! Now if I could figure out a way to sell somebody my Jobo Colorstar 2000 analyzer ...
-
Now if I could figure out a way to sell somebody my Jobo Colorstar 2000 analyzer ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
eBay (you'd be surprised what there is a market for!)
-
I really think that we can wait one more day until michaels review is up. Most of our answers will be answered.
-
I really think that we can wait one more day until michaels review is up. Most of our answers will be answered.
Hopefully our questions too!
(Mine being how these printers handle deckle edge papers)
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
This is my experience testing the 3 printers:
Canon IP: expensive ink cartridges!
expensive printhead
bad service, no support from dealers!
colour range smaller than HP / Epson despite the 12 colours!
Fast printing at low resolutions, slow at photo quality (same as Epson)!
Color degradations, after a few month black is grey...
overall rating : 6
I do not recommend to buy the Canon printers! If their cameras are good
than I rate their printers as bad
HP Z2100 : Thermal heads needs regurly replacing ( = COST)
Spectometer waste of time ( each day 10 minits calibrating)
There are 1000 nozzles for each color but they are not all used...when
the nozzles block it simply take another nozzle = deflections =
calibrations = time waste!!!
It is an expensive machine because we only use 2 or 3 papers!!!
overall rating : 7
We use this printer for 1 month...and already replaced 4 printheads!!!
Epson SP7800 : super quality on Epson Photo Glossy and FujiFilm premium photo
paper!
Can print on carton board 1,2mm thick!
We have this printer for 1 year... NEVER got cloggings!
We have done +- 9500sqm
Free ICC profiles from FujiFilm!!!
anyway we sell the posters, prints and pictures...so are we only using Quality brands, we are not interested in cheap papers that deterioate the printer or that affect our quality assets!
-
Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days. Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!
Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not really a matter of whether the inkjet is a replacement for the darkroom. Each has its place. For example, if I need to make 40 8x10's, it would take an eternity to do via inkjet. I can do it in the darkroom in a couple of hours.
Also, I've yet to see an inkjet print that compares to a fiber-base glossy black-and-white.
Inkjet or Darkroom? Both!
-
It's not really a matter of whether the inkjet is a replacement for the darkroom. Each has its place. For example, if I need to make 40 8x10's, it would take an eternity to do via inkjet. I can do it in the darkroom in a couple of hours.
Also, I've yet to see an inkjet print that compares to a fiber-base glossy black-and-white.
Inkjet or Darkroom? Both!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm NOT quite sure what you consider an eternity (it's subjective & relative) but I can print out 40 8x10 prints within 2 hours, even at 3 hours I wouldn't consider that an eternity. And if I were in a huge rush I could utilize all 6 printers at once and get the job completed in minutes. I'm assuming you are just referring to the printing process and NOT the inclusion of the time spent manipulating each photo in Photoshop?
As far as which looks "better", that's individual taste and I wouldn't debate that point, because everybody knows what they like.
Gary
-
This is my experience testing the 3 printers:
Canon IP: expensive ink cartridges!
expensive printhead
bad service, no support from dealers!
colour range smaller than HP / Epson despite the 12 colours!
Fast printing at low resolutions, slow at photo quality (same as Epson)!
Color degradations, after a few month black is grey...
overall rating : 6
I do not recommend to buy the Canon printers! If their cameras are good
than I rate their printers as bad
HP Z2100 : Thermal heads needs regurly replacing ( = COST)
Spectometer waste of time ( each day 10 minits calibrating)
There are 1000 nozzles for each color but they are not all used...when
the nozzles block it simply take another nozzle = deflections =
calibrations = time waste!!!
It is an expensive machine because we only use 2 or 3 papers!!!
overall rating : 7
We use this printer for 1 month...and already replaced 4 printheads!!!
Epson SP7800 : super quality on Epson Photo Glossy and FujiFilm premium photo
paper!
Can print on carton board 1,2mm thick!
We have this printer for 1 year... NEVER got cloggings!
We have done +- 9500sqm
Free ICC profiles from FujiFilm!!!
anyway we sell the posters, prints and pictures...so are we only using Quality brands, we are not interested in cheap papers that deterioate the printer or that affect our quality assets!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm curious about a few comments. Are you saying that the Canon printers are slow? Or just the IPF5000? My experience is that the Canon inkjets are extremely fast and I own a lot of them; though NOT the IPF5000. I started doing inkjet prints in 1998 (with an HP) and in the past 9 years I have owned a lot of inkjet printers from HP (I started with them) Epson and Canon and my experience has been, Canon were the speed demons but when I need to print a photo to last I use an Epson. I suppose that both HP and Canon have caught up (some say have passed) to Epson archival printing as well as quality, but for me they are still new and unproven. However if the IPF issues get resolved and or a 17" HP Z series gets introduced I will certainly buy one. I don't have a great need for a 24" printer so I will probably pass on the Z3100; Michael's review does make it tempting to buy and I just might since it is a hobby and you have to spend your money on something, though cars get me in trouble with my wife
-
I'm NOT quite sure what you consider an eternity (it's subjective & relative) but I can print out 40 8x10 prints within 2 hours, even at 3 hours I wouldn't consider that an eternity. And if I were in a huge rush I could utilize all 6 printers at once and get the job completed in minutes. I'm assuming you are just referring to the printing process and NOT the inclusion of the time spent manipulating each photo in Photoshop?
As far as which looks "better", that's individual taste and I wouldn't debate that point, because everybody knows what they like.
Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What printer are you using? You can do 40 8x10's at highest photo-quality in 2 hours?
Anyways, I just pulled 40 out of thin air. It could just as easily be 80. That would double your print time. In the darkroom, however, it will only add about 20-30 minutes to my time.
And, as I said, I've seen some good digital B&W's, but I haven't seen anything that looks as good or better than a traditional fiber-glossy print. And the ones I've seen that have come close, the individual who produced it spent A LOT more time than it takes me in the darkroom.
Again, it's not a matter of either / or, it's a matter of what your needs are and how good you need the final product to be.
-
What printer are you using? You can do 40 8x10's at highest photo-quality in 2 hours?
Anyways, I just pulled 40 out of thin air. It could just as easily be 80. That would double your print time. In the darkroom, however, it will only add about 20-30 minutes to my time.
And, as I said, I've seen some good digital B&W's, but I haven't seen anything that looks as good or better than a traditional fiber-glossy print. And the ones I've seen that have come close, the individual who produced it spent A LOT more time than it takes me in the darkroom.
Again, it's not a matter of either / or, it's a matter of what your needs are and how good you need the final product to be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To answer your 1st question, ABSOLUTELY as long as I am using a Canon inkjet from the i9100 and on (I own every one) you'll have no problem. Actually I believe it takes no more then 5 minutes to print a 13"x19", an 8x10 does NOT take a full 2 minutes if my memory is correct.
I believe inkjet prints are easier to handle than prints made in the darkroom, they (the inkjet prints) come out of the printer and can stack on top of each other. Probably a moot point and again, if you like the prints from your darkroom and you find that no inkjet can do as good of a job for you, I wouldn't argue with you. I have found that inkjets are "better" for me in regards to every aspect, but that's just me, YMMV
Gary
-
Platinum-Palladium prints typically have the most value in the marketplace, but how many photographers actually do that? Epson prints are good enough for Jay Maisel, and as of late, Epson 3800 prints by Pete Turner are now on exhibit at the Eastman House.
-
Platinum-Palladium prints typically have the most value in the marketplace, but how many photographers actually do that? Epson prints are good enough for Jay Maisel, and as of late, Epson 3800 prints by Pete Turner are now on exhibit at the Eastman House.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And I agree, but I also know people who will NOT give up their darkroom. Who can blame them, I love the smell of the chemicals Actually I do!
Seriously, everybody has their own style, wants, needs and likes. I remember those 1st inkjet prints in 1998 and I was semi-impressed (they weren't that good) and could tell that within 5 years inkjet printing would be the way to go, I believe we are now there and every major inkjet printer manufacturer has a printer capable of producing "Photographs" every bit as good as any darkroom and I personally believe they are "better". We have Epson, Canon and HP all competing now and I believe it can only get better at a faster pace since one company no longer controls the entire market.
Gary
-
Appologies if I wandered too far off topic with this post....
Anyways, I just pulled 40 out of thin air. It could just as easily be 80. That would double your print time. In the darkroom, however, it will only add about 20-30 minutes to my time.
And, as I said, I've seen some good digital B&W's, but I haven't seen anything that looks as good or better than a traditional fiber-glossy print. And the ones I've seen that have come close, the individual who produced it spent A LOT more time than it takes me in the darkroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not to pour fuel on the flames but since you referenced glossy fibre prints (presumably still talking about B&W) lets reach waaaay back into pre-history (say pre RC paper) and talk abut how much time it would take to print 40 8x10 prints for release - and lets be clear we're talking about operator time - so after the twin bath fixer we get to the rotary or circular washer (which still needs a bit of attention from time to time), the Pakosol bath (everyone remember Pakosol?) and squeegeeing the prints for the drum dryer platen process. In between times we can clean up the print line and replenish the chem for the next run.
Now I'm not saying that inkjets are the same/better than gelatin silver from an esthetic point of view - but in this day and age they have functionally replaced gelatin silver- actually they havent, I cant think of anyone who actually sends out press releases with prints of any kind attached, but you take my meaning. Personaly I think I'd rather tell the iPF5000 to print 40 out of the cassette and do something else with the rest of my time.
Anyhooo my point is that so much has changed that many of the topics under discussion become devoid of extensible meaning - why *should* an inkjet print look like a gelatin silver print? Its a totally different medium. OK, so most of us on the forum probably have made/remember/own Gelatin/Silver prints and so use the reference as a cognitive visual waypoint. But in a few years (a very few years I dare say) we will be a tiny minority and that reference will simply have no meaning to the vast majority of people in the discussion. Even if they have seen a B&W glossy silver/gelatin print it will in all liklihood have been under glass and not held in their hands - a *big* difference (esp. the old F surface single weight papers).
-
This is my experience testing the 3 printers:
Canon IP: expensive ink cartridges!
expensive printhead
bad service, no support from dealers!
colour range smaller than HP / Epson despite the 12 colours!
Fast printing at low resolutions, slow at photo quality (same as Epson)!
Color degradations, after a few month black is grey...
overall rating : 6
I do not recommend to buy the Canon printers! If their cameras are good
than I rate their printers as bad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oooh! Unabashed Canon-bashing! I love it. Must be a different Canon than I'm using. Let's see,
Epson ink: 110ml @ $60 street, Canon ink 130ml @ $70 street. How horrendously more expensive! What about printer usage of said ink ... oh, let's not bring that up .
Your color gamut findings seem quite different than others such as Michael report ...
Canon blacks turn grey in 6 months? Let's see ... Canon print was on the roof exposed, Epson print in a dark closet ...
Bad support from Canon, yes. Dealers will vary.
Oh well , to each his/her own .
-
On the traditional B&W vs. Inkjet print thing - again, I use both and I think any photog worth his salt should seriously consider using both - I've never had a customer who preferred the inkjet B&W over the fiber gloss. Never.