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 & ArchivesMark 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.photographyhttp://lindquiststudio.us/About_lindquist_studio.htmhttp://lindquiststudio.us/History_of_lindquist_studio.htm