... Mark, have you done any visual gamut comparisons (not using the gamut plot, but by eye) of prints made on Epson, HP and Canon? I am thinking of prints comparing saturated purple, yellow, red and orange flowers made on different brand printers with a good profile and perceptual intent on a paper like Hahnemuhle Photorag Pearl or Baryta.
I'm just starting a serious effort to figure out Z9 versus Z3200 (and other printers) color gamut response, but before I discuss that, let's tackle some of the other issues/concerns which routinely come up with HP's latest printer and ink technology. Because the HP Z9 did away with the light Cyan, light magenta, and light gray ink carts but the heads now have dual nozzle sizes and a significantly more advanced screening pattern, all these changes raise concerns about image quality. In my preliminary studies, I'm finding these concerns aren't really manifesting as one might expect. B&W tonality and smoothness is outstanding, notwithstanding the eliminated light gray. Color gamut in the pastel high key colors (the usual place where LC and LM help) is actually higher on the Z9 output compared to the Z3200 and definitely holding its own against my Canon Pro-1000 and 4000 printers. Tonal gradient smoothness (freedom from banding in very subtle color gradients) is awesome, definitely and noticeably superior to the Z3200 (and the Z3200 is pretty darn good on difficult tonal gradient transition rendering, especially when larger patch count custom profiles are made). HP's "pixel control technology" appears to be the real deal! I tested these things with "stress test images" intended to bring out any obvious short comings.
That said, the Z9 does appear to suffer some color gamut loss in shadow tones compared to the Z3200, and it gives up global ink limit control and Gloss enhancer control that the Z3200 has. So, in many significant ways it's an entirely different machine compared to my Z3200. I'm working my way through various media settings and finding some interesting things there as well, namely that some settings one might think logical (for example using "baryta photo paper' for a baryta paper), aren't always the best choice, and many settings lead to exactly the same ink channel ramps. My sense is that HP needs to give us two more higher ink loading ramps for the Z9, one for matte MK and one for glossy PK media, than currently exists. Perhaps there are print head/print speed constraints that prevent HP in doing that, or perhaps a third party RIP offers more control than is currently available through the HP Designjet color utility (Ergosoft, Wasatch, Caldera, etc. support the Z9) . Another can of worms, but possibly needs exploration. The plot thickens, but again, I must offer the caveat that I'm just getting started with more advanced testing of the Z9.
The Image quality bar is high enough for all the latest model printers, that like everything seems to be these days, the Z9's color gamut volume compared to other printers is not direct or straight-forward question to answer. Printing real world images, not just color targets, is confirming that we are tackling some very subtle issues here that are indeed image dependent as to which printer prints any particular image optimally. The Z9 appears to have less color gamut volume than the Z3200 for a couple of papers I've looked at so far because the ink limits are too conservative compared to what can be achieved on the Z3200, but only if one take the time to invoke the Z3200 global ink limit controls that the Z9 doesn't have...thus the Z9 color gamut volume is seemingly a step backwards at first glance. That said, it's more complicated than that. As I increase the number of media I'm looking at, build custom profiles using different media presets, make actual prints and compare, I'm starting to find other anomalies not only for the Z9, but for my Canon and Epson printers as well.
I have never done an in depth gamut volume comparison between various printer/ink/media combos, and again, I'm just getting started...benchmarking my Z9, a Canon Pro-1000 and Pro-4000, plus a desktop Epson P600 so far (I don't have a WF Epson in my studio yet). One would think that a clear winner or rank order would quickly emerge, but it isn't. The Z9, for example, is coming up with significantly less color gamut volume on Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta 320gsm compared to the Canon Pro 1000-4000. but matches the Pro-1000/4000 on an RC paper, Canon Premium Glossy Paper 2 (go figure!), and exceeds the Pro-4000 comparing Moab Entrada Natural printed on the Z9 to the Pro-4000 printing on Canon Smooth Fine Art paper while the smooth fine art in turn matches Moab Entrada when printed on my Pro-1000. All profiles built using same color target and software.Thus, there's no obvious ink set which can be declared the overall winner without a much larger study comparing different media in a head-to-head direct comparative study! I have always thought, apparently rather naively, that an ink set that wins the color gamut volume competition on one media would win on all media. I'm finding out now that this assumption was a bit too simplistic. It's more complicated than that.
I keep plugging away at this...stay tuned.
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com