HPZ, Epson 4800/7800, Canon IPF shootout

[Gemmtech]

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

[Gemmtech]

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  

[Roscolo]

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.

[Gemmtech]

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

[jjlphoto]

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.

[Gemmtech]

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

[EdB]

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).

[djgarcia]

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 .

[Roscolo]

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.