HP Z9+ on gloss fiber

[deanwork]

Did HP ever resolve the huge issue of fixing their software to allow printing  on fiber gloss media with their gloss optimiser channel?..

The Vivera inks, unlike Canon and Epson, absolutely require a well functioning gloss enhancer coat  because the pigments are less finely ground ( but very durable in exposure to light  ). My primary papers these days are these types and I’m certainly not going to spray big prints with solvent uv sprays.

The last I heard they had dumbed down the custom media capability to an almost amateur level. It seemed impossible to control ink limits and maintain an acceptable gamut. These are not small issues if they still exist.

They sure are expensive to be a work in progress. Honestly there are so many good things about this printer, like inexpensive easy to replace print heads and little to no ink waste,  but besides Mark I don’t know a single professional printmaker who uses one and they are never discussed that I’m aware of.

John

[MHMG]

Hi John,

I have had a Z9+dr model in my Lab for a little over a year now.  It has the optional GO kit installed. Like Mark L., I was very disappointed to see how "dumbed down" the software interface, particularly with regard to ithe color profiling and ink channel customization, is compared to to our venerable Z3200PS printers. That said, one needs "to get over it" and  consider the newer Z9 in terms of the alternatives we have for fine art printing with aqueous inkjet.  In this regard, the competition would probably be the new Canon Pro-2100/4100 models, or the Epson P7570/9570 models. I don't have the Epson in house, but I do have a Pro1000 and Pro 4000 here, and both of these older Canon models use the same printhead and ink set as the replacement 2100/4100 models. Epson doesn't offer a clearcoat channel, whereas HP and canon models do have a clear coat channel (standard on Canon, optional on the Z9). Epson regards its control over gloss differential/bronzing issues on gloss/luster media to be competitive due to it's ink chemistry formulation. Because I don't own one, I can't comment on that claim, but I do have a 13" Epson P600 that uses the newer HDX ink. It shares many but no all of the inks used in Epson's latest WF models.

Meanwhile, I have been slowly collecting and evaluating numerous fine art glossy/luster media and getting ready to put many of them into light fade testing. As you no doubt are aware, there has been a lot of volatility in the fiber gloss media available on the market today. IGFS, Canson Baryta Photographique, and other rebanded counterparts have disappeared. A reformulated Baryta Photographique II has emerged, and there are other relative newcomers like HN Fineart Baryta Satin, Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss, Canson Baryta Prestige, etc.   I'm preparing samples primarily with the Z9 and the Canon Pro-1000, so I have had some opportunity to look at initial print quality with both ink sets.  Using the TC918 color target printed in no color adjust mode and studying the results for both bronzing and differential gloss (the TC918 target is a good stress test), I conclude the Z9 Photo Vivid ink with GO kit holds its own against the Canon Lucia Pro-11, perhaps is even a little better overall. However, the results for both ink sets are quite media dependent, and I came to realize that these clearcoat technologies have been super optimized for RC photo papers (where they typically turn in impressive results), but are not necessarily thick enough to always get good results on the fine art glossy/luster media which tend to require higher clearcoat ink loads. Anyway, I have found some nice results for the Z9 with a few media.  They are Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss (same Felix Schoeller coating as Canson Platine sold under another name, IMO), HN fine art Baryta Satin, Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss, to name a few. CIFA Baryta PHotographique II is a dissappointment on both the Canon and HP models, plus it has a funky back coating I never liked plus OBAs. Canson Baryta Prestige prints pretty well, too, (better with the Lucia Pro-11 than the HP photo vivid, but both are respectable) However, Baryta Prestige's OBA content is off putting, IMO.

Bottom line is that the Z9 holds its own with respect to clearcoat quality on a variety of media, but it is indeed highly media dependent. Media matters!  BTW, I have been intending to test one of my favorites, HN Photo Rag Pearl, but Hahnemuhle has jacked up the prices so much, that this reason alone is what motivated me to go on yet another great paper chase! Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss would be my personal choice now, but it's pricey, too!. HN fineart Baryta Satin is another lovely paper that clear coats well, notwithstanding it is alpha cellulose base rather than cotton fiber. That keeps the price point in line, and IMO, affects print permanence very little because the media coatings, not the base sheet properties, along with one's choice of inks are essentially the limiting factors.

All that said, I wish I could give you more recommendations.  For whatever reasons, the latest WF printers from HP, Epson, and Canon, all disappoint in different ways. One has to weigh the various options depending on other factors unrelated to initial image quality, IMHO.

Cheers,
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[deanwork]

Hi Mark, I hear what your saying but I wouldn’t buy any printer/system that only worked normally on certain papers. You know more about color science than I’ll ever dream of knowing. Mark was vey kind in printing out full color printer test targets for me using both custom icc profile and the HP generic profile. I use Platine for about 70% of my work these days bw and color. Next would be hah. Photo tag pearl, but mainly Platine.
The Z9 gloss differential was not even remotely usable for either color or bw. My old canon 8300 which was really good on Platine as are my z3100 and my z3200  which are perfect. Even my old Epson uc 7890 was perfectly fine. I had to spray the Z9 prints with solvent Uv spray to even look at them. Can’t do that with big prints and editions. I’m just not sure how that can be holding it’s own with the Canon 4000 that is better than the 8300 even. I was so surprised at how good the bw worked out on the Z9 but was not impressed with the color gamut from either profile which was not as good as my Z3200 , canon, or older Epson. I don’t know, it just seemed like they never finished the software or something.

The bw is unusable in my opinion on the new canon and of course the longevity sucks.
It looks to me like the only advanced 44 inch out there with first class gamut and bw capability is  the 9570 . It does everything well. However the cost to replace the dual print head is , yes, 4 grand with labor. One channel goes out and your screwed. So you would have to figure in a warranty for 5 years as cost of doing business. Maybe that’s not unreasonable in today’s world. As yogi Berra  said,
“ the future isn’t what it used to be.

John

Hi John,

I have had a Z9+dr model in my Lab for a little over a year now.  It has the optional GO kit installed. Like Mark L., I was very disappointed to see how "dumbed down" the software interface, particularly with regard to ithe color profiling and ink channel customization, is compared to to our venerable Z3200PS printers. That said, one needs "to get over it" and  consider the newer Z9 in terms of the alternatives we have for fine art printing with aqueous inkjet.  In this regard, the competition would probably be the new Canon Pro-2100/4100 models, or the Epson P7570/9570 models. I don't have the Epson in house, but I do have a Pro1000 and Pro 4000 here, and both of these older Canon models use the same printhead and ink set as the replacement 2100/4100 models. Epson doesn't offer a clearcoat channel, whereas HP and canon models do have a clear coat channel (standard on Canon, optional on the Z9). Epson regards its control over gloss differential/bronzing issues on gloss/luster media to be competitive due to it's ink chemistry formulation. Because I don't own one, I can't comment on that claim, but I do have a 13" Epson P600 that uses the newer HDX ink. It shares many but no all of the inks used in Epson's latest WF models.

Meanwhile, I have been slowly collecting and evaluating numerous fine art glossy/luster media and getting ready to put many of them into light fade testing. As you no doubt are aware, there has been a lot of volatility in the fiber gloss media available on the market today. IGFS, Canson Baryta Photographique, and other rebanded counterparts have disappeared. A reformulated Baryta Photographique II has emerged, and there are other relative newcomers like HN Fineart Baryta Satin, Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss, Canson Baryta Prestige, etc.   I'm preparing samples primarily with the Z9 and the Canon Pro-1000, so I have had some opportunity to look at initial print quality with both ink sets.  Using the TC918 color target printed in no color adjust mode and studying the results for both bronzing and differential gloss (the TC918 target is a good stress test), I conclude the Z9 Photo Vivid ink with GO kit holds its own against the Canon Lucia Pro-11, perhaps is even a little better overall. However, the results for both ink sets are quite media dependent, and I came to realize that these clearcoat technologies have been super optimized for RC photo papers (where they typically turn in impressive results), but are not necessarily thick enough to always get good results on the fine art glossy/luster media which tend to require higher clearcoat ink loads. Anyway, I have found some nice results for the Z9 with a few media.  They are Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss (same Felix Schoeller coating as Canson Platine sold under another name, IMO), HN fine art Baryta Satin, Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss, to name a few. CIFA Baryta PHotographique II is a dissappointment on both the Canon and HP models, plus it has a funky back coating I never liked plus OBAs. Canson Baryta Prestige prints pretty well, too, (better with the Lucia Pro-11 than the HP photo vivid, but both are respectable) However, Baryta Prestige's OBA content is off putting, IMO.

Bottom line is that the Z9 holds its own with respect to clearcoat quality on a variety of media, but it is indeed highly media dependent. Media matters!  BTW, I have been intending to test one of my favorites, HN Photo Rag Pearl, but Hahnemuhle has jacked up the prices so much, that this reason alone is what motivated me to go on yet another great paper chase! Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss would be my personal choice now, but it's pricey, too!. HN fineart Baryta Satin is another lovely paper that clear coats well, notwithstanding it is alpha cellulose base rather than cotton fiber. That keeps the price point in line, and IMO, affects print permanence very little because the media coatings, not the base sheet properties, along with one's choice of inks are essentially the limiting factors.

All that said, I wish I could give you more recommendations.  For whatever reasons, the latest WF printers from HP, Epson, and Canon, all disappoint in different ways. One has to weigh the various options depending on other factors unrelated to initial image quality, IMHO.

Cheers,
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Panagiotis]

The Canon PRO-1000, with the latest firmware, and the new roll models PRO-2100-4100-6100 have a new media setting called "Baryta Photo Paper" which greatly reduce bronzing and gloss differential in my limited testing with the PRO-1000. I compared the PRO-1000 against the PRO-4000 which doesn't have this media type and there is a big difference. I hope Canon can add "Baryta Photo Paper" to the PRO-4000 with a firmware update.

[deanwork]

Scott Martin the printer tech consultant at On-Site imaging gave a big review of the Canon 4000 when it came out and really came down on them hard for removing the green and putting in the gloss enhancer that didn’t work worth a damn on gloss fiber media. Then finally after months of him waiting, Canon got back to him and gave him a suggestion of another media setting. Then he said it all worked out very well. He didn’t however do a review of the monochrome capability of the 4000 which would not have been a pretty picture.

https://www.on-sight.com/news/page/2/


quote author=Panagiotis link=topic=137868.msg1211388#msg1211388 date=1615402389]
The Canon PRO-1000, with the latest firmware, and the new roll models PRO-2100-4100-6100 have a new media setting called "Baryta Photo Paper" which greatly reduce bronzing and gloss differential in my limited testing with the PRO-1000. I compared the PRO-1000 against the PRO-4000 which doesn't have this media type and there is a big difference. I hope Canon can add "Baryta Photo Paper" to the PRO-4000 with a firmware update.
[/quote]

[Panagiotis]

Scott Martin the printer tech consultant at On-Site imaging gave a big review of the Canon 4000 when it came out and really came down on them hard for removing the green and putting in the gloss enhancer that didn’t work worth a damn on gloss fiber media. Then finally after months of him waiting, Canon got back to him and gave him a suggestion of another media setting. Then he said it all worked out very well. He didn’t however do a review of the monochrome capability of the 4000 which would not have been a pretty picture.

https://www.on-sight.com/news/page/2/


quote author=Panagiotis link=topic=137868.msg1211388#msg1211388 date=1615402389]
The Canon PRO-1000, with the latest firmware, and the new roll models PRO-2100-4100-6100 have a new media setting called "Baryta Photo Paper" which greatly reduce bronzing and gloss differential in my limited testing with the PRO-1000. I compared the PRO-1000 against the PRO-4000 which doesn't have this media type and there is a big difference. I hope Canon can add "Baryta Photo Paper" to the PRO-4000 with a firmware update.

I am aware of this review. I print a lot BW with the PRO-4000 and it seems more than fine to me. Maybe I am missing something or I have limited data and experience to make a valid assessment on PRO-4000 BW output.

[Mark Lindquist]

Mark was vey kind in printing out full color printer test targets for me using both custom icc profile and the HP generic profile. I use Platine for about 70% of my work these days bw and color. Next would be hah. Photo tag pearl, but mainly Platine.
The Z9 gloss differential was not even remotely usable for either color or bw.
John

Hi John-
Unfortunately I was in a big hurry with deadlines at the time and I think the prints I sent you had no gloss enhancer. If you go over them - look at the edges and see if they have gloss enhancer spilling over the sides by a 1/4" or so. Early on when I got the printer there were some tricks in the driver to turn GE on that I may not have picked up on as well. I'm still getting great use out of my Z9+ 24" - it's been an absolute workhorse. HP on the other hand has been a disappointment for having dropped the ball on so many things. They seem to be turning their attention toward architectural and signage output. Only time will tell where they go from here.
Mark

[deanwork]

Hi Mark,

I just checked again and they all clearly have the gloss enhancer activated. I can see it way down on the top and bottom as a bar of enhancer, and the little rim edge of it on the sides.

Just now I realized how much bronzing is still left on the Platine color prints after I has sprayed them with with 3 light coats of Premiere Art, though my spraying removed the gloss differential.

This was early on so it’s possible you were still working out the ink limiting and didn’t have a lot of guidance from HP about what settings worked with fiber gloss.

I do think this might be a great and fast printer for those who do mostly matte rag printing and rc printing, which obviously is where their research was focused.

Three important positive things I can say about the Z9+

1. The printheads are super inexpensive and replaceable in a few minutes. If you want to keep a printer going for many years without spending a ton on warranty extension that’s major and can keep your printer in use as apposed to dumping it in the landfill when the warranty runs out.

2. They don’t waste ink in constant cleaning, if they are like the Z3200, which I’m sure they are, they will use every drop, and in a years time that translates into more saved cash.

3. The grayscale neutrality using no color dots at all is superb, the dual drop tech even with less grays just works right out of the box. A lot of thought went into that.

And yea, all three companies are far more invested in signage than us.

John

Hi John-
Unfortunately I was in a big hurry with deadlines at the time and I think the prints I sent you had no gloss enhancer. If you go over them - look at the edges and see if they have gloss enhancer spilling over the sides by a 1/4" or so. Early on when I got the printer there were some tricks in the driver to turn GE on that I may not have picked up on as well. I'm still getting great use out of my Z9+ 24" - it's been an absolute workhorse. HP on the other hand has been a disappointment for having dropped the ball on so many things. They seem to be turning their attention toward architectural and signage output. Only time will tell where they go from here.
Mark

[MHMG]

John, out of curiosity and interest in today's discussion here on LULA, I jjust ran a sheet of Canson Platine from new paper stock through my Epson P600.  Although the P600 doesn't have the same printhead or screening algorithm as the Epson P7570/9570 models, all of its inks are the same as in the P7570/9570 models. Epson then adds some additional orange, green, etc to the P7570/9570 models, but the core set of inks are the same. So, any bronzing/dif gloss seen on the P600 is more than likely to be experienced on Epson's larger models sharing these same core ink properties.

Honestly, the result I"m seeing with the P600 printing on Cifa Platine has more bronzing/differential gloss appearance compared to my Canon Pro-1000 and my HP Z9. The sad reality is that the best control when printing with aqueous pigmented inks over bronzing and differential gloss short of adding a post spray coating step is achieved with the obsolete HP Z3200 when dialed in with customized GE ink levels. If bronzing/differential gloss is a sticking point for you, and you can't print on a Z3200, then a healthy dose of Premier Print shield  or tricking a Canon or HP Z9 printer into a second pass printing GE only is about the only work around. Yet as I noted before, media choice goes a long way towards mitigating bronzing/diff gloss problems.

FWIW, I have also been printing on a lot of the glossy fine art media with my 13' Canon Pro-100. Given that it's a dye based printer, one would never expect to see bronzing problems, but media chemistry has a huge role to play with maximum printable black and color gamut with dye based as well as pigmented ink sets, hence all of my experimentation to find optimal media for use with each printer I own.  In the course of my testing, guess what I ran into on one particular fiber gloss paper? It was Canson Baryta Prestige, and lo and behold, the TC918 color target showed distinctive bronzing in the cyan blue color region using the ChromaLife 100+ dye set. Note that most glossy/luster fine art media on the market today have disclaimers about using with dye based inks, but generally speaking they exhibit very nice initial image quality. Yet here was a notable exception to the rule. Underscoring, once again, that these discussions on bronzing/diff gloss require thorough testing of numerous media before any generalizations can be made about any one particular ink set.

cheers,
Mark M.
http://Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[deanwork]

Hi Mark,

I have done many hundreds of big prints like 40x60 and 30x40 color and black and white on Platine, the Canson  and lately the Epson branded version, for galleries and portfolios. And I’ve used a lot of the Hah. Cotton fiber gloss. I have really specialized on them since these papers came out.

I personally don’t like any of the alpha cellulose rolls  because they are a royal pain to flatten out and can cause catastrophic head strikes in rolls. And most of them show a lot of bronzing in black and white. The only paper I really thought was unacceptable to sell on the Canon 8300 without spraying was Harmon Gloss fiber in black and white. The gold fiber silk wasn’t much to write home about either. But I spent my time using gloss cotton media.

All I know is I never had to spray my prints from the Canon 8300, the Epson 7890, and the Z3100, or Z3200.
The gloss enhancer on the Z3200  and Z3100 were the absolute best of course, especially with black and white.
That is why I was so disappointed to see those tests on the Z9. For whatever reason they were totally unusable, at least not behind glass.

For a lot of reasons my days of spraying prints with toxic uv sprays are just about over.

It’s quite possible you are applying the glop with a media setting that is different than what I saw.

I wish there were more people using the Z9 that I could compare notes with. I’ve looked and haven’t seen one person who runs a big fine art production shop that uses them. Maybe there are people in Europe, I don’t know, but most of them seem to be using Epson these days. You and Mark are only professionals I know that use them at all. And that makes sense because we all were members of the early Z cult for good reason.

I’ve heard from several people that use Platine regularly for large work on the new Epson 9570  that say they look really good. But you know hearing things and seeing things are two different situations.

I do know that one of my clients that I’ve been teaching how to print uses an Epson P 800 and we having been using Platine for both his color and black and white work and the prints  were beautiful, either from ABW or QTR and very clean and neutral. I didn’t even bring up the idea of spraying because I didn’t even consider it. Those are the same inks as the P 9000 but not the P 9570. I guess I should hire someone to make some prints for me from that inkset.

I only get obsessed like this when I have to start all over with a new workflow. I hate to change and I’ve spent so many years experimenting I’ve lost patience with all that. Soon I’ll be in another routine and that will be that.

John, out of curiosity and interest in today's discussion here on LULA, I jjust ran a sheet of Canson Platine from new paper stock through my Epson P600.  Although the P600 doesn't have the same printhead or screening algorithm as the Epson P7570/9570 models, all of its inks are the same as in the P7570/9570 models. Epson then adds some additional orange, green, etc to the P7570/9570 models, but the core set of inks are the same. So, any bronzing/dif gloss seen on the P600 is more than likely to be experienced on Epson's larger models sharing these same core ink properties.

Honestly, the result I"m seeing with the P600 printing on Cifa Platine has more bronzing/differential gloss appearance compared to my Canon Pro-1000 and my HP Z9. The sad reality is that the best control when printing with aqueous pigmented inks over bronzing and differential gloss short of adding a post spray coating step is achieved with the obsolete HP Z3200 when dialed in with customized GE ink levels. If bronzing/differential gloss is a sticking point for you, and you can't print on a Z3200, then a healthy dose of Premier Print shield  or tricking a Canon or HP Z9 printer into a second pass printing GE only is about the only work around. Yet as I noted before, media choice goes a long way towards mitigating bronzing/diff gloss problems.

FWIW, I have also been printing on a lot of the glossy fine art media with my 13' Canon Pro-100. Given that it's a dye based printer, one would never expect to see bronzing problems, but media chemistry has a huge role to play with maximum printable black and color gamut with dye based as well as pigmented ink sets, hence all of my experimentation to find optimal media for use with each printer I own.  In the course of my testing, guess what I ran into on one particular fiber gloss paper? It was Canson Baryta Prestige, and lo and behold, the TC918 color target showed distinctive bronzing in the cyan blue color region using the ChromaLife 100+ dye set. Note that most glossy/luster fine art media on the market today have disclaimers about using with dye based inks, but generally speaking they exhibit very nice initial image quality. Yet here was a notable exception to the rule. Underscoring, once again, that these discussions on bronzing/diff gloss require thorough testing of numerous media before any generalizations can be made about any one particular ink set.

cheers,
Mark M.
http://Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[samueljohnchia]

I have had a Z9+dr model in my Lab for a little over a year now... but I do have a Pro1000 and Pro 4000 here, and both of these older Canon models use the same printhead and ink set as the replacement 2100/4100 models
All that said, I wish I could give you more recommendations.  For whatever reasons, the latest WF printers from HP, Epson, and Canon, all disappoint in different ways. One has to weigh the various options depending on other factors unrelated to initial image quality, IMHO.

Cheers,
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Hi Mark,

I was wondering if you've noticed that the GCR on the Pro1000 is a lot less than it was on the iPF8300/8400 printers. I see a lot more colour ink being used in neutrals and near neutrals. I wonder if the inking is the same on the Pro4000. Do the Pro1000 and 4000 share identical ink limits, screening, media LUTs etc.? I was under the impression that they don't. I sure hope the larger format printers continue to use very heavy GCR. It seems to me that Canon has resorted to being less heavy-handed on the GCR on the Pro1000 to reduce dottiness of the screening pattern, previously a weak spot for them when compared to Epson.

I also wonder if you have noticed that even with CO on, the new Canon inkset Lucia on the Pro1000 is more prone to bronzing and gloss differential issues than the previous, LUCIA PRO vs LUCIA EX. I'm not so happy about the new formulation.

Is it still true that if you print R=G=B values to a Z9+, it will print with all black and grey inks only, and no colour inks are used at all? That would be remarkable.

Seems like fewer are using matte media these days? I'm not sure if you have done testing as extensively on matte media, especially the Canson media, which use white silica to give a very bright but neutral white without using OBAs, Rag Photographique or Epson Legacy Fiber are my current favourites. I gather that the Epsons still reign supreme on matte media for overall gamut, especially in the warm colours. Canons are a little better in some of the dark cool colours. I'm not sure how well the HP does. I've heard conflicting information about Dmax on matte media for the Z3200. Profiles from manufacturers have not been able to fully illuminate the whole story, for obvious reasons. Canon is certainly behind Epson for matte colour gamut as well as black density.

I've come from using Canon large format printers for over a decade. My current iPF8400 is over 5 years old, still running strong in all the ways that matter, and I'm not liking any of the current choices. I don't want to have to deal with clogs and non-user replaceable printheads with the new Epsons. I've not been impressed with Epson's paper handling, though my Canon iPF8400 gave me a lot of grief initially that way too. I don't like the reduced permanence of the new Canon inkset, and I don't care much for the new Chroma Optimiser ink. More chroma with an orange ink would be nice, or green, though the latter is a little less useful. The Canon/HP red ink is a little too red and does not expand the gamut as much in the warm colour gamut as the orange ink does for Epson, giving it a significant advantage for printing fall colours, etc.

The P9000 causes roller dents/marks/impressions on paper, softer papers seem to show the problem better. My iPF8400 and also 8100 (which was made in Japan, so country of origin didn't matter, plus Canon had been using the same parts for the feed mechanism that affects this for over 15 years across multiple printer models) had this issue. I see that someone over here is experiencing a similar problem with the Z9+. The Z9+ pizza wheel marks continue to plague this machine. It also does not have a vacuum and has the worst paper path design of all the three brands, causing roll media to forcibly bend in the opposite direction onto the print platten. Canon's follow the natural paper curl best, but Canon then is also the absolute worst for sheet media. Epson has the straightest path for sheet media and stiff boards, though that's slightly less optimal for rolls. This kind of paper handling problem of roller marks is unbearable. I fixed it by replacing the springs of the pinch rollers to weaker ones, but it now struggles a bit with very tight and curly and stiff gloss media - I can still print on them fine, but in high speed mode, the paper feed control is less under control and banding sometimes occur - this affects the Color Calibration function, since performing the calibration step (not applying the calibration values, but actually activating the printer to do an auto calibrate) uses a coarser feed setting than the 32-pass high quality setting for actual printing. But workarounds are easily available for that and I no longer print on glossy media if I can help it these days.

So I'm pretty lost. I don't know which printer I would want to have moving forward, like a number of other luminary print makers here, despite a long history of printing experience with these types of printers. I'm hoping that Canon will launch a new series of printers after the Pro4100, with updated inkset that is optimised for matte media (fat chance), excellent permanence and free of paper handling troubles. I gather that virtually no users have any paper handling issues of the roller marks nature with the new Canons. But then I was the only user who reported having such problems to Canon. I've tested 4 printers during that period of time and all produced roller marks to some degree. My friend in California, turned on by my issues, eventually noticed his P9000 was causing significant marking issues with Canson Rag Photographique and Legacy Fiber. I continue to suspect that the new printers are susceptible to this problem, and most people just don't know how to identify it or are just not very sensitive to it. Not to cast aspersions on other fine printmakers, but I myself, despite how overly sensitive I am, missed this problem despite having over 4 years on my first Canon printer, and only after pulling out old prints from the drawer, did I realise it did in fact have roller marks too. I did chat with one of the more reputable paper suppliers in the USA, and he quietly admitted that he knows of several of his customers who have the same problem as I did and they tried various methods, mostly unsuccessfully, to weaken the springs. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one who has gone so far to replace them in the printer itself. I would like to avoid such a nightmare again.

[MHMG]

Hi Mark,

... I do know that one of my clients that I’ve been teaching how to print uses an Epson P 800 and we having been using Platine for both his color and black and white work and the prints  were beautiful, either from ABW or QTR and very clean and neutral. I didn’t even bring up the idea of spraying because I didn’t even consider it. Those are the same inks as the P 9000 but not the P 9570. I guess I should hire someone to make some prints for me from that inkset.

I only get obsessed like this when I have to start all over with a new workflow. I hate to change and I’ve spent so many years experimenting I’ve lost patience with all that. Soon I’ll be in another routine and that will be that.

I evaluate bronzing/diff gloss with the TC918 color target because it fits on one letter size page and exercises the entire range of RGB values in a wonderfully ordered visual array (kudos to Bill Atkinson for designing such a beautiful test target). And there's no digital noise in the color patches to help disguise any bronzing issues. What I see in the TC918 color target results is that bronzing and diff gloss typically show up in different color and tonal regions very selectively depending on both media and ink set. Because it's selective to certain subsets of colors and tones  rather than global (i.e., over all parts of the image colors and tones) and varies depending on both media and inks, there are many naturally occurring images which can be printed where you won't see the problem at all, but in others it will show some ugly warts. This situation complicates our collective anecdotal experience in a very haphazard way. You will hear stories from folks saying "the print is perfect" with a given printer/ink/media combination while others may say the result really sucks. It may well be that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but it also has such significant image dependency that it can truly come down to a consequence of what image got printed with any given media and ink set.

It's not a trivial problem.  I have never found a pigmented ink set that doesn't have at least some degree of bronzing/differential gloss in some color regions and tones when printing on the fiber glossy media category you specifically mentioned at the start of this thread. The Z3200PS can be coaxed with careful customization of the ink load and GE settings to get best in class performance, but if you just rely on the customary generic presets and media settings, even the Z3200 can show significant bronzing/diff gloss on various fineart glossy/luster media. All of these variables make it difficult to answer "which pigmented printer shows the least bronzing/ diff gloss for fine art glossy/luster media?" It requires a much more systematic study than anyone, including myself, has undertaken with today's latest offerings in aqueous pigmented inkjet printers, inks, and media.  I just don't see any currently marketed aqueous pigmented inkjet printer and ink combo that stands out head and shoulders above the rest at this point in time with regard to bronzing/diff gloss problems on today's latest offerings in non RC glossy/luster media.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardendburg-imaging.com

[MHMG]

... So I'm pretty lost. I don't know which printer I would want to have moving forward, like a number of other luminary print makers here, despite a long history of printing experience with these types of printers.

You and me both. There's so many good talking points to unpack in your full comments that I'm struggling to write a thoughtful response. For the record, a couple of years ago, Canon donated a Canon iPF Pro-4000 no strings attached to Aardenburg Imaging and Archives. HP donated a Z9+dr with no strings attached a year later.  I take those donations and also direct discussions with their engineers from time to time as a good sign that both of these manufacturers know Aardenburg Imaging & Archives is a useful resource for their customers.  I'm grateful, but I'm definitely not a traditional brand "ambassador" for either company, hence, I'm not on their normal "printer loaner/review list" of industry influencers. I get why someone would want to review a loaner printer, but that's not for me.  A month or two on loan is simply not enough time, IMO, to become intimately familiar with the plusses and minuses of a complex piece of equipment.

I typically buy all the printers, inks, and media that I evaluate using funds donated by the Aardenburg membership and/or my own personal funds. I work hard to get to know the products in significant detail. My own personal WF printer purchases  go back a generation or two to the Canon iPf8300 and the HP Z3200PS.  Having newer models in house has certainly been helpful, but I'm currently missing a new Epson model, thus I have to concede that my current understanding of the aqueous inkjet photo printer market is sadly incomplete.  Yet, like you Samuel, I have the sense that all the newer printer models have had teething problems of one sort or another, and this situation makes it really difficult to part with hard earned money for a printer that may not be any better, perhaps even worse, than the printers we are currently using. One thing really stands out to me, however. It is the reality that the today's inkjet photo printer designs pay utmost attention to RC photo media ink receptor coating and physical handling properties. How the printer mechanics and ink ramps cope with thicker fine art media and non RC coating chemistry, especially important third party media brands, is almost an afterthought!


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[deanwork]

This is the target I’ve been using with all the printers and inks to quickly evaluate hue saturation gamut and gloss issues.
http://www.on-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Onsight_Evaluation_v2.zip

[MHMG]

This is the target I’ve been using with all the printers and inks to quickly evaluate hue saturation gamut and gloss issues.
http://www.on-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Onsight_Evaluation_v2.zip

It has many stylistic elements of numerous other "open source" targets that printmakers often download, use, and recommend for printer testing purposes today.  Hard to disagree with that. That said, I prefer the elegant visual simplicity of the TC918 target for evaluating ioptimal media settings, bronzing/gloss differential, etc. Again, kudos to Bill Atkinson for such an elegantly arranged visual target based on nothing but square color patches. It is the visually ordered array of colors that is key to the visually discernible value of the TC918 color target. If you scrambled the same set of color patches into a randomized array of colors it would be essentially useless for anything other than ICC profiling. Similarly, It is the visual complexity of many printer evaluation targetss used today that make them fall short of the goal. They are "too busy" in spatial presentation such that humans have a harder time identifying exactly where the deficiencies of the system actually occur.

cheers,
Mark

[unesco]

(...) Although the P600 doesn't have the same printhead or screening algorithm as the Epson P7570/9570 models, all of its inks are the same as in the P7570/9570 models. Epson then adds some additional orange, green, etc to the P7570/9570 models, but the core set of inks are the same.

Are you sure they are the same? Users say somehow different behaviour.

[deanwork]

Everyone I’ve talked to that is running the 7570/ 9570 say the fiber gloss surface on papers like Platine look really good, black and white and color. They also say the gamut is exceptional.

I’m ordering a print from my file to compare.



quote author=unesco link=topic=137868.msg1211729#msg1211729 date=1615633338]
Are you sure they are the same? Users say somehow different behaviour.
[/quote]