Printers with built-in spectros

[Kyle Jackson]

Dumb question time... 

I've been living in my cute little HP crib for years and just assumed all large format photo / art printers had built-in spectros for colour profiling. While browsing future replacement options for my HP Z3100/Z3200s I recently learned the Canon 2600 / 4600 family do not have one, and it looks like same for Epson 7570 / 9570 family (tho it appears to have an add-on spectro option for a stiff price).

Is this typical? Like did only HP bother to include them, or did the other brands have them for a while and then stopped? Given the high licensing costs from the spectro hardware/software companies, I could certainly see a printer OEM abandoning built-in spectros and leaving users to find their own solutions.

Anyhow regardless of the how/why, if I was to move on to say a Canon 2600, are there any options for automated profiling that would feel comparable to HP convenience-wise and hopefully not a crazy cost? (I feel like the answer is just gonna be no...)

I forget how many times I've suggested to ppl here to do their own profiles instead of relying on ones from printer / paper makers... Sorry folks I honestly wasn't aware that built-in spectros weren't standard eqpt on most printers in this market. Life under a rock 

[digitaldog]

Printers with built-in Spectrophotometers: rare.

[Czornyj]

You can buy used or even unused spectrophotometers dirt cheap, sometimes with profiling software license, and sometimes even with decent profiling software license. And there’s ArgyllCMS. And ColorMunki is good enough for profiling of prrfectly well linearised printer like PRO-2600 that has built in spectrodensitometer for relinearisation. And Canon factory profiles are also decent, ink is forgiving, so it usually works well even with 3rd pary papers, even very shitty ones.

[kers]

... Sorry folks I honestly wasn't aware that built-in spectros weren't standard eqpt on most printers in this market. Life under a rock 

yes ! The HP Z3200 - what a printer indeed !.....  So easy to make a perfect profile  fully automatic , with the ink load of your choice... with an inkset that does not fade.
Itis not 2007 anymore !- we have moved ahead!  Just like in politics...

[Kyle Jackson]

Thanks everyone, appreciate the info. Some things for to me think about if/when I replace the HP Zs. I think I need some time to grieve the loss of my childhood naivete 

It's unfortunate Canon doesn't let the built-in cal/linearization spectro also be used for profiling like HP did. I thought maybe there was an upgrade option to "unlock" that feature but it looks like no. And Epson's add-on scanner option adds another 50% to the price of the printer.

It seems the main convenience I would lose is the automatic target handling/scanning, I'd need to hand scan them. I think I've seen automated tabletop scanners around here but recall they are not cheap.

Lol I couldddd keep an HP Z sitting around as nothing more than an automated scanner... that takes up half the room 

The software side might not be so bad, likely similar-ish to HP's wizard-y approach but more capable. And I've used Argyll some when I was doing custom profiling targets for various tests/experiments between printer models, so although it's a bit more time consuming it's obviously still do-able.

I suppose I could also just join the masses and use the canned profiles and not fuss much over soft proofing, just set and forget  It's not like I ever fully used the printers' capabilities anyways for much more than just funsies.

[Czornyj]

I think I've seen automated tabletop scanners around here but recall they are not cheap

I had bought 2x unused i1i Sis for 1000$ each, saw an used one for 500$, and two-tree weeks ago I even saw an FD-9 for 850$. It's much faster, better, wastes less ink, paper, and it's not disposable whenever you need to replace the printer

[Richard.Wills]

Where on earth did you find them at those prices?

[digitaldog]

X-Rite has discontinued the i1iSis line. 
https://www.xrite.com/-/media/xrite/files/service_related/eol-eos-documents/i1isis2_eol_eos_customer_notification.pdf

[Czornyj]

Where on earth did you find them at those prices?

mostly on ebay - not an easy catch, but you can grab it there from time to time. It's a niche product, not easy to sell so you can negotiate the price very often.

[aaronleitz]

Freestyle Photo in L.A. has a custom profiling service if you just want to get up and running with some custom profiles. $100 per paper. You print the target and mail it to them. That's what I use for profiles on my Canon 4100 and they work great.

I only print on two papers though so if you're into tinkering/experimenting with a bunch of different papers it may not be the way to go.

[Alan Goldhammer]

as @Czornyi noted ArgyllCMS is free. An excellent GUI that runs under Linux, Windows and Mac IOS is in development and the prototype runs quite well (only drawback is that it is in Python so you will need Python installed to run). If you do a twostep process with a one-page precondition profile and use that as the base for the final profile, you can get excellent results with a minimum of manual scanning. It usually takes me five or so minutes to scan a 462 page of patches.

[Kyle Jackson]

manual scanning. It usually takes me five or so minutes to scan a 462 page of patches.

That's not too terrible I guess. Although I've experimented with targets with 1728 patches (about 24x32" sheet), the default HP targets were 464 patches I think. So 5 mins for manual scan doesn't sound tooooo bad, as long as it's tolerant enough of my hand-eye coordination to be reliable/repeatable.

When I checked hardware on ebay etc almost all the print spectros where handhelds anyway so I probably don't have much choice otherwise. The few automated things cost $thousands.


In any case this is all still spitballing for me at the moment. Although my Z3100 is currently dead in the water for lack of MK-R heads (and grrr that it's the *only* thing preventing its use), my Z3200 is in ~slightly~ better position for consumables.

And when all that dries up there's always the option to wade into the exciting world of 3rd-party inks/heads... (I actually have an unopened set here that I inherited with the rescued Z3200). For my current needs it might be fine, especially with the super convenient onboard spectro to reprofile any time I want.

And if that sucks, then I might contemplate a newer printer... (Canon 2600 etc)

Besides, my future decision is as likely be about "self print vs print service" than "one printer/spectro combo vs another". Altho I'd like to make repros of my own artwork myself in small numbers, any volume or fulfillment needs are probably going to drive me toward a print service anyway.

Thanks again

[Richard.Wills]

As a masochist, I run 2371 patches on all but the most trivial* media, using profiler on an i1pro2, takes 35 minutes to read the three pages. Worth every minute. I imagine there are similar prime patch quantities for Argyll.


* And for some media, I have profiles for +laminate and/or mounted on non white (i.e. aluminium) substrates. Takes a certain amount of time, but when I sometimes go through 3+ rolls in a day.

Our new 4600 is a relative speed devil, and head strikes from dog ends of rolls are very unusual events, and on the worst curly media, feeding 6" in advance of printing makes the most of roll lengths.

And for a double bonus, the head is user replaceable, for not crazzzy money :-)

[digitaldog]

As a masochist, I run 2371 patches on all but the most trivial* media, using profiler on an i1pro2, takes 35 minutes to read the three pages.

Oh, you kids <g>
Try scanning a few hundred patches on the Colortron. Now that wasn't any fun.
I still have one (and the accompanying 'black box). It's for the future Spectrophotometer/CMS museum.

[Randy Carone]

I'm wondering if printers who self-profile have then compared the same print/paper using the manufacturer's profile. I find them to be quite good.

[Kyle Jackson]

I'm wondering if printers who self-profile have then compared the same print/paper using the manufacturer's profile. I find them to be quite good.

In my case (HP), there often isn't one available. But when there is, I've seen the profiles I produce myself handily exceed those from HP in gamut volume and Dmax. And that's before even tweaking any settings to optimize it, such as ink load, etc. And I recall one mfr profile that was so bad I think it must've been a mistake or something.

Ofc I can't generalize anything about mfr profiles from that because it's very case-specific. Given all the variables, I imagine there's a large blob of cases where the mfr profiles are generally comparable to self-made ones, with differences of debatable significance.

But with the built-in spectro making it sinfully easy to do my own profiles, it's simply not worth thinking about. Assuming the spectro and software isn't totally out to lunch, then I know my own profiles are a faithful measure of what my printer is actually producing on that day (be it good or bad). I can also reprofile it whenever I feel the need.

Ofc the same is true of non-built-in spectros..., it's just not as convenient / childproof for me