Pleased with new P800

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No controversy.  I just get tired of your snotty tone.  If Jeff uses it, it is great.  If he doesn't, not great.  There is a dismissive tone to most of your posts.  I have noticed it for a long time.

 

As for writing about it, I posted a lengthy personal review because I liked the printer and wanted to share my experience.  Up to that point, like many photographers, I had been captive to Epson, which produced a problematic printer--one that lots of people had trouble with.  Every time I posted an update, you went out of your way to argue about it.  All I was doing was giving my personal observations.

 

Other way around.  We indeed have different approaches.  Note that when I posted here on my P800 experiences, I never once mentioned any competitor, Canon or otherwise, or felt the need to bash the competition just to explain how pleased I was with what I experienced.  You, on the other hand, couldn't resist putting down Epson as part of your review, even in your first post...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255221-canon-program-pro-1000-17-printer-initial-impressions/

 

Even so, my posts back to you, even starting with the first response, was cordial....even inquisitive.  And I tried to let others know that your bad Epson experiences were not universal, and explained some of the distinctions between machines.   But I never once bashed Canon in the process and, contrary to your view, I see absolutely nothing combative or snotty in my posts.....except if you were somehow offended that I talked about early adopters being brave testers.  I even wrote later that I was pleased that you liked your machine and that Canon had stepped up the game.  

 

But I wasn't surprised with your tone here....it was predictable based on your posts over the years.  I suggest, for instance, that you re-read your last paragraph in post #16 here..... a sarcastic tone if ever there was one.... folks who rely on complicated things (like IP, I guess) won't really be better photographers.  As if anyone here said otherwise.

 

Pot/kettle.

 

Jeff

Edited April 20, 2016 by Jeff S

[Guest]

Hello Jeff,hope you don't mind if I pick your brains as we say over here.

Like yourself I am very pleased with my P800 . Definitely an improvement over the print quality of my 2880 .Nothing really major in colour but a big step up in B and W. Plus the other obvious benefits.What is the main benefit of Image print IP 10 other than the very good custom profiles or are the profiles the main reason for buying it.

I appreciate that the best way to make my own custom profiles is to use the  I1pro 2 or similar but would the profiles be as good as the ones which are integral to IP 10. I am conveniently ignoring the fact that the I12pro can be double the price of IP10.

My copy of IP 10 is stuck in Customs about 12 mile from me and DHL are being less than helpful.I am on the verge of sending it back after spending hours on the phone. I have access to an I1pro2 and as often as I want at no cost.

What I am really saying is how much of your improvement in print quality is down to the P800 and how much to IP10. Is there an easy answer to that question.

BrianP

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest]

Almost a year ago I tried the Epson 3880. My experience was terrific prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper, but a major problem with printing 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper: toward the last 4 or 5 inches of the print, the paper would often — on at least ¼ of the prints — slip sideways and the trailing edge of those prints was printed with a ¼-inch offset. It seems that the paper feeding mechanism (i.e., wheels) on the 3880 was flimsy; and this slipping of there trailing edge would occur in a somewhat humid environment (June in Washington DC).

 

At first Epson sent me a refurbished replacement printer but, since the slippage problem continued, they then sent me another new printer: as I still had the same problem, they wanted to send me a third new printer, but I was convinced that the issue was a design problem and caused by humidity, Epson refunded the purchase price. I supposed that I could have printed on 17x22 inch paper and left a much larger margin than the ½-cinch one on the 13x19 inch paper, but I wanted the ½-inch margin.

 

I wonder whether the feeding mechanism has improved on the P800? Indeed the 3880 was very fussy and, often, one had to try to feed in 13x19 inch sheets of Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper several times before the printer would start printing — my feeling that this was already related to the humidity issue.

[Jeff S]

Which feed did you use on the 3880?  I believe it had 3 feed options, same as my 3800.  I used the auto top feed for many papers, but always used the front feed for problematic papers (one that tended to curl or had otherwise problematic surfaces), and that always worked smoothly.  In addition, I was always careful to monitor the proper platen gap setting.   I never used the rear feed, with which some had problems.  I routinely printed 13x19 papers, and at times that included Exhibition Fiber, with no issues.

 

The P800 eliminates the rear feed, and the front feed now works differently as well.  I find the front feed smoother handling, with less chance of curling paper getting caught on the way out, since the loading platform is now retracted to its original position after loading but before printing.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Thanks, from what you say the front feed seems to be an improvement.

 

In the 3880 I used the rear manual feed slot, which is what the user manual states should be used for this paper and what Epson technical support confirmed when I was having that problem.

[Jeff S]

Thanks, from what you say the front feed seems to be an improvement.

 

In the 3880 I used the rear manual feed slot, which is what the user manual states should be used for this paper and what Epson technical support confirmed when I was having that problem.

 

I never listened to them....the discussion groups were full of complaints about the rear feed.  But I knew what worked, and it seemed logical since the front feed was designed to handle tougher stuff anyway. The front feed on my 3800 worked without skews or slips, but I had to stand by to make sure the paper fed through cleanly.  I don't need to do that anymore with the P800.

 

Note, too, that printing near the paper edge can be a problem with many printers.  One of the reasons I like IP is that once I determine the feed option, it makes all the necessary settings without my having to worry about anything.

 

Jeff

Edited April 20, 2016 by Jeff S

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Jeff,hope you don't mind if I pick your brains as we say over here.

Like yourself I am very pleased with my P800 . Definitely an improvement over the print quality of my 2880 .Nothing really major in colour but a big step up in B and W. Plus the other obvious benefits.What is the main benefit of Image print IP 10 other than the very good custom profiles or are the profiles the main reason for buying it.

I appreciate that the best way to make my own custom profiles is to use the  I1pro 2 or similar but would the profiles be as good as the ones which are integral to IP 10. I am conveniently ignoring the fact that the I12pro can be double the price of IP10.

My copy of IP 10 is stuck in Customs about 12 mile from me and DHL are being less than helpful.I am on the verge of sending it back after spending hours on the phone. I have access to an I1pro2 and as often as I want at no cost.

What I am really saying is how much of your improvement in print quality is down to the P800 and how much to IP10. Is there an easy answer to that question.

BrianP

 

Sorry I missed replying to this earlier, Brian...somehow skipped it unintentionally.

 

I can't really speak to your workflow and your ultimate end results.  We all know that the same cameras don't produce the same results for everyone, and PP gear and techniques are subject to even more variation.  The tools either fit one's workflow or not.....the rest is subject to myriad variables....not just how the tools are used, but subjective judgments about often very subtle print effects, which may or may not be important to the user.  On top of that, there's the whole issue of b/w versus color work, and how one defines a successful print.  

 

A good friend uses IP for color, and Piezo for b/w.  He still, however, uses his expensive i1Pro gear to incorporate his custom profiles into the IP workflow.  (IP provides a process for those who choose to take this route).  The profiles aren't even the reason he loves IP.  Rather, he chooses to use IP for its other benefits....primarily because it better achieves what he wants in print quality, e.g., better distinctions in quarter tones, which ultimately result in more 'touchable' images.  He'll often apologize for the cheesy terms, but he (like me) has a hard time articulating the benefits.  Kind of like porn....we know it when we see it.

 

I'm beginning to see what he means, although I"m also using it for my b/w work.  But it will take time for me to realize its potential (just as I'm still improving with LR, and I've had that for 7 years).  But as I wrote already, besides the profiles and the potential for better print results, I love that IP gets me out of the problems associated with the Apple/Adobe/Epson chain.....changes to color management, having to meticulously check every print setting when things suddenly don't work as expected, etc.  With IP, the software manages all those print settings for me....and the profiles and papers choices are almost endless (Piezo, on the other hand, restricts one to a chosen ink set, and introduces all kinds of complexities).

 

I'm sure, too, that the P800 has something to do with my improvements.  I'll never be able to sort those, as my 3800 has now gone to a local college photo program and I didn't run any side-by-side tests.  My friend, however, runs two large Epson printers....the 4900 and one of the 4800 models.....I think IP is for his 4900.  He's very picky and has tried many different workflows  (he also still makes silver prints in his darkroom).  He even tried IP many years ago and wasn't bowled over.  But when he tried IP again with version 9, he was thrilled.  I think the folks at LuLa mentioned the improved print results with the newer version.  And version 10 now adds print sharpening to the workflow so that the entire chain can be soft proofed in IP prior to sending to print.

 

I can't really offer more than this.  You might love it, or you might be disappointed if the benefits you're seeking are not apparent or doable.  I like it...so far....for many reasons, and I think print quality is one of them, even with the P800.  Can't prove it, but it's consistent with other user reports....including users I know and respect.

 

Maybe you should take a step at a time.  Make free custom profiles and then you'll have a basis for comparison later.  But, keep in mind, that making profiles is not plug and play.  The same gear won't necessarily produce the same result in two people's hands.  No different than camera gear.  And, even then, you could spend many hours making multiple profiles for any given paper (based on different lighting conditions, all black vs color inks, etc)....that would take no time at all with IP.  But how important are subtle profile distinctions for you?

 

Your call.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Hi Jeff

Thank you very much for a very informative answer which is interesting and answers many things.If I can ever get my copy of IP10 off DHL I will no doubt gain from the programme and enjoy using it. Even with I1 pro it is not plug and play as you say. 

Thanks

BrianP

[Guest]

For anyone reading this thread who is interested in IP10  I have now got my copy up and running and first impressions are good. I also found John Pannozzo of Colorbyte software extremely helpful. I had a very minor glitch when activating my copy and the speed that the support team responded was almost instantaneous. Plenty of video tuition on the Colorbyte software web site to help a user get the best from the software.When I get home from a short break I will do some fine tuning.

BrianP

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[Jeff S]

I continue to be happy with my results.  I just reprinted a 15x20" color image, previously rendered with LR and the 3800, now with IP and P800.  I liked it enough to double matt and frame it 22x28 with my better museum glass.   The prior version was very good, but just didn't sing in the same way.....color, detail and tonal gradation.  A lot of variables are involved (including me), so I can't attribute the results to any one change.....but the overall impact is tangible.

 

I also like the soft proofing through IP better (more true to the print) than LR....a time and paper saver.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Quote from Jeff S :   I also like the soft proofing through IP better (more true to the print) than LR....a time and paper saver.

 

Agree 100%.

 

BrianP

[Guest]

I am sure that I read recently that Jon Cone could not support the P800 as Epson had introduced something in the firmware  to prevent the use of 3rd party inks . Worth having a look at this company as they are supplying replacement ink sets for the P 800.

http://www.specialistinks.com/epson-sure-color-p800.php

Personally I am unlikely to use other than Epson ink but having seen the results when using these inks at various trade shows, they do look OK.

BrianP

[Jeff S]

Interesting given what I've also read (and stated here) about Cone inks and the P800.  The Cone inks (color and b/w) are the only ones that I would trust based on experience from users I know.  Not to say that other company inks would't suffice, but I have no knowledge about them.  

 

I'm sticking with Epson on the P800, regardless of Cone compatibility.  If I were still running the 3800 as a second machine, I would have considered Cone. 

 

Jeff