Printers

[Machaon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Epson is currently acknowledged as the current leader in fine art printing with a very intelligent advertising process directed toward professionals and experienced "amateurs" but we all know that the Epson printers have some drawbacks, even in the top range.

HP is a new challenger but seems to be quite far behind in terms of customer support and there is no relay, at least in France, in the pro world which is offering only Epson printers.

 

I am slowly moving toward digital photography and I have bought a HP Photosmart 9180, which seemed to have a good price/performance ratio, to print slides and B & W films scanned with a Nikon LS 5000.

The initial experience with HP papers (Premium Glossy) or Epson Matte Archival has been quite disappointing especially in Black and White. I am currently using Hannemülhe Fine Art Pearl with very good results, not baryta of course but... Still, there is some metamerism and some bronzing.

Would anyone like to comment on that and share experience (s) ?

 

Many thanks.

[johnastovall]

Think Epson has serious competition in fine art printing from the new Canon 5000. I'm going to give it a serious look when I upgrade printers in a year.

 

Here are two articles on it at Luminous Landscape. I'm hoping to get a hands on with one at the Imaging USA show in two weeks.

[cbretteville]

The best B&W prints I've made so far were done on Hanemüehle Photorag 180 using K7 piezography inks on an Epson R800. Fantastic. No metamarizm with all gray-black inks. Printing done using QuadTome Rip.

 

I've recently picked up a second hand Epson 2100/2200 that I'll dedicate as a B&W printer. I'll either use the K6 inks or Generations Quad inks. There is no substitute for all monochrome inks. I'll keep the R800 for colour prints.

 

- Carl

[jrc]

To second what John said above, I would recommend the Luminous Landscape's printer and papers forum as one of the best, most helpful printer forums on the net. You can get answers to most questions quickly and politely. There has recently been a discussion of the new HP, Canon and Epson lines, and the forum operator is currently in the process of reviewing all three. So far he has done Canon and Epson, with HP to come. You can find the forum here:

 

Luminous Landscape Forum -> Printers, Papers and Inks

 

JC

[Machaon]

Thanks a lot :)

[DennisAllshouse]

Luminous Landscape has done a write up on the HP B9180 although he didn't mention any B&W results specifically.

[robbegibson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was using an Epson 7600 and 4800 with the Colorburst RIP. A month ago, I sold the 4800 and bought a Canon IPF5000 with roll feeder. Outside of the abysmal documentation and the less straightforward paper profiles/interface, I've found the color slightly better and the monochrome noticably better than the 4800, especially when using the Photoshop export plug-in that allows true 16 bit printing. The 5000 does allow glossy and matte black printing without changing cartridges. None of the Epson x800 series (K3 inks) and only the 4000 in the x600 (K2 inks) can do that without changing cartridges.

 

OTOH, after two experiences with Canon's warranty service provider (Canon farms field service out to a third party company) I would hesitate to buy another Canon printer. Sadly, the company claims they also do the Epson warranty work in this area. Fortunately, Samy's exchanged the printer after the field service guy killed it.

 

The quirkiness of the IPF5000 is a good match for the M8 as niether is suited to the novice.

 

Robbe Gibson

[ho_co]

I have no direct experience with the printer, but will likely also purchase the HP B9180 soon. Michael Reichman commented in one of the above links that its output is marginally inferior in output to the Epson models, but that that fact will be unnoticeable to anyone not using a loupe.

 

If you are not already aware of Mike Johnston's on-going semi-review of the B9180, he offers a lot of information quite readably at The Online Photographer.

 

In addition, on 12/3/06, he offered for sale some of his own b/w prints made by the B9180 as an indication of its quality. (Same URL as listed below on paper technology.)

 

See his comments for 11/22/06 at The Online Photographer: November 2006, where he places it in the market, and for 11/5/06 (same URL), where he offers some links to other reviews of the printer.

 

Also, in his entry for 12/1/06 at The Online Photographer: December 2006, he discusses differences in paper technology between older HP printers and the B9180.

 

Search each of those pages for "9180" to find relevant information.

 

I hope this helps. It looks like an extremely capable printer at a very reasonable price.

 

--HC

[mike prevette]

I personally am looking at a epson 3800, as an upgrade for my 2400. Same K7 inks, new printhead, Larger inks, 16x20 printing, and you no longer have to change inks.

 

_mike

[ustein]

>upgrade for my 2400. Same K7 inks,

 

Actually K3 (not K7). Stands for 3 blacks.

 

Uwe

[mike prevette]

DOH! stupid me you are correct.

[Machaon]

Thank you all !!!

 

I had selected the HP because of the well known drawbacks of Epson printers and because of a favorable buzz around the 9180 (8 cartridges, BW & color with no fuss, reasonable cost, Photoshop plug in, auto-calibration and so on).

 

I am quite happy with the results and B&W as colour prints get high marks from family and colleagues in my professional environment, photographers and amateurs as well.

As an old darkroom addict, I am quite happy because of the ease of use and very good results, deep black or clean white with all shades of gray but I am left disturbed by the metamerism (same word in English ?) and some bronzing artifacts. I did not see these problems mentioned in the multiple reviews, in French Photo magazines or in the various english-speaking sites ???

 

I must say to be honest that the results are very good as far as I am a beginner in digital photography and one would need some years of experience to achieve such results using a conventional darkroom.

 

I am trying now to go a bit further for I am looking for tricks and tips, especially about inks and paper as well as printer tuning (interface ? profiles ?).

 

Best wishes : have a happy new year looking for the magic bullet and taking photos !!!

[leicaM8freak]

I was using an Epson 7600 and 4800 with the Colorburst RIP. A month ago, I sold the 4800 and bought a Canon IPF5000 with roll feeder. Outside of the abysmal documentation and the less straightforward paper profiles/interface, I've found the color slightly better and the monochrome noticably better than the 4800, especially when using the Photoshop export plug-in that allows true 16 bit printing. The 5000 does allow glossy and matte black printing without changing cartridges. None of the Epson x800 series (K3 inks) and only the 4000 in the x600 (K2 inks) can do that without changing cartridges.

 

 

I am using the (new) Epson Stylus Pro 3800 since a month now and am very happy with both BW and color prints, and I have to disagree with the above statement in relation to the automatic glossy/matte cartridge change.

The 3800 has this option it holds 9 K3 inks and automaticaly changes from Glossy to Matte black when needed

 

For me a great printer

[Guest flatfour]

I have the new HP9180 and find the results with black and white are best when using HP Advanced Photo Paper and Canon's best glossy paper. There is not much difference between them but with HP having the slight edge. Epson papers just don't seem to work with the HP9180. I suppose that is a deliberate ploy by HP. I have gone for the HP printer instead of the new Canon and the old Epson 2400 as a result of info from my son's computer system and support business. He says the reliability with HP is markedly better than Epson and quite a bit better than Canon. He does admit though that HP gear seems to be more foolproof which may be one of the problems with Canon. We had awful reliability problems at college with Epson printers particularly the 1800.

[robbegibson]

I am using the (new) Epson Stylus Pro 3800 since a month now and am very happy with both BW and color prints, and I have to disagree with the above statement in relation to the automatic glossy/matte cartridge change.

The 3800 has this option it holds 9 K3 inks and automaticaly changes from Glossy to Matte black when needed

 

For me a great printer

 

Sorry, I never considered the 3800 as it has no capability for roll feeding and the inks are about 20% more expensive than the rest of the x800 series. It does get good reviews.

 

I'm glad it's working for you.

 

Robbe Gibson

[Jack_Flesher]

but I am left disturbed by the metamerism (same word in English ?) and some bronzing artifacts.

 

It's pretty well documented in the printing circles that the Epson K3 inks show less bronzing than Canon or HP. Also, the Epson inks perform very well on almost any paper, while Canon and especially HP seem to perform at their best on their own stock. Might be worth trying some native HP paper and see if the bronzing improves. Of course your choices there are pretty limited...

 

I can tell you I print on a wide variety of stock with my 7800 and 3800 and am not only pleased, but downright impressed by the results for both color and B&W output.

 

Cheers,