Digital BW, The Print

On 07/02/2008 djon43 wrote:
> Right/Wrong? : HP B9180 beats Epson 2400 in *EVERY respect* ASSUMING
> OEM pigments (except panoramas and perhaps metamerism on gloss)...is
> that a fair conclusion?
> 
> Asked another way: using OEM pigments, are there *any* B&W arguments
> in favor of 2400 or 1900, other than gloss and panoramas? 

Despite HP specs apparently limiting page length to 19", it is allegedly 
possible to get the B9180 to print up to 43" using Qimage. I haven't tried 
it since I don't shoot panoramas. 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hp9100Series/message/2332

I think you'll find owners of both printers who are mostly happy and a few 
unhappy. 'Better than' is relative to that and personal expectations, 
really. Both printers are extremely capable.

For me, because I only print intermittently but when I do I need it to 
Just Work without the 3am Windex panic routine, the overwhelming virtue of 
the HP is its ability to maintain nozzle health on standby, with 
negligible ink usage. This does appear to do exactly what it says on the tin.

The other clearcut issue for me is not having to swap between PK and MK 
inks when swapping between gloss and matte materials. I use both types and 
swap between them session to session, depending on what clients want.

It makes excellent prints too, but there's no question Epsons manage that 
as well. Whether or not you like the HP's black+gray only option is 
subjective. It has no glaring defects (like dottiness or lack of tonal 
smoothness) except it bronzes badly on non matte papers. Aesthetically I 
mostly prefer composite B&W because I usually like warm prints rather than 
strictly neutral, and ultimate DMax is slightly improved too, but 
achieving that means tinkering with image colour rather than the elegant 
Epson ABW adjustments. 	Again, Qimage helps make up for that.

I'll abstain on the 'better than', I have no regrets about getting the HP 
but I'm sure most 2400 owners would say the same about their choice too. 
Except maybe to wish they'd got a 3800 instead :)

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk