Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:
> Ernst, a couple of major points here. The Z is certainly a fine
> printer, no question.
> First of all, this thread began with requesting advice about a used
> 9000, then 9500, as an economical B&W purchase. One can certainly not
> put the few thousand dollars for a Z into the same discussion as the
> few hundred mentioned for a used 9xxx.
> Secondly, even though a larger dot quad print can still hold up as a
> thing of beauty, no one recommended they look for an older quad set to
> go with. Certainly these days a smaller dot, or variable dot, is a
> better choice for quads. A 6K approach mentioned by both myself and
> Paul on one of these printers will give wonderful results with little
> work, setup, or cost, and newer ink sets put the older quads sets
> under the table when it comes to nozzle performance. I have a K7 7800
> test printer that sits for weeks sometimes, and starts right up perfectly.
> 
> I have a print of an image made from the Z3100, and also with a 10k
> and the Cone NK6 inkset in front of me right now.
> Other than a barely perceptable increase in dmax with the Z, the 10K
> K6 print is clearly better. Less apparent mechanical pattern and dots,
> smoother, more represented subtle grays, uniform hues as opposed to
> the reddish Z shadows, etc..
> I haver a lot of good HP output here to see, quad, tones RGB, matte
> and gloss. The Z is a beautiful printer and makes wonderful out of the
> box B&W, but these new mono sets and approaches have come a long long
> way from the old large fixed dot quads.
> 
> I have no particular reverence for an old 9xxx beast, but for a
> dedicated B&W printer for (probably) under $500 it's going to be very
> very hard to beat, or even match, for any amount of money.
> Tyler

Tyler,

On most we actually agree here but I do not share the idea 
that the 9000 is that reliable and easy in maintenace and I 
actually think it isn't cheaper right now than a secondhand 
9600s if one looks for spare parts and maintenance. Some of 
the 9000s are 9 years old now. I would have written that at 
the start of the thread but the majority there had other 
ideas so I skipped that but mentioned it in the messages now.

When Paul added that the print quality of the 9000 was still 
close to heaven I thought the balance was lost and replied 
that there is a visual difference with the Z3100, the 
printer that I have here so can compare to. Your observation 
that more recent Epson models with dedicated 6K 7K inksets 
beat the Z3100 again doesn't surprise me, a 3.5 picoliter 
dot and an inkset perfectly fitting a 7600 or 7800 model 
probably beats everything around right now and must be miles 
better than a 9000.  A dedicated 5 picoliter, 6K, enough 
weaving, 10000 is probably at the same level and still fast. 
But I sketched the head price, you can find enough 10000 and 
10600 printers at 500 $ that need a head replacement. There 
are other reasons not to use them if one is looking for an 
economic solution.

It is true that I didn't check newer B&W inks over the last 
18 months and the compatibility must have been improved. 
Maybe not from all sources though. The Eboni has been a 
reliable ink here and the new developments based on it are 
interesting, I have been less happy (18 months ago) with 
MIS's other inks including color. I like to have a printer 
though that can deliver me both excellent color and 
excellent B&W and I am not willing to try the maybe 30 
customised B&W solutions that meanwhile exist. I can get my 
inks now with a call today and a 10 minutes bicycle ride 
next day. It's frugal on ink which made it easier to switch 
to more expensive inks.

Loading a 6K inkset of whatever origin on a 9000 could be 
better than the quad I have here but one thing remains the 
same. Both 9000s I have do not consistently lay down a 
smooth black with Eboni, I disguise the small grey lines on 
the quad one with the next ink, in this case the PK. While 
the Eboni is the most stable ink (little clogging etc) the 
uniformity has not been optimal with several heads and two 
9000s so I think it is the head design itself not being 
optimal for that ink. If QTR allowed the split of the black 
channel over two heads while keeping the partitioning on the 
other heads it would be a nice solution, any other solution 
has been a compromise in my experience.

I do not share your observation of the red shadows in Z3100 
prints either. If the B&W mode is used in the right way and 
the printer calibrated for HPR (and using a custom QTR 
profile like I do) it will print an excellent neutral print 
on HPR, other paper whites will need toning and that's an 
art on any machine. Where B&W shadows shift to the paper 
whites and related color toning because you can't load the 
black and shadows with enough hue you hit a problem any 
dedicated B&W inkset has and the tools you then have with a 
set of CMYRGB inks next to the quads is way better than on a 
6K or 7K machine. But my intention wasn't to put the Z3100 
forward as the alternative for a secondhand 9000, as written 
there are used 9600 and even 9800s on the market that have a 
better price/maintenance/performance ratio than the 
9000/9500 if converted to B&W use.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |