Digital BW, The Print

While surfing today, ran across a HP announcement for an HP 
Photosmart 7960: a new 8-ink (no kidding 8 inks including gray)4800 
dpi photo printer.

All the usual claims. But also claims no problems with B&W prints.

Mac, Windows, 

4x6 prints in as fast as 36 secs

new papers with 65 year longevity.

8.5x11 for street price of $299.

Rather than me trying to type, here is the URL

http://www.dcviews.com/press/HP-Photosmart-7960.htm

Anybody know anything about this one

Vincent is very positive on the HP 7960 in his interactive review 
when testing b&w against an Epson 2100:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_5.htm

". . . when I saw these prints coming out of the 7960 printer I was 
dumb struck. The only thing that I have seen that matches the HP 
prints is my DeVere enlarger. . . . I thought the Epson was good, but 
the HP 7960 has just changed the rules."

It would be interesting to see b&w comparision tests between 2200 
images using the IP5.6 or IJC/OPM drivers, and those from the new HP.

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dan 
Honemann" <dan_honemann@y...> wrote:
> Vincent is very positive on the HP 7960 in his interactive review 
> when testing b&w against an Epson 2100:
>  
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_
5.htm
> 
> ". . . when I saw these prints coming out of the 7960 printer I 
was 
> dumb struck. The only thing that I have seen that matches the 
HP 
> prints is my DeVere enlarger. . . . I thought the Epson was 
good, but 
> the HP 7960 has just changed the rules."
> 
IMHO, Vincent's gushing praise for the HP7960 B&W output 
didn't seem justified, based on the print comparisons he 
published (HP vs Epson 2100). The Epson prints (just using 
graybalancer) seemed very neutral and with good shadow detail. 
The HP prints, by comparison, were extremely warm-toned and 
heavy. He hasn't (yet) explained exactly what aspects of the HP 
B&W prints have caused his enthusiasm.

> It would be interesting to see b&w comparision tests between 
>2200 
> images using the IP5.6 or IJC/OPM drivers, and those from the 
>new HP.

Indeed it would. And some info about relative longevity.

Phil

> IMHO, Vincent's gushing praise for the HP7960 B&W output 
> didn't seem justified, based on the print comparisons he 
> published (HP vs Epson 2100). The Epson prints (just using 
> graybalancer) seemed very neutral and with good shadow detail. 
> The HP prints, by comparison, were extremely warm-toned and 
> heavy. He hasn't (yet) explained exactly what aspects of the HP 
> B&W prints have caused his enthusiasm.

According to his statements in his forum the prints have no bronzing, no
metamerism and are perfectly dotless. This would be a definite
improvement over the 2100 with OEM inks and drivers.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

And there were obvious dithering/banding patterns in the close up of  
the girls eye (compared to the canon that looked near continuous tone)!

On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 09:47  AM, Phil Rose wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dan
> Honemann" <dan_honemann@y...> wrote:
>> Vincent is very positive on the HP 7960 in his interactive review
>> when testing b&w against an Epson 2100:
>>
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_
> 5.htm
>>
>> ". . . when I saw these prints coming out of the 7960 printer I
> was
>> dumb struck. The only thing that I have seen that matches the
> HP
>> prints is my DeVere enlarger. . . . I thought the Epson was
> good, but
>> the HP 7960 has just changed the rules."
>>
> IMHO, Vincent's gushing praise for the HP7960 B&W output
> didn't seem justified, based on the print comparisons he
> published (HP vs Epson 2100). The Epson prints (just using
> graybalancer) seemed very neutral and with good shadow detail.
> The HP prints, by comparison, were extremely warm-toned and
> heavy. He hasn't (yet) explained exactly what aspects of the HP
> B&W prints have caused his enthusiasm.
>
>> It would be interesting to see b&w comparision tests between
>> 2200
>> images using the IP5.6 or IJC/OPM drivers, and those from the
>> new HP.
>
> Indeed it would. And some info about relative longevity.
>
> Phil
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &  
> Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Regards,

Loring Palleske
Creative Imaging
416.301.1711

If I have learned anything in my 3 years of intense exploration of 
digital printmaking, it is to not trust any one persons evaluation of 
any product. Although I find such evaluations interesting I have been 
disappointed far too many times! I don't even trust manufactures sample 
prints let alone someone's scanned prints on the web. The only way I 
can really evaluate what a new printer / ink / paper is all about it to 
print several of my own images with the new product and carefully 
evaluate the results. Unlike traditional wet darkroom prints, digital 
printing tends to be very image dependent. Meaning... Some images hide 
potential printing process problems while other images tend to brings 
these shortcomings to the surface. Such as banding, metamerism, poor 
tonal transitions. la la la.

-Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Magidson 
<jef.jef@v...> wrote:
> If I have learned anything in my 3 years of intense exploration of 
> digital printmaking, it is to not trust any one persons evaluation 
> of any product. 

All too true, Jeff.  And yet it is likewise impractical to try to 
personally test all possible printer/ink/paper combinations oneself 
(at least on _my_ budget ;).  

The best we can hope for, perhaps, is to have access to a number of 
reviews from reliable sources to narrow down the choices for what we 
do invest in and test for ourselves--and then to share our own 
observations with others, for the sake of adding to the pool of 
knowledge (which is why this forum is so valuable).

AFAIC, the best reviews are those that not only provide a variety of 
sample images, but also carefully compare those samples with other 
proven products.  That's why I'd like to see Vincent compare the HP 
7960 prints with those produced by the 2200 through IP or IJC, as 
these are known to be (at least capable of being) neutral and free of 
metamerism.

Dan