Digital BW, The Print

I asked a similar question before - but didn't get many takers, so if you'll allow me I'll ask 
it again.

With Wihlem "numbers" for glossy paper (my preference) framed and glassed at 100+ 
years, no clogging problems, and a printer price equal to or lower than Epson's - why not 
look at HP's new 8750?

I understand this is mostly an Epson/MIS forum and I've been getting great results with my 
little C86+MIS EZ - but I'm willing to explore all options before I spend money on a bigger 
printer. I've seen prints from a smaller HP printer that uses the same gray scale and color 
ink technology found in the 8750 - and they look great - as in GREAT.

So I guess I'm wondering - why don't I see any posts here about HP here? Is it because this 
is an Epson centered group - or because there is something fundamentally wrong with the 
HP "solution" for black and white? I'd appreciate some advice from you all beore I spend a 
big chunk of money. I'm not rich enough to make a mistake here.

Thanks in Advance!

Phil C.

In a nutshell, there aren't many quad ink options are available for 
HP printers.  Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use 
pigment inks for our work (ie, Epson printers), and most other 
printers use dye inks.  Putting pigment inks into a printer designed 
for dyes can sometimes result in clogging.

So, that leaves most non-Epson printer users with the standard OEM 
inkset, which generally requires a RIP or some other 3rd party 
solution to get decent monochrome output.  Most of the inexpensive 
RIPs don't support HP or Canon printers for archival reasons 
mentioned above.  You have to spend a lot more money for a RIP that 
offers good monochrome support.

Not a thorough answer, but it seems to be the state of affairs at the 
present time.  It will probably change some as the other printer 
companies come up with better offerings, which seems to be happening.

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdcorlis" 
<pdcorlis@a...> wrote:
> 
> I asked a similar question before - but didn't get many takers, so 
if you'll allow me I'll ask 
> it again.
> 
> With Wihlem "numbers" for glossy paper (my preference) framed and 
glassed at 100+ 
> years, no clogging problems, and a printer price equal to or lower 
than Epson's - why not 
> look at HP's new 8750?
> 
> I understand this is mostly an Epson/MIS forum and I've been 
getting great results with my 
> little C86+MIS EZ - but I'm willing to explore all options before I 
spend money on a bigger 
> printer. I've seen prints from a smaller HP printer that uses the 
same gray scale and color 
> ink technology found in the 8750 - and they look great - as in 
GREAT.
> 
> So I guess I'm wondering - why don't I see any posts here about HP 
here? Is it because this 
> is an Epson centered group - or because there is something 
fundamentally wrong with the 
> HP "solution" for black and white? I'd appreciate some advice from 
you all beore I spend a 

> big chunk of money. I'm not rich enough to make a mistake here.
> 
> Thanks in Advance!
> 
> Phil C.

"Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use pigment inks for our work (ie, Epson 
printers), and most other printers use dye inks."

I'm really not trying to start an arguement here, but if the Wilhelm tests are correct - and 
the newer HP ink and paper combination do give 100+ for framed and glassed display, 
doesn't that at least call us to question our belief that pigment inks are the only way to go? 
Again - I'm really not trying to stir anything up here - but trying to weigh all the options 
prior to investing in a solution.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me

Phil C.

I for one would be more than happy to have an archival, dye based 
solution that avoids all of the negatives associated with pigment inks 
on both RC and cotton papers (bronzing, metamerism, flaking, low dmax, 
etc.).  Perhaps the new HP inks and papers or the much hyped and long 
awaited (soon to be available?) "Futures" inks should be considered 
seriously.  Assuming Wilhelm's tests are realistic, then the only 
negatives I can see at this point with the HP products are ink and 
paper costs and lack of 3rd party support.  I also have not seen HP B&W 
prints made with the new papers and inks so can't comment on print 
quality.

On Mar 27, 2005, at 3:18 PM, pdcorlis wrote:

>
>
> "Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use pigment inks for 
> our work (ie, Epson
> printers), and most other printers use dye inks."
>
> I'm really not trying to start an arguement here, but if the Wilhelm 
> tests are correct - and
> the newer HP ink and paper combination do give 100+ for framed and 
> glassed display,
> doesn't that at least call us to question our belief that pigment inks 
> are the only way to go?
> Again - I'm really not trying to stir anything up here - but trying to 
> weigh all the options
> prior to investing in a solution.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you can give me
>
> Phil C.

Phil,

I'm sure dye inksets will continue to improve and will probably gain 
a larger market share down the road.  Dyes certainly have some 
advantages.  Many dyesets use swellable polymer type papers to reduce 
fading and improve lifespan, so the choice of papers is fairly 
limited.  Life usually shortens if using other types of papers.

None of above alters the fact that 3rd party inksets and RIPs are 
still extremely limited for HP and Canon printers.  It's just a fact 
of life at the present time. So, people use Epson printers mostly.

If the 3rd party manufacturers decide their is a profitable market 
for ink and RIP products with these printers, they will begin to 
appear.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdcorlis" 
<pdcorlis@a...> wrote:
> 
> "Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use pigment inks for 
our work (ie, Epson 
> printers), and most other printers use dye inks."
> 
> I'm really not trying to start an arguement here, but if the 
Wilhelm tests are correct - and 
> the newer HP ink and paper combination do give 100+ for framed and 
glassed display, 
> doesn't that at least call us to question our belief that pigment 
inks are the only way to go? 
> Again - I'm really not trying to stir anything up here - but trying 
to weigh all the options 

> prior to investing in a solution.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help you can give me
> 
> Phil C.

Phil: This seems to be a case where it's just a lot simpler to follow
the crowd, use the existing inksets, use the existing workflows, use
the existing problem solutions, and rely on the existing
infrastructure then to start from scratch with a handful of similar
independent minded folks using something other than Epson printers. 

I just want good prints and to make them the easiest way. I don't want
to try to duplicate the several years efforts of a lot of people with
a different printer. HP may make better printers than Epson for all I
know. But it's easier to make good prints with an Epson because of the
infrastructure.

I think we all have our strong streaks of individuality. I just prefer
to exercize mine in the content of my images rather than how I print
them. 

Watch a bunch of photojournalists shooting sometime. Notice they are
all shooting Nikon or Canon gear. Is that because they are the best?
No, not at all. It's just because of the support and the fact that if
they need to borrow a lens or body, that's what everyone else has. A
related situation exists with printers. 

Bob Michaels 

   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdcorlis"
<pdcorlis@a...> wrote:
> I understand this is mostly an Epson/MIS forum and I've been getting
great results with my 
> little C86+MIS EZ - but I'm willing to explore all options before I
spend money on a bigger 
> printer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdcorlis"
<pdcorlis@a...> wrote:
> 
> I asked a similar question before - but didn't get many takers, so
if you'll allow me I'll ask 
> it again.
> 
> With Wihlem "numbers" for glossy paper (my preference) framed and
glassed at 100+ 
> years, no clogging problems, and a printer price equal to or lower
than Epson's - why not 
> look at HP's new 8750?
> 
These are the ink carts that will fit into the 8750 printer. They are
all uneven volume. I wonder why...

HP 97 Tri-color Inkjet Print Cartridge, 14 ml C9363WN
HP 96 Black Inkjet Print Cartridge, 21 ml C8767WN
HP 99 Photo Inkjet Print Cartridge, 13 ml C9369WN; 
HP 100 Gray Photo Inkjet Print Cartridge, 15 ml C9368AN
HP 101 Blue Photo Inkjet Print Cartridge, 13 ml C9365AN
HP 102 Gray Photo Inkjet Print Cartridge, 23 ml C9360AN

Cheers,
Andre Moreau

I have seen HP b/w prints on their Premium Plus papers.  I must say 
the print quality and neutrality is impressive.  No objectionable 
metamerism or bronzing on these RC papers.

I used one of these printers at the local CompUsa store, and the HP 
rep was kind enough to let me print one of my photographs.  The print 
was perfect straight out of the printer.  I have seen cliams that 
these inks/paper combination are capable of DMax greater than 2.7!  
Using a Heiland PM-Densitometer, I am measuring Dmax ~2.3.  In 
comparison,  using Epson UltraChome inks we typically get ~1.6 for 
matter papers, and ~2.1 on RC papers.

Pros & Cons (as I see it)

HP:  (1) Out of the box b/w prints, (2) Higher Dmax, (3) Limited to 
swellable polymer papers,  including Ilford Classic line, (4) These 
papers are not water-proof, and in fact smudge very easily on finger 
contact, (5) Less longevity on 100% cotton art papers?

Epson UC with Light Gray:  (1) Wide range of papers, (2) A lot of 
workflows, (3) Bronzing on RC papers, (4)Lower DMax.

My own preference is matte papers, and am not overly concerned about 
DMax, so I am staying with Epson, for now at least.

So, if you want easy b/w, HP printers are a good choice; you just 
need to know the limitations.

Hope this helps.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I for one would be more than happy to have an archival, dye based 
> solution that avoids all of the negatives associated with pigment 
inks 
> on both RC and cotton papers (bronzing, metamerism, flaking, low 
dmax, 
> etc.).  Perhaps the new HP inks and papers or the much hyped and 
long 
> awaited (soon to be available?) "Futures" inks should be considered 
> seriously.  Assuming Wilhelm's tests are realistic, then the only 
> negatives I can see at this point with the HP products are ink and 
> paper costs and lack of 3rd party support.  I also have not seen HP 
B&W 
> prints made with the new papers and inks so can't comment on print 
> quality.
> 
> On Mar 27, 2005, at 3:18 PM, pdcorlis wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > "Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use pigment inks 
for 
> > our work (ie, Epson
> > printers), and most other printers use dye inks."
> >
> > I'm really not trying to start an arguement here, but if the 
Wilhelm 
> > tests are correct - and
> > the newer HP ink and paper combination do give 100+ for framed 
and 
> > glassed display,
> > doesn't that at least call us to question our belief that pigment 
inks 
> > are the only way to go?
> > Again - I'm really not trying to stir anything up here - but 
trying to 

> > weigh all the options
> > prior to investing in a solution.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help you can give me
> >
> > Phil C.

Also with HP you change print heads with each cartridge which means

they are cheap enough to be replaceable "for free" which is not the same as super high 
quality; just can't be no matter how hard they try

and this also means that cartridge to cartridge color (or B&W) calibration must vary more 
than if the heads are not changed.

and HP has traditionally focused on speed and "engineering drawing" quality rather than 
fine art.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" <lbdina@c...> wrote:

> 
> In a nutshell, there aren't many quad ink options are available for 
> HP printers.  Due to longevity concerns, most of us want to use 
> pigment inks for our work (ie, Epson printers), and most other 
> printers use dye inks.  Putting pigment inks into a printer designed 
> for dyes can sometimes result in clogging.
> 
> So, that leaves most non-Epson printer users with the standard OEM 
> inkset, which generally requires a RIP or some other 3rd party 
> solution to get decent monochrome output.  Most of the inexpensive 
> RIPs don't support HP or Canon printers for archival reasons 
> mentioned above.  You have to spend a lot more money for a RIP that 
> offers good monochrome support.
> 
> Not a thorough answer, but it seems to be the state of affairs at the 
> present time.  It will probably change some as the other printer 
> companies come up with better offerings, which seems to be happening.
> 
> Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdcorlis" 
> <pdcorlis@a...> wrote:
> > 
> > I asked a similar question before - but didn't get many takers, so 
> if you'll allow me I'll ask 
> > it again.
> > 
> > With Wihlem "numbers" for glossy paper (my preference) framed and 
> glassed at 100+ 
> > years, no clogging problems, and a printer price equal to or lower 
> than Epson's - why not 
> > > 
> > Phil C.

Excuse me??  Wrong answer!!  One of the major unwritten rules of PJ is you
DON'T borrow gear.  You make do with what you have.

We shoot Canon or Nikon because they are the best.  There are NO OTHER SLRs
that are equal or have the range of lenses available.

Now, if we apply the same scenario, you have Epson.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Bob Michaels [mailto:bob@...] 
==
==
==Watch a bunch of photojournalists shooting sometime. Notice 
==they are all shooting Nikon or Canon gear. Is that because 
==they are the best?
==No, not at all. It's just because of the support and the fact 
==that if they need to borrow a lens or body, that's what 
==everyone else has. A related situation exists with printers. 
==