Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 9/26/06 4:30:51 AM, wcosshall@... writes:


> 
> HP has announced the new Z printers. The big feature is a built-in 
> spectro-photometer so
> you can profile any paper yourself.
> 

That was interesting to play with. HP has done a good job, and the printers 
profile papers, even third party papers, very well. When I did side by side 
prints from the HP-built profile, and a PrintFIX PRO 2.0 profile, either in color 
or black and white, they were very close (both on HP, and third party media). 
When it came to choosing between them the universal decision was for the PFP2 
profile (even by HP reps, much to their chagrin, when they checked which was 
which on the back), but I was quite impressed. This certainly beats canned 
profiles, and can cover third party papers as well. Anyone satisfied with canned 
profiles before will definately be satisfied with this solution, plus some who 
weren't.

I was slower to grasp the limitations than the quality. I'm used to be being 
able to adjust profiles as desired, and there is no facility for any type of 
adjustment with these machine profiles, so thats one factor. For B&W its a much 
bigger factor; what the HP color scientists think is the right blend to paper 
white will be fine for graphic design work, but it won't necessarily cut it 
for fine art prints. Another factor is that you get just one flavor of profile. 
I'm getting quite used to building a range of PrintFIX PRO 2.0 profiles from 
one measurement set for B&W work. 

Beyond that, is the "built in spectro" concept in general. Many of the 
studios I visit have a drawer filled with orphan proprietary monitor calibrators 
left over from long-dead monitors. Even the ones that still have the monitor, and 
use the proprietary calibrator for it, also own a Spyder to calibrate their 
other monitors so that they all match. Its a bit like that here: if you buy 
three Z-series printers, you are buying 3 spectros, which is fine for the 
convenience factor, but it doesn't work the other way; you will still want to profile 
other printers so all your prints are correct, and similar; and heaven forbid 
you have multiple Z printers, and feel that one doesn't match another, as 
there's no adjustability for that.

The "profile in the printer" idea is very good for color lasers and other 
network printers. Its a bit less applicable for wideformat printers, but can 
still be useful here. I suspect we'll get more comfortable with it over time. The 
Z drivers in general are quite easy to use, and let you know when the printer 
is not going to print, even if they don't always correctly tell you why, so 
thats all a step forward.

In terms of profiling the Z printers with PrintFIX PRO:

I sent back the Z2100 printer HP provided, as I didn't want to be comparing 
prints from a machine with a single gray ink (thus color-based blends for light 
grays), to those from Epson K3 and Canon iPF printers with two grays, so I 
have limited comments on the Z2100: I think that its more mature, at the moment 
than the color seperation for the Z3100, with a deeper black and smoother 
gradiations to white in low gamut color ramps. Thats about all I can say on the 
Z2100. 

The X3100 HP provided instead proved a bit harder to profile than the Epson 
and Canon two-gray printers. Fine for color, but a bit more challenging for B&
W. The low gamut color ramps tend to get quite saturated, especially in 
Magenta, before blending to white. This meant that I needed to adjust gray ramp 
blends to paper white for optimal results, which is not the case with the other 
brands. Not a big deal once I figured out how to do it, and it may well change by 
the time the 12 ink printers are released. For color it was good, offering 
the type of gamut I would expect for 11 or 12 colors.   

The Z3100 (keep in mind it was a prerelease unit) was painfully slow on 
startup (I didn't time it but I swear it took a quarter of an hour before it was 
ready to print, and with show attendees pushing buttons like monkeys all day 
long, restarting it when it had been shut down by accident was agonizing). It 
also is very slow rasterizing a narrow print on a wide roll. I think we'll have 
to rework the PFP letter/A4 optimized targets for this machine, no one wants to 
wait ten minutes for an image that small to RIP before printing. Overall, 
these issues are less annoying than quirks in competing machines (Epson ink 
changes, Canon driver issues), and might improve further before release.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been criticized by a couple of people, off-list, for being too easy on 
HP in my post about the Z series printers. These are first-of-kind machines, so 
I think its important to emphasize the potential more than the details, but I 
agree there are other issues worth mentioning. The first is the fact that 
both people contacted me privately; there seems to be a sense of foreboding about 
criticizing HP openly. That seems odd to me: I wrote an absolutely scathing 
review of a much earlier HP wide format model, and received feedback from HP 
reps on three continents within 24 hours. They disagreed with me on some points, 
pointed out workarounds or firmware updates for others, extended my warranty, 
and shipped me new CDs. Overall I'd have to say it was a positive experience, 
and no once did I feel that I was having my arm twisted, as I have with a 
number of other companies over the years. More importantly, virtually every point 
of criticism was addressed in the next generation of HP printers, so my 
complaints were certainly not ignored.

On to the list of "sensitive" issues with the Z series printers. First would 
be profiling time. Its a bit odd, but HP's marketing materials say something 
like "no longer does it take hours to profile your printer". Strange choice of 
angles, as the automatic profiling is easy, convenient, and close to 
idiotproof, but not particularly fast. I can build a profile with any of the current 
handheld spectros faster. I don't understand why HP is sensitive about this, its 
pretty much automatic, so its not that critical how long it takes. Setting up 
a straw man to knock down, when the serious user already knows how long it 
takes to build a profile manually is a poor alternative to emphasising the Z 
series strongpoints.

That leads to the issue of drydown. HP seems to somehow feel that having the 
profiling process clog up our printer for a day makes the magic go away. Well, 
once you load a roll, you are hardly going to unload it, damage some ends, 
and print on another media for 24 hours before reading the patches back in with 
the printer. So HP downlpays the issue that serious profiling is generally 
done with at least several hours of drydown. I can see that once the target is 
out of the printer, putting it back in later is not much more convenient than 
reading by hand, so this would be a touchy issue. But its certainly possible to 
put off most profiling untili the end of the day, print the target, and not 
read it until morning, so this is not a huge problem. And wet results from 
Ultrachrome-type inks are quite reasonable on many media, so this is only an issue 
for some paper types, and for the most demanding users.

Next is patch numbers. HP materials state 500 patches. But when you count 
them, its actually three hundred and some odd. Again, this seems to be a 
sensitive point, and HP reps at Photokina were stating that the linearization patches 
are "sort of" included. These patches certainly assist in improving results, 
but they absolutely cannnot be part of the patches that are used to 
characterize the printer for profiling. So again the marketing spin seems to point out 
that HP is uncomfortable about this. Which is silly, since profiles from patch 
sets in the 300 patch range can be very good. Admittedly the current Z series 
does not offer an alternative with more patches (next step up is typically in 
the 800 patch range) for situations where their lower patch option doesn't do 
the trick. But for most typical media (and certainly all HP media recommended 
for these printers), the current patch number should be fine. Gloss fine art 
papers, non-gessoed canvas and other new media would have to be tested as they 
appear to make sure they are sufficiently linear on the Z printers to profile 
well with the current number of patches.

Last, and very definately least, is HP's gloss optimizer. The GLOP is printed 
in an area outside the image, so signing, numbering and notating gloss/luster 
prints occurs on top of the GLOP. This is a real opportunity for someone to 
create an archival, HP GLOP compatible pen, as I ruined every pen in my 
briefcase writing on Z3100 prints.

So, I hope that covers the issues that it was felt I "glossed over" in my 
previous post...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul and Jon, et al:

I am interested in a comparison of these two ink systems from a descriptive point of view.� I am interested in different points of view but NOT value judgments as to which is superior.

�I do plan to try both and reach my own conclusions as to what works better for what but would enjoy some pointers about design considerations from the masters and inventors first. In the past I have used both Paul Roark and Jon Cone systems in my 2200 and 220 and been equally pleased in different ways with both.

With that in mind: i.e. wanting to switch between the systems and because I am also somewhat reluctant to use a CIS because my day-job takes me away from printing -- sometimes for prolonged periods --� I'm thinking a CIS would not be ideally suited to my intermittant printing habits. Would there be any problem in using re-fillable MIS carts for the Piezo K6 and if small amounts of either ink were left in the carts is there any incompatibility issues between these 2 ink sets?

Thank you both for all you do for all of us.

Michael Vendrell, MD

�

--- On Wed, 10/4/06, CDTobie@... <CDTobie@...> wrote:

From: CDTobie@... <CDTobie@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: New HP Z large format printers (cross posted)
To: CDTobie@aol.com, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, digital-fineart@yahoogroups.com, EpsonWideFormat@yahoogroups.com, colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 4, 2006, 8:30 AM







  


    
            I've been criticized by a couple of people, off-list, for being too easy on 

HP in my post about the Z series printers. These are first-of-kind machines, so 

I think its important to emphasize the potential more than the details, but I 

agree there are other issues worth mentioning. The first is the fact that 

both people contacted me privately; there seems to be a sense of foreboding about 

criticizing HP openly. That seems odd to me: I wrote an absolutely scathing 

review of a much earlier HP wide format model, and received feedback from HP 

reps on three continents within 24 hours. They disagreed with me on some points, 

pointed out workarounds or firmware updates for others, extended my warranty, 

and shipped me new CDs. Overall I'd have to say it was a positive experience, 

and no once did I feel that I was having my arm twisted, as I have with a 

number of other companies over the years. More importantly, virtually every point 

of criticism was addressed in the next generation of HP printers, so my 

complaints were certainly not ignored.



On to the list of "sensitive" issues with the Z series printers. First would 

be profiling time. Its a bit odd, but HP's marketing materials say something 

like "no longer does it take hours to profile your printer". Strange choice of 

angles, as the automatic profiling is easy, convenient, and close to 

idiotproof, but not particularly fast. I can build a profile with any of the current 

handheld spectros faster. I don't understand why HP is sensitive about this, its 

pretty much automatic, so its not that critical how long it takes. Setting up 

a straw man to knock down, when the serious user already knows how long it 

takes to build a profile manually is a poor alternative to emphasising the Z 

series strongpoints.



That leads to the issue of drydown. HP seems to somehow feel that having the 

profiling process clog up our printer for a day makes the magic go away. Well, 

once you load a roll, you are hardly going to unload it, damage some ends, 

and print on another media for 24 hours before reading the patches back in with 

the printer. So HP downlpays the issue that serious profiling is generally 

done with at least several hours of drydown. I can see that once the target is 

out of the printer, putting it back in later is not much more convenient than 

reading by hand, so this would be a touchy issue. But its certainly possible to 

put off most profiling untili the end of the day, print the target, and not 

read it until morning, so this is not a huge problem. And wet results from 

Ultrachrome- type inks are quite reasonable on many media, so this is only an issue 

for some paper types, and for the most demanding users.



Next is patch numbers. HP materials state 500 patches. But when you count 

them, its actually three hundred and some odd. Again, this seems to be a 

sensitive point, and HP reps at Photokina were stating that the linearization patches 

are "sort of" included. These patches certainly assist in improving results, 

but they absolutely cannnot be part of the patches that are used to 

characterize the printer for profiling. So again the marketing spin seems to point out 

that HP is uncomfortable about this. Which is silly, since profiles from patch 

sets in the 300 patch range can be very good. Admittedly the current Z series 

does not offer an alternative with more patches (next step up is typically in 

the 800 patch range) for situations where their lower patch option doesn't do 

the trick. But for most typical media (and certainly all HP media recommended 

for these printers), the current patch number should be fine. Gloss fine art 

papers, non-gessoed canvas and other new media would have to be tested as they 

appear to make sure they are sufficiently linear on the Z printers to profile 

well with the current number of patches.



Last, and very definately least, is HP's gloss optimizer. The GLOP is printed 

in an area outside the image, so signing, numbering and notating gloss/luster 

prints occurs on top of the GLOP. This is a real opportunity for someone to 

create an archival, HP GLOP compatible pen, as I ruined every pen in my 

briefcase writing on Z3100 prints.



So, I hope that covers the issues that it was felt I "glossed over" in my 

previous post...



C. David Tobie

Product Technology Manager

ColorVision Business Unit

Datacolor Inc.

CDTobie@colorvision .com

www.colorvision. com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      

    
    

 









      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

> Paul and Jon, et al:
> 
> I am interested in a comparison of these two ink systems ...
> 
> ...  wanting to switch between the systems ...

> Would there be any problem in using re-fillable MIS carts 
> for the Piezo K6 and if small amounts of either ink were 
> left in the carts is there any incompatibility issues between 
> these 2 ink sets?
...

I have no idea if Eboni-6 and K6 are compatible.

I'd recommend a separate set of carts for each.

On the other hand, if you do use the same set of spongeless carts for 
both, I'd rinse with a solution of water (65%) and glycerol (35%) 
between the 2.  Water and glycerol are in nearly all injet inks.  So, 
that mix has the best shot at being compatible with both inksets. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, Thanks for your reply.� I would plan to use two sets of carts -- just wondered how anal I need to be should there be a small amount of cross-mixing as in refilling a nearly empty EB6 MIS cart with Piezo K6?

Do you have any idea about� relative comparisons (warmth, etc) between these two approaches?� Both seem "on paper"� to be designed toward similar ends although yours can be used without a RIP whereas Piezo not so much -- although this is essentially a moot point for me since I have, use, and have already paid for QTR.

Thanks again... Michael

--- On Sat, 8/16/08, pr_roark <pr_roark@...> wrote:

From: pr_roark <pr_roark@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Ebony 6 and Piezography K6 for Epson 1400
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 7:44 PM










    
            Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@ ...> wrote:



> Paul and Jon, et al:

> 

> I am interested in a comparison of these two ink systems ...

> 

> ...  wanting to switch between the systems ...



> Would there be any problem in using re-fillable MIS carts 

> for the Piezo K6 and if small amounts of either ink were 

> left in the carts is there any incompatibility issues between 

> these 2 ink sets?

...



I have no idea if Eboni-6 and K6 are compatible.



I'd recommend a separate set of carts for each.



On the other hand, if you do use the same set of spongeless carts for 

both, I'd rinse with a solution of water (65%) and glycerol (35%) 

between the 2.  Water and glycerol are in nearly all injet inks.  So, 

that mix has the best shot at being compatible with both inksets. 



Paul

www.PaulRoark. com  




      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]