Datacolor User to User Support Group.

On Aug 22, 2009, at 9:20 AM, CDTobie wrote:

>
> In what way is it deficient?  Nobody has ever commented that my  
> prints are so bad they must have been made on an HP!
> No, without context they wouldn't do that; but side by size, the  
> B9180 is more of a glossy color printer, not handling matte media,  
> or black and white, quite as well as the alternatives. For  
> instance, it has only one gray ink, instead of two. And its B&W  
> strategy is to print only black and gray inks, which results in  
> different tonality of different media. And its almost identical in  
> size to a 17 inch wide Epson 3800, while only printing 13 inches  
> wide..
>
> 

Before the B9180, I had (and still have) a Canon i9100.  The  
difference on B&W is like day and night.  I have also reprinted some  
of the scans from my 4x5 B&W Tri-X on the B9180, using the semi-matte  
paper, and found them to be comparable to the originals printed on  
Oriental.  I had to tweak them a bit in LightZone, but that has been  
good enough for me.

I should add that I prefer the color rendered as B&W to the straight  
grey colors.  I find the former closer to a selenium toned print and  
the latter more like an untoned print with a faint olive caste.  That  
may be why I am happier with the B&W prints than you are.

I have not tried matte paper, so I have no comment.  I have been very  
happy with the HP semi-matte.

I did consider Epson, but rejected it because of its reputation for  
clogging.  I go away for two weeks at a time and the HP has never  
given me a problem when turned off.  OTOH, I have an Epson R200 that  
never seems to clog, so that may be more of a problem with some Epson  
printers than others.

Lastly, for a non-pro, such as myself, a 12x18 print on 13x19 paper  
is an almost perfect size.  I wouldn't know where to hang a larger  
print.  But, it would likely do better in competitions.  Size does  
seem to be important there!