9880 or Z3100?

[JoelBelmont]

I know there are a lot of differing thoughts on this. Epson seems more tried, HP has a built in profiler (very nice).

Any thoughts on which 44" printer would be a better choice for B&W printing? I probably wouldn't need a lot of profiles... just a few to find something I like.

Thanks for your thoughts.

~Joel Belmont

[Bruce Watson]

I know there are a lot of differing thoughts on this. Epson seems more tried, HP has a built in profiler (very nice).

Any thoughts on which 44" printer would be a better choice for B&W printing? I probably wouldn't need a lot of profiles... just a few to find something I like.

Jury is still out on this. Some early thoughts. The HP printers don't use vacuum transport for the substrate. As a result, HP is picking up a reputation for leaving marks on the print, especially with the newer glossy surface papers. Innova is apparently trying to develop a paper just for HP with a surface that will resist marking by the printers.

That said, I've seen some early reports that Epson is making inks for the 9800/9880 printers that are not all pigment. They include some dye components. That said, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference as pigments get smaller and dyes get better fade resistance. Anyway, one rumor has it that the "vivid magenta" inks have higher dye components. What this means to print longevity is anyone's guess at this stage. That and the fact that Epson still refuses to solve the matte/glossy black ink problem means that switching back and forth between matte and glossy papers is just prohibitively expensive.

The Canon printers like the iPF8000 have their own problems. Apparently it's quite difficult to get a good profile made because Canon set up their drivers with ink limits specifically tailored to the coatings on Canon branded papers. So if you want to use non-Canon papers you have to really work at it. And Canon still hasn't figured out how to sell and support these machines. The documentation is mythically bad for example. But they are supposed to be great machines.

Interestingly, all of them appear to make outstanding prints. All have comparable gamuts even though they have different numbers and colors of inks. I doubt you could go really wrong with any of them.

Now, for B&W. If you want the best possible B&W I'd look for a used Epson 9600 and use the Cone K7 inks. Currently the leader as far as I'm concerned. But until they produce a glossy set (and it's been "almost done" for like 18 months now), the K7s are restricted to matte papers. Not a bad thing, just a something to know.

If you want to use color inks to print B&W, or want to print on glossy papers, then you get into religious wars over which of the Epson, HP, or Canon printers makes a better B&W print. None of them are as good as the K7s IMHO, but all are good.

I know it's not very helpful, but that's how I see the state of wide format printing right now. I'm in the same boat BTW, waiting to see how this is going to shake out. At this point in time I'm waiting on the next generation of printers. Too many (unnecessary) trade offs right now.

[Ben R]

The Canon printers like the iPF8000 have their own problems. Apparently it's quite difficult to get a good profile made because Canon set up their drivers with ink limits specifically tailored to the coatings on Canon branded papers. So if you want to use non-Canon papers you have to really work at it. And Canon still hasn't figured out how to sell and support these machines. The documentation is mythically bad for example. But they are supposed to be great machines.

That is interesting. I use a 8000 at a friends shop and he gets really good service from Canon with technicians coming round the moment he even thinks he has a problem. This is the UK however, I've heard that it's notoriously terrible in the US. He prints on Kodak pro paper with the Kodak profiles and though I'm no expert the profiles seem to work very well with both colour and B&W.

[Bruce Watson]

That is interesting. I use a 8000 at a friends shop and he gets really good service from Canon with technicians coming round the moment he even thinks he has a problem. This is the UK however, I've heard that it's notoriously terrible in the US. He prints on Kodak pro paper with the Kodak profiles and though I'm no expert the profiles seem to work very well with both colour and B&W.

I should have said "build a good profile" where I actually said "get a good profile." Sorry for that. The problem in building profiles seems to be lack of control of the ink limits -- the only way to do this is by choosing the right "paper type" in the driver; there is no direct control.

As far as RIPs go, I've heard that Canon is being very choosy as to who it lets have access to the SDK for the printer. Rumor has it that's exactly one company, but I don't know which one it is. Other RIPs apparently drive the printer using the Canon supplied driver. This isn't good marketing in my book...

The good profiles seem to be RGB profiles, which for a CMYKRGB printer seems to be, um, limited. I'm sure there's gamut available from the inks that isn't available from a simple RGB profile. That said, the RGB profiles that exist are supposed to be excellent and give a gamut in the same range as the HPs and Epsons.

[JoelBelmont]

That and the fact that Epson still refuses to solve the matte/glossy black ink problem means that switching back and forth between matte and glossy papers is just prohibitively expensive.

I thought the 9880 fixed this...? I thought it allowed both to be installed, thus not needing a big ink dump to switch..?

~Joel

[Bruce Watson]

I thought the 9880 fixed this...? I thought it allowed both to be installed, thus not needing a big ink dump to switch..?

Sorry. They fixed it on the 11880, but not on the 9880 or the 7880. If they had fixed this I'd be looking to buy a 9880 this fall. As it is, I can wait.

[JoelBelmont]

wow. if that's the case, I might just look into an older one.

Why do you prefer the 9600 to the 9800? are the piezo inks not compatible with the 9800?

Thanks.

[Bruce Watson]

wow. if that's the case, I might just look into an older one.

Why do you prefer the 9600 to the 9800? are the piezo inks not compatible with the 9800?

With the K7 inkset there isn't a significant increase in print quality in moving from the 9600 to the 9800. If you are using the Epson inks, there is a significant improvement in color prints, and you can use the Epson inks to print B&W on glossy papers as well.

So if you are going to dedicate the machine to K7 inks, why not buy the cheaper machine? The money you save will just go to paper and inks, but at least you'll get more prints out of it!

[Ted Harris]

Is anyone here actually using 9880? If so have you run enough prints to make any useful judgments or are we still speculating? I wasn't aware that they or the smaller ones were shipping yet in the US.

As for the z3100, I have now been running one for about six weeks and am very impressed with the quality of the prints. None of the printwheel problems. Stay tuned for more.

I was very impressed with the B&W output from the Canon x00 series and the x100 series should be even better, almost totally eliminating any gloss differential, etc. problems. I have a 6100 arriving next Wednesday and will make some comparison prints.

Joel, if I needed a new printer right now I'd get the z3100 PS without any hesitation. Having run wide format printers from all three of the players I think this is the best bet if the profiling does you some good; if not then I'd choose between the HP and the Canon.

[tim atherton]

ted, have you run any Crane Silver Rag on it for B&W? If so, how does it look?

tim