I'm looking for a large format printer of good photo quality that can print saleable print's up to A1 in size, Has anyone had any experience with the above printer or can recommend one that they have used? I see a lot of people recommend Epson but from experiencing their consumer inkjets I question their reliability.
We are looking to spend ~£1300, less ideally.
We'll be printing from 1200ppi (approx 70mb uncompressed) images with an Adobe RGB 1998 Gamut.
Look around on this and other sites and you will find lots on this great printer.
I have one and am amazed at not only the print quality but how cheap it is to run (particularly with third party media).
I chose it over Epson's 4000 because of the print cost and compatibility with third party papers and vinyls.
Gav
Gavin: The print cost of the 4000 is about 1/3 to 1/4 that of the HP 130 when using the larger ink tanks on the 4000. The 2200 print cost, depending upon paper used, is about 75% of the HP 130.
Spies: There are no issues with Epson's reliability on the 2200 and 4000 printers. I would also look at Canon's i9900. Many will warn you about longevity with the i9900 but I think that a print estimated at 20 years is sellable.
Most of the third party inks (not MIS or CIS) systems are far less archival than the HP, Epson or Canon inks.
Also, we specialise in landscape photography, will the gamut on the HP130 be sufficiant to produce good prints? We are currently experimenting with our HP Deskjet 5550, with a photo cart and premium hp photo glossy we are getting excellent results but we require the capability of larger media handling.
If you need A1 printing at less than $10,000 you are going to be stuck with the HP or a used 7600. You can purchase a used Epson 7600 for about $2200. The 7600 would certainly be a better choice than the HP 130 based on speed, cost and longevity but the initial investment would be higher.
The 7600 also has more aftermarket CIS/MIS options in addition to some very good black and white solutions.
Have you had first hand experience with the HP130? Whilst researching the HP130 and the Epson 4000 I've noticed quite a few more 'problems' on the Epson such as bronzing on glossy media? We'll be printing soley on gloss so thats kind of a problem, speed isnt that important, the final result from the printer is what we're interested in. Ink's for the HP130 over here only cost approx £16 each which isn't a huge amount and reports suggest that it does not use as much ink as the Epson?
Spiers, I got my HP 130 from a retailer that sells most wide format printer brands, and also prints and sells roll media.
They feel the Epson 4000 is not as good as the 130, one because of bronzing, two because cost per print and three the incompatibility with some Vinyls/Tyveks and gloss papers. Also the 4000 only prints 17" wide.
They could have cared less what I bought, but, like I do now, are just so impressed with the 130 they recomend it over the Epsons (at least untill the new Canon big boy arrives)
Gav
The HP 130 suffers from bronzing on many different paper stocks - same as the Epson with Ultrachrome Pigments.
It has also been widely reported that the HP is also not very archival when used with other than the HP Premium Plus Papers.
The cost per print significantly higher than that of the 4000 or 7600 so I am not sure where that information came from. The HP is one of the higher cost printers to operate and as Remko has stated has a narrow gamut problem, especially in sky blues and magenta/purples etc.
I'm not saying to avoid the HP, I am just relaying common information that should be considered prior to purchasing.
Thanks for your replies so far, I wouldn't know the common information as if you're not in the loop so to speak you wouldn't hear such things, it's only over the past two days we have been concidering doing professional quality prints.
Funnily enough I posted on the Bapla eforum, which is a organisation to do with image library's in the UK and the first reply I recieved was recommending the Epson Stylus Pro 7600 but that's approx £2500 new.
With the Epson which of the Gloss papers does bronzing not occur on?
I've read that the Epson wastes a lot of ink due to it's cleaning process and there's sometimes feed troubles where one of the ink lines is dry and it requires a clean just to get the ink to the head? If this is incorrect then please say so.
Would the Epson Gamut include Adobe RGB 1998? Or would some clipping still occur?
If you want to have a look at the wide range of pictures we plan to produce please visit our website at www.vkguy.co.uk. and see if that changes your recommendation but I feel that it will not.
I have used the Epson 2200 and 7600 printers. Both printers have little to no bronzing (default glossy profile) with Epson Premium Gloss, Canon Photo Paper Pro, Lexjet 11mil High Gloss, Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss etc. You will see a magenta color shift under warm flourescent and flourescent lighting but almost no shift under tungsten lighting if printed optimized for Daylight temperatures.
The Epson printers it seems are calibrated very closely with the Adobe 1998 gamut. They may not match perfectly but are not effected (clipped) like the low gamut sRGB HP-130.
If you are only going to use the printer once a month you may waste a lot of ink but if the printers will be in constant use - i.e. every few days you will not have to run cleaning cycles or flush the inks.
You can purchase used 7600 printers for $1800-$2200USD. Lexjet sells their test models quite often.
I just got done researching the wide format printer you are talking about: hp130, Epson 4000/7600 and the Canon w6200. I personally bought the Epson 4000 because it best fit my needs, but I don't print glossy with it. I mainly print fine art papers and so far nobody beats the Epson with that type of paper.
I actually went to 3 different dealers with the same photoshop files (3 different images each it difficult areas to print) and had them print the images on their demo printers using their RIP (most that commerical $$$ ones), paper and color profiles. I tried both mat, simi-gloss and glossy papers on each printer.
The HP 130 was dead last on quality of the image. I rejected that printer very quickly. I looked at the dot size and quality with a loupe and I was not impressed.
The Canon w6200 was very good and fast (the fastest of the 4). It was as good as the Epson 4000 and a little better that the 7600. It printed on gloss the best of the bunch. If I were to pick a printer to print gloss that would be the one.
In the end I picked the Epson 4000 since the 17" width was fine for me and it did the best on fine art paper. It was a hard choice between the W6200 and the 4000, but since the Epson seemed to be more accepted in the photograph community I went for it. So far I am 100% happy.
My advice look at the Canon W6200. It is pigmented ink and they probably have the best print head in the business. I very well may buy one in the future myself.
I've had HP Designjets since 1995 and like their support and products. Currently have the 130nr and it works well for our studio. If you want great looking gloss photos that are supposed to last 70+ years I would look into the 130. Go to the HP website and ask for a print sample. Take a loup and look at the gradiants and skin tones.
I print on artist canvas, Arches Watercolor #90 cold press, and HP paper. All with great results.
I found an extensive review of the Epson 4000 at http://www.photo-i.co.uk but I am unable to find anything as in depth about the HP DesignJet 130, could anyone point me to a review or two?
I just tried the HP Premium Plus Photo Satin on my 130nr and the prints are just awesome. Just as good as my lab prints and those are outstanding. The paper is pretty cheap too, about $65 for a 24x50 roll.
I am also trying to decide wether to go with the 4000 or the 130, particularly with the free Adobe Creative Suite that is being offered with the 130. I am surprised to hear that the 130's gamut is not as good as the 4000 due to the conventional wisdom that dye inks are better than pigmented inks in this regard. Also how can the 130 produce bronzing when there are no pigments in the inks wich it is my understanding are the cause of bronzing. Not questioning anyone's credibility here, just trying to better understand these remarks. I read a good review in one of the British mags, that began with a note of concern when the 130 shot the finished print over the desk and hit one of the reviewers in the head. They also mentioned that the cutter was not reliable, although in the end they felt the print quality was every bit as good as the competition. Still I have found magazine reviews to be lacking in warranted criticism of products. I am concerned about the lack of first hand accounts from professionals using the 130.
I have not heard any feedback on the 130's B & W capabilities, and assume the Epson produces superior B & W, but would welcome any comments from anyone who has experience with both of these printers.
