Why are you evaluating prints with a lupe? Doesn't eyeballing them from a few inches away give you enough information? I have sold images in many venues, including auction at Sothebys, and at no time have any of my prints come under such scrutiny. What's the point?
The point is the prints look nice close up as well at a distance. I have never had anyone use a loup also. Just nice to see an inkjet print print the way it is supposed to look...without seeing the dots.
Marion, I have a much smaller PhotoSmart printer that makes great photos but doesn't take heavier papers. Does the DJ 130 allow you to use thicker papers including art type papers. Also, how do you get printer profiles done, if at all?
Marion, I have a much smaller PhotoSmart printer that makes great photos but doesn't take heavier papers. Does the DJ 130 allow you to use thicker papers including art type papers. Also, how do you get printer profiles done, if at all?
I use artist canvas, arches watercolor #90 cold press with good results. The canvas I had to get a profile made but use the matte settings for the arches. The photo proofing papers from HP are some of the thickest papers I have used. Colors come out great too. I like the 130 but the 7600 by Epson also looks like a great printer.
I prefer the smoothest gradiants possibe. I know you can't see with the naked eye how the dot pattern is laid down but the less dots visible the better the print. Why do you think printer manufacturer's spend millions trying to get the smallest pico liter possibe and the best print?
I got a print sample from HP of the designjet 130. I gotta say I am seriously impressed with the print quality. It exceeds my i9100 quality significantly for smooth tonal graduations and the quality on glossy looks great.
Gregau,
You should see prints on the photo premium satin paper. I compare it to the epson pearl paper. Actually I like it better.
Ronno,
The smaller the dots are the better the print will be. Using a loup just shows me that the dot pattern is a smaller size. Do a test. Look at a 600 dpi print and look at a 2400 dpi print and tell me if you can see the difference, with or without a loup. I had the DJ 2500 and I thought the prints were pretty darn good. After looking at the DJ 130 @2400 dpi it is beautiful. Another selling point is Wilhelm gives the prints 80+ years. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/dj130/hp_dj130_preview.html
Marion wrote:
The paper is pretty cheap too, about $65 for a 24x50 roll.
That's about the same price as I pay for a 24" x 100' roll of Epson Enhanced Matte for my 7600, so your paper is about twice the cost of mine. 220ml inks for the Epson 4000/7600/9600 cost $84.95 at B&H, or ~39 cents/ml. 69ml ink carts for the HP 130 cost $43.99, or ~64 cents/ml. Unless the HP 130 uses far less ink per print than the Epson 7600, It looks to me like the 130 costs about twce as much per print as the 7600.
I'm not trying to sell a 130 here. Not sure where you get your numbers but I pay $28 for ink. The proofing paper is 11.3 mil thick which is a hugh plus for my customers. I print on HP Photo Gloss also which is $69 for a 24x100 roll. This works well but I still like the Proofing paper better. Costs a little more but better results. Feels and looks like a lab photo. What is the thickness of the Epson Enhanced Matte? As for ink using less ink, I have printed many 20x24's, 16x20's and numberous smaller prints and still have only preplaced the black ink.
I think the Epson is a fine printer also. Especially the 7600.
That brings the price down to ~40 cents/ml, which is much more in line with Epson's ink costs. I got the numbers for the HP ink from HP's web site, as it doesn't seem to be listed at B&H, which is where I get my Epson ink from. If it's cheaper elsewhere, then the 130 starts making more sense financially. The printer itself is less expensive than the Epson 7600, the 130nr (with network + roll paper options) is about $1900 vs ~$3000 for the 7600 + network card.
The 130 is interesting to me because although Epson is pretty much unbeatable for matte prints, the bronzing on glossy stock is a definite issue unless you clearcoat the prints. Epson's R800 does this automatically for glossy stock, but currently none of their large-format printers do this, and changing black ink from glossy to matte and back is an expensive hassle. So a 7600 equivalent printer capable of high-quality glossy prints at a reasonable cost to complement the 7600 sounds interesting.
If Epson comes out with a wider model of the R800 that would be the one to look at. I really like my R800. Gloss prints are outstanding. Epson support is very good also. Last month my R800 all of a sudden started to make some weird noise's and then I could smell something electrical and then it died. Called Epson and they had a new one shipped to me via UPS 2 day blue. Can't complain about that kind of service.
P.S. I buy most of my printer supplies at Page Computers. They seem to have very good prices.
I got an e-mail from Joel Meyerowitz yesterday. He has a studio and a gallery here in NYC, so I am going next week to have a look at his HP 130 prints, which he sells for the same price as his lab prints. I'll let you know what my impressions are.
When Epson comes out with a 24" printer on the same lines as the R800 with a overcoat that would be the one to watch. I agree with greg, the PX-F5000 is only A-3.
