Current opinion on pigment printers

It's been a while since anyone has had a thread on printers and I was wondering where we are with pigment printers.

Canon has the IPF series, Epson has the 4800/7800/9800 etc, and HP has the Z3100. Now all of these printers have been out for a while and they all have there pluses and minuses but if you were to buy today which would would you buy and why?

For myself, I'd like a printer of 24 inch width or larger and pigment ink for longevity. I'd probably lean towards the Z3100 in 24 inch at this time but I won't be able to swing one for a while so perhaps my question is accedemic.

Since all these printers have been out for a while I wonder when we can expect the next generation of printers and what they'll be like. I suspect we will see 16-ink printers before long with even wider gamut and Dmax than current printers. I also think others will add photo-spectrometers in the higher end printers or perhaps and option to add one.

Brian

I'll try to summarize, though when writing about printers I tend to go off the deep end ...

There are three dominant pigment ink sets on the market now: Epson's UltraChrome K3, Canon's Lucia, and HP's Vivera. K3 is an 8-ink system whereas Lucia and Vivera have 12-ink sets (for Vivera, the 12-ink system is in the Z3xxx series, not the Z2xxx series).

There are strengths and weaknesses among all of the ink sets themselves, not just the printers.

It is natural to assume that the 12-ink systems will have a larger gamut and/or a higher d-max than the 8-ink systems. Practical measurements show this is not the case, at least not yet. The K3 gamut, for instance, is essentially the same size as the Lucia and Vivera gamuts. The question is the shape of the gamut. Certain ink sets are better in certain colors. Example: Epson is unrivalled in the mid to dark reds. Even the 12-ink Lucia and Vivera systems don't compete in the reds. But Epson falls behind both Lucia and Vivera in the mid-to-light blues, where the latter systems are particularly vivid. Tradeoffs in the ink formulation and design.

Another difference among these ink sets that most users are unaware of is that Lucia and Vivera are designed for thermal print heads (since the Canon and HP printers use thermal print head designs) whereas K3 is designed for a piezoelectric print head. Why does this matter? Because it affects the ink formulation, which in turn affects the list of compatible papers (i.e., which papers you can use the inks with). Epson has been in the market for a long time and consequently most of the third party manufacturers make sure that their stuff works with the Epson inks. Some of these papers don't work so well with Lucia and Vivera inks because of the differences in the ink formulations. For instance, Hahnemuehle Photo Rag doesn't work properly in color mode with the HP Vivera inks. This is why HP commissioned Hahnemuehle to produce a special version of Photo Rag (called HP Smooth Fine Art) for the Viveras.

There are complications with creating ink systems with more inks in the set: makes it much more complicated to drive properly, makes it harder to profile properly, and of course it makes the printer itself bigger.

For glossy, luster, semi-gloss (i.e., reflective) prints, the Z series printers have a noticeable edge because of the gloss enhancer. Really helps with minimizing gloss differential.

For B&W work, the Z3xxx series also have the edge because when you print an image (even if it's in color mode) and the R, G, and B values are the same as each other, then the printer only uses the 4 black inks and you effectively get a quadtone B&W printing system which has excellent tonality and is dead neutral. Plus, the black-only system ensures even higher longevity.

The HP Vivera's bare-bulb longevity is outstanding, definitely a step beyond what Lucia and K3 offer. See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for details.

In terms of features, Epson has fallen behind in terms of maintenance and usability, things like head cloggings (happens to some people, doesn't happen to others, but it DOES and CAN happen) and the swapping of Photo Black and Matte Black inks. HP and Canon have stepped forward here and I expect Epson to do the same in their next generation. The funny thing is that Epson _did_ have both MK and PK inks available simultaneously with their older 4000 printer, but then took a big step backwards with the new K3 printers in this regard. Oops.

I agree that auto-calibration and auto-profiling will become standard in the future high-end printers (24" and up). HP has taken a great first step here, though it would be great if their solution was more flexible. For instance, there's very little control and flexibility offered with the built-in profiling solution. (One has to shell out $600+ for the Advanced Profiling Solution to get more options, and even then there are quite a few limitations.) Some competition in this area from the other vendors will probably fix that.

I don't think the built-in spectro will trickle down to the 17" printers, but it'd be cool if I was proven wrong.

I do think that the HP Z3100 represents the state-of-the-art in current pigment printers from a features, usability, and technology point of view. (Quality-wise, with the exception of the gloss enhancer, it's about a wash compared to the best prints from the Canon or Epson printers.) Definitely the best choice among the 24" printers. Be advised, though, that HP is still experimenting with the beast and haven't locked down the firmware yet.

As for myself, I can describe the thought process I went through when I invested in my Epson 3800 earlier this year. I wanted to experiment with and print on many different media types (glossy, luster, f-type, matte, etc.). I wanted to use larger carts so I wouldn't have to switch so often (this ruled out the 13" printers). I wanted to make both color and B&W prints (all the 17" and up printers do great here). I didn't want to manually switch between PK and MK inks (this ruled out the Epson 4800). I didn't want to deal with the learning curve and print head warranty issues of the Canon iPF5000. I knew I didn't need roll paper support (an important consideration -- the 3800 doesn't support roll). And I wanted to keep my wife happy (this ruled out the 24" and 44" printers). Seriously, I never print that big anyways.

Eric

Eric,

I'm also in the market for a new printer. Currently I have the Epson 4000 and Canon i9900. The Epson has been a pain in the neck mainly because of clogging if not used frequently enough. The Canon does not tend to clog but the small cartridges makes it somewhat expensive to use as well as constantly having to install them. Greatly appreciate your detailed description which should go a long way in helping me choose a printer.

Are you satisfied with the Epson 3800 and is it somewhat economical as far as ink usage.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for the very detailed and helpful reply Eric, I am as I said, leaning towards the Z3100 in 24 inch at the moment but I would like to see an improvement in the reds as much of my landscape work is dependant on it. The desert southwest is all about red...


Brian

I also have the Epson 3800 and I am basically happy with it; I know you are looking for a 24" printer but I just wanted to add my comments to Eric's. My only complaint about the 3800 is ink usuage; it seems to suck up some of the inks-much more than I expected making prints expensive. Quality is tops so I have gotten a small printer for smaller stuff (8.5X11 and below); in Russia I printed hundreds of 4X6 that were sold to russians on tours of the park-they just not need the quality of the 3800 ink set, IMHO

Oh, it has traveled well, going from California to Florida by UPS, Florida to Moscow by air, Moscow to Far East Russia by rail; Far East Russia to Pennsylvania by air, Penn to Maine to Ga. by RV, only one minor clog issue with all this traveling; over 30,000 miles in less that 6 months

brogala wrote: I'm also in the market for a new printer. Currently I have the Epson 4000 and Canon i9900. The Epson has been a pain in the neck mainly because of clogging if not used frequently enough. The Canon does not tend to clog but the small cartridges makes it somewhat expensive to use as well as constantly having to install them. Greatly appreciate your detailed description which should go a long way in helping me choose a printer.

Are you satisfied with the Epson 3800 and is it somewhat economical as far as ink usage.

Hi Bill, the older Epson printers do have an annoying tendency to clog, which depends on several factors including the climate. This is why some users run into no clogs whereas others -- such as yourself -- find them happening.

The Epson 3800 has a newer print head design and Epson has re-designed the so-called "head capping" mechanism. This means that, when the printer is working properly, the head and nozzles are "sealed" when the printer isn't in use so that air bubbles can't get into the nozzle lines. Air bubbles and ink drying out are the enemies here; they can cause significant clogging problems. From communicating (mostly over email) with several 3800 users over the four months, it seems that the vast majority of 3800 users aren't experiencing any clogging problems at all, which is good news. There are some who have gotten the odd clog now and then, which is cleared up with a single clean. And then there are a couple of ran into many clogs but then Epson Support determined they had a defective printer and wound up giving them a new printer, which made the problem go away. So, my highly unscientific conclusion is that Epson has made improvements to the clogging issue with the 3800, but it's not perfect yet. Canon and HP have the edge here, because they have mechanisms built-in to prevent clogging.

(There is a flip side to this, however, which is that since the Canon and HP printers perform self-checks and self-cleans, they are consuming ink behind-the-scenes to perform the cleans. So one can say, either way, ink is being used/wasted to maintain all of these printers. It's just a question of whether the printer does the job itself automagically -- as is the case for Canon and HP -- or whether the job is manually activated by the user once the user finds a clog -- as it is for Epson. See what I mean?)

Another issue with the older Epsons was that if you would leave the printer for a couple of weeks, then you'd turn it on to find clogged heads. This situation has also been improved with the 3800's new print head capping mechanism. Users are reporting that they do printing in bursts sometimes, meaning they'll do a bunch of prints but then the printer might sit for a few weeks turned off. But then when they turn it back on, no problems.

If you live in a climate that gets dry, or where the humidity levels fluctuate quite a lot (like where I live, Boston), then it can help a lot to keep a small humidifier near the printer. Some photographers using the big printers such as the 7800 and 9800, for instance, have found this helps enormously; some just keep a bowl of water near the print head. Simple, but seems to work.

From grabbing the print job data from the Epson driver, it appears that ink usage for the 3800 is about 2 mL per square foot when printing at 1440 dpi. It is about 5% to 10% more when printing at 2880 dpi. Note, a common misconception is that printing at 2880 dpi uses twice as much ink as printing at 1440 dpi. Not true: the additional ink usage is only 5% to 10%. This makes sense if you think about it. Can you imagine flooding a given paper with twice as much ink?? Each paper (and associated paper coating) has a natural ink limit. A print that is near maximum ink load would look horrible (like a sponge) if given twice as much ink. Conversely, a print that it near maximum ink load would look washed out and faint if given half as much ink.

Current ink costs for the 3800 are about 63 cents per mL, so you're looking at about $1.26 per square foot (not considering overhead due to regular print maintenance). The Canon and HP machines that I discussed above do use ink a bit more frugally. Plus, their ink tanks are bigger and cheaper (when viewed per mL).

Even so, I'm finding that the 3800's 80 mL ink carts are quite big. I'm coming from the older 2200 printer, where ink carts were probably around 12 mL (unsure). I've been printing for about 4 to 5 months now, off and on, and I'm almost out of my first two carts (light light black, and light magenta, both going at about the same rate). Haven't had to change yet, but will soon!

John, your 3800 probably has the most miles on it of any 3800 printer out there. Probably even out-travels Epson's own 3800 demo units.

Thanks again for such a detailed explanation. I'm located in Rehoboth, MA about 40 miles south of Boston so I know exactly what you mean when you talk about fluctuating humidity levels. Dew points are up somewhat today.

The 4000 has been erratic about feeding paper from the tray and periodically would give me very strange colors in place of skin tones even after printing a nozzle check showing everything was fine. I have been documenting all the problems by dating everything and keep all the bad prints. Took it to Mardek in Weymouth a couple of weeks ago and they were able to get it replaced. Luckily, I had purchased an extended warranty a while back mainly because of periodic problems right from the start. The warranty is still good for a few months so I will try to get along with it a while longer. I hope the replacement has a better temperment.

One final questions: How are the prints from the 3800, both color and B&W? Color is much more important to me but I'm thinking of trying some B&W prints. Well, one more quick question: does it print well on glossy and satin papers i.e. without the problems associated with the inks used in the 4000. I believe the Ultrachrome K-3 inks were reported to be much better with glossy.

Again, your imput is greatly appreciated.

Glossy/luster/satin/pearl/semi-gloss papers -- papers that use the Photo Black ink, in other words -- do indeed fare much better with the K3 inks than with the previous UltraChrome inks used in the 2200, 4000, 7600, and 9600 printers. The specific areas of improvement are, in decreasing order of significance in my opinion:

1. Much deeper black, leading to a wider dynamic range in the print. Here's more data if you're into the numbers (and are familiar with the terminology). With the previous UC inks, a d-max on PK papers of about 2 was pretty normal. With K3, a d-max goes up to about 2.3 in color RGB mode and about 2.45 in the Advanced B&W (ABW) mode. That's a significant increase in density (remember d-max is on a logarithmic scale) and leads to a much richer print.

2. For B&W work, the new Advanced B&W (ABW) mode in the driver is outstanding. It could use improvements (e.g., it doesn't support split-toning and Epson doesn't supply profiles -- they should), but out of the box it does a great job.

3. Less metamerism. This means that the colors won't shift (at least, not nearly as much) when you take the print into different lighting conditions. With UC, it was common for a print that looked neutral under daylight to take on an unpleasant purplish cast when viewed under mixed lighting, particularly office fluorescent lighting. Much less the case with K3, especially in B&W.

4. Less gloss differential and bronzing. There is still some gloss differential, but it's better.

Some other differences are:

- The Epson-supplied profiles are MUCH better for the K3 printers (including the 3800) than they were for the previous UC printers. I still recommend custom profiles for best results, but at least when using Epson papers, for most people the canned profiles will be satisfactory.

I think the 3800 output on color and B&W is superb. According to Epson, they feel the 3800 offers the best print quality among all of their printers to date.

However, to be complete, I need to mention that not all is rosy with the 3800 (and K3 ink) because:

- Even though K3 has taken a big step forward on PK papers, they've taken a slight step back with MK papers. Density and contrast was better with UC on matte papers than K3 is. For some reason, density just isn't as good with K3. Come on, Epson ... what happened?

- With some PK papers which take a while to dry (esp. under heavy ink loads in dark areas of the image), under certain conditions you can see "pizza wheel" tracks on 3800 prints. This problem actually plagues all semi-small Epson printers, which use "pizza wheel" mechanisms as part of the print paper ejection system. These pizza wheels are used to guide the print straight as it's emerging, but they can also leave little marks within the image area. The 4000 and 4800 don't have this issue because they instead use a vaccuum system to keep the paper flat as it's being fed.

How serious is this issue? To be honest, it's quite hard to see at all. I've shown my PK prints to lots of people and they don't even notice. The marks bug me simply because I know they're there. It takes a very specific lighting condition to be able to see them at all -- directional spot lighting, for instance. In gallery situations, you'd never see it because the person can't be at the angle required to see it. But for boxed portfolio situations where the print is meant to be held in the hand, I could see this worth considering.

Also, take a look at the resources and FAQ page I maintain here:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp ... index.html
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp ... 0/faq.html

BTW, I'm happy to continue discussing the 3800 in detail, since you seem to be interested in it, but I do think we should open a new thread to do that.

For this thread, we should probably keep the discussion open on the various models out there.