Photo Printers Review

[Bill Waterson]

Hi Fotografer,

Yes, please "sponsor" the papers and I'll be glad to print them and
send them to you and or/Alfred. Absoloutely no adjustments were
made to the prints I sent in except for an additional one that showed
the equivalent of a 13x 19. I thought that was what was wanted.
Next time I'll adjust. Even the site for obtaining the samples said
to use Epson paper. In fact, where are the actual prints? I have'nt even
seen them yet. You have to be clear if you want to compare apples
to apples. Just my 3 cents worth!

Bill

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

--
Bill

 

[Bill Waterson]

Hello,

I'm sending "adjusted" prints to Alfred for the 10ps.

Bill

Yes, please "sponsor" the papers and I'll be glad to print them and
send them to you and or/Alfred. Absoloutely no adjustments were
made to the prints I sent in except for an additional one that showed
the equivalent of a 13x 19. I thought that was what was wanted.
Next time I'll adjust. Even the site for obtaining the samples said
to use Epson paper. In fact, where are the actual prints? I
have'nt even
seen them yet. You have to be clear if you want to compare apples
to apples. Just my 3 cents worth!

Bill

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

--
Bill

--
Bill

 

[Frank Nichols]

Bill,

Sorry about the mix-up. What was meant by "no adjustments" was meant to say that the DPI Target was not to be adjusted - Coor balance, sharpen, etc. The printer settings were intended to be those you would use to get the best you could out of your printer.

I am really glad to hear we can expect better from the 10PS and I look forward to posting the new samples you are sending.

I am next in line to get the prints (a second time - now that the Web Site is up we want to make sure the scans match the prints) and then I am forwarding them out to the next in line over night. I should have the prints tomorrow, so Thursday or Friday they should be in the next evaluators hands.

Send me an email at:

[email protected]

and I will let you know when you will be getting them, based on the mailing list.

Frank

Yes, please "sponsor" the papers and I'll be glad to print them and
send them to you and or/Alfred. Absoloutely no adjustments were
made to the prints I sent in except for an additional one that showed
the equivalent of a 13x 19. I thought that was what was wanted.
Next time I'll adjust. Even the site for obtaining the samples said
to use Epson paper. In fact, where are the actual prints? I
have'nt even
seen them yet. You have to be clear if you want to compare apples
to apples. Just my 3 cents worth!

Bill

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

--
Bill

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Frank Nichols]

AnaDigi -

Sorry about that - I will correct the paper on your pages and post an update to the Web page tonight! That should be Epson Semi Gloss Photo Paper right?

Frank

fn

Well done! Thanks to one and all for your time and expense. A
great contribution to a wonderful forum. And Alfred, I'll be
waiting for your final review and interested to see which printer
you have decided to buy. It took a while, but I'm sure was well
worth your wait. Thanks again!
--
NACPEYE

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Frank Nichols]

Gerrit,

I assume you mean you want me to post them to the Profile Prism FTP site. The Profile Prism license does not allow me to share the profiles unless you own a copy of PP yourself.

I see that Mike has gone and done it again - there is a new version of PP (v3.2) up for download, so I will get it tonight and see which is better and then by this weekend I will post my profiles to his site. You will be able to get them there.

Frank

Can you post the profiles you used for the Canon S9000 please?

Gerrit

Alfred Voegels would like to call your attention to an evaluation
of print samples from several of today’s popular photo printers.
The evaluation started here at dpreview in the thread

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=3126587

where Alfred decided that in order to make an informed buying
decision he would ask readers of dpreview to send him some samples
of their printers. This call for samples resulted in several
volunteers sending in samples and some of us reviewed and evaluated
those samples. The result of this evaluation is available online in
a web site we created for this purpose.

WE DO NOT CLAIM THIS EVALUATION IS SCIENTIFIC OR HAS ANY MERIT
WHAT-SO-EVER. IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO SAY THAT ONE PRINTER IS
BETTER THAN ANOTHER PRINTER. IT IS OUR INTENTION TO SAY WHICH
PRINTER SAMPLES WE LIKED BEST AND WHY. WHAT CONCLUSION YOU DRAW
FROM THESE DISCUSSIONS AND SAMPLES IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. ALL
RATINGS SHOWN ARE SUBJECTIVE AND REPRESENTS EACH INDIVIDUAL”S
OPINION ONLY.

You are cordially invited to visit our website and draw your own
conclusions about the samples presented there…

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Frank Nichols]

Thanks for the kind words - this is just plain fun and I really hope I don't have a bias (even though I own a S9000.) I have been iching to do something with my domain for a while and have had a hard time getting motivated to put more family snap shots up!

Hope everyone enjoys the site - we will keep it running as long as there is interest and new samples keep flowing in.

Frank

Frank,
Very enlightening and I agree with the 9000 findings.Can I thank
all of you people involved for a neutral review!
Steve

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Joe Barnhart]

Can you post the profiles you used for the Canon S9000 please?

The "JB Profiles" used on my submissions are freely available on the website http://wandb.com/icc.htm (website owned by Mark Ward).

I think my contributions would have scored even higher ( sniff ) if I had used my Profile Prism profiles. Alas, the license agreement for PP does not permit me to share them with non-PP-owners. I thought it was "fair" to use only those profiles that were available to all S9000 owners.

(I am thinking of sending my best PP result to Frank and Alfred for inclusion, however. I really wanna beat that Epson 2200! Competitive? Me? ;-)

And, by the way, Profile Prism (at only $69) is the best money you'll ever spend to improve the quality of your printing -- regardless of which make and model of printer you own! Check it out at http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism

 

[Frank Nichols]

The Photo Printer Evaluation Web Site has been updated with the following changes:

1. Changed Paper Type on Kodak 8500 Printers to correct type (
2. Changed Paper type on Sample #11 to Epson Premium Semi Gloss
3. Added Recent Samples - P400
4. Added Alfred's Review
5. Fixed various link problems and text errors.

Frank

I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Frank Nichols]

Joe,

Plese do send your best printout of the target - I would like to post the best we can see as well as I have a personal interest in seeing yours in person compared to my new samples using the latest PP 3.2.

Send me an email at:

[email protected]

and I will send you my address.

Frank

Can you post the profiles you used for the Canon S9000 please?

The "JB Profiles" used on my submissions are freely available on
the website http://wandb.com/icc.htm (website owned by Mark Ward).

I think my contributions would have scored even higher ( sniff ) if
I had used my Profile Prism profiles. Alas, the license agreement
for PP does not permit me to share them with non-PP-owners. I
thought it was "fair" to use only those profiles that were
available to all S9000 owners.

(I am thinking of sending my best PP result to Frank and Alfred for
inclusion, however. I really wanna beat that Epson 2200!
Competitive? Me? ;-)

And, by the way, Profile Prism (at only $69) is the best money
you'll ever spend to improve the quality of your printing --
regardless of which make and model of printer you own! Check it
out at http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[fotografer]

Bill,

I have checked the proofing gloss for HP 10ps and they are (gasp!) $150 for 50 pcs of 13x19.

Would you please tell me your mailing address, so that when I order through the hpshopping.com, I will ask them to deliver it to you.

Bill, try to run auto-calibration with your Epson paper again (if you still have any) and print the same sample (select the best output ICC from your printer menu for the Epson stock). See if you think there is a difference between the 'before' calibration and 'after' calibration. We have to live without a proper ICC for non-HP papers, because 10ps is just not as popular as the Canons and Epsons out there.

Are you sending the HP PPPP to Alfred or the 'corrected' Epson ones? In any case, remember to auto-calibrate even the HP PPPP because the new paper stock from HP is not in the ICC of you 10ps yet (not in their latest firmware updates).

Yes, please "sponsor" the papers and I'll be glad to print them and
send them to you and or/Alfred. Absoloutely no adjustments were
made to the prints I sent in except for an additional one that showed
the equivalent of a 13x 19. I thought that was what was wanted.
Next time I'll adjust. Even the site for obtaining the samples said
to use Epson paper. In fact, where are the actual prints? I
have'nt even
seen them yet. You have to be clear if you want to compare apples
to apples. Just my 3 cents worth!

Bill

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

--
Bill

--
Fotografer

 

[fotografer]

Alfred,

This one's to you. I noticed you quoted 4 minutes for time to print. Is this 8x10 you are referring to?

For HP designjet 10ps, it's 4 minutes for a 12x18 on a 13x19 photopaper. And for 8x10, the time should be much shorter...

--
Fotografer

 

[aevoegels]

Oops!

I can't remember where I got that data from. I'll ask Bill to give me accurate data based on his machine!

Thanks for the catch.

Alfred,

This one's to you. I noticed you quoted 4 minutes for time to
print. Is this 8x10 you are referring to?

For HP designjet 10ps, it's 4 minutes for a 12x18 on a 13x19
photopaper. And for 8x10, the time should be much shorter...

--
Fotografer

 

[aevoegels]

Bill,

I would love to see the best print from you 10ps. Could you please email me the following info to update my spreadsheet:

The cost of paper and ink for the 8X10 you're sending
The time it take to print the 8 X 10.

Thanks, Alfred.

I'm sending "adjusted" prints to Alfred for the 10ps.

Bill

Yes, please "sponsor" the papers and I'll be glad to print them and
send them to you and or/Alfred. Absoloutely no adjustments were
made to the prints I sent in except for an additional one that showed
the equivalent of a 13x 19. I thought that was what was wanted.
Next time I'll adjust. Even the site for obtaining the samples said
to use Epson paper. In fact, where are the actual prints? I
have'nt even
seen them yet. You have to be clear if you want to compare apples
to apples. Just my 3 cents worth!

Bill

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

--
Bill

--
Bill

 

[aevoegels]

My review has been posted on the web site! I explain my choice and why there:

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

comments and suggestions always welcome

Alfred

Alfred Voegels would like to call your attention to an evaluation
of print samples from several of today’s popular photo printers.
The evaluation started here at dpreview in the thread

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=3126587

where Alfred decided that in order to make an informed buying
decision he would ask readers of dpreview to send him some samples
of their printers. This call for samples resulted in several
volunteers sending in samples and some of us reviewed and evaluated
those samples. The result of this evaluation is available online in
a web site we created for this purpose.

WE DO NOT CLAIM THIS EVALUATION IS SCIENTIFIC OR HAS ANY MERIT
WHAT-SO-EVER. IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO SAY THAT ONE PRINTER IS
BETTER THAN ANOTHER PRINTER. IT IS OUR INTENTION TO SAY WHICH
PRINTER SAMPLES WE LIKED BEST AND WHY. WHAT CONCLUSION YOU DRAW
FROM THESE DISCUSSIONS AND SAMPLES IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. ALL
RATINGS SHOWN ARE SUBJECTIVE AND REPRESENTS EACH INDIVIDUAL”S
OPINION ONLY.

You are cordially invited to visit our website and draw your own
conclusions about the samples presented there…

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[Kelley Nelson]

Very thorough and interesting piece of work, Alfred! PhotoAccess is my choice of the online chemical printers too.

-k

My review has been posted on the web site! I explain my choice and
why there:

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

comments and suggestions always welcome

Alfred

 

[Charles Anstey]

I would like to thank everyone involved in creating that wonderful site. It comes at the perfect time since I am considering buying a new printer to go with my new D60, which will hopefully arrive in a few weeks. However, I am more confused that ever.

The evaluators seemed to have a heavy bias towards inkjets. I cannot understand how the S9000 can even be considered in the same league as the Epson and dye subs when the dots and banding are so easily seen on all of S9000 the scans, even the low res ones. Banding and dots are what make most people here not like HP printers and I agree with that, which is why I want to get a photo printer in addition to my current HP 970. I find it ironic that the evaluators would say that the inkjets have better detail than the dye-subs when to see the detail requires you to also see the dots and banding. It would be great if the site could add the evaluations of one or two people who were biased against dots and banding and see what they think.

I guess printers are like my other hobby: home theater. There are those who have digital projectors that like the psuedo sharpness of visible pixels and claim the cannot see the screen door pattern (black area surrounding each pixel). And there are those who much prefer the look of a CRT which is not as sharp but has no screen door and no false sharpness.

Thanks for all the great info. I now know at least which printer I personally would not like. I hope you will be able to add scans from the HP7x50 series to see how they compare.

Charles Anstey

 

[hoggy]

I looked at Alfreds eval of the 8500 saying it was too soft. I must say there's something wrong with that particular print because my 8500 is not near out of focus as that. I am sending Frank Nichols a sample at his request in todays mail. Please compare the 2 prints and let us know what you think.
hoggy.... )

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

comments and suggestions always welcome

Alfred

Alfred Voegels would like to call your attention to an evaluation
of print samples from several of today’s popular photo printers.
The evaluation started here at dpreview in the thread

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=3126587

where Alfred decided that in order to make an informed buying
decision he would ask readers of dpreview to send him some samples
of their printers. This call for samples resulted in several
volunteers sending in samples and some of us reviewed and evaluated
those samples. The result of this evaluation is available online in
a web site we created for this purpose.

WE DO NOT CLAIM THIS EVALUATION IS SCIENTIFIC OR HAS ANY MERIT
WHAT-SO-EVER. IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO SAY THAT ONE PRINTER IS
BETTER THAN ANOTHER PRINTER. IT IS OUR INTENTION TO SAY WHICH
PRINTER SAMPLES WE LIKED BEST AND WHY. WHAT CONCLUSION YOU DRAW
FROM THESE DISCUSSIONS AND SAMPLES IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. ALL
RATINGS SHOWN ARE SUBJECTIVE AND REPRESENTS EACH INDIVIDUAL”S
OPINION ONLY.

You are cordially invited to visit our website and draw your own
conclusions about the samples presented there…

http://www.theNichols.net/Printer_Eval

--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!

 

[BeckyC]

fotografer,

I still have the sample proofing paper sent with my designjet 10ps you are welcome to it.

I will be the first one to send you the prints IF I have a
designjet 10ps! I have a 'distant' cousin, the cp1700, a four-color
system.

I wonder if Bill will have any problem at all printing another
sample using, say, HP PPPP? I know designjet 10ps works BEST with
the proofing papers, but those are quite expensive.

Bill, are you reading this post? Do you want me to 'sponsor' the
proofing papers for you (like I order through HP shopping and ask
the delivery to send it to your residence, while you make prints of
them?)...

Please let me know, Bill, I will be glad to help.

Or... Calling ALL designjet 10ps users out there (I know there are
not many), if you can contribute to this, please help, using HP OEM
papers, the new HP PPPP is of great interest, partly I have not
personally seen prints done it myself...

Fotografer, I would really like to see another sample of the
Designjet 10PS. I have finished my take on the whole thing and
emailed it to Frank to post on the web site tonight. My take on the
10ps is (cut from my evaluation):

-------------------

HP Designjet 10ps

The image

This was another printer that I was very anxious to get a print
sample from. The printer’s spec with built-in color calibration,
large ink cartridges with printhead built-in (disposable) to it
sounded very nice. Plus it’s an HP printer, which I always had luck
with. The best of the inkjets, without its hassles. However this
print disappointed me the most. The print pattern and color are so
far out of wack, that I assume I got a print from a printer that is
defective, or printed on incompatible paper (Epson). I was very
gentle on the scoring on this printer considering the print.

This is why on my very original post I had aimed for getting 2
prints from each printer from 2 different sources. Should something
like this happen I would know there was some problem with that
specific printer. Since I only got one sample (still hope to see
another), I can’t really say much else about the print.

--------------------

So feel free to send one if you have a 10ps!

Alfred

--
Fotografer

 

[Joe Barnhart]

The evaluators seemed to have a heavy bias towards inkjets. I
cannot understand how the S9000 can even be considered in the same
league as the Epson and dye subs when the dots and banding are so
easily seen on all of S9000 the scans, even the low res ones.

I was afraid of this.

The scans are deliberately blown up to the point where you CAN see dots and banding. Remember, 11x is a VERY HIGH magnification -- it is literally like staring at the print through a high-powered loupe! The "dots and banding" are barely discernable on the 4x scans -- which are like holding up the print a few inches in front of your face in a very strong light.

Viewers of the site never had the chance to hold the pages in their hands and look for themselves at the "dots and banding" of the print. The closest you can come to this experience on the site is to look at the comparison of the whole test image. The Canon's way of laying down ink creates the "micro banding" effect that people talk about -- but it actually improves the sharpness of the image when viewed at normal distances!

Let's not forget the point of printing -- it is to produce an image that will faithfully reproduce the photograph when viewed at a reasonable distance. If you can't see dots and banding at normal viewing distance, they don't matter!

 

[Brian Cao]

From reading the commentaries, it seems that at very high magnification the Epson reigns supreme. But at normal viewing distances, it seems a lot of the comments were very positive for the Canon.

With the above thoughts, I would conclude that the Canon would win the image quality test when presented to the average person without any magnification tools.

The evaluators seemed to have a heavy bias towards inkjets. I
cannot understand how the S9000 can even be considered in the same
league as the Epson and dye subs when the dots and banding are so
easily seen on all of S9000 the scans, even the low res ones.

I was afraid of this.

The scans are deliberately blown up to the point where you CAN see
dots and banding. Remember, 11x is a VERY HIGH magnification -- it
is literally like staring at the print through a high-powered
loupe! The "dots and banding" are barely discernable on the 4x
scans -- which are like holding up the print a few inches in front
of your face in a very strong light.

Viewers of the site never had the chance to hold the pages in their
hands and look for themselves at the "dots and banding" of the
print. The closest you can come to this experience on the site is
to look at the comparison of the whole test image. The Canon's way
of laying down ink creates the "micro banding" effect that people
talk about -- but it actually improves the sharpness of the image
when viewed at normal distances!

Let's not forget the point of printing -- it is to produce an image
that will faithfully reproduce the photograph when viewed at a
reasonable distance. If you can't see dots and banding at normal
viewing distance, they don't matter!