Epson 4800 vs HP 130

Neil,

I have been thinking about the HP 130 for a while. I currently use a Canon i9900 for fine art photography and my needs seem to be different than most. I care about ultimate quality. I am not interested in a crappy print that last 100 years. I will never buy another Epson because of the non-field replacable heads. When you are printing for a show and get a terminal head clog and live a 1000 miles from a service center it is a no go.

But the "cheeta" sample from HP really was bad. I suspect it was the image but they should not use such a bad image for a printer sample. The test report that Outback posted showed the detail on the HP to be noticeably lower than the Epson it was compared to. I also looked at the color gamut of the HP130 and it was less than the Canon i9900 and I already fight the small color gamut all the time with the Canon.

I am getting tired of waiting for a new Canon and would like to print larger prints. Charles Kramer is a creditble testamonial but I have not seen a sample that looks as good as the i9900.

Any thoughts on these issues?
Thanks

I keep wondering if many of the people expressing opinions about the DJ 130 and the Epsons really have experience with these or just "internet experience"

I have both printers. Both printer produce great output when calibrated correctly, but the the DJ 130 prints definitely fades under conditions that the epson does not. This is using OEM inks and the HP premium media (satin, glossy).

Maybe I'm just unlucky.

Evan,

Congratulations on your 4800 choice, I labored over this decision and came very close to a HP130...such a great price, low ink costs etc...but I decided on the 4800 due to the $400 rebate, plus all those paper choices and the K3 inkset is so much better than the 2200 inks and the original ultrachrome inks...

The Epson profiles are very nice, and Bill Atkins has several profiles available at his site for the 7800 and 9800 that can be used with the 4800 and if you want you can run the free colorbase app from Epson etc and they will be spot on.

I dont have the spectrophotometer etc....but have used Bill's profiles with my 4800 and do notice differences from the Epson premium profiles enough to covince me to use them, but not enough to start profiling myself...just not that much difference to me t ojustify the added cost of buying more high dollar measurig devices...maybe someday...

Enjoy your new printer and have fun!
All the best
Alex

adydula said:

I dont have the spectrophotometer etc....but have used Bill's
profiles with my 4800 and do notice differences from the Epson
premium profiles enough to covince me to use them, but not enough
to start profiling myself...just not that much difference to me t
ojustify the added cost of buying more high dollar measurig
devices...maybe someday...

Click to expand...

If you read through the FAQ for color base, they say that you can use the Colorbase application remotely, similar to the way profiles are created. So you may not need to own a spectro to take advantage of the calibration.

--
http://www.dfaprinting.com

I have both the Canon i9950 (=i9900) and the HP DJ 130.

The Canon is used with Ilford classic pearl and Canon ink. At times with Canon pro paper.
The HP is used with HP pearl paper and Hp ink.

Print quality from both printers is very good / outstanding.
Canon colors can be more vivid. Color gamut could be larger.
HP colors look slightly more natural to me, more photographic.
It also depends on the subject which output I prefer.

MvW101 said:

I keep wondering if many of the people expressing opinions about
the DJ 130 and the Epsons really have experience with these or just
"internet experience"

I have both printers. Both printer produce great output when
calibrated correctly, but the the DJ 130 prints definitely fades
under conditions that the epson does not. This is using OEM inks
and the HP premium media (satin, glossy).

Maybe I'm just unlucky.

Click to expand...

MvW101,

I have a dozen and a half prints from a DJ30 (and Photosmart 8750---most 13 x 19), mounted on foamboard in my office. No protection whatsoever. All are using OEM stuff (most satin paper). No fading at all. Now I did have Epson 780 prints that we're unrecognizable after a year of these conditions. There is no sunlight here, so I assume that fading is due to oxidation of the dyes.

Sounds strange. Do you have any idea what condition(s) might be coming into play?

Jim

Greg,

Thanks for that info...very interesting. I will check this out for sure!

Alex

I have no doubt prints from a 780 faded - they were dye inks. Epson dye inks are terrible and not fade resistant under any conditions; coated, uncoated, doesn't matter.

The Ultrachrome and K3 inks are pigment and totally different. The inks in the 4800 are K3 inks. Your experience with the 780 cannot be extrapolated to the 4800.

JLK said:

Sounds strange. Do you have any idea what condition(s) might be
coming into play?

Click to expand...

Yep! Most likely exposure to ozone, which the xx80 dye based printers are known to be sensitive to depending on the paper you used.
--
Mark Graf
http://www.grafphoto.com

Thanks Peter that is helpful information. I use the same papers and inks. I have looked at the color gamut of the two printers and the i9900 has the largest color gamut of about any printer out now. My major concern was the reports on Outback and a report from England that show the fine detail of the HP is soft. One test compared it to the Epson 7600 and the other the i9900. I was reading a recent set of posts that refer to an option on the HP that controls dpi and I wondered if the tests did nto utilize the HP's highest settings. Maybe both HP and Canon will release new printers at PMA.

Cheers

I was going to say that is not possible that your prints faded until I read a post below on environmental conditions including ozone. Perhaps some device is creating ozone near the prints like a laser printer or other thermostatic machine.

Otherwise If they are really swellable surface media then the Vivera inks cannot be faulted for longevity. I have enough prints here to see in non glass mount prints in normal home contions absolutely no fade whatesoever against freshly printed samples. I think the colour of the paint on the walls is yellowing faster than any perceptual change in the prints.

Please note if you use Ilford or perhaps other ceramic coated paper you will see definate fading, at times in humidity (kitchen fridge prints) they fade in less than a month, and are destrayed after 3-6 months. The same swellable media HP PPGP showed no signs for the worse side by side.

These are real world tests, the other lab conditions by Wilhelm , and HP themselves I've also been around for evaluation / observation and they show none as well.
--
Neil Snape photographer Paris http://www.neilsnape.com

Xenon,

I was in no way comparing the Epson 780 inks to the current (or former) Epson pigment inks---I was comparing them to the HP Vivera inks. My office environment is right next to a laboratory, so we have small amounts of solvents circulating in the air, as well as the usual indoor pollutants. While the old dye inks from Epson were quickly faded, my HP inks have not faded at all in a similar period.

My impression from this (as well as third party testing) is that the HP inks on the HP swellable media give the best life you can currently hope for from dye-based inks (ignoring spraying as a solution). They're not as long lived as Epson K3 inks, but have some real advantages over the Epson inks (and a couple disadvantages as well).

Jim

I have been using the 130 for about 4 months. I love the color and the quality of the printer. It is not the quickest printer, but the color and the detail that comes out of the hp is enough for me. I printed my entire holiday season on the printer. The epson is quicker, but all the extra blacks and inks still can't compete---and the hp is half the price!!