HP introduces new pigment printer...

Go to http://www.photo-i.co.uk . But he has yet to update his review of the new HP printer...

--
fotografer

Check out this link: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/feature_stories/video/products.html

There is a short (2-minute) video depicting the 'new' printing technology of HP, including the HP photosmart pro b9180...

--
fotografer

at Focus on Imaging, NEC - Birmingham.

I'm now totally conviced I want it - the output on art-paper and satin was superb. Talking to the demonstrator he reckons that there is still some Bronzing on Gloss papers (but I suspect most of us wouldn't want it for that anyway).

The individual cartidges are monsters! No indication on their price yet

He reckons that although the print heads are replaceable they should outlast the life of the printer (whatever that means)

It is a serious looking piece of kit and I look forward to seeing the independent reviews

Brian Wadie said:

The individual cartidges are monsters

Click to expand...

I heard 27ml. Is that wrong? How do they compare to the Epson4800 cartridges (110 and 220 ml)?

I am not an expert with respect to HP printers, but I am told that HP does NOT have the quality inks offered by Canon and Epson. Is there anyone out there with some input? Photo Man.

HP's dye ink printers are as competitve as Canon's and in fact it is the Canon ink and papers that have experienced issues with gas fading in a period of months or even weeks. HP has been in the printer business a long time and makes some fine products. They led the way with producing excellent B&W prints out of the box. The Vivera inks in the Designjet series produces much deeper blacks than the K3 inks (of course the DJ inks are dye inks).

That said, I would like to see how their pigment ink performs. Canon started getting into it a while back with their wide format printers but Epson has been the one leading the way with pigment inks. It has taken a few generations of archival inks to improve DMax, reduce bronzing, etc and there is still room for improvement. I would be surprised if HP can match or surpass the K3 ink performance. We'll see though. HP isn't exactly a non-name company. It's about time Epson had some direct competition in pigment ink printers.

PhotoMan said:

I am not an expert with respect to HP printers, but I am told that
HP does NOT have the quality inks offered by Canon and Epson. Is
there anyone out there with some input? Photo Man.

Click to expand...

danielsan said:

That said, I would like to see how their pigment ink performs.
Canon started getting into it a while back with their wide format
printers but Epson has been the one leading the way with pigment
inks. It has taken a few generations of archival inks to improve
DMax, reduce bronzing, etc and there is still room for improvement.
I would be surprised if HP can match or surpass the K3 ink
performance.

Click to expand...

HP has been in the pigment based wide carriage (outdoor signs, etc) printer business for many years. Pigment inks for inkjet printers is not something new for them.

Pros who do this for a living have all said that none of them use HP printers and this is what I have heard. Further, it was alleged by these pros that despite the fact that HP has been in the printer business for many years, allegedly the type of ink offered by HP was not on par with Epson and Canon. I have no opinion as to the above, so please don't jump down my throat. This is ONLY a question to all of you to ask for your input. Photo Man.

"Pros" without a clue. There are many pros using HP inksets. In general, they would get the highest overall ratings of the dye inksets (in comparison to Canon and Epson). They also have been producing pigment inks for years as pointed out before.

It'll be interesting to see where this pigment printer takes HP, with regard to photographic printer space---will we see a new round of "little designjets" (30/90/130) with the pigment inks? I wonder if Neil will drop in with reports of how this unit is working and how the prints compare to the designjet series---I bet he has had it for a while now.

--
Jim

There does seem to be a common attitude that what is most commonly used by the pros is 'the only' way to go. Hence one can 'only' get good results using a Canon '1' series DSLR, 'L' lenses, an Epson photo printer, Adobe Photoshop etc. These are all fine products, but if we all went down this path of least resistance there would be no competition, little innovation, and little need for these photography forums. Of course I am an Olympus shooter, so you can write me off as a rebel without a clue if you wish!

I really appreciate your in depth analysis of the different printers. If you get a chance with this new printer, I would be interested in how it compares in abrasion resistance with an Epson 800, or 4000, or 2400, whatever you might have handy. That seems to be one of the weak spots right now, with prints getting scratched from handling. Thanks

Respectfully, I wouldn't hold my breath on Vincent - he has missed most of his own deadlines for posting new material to his site over the last 6 or 8 months. I hope Neil Snape has his hands on one of these new printers - I'm sure he could provide some useful insight.
--
I hope that helps...
Phil
http://www.pbase.com/pdcorlis

Some pros use HP. I have seen posts on various boards from a number of pros who say they use the DJ series. Colourgeek is a pro photographer and is somewhat of an expert on HP printers.

To be sure, Epson still dominates the pro market. Some of that is simple inertia on the part of users. HP printers do have some issues that probably prevent more people from going to them. Canon has moved slowly into the wide format market as well. When the 6200 and 8200 came out it was hard to find any ink on them much less a dealer that carred them.

The two primary issues with HP are water resistance and longevity. HP's longevity claims only apply to two special HP papers neither of which is a matte paper. These papers have zero water resistance and a single drop of water can ruin the print. From what I understand this is more a function of the paper than the ink. Beyond these papers, HP does not compare well to Epson in terms of longevity. Of course you can use sprays to iimprove such characteristics but most people probably dont want to be bothered.

The issue I believe is not the quality of ink but rather the inherent pros and cons of dye versus pigment inks. Dye inks give deeper blacks, more vibrant colors and seem less prone to clogging(no pigment particles to worry about). Pigment inks sacrifice these things but give superior longevity on a much wider range of papers. HP and Canon and others have tried formulating various papers to extend the life of their dye inks.

For the record, I am not a pro (I define pro as anyone who earns significant income from photography) and I use Epson printers(see profile). The HP DJ series and the Canon wide formats have a lot going for them but on balance for my needs I prefer the Epson. If I were in the market today I would give a hard look at the Canon ipf5000. The black switchover issue on the Epsons is borderline criminal. I cant believe they didnt add an extra line so you could have both matte and photo black installed simultaneously.

PhotoMan said:

Pros who do this for a living have all said that none of them use
HP printers and this is what I have heard. Further, it was alleged
by these pros that despite the fact that HP has been in the printer
business for many years, allegedly the type of ink offered by HP
was not on par with Epson and Canon. I have no opinion as to the
above, so please don't jump down my throat. This is ONLY a
question to all of you to ask for your input. Photo Man.

Click to expand...

PhotoMan187881 said:

Pros who do this for a living have all said that none of them use
HP printers and this is what I have heard.

Click to expand...

I think Epson has a larger market share among professionals who are printing large photos. And to some extent this is self-perpetuating since there are more tools available and more help with printing issues for Epson printers.

PhotoMan187881 said:

Further, it was alleged
by these pros that despite the fact that HP has been in the printer
business for many years, allegedly the type of ink offered by HP
was not on par with Epson and Canon.

Click to expand...

This is strange. Epson has come out with more pigment ink and pigment type inks for their desktop lines, so I might see someone saying their "type" of ink superior (not necessarily true BTW it depends). But Canon uses dye inks just like HP so I can't understand why anyone would say that the HP inks weren't on a par with the Canon inks. HP quality on the inks is really at least as good as anyone else's.

To some extent what printer company is best is cyclical. Early on it was Canon with the original BJC800. Then HP edged ahead. Then Epson. Then Canon. Right now we may be seeing HP go ahead again.

If it's an issue of "pigment" vs. "dye" inks then both Canon and HP have announced new printers to compete with Epson. But they're new and not yet available so you're not going to be able to get a definite answer at this point one way or the other.

Also keep in mind that both Canon and HP use thermal technology in their printers. Epson uses pizeo electronic. Pizeo electronic seems theoretically the best but in practice I think the thermal printers perform slightly better.

I believe HP came out with the first reliable print head using thick film and thermal bubble technology and locked up the patents. Epson had to develop a different kind of print head. HP and Canon have a lot of cross licensing on their technology so Canon may have had an easy go being able to use thermal technology.

As to saying more Pros use Epson I couldnd't say who uses more the most. The early HP printers until recently locked you into their idea of what color should look like and didn't give you any meaningful way of adjusting the color whereas Epson did not. I remember paying as much for a thrid party RIP for my $4k HP printer to be able to slightly adjust the color. Unfortunately this RIP wouldn't work with Windows 98 when it came out and the company said it wasn't economical to redesign and release a new rip so that was the end of that.

As a side note I noticed on the news services today that WalMart is switching to HP printers for it's photo processing in 50 of its stores.
--
http://www.garageglamour.com/portfolios/greatphotos

If they actually have solved the water solubility issue, then they are a strong competitor at the higher end. The build quality would then be the deciding factor for most high end consumers.

The DJ series would be very hard to ignore, if it's ink didn't dissolve with a little moisture. Cheaper cost per print and faster print speeds (compared to Epson).

Anyway, I am not a pro, and I no longer think I would even be in the market for a wide carriage printer (I don't print enough to justify an expensive printer).

At the low end of the market, I think the HP's cost per print is too high.

And I love my DJ130 printer. I sell fine art prints for a living. Superb color and image quality at a cost less than half Epson for large format archival prints.

After owning the 130 for over a year it continues to amaze me daily. I can only imagine what the new HP pigment based printers will be like.

Anyone know where Vincent's report is stashed? He mentioned above posting something on 2/24.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii

Exciting as this news is, am I the only one who thinks this is not really designed to be a fine art printer? Or one designed to replace the DesignJet series dye based printers?

First, it's too small. A3, 13"x19", is really a bit small for a serious fine art print.

Next, notice that video up on the HP site that someone linked here. It shows a woman going to a retail lab and having a series of prints made on this printer into a photo album. These pigmented prints are designed to be touched and fondled. I think the intended market for this printer is the consumer who wants to handle pics and for commercial / wedding photographers who need to produce prints that are handled a lot.

Finally, Note that HP is offering a new banner material for this printer, something not available for the DJ series printers. Banners and exterior posters seems to be another intended market.

And so, I really don't think that the b9180 was designed to "fix" the imagined water related problems of the DJ series printers, it's a new printer designed for the commercial photographer who needs to produce water resiistant prints and banners for his clientel.

The only thing that might change my opinion is if there is a dramatic improvement in image quality over the DJ series printers or if HP eventually releases this technology in a 24" wide format which would suggest they think it's a new flagship fine art printer.

--
BigPixel / Hawaii

The above having been said, I do believe that you can make "fine art" prints on any printer really. It comes down to image quality and archivability in fine art sales. And image quality is a very subjective thing.

Hula on!
--
BigPixel / Hawaii

I'm not sure about the color gamut and gloss benefit of dye inks you mentioned. I think the 2006 technologies that Epson pigment inks can produce will easily meet your standard.

I'm pretty sure that the high end printer will all soon use pigment inks (of course, continue to get better). Leave the dye ink to the cheaper models.