The Great Paper Chase

Yes, the one #3 with highest res and 1 tick expansion for the true borderless print. It showed banding on the middle of the bottom color patches. the banding is like 0.25". It is the first time ever I see banding with my i950. it could that the printer had a loose grip on the paper.

fotographer, if you are interested I can mail you the photos. maybe you have bettter eyes than I do ... send me an email.

Nashua.

fotografer said:

Very interesting observations!

fotografer said:

1) Res mode Hi, 2 on the slide AND the left most slide on the
borderless expansion.
2) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the left
most slide on the borderless expansion.
3) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the
second left most slide on the borderless expansion.

Click to expand...

I am not all too familiar the details of the settings i950. Chris,
who is commenting privately to me said that the highest mode
(slider 1) gives the best results, with less evidence of banding
than the default slider 2 setting (hi mode?). But Chris has very
sharp eyes, so that's that maybe...

fotografer said:

Print #2 compared to 1:
Almost identical to 1. Maybe a hair line sharper. But I can not
tell by my naked eye. if I swtich the print #1 and print#2, I could
not figure out which is which. Now the question, is the default hi
is the same as mode 1 or mode on the custom slide? Should I stick
with the default hi, or use the custom mode 1 with diffusin mode?
PLEASE, what is your prefered choice?

Click to expand...

I think let most slide of the borderless expansion simply means
there is not expansion to overbleed the prints beyond the paper
edges. So this means there is no printer upsampling, so the
hairline sections are not affected. Even with slight interpolation
will ruin the exact 600 ppi designed hairlines on the left of the
test chart.

It's interesting that you can't tell the print #2 and #1 apart.
Apparently #2 is done in the highest res mode (from the way you
described it) while #1 is the default hi-mode. Chris seems to see
the difference. Hmm... I will report back once I receive his prints
(he has not contacted me since last week)...

fotografer said:

Print #3 compared to 1:
The first I noted that print#3 and due to expansion slide, fine
hair lines are messed up. That is not good!. Those are equi spaceed
lines. On print 3, they are not. Conclusion, for best image
quality, do not use borderless print or use the left most expansion
tick. PLEASE, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am assuming that left most borderless option means there is
no printer upsampling to overbleed the image beyond the paper
edges. So with no hardware upsampling, the 600 ppi equi-space lines
are properly printed.

fotografer said:

Also, I noticed some banding in the bottom colors patches, Why? one
time effect I do not know.

Click to expand...

You mean only #3 shows banding? At highest res mode? Hmm, that's
strange. I would have thought the slider 2 print (your #1 sample?)
should be the one showing the banding, even if slight.

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

--
Nashua Night Hawk

Nashua,

I am grateful that you offer to help. I will perhaps contact you if I still can't contact Chris in a week's time.

There are many other things we need to ensure in order to ensure a true apple to apple comparison. First off, Chris doesn't print borderless with his i950 for this test. He did it as it is, 600ppi input, on a larger piece of paper (perhaps an 8.5x11 cut into half) and print without interpolation in Photoshop...

Once again, thanks for the offer, I may get in touch with you via e-mail in a week's time, if I still can't get Chris...

Nashua_Hawk said:

Yes, the one #3 with highest res and 1 tick expansion for the true
borderless print. It showed banding on the middle of the bottom
color patches. the banding is like 0.25". It is the first time ever
I see banding with my i950. it could that the printer had a loose
grip on the paper.

fotographer, if you are interested I can mail you the photos. maybe
you have bettter eyes than I do ... send me an email.

Nashua.

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Hi there Tameside,

tameside said:

This is excellent stuff, is your research available to download?

Click to expand...

The only way to 'download' is here in the dpreview forum!

tameside said:

Question: I have a 7350, Sony digicam 3Mp, I'm going to get 602 v
shortly.

Click to expand...

You mean the Fujifilm 602, right? It's also a 3MP camera...

tameside said:

What is the best way to get great looking prints in simple terms.
ie as a rule I just print in Hp director at supposedly std dpi ie
72. Should I rsize my 2/3Mp photos down to 6x4, 7x5 etc and
increase the dpi, ie 300+?

Click to expand...

I never really use the Hp director myself, so I don't know how it works. As it stands, I think a 3MP digicam will still yield great results, in simple terms, up to 8x10 with the Photoret IV modes enabled during printing.

tameside said:

Will this yield better results. Like a lot of people I sometimes
wonder If it's worth the bother. Note I currently are using
Ilford, HP and Fuji papers, although the Fuji one is multijetb
210gsm. Thus far I'm not impressed with it as it always seems to
smudge/at the top of the page, have tried cleaning the heads etc
but still does it?

Click to expand...

Increasing software by 300+ ppi will often than not improve your results, because that's software interpolation, where the programme simply add pixel without real new information added into the original.

I am assuming you are saying only the Fujifilm 210gsm is not impressive. Are you using with good results, the Ilford papers? Which ones do you like the best? Galarie Smooth series, Galarie Classic series, or Printasia series?

I really don't know why the Fujifilm paper will cause smudging at the top. If you actually mean all prints made smudges, then there is possiblity of printhead clogging and that requires you to perform the nozzle cleaning, which is found in the toolbox button in the printer software driver.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

fotografer said:

This is excellent stuff, is your research available to download?

Click to expand...

The only way to 'download' is here in the dpreview forum!

fotografer said:

Question: I have a 7350, Sony digicam 3Mp, I'm going to get 602 v
shortly.

Click to expand...

You mean the Fujifilm 602, right? It's also a 3MP camera...

fotografer said:

What is the best way to get great looking prints in simple terms.
ie as a rule I just print in Hp director at supposedly std dpi ie
72. Should I rsize my 2/3Mp photos down to 6x4, 7x5 etc and
increase the dpi, ie 300+?

Click to expand...

I never really use the Hp director myself, so I don't know how it
works. As it stands, I think a 3MP digicam will still yield great
results, in simple terms, up to 8x10 with the Photoret IV modes
enabled during printing.

fotografer said:

Will this yield better results. Like a lot of people I sometimes
wonder If it's worth the bother. Note I currently are using
Ilford, HP and Fuji papers, although the Fuji one is multijetb
210gsm. Thus far I'm not impressed with it as it always seems to
smudge/at the top of the page, have tried cleaning the heads etc
but still does it?

Click to expand...

Increasing software by 300+ ppi will often than not improve your
results, because that's software interpolation, where the programme
simply add pixel without real new information added into the
original.

I am assuming you are saying only the Fujifilm 210gsm is not
impressive. Are you using with good results, the Ilford papers?
Which ones do you like the best? Galarie Smooth series, Galarie
Classic series, or Printasia series?

I really don't know why the Fujifilm paper will cause smudging at
the top. If you actually mean all prints made smudges, then there
is possiblity of printhead clogging and that requires you to
perform the nozzle cleaning, which is found in the toolbox button
in the printer software driver.

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

Thanks fotografer.

Just to clarify, did you mean increasing the dpi in s/w will or will not yield better results? Is 72 dpi sufficient for good photos?

Once again, excellent stuff and intend to disable all of the digital settings ie smoothing etc.

Tameside

Hi Tameside,

tameside said:

Just to clarify, did you mean increasing the dpi in s/w will or
will not yield better results? Is 72 dpi sufficient for good photos?

Once again, excellent stuff and intend to disable all of the
digital settings ie smoothing etc.

Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that, Tameside. Most likely the 72dpi you see from the print programme is equivalent to a very large print size. I will give you an example:

300dpi (or ppi - pixel per inch) at 4x6 inch = 150dpi at 8x12 inch

Now, 300ppi at 4x6, actually means there are

300 pixels/inch x 4 inches = 1200 pixels in width, and
300 pixels/inch x 6 inches = 1800 pixels

1200 x 1600 = 2 160 000 pixels = about 2.2 Megapixels

Your camera is 3MP, so you are effectively printing with more than 300ppi at 4x6 inch already (because a 2MP roughly gives you a 4x6 at 300ppi).

Now, when I say "don't add your own pixels", this means, that when you leave your files untouched in terms of adding or dropping pixels (via cropping, for instance).

For a 3MP camera, it yields roughly a 5x7 print at 300ppi, or an equivalent of about 8x10 print at around 200ppi.

At 72dpi your print programme showed, it probably mean the equivalent print size is about 20x30 inches!

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

But whatever the title may be, the quest is the same, and a serious
one – to discover that elusive paper with the look, feel, image
quality, and perhaps even longevity, of real silver-halide
photographs...

Click to expand...

Did you ever get to try Ilford Smooth Gloss? Great paper - I'd be interest-
ed in your feedback.

Robert

I hope it's not resizing to 72dpi for web/screen viewing (this is the common quoted on screen dpi for web pages etc isn't it? - I doubt many of us run at 72dpi anyway).

If it is you may be printing quite low res images which are not doing justice to your camera or printer.

Try downloading Qimage at:

http://www.ddisoftware.com

It will do any dpi calculations and give you the best print based on your desired settings.

RW

Yeah, I forgot to recommend Qimage to solve all dpi ppi woes.

Of course, you may have a (steep) learning curve getting around Qimage. But once you get the hang of it (I suspect I only scrape the surface), it will reward you with amazing prints...

Richard W said:

I hope it's not resizing to 72dpi for web/screen viewing (this is
the common quoted on screen dpi for web pages etc isn't it? - I
doubt many of us run at 72dpi anyway).

If it is you may be printing quite low res images which are not
doing justice to your camera or printer.

Try downloading Qimage at:

http://www.ddisoftware.com

It will do any dpi calculations and give you the best print based
on your desired settings.

RW

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

I hope the title of my response will hint you something.

Right now, Bill Waterson will be busy doing some light-fastness estimates on some of the paper I have acquired (they are sample packs, not costing loads to buy), and some that will be donated by the kindly Richard W...

Stay tuned (maybe in two-three months' time)...

Robert Hoffman said:

Robert Hoffman said:

But whatever the title may be, the quest is the same, and a serious
one – to discover that elusive paper with the look, feel, image
quality, and perhaps even longevity, of real silver-halide
photographs...

Click to expand...

Did you ever get to try Ilford Smooth Gloss? Great paper - I'd be
interest-
ed in your feedback.

Robert

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

Any comments are welcome!

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

Hi Fotografer,

I mentioned in an earlier reply that I wanted to try your test image on some printers in the store. So, I transferred it to a Smart Media Card and went to Best Buy and tried it on an Epson 925 and HP7350 (to compare to my HP 882C(Photo ReT 2)). It was not the best controlled experiment since I really did not know how to control the printers. We had to use the direct print method from the card; the printers are not hooked up to a computer. We just set them for Premium Photo Paper and use the store's "generic" photo paper and Kodak Premium Picture Paper which I supplied.

The Epson results were disappointing but may be due to the lack of controls in the test. On the store's generic photo paper the colrs looked great but the gray scale (Image 10) had some artifacts in the diagonal lines which may be due to the dithering algorithm. Also, the horizontal and vertical lines had alternating intensity (dark-light-dark etc). When we printed it out on the Kodak paper somehow the print size changed and it came out a little larger (maybe 5 x 7 instead of 4 x 6). The gray scale artifacts were gone but the intensity variation remained. The sunsets (5 & 6) were terrible. I think the ink was not laying down correctly and was probably not compatible with the paper.

The HP results were better. My most noticeable complaint was that the printer could not resolve the finest lines in image 10. The first vertical, horizontal and slanted bars came out uniform with no lines. My biggest complaint, however, is that gray is not gray (Especially after I scanned in the image and compared it to your test image on the monitor) and the printed image is not as "bright" as the test image. I can correct the brightness problem in Photoshop but if I try to correct the gray problem all the other colors are way off.

BTW, I am still amazed at the quality of my old HP880C. On image 10 it had line resolution similar to the 7330 (but some banding in the finest lines). The biggest difference is the 880C shows color dots at about 6x magnification that the others printers did not. Also, the yellow bar has some blue dots in it.

So, my questions are: Is my experience with the line resolution what you would have expected?
And:

Is the gray scale problem a printer/monitor calibration problem that can be corrected with a tool such as photo prism or sometthing similar?

Thank you very much for all your help.

Bob Schoner

Robert,

There are so many things I wish to share, I think I will divide the reply into two parts.

Robert Schoner said:

I mentioned in an earlier reply that I wanted to try your test
image on some printers in the store. So, I transferred it to a
Smart Media Card and went to Best Buy and tried it on an Epson 925
and HP7350 (to compare to my HP 882C(Photo ReT 2)). It was not
the best controlled experiment since I really did not know how to
control the printers. We had to use the direct print method from
the card; the printers are not hooked up to a computer. We just set
them for Premium Photo Paper and use the store's "generic" photo
paper and Kodak Premium Picture Paper which I supplied.

Click to expand...

I presume when you mentioned Premium Photo Paper, it's only referring to the display from the ps7350 asking you to select a paper type? What paper did you remember to select for the Epson printer?

Like I said, when you use direct printing, I suspect the built-in auto enhancer is involved, to boost contrast, colors, etc.. This will not be good to compare between the printers this way. It may give you some ideas like which printer seems to be more compatible with other papers and which is not, like in your case, it seems the Epson printer doesn't cope as well with generic and third-party papers as HP one does.

I know this sounds really silly, but WP, another prominent forum contributor, did a better thing. He downloaded the drivers from the manufacturers' website, if you are, say, testing the Epson 935 and HP 7350, then download and install the relevant drivers. Play with them, ensure you are familiar with how to set all enhancements of both printer drivers all OFF. This will make the printer print the way the mechanics are supposed to print, not 'covered' with goofy software 'enhancements' in constrasts, brightness, sharpness, etc..

Robert Schoner said:

The Epson results were disappointing but may be due to the lack of
controls in the test. On the store's generic photo paper the colrs
looked great but the gray scale (Image 10) had some artifacts in
the diagonal lines which may be due to the dithering algorithm.
Also, the horizontal and vertical lines had alternating intensity
(dark-light-dark etc). When we printed it out on the Kodak paper
somehow the print size changed and it came out a little larger
(maybe 5 x 7 instead of 4 x 6). The gray scale artifacts were gone
but the intensity variation remained. The sunsets (5 & 6) were
terrible. I think the ink was not laying down correctly and was
probably not compatible with the paper.

Click to expand...

You see, this is what I meant. I don't know what sort of paper type you selected for the Epson. Maybe you selected non photo paper as the media? This may greatly reduce the quality of the Epson prints on photopapers! When you said the grey-scale artifacts were gone, do you mean the grey boxes? Also, at the wrong print size (5x7), did you notice the series of closely spaced lines looked funny or what?

Exactly what were the grey scale artifacts? Grains? Bandings? Serious color shifts?

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Hi Rob,

Robert Schoner said:

The HP results were better. My most noticeable complaint was that
the printer could not resolve the finest lines in image 10. The
first vertical, horizontal and slanted bars came out uniform with
no lines. My biggest complaint, however, is that gray is not gray
(Especially after I scanned in the image and compared it to your
test image on the monitor) and the printed image is not as "bright"
as the test image. I can correct the brightness problem in
Photoshop but if I try to correct the gray problem all the other
colors are way off.

Click to expand...

When left with PC-less printing, I really doubt you are able to ensure no 'auto-enhancements' were employed by the printer to 'boost' the looks of prints. When you say grey not grey, I suspect you detect a visible color shifts? Like towards yellow, perhaps? Or pinkish? These two are the colors that the HP printers are most likely to shift to...

You should, as far as possible, not correct brightness and contrasts to the original image (since the original image has been 'optimised' for consistent test purposes) of the test file. This will skew the results and making comparisons between will become moot.

I think, also that the paper type you've chosen is important to generate the overall look of the prints. The 'duller' prints, unless you are comparing with other physical prints (not with web optimised ones like mine, unless you follow the optimisation methodology I stated in my report to the T, and using the same scanner and setting - even so, same model scanner may still have variations scanner-to-scanner, thus introducing other uncontrollable variables to disable effective print and web comparisons).

Robert Schoner said:

BTW, I am still amazed at the quality of my old HP880C. On image 10
it had line resolution similar to the 7330 (but some banding in the
finest lines). The biggest difference is the 880C shows color
dots at about 6x magnification that the others printers did not.
Also, the yellow bar has some blue dots in it.

Click to expand...

I am glad you still like the 880C printouts! The blue dots you see are due to lack of photo cyan (or light cyan) and if you see reddish/pinkish dots, this is due to lack of photo/light magenta. Therein lies the difference between three and six-color printing...

Robert Schoner said:

So, my questions are: Is my experience with the line resolution
what you would have expected?

Click to expand...

At the finest, I may not get some of the finest lines resolved like you. But for my case, most of the time, they are resolved. But in mine, I have taken care to disable software driver enhancements, so I don't know if what I saw as limitations is exactly the same as what you saw. I have a strong feeling that they are not the same.

Chris (WmAx) is going to post his Canon i950 prints to me soon. I will show the line prints at 4x magnification to all in this forum in the near future and you can then tell me if that's what you saw...

Robert Schoner said:

Is the gray scale problem a printer/monitor calibration problem
that can be corrected with a tool such as photo prism or sometthing
similar?

Click to expand...

I think you mean Profile Prism? I have little success with profile prism with the ps7150, and I suspect the ps7350 and 7550 will behave the same as mine. If you want absolutely no cast, first of all you must disable all auto-enhancements, or at least have control over them. Using direct card printing will NOT allow you control in this area.

Secondly, choosing the appropriate "Paper Type" in the software driver is important.

I have just discovered that the HP Photo Paper, Glossy setting is even closer to 'neutral' with some papers than the HP Premium Glossy Film I often used, normally with more (but slight shift) towards magenta. The HP Premium Plus Photopaper, and the Colorfast normally gives a yellow shifts to b/w when you use generic or third party paper with this setting.

I have no experience with monitor calibration. Mine is a laptop and older type (TFT?) display, and it would be hopeless to even attempt to calibrate that. Newer flatscreen laptops or PCs have a better chance for controls to do some generic calibration, such as the Gamma Calibration from the Adobe Photoshop (Elements or Professional/full).

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

There are so many things I wish to share, I think I will divide the
reply into two parts.

fotografer said:

I mentioned in an earlier reply that I wanted to try your test
image on some printers in the store. So, I transferred it to a
Smart Media Card and went to Best Buy and tried it on an Epson 925
and HP7350 (to compare to my HP 882C(Photo ReT 2)). It was not
the best controlled experiment since I really did not know how to
control the printers. We had to use the direct print method from
the card; the printers are not hooked up to a computer. We just set
them for Premium Photo Paper and use the store's "generic" photo
paper and Kodak Premium Picture Paper which I supplied.

Click to expand...

I presume when you mentioned Premium Photo Paper, it's only
referring to the display from the ps7350 asking you to select a
paper type? What paper did you remember to select for the Epson
printer?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I don't. He was going thru the settings so fast I did not really see.

fotografer said:

Like I said, when you use direct printing, I suspect the built-in
auto enhancer is involved, to boost contrast, colors, etc.. This
will not be good to compare between the printers this way. It may
give you some ideas like which printer seems to be more compatible
with other papers and which is not, like in your case, it seems the
Epson printer doesn't cope as well with generic and third-party
papers as HP one does.

I know this sounds really silly, but WP, another prominent forum
contributor, did a better thing. He downloaded the drivers from the
manufacturers' website, if you are, say, testing the Epson 935 and
HP 7350, then download and install the relevant drivers. Play with
them, ensure you are familiar with how to set all enhancements of
both printer drivers all OFF. This will make the printer print the
way the mechanics are supposed to print, not 'covered' with goofy
software 'enhancements' in constrasts, brightness, sharpness, etc..

Click to expand...

I can't really do this with the "test in the store" approach. They are not hooked up to a computer so I am stuck with direct print and whatever controls are offered on the printer.

fotografer said:

fotografer said:

The Epson results were disappointing but may be due to the lack of
controls in the test. On the store's generic photo paper the colrs
looked great but the gray scale (Image 10) had some artifacts in
the diagonal lines which may be due to the dithering algorithm.
Also, the horizontal and vertical lines had alternating intensity
(dark-light-dark etc). When we printed it out on the Kodak paper
somehow the print size changed and it came out a little larger
(maybe 5 x 7 instead of 4 x 6). The gray scale artifacts were gone
but the intensity variation remained. The sunsets (5 & 6) were
terrible. I think the ink was not laying down correctly and was
probably not compatible with the paper.

Click to expand...

You see, this is what I meant. I don't know what sort of paper type
you selected for the Epson. Maybe you selected non photo paper as
the media? This may greatly reduce the quality of the Epson prints
on photopapers! When you said the grey-scale artifacts were gone,
do you mean the grey boxes? Also, at the wrong print size (5x7),
did you notice the series of closely spaced lines looked funny or
what?

Exactly what were the grey scale artifacts? Grains? Bandings?
Serious color shifts?

Click to expand...

I will try. On the first (finest) diagonal gray bar. In addition to the lines there are a series of diamonds made up of 9 dots. The diamond start on the left and shift to the right. Half way up the bar they are off the right hand side and begin again on the left so it is a repeating pattern. The second diagonal bar has a series of three dots that repeat and slant slightly to the right. There are three of these patterns running the entire length of the diagonal bar. The horizontal and vertical bars have alternating levels of intensity creating black to gray bands, but the individual lines are visible (just not a uniform gray).

fotografer said:

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

fotografer said:

fotografer said:

The HP results were better. My most noticeable complaint was that
the printer could not resolve the finest lines in image 10. The
first vertical, horizontal and slanted bars came out uniform with
no lines. My biggest complaint, however, is that gray is not gray
(Especially after I scanned in the image and compared it to your
test image on the monitor) and the printed image is not as "bright"
as the test image. I can correct the brightness problem in
Photoshop but if I try to correct the gray problem all the other
colors are way off.

Click to expand...

When left with PC-less printing, I really doubt you are able to
ensure no 'auto-enhancements' were employed by the printer to
'boost' the looks of prints. When you say grey not grey, I suspect
you detect a visible color shifts? Like towards yellow, perhaps? Or
pinkish? These two are the colors that the HP printers are most
likely to shift to...

Click to expand...

To me it looks a little blue. More noticeable in the clock.

fotografer said:

You should, as far as possible, not correct brightness and
contrasts to the original image (since the original image has been
'optimised' for consistent test purposes) of the test file. This
will skew the results and making comparisons between will become
moot.

I think, also that the paper type you've chosen is important to
generate the overall look of the prints. The 'duller' prints,
unless you are comparing with other physical prints (not with web
optimised ones like mine, unless you follow the optimisation
methodology I stated in my report to the T, and using the same
scanner and setting - even so, same model scanner may still have
variations scanner-to-scanner, thus introducing other
uncontrollable variables to disable effective print and web
comparisons).

fotografer said:

BTW, I am still amazed at the quality of my old HP880C. On image 10
it had line resolution similar to the 7330 (but some banding in the
finest lines). The biggest difference is the 880C shows color
dots at about 6x magnification that the others printers did not.
Also, the yellow bar has some blue dots in it.

Click to expand...

I am glad you still like the 880C printouts! The blue dots you see
are due to lack of photo cyan (or light cyan) and if you see
reddish/pinkish dots, this is due to lack of photo/light magenta.
Therein lies the difference between three and six-color printing...

fotografer said:

So, my questions are: Is my experience with the line resolution
what you would have expected?

Click to expand...

At the finest, I may not get some of the finest lines resolved like
you. But for my case, most of the time, they are resolved. But in
mine, I have taken care to disable software driver enhancements, so
I don't know if what I saw as limitations is exactly the same as
what you saw. I have a strong feeling that they are not the same.

Chris (WmAx) is going to post his Canon i950 prints to me soon. I
will show the line prints at 4x magnification to all in this forum
in the near future and you can then tell me if that's what you
saw...

fotografer said:

Is the gray scale problem a printer/monitor calibration problem
that can be corrected with a tool such as photo prism or sometthing
similar?

Click to expand...

I think you mean Profile Prism? I have little success with profile
prism with the ps7150, and I suspect the ps7350 and 7550 will
behave the same as mine. If you want absolutely no cast, first of
all you must disable all auto-enhancements, or at least have
control over them. Using direct card printing will NOT allow you
control in this area.

Secondly, choosing the appropriate "Paper Type" in the software
driver is important.

I have just discovered that the HP Photo Paper, Glossy setting is
even closer to 'neutral' with some papers than the HP Premium
Glossy Film I often used, normally with more (but slight shift)
towards magenta. The HP Premium Plus Photopaper, and the Colorfast
normally gives a yellow shifts to b/w when you use generic or third
party paper with this setting.

I have no experience with monitor calibration. Mine is a laptop and
older type (TFT?) display, and it would be hopeless to even attempt
to calibrate that. Newer flatscreen laptops or PCs have a better
chance for controls to do some generic calibration, such as the
Gamma Calibration from the Adobe Photoshop (Elements or
Professional/full).

Click to expand...

Actually, between these tests, other posts on the Forum and your posts and replies I think I am accomplishing what I set out to do: Select a printer.

I started with a choice between HP7x50, Canon i950 and Epson 960. I am shying away from the Canon because I can't test it and I read too many posts about fading. The store tests show the HP to be comparable or better than the Epson, I like the HP "head in the cart" approach, and the 7150 is a lot cheaper. I don't need the direct print feature, just using it for testing.

I suspect that when I finally pick the 7150 the August announcement will be made and I'll start all over. (Heavy SIGH).

Thanks Again.

Bob Schoner

fotografer said:

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

Robert,

Robert Schoner said:

I'm sorry I don't. He was going thru the settings so fast I did
not really see.

Click to expand...

Okay.

Robert Schoner said:

I can't really do this with the "test in the store" approach. They
are not hooked up to a computer so I am stuck with direct print and
whatever controls are offered on the printer.

Click to expand...

WP installed into the laptop and brought his laptop along for the test. I know you did what you could. And this exercise should give you an idea how the six-color printers compare with the three color dj880C.

Robert Schoner said:

I will try. On the first (finest) diagonal gray bar. In addition
to the lines there are a series of diamonds made up of 9 dots. The
diamond start on the left and shift to the right. Half way up the
bar they are off the right hand side and begin again on the left so
it is a repeating pattern. The second diagonal bar has a series of
three dots that repeat and slant slightly to the right. There are
three of these patterns running the entire length of the diagonal
bar. The horizontal and vertical bars have alternating levels of
intensity creating black to gray bands, but the individual lines
are visible (just not a uniform gray).

Click to expand...

Gosh. They are some artifacts, alright.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Robert,

Robert Schoner said:

To me it looks a little blue. More noticeable in the clock.

Click to expand...

The 'clock' piece may be monochromatic, but it's not b/w (greyscale). The only greyscale picture in the test chart is the picture of Ewan McGregor (besides the greyscale bars and gradients). Still, I presume you mean the greyscale shifts more to the blue than other colors, especially the 'clock'?

Robert Schoner said:

I suspect that when I finally pick the 7150 the August announcement
will be made and I'll start all over. (Heavy SIGH).

Click to expand...

Actually, the August announcement from HP is NOT going to change in terms of print technology. But the printer line is going to have more features introduced to the low end, and one I suspect is that most of the six-color enabled printer will allow true borderless printing, unlike the present ps7x50 series.

If you are not bothered by the borderless thingie, then there will essentially be no difference in the print quality/technology of the present ps7x50 and their successors.

But if the August 16 announcement here in the UK is about other printer(s), then, yeah, maybe you have to start all over again. Hmm.

I will post some b/w prints I did with the 'new' hp photo paper, glossy setting, without other adjustments. See if you like them...

I will start another thread, as I use different b/w pics.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotographer,

Great job on the test. I was wondering, though, if you had any observation on the gas-fastness of the various papers. How does the Epson PGPP fare? The HP papers seem to fare quite well in this regard, which is one reason why I've been using them. I have a print that I made on the Jet Print Professional paper that looks horrible after only 2 weeks. Would the Epson be a viable alternative? I am using a deskjet 5550 by the way. Thanks.

fotografer said:

(Please post your thoughts and comments under the Readers’ Response
thread below)

Click to expand...

fotografer - sterling work with some useful (and to me, suprising) results. Thanks, Brian

Hi there nhf7170,

nhf7170 said:

Great job on the test. I was wondering, though, if you had any
observation on the gas-fastness of the various papers. How does
the Epson PGPP fare? The HP papers seem to fare quite well in this
regard, which is one reason why I've been using them. I have a
print that I made on the Jet Print Professional paper that looks
horrible after only 2 weeks. Would the Epson be a viable
alternative? I am using a deskjet 5550 by the way. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I am still not sure if the gas fastness of the PGPP or any other papers reviewed here is any better than competitors or older HP inks. I live away from smokey city area, up a hill where the air is unpolluted and fresh most of the time. So this is NOT a good indication to how well each paper withstand less than perfect atomspheric conditions.

BTW, did you use the photo cartridge with your 5550? If I recalled correctly, recently someone with the no.78 inks had problems with Jet Print Professional papers. He said fading was not even across the paper, and one paper faded more than another from the same box, printed with the same cartridge! I suggest in order to ensure better gas-fastness, use the resin-coated papers (several in my review, the 'best' overall being Ilford Galarie Classic Pearl).

I would only say that the Epson PGPP and PSPP are very good when it comes to getting water-resistant papers, and they are among the best compared with other ceramic/nanoporous papers. So I guess they would withstand better gas fading than perhaps the Jet Print media.

But free-radicals in the atomsphere is a very unpredictible thing, if reactions has enough activitation energy (normally this activation energy came from the presence of UV rays from light or perhaps ozone-generating office equipment) it will occur, and often it means it will occur suddenly and quickly. So if we base on logic and say the Epson PGPP is, hypothetically three times more stable than the Jet Print media, then the PGPP will STILL gas fade in 6 weeks' time, instead of 2 weeks of Jet Print! Now that's not helping much, is it?

Your safest bet is still the resin-coated papers, and you loose some other 'virtues' such as water-resistant prints. If you want to display under glass and ensure no stainin, then use the Matte/Pearl/Satin finish, or at least frame the Epson PGPP and PSPP under glass!

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

Any comments are welcome!

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

Hi Fotografer,

Hope you're still watching this thread. Today I went to CompUSA because the factory reps are there on Sunday. Had the HP guy print your test image and got essentially the same results as the other day at Best Buy.

The print from the Epson 925 by the Epson rep was a different story. First was the print on my Kodak PPP paper. The same as at Best Buy. The ink globbed on the sunsets and the same artifacts appeared in the diagonal lines on image 10. He then used Epson Matte paper (that's all he had; I guess they can't just open up a store package of paper). He changed something in the print command (remember we are printing directly from the Smart Media card) and we got a borderless 8.5 x 11. Image 11 was great but started to get some graininess on the sunsets. I suspect we enlarged too much. The lines (Fig 10) did not have the diamonds but still had some artifacts. The diagonal lines (first 2) have a cross hatch pattern to them and the vertical and horizontal bars have some degree of banding/shading. After several false starts and a new ink cart he finally was able to print a 5x7 (actually 2 on the page, so they were rotated). The diamonds in fig 10 shifted to the right two diagonal lines. The other bars still had the dark/light banding. The overall image had some vertical banding. I suspect this was due to the new cart; he did not do a head clean or alignment. At this point I had taken up about 2 hours of his time and I am convinced the Epson 925 can do a good job with image 10. I think he was too; especially when I showed him the HP print.

So based on all this I will probably end up with the 7150. I know there is more to printing then the ability to produce fine gray lines but it does seem to be showing a limitation of the Epson. I wonder if anyone else has tried to print your test on the Epson 925 or comparable printer. If you're interested, I can scan the test images. I just don't know how to post them.

BTW. The Epson rep was so interested in your test image he made a copy from my smart mdia card. Hope that's ok.

Thanks for all your help.
Bob Schoner