HP Office Jet Pro 7740 (11x17 inkjet)- worth a look?

sportyaccordy

Forum Pro
Messages
21,420
Solutions
2
Reaction score
17,171
Location
US
We have a lot of A3 and A2 size prints around the house, and this is a pretty good price ($200). Our main use for this would be for printing pictures. Is it worth buying?

Also, how important is monitor/printer calibration? I am using a 4K TV as a monitor and don't plan to replace it. Would it even be possible to get this printer and my "monitor" synced? This is just for printing stuff in my house, not professional use.
 
We have a lot of A3 and A2 size prints around the house, and this is a pretty good price ($200). Our main use for this would be for printing pictures. Is it worth buying?
Assuming you want or need the all-in-one capabilities--and therefore couldn't get by with the clearly-better-printing and only $130 net Canon Pro-100--then for the same $200 as the HP OfficeJet Pro 7740, you could get an Epson XP-960. It can also print up to 11x17 inches and A3-size. I would certainly expect the XP-960 to be a considerably better photo printer than that HP (which is not even one of HP's "Photo" models). The XP-960 has six ink colors (CcMmYK). HP has basically abandoned the prosumer / semi-serious photo printing market. Because "[yo]ur main use for this would be for printing pictures" the lack of an automatic document feeder for scanning / copying--which the HP has--seems not too significant.
Also, how important is monitor/printer calibration? I am using a 4K TV as a monitor and don't plan to replace it. Would it even be possible to get this printer and my "monitor" synced? This is just for printing stuff in my house, not professional use.
It is theoretically possible to adjust by eye many televisions and monitors to 'correct' color, but as a practical matter, doing so by eye is a skill few of us have enough of, and the degree of control in the TV's hardware is probably well below what an appropriate ICC monitor profile could provide. In short, get the printer and try it. You may find you're happy with the color accuracy you can get. But if you're pickier, and/or not happy with the color accuracy you can get, then you'll need a hardware device for calibration and profiling. Read about those here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60320503.

Once you have your monitor calibrated and profiled, getting accurate prints isn't difficult. If you get the Epson and print on Epson photo paper using Epson's ICC profiles, you can get quite accurate results easily enough.
 
Last edited:
Having the all in one capabilities would be nice. I suppose I could just take pictures to scan documents... that has worked in the past. I will give your suggestions a look.
 
Having the all in one capabilities would be nice. I suppose I could just take pictures to scan documents... that has worked in the past. I will give your suggestions a look.
Then get an Epson XP-960 and be happy. You can scan (and copy and fax) with it, it just doesn't have an automatic document feeder, so with multi-page documents, you'll have to put them on the glass a sheet at a time--no biggie for most occasional-use purposes.

The XP-960 will produce very nice color prints. It has basically the same color photo print system as my R280. But the XP-960 will print photos 11x17 inches and A3 (about 11.7x16.5 inches), while my R280 is usually limited to 8.5x11 inches and A4 (about 8.3x11.7 inches).

As for taking pictures of documents: did that two nights ago (with my phone), after my son's friend left his math textbook at school. But that was only two pages, and a math textbook. If sometimes you want a scanner, having an actual scanner is a lot nicer.
 
I think all these multifunctions are about the same, but I have the XP-950 and I really like the scanner. Use it a lot for copying color documents and it will scan PDF or scan JPEG to computer from the scanner LCD.
 
I think all these multifunctions are about the same ....
AFAIK, actually there are only a very few of the current multifunctions / all-in-ones that have real photo-oriented features, typically more ink colors:

* Epson XP-960 and its predecessor the XP-950: 6 colors of ink (CcMmYK) plus prints up to 11x17 inches and A3

* Epson XP-860 and its predecessor the XP-850: 6 colors of ink (CcMmYK) plus an automatic document feeder, but limited to printing 8.5x11 inches or A4

* Canon TS9020 / TS9050 / TS9060 (depending on market): 5 colors of ink (CMYKG) plus rear, straighter sheet feeder better for some photo papers

* Canon TS8020 / TS8050 / TS8060: slightly downgraded version of TS9020 etc., but not sure of all differences

* Canon TS9120 / TS9150 / TS9160: recently replaced the TS9020 etc., but downgraded with lower resolution (now 4800x1200 dpi instead of former models' 9600x2400 dpi) and dropped extra gray ink in favor of new, additional blue ink

* Canon TS8120 / TS8150 / TS8160: slightly downgraded version of TS8020 etc., same downgrades as from TS9020 to TS9120

Any other multifunction / all-in-one will be a four-color-only model (plain CMYK), often without paper paths that are good for certain types of photo papers.
 
I am confused about DPI. A 24MP print at~A2 size is like ~240DPI. What's the benefit of having ~20x that resolution? I suppose it will be nice to have the ability to print a 24mp 5x7, but it seems a bit much. Are those resolution numbers real?
 
I am confused about DPI. A 24MP print at~A2 size is like ~240DPI. What's the benefit of having ~20x that resolution? I suppose it will be nice to have the ability to print a 24mp 5x7, but it seems a bit much. Are those resolution numbers real?
This is a very common issue, but you are confusing pixels per inch (PPI or ppi) with dots per inch (DPI or dpi).

A 24 MP camera captures 4000 x 6000 pixels, so if you print that borderless to fill an A2 sheet, you have somewhere around 240 pixels per inch. Each of those pixels can represent almost continuous tones, i.e., a huge range of colors, millions of them anyway.

But the printer only has 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, however-many colors of ink with which to simulate those millions of colors. Suppose my image has a red pixel. On my R280, or an XP-960, there is no red ink. To simulate red, the printer can spray some area with magenta ink and another nearby area with yellow ink. Maybe it's a dark red, in which case the printer can spray some magenta ink, some yellow ink, and some black ink. Or maybe it's a light red, in which case the printer can spray some magenta ink and some yellow ink and leave some paper uncovered with ink i.e. white. So all of these inkjet photo printers are simulating the ability to print millions of colors by actually printing different amounts of a far smaller number of colors of ink.

You can read about some of these concepts--what's being described is not exactly the same as this--here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Now getting back to these printers: the only way some area sprayed with magenta ink plus some area sprayed with yellow ink looks like red to our eyes is if the area are very small and mixed in with each other. This is an oversimplification, but the dots per inch basically tell you about how fine a mix of ink colors the printer can use to simulate the much larger number of colors in the pixels. So if we have an image that's 240 pixels per inch, and print it on an XP-960 or R280 or some other printer that can print 5760x1440 dots per inch, then we have (sort-of!) a grid of 24x6 dot spaces that we can fill or not fill with various colors of ink to simulate the pixel's color. Consider a gray pixel: these printers have no gray ink. They simulate it by printing fewer or more but not all of the dot-spaces with black ink. With that 24x6 dot grid, there are 144 spaces. That means the printer can print anywhere from 0 to 144 black dots to simulate the range from white (0 dots of black ink) through increasingly darker shades of gray (1 to 143 dots of black ink) to full black (144 dots of black ink). So these printers at that resolution sort-of theoretically can print 145 different tones from white to black.

In reality these printers' function is more complicated than that. But the fundamental truth is that how smoothly and fully any given printer can simulate the full range of colors we can see is due in substantial part (not entirely!) to how many / what colors of ink it has and how finely it can print a grid of ink dots in the space allocated to print each pixel.
 
Last edited:
Great explanation, thank you! I just ordered the XP-960. Someone had 2 left on Amazon for $200. Looking forward to it.

Between that and my 4K monitors I really feel like I am getting more enjoyment out of my photos.
 
Have you run the XP-950/XP-960.
No, but I have an R280, which AFAIK uses all the same ink and printing technology, just limited to smaller print sizes.
 
The XP-960 should be okay for your needs but be prepared to buy lots of ink cartridges since your photo sizes are A2 and A3.

As for color calibrating your TV with print, unless your TV allows independent control of RGB values, its next to impossible to match the two. General TVs are never meant for color accuracy but rather for "pop".
 
Update- printer came in, got it setup- this is phenomenal! Just did a test print with a shot from my old NEX-C3 on some glossy photo and it really looks great. It didn't print all the way out to the edges though which I'm a little disappointed by; I'm hoping I just goofed on the settings. This looks good enough to frame and sell....
 
Update- printer came in, got it setup- this is phenomenal! Just did a test print with a shot from my old NEX-C3 on some glossy photo and it really looks great.... This looks good enough to frame and sell.
Good to hear.
It didn't print all the way out to the edges though which I'm a little disappointed by; I'm hoping I just goofed on the settings.
There are two issues. First, most printers need to be set to print borderless; with my R280, it's an option that you need to turn on in the print setup dialog box. I almost always leave it turned off, to avoid the accompanying overspray, i.e., ink being sprayed into the printer's guts at each edge of the paper. But if that doesn't bother you--opinions and experiences on the subject vary widely--by all means, set it for borderless prints and enjoy.

Second, just in case you hadn't thought about this, very few paper sizes match the proportions of the files from your NEX-C3. Other than 4x6 and 8x12 inches, with pretty much any reasonably-common paper size, either you have to accept some of the image being cropped away, or you have to accept white borders on two sides.
 
I'm OK with some cropping of the photo. I wonder if there is a happy medium where I can push to say 1/8" or so to the edge and not have spillover. That might be the move.

In any case I'm downright thrilled. I think a lot of people focus on the camera and all the stuff attached to it (lenses etc) but it's really about the output. This is going to be a great way for me to enjoy photos I pretty much forgot about.
 
I'm OK with some cropping of the photo. I wonder if there is a happy medium where I can push to say 1/8" or so to the edge and not have spillover. That might be the move.
Sure. Epson says that in bordered mode, the minimum border is 3mm, which is slightly less than 1/8". See XP-960 User's Guide, p. 311, available at https://files.support.epson.com/docid/cpd4/cpd42858.pdf. So you should be able to run in bordered mode with 1/8" margins on each side.

Personally I find 1/8" margins a bit small, and use 0.25", but that is a matter of my taste.
In any case I'm downright thrilled. I think a lot of people focus on the camera and all the stuff attached to it (lenses etc) but it's really about the output. This is going to be a great way for me to enjoy photos I pretty much forgot about.
I agree, sometimes it's nice to hold an actual print. Glad it has worked out happily for you.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top