Comparison of HP 1120 and Epson Photo EX?
Bob C.
Would anyone who has experience with these two printers post a
comparaive review?
Thanks!
(remove spam deterrent in email address if you want to reply via
email)
Bob C.
rca...@worldnet.att.net
Bob Nedved
Bob C. wrote in message <6idjnk$p...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Would anyone who has experience with these two printers post a
>comparaive review?
Cant offer you a review, but I can offer a comparison between the 1120 Cse
and the Epson Stylus Color 800. I just printed 5 4x6" photos on Epson High
Gloss Photo Paper (yes, I used the Epson paper on the HP - it's fantastic).
Anyhow, I tweaked all of the driver settings on the Epson to reflect the
paper being used, and 1440x720 dpi resolution. I also turned on the image
color matching features. I left color settings neutral otherwise.
I was amazed at the output. The printer was a TIFF file that I downloaded
from intel's press website. Colors seemed to be wonderful and output was
great.
I printed the first card on my 1120, and left the printer set for high
quality inkjet paper. Output was okay, but it appeared that it needed some
tweaking. I looked through the driver, and realized that when you set it up
for HP Premium Photo Paper it gives you all kinds of extra settings for
detail, so I turned them on.
I reprinted the document, and I must say - resolution and image quality was
equal, if not better than the epson and color density, saturation, and
realism was unbeleivably better than the epson. The image looked like a
true photograph and although the epson offers the higher resolution, the dot
grain was higher and much more visible.
In this test, the HP definatley won out. Best thing to do, however, is see
for yourself. Take a high quality TIFF file (I can e-mail you this one if
you like, send me an e-mail and request it) to your local PC shop and
request that they print it. Make sure you turn the HP to photo paper and
turn all of the detail settings up. The HP Premium Photo paper or the Epson
Photo High Gloss are both excellent papers for sampling.
I couldn't be happier at this moment with this purchase.
Actually, I forgot to mention, I did the same thing with my 890, and I also
used the 890 driver on the 1120 (yes, it does work for anyone wondering if
they can use those "Kodak image enhancements") - but the 1120 clearly won
out in the color purity arena, with image quality being equal otherwise.
Bob Nedved
Definitive Data Solutions
Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
ned...@reinkkit.com
Kill those Spammers! Remove the 'x' to e-mail me if you so desire
Michael Greer
Bob Nedved wrote:
> Bob C. wrote in message <6idjnk$p...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> >Would anyone who has experience with these two printers post a
> >comparaive review?
>
> Cant offer you a review, but I can offer a comparison between the 1120 Cse
> and the Epson Stylus Color 800. I just printed 5 4x6" photos on Epson High
> Gloss Photo Paper (yes, I used the Epson paper on the HP - it's fantastic).
>
> Anyhow, I tweaked all of the driver settings on the Epson to reflect the
> paper being used, and 1440x720 dpi resolution. I also turned on the image
> color matching features. I left color settings neutral otherwise.
>
> I was amazed at the output. The printer was a TIFF file that I downloaded
> from intel's press website. Colors seemed to be wonderful and output was
> great.
>
> I printed the first card on my 1120, and left the printer set for high
> quality inkjet paper. Output was okay, but it appeared that it needed some
> tweaking. I looked through the driver, and realized that when you set it up
> for HP Premium Photo Paper it gives you all kinds of extra settings for
> detail, so I turned them on.
>
> I reprinted the document, and I must say - resolution and image quality was
> equal, if not better than the epson and color density, saturation, and
> realism was unbeleivably better than the epson. The image looked like a
> true photograph and although the epson offers the higher resolution, the dot
> grain was higher and much more visible.
>
> In this test, the HP definatley won out.
To be fair, it must be mentioned that the Epson SC 800 is 2 generations behind
Epson's current offering in photo quality printers. While I prefer the output of
the 800 to the 890 (mainly because of the Epson and Canon film products), I
certainly couldn't offer any reasonable debate to objectively justify my
opinion.
However, the original poster asked about the 1120C vs. the Stylus Photo EX.
Since many of the currently available printers from multiple manufacturers do a
tremendous job of photo rendering, the improvements that are coming down the
pike are more evolutionary than revolutionary. So terms like, "blow it away"
don't apply in my opinion. Having said that, it is my opinion that the Photo EX
will easily outperform the 1120 in photo rendering in most people's opinion..
The main reason being a refinement of Epson's 6 color technology. The 1120C uses
4 inks, the EX uses 6. If you examine output from the Epson Stylus Photo, you
will find that dots are much more difficult to recognize than on any of the
currently available 4 color printers. The EX utilizes smaller dots than the
Stylus Photo and procduces results that make dot recognition extremely
difficult. To the point where many will not see any with the naked eye without
long hard study. However, the EX does have its bad points in comparison. The #1
thing is the 1120C will run circles around the EX in ink cartridge capacity.
Epson's relatively puny ink cartridges require that they be frequently channged.
The other point is that the 1120C (as well as most of HP printers), will
slaughter the EX in plain paper printing. So the application is critical in
determining the best printer. The answer to the "best printer" question is not
the same for all applications in my opinion.
I would anticipate that HP will release a 6 color wide format printer some time
in the near future. But HP has a concern that the others don't have. They have
their large format (24+ inches) printer business to be concerned with. The
profit margins on these babies are much higher than on "consumer" inkjets. If HP
produces Deskjets that are too wide, they might steal sales from their higher
margin brotheren. It'll be interesting to see what they do. The Canon "Aspen" 7
color, wide format printer is due this summer. I would suspect that consumers
will have a wide variety of choices of 6 ink, photo capable, wide format
printers within a 6 month time frame.
> Actually, I forgot to mention, I did the same thing with my 890, and I also
> used the 890 driver on the 1120 (yes, it does work for anyone wondering if
> they can use those "Kodak image enhancements") - but the 1120 clearly won
> out in the color purity arena, with image quality being equal otherwise.
Are you saying the 1120C offers superior photo output to the 890C? If so, that
kind of surprises me. I thought HP didn't make any photo enhancements to the
1120C relative to the 890C. I thought it just offered wider paper, more paper
handling options, and greater speed.
--
Mike Greer
"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
Bob Nedved
Michael Greer wrote in message <354BE4F0...@internetmci.com>...
>To be fair, it must be mentioned that the Epson SC 800 is 2 generations
behind
>Epson's current offering in photo quality printers. While I prefer the
output of
>the 800 to the 890 (mainly because of the Epson and Canon film products), I
>certainly couldn't offer any reasonable debate to objectively justify my
>opinion.
To be fair, the printhead technology is nearly identical with the exception
of "Reduced dot grain" that epson is claiming on the Photo EX. The Photo is
behind the 800, and the Photo EX contains the same technology as the 850
with the addition of two colors - IMHO, this does not make this new printer
a technical marvel.
>Having said that, it is my opinion that the Photo EX
>will easily outperform the 1120 in photo rendering in most people's
opinion..
>The main reason being a refinement of Epson's 6 color technology. The 1120C
uses
>4 inks, the EX uses 6.
Yet another person who is taken hold by the "more is better analogy". I
suggest that before you go hacking on the 890, 1120, and other PhotoRet II
printers, you actually give them fair trial by allowing to perform at their
peak. Most people set the driver on "best" and see what results they get.
If you use Canon or Epson or HP glossy papers, and set the driver as such -
you will see a "fine detail" setting pop up in the advanced dialog. Turn
this on, and print the image - I would be more than happy to send you output
from a properly configured 1120 or 890 that does put any of the epson
products in their place - underneath the HP.
You seem to try to overload the newsgroup with all of these testing methods
and images you print and then scan - however, with this current ideal of
"more is better" on the ink standfront, I wonder how truthful, knowledgable,
and objective your tests are. If you would look into the technology of the
890 and 722 and 1120, which still have drops of ink 50% smaller than the
newer Epsons, you would realize that half-dye load inks are a waste of time
and do not provide noticable differences in output.
>If you examine output from the Epson Stylus Photo, you
>will find that dots are much more difficult to recognize than on any of the
>currently available 4 color printers. The EX utilizes smaller dots than the
>Stylus Photo and procduces results that make dot recognition extremely
>difficult. To the point where many will not see any with the naked eye
without
>long hard study.
And the same is true for the HP 1120, 890, and 722. These printers have
dots nearly half the size of even the newer epson printers, combined with
the fact that the newer HP can lie down 16 dots per visible dpi, color
gradation is equal, if not better, than what the epson's can produce.
However, if you leave the driver set to all of the default settings and
print - your results will be crappy.
>However, the EX does have its bad points in comparison. The #1
>thing is the 1120C will run circles around the EX in ink cartridge
capacity.
>Epson's relatively puny ink cartridges require that they be frequently
channged.
>The other point is that the 1120C (as well as most of HP printers), will
>slaughter the EX in plain paper printing. So the application is critical in
>determining the best printer. The answer to the "best printer" question is
not
>the same for all applications in my opinion.
Right - which is why the HP always gets slammed. Most people compare the
HP's PLAIN PAPER output with the Epson's photo paper output - until this
group gives the HP the attention it deserves, on high quality paper, with
high quality settings, these discussions should not take place.
>I would anticipate that HP will release a 6 color wide format printer some
time
>in the near future. But HP has a concern that the others don't have.
They have made it clear that by using PhotoRet II, they eliminate the need
for high cost per page, six color printers. So I doubt that they will. I
honestly would not be surprised if they eliminate the photosmart
alltogether, because it's output on photo papers, IMHO, is leagues behind
the 890 and 1120 with all options enabled.
>Are you saying the 1120C offers superior photo output to the 890C? If so,
that
>kind of surprises me. I thought HP didn't make any photo enhancements to
the
>1120C relative to the 890C. I thought it just offered wider paper, more
paper
>handling options, and greater speed.
In my opinion, the output from my 1120 is better than the same image printed
in the same high quality modes on my 890, so yes, it is my opinion that the
1120 is better (although marginal) than the 890 - mainly in color purity and
color matching.
Michael Greer
Bob Nedved wrote:
> Michael Greer wrote in message <354BE4F0...@internetmci.com>...
> >To be fair, it must be mentioned that the Epson SC 800 is 2 generations
> behind
> >Epson's current offering in photo quality printers. While I prefer the
> output of
> >the 800 to the 890 (mainly because of the Epson and Canon film products), I
> >certainly couldn't offer any reasonable debate to objectively justify my
> >opinion.
>
> To be fair, the printhead technology is nearly identical with the exception
> of "Reduced dot grain" that epson is claiming on the Photo EX. The Photo is
> behind the 800, and the Photo EX contains the same technology as the 850
> with the addition of two colors - IMHO, this does not make this new printer
> a technical marvel.
OK, let me explain further. The 800 was released in March of '97. In late June,
early July, the Stylus Photo was released. The 800 did a fantastic job with
photos, but the the Photo was better. The Photo, HP's Photosmart, and the
Lexmark 5700 with photo cart out do ALL 4 color printers in rendering images
with lights tones in my and most people's opinion. Like skin, light blue sky
etc. Four color printers simply don't have the inks to render those areas
without worse noticable dots than 6 color printers who can utilize the light
cyan and light magenta hues to smooth the shades and tranistions. This isn't
about this company vs. that company. It's about 4 available colors vs. 6.
The Stylus Photo 700 and the Stylus Photo EX move the addressible spacial
resolution to 1440 dpi in one direction and produce smaller dots than the Stylus
Photo. Therefore, it is an increase in image quality, regardless of whether it's
a huge technical leap or not. So, the Stylus Photo produces better images than
the 800 (mainly due to the 2 additional inks), and the EX produces better images
than the Photo (mainly because of smaller dots and higher res.). Therefore, the
EX represents 2 generations of image quality improvements over the 800.
The only point I was making was that you were comparing a 1.5 month old printer
with a 14 month old printer that doesn't represent what the poster was asking.
The poster asked about the latest product from Epson, the EX. If somebody asked
about the performance of the 1120, and I told them about the HP 870C's
abilities, that wouldn't be accurate or fair to the 1120C. The 722C/890C/1120C
represent improvements not found in the 870C. Would that be fair? Of course not.
So why is it fair to use the 800 as a basis for the EX?
>
>
> >Having said that, it is my opinion that the Photo EX
> >will easily outperform the 1120 in photo rendering in most people's
> opinion..
> >The main reason being a refinement of Epson's 6 color technology. The 1120C
> uses
> >4 inks, the EX uses 6.
>
> Yet another person who is taken hold by the "more is better analogy".
NO. The HP Photosmart, 6 color Stylus printers, and Lexmark 5700 with photo cart
will outperform ALL currently available 4 color printers in image quality. I've
tested and examined output from all of them with their repective highest quality
papers (I have not evaluated photo quality output from the 1120C because it is
my understanding that the print technology that the 1120C uses is the same found
in the 722C and the 890C which I have thoroughly evaluated). Because of the
TESTING and CLOSE EXAMINATION (NOT because more is better), I've concluded (as
have others) that the 2 extra colors make significant differences in light areas
of a print. Just look at the output. Anybody who is reading this, don't take my
word for it. Examine for yourself. If the 2 colors didn't make any difference,
why would HP use 6 color technology in THEIR photo product? They must have
thought that it makes a difference. Because the 6 color machines became
available, I too thought it was more smoke than fire. But after examinations, it
was obvious that it makes a difference, especially if people are some of your
favorite subjects.
> I
> suggest that before you go hacking on the 890, 1120, and other PhotoRet II
> printers,
Who's hacking them? How is anything I've written hacking them? They are darn
good machines. If the 890C had been available when I bought my Epson 800 I
probably would have bought it instead. How is that hacking? It's my opinion that
no currently available 4 color printer is as good the top 6 color printers in
rendering images. HP's PhotoRet II machines do an excellent job of printing
photos. Because I think that Epson's 6 color mahines do a better job, I'm
hacking the PhotoRet II machines? Because the HP machines outperform Epson
products in most areas for most applications with the exception of photo
printing in my opinion, I'm hacking them?
> you actually give them fair trial by allowing to perform at their
> peak.
Look, I have about 20 prints from PhotoRet II machines in my posession from
inside of HP. These are prints are for internal "selling" of products to HP
management. I shouldn't even have them, but because people (both HP and Epson
employees) feel that I've been objective in my posts, they sent them to me prior
to the release of the 890 and 722 for my review. Simply put, they are awesome.
They are on HP's highest grade photo paper and the quality is breath taking.
Having said that, the Photosmart, Epson Stylus Photo, Stylus Photo 700 and EX,
Lexmark 5700 with photo cart are better in the light areas. The mid to darker
areas are a wash. Therefore, the 6 color printers are better overall in image
rendering.
> Most people set the driver on "best" and see what results they get.
> If you use Canon or Epson or HP glossy papers, and set the driver as such -
> you will see a "fine detail" setting pop up in the advanced dialog. Turn
> this on, and print the image - I would be more than happy to send you output
> from a properly configured 1120 or 890 that does put any of the epson
> products in their place - underneath the HP.
I don't think you could send me anything that would do a better job of showing
off the PhotoRetII machine's capabilties than what HP's own people have already
sent me. The PhotoRet II machines were so good that I questioned one of the HP's
employees on the future of the Photosmart. The PhotoRet II machine could not
match the Photosmart quality, but they were close enough that maybe some would
choose them over the Photosmart because of the flexibility. Maybe that has
happened. I don't know. But the PhotoSmart is still superior.
You seem to want HP to "win". Fine. It's all temporary as the manufacturers play
leap frog. If you think that a 4 color printer outperforms 6 color machines then
that's fine. These are subjective evaluations. I don't know why you seem to want
to personally attack me. I didn't attack you or your post. Regardless of what
you think is better or worse, your comparison wasn't fair. The poster asked
about the 1120C and the EX. Your post positioned the EX as the same as the 800.
It's not. That was the main point. That's where the "To be fair" came from. It
wasn't about your opinion.
>
>
> You seem to try to overload the newsgroup with all of these testing methods
> and images you print and then scan
Look Bob, I've been posting here a long time. Regardless of what you think, many
consider me to be objective and fair. People ranging from plain ole customers,
to manufactuers' employees from BOTH HP and Epson. I contribute to this
newsgroup because this newsgroup has helped me on numerous occasions in the
past. People talk about opinions. I posted images so people could see for
themselves what I see and disclose all information. The results of photo
printing are subjective. I post my opinion, being as fair and as accurate as I
can. However, I try to always have people evaluate for themselves. I try to
always state not to take my word for it. They are the ones that have to be
satisfied with their decisions. Not me, not you. I try to correct inaccuracies,
and I label my opinions when my opinions are being stated. I've never attacked
ANYBODY who held different OPINIONS from me. But I have confronted those who put
out inaccurate information.
> - however, with this current ideal of
> "more is better" on the ink standfront, I wonder how truthful, knowledgable,
> and objective your tests are.
Wonder all you want. It's you that has assumed that my position is "more is
better". If you knew anything about me, you would know that I'm not impressed
with technology. You would know that my main concern is the result, the output.
If you go back and read posts I've made over the past year you'd see a
consistant theme. That being, who really cares about technology? We don't buy
technology, we buy a printer's capabilties. But are do you really care about
that? Or are you just interested in attacking me?
> If you would look into the technology of the
> 890 and 722 and 1120, which still have drops of ink 50% smaller than the
> newer Epsons, you would realize that half-dye load inks are a waste of time
> and do not provide noticable differences in output.
Once again, I don't care about technology. I care about the printed output. I
challenge you and anybody else to print images with light blue sky, facial
tones, etc. Then convince yourself that the PhotoRet II machines do as good a
job IN THOSE AREAS as the Photosmart, any 6 color Epson, or the LM 5700 with
photo cart. If you can't honestly tell the difference, then don't buy into 6
color technology. I can see the difference. Whether it's significant or not
depends on the viewer and the application.
>
>
> >If you examine output from the Epson Stylus Photo, you
> >will find that dots are much more difficult to recognize than on any of the
> >currently available 4 color printers. The EX utilizes smaller dots than the
> >Stylus Photo and procduces results that make dot recognition extremely
> >difficult. To the point where many will not see any with the naked eye
> without
> >long hard study.
>
> And the same is true for the HP 1120, 890, and 722.
Not for me. It's NOT even close to objectionable. Most people won't notice. Most
people don't notice with output from my 800 unless I tell them AND point it out.
Even then, they still have a hard time. Having said that, the 6 color machines
are even better. Bob, one does not need to put one machine/technology down to
elevate the other. All of the currently available HP, Epson, and Lexmark
machines do an outstanding job with photos. But some are slightly better in my
opinion. I'm NOT talking about night and day differences. I'm talking about
differences that are noticable upon close scrutiny. Scrutiny in a way that no
regular viewer is going to use.
> These printers have
> dots nearly half the size of even the newer epson printers, combined with
> the fact that the newer HP can lie down 16 dots per visible dpi, color
> gradation is equal, if not better, than what the epson's can produce.
> However, if you leave the driver set to all of the default settings and
> print - your results will be crappy.
>
> >However, the EX does have its bad points in comparison. The #1
> >thing is the 1120C will run circles around the EX in ink cartridge
> capacity.
> >Epson's relatively puny ink cartridges require that they be frequently
> channged.
> >The other point is that the 1120C (as well as most of HP printers), will
> >slaughter the EX in plain paper printing. So the application is critical in
> >determining the best printer. The answer to the "best printer" question is
> not
> >the same for all applications in my opinion.
>
> Right - which is why the HP always gets slammed. Most people compare the
> HP's PLAIN PAPER output with the Epson's photo paper output - until this
> group gives the HP the attention it deserves, on high quality paper, with
> high quality settings, these discussions should not take place.
I don't understand where you are getting this stuff from. Nor do I understand
where you see "most" people are comparing Epson's photo paper prints with HP's
plain paper prints. As a matter of fact, I think it's the exact opposite. There
have been numerous posts where people go into the store and compare HP's plain
paper demo prints against Epson's plain paper demo prints. Then they come on
this newsgroup and slam Epson products and wonder why anybody would buy one over
an HP printer. As an Epson owner, I'd be the first to state HP's plain paper
dominance. I've recommended HP products to many over Epson products based on my
understanding of their requirements. But HP machines are not superior to Epson
printers in every category.
>
>
> >I would anticipate that HP will release a 6 color wide format printer some
> time
> >in the near future. But HP has a concern that the others don't have.
>
> They have made it clear that by using PhotoRet II, they eliminate the need
> for high cost per page, six color printers. So I doubt that they will. I
> honestly would not be surprised if they eliminate the photosmart
> alltogether, because it's output on photo papers, IMHO, is leagues behind
> the 890 and 1120 with all options enabled.
You really believe the Photosmart produces images that are "leagues behind" the
890 and 1120? You'd be the first person I know of to hold that opinion. Even
HP's own people don't think the PhotoRetII machines compete in color gamut or
color transitions with the Photosmart.
On a final note. Bob, I really don't understand why you made your post so
personal. It disturbs me that you attack me when if you reread my post, I wasn't
attacking you, your post, or HP machines at all. Why the personal attack?
Bob Nedved
Michael Greer wrote in message <354E85AD...@internetmci.com>...
>OK, let me explain further. The 800 was released in March of '97. In late
June,
>early July, the Stylus Photo was released. The 800 did a fantastic job with
>photos, but the the Photo was better. The Photo, HP's Photosmart, and the
>Lexmark 5700 with photo cart out do ALL 4 color printers in rendering
images
>with lights tones in my and most people's opinion. Like skin, light blue
sky
>etc. Four color printers simply don't have the inks to render those areas
>without worse noticable dots than 6 color printers who can utilize the
light
>cyan and light magenta hues to smooth the shades and tranistions. This
isn't
>about this company vs. that company. It's about 4 available colors vs. 6.
No need to "explain further" - I know what the printers are and how they
operate. As I said in my original post "I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE STYLUS EX,
but then continued to compare to the 800, which contains the same basic
printhead and resolution as the EX (without the two extra colors and
SLIGHTLY smaller grain) - and I was fair in announcing this - it is you who
assumed that I was unfairly biasing my opinion against the EX due to my
comparison with the photo - my post had nothing to do with the EX -as it
said.
>NO. The HP Photosmart, 6 color Stylus printers, and Lexmark 5700 with photo
cart
>will outperform ALL currently available 4 color printers in image quality.
I've
>tested and examined output from all of them with their repective highest
quality
>papers (I have not evaluated photo quality output from the 1120C because it
is
>my understanding that the print technology that the 1120C uses is the same
found
>in the 722C and the 890C which I have thoroughly evaluated).
The 1120 Driver has a "fine detail adjustment" found in the advanced
settings area when Photo Gloss Paper is selected - this option isn't on the
other drivers (that I have found) and I believe the 1120 output to be better
than the 890 in color purity scrutiny.
As far as tonality and color realism, the 6 color printers, in my opinion
(and in many others, including a couple of HP engineers who have responded
to my posts) do not "outperform" a properly configured PhotoRet II inkjet.
It is HP's standfront (from a post that an HP employee made in this
newsgroup) that six color printers are disposable in todays market because
they are not necessary and the extra consumable and per-page costs are not
necessary (hence the release of the HP 2000C. It is another reason that
professional level wide format photographic printers (well, most of them)
are not using more than 4 colors. In reality, all colors in existance can
be made from properly formulated colors and small dot grain - it is this
front that HP is standing on. I can make a printer with 16.7 million ink
tanks that can accurately produce EACH individual color - however, from a
chemical standpoint (and color formulating standpoint) what is the use when
each of those 16.7 million colors are going to be formulated from a
combination of 3 (or 4) dyes?
> Because of the
>TESTING and CLOSE EXAMINATION (NOT because more is better), I've concluded
(as
>have others) that the 2 extra colors make significant differences in light
areas
>of a print. Just look at the output. Anybody who is reading this, don't
take my
>word for it. Examine for yourself. If the 2 colors didn't make any
difference,
>why would HP use 6 color technology in THEIR photo product?
Because their 6 color product was released BEFORE the PhotoRet II machines
were to compete in that market. Technology for the 722 and 890 was still in
it's infancy. As you mention, the printer industry plays leapfrog
constantly - and as I have said, many feel that the PhotoSmart will not be
on the market that much longer as the 890 and 1120 become more popular.
>I don't think you could send me anything that would do a better job of
showing
>off the PhotoRetII machine's capabilties than what HP's own people have
already
>sent me. The PhotoRet II machines were so good that I questioned one of the
HP's
>employees on the future of the Photosmart. The PhotoRet II machine could
not
>match the Photosmart quality, but they were close enough that maybe some
would
>choose them over the Photosmart because of the flexibility. Maybe that has
>happened. I don't know. But the PhotoSmart is still superior.
As I posted earlier in this newsgroup, I did a blind study at the last
computer show we did. We tweaked and played with the drivers and printed
the highest quality images we could on three printers - the Epson Stylus
Photo, the HP PhotoSmart, and my 1120. All images were printed on high
gloss paper (Epsons glossy photo 4x6 cards). When I got to the show, I
asked people through the day which printer the felt produced the best output
(basically from reviews and personal experiences...) They all said the
Epson Photo but one - who said the PhotoSmart. I then laid all of the
images in front of them, and told them to pick which one was the best (which
one was the "Photo" in their opinion". Of the 20 people I asked, 13 of them
picked the HP 1120 Photo I printed. 6 of them Picked the Epson Photo, and
one of them picked the PhotoSmart as the best.
You do a good job stating your personal opinion, as do I (most times) - and
you are allowed your opinion - however, don't go offering that "MOST" people
would agree, because as in my study, 13 did not - that's 65%. Many people
view the in-store pictures, or the laminated photos that the Epson's (and
the PhotoSmart) use in sales-demos - and assume that they are the top, and
the six color technology must be the reason. However this one study proved
that when looking at the images, taking them for what they were, looking at
them and choosing - most of them did, in fact, not choose these. And as you
offer that the HP PhotoSmart is (by far) the best in most people's opinion,
my study showed that all but one person thought it was the worst of the
three.
Also, you may question the legitimacy of the customers who I quizzed on the
photos - two of them were Photo buffs who OWNED the Stylus Photo - both
falsely assumed their output by picking the 1120. There were two other
stylus photo owners, and they both picked their output correctly. Of the
others, three owned a Canon 7000, five owned printers in the older HP 800
series, and the rest owned a combination of Stylus 400/600 and 800
machines - so the bases were pretty well covered. I understand it was a
small sampling, but it is still interesting.
>Wonder all you want. It's you that has assumed that my position is "more is
>better". If you knew anything about me, you would know that I'm not
impressed
>with technology. You would know that my main concern is the result, the
output.
>If you go back and read posts I've made over the past year you'd see a
>consistant theme. That being, who really cares about technology? We don't
buy
>technology, we buy a printer's capabilties. But are do you really care
about
>that? Or are you just interested in attacking me?
>Once again, I don't care about technology. I care about the printed output.
I
>challenge you and anybody else to print images with light blue sky, facial
>tones, etc. Then convince yourself that the PhotoRet II machines do as good
a
>job IN THOSE AREAS as the Photosmart, any 6 color Epson, or the LM 5700
with
>photo cart. If you can't honestly tell the difference, then don't buy into
6
>color technology. I can see the difference. Whether it's significant or not
>depends on the viewer and the application.
Very True - but if someone says in this group that "Six Colors is better
than Four, based on my own personal viewing" - most people will believe it
without question simply due to the fact that many people in this industry
are taken in by "more is better" - I just think that it is rare for someone
to give the HP the shot it deserves, as MANY people believe they are better.
Look at the number of IS and IT professionals still recommending HP for
photo output even with the myriad of 6 color technology printers on the
market - just because you and a bunch of your "chatties" or in real life
feel that there is a difference and 6 color is better, you state that "Most
People would agree" which is not true.
>Not for me. It's NOT even close to objectionable. Most people won't notice.
Most
>people don't notice with output from my 800 unless I tell them AND point it
out.
>Even then, they still have a hard time. Having said that, the 6 color
machines
>are even better. Bob, one does not need to put one machine/technology down
to
>elevate the other.
As objective as that may sound, the HP currently has measured drops of ink 9
or 10 picoliters in size (depending on the machine) - the newer Epson
machines are touted in several web pages and writeups to have reduced dot
grain, but it is still nearing the high teens in size. Regardless of what
you may think about your stylus 800 (which has drops nearly 20 picoliters in
size), your EYE will not NOTICE a 10 picoliter drop as being BIGGER - it's
not possible.
On another front. Print your Stylus Photo, Stylus Photo EX, or Stylus Photo
700's test page or nozzle check - it will print a little band of EVERY
color. You can even do a test and pick the lightest shades of magenta and
yellow and cyan that you can find - print it on paper. (the first is the
most desireable - simply because it prints a PURE band of the given color)
Now, do the same with the 722, 890, or 1120 - what would you notice? HP
formulated the color inks LIGHT - the light cyan on the canon 7000 and the
Stylus Photo is nearly identical in hue and saturation as the cyan in the
722/890/1120. Same goes for the yellow AND the magenta. Combine that with
10 picoliter drop sizes and I don't see how you can "distinguish" the
miniscule dots on the paper....
> All of the currently available HP, Epson, and Lexmark
>machines do an outstanding job with photos. But some are slightly better in
my
>opinion. I'm NOT talking about night and day differences. I'm talking about
>differences that are noticable upon close scrutiny. Scrutiny in a way that
no
>regular viewer is going to use.
Right - which was my point in saying that the output from the Stylus Color
800 would only be marginally different than the Photo EX. The main
difference being tonal linearity. Given that the printheads are nearly
identical, the inks are the SAME used in the stylus Photo (although they
"CLAIM" reduced dot size) and the resolution is identical - the only
difference is the extra color - which, from arms length, will NOT produce
that much difference.
>You really believe the Photosmart produces images that are "leagues behind"
the
>890 and 1120? You'd be the first person I know of to hold that opinion.
Even
>HP's own people don't think the PhotoRetII machines compete in color gamut
or
>color transitions with the Photosmart.
From what I have done with the PhotoSmart at the warehouse, and with my
1120, yes I do. From the results of my "study" - all but one of 20 agreed
with me (95%). The PhotoSmart does have the advantage of the dye based
black for smoother gradation in color with the other five, but the smaller
dot grain in the 1120 and the lower density dye load inks produce
equivalent, if not much better output, in my opinion. The PhotoSmart is
back in the older dot size nearing 20 picoliters - which makes all the
difference in the world.
>On a final note. Bob, I really don't understand why you made your post so
>personal. It disturbs me that you attack me when if you reread my post, I
wasn't
>attacking you, your post, or HP machines at all. Why the personal attack?
Simply because I posted a message and felt you attacked me personally.
Seeing as how you have taken it upon yourself to e-mail me and question my
integrity and my posting skills a while back, I figured it to be a personal
attack when you called me out as "unfairly comparing the 800 and 1120 when
the person asked for the EX" - I admitted right in there that they were
totally different printers, but technology between them was near the same
other than the extra inks....
I Apologize if you took it personally, but perhaps you should think back to
your e-mails to me - and see from my position how "disturbing it is" - maybe
I misunderstood your post - just as you have misunderstood mine... My point
in my original post (and my "Study") was that 4 color 6 color, nothing
matters except the output. The only thing that bothers me is that you have
the idea that most would agree with your side - yet they are probably all
people who own the six color units and think they are "the cake" - when
approached blindly with several images, not being told the technology - most
people cannot tell the difference so it is up to the end-user to pick a unit
based on their tastes.
Bob Nedved
kokleong wrote in message <354FAD4B...@cyberway.com.sg>...
>Dear Bob,
>
>Anyone who says that a 4 colour inkjet looks the same as a 6 colour inkjet
needs an
>eye check-up. There difference is SO OBVIOUS unless you are looking at the
pictures
>from a distance (eg more than 2 feet) in which case you are not really
examining the
>printouts at all.
I suggest you re-read my "test" where I asked several users to compare. If
a printer uses low dye load inks and miniscule dots of ink, the technology
behind it, in fact, stands for itself regardless of what you think you see.
All of the colors in the world (yes, including the light ones) can be
properly rendered by an adequatley formulated ink and small drops of ink -
of which the HP has both.
Sure the 6 color printers produced by Epson and Canon produce output that
rivals their other siblings, but I feel in the HP line, the 4 color PhotoRet
II printers are better in output than their 6-color older brother - my
testing showed that 19 of 20 people agreed. It also showed that 13 of 20
picked the output from the 1120 HP to be better than the Stylus Photo (when
the names were not offered - thus, simply comparing prints)
>Michael is extremely helpful and does what i consider to be the best form
of
>posting: technically informative without losing sight of the fact that the
>technology must translate to actual printout improvement.
I still see undertones of "more is better" - if the 6-color printing process
were more important, professional typesetters and professional outdoor wide
format printers would use the technology. So would electrostatic and/or
digital printers. Do they?? No - the only companies who come out with 6
color printers are the ones who are trying to find a means to work around
other technically inferior aspects of their printers - i.e. releasing a 6
color printer because when you use large dot grain, the lower dye load inks
produce a visible difference. I can guarantee you in the case of the 1120,
the lower dye load wouldn't produce squat in the output different than it's
current output.
>Also, even if his postings are lengthy or numerous, they hardly constitute
>'overloading' of the newsgroups. If you have difficulty followin his
postings, just
>skip them. Nobody asked you to read them in the first place and BTW, this
is a
>newsgroup (not your personal e-mail inbox). I think people who get personal
and
>attack posters on the newsgroups should re-examine their values.
Which was part of my point in "my correction" of Michael. I personally have
nothing against him, I believe he tries to be objective as he possibly can -
in the same light, he also falsley assumes that the majority sides with him,
when testing on the same subject has proven (in one case) otherwise. I also
know that I posted three incorrect messages a while back, three of hundreds,
and he took it upon himself to fill my mailbox with messages "questioning my
posting and knowledge of the subject" - the post towards him was kind of a
"how do you like it" approach.
> As it is, it is
>hard to find trully informative and helpful postings. Here is a guy who
bothers to
>send to the group his personal observations (which is all he can give
anyway). You
>can choose to read it or not. No need to attack it because if you did, you
would not
>be fair in doing it only to him. There are people who are actually guilty
of
>overloading the news groups out there, like you with your ill-researched
post.
ill researched? Excuse me, I actually performed real-world research at a
computer show - asking people who were both well advised and not advised in
the field - the only thing I see him posting is personal opinion or scanned
images along with his personal opinion. Michael spends no more time than me
actually helping people on this group - the difference is that he tends to
try to help on the quality side of it, and I help people on the technical
side - I'm sure you would see that I overload the newsgroup with messages no
more than he does - you just never see my posts unless you ask about a
problem with a printer.
>In any event, a propper comparison of printouts, in my opinion, should
involve the
>use of reference pictures, ie the use of the same several high quality
pictures
>which are then printed on different printers. It is only then that a real
comparison
>can be made. I have printed out the same pictures on the Photosmart, the HP
890c
>(photoret II), the Epson photo stylus, Epson Photo 700 and Photo Ex and the
6 colour
>printers are clearly superior to the 4 colour one. Having said that, I
thought that
>the HP photoret II technology was very good despite only using 4 colours as
the printouts
>were quite good. Skin tone reproduction is a good test of a photo-quality
printer.
Yet still your samplings only involve one opinion - which is your own. For
the purposes of yourself choosing a printer, this is all that you need - for
the purpose of an "unbiased" report to a newsgroup on which is better, you
need something other than "personal" opinion if you are going to claim that
"most people agree with you". I made no such claim - I'm not saying that
most people agree with me.... what I am saying is that in my test of 20
people, 95% did - but that is only one test - nevertheless, it is still more
objective than "I think so and so do most people" - without any underlying
tests...
The original problem here was that I posted a message and said Well "I have
no idea about this printer, but I have tested a relatively similar one" and
Michael jumped in and yes, attacked my posting saying that "I wasnt being
fair to the Stylus EX, cause I was comparing to a different printer" I
never claimed to be comparing - I just thought it would be a decent thread
to throw in discussion about a similar issue.... And I posted as such.
Ultraman
Bob,
Sounds to me like you are are suffering from "I own it, therefore it will
be the best!" syndrome. And why insult the intelligence of readers of this
NG? Don't you think anyone doing a thorough comparison between two
printers would take pains to test each at their highest possible driver
settings with the best media available? From what I read, it's the pot
calling the kettle black. You are the one that "slams" Epson products, not
the other way around.
Anyway I'm buying an Espon!! Not to mention I can't use an HP with a Mac
anyway.
Take a chill pill, man.....
kokleong
Dear Bob,
Anyone who says that a 4 colour inkjet looks the same as a 6 colour inkjet needs an
eye check-up. There difference is SO OBVIOUS unless you are looking at the pictures
from a distance (eg more than 2 feet) in which case you are not really examining the
printouts at all.
> You seem to try to overload the newsgroup with all of these testing methods
> and images you print and then scan
Michael is extremely helpful and does what i consider to be the best form of
posting: technically informative without losing sight of the fact that the
technology must translate to actual printout improvement.
Also, even if his postings are lengthy or numerous, they hardly constitute
'overloading' of the newsgroups. If you have difficulty followin his postings, just
skip them. Nobody asked you to read them in the first place and BTW, this is a
newsgroup (not your personal e-mail inbox). I think people who get personal and
attack posters on the newsgroups should re-examine their values. As it is, it is
hard to find trully informative and helpful postings. Here is a guy who bothers to
send to the group his personal observations (which is all he can give anyway). You
can choose to read it or not. No need to attack it because if you did, you would not
be fair in doing it only to him. There are people who are actually guilty of
overloading the news groups out there, like you with your ill-researched post.
In any event, a propper comparison of printouts, in my opinion, should involve the
use of reference pictures, ie the use of the same several high quality pictures
which are then printed on different printers. It is only then that a real comparison
can be made. I have printed out the same pictures on the Photosmart, the HP 890c
(photoret II), the Epson photo stylus, Epson Photo 700 and Photo Ex and the 6 colour
printers are clearly superior to the 4 colour one. Having said that, I thought that
the HP
photoret II technology was very good despite only using 4 colours as the printouts
were quite good. Skin tone reproduction is a good test of a photo-quality printer.
kokleong
td...@yahoo.com
In article <6ioh11$543$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>#1/2,
"Bob Nedved" <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>
> I still see undertones of "more is better" - if the 6-color printing process
> were more important, professional typesetters and professional outdoor wide
> format printers would use the technology. So would electrostatic and/or
> digital printers. Do they?? No - the only companies who come out with 6
> color printers are the ones who are trying to find a means to work around
> other technically inferior aspects of their printers - i.e. releasing a 6
> color printer because when you use large dot grain, the lower dye load inks
> produce a visible difference. I can guarantee you in the case of the 1120,
> the lower dye load wouldn't produce squat in the output different than it's
> current output.
Actually professional typesetters are using more than 4-color processes,
because of the limitations of the CMYK gamut. LAB and RGB have
a much large gamut than can be reproduced in a CMYK processes.
Serveral companies, Pantone,Scitex,Linotype-Hell and Dupont have systems that
add more color layers to allow a wider range of colors to be printed.
Pantone's system has 6-color processes and Scitex has seven.
Simmons
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Bob Nedved
td...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6iqcce$mhb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6ioh11$543$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>#1/2,
> "Bob Nedved" <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>Actually professional typesetters are using more than 4-color processes,
>because of the limitations of the CMYK gamut. LAB and RGB have
>a much large gamut than can be reproduced in a CMYK processes.
>Serveral companies, Pantone,Scitex,Linotype-Hell and Dupont have systems
that
>add more color layers to allow a wider range of colors to be printed.
>Pantone's system has 6-color processes and Scitex has seven.
C+Y = G then M+Y = R then M+C = B.
The fact is, RGB offers no more colors than CMYK because RGB is a derivative
of CMYK - Hence the Primary and Secondary Color Process titles...
td...@yahoo.com
Bob Nedved wrote:
> td...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6iqcce$mhb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6ioh11$543$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>#1/2,
> > "Bob Nedved" <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
> >Actually professional typesetters are using more than 4-color processes,
> >because of the limitations of the CMYK gamut. LAB and RGB have
> >a much large gamut than can be reproduced in a CMYK processes.
> >Serveral companies, Pantone,Scitex,Linotype-Hell and Dupont have systems
> that
> >add more color layers to allow a wider range of colors to be printed.
> >Pantone's system has 6-color processes and Scitex has seven.
> C+Y = G then M+Y = R then M+C = B.
> The fact is, RGB offers no more colors than CMYK because RGB is a
> derivative
> of CMYK - Hence the Primary and Secondary Color Process titles...
> Bob Nedved
RGB and CMYK are not equivalent color spaces because of non-linearities
in the color processes. In the case of 4-process color printing, CMYK cannot
reproduce the same color range as RGB. Both CMYK and RGB are subsets of the
CIELAB color space, the visible color range. RGB overall has a large gamut
than CMYK. Color space diagrams clearly show the limits of the CMYK space.
This is further explained in Poyton's color faq, most DTP/pre-press textbooks
and in Photoshop's documentation, where it warns of out of gamut colors when
switching between LAB or RGB, to CMYK.
Pantone's selling point for it's Hexachrome process is that it can
reproduce colors that can't be printed in a 4-color process.
Bob Nedved
Ultraman wrote in message ...
>Bob,
>
>Sounds to me like you are are suffering from "I own it, therefore it will
>be the best!" syndrome.
Let's see = how can that be considering I own and use an HP 1120, HP 890, HP
PhotoSmart, HP 693C, HP 400, Epson Stylus Photo, Epson Stylus Color 800,
Epson Stylus Color 600, Epson Stylus Color 500, Epson Stylus Color 200,
Epson Stylus Color, and a Lexmark 2030. By your theory, I would pretty
much "love" every one of them.
>Don't you think anyone doing a thorough comparison between two
>printers would take pains to test each at their highest possible driver
>settings with the best media available?
No, I dont. A lot of people go into the store, and press the cutesy little
"demo print" button. For the Epson Stylus Photo, this prints an adequatley
set-up 360dpi image - which isn't the printers highest quality. For the
same test, someone pressing the button on an HP get's a 300dpi "normal" mode
print, for the photosmart - they get the "medium quality" image.
I think that most of the people who post claiming "superiority" on these
groups do not take the time to adequatley review the printers at hand. I'm
not saying that Michael Greer, or any other "knowledgable" poster does this,
but I am referring to the hundreds of "uninformed" people who rely on the
posts they read in this group. 20 people claiming "this is better because I
own it and I chose it" is not equivelant to "I ran a blind study and 89 out
of 100 people chose this print" - and the latter of the two is not the case
on this group a high percentage of the time.
>From what I read, it's the pot
>calling the kettle black. You are the one that "slams" Epson products, not
>the other way around.
No, I do not. I have the Stylus Color 800 and use it daily - I also have a
Stylus Photo that I use often at the office. Among all of the printers I
own, Epson makes up the largest percentage. I think the output is
fantastic. If someone asks me to recommend one, however, I wouldn't -
because being in the industry, and owning the myriad of printers that I do,
I see 10 times the number of complaints for "reliability" on the newer
Epson's than any other brand. A true consultant would not recommend the
printer should they see this.
>Anyway I'm buying an Espon!! Not to mention I can't use an HP with a Mac
>anyway.
Great! I hope it works out wonderfully for you. You will probably be more
than thrilled with the printer unless you need service - and hopefully you
will not...
>Take a chill pill, man.....
I'm not even going to comment on this childish remark. As I have said
before, I post opinions on this group and tell people to take them for what
they are. The only time you will find me "flying off the handle" is when
someone directly challenges my opinions or directly questions the validity
of my post. I don't normally do it to anyone else (unless they do it to me
first) - and I expect the same from others - my opinion are my own and if
someone tries to tell me I am wrong - I will defend them.
Bob Nedved
>RGB and CMYK are not equivalent color spaces because of non-linearities
>in the color processes. In the case of 4-process color printing, CMYK
cannot
>reproduce the same color range as RGB. Both CMYK and RGB are subsets of the
>CIELAB color space, the visible color range. RGB overall has a large gamut
>than CMYK. Color space diagrams clearly show the limits of the CMYK space.
>
>This is further explained in Poyton's color faq, most DTP/pre-press
textbooks
>and in Photoshop's documentation, where it warns of out of gamut colors
when
>switching between LAB or RGB, to CMYK.
>
>Pantone's selling point for it's Hexachrome process is that it can
This is still getting off the subject of multiple color printing. I know
that Pantone has a hexachrome process that can reproduce colors not
available in 4-color. The point of the original message is that with a
properly formulated CMYK combination, you can render any possible image in a
CMYK/LC/LM/LY configuration.
The Hexachrome process contains colors that vary greatly in range - they
aren't simply a "four color process" with "three lower density
ounterparts" - my original post stated that if the 6 color normal/low
density dye load ink process were beneficial - professional print houses
would use it - the fact that they use Pantone is irrelevant - it's a totally
different concept.
Tham Kok Leong
Dear Bob,
I take your comments. I just wanted to say that opinions of posters should be
just that: opinions. Nobody should slam another for sharing an opinion or a
certain 'tip' except to correct factual errors. I certainly don't intend to slam
your opinion as you are most certainly more knowledgable about printer stuff
than i am. I re-read with interest your blind test conducted at the show and
recognise it for what it is worht a blind test. However, since i value my own
subjective opinion very much, it has little impact on me.
I would like to know your views on the EPson Photo 700 or EX especially what you
think about its image quality (questions of high ink consumption and reliability
aside).
Thanks.
kokleong
Bob Nedved wrote:
td...@yahoo.com
It is well known that is is CMYK color printing has a limited gamut,
because of spectral absorbtion limitations of the printing dyes.
If it was possible to formulate CMYK dye combinations to have the
lab or even rgb gamut, there would be no need for the new hi-fi color
processes. Please refer to any pre-press/dtp textbook about color space.
It is relevent that there are 6-color printing processes.
Hexachrome is just one example of this,it actually consists of enhanced
CMY+K+orange and green, however this is just one of the hifi-color processes.
There are others which consist of standard CMYK with three or more additional
colors.
Bob Nedved wrote:
"Bob Nedved" <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>
>
> I still see undertones of "more is better" - if the 6-color printing process
> were more important, professional typesetters and professional outdoor wide
> format printers would use the technology. So would electrostatic and/or
> digital printers. Do they?? No - the only companies who come out with 6
> color printers are the ones who are trying to find a means to work around
> other technically inferior aspects of their printers
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Ultraman
>>Take a chill pill, man.....
>I'm not even going to comment on this childish remark. As I have said
>before, I post opinions on this group and tell people to take them for what
>they are. The only time you will find me "flying off the handle" is when
>someone directly challenges my opinions or directly questions the validity
>of my post. I don't normally do it to anyone else (unless they do it to me
>first) - and I expect the same from others - my opinion are my own and if
>someone tries to tell me I am wrong - I will defend them.
Just when I though I might escape without one of your insults! Shucks.
Don't get it huh? Not down with any vernacular, eh?
I *was* just letting you know in a laid back way to tone down your
sometimes nasty sounding posts. But you seem to be the type that can't be
wrong, and can't take suggestions without lashing back. But yes, I
consider myself young at heart, and don't mind being called childlike or
boyish by friends and loved ones. But I don't think you were being very
friendly in your remark.
Mustering all my restraint, I say to you, "I don't think you are a very
nice person".
Harrrumph!!!!
Bob Nedved
Tham Kok Leong wrote in message <355134A4...@gledhill.com.sg>...
>I would like to know your views on the EPson Photo 700 or EX especially
what you
>think about its image quality (questions of high ink consumption and
reliability
>aside).
>
Reliability of the printers aside, the Epsons are undoubtedly in the league
with the highest quality consumer inkjets available - I name these (my
opinion) as the Stylus Photo EX, Stylus Photo 700, Stylus Photo, HP 1120, HP
722, HP 890, and Lexmark 5700. When I evaluate a printer, however, I
evaluate on more than output. Who cares if you buy a printer that totally
annhialates any other printers output if that printer wont last even through
it's entire warranty period without needing some form of service? I also
take into account the availability of consumables and the cost of
consumables - Epson's consumables are readily available, but they are too
expensive. Lexmark consumables are too expensive and they aren't readily
available in most areas - all combined, this is the reason that I choose to
favor the HP printers.
Bob Nedved
td...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6iri6i$he3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>It is relevent that there are 6-color printing processes.
>Hexachrome is just one example of this,it actually consists of enhanced
>CMY+K+orange and green, however this is just one of the hifi-color
processes.
>There are others which consist of standard CMYK with three or more
additional
>colors.
You missed the point of my message. I said that the posters comment that
Hexachrome exists as a six color process is IRRELAVANT in my discussion,
where I said that professional printers do not use six color processes that
use variations of the SAME color (like light cyan and light magenta) - fact
remains that if you go to do digital CMYK proofs for negatives for let's
say, a box design - they fabricate a negative for C, M, Y, and K, not CMYK
and LC and LM and LY or whatever.
I realize the importance of Hexachrome, I simply said that the inkjets using
six color processes are NOWHERE near what hexachrome is - they are simply
extra ink formulations made to compensate for limitations on the printing
system (like large dot grain).
Bob Nedved
Ultraman wrote in message ...
>
>Don't get it huh? Not down with any vernacular, eh?
You dont call it insulting when you challenge my posts and my integrity by
yelling to me your "it seems like you just want to prove that because you
own it it is the best" remark? I found that insulting considering that I
own or use pretty much every inkjet product in existance....
>I *was* just letting you know in a laid back way to tone down your
>sometimes nasty sounding posts. But you seem to be the type that can't be
>wrong, and can't take suggestions without lashing back.
When you post your opinion, and get 10 people lashing at you telling you it
is wrong, you are right, I do lash back. As for being wrong - that's
incorrect.... I am wrong on many occasions, but I refuse to be called wrong
when I am stating my opinion. I also (as you have already seen) cannot
stand when people make direct references to my post and tell me I am wrong.
I dont mind if someone says "I disagree, or I have a varying opinion" but I
cannot stand when someone challenges my own opinion - especially considering
that because I use most of these printers regularly, my opinion generally is
un-biased - yet I still get printer owners who post and tell me how wrong my
opinion is, when it is their own judgment that is clouded by virtue of
"ownership".
>But yes, I
>consider myself young at heart, and don't mind being called childlike or
>boyish by friends and loved ones. But I don't think you were being very
>friendly in your remark.
I apologize if it came off rude or arrogant. As you know, at the time I was
responding to your post, I had just finished responding to 5 other posts
challenging my opinion and views, so by the time yours came around - I was
pretty POed. So I apologize if it came off as rude
As for today, I received many messages in my e-mail from people who believed
to see "nothing" wrong with my composure or posting, and offered
compliments - so that lightened me up (for now :))
Bob C.
Thanks for your reply - I forgot to specify that photographic quality
is the overrding issue. I think you've answered that in favor of the
epsons. THanks! Too bad they can't make bigger cartridges! Sorry
about the flame war.
>To be fair, it must be mentioned that the Epson SC 800 is 2 generations behind
>Epson's current offering in photo quality printers. While I prefer the output of
>the 800 to the 890 (mainly because of the Epson and Canon film products), I
>certainly couldn't offer any reasonable debate to objectively justify my
>opinion.
>
>However, the original poster asked about the 1120C vs. the Stylus Photo EX.
>Since many of the currently available printers from multiple manufacturers do a
>tremendous job of photo rendering, the improvements that are coming down the
>pike are more evolutionary than revolutionary. So terms like, "blow it away"
>don't apply in my opinion. Having said that, it is my opinion that the Photo EX
>will easily outperform the 1120 in photo rendering in most people's opinion..
>The main reason being a refinement of Epson's 6 color technology. The 1120C uses
>4 inks, the EX uses 6. If you examine output from the Epson Stylus Photo, you
>will find that dots are much more difficult to recognize than on any of the
>currently available 4 color printers. The EX utilizes smaller dots than the
>Stylus Photo and procduces results that make dot recognition extremely
>difficult. To the point where many will not see any with the naked eye without
>long hard study. However, the EX does have its bad points in comparison. The #1
>thing is the 1120C will run circles around the EX in ink cartridge capacity.
>Epson's relatively puny ink cartridges require that they be frequently channged.
>The other point is that the 1120C (as well as most of HP printers), will
>slaughter the EX in plain paper printing. So the application is critical in
>determining the best printer. The answer to the "best printer" question is not
>the same for all applications in my opinion.
>
>I would anticipate that HP will release a 6 color wide format printer some time
>in the near future. But HP has a concern that the others don't have. They have
>their large format (24+ inches) printer business to be concerned with. The
>profit margins on these babies are much higher than on "consumer" inkjets. If HP
>produces Deskjets that are too wide, they might steal sales from their higher
>margin brotheren. It'll be interesting to see what they do. The Canon "Aspen" 7
>color, wide format printer is due this summer. I would suspect that consumers
>will have a wide variety of choices of 6 ink, photo capable, wide format
>printers within a 6 month time frame.
>
>> Actually, I forgot to mention, I did the same thing with my 890, and I also
>> used the 890 driver on the 1120 (yes, it does work for anyone wondering if
>> they can use those "Kodak image enhancements") - but the 1120 clearly won
>> out in the color purity arena, with image quality being equal otherwise.
>
>Are you saying the 1120C offers superior photo output to the 890C? If so, that
>kind of surprises me. I thought HP didn't make any photo enhancements to the
>1120C relative to the 890C. I thought it just offered wider paper, more paper
>handling options, and greater speed.
>
>--
>Mike Greer
>
>"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
>Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
>
>
Bob C.
rca...@worldnet.att.net
Michael Greer
Bob C. wrote:
> Thanks for your reply - I forgot to specify that photographic quality
> is the overrding issue. I think you've answered that in favor of the
> epsons. THanks! Too bad they can't make bigger cartridges!
Actuall they can as proven with the 3000 and 5000. But they choose not to. They offer
big cartridges for their high priced printers, and small cartridges for there low
cost printers. You're going to pay one way or the other.
> Sorry
> about the flame war.
No need to apoloise. Not your fault.
--
Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
http://www.greer.simplenet.com
Mike Greer
Ed Class
Bob C. wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply - I forgot to specify that photographic quality
> is the overrding issue. I think you've answered that in favor of the
> about the flame war.
>
<all else deleted>
Hi Bob,and others,
It is my opinion that anyone who purchases an Epson 800 over an HP1120C
is making a rather big mistake. While they _both_ will produce the
near-photo quality that you desire, the 800 does not have the larger
print capabilities of the HP1120C; nor can it compare economically while
printing near-photo quality. The initial higher cost of the HP1120C
will be regained very shortly in using the lower cost (read that larger
capacity) ink tanks.
If the larger printing capabilities are of no concern to you, then your
request for comparison was bogus to begin with, and you should be
looking (comparing) with the HP890, which, of course, would still
produce acceptable near-photo prints, and the same economy of scale
would prevail.
While we could continue debating [or argueing (your choice)], the fact
is that it is doubtful whether you or any other consumer (me included)
would be dissatisfied with the _quality_ of print of either machine.
What you _will_ be dissatisfied with is the time it takes to have your
machine repaired or replaced. And that is what you should be looking
for: peoples experiences with service and services.
I'm not associated with any of the printer manufacturers, but I do use
several different ink-jet, dye-sub, and color lasers. I admit that I am
biased toward the HP's, and do not intend to purchase any printers from
Epson or Cannon in the near future. I have not, as yet, purchased or
used a Lexmark printer, and therefore have no first-hand knowledge of
their capabilities or limitations. The few times I did experience
problems with the HPs, I was able to remedy the situation myself with
little effort.
I have had dealings with HP service, however, concerning the HP
PhotoSmart scanner, and was extremely pleased with their response.
I would say to anyone, go with your own perceptions of quality and
utility when purchasing a printer, but insure that those feelings are
based on the reality of your own comparisons; comparisons that are
initiated by the experiences of others.
Okay, 'nuf said, good luck, see 'ya, etc................Ed
--
Ed Class
WA1SIS ex-W9CDN
edc...@sover.net
Specialty Imaging of Vermont
Photo-imaged Awards, Gifts, and Garments
Telephone 802-254-1348
Bob Nedved
Ed Class wrote in message <35544...@sover.net>...
> It is my opinion that anyone who purchases an Epson 800 over an HP1120C
>is making a rather big mistake. While they _both_ will produce the
>near-photo quality that you desire, the 800 does not have the larger
>print capabilities of the HP1120C; nor can it compare economically while
>printing near-photo quality. The initial higher cost of the HP1120C
>will be regained very shortly in using the lower cost (read that larger
>capacity) ink tanks.
The original message actually asked about the Photo Stylus EX, and the 1120.
I was the one who brought the 800 into my comparison (which was NOT intended
to replace the Stylus EX in the comparison)....
Ed Class
Oops! Never mind...........
Sorry about jumping in the middle of the thread without looking back at
messages I missed. Rest is still valid, though.
Take care.........Ed
Pete Cockerell
In article <6ir0f9$mp7$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
ned...@reinkkit.com says...
> C+Y = G then M+Y = R then M+C = B.
>
> The fact is, RGB offers no more colors than CMYK because RGB is a derivative
> of CMYK - Hence the Primary and Secondary Color Process titles...
Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's name
from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
their sales :)
Cheers,
Pete
> Bob Nedved
> Definitive Data Solutions
> Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
--
Pete Cockerell
California, USA
<http://www.best.com/~petec>
Please remove 'the' from my address before replying.
Robert J. Nedved
Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
>Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's name
>from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
>their sales :)
>
Whatever - you say, I say, someone else says. The fact still remains that
CMY are the secondary colors which can be combined in pairs to yield RGB.
I am not convinced that any color that can be produced in RGB cannot be
reproduced with CMY - regardless of linearities or non linearities in the
RGB or CMY system, the fact remains that R = M+Y, G=Y+C, and B=M+C - that
is, when the product yielding those colors is properly formulated and/or
configured.
Sure, other methods may exist (like hexachrome) but those are irrelavent in
the discussion of inkjet printers that are not using anything NEAR
hexachrome - if someone was comparing CMYK and CcMmYK to Hexachrome, my
discussion would be different. However, we aren't. It is still my opinion
that the printer manufacturers are using the lighter dye load inks to simply
compensate for other printer ineffeciencies (like large dot grain).
You mention CcMmYyK professional printing processes - and there may be
several of them - but they are still relatively uncommon in the printing
world (we get boxes and box design proofs and negatives and ad slicks and
all that jazz - not one has been in anything but C M Y K. However, I
believe the same goes for the printing industry. Many of our advertisements
and boxes are printed on the four color process on relatively LOW resolution
(like 150dpi) printers - in that case, as I mentioned before, CcMmYyK may be
beneficial due to the large dot grain.
I will still hold that if you have a machine that has, let's say... 2-3
picoliter output drop size (I know that nothing exists like this now,
but....) - anyway, say you have this minutely small drop size. You should
feasibly be able to get 720dpi resolution or above with no dot overlap. -
in this scenerio, I doubt that, considering you have a PROPERLY configured
CMYK setup, you would see ANY difference between CMYK and CcMmYyK - and as
all other messages I have posted would go, this has NOTHING to do with
Hexachrome - so quit stuffing it in my face, it's a completely different
process. My point is that CcMmYyK do not exist because of their differences
in theoretical gamut, but they exist because they improve the gamut of an
otherwise ineffecient printer....
td...@yahoo.com
> Robert J. Nedved wrote:
> Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
> >Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's name
> >from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
> >their sales :)
> >
> Whatever - you say, I say, someone else says. The fact still remains that
> CMY are the secondary colors which can be combined in pairs to yield RGB.
> I am not convinced that any color that can be produced in RGB cannot be
> reproduced with CMY - regardless of linearities or non linearities in the
> RGB or CMY system, the fact remains that R = M+Y, G=Y+C, and B=M+C - that
> is, when the product yielding those colors is properly formulated and/or
> configured.
There is a lot more to color space than simple formula for
primary and secondary colors. Read a pre-press or color printing book. It is
simply a fact that RGB and CMY are not equivalent color spaces in the printing
world.
> Sure, other methods may exist (like hexachrome) but those are irrelavent in
> the discussion of inkjet printers that are not using anything NEAR
> hexachrome - if someone was comparing CMYK and CcMmYK to Hexachrome, my
> discussion would be different. However, we aren't. It is still my opinion
> that the printer manufacturers are using the lighter dye load inks to >
simply
> compensate for other printer ineffeciencies (like large dot grain).
> You mention CcMmYyK professional printing processes - and there may be
> several of them - but they are still relatively uncommon in the printing
> world (we get boxes and box design proofs and negatives and ad slicks and
> all that jazz - not one has been in anything but C M Y K. However, I
> believe the same goes for the printing industry. Many of our >
advertisements
> and boxes are printed on the four color process on relatively LOW >
resolution
> (like 150dpi) printers - in that case, as I mentioned before, CcMmYyK may
> be beneficial due to the large dot grain.
Just because your print jobs do not need hifi color do not mean
that there is not need it is true rest of the printing industry. You made
incorrect statements in previous posts that 6-color processes did not
exist, and they did not offer any improvement over standard 4color.
It is apparent you are making statements about printing and color space
without much knowlege about the subject.
The last sentance in the paragraph illustrates this.
Valburg
Robert J. Nedved wrote:
> Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
> >Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's
> name
> >from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
> >their sales :)
> >
>
> Whatever - you say, I say, someone else says. The fact still remains
> that
> CMY are the secondary colors which can be combined in pairs to yield
> RGB.
> I am not convinced that any color that can be produced in RGB cannot
> be
> reproduced with CMY - regardless of linearities or non linearities in
> the
> RGB or CMY system, the fact remains that R = M+Y, G=Y+C, and B=M+C -
> that
> is, when the product yielding those colors is properly formulated
> and/or
> configured.
Bob, isn't it true that when dealing with inks, while R (the color) =
M+Y (the inks), etc., the reverse doesn't always hold true: Y (the
color) doesn't= G+R (the inks)? My impression is that you can build a
reasonably complete gamut by dithering CMY inks, so that's what printers
use, but that dithering real world RGB inks for reflective viewing yield
a much smaller gamut.
It seems to me that Bob is talking about the gamut of CMY inks in
reflective viewing, and the others are talking about RGB as a
theoretical color space, or as used in the real world (which is not as
inks for full-color printing). RGB color space, when used for display
purposes, are generally used when viewing by transmitted light (like a
monitor), and in that case, Y does=G+R. Transmissive viewing yields an
image of much greater dynamic range than reflective viewing, therefore a
larger color gamut.
If I'm right, you were all correct, but were comparing papayas to
pomegranates.
Comments?
Best,
Mitch Valburg
Pete Cockerell
In article <6j4v3d$q9g$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, nedv...@osu.edu
says...
>
> Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
> >Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's name
> >from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
> >their sales :)
Mmm. Funny how you never quote the original thing I was responding to
in your replies, in this case:
> C+Y = G then M+Y = R then M+C = B.
>
> The fact is, RGB offers no more colors than CMYK because RGB is a derivative
> of CMYK - Hence the Primary and Secondary Color Process titles...
The point is, along with your previous 'all known colors are derivable
from CMYK' nonsense, the above statement shows a lack of knowledge of
color science that is frightening in someone who insists on advertising
his ink-jet refill company's products in every post (something that
would have been regarded as very bad form a few years ago,
incidentally, but I guess times are changing).
First, your 'equations' are simple, first order approximations, of the
level of "well, children, let's seen what color we get if we mix the
red ink from our paint box with the yellow ink." The real equations for
mapping between RGB and CMYK are massively more complex, which leads to
the lie of your second line above. The truth, (which you'd know if you
were to read the section "Color gamuts" on page 69 of the Photoshop 4.0
manual), is that the L*a*b model encompasses the full range of human
vision, RGB includes a subset of that, and CMYK includes another non-
overlapping, but smaller, subset.
Thus there are RGB colors (notably intense greens) that CANNOT be
represented in CMYK, no matter how many times you care to say
otherwise, and a (somewhat smaller) set of CMYK colors that can't be
represented in RGB.
> Whatever - you say, I say, someone else says.
Eh?
> The fact still remains that
> CMY are the secondary colors which can be combined in pairs to yield RGB.
Ooh, crafy - changing the discussion from real-world CMYK process
colors to theoretically pure, subtractive CMY colors. Nice try, but
that's not what we're talking about.
> I am not convinced that any color that can be produced in RGB cannot be
> reproduced with CMY - regardless of linearities or non linearities in the
> RGB or CMY system, the fact remains that R = M+Y, G=Y+C, and B=M+C - that
> is, when the product yielding those colors is properly formulated and/or
> configured.
God oh God. Maybe you should point your browser at
<http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/notes/colour_and_gamma/ColorFAQ.html#
RTFToC24> (that link should all appear on one line, but will probably
be split by my news poster). Failing that, why don't you create
yourself an image containing nice spectrum of colors that includes
fully staturated versions of the RGB primaries, and see how close you
can come to printing it faithfully on the ink-ket printer of your
choice?
> [Long tangential dicussion deleted]
OK, Bob, whatever you say. I was never contradicting your claim that
CcMmY[y]K systems are just workarounds for other deficiencies in ink-
jet printers. In fact, if you read my posts, you'll see on that point I
was agreeing with you. What I was really trying to do was correct a
dire error that you repeat over and over again, and don't seem to be
able to grasp. At this point, I've given you all the information you
need to be a better-informed citizen; it's up to you whether to use it
or not.
Cheers,
Pete
Pete Cockerell
In article <phrEsr...@netcom.com>, p...@netcom.com says...
> I'm wondering something: photographic prints (the kind made under an
> enlarger in a darkroom), which I believe are CMY (not even CMYK), are
> able to display an impressive range of colors. Are they somehow
> different from prints made with ink, dyes, etc.?
Very different. The colors are produced by dyes that are released when
each of three layers of emulsion in the paper is exposed to the
(complementary) color to which it is sensitive. The darkness of the
pigment is proportional to (up to the saturation point) the amount of
light falling on it. This in turns depends on the exposure time and the
density of the corresponding portion of the color negative when its
image is passed through one of three color filters (corresponding to
the three layers of emulsion). The lack of necessity for a 'K' layer
comes from the fact you can get much denser values for each of the
three primary colors than you can in offset printing. In this respect,
dye-sub printers like the ALPS 2300 (which is CMY in its photo mode)
are closer to photographs than are ink-jets or offset printers.
Other differences are: no halftoning (photography is essentially an
analog process, so you don't need to emulate tone curves using
artificial halftone patterns), and therefore no Moire effects, and
also no registration issues (all three layers are colocated during film
processing, so, barring earthquakes, there's no danger of the three
layers not lining up perfectly).
Paul Rubin
In article <MPG.fbfdfa1f...@nntp.best.com>,
Pete Cockerell <pe...@the.best.com> wrote:
>Thus there are RGB colors (notably intense greens) that CANNOT be
>represented in CMYK, no matter how many times you care to say
>otherwise, and a (somewhat smaller) set of CMYK colors that can't be
>represented in RGB.
I'm wondering something: photographic prints (the kind made under an
Robert J. Nedved
Valburg wrote in message <355637E4...@psu.edu>...
>It seems to me that Bob is talking about the gamut of CMY inks in
>reflective viewing, and the others are talking about RGB as a
>theoretical color space, or as used in the real world (which is not as
>inks for full-color printing). RGB color space, when used for display
>purposes, are generally used when viewing by transmitted light (like a
>monitor), and in that case, Y does=G+R. Transmissive viewing yields an
>image of much greater dynamic range than reflective viewing, therefore a
>larger color gamut.
>
>If I'm right, you were all correct, but were comparing papayas to
>pomegranates.
Exactly my point. The whole original argument was simply to state that the
inkjet printers of today are not actually doing much but compensating for
ineffeciencies of the printer by offering "lighter dye load inks" like light
cyan and light magenta. Then about 10 people come in offering theories for
color that are only relavent in the discussion of monitor and digital
display of images (like RGB) - or anything dealing with transmissable light.
In the world of INKJET OUTPUT - none of the processes these people are
speaking of exist (that I know of). I have never seen a Hexachrome printer,
nor have I seen one CcMmYyK printer that can outperform professional CMYK
printing processes.
quoted right from Poyton's faq:
In a theoretical subtractive system, CMY filters could have spectral
absorption curves with no overlap. The colour reproduction of the system
would correspond exactly to additive colour reproduction using the red,
green and blue primaries that resulted from pairs of filters in combination.
This is exactly what I was saying in my first message - where I offered a
"THEORETICAL" solution given PERFECTLY formulated inks. In a perfect
system, using CcMmYy v. CMY would yield no difference - which was the entire
point of my original post. I made the mistake of saying "no professional
process uses 6 colors" meaning CcMmYyK - but immediatley everyone jumped in
my stuff with descriptions of hexachrome, which is also irrelavent in the
inkjet industry - as is L*a*b*, XYZ, xyY, L*u*v*, etc. These may be useful
in your versions of PhotoShop or whatever - but they dont mean squat when
you are talking to me about inkjet output...
As for pete - who offers differences in Gamut when transferring to RGB
(display in PhotoShop) to CMYK (inkjet output) - perhaps these gamut
differences occur because you are moving from the transmissable to the
reflected - which is also a major factor.... In a perfect transmissable
system - CMY = RGB, because by overlapping paired filters of CMY, you get
RGB. Sure, you may say I am changing it now, because CMY does not equal
CMYK, but many inkjets today are printing color images with only CMY and use
the K when they only need to produce jet black (as is the case for the 722
and 890 because of the relatively LARGE size of black droplets as compared
to color - 35 picoliter v. 10 picoliter)
You can construe and twist what I say to support your own theories - sure,
I'm not a colorist, I am not a chemist - blah blah blah...
Bob Nedved
Definitive Data Solutions
Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
ned...@reinkkit.com
NOTE - the Re-Ink-Kit is NOT the same as the REINK products sold by another
company.
Robert J. Nedved
Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
>In article <6j4v3d$q9g$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, nedv...@osu.edu
>says...
>>
>> Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
>> >Extraordinary! Bob, I'd seriously consider removing your company's name
>> >from your signature before your postings start to seriously impact
>> >their sales :)
>
>Mmm. Funny how you never quote the original thing I was responding to
>in your replies, in this case:
>
>> C+Y = G then M+Y = R then M+C = B.
>>
>> The fact is, RGB offers no more colors than CMYK because RGB is a
derivative
>> of CMYK - Hence the Primary and Secondary Color Process titles...
>
>The point is, along with your previous 'all known colors are derivable
>from CMYK' nonsense, the above statement shows a lack of knowledge of
I suggest you read Poyton's FAQ in detail - and I quote:
In a theoretical subtractive system, CMY filters could have spectral
absorption curves with no overlap. The colour reproduction of the system
would correspond exactly to additive colour reproduction using the red,
green and blue primaries that resulted from pairs of filters in combination
Which is what I said - C+Y = G, M+C = B, and Y+M=R - in a theoretical
system. As I mentioned in my post, I was also referring to a theoretical
system in which I said that inks are IDEALLY formulated (meaning no
overlapping absorption curves, etc.) The problem is that you see CMYK and
I see CMY+K, where a printer is going to use CMY for color printing and K
for ONLY jet black output - if you are going to call me on that difference
in our terminology - sue me.
>in someone who insists on advertising
>his ink-jet refill company's products in every post. (something that
>would have been regarded as very bad form a few years ago,
>incidentally, but I guess times are changing).
Where have I advertised my company? Yippie - I post the name of my
affiliation in my signature line. You speak of a few years ago, hell -
posting about refilling or about inkjet printers WITHOUT showing affiliation
is STILL considered bad by many people. I do not senselessly advertise in
this group nor do I spam the group with my companies products and services.
The fact that you infer that "my purpose is to advertise in every post" is
not only insulting, but it is also incorrect.
>First, your 'equations' are simple, first order approximations, of the
>level of "well, children, let's seen what color we get if we mix the
>red ink from our paint box with the yellow ink." The real equations for
>mapping between RGB and CMYK are massively more complex, which leads to
>the lie of your second line above.
No, the real world equations are more complex only because of
inconsistencies in ink formulations and overlaps in the spectrum. As I have
mentioned 900 times before, my posts are speaking of IDEALLY formulated
inks, which, sorry, as much as you hate it - I am correct - read the faq.
>The truth, (which you'd know if you
>were to read the section "Color gamuts" on page 69 of the Photoshop 4.0
>manual), is that the L*a*b model encompasses the full range of human
>vision, RGB includes a subset of that, and CMYK includes another non-
>overlapping, but smaller, subset.
I don't care to read the photoshop manual because you are speaking of
totally different type of imaging. You are speaking to me of transmissable
images while I am speaking of reflective images. The differences in gamut
on paper v. your monitor are paramount not because of differences between
the processes, but differences in the medium being used.
>Thus there are RGB colors (notably intense greens) that CANNOT be
>represented in CMYK, no matter how many times you care to say
>otherwise, and a (somewhat smaller) set of CMYK colors that can't be
>represented in RGB.
There are countless colors that can be displayed on your monitor
(transmissably) that can't be displayed on a printer, even if using the same
process, because the gamut of reflective images is different than the
transmissable spectrum even given the same process.
>Ooh, crafy - changing the discussion from real-world CMYK process
>colors to theoretically pure, subtractive CMY colors. Nice try, but
>that's not what we're talking about.
No, it is what we were talking about. I mentioned that with ideally
formulated inkjet inks, there would be no need for CcMmYyK inksets. By
mentioning the word "ideally" I was speaking theoretically - colors that are
pure with no obvious overlap - you keep missing this point.
>> I am not convinced that any color that can be produced in RGB cannot be
>> reproduced with CMY - regardless of linearities or non linearities in the
>> RGB or CMY system, the fact remains that R = M+Y, G=Y+C, and B=M+C - that
>> is, when the product yielding those colors is properly formulated and/or
>> configured.
>God oh God. Maybe you should point your browser at
I did, and got the quote of theoretically pure colors that I quoted for you
above. Note the words "properly formulated and configured" - this means
perfectly formulated, no overlap, etc.... which means pure.
><http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/notes/colour_and_gamma/ColorFAQ.html#
>RTFToC24> (that link should all appear on one line, but will probably
>be split by my news poster). Failing that, why don't you create
>yourself an image containing nice spectrum of colors that includes
>fully staturated versions of the RGB primaries, and see how close you
>can come to printing it faithfully on the ink-ket printer of your
>choice?
You are comparing apples to oranges still - transmissable light to reflected
light - Even if I had a perfect RGB printer, the output of your perfect RGB
spectrum would look different on paper than it would on the monitor....
I'm not arguing any more - you keep trying to make this discussion personal
saying that I should be a color expert simply because I sell inkjet refill
kits (which is irrelevant - I am not the chemist, nor do I formulate inks
from scratch colorwise) - so please leave the sarcastic (and rude) remarks
out of this - I haven't lowered to this level with you, and there is no need
for the reverse either.
We already agreed on the point of my original post (which was discussing the
relative unimportance of CcMmYy processes other than to combat
ineffeciencies - You are much more versed on other color models and I'm sure
you can turn any post I make into an example of error in other, or
non-perfect (theoretical) systems, but that isn't the point.
Pete Cockerell
In article <6j62ts$cip$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, ned...@reinkkit.com
says...
> [FAQ quote deleted]
> Which is what I said - C+Y = G, M+C = B, and Y+M=R - in a theoretical
> system. As I mentioned in my post, I was also referring to a theoretical
> system in which I said that inks are IDEALLY formulated (meaning no
> overlapping absorption curves, etc.)
Amazingly, I can't find where you mentioned 'theoretical' anywhere in
your posts. But I only got back after a three-week break on Friday, so
no doubt those many articles have been removed from my server. Just
send me the references to the articles in DejaNews and I'll be on my
way. My paltry attempt to find the article (using ~a nedved (ideal* |
theor*) & CMY*) just turned up three articles written *way* after this
debate started. Though one of those articles does have you saying "I
was speaking of CMYK processes only". To my mind, the phrases "CMYK
processes" and "ideal" are sort of contradictory (see below), but I'm
sure that's just because of my narrow-minded thinking.
> The problem is that you see CMYK and
> I see CMY+K, where a printer is going to use CMY for color printing and K
> for ONLY jet black output - if you are going to call me on that difference
> in our terminology - sue me.
Ooh - you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing, Bob! So you're
trying to tell me when you talk about CMYK color, you really mean CMY
color. Plus black. Uh huh. If that's your idea of the use of black in
printing (I doubt if it's anybody else's), why bother to mention K in
the first place? Why not just CMY? In the only reference of yours I can
find (that would be the one I've quoted several times already), you say
any color can be rendered in CMYK. Now the problem is, CMYK is by
definition a non-theoretical color space, because the sole reason for
having the K in the first place is to overcome the *practical*
realities of printing with inks. So clearly you weren't talking about
theoretical color spaces. However, if you'd said something like 'Any
color can be mapped equivalently between idealized RGB and CMY
colorspaces,' then I must admit, instead of taking you to task on it, I
probably would have just rolled my eyes and said 'Well, duh!' to
myself. Unfortunately, I was under the wild misapprehension that we
were talking about printers, not badly expressed theoretics.
> Where have I advertised my company? Yippie - I post the name of my
> affiliation in my signature line.
Well, no, you do *slightly* more than that, don't you? You say:
> Bob Nedved
> Definitive Data Solutions
> Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
> Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
The first two lines constitute an affiliation (though perhaps the
addition of the traditional 'Not speaking for...' would something to
think about); the last two lines tell us maybe a tad too much to count
as an 'affiliation'. But hey, I'm not complaining, I'm just commenting
on the changing nature of usenet, is all.
> You speak of a few years ago, hell -
> posting about refilling or about inkjet printers WITHOUT showing affiliation
> is STILL considered bad by many people.
Quite right too. Anyone posting about refilling who doesn't come clean
about their assocation with a re-inking company deserves to be shot.
> I do not senselessly advertise in
> this group nor do I spam the group with my companies products and services.
> The fact that you infer that "my purpose is to advertise in every post" is
> not only insulting, but it is also incorrect.
I'm sorry Bob, but whatever your purpose, you *do* advertise in every
post. An advertisement doesn't have to be a flashing GIF, you know. But
don't get so worked up about it. It's OK by me. Hell, I advertise the
state of California in all my posts.
> I don't care to read the photoshop manual because you are speaking of
> totally different type of imaging. You are speaking to me of transmissable
> images while I am speaking of reflective images. The differences in gamut
> on paper v. your monitor are paramount not because of differences between
> the processes, but differences in the medium being used.
God, now you're really scaring me. Just when I thought I had this
monitor and paper thing sorted out in my head, too. I was under the
wild illusion that monitors used additive RGB phosphors to produce
colors, whereas printing used subtractive CMY[K] inks to achieve the
same purpose. You're not telling me that there are CMY monitors and RGB
printing presses out there, are you? No, of course you're not. That
would be silly. So how, then, do I begin to make sense of the paragraph
above? You don't think the Photoshop manual talks about the difference
between RGB and CMYK colorspaces (of a strictly non-theoretical
variety) because an image shown on the screen using the former has to
be converted to the latter in order to be printed, do you? Believe me,
when I talk of CMYK, I mean reflective, printed images, and so does the
Photoshop manual. (Though of course Photoshop does attempt to give you
a screen preview of what your image will look like when printed, within
the limitations of mapping CMYK to RGB.)
> There are countless colors that can be displayed on your monitor
> (transmissably) that can't be displayed on a printer, even if using the same
> process
Explain the meaning of the phrase "even if using the same process"
here. What is the "process" if its not the output medium? Or do you
mean "the same colorspace". Or what?
> because the gamut of reflective images is different than the
> transmissable spectrum even given the same process.
Again "same process". Say what??? But ignore that bit and you've just
said what did in my first post. Good job.
> No, it is what we were talking about. I mentioned that with ideally
> formulated inkjet inks, there would be no need for CcMmYyK inksets. By
> mentioning the word "ideally" I was speaking theoretically - colors that are
> pure with no obvious overlap - you keep missing this point.
Assuming you did make this elusive point (and I keep widening my search
criteria looking for it, thus far unsuccessfully), it's wrong anyway.
The need for CcMmY[y]K disappears with a small enough dot size, not
with 'ideal' inks. A CMYK printer can produce exactly the same colors
as a CcMmY[y]K one, at the expense of spatial resolution (i.e. you'd
have to hold the image further away from you not to see the dots).
> I did, and got the quote of theoretically pure colors that I quoted for you
> above. Note the words "properly formulated and configured" - this means
> perfectly formulated, no overlap, etc.... which means pure.
No, there's a huge difference between 'properly' and 'perfectly', Bob,
and you know it. 'Properly' is what you do when using a real-world
system; it means achieving the best results you can given the
constraints imposed. 'Perfectly' is an unattainably ideal that you
seemed to have introduced slightly more recently into the discussion.
> You are comparing apples to oranges still - transmissable light to reflected
> light - Even if I had a perfect RGB printer, the output of your perfect RGB
> spectrum would look different on paper than it would on the monitor....
Oh, you ARE talking about RGB printers. God, and there I was thining I
was on planet Earth! It seems my huge mistake all along has been
equating RGB color spaces with additive devices and CMYK with
subtractive technologies, when all along we were really in some fairy-
tale land where no such tiresome assumptions can be made. Which makes
the whole discussion *very* useful, of course.
> I'm not arguing any more - you keep trying to make this discussion personal
> saying that I should be a color expert simply because I sell inkjet refill
> kits (which is irrelevant - I am not the chemist, nor do I formulate inks
> from scratch colorwise)
No, I'm saying you should have an inkling (if you'll pardon the pun).
If I made statements as incorrect as some of yours about *my* company's
domain AND I advertised that company on every post I make, I'd be damn
grateful if someone pointed them out, and certainly wouldn't write
screeds trying to reinvent what I said and/or meant, or launch off into
senseless red-herring-oriented 'theoretical' arguments.
> so please leave the sarcastic (and rude) remarks
> out of this - I haven't lowered to this level with you, and there is no need
> for the reverse either.
I'm sorry. Sometimes it's between stabbing myself in the arm with a
fork or being sarcastic. Self mutilation just doesn't appeal, somehow.
> We already agreed on the point of my original post (which was discussing the
> relative unimportance of CcMmYy processes other than to combat
> ineffeciencies - You are much more versed on other color models and I'm sure
> you can turn any post I make into an example of error in other, or
> non-perfect (theoretical) systems, but that isn't the point.
No, the point is trying to make sure that the net information content
of usenet stays above zero, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the
effort.
Robert J. Nedved
Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
>In article <6j62ts$cip$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, ned...@reinkkit.com
>says...
>> [FAQ quote deleted]
>> Which is what I said - C+Y = G, M+C = B, and Y+M=R - in a theoretical
>> system. As I mentioned in my post, I was also referring to a theoretical
>> system in which I said that inks are IDEALLY formulated (meaning no
>> overlapping absorption curves, etc.)
>
>Amazingly, I can't find where you mentioned 'theoretical' anywhere in
>your posts. But I only got back after a three-week break on Friday, so
>no doubt those many articles have been removed from my server.
I never called it theoretical. I called it a properly formulated system
where inks were ideally formulated. My opinion is that by stating this, I
would inherently infer the word "theoretical" especially since the animal
doesn't exist right now. Since I am speaking of the "perfect ink" don't you
believe that I would be speaking of an ink that would meet the criterium for
the "theoretical" CMY that poyton discusses? (no overlapping, etc...)
>send me the references to the articles in DejaNews and I'll be on my
>way.
I already told you - you are looking to "win" and I could care less. I'll
admit you know 10 times what I do upon discussion of color, and I'm sure you
can find inconsistencies in what I say because I am not a color expert and
do not know the terminology
> My paltry attempt to find the article (using ~a nedved (ideal* |
>theor*) & CMY*) just turned up three articles written *way* after this
>debate started. Though one of those articles does have you saying "I
>was speaking of CMYK processes only". To my mind, the phrases "CMYK
>processes" and "ideal" are sort of contradictory (see below), but I'm
>sure that's just because of my narrow-minded thinking.
No - most likely because you have too much time on your hands...
>> The problem is that you see CMYK and
>> I see CMY+K, where a printer is going to use CMY for color printing and K
>> for ONLY jet black output - if you are going to call me on that
difference
>> in our terminology - sue me.
>
>Ooh - you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing, Bob! So you're
>trying to tell me when you talk about CMYK color, you really mean CMY
>color. Plus black. Uh huh. If that's your idea of the use of black in
>printing (I doubt if it's anybody else's), why bother to mention K in
>the first place? Why not just CMY?
I speak in the world of inkjet output - I had no idea (until you pointed me
to the color FAQ) that people referred to a seperate animal called CMY. You
see, in my NON PROFESSIONAL approach, I see that black is NOT used in every
color formulation, I can also see that C or M or Y may not be used depending
on the color being formulated. When I look at an inkjet printer (especially
the newer units) - I see a printer that uses CMY for color, and uses BLACK
only when producing JET black or black text - so yes, I see it as you
described. I understand that this may be wrong in your world of "color
bliss" - but as for people who don't deal with professional printing
techniques and stay in our little inkjet desktop output world - this is
normal. Sorry, I'll admit, if I was a color-geek, I would be wrong in
saying what I did - but as I said, working in the inkjet world, I almost
always see CMYK as being together and didn't know that referring to CMY
seperately meant an entirely different thing.
>In the only reference of yours I can
>find (that would be the one I've quoted several times already), you say
>any color can be rendered in CMYK. Now the problem is, CMYK is by
>definition a non-theoretical color space, because the sole reason for
>having the K in the first place is to overcome the *practical*
>realities of printing with inks. So clearly you weren't talking about
>theoretical color spaces.
Maybe in the professional printing world, yes. Look at the HP DeskJet 722
and 890 and 1120, they produce even greyscale output (except for TRUE BLACK)
by using CMY. K is only used in the output of pure black and text from what
I can see most likely due to the extra large black dot size (35 picoliters)
where the color is 10 picoliters. As I said, I was speaking of a perfectly
configured and formulated ink (configured = printer) - don't you think that
if there were no overlapping absorption curves that this theoretical unit
would produce all colors (except black) from CMY?
>Well, no, you do *slightly* more than that, don't you? You say:
>
>> Bob Nedved
>> Definitive Data Solutions
>> Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
>> Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
>
>The first two lines constitute an affiliation (though perhaps the
>addition of the traditional 'Not speaking for...' would something to
>think about); the last two lines tell us maybe a tad too much to count
>as an 'affiliation'. But hey, I'm not complaining, I'm just commenting
>on the changing nature of usenet, is all.
By looking at that post, do you know what Definitive Data Solutions is? 8
years ago, Definitive Data Solutions was a custom computer consultant and PC
specialist. If I posted "Bob Nedved..... Not Speaking for Definitive Data
Solutions, Inc." do you honestly think people would know who that company
was? I mean, hell, for someone who can pull a whole load of difference
from CMY v. CMYK, I would assume you could see a major difference between a
vague company name and one with a description. As for the web address, I
see PRIVATE individuals posting their web pages in their signature lines all
the time - I dont hear any complaints about their pages, and yes, many of
them have "things to sell".
>Quite right too. Anyone posting about refilling who doesn't come clean
>about their assocation with a re-inking company deserves to be shot.
This is another place where you are way off base. 90% of my messages have
nothing to do with my products NOR refilling - most of them I help with
technical questions.... however, I still think people should know that I do
work for someone/something in the printing industry....
>I'm sorry Bob, but whatever your purpose, you *do* advertise in every
>post. An advertisement doesn't have to be a flashing GIF, you know. But
>don't get so worked up about it. It's OK by me. Hell, I advertise the
>state of California in all my posts.
If that is your version of advertisement, yes I do. But I see other
companies and people (not going to mention who) that turn EVERY post into a
"well you should be using my product... I can do this and this and it costs
this much" or those who don't even post, but have a "bot" dropping ads in
here every two days that include product and pricing. THAT I call
advertising - and I have never done either unless directly asked about it.
>> There are countless colors that can be displayed on your monitor
>> (transmissably) that can't be displayed on a printer, even if using the
same
>> process
>
>Explain the meaning of the phrase "even if using the same process"
>here. What is the "process" if its not the output medium? Or do you
>mean "the same colorspace". Or what?
See this is another difference - I refer to process as the colorspace being
used (i.e. I refer to CMYK or CMY or RGB or LAB or whatever as a process -
as do many others who do not study every aspect of color). What I was
trying to say was that even though you could display a color doesn't mean
you can print it because you are going from a reduced gamut on reflective
medium (as opposed to transmissable medium).
The whole point of ALL of my posting was of the relatively non-usefulness of
CcMmYyK printing - because of all of the people claiming the Epsons are
superior because they are 6 color. It's bogus, PhotoRet II produces FOUR
levels of shades of each primary color by controlling the amount of ink per
dot. So for these people, I guess I could theoretically call the PhotoRet
II printers C,c,LC,lc,M,m,LM,lm,Y,y,LY,ly, and K. See, in reality the HP
1120 is a 13 color printer :) hehe... but unless people SEE 6 ink tanks,
they assume it doesn't produce the same thing.
When I made mention of the fact that most four color process printers
(meaning CMYK) in the professional world do not use six colors is when
everyone jumped in my crap. I assumed all CMYK printers were only CMYK just
because for all of the high definition advertising we do, we always make
CMYK negatives and that's it - then everyone jumped on me with hexachrome,
LAB, and other irrelevant processes (or colorspaces, or whatever).
>
>> No, it is what we were talking about. I mentioned that with ideally
>> formulated inkjet inks, there would be no need for CcMmYyK inksets. By
>> mentioning the word "ideally" I was speaking theoretically - colors that
are
>> pure with no obvious overlap - you keep missing this point.
>
>it's wrong anyway.
>The need for CcMmY[y]K disappears with a small enough dot size, not
>with 'ideal' inks.
Actually, if you'll look back in my posts, when I mentioned ideally
formulated inks, I had already mentioned drop sizes of 2-3 picoliters.
Perhaps it is in the other thread (which is why you aren't finding it) - the
one titled "What exactly is the resolution of the HP720" - this discussion
is being carried out in both. In any case, I mentioned that combined with
small droplet size and perfectly formulated inks, there is no need for
CcMmYyK (and that is quoted verbatim) - with the intention of that comment
to lead that the HP is nearing this perfection (although not quite there,
the need for CMYKcmyK has been eliminated in my opinion)
>> I did, and got the quote of theoretically pure colors that I quoted for
you
>> above. Note the words "properly formulated and configured" - this means
>> perfectly formulated, no overlap, etc.... which means pure.
>
>No, there's a huge difference between 'properly' and 'perfectly', Bob,
>and you know it. 'Properly' is what you do when using a real-world
>system; it means achieving the best results you can given the
>constraints imposed. 'Perfectly' is an unattainably ideal that you
>seemed to have introduced slightly more recently into the discussion.
This is the way you interpret it. This isn't the way I see it. And this
was not introduced "recently" in the discussion. Your viewpoint is one, my
use of words is another. When I see properly, in ANY situation, I see
*perfect*.
In my eyes, something isn't properly formulated until all error is
eliminated. In my line of work, I dont consider anything proper until it is
perfect - so this is a difference in your opinion v. mine. It's just like
my programming jobs. Nothing I do is perfect unless everything is properly
executed. If I were to write code that was not optimized enough, or was
ineffecient, it would not be perfect, and therefore it would not be proper.
On the same note, if I tried to write something that was "impossible" and
wrote something that "partially works" (like the CMY colorspace) It would
not be perfect NOR would it be proper in my eyes.
>Oh, you ARE talking about RGB printers. God, and there I was thining I
>was on planet Earth! It seems my huge mistake all along has been
>equating RGB color spaces with additive devices and CMYK with
>subtractive technologies, when all along we were really in some fairy-
>tale land where no such tiresome assumptions can be made. Which makes
>the whole discussion *very* useful, of course.
It was a theory and an example, not useful in real life. Of course, if you
want to tell me you couldn't print RGB, then you are mistaken.... Try
printing pigmented RGB on a transparency and then hold it up to light - what
is that?? It's an Additive printing process made transmissable by
projection.
>> I'm not arguing any more - you keep trying to make this discussion
personal
>> saying that I should be a color expert simply because I sell inkjet
refill
>> kits (which is irrelevant - I am not the chemist, nor do I formulate inks
>> from scratch colorwise)
>
>No, I'm saying you should have an inkling (if you'll pardon the pun).
>If I made statements as incorrect as some of yours about *my* company's
>domain
You are incorrect here - if the chemists who worked in my corporation were
posting falseties I would expect them to be corrected. Do you think that
every executive at DuPont Chemical is a color expert simply based on the
fact that they make paints? No!
As far as you commenting that I don't have an inkling (which was a bad
pun)... well, I dont think so. I have an inkling as far as my knowledge of
the process in an inkjet printer. I dont have knowledge as to other
processess (hexachrome, blah blah). What I do know is what I posted
originally that said CMYKcmy inks are WORTHLESS in a perfectly configured
machine with perfectly configured inks....
>AND I advertised that company on every post I make, I'd be damn
>grateful if someone pointed them out, and certainly wouldn't write
>screeds trying to reinvent what I said and/or meant, or launch off into
>senseless red-herring-oriented 'theoretical' arguments.
See what I wrote above? About what my entire point was? That was it - in
making that point I stated that professional printing processes do not use 6
colors (meaning the CMYK process did not have cm) and EVERYONE tried to
reinvent what I said and/or meant to include hexachrome, L*A*B*, and other
crap - don't preach to me saying I am putting words into your mouth - it
should be viewed the other way. As I said - the entire time, I was speaking
of CMYK and CMYcmyK only.
>> We already agreed on the point of my original post (which was discussing
the
>> relative unimportance of CcMmYy processes other than to combat
>> ineffeciencies - You are much more versed on other color models and I'm
sure
>> you can turn any post I make into an example of error in other, or
>> non-perfect (theoretical) systems, but that isn't the point.
>
>No, the point is trying to make sure that the net information content
>of usenet stays above zero, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the
>effort.
In a discussion about colors in the alt.colorspace newsgroup, or something
of that - I would expect this level of detail and would expect all posters
to be knowledgable to every single colorspace and/or process. In the
discussion of inkjets - most are only going to be versed in CMYK and
CMYcmyK.....
Bob Nedved
Definitive Data Solutions
Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
Valburg
Pete Cockerell wrote:
> I'm sorry. Sometimes it's between stabbing myself in the arm with a
> fork or being sarcastic. Self mutilation just doesn't appeal, somehow.
Hey Pete,
How 'bout if you compromise: leave the sarcasm out, but use a spoon!
Best,
Mitch Valburg
Pete Cockerell
In article <3557905D...@psu.edu>, lk...@psu.edu says...
> Pete Cockerell wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry. Sometimes it's between stabbing myself in the arm with a
> > fork or being sarcastic. Self mutilation just doesn't appeal, somehow.
>
>
> How 'bout if you compromise: leave the sarcasm out, but use a spoon!
Actually, I tried smashing empty Bud cans on my forehead for a while,
but that just made my head hurt even more...
Pete Cockerell
In article <6j7itu$pot$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, ned...@reinkkit.com
says...
> [Several megabytes deleted]
Wow. For someone who 'could care less' (by which I assume you mean
'couldn't care less') about 'winning' this debate, you don't half go
on. There are just *so* many aspects of your post that I could take
exception to (something of a policy of yours, I suspect), that even
someone with my copious free time would be hard pressed to respond to
even a fraction of them. (Sorry that I do have so much time on my
hands, by the way; the porcine artificial insemination business isn't
what it was, sad to say.) Anyway, I think anyone still reading at this
point will want to join me in saying a great big "Yes, Bob. Whatever
you say!"
I must congratulate you, though, on quite how much text you've managed
to generate in response to one minor correction of mine that can be
summed up as "No, actually, not all colors *can* be represented by
CMYK." Did someone say something about monkeys and typewriters? Keep
typing, Bob, "Macbeth" can only be a few hundred thousand postings
away! Oh, and speaking of Macbeth, your ability to mistake a comment of
mine about people being shot for plugging their wares in their articles
as a personal attack on you (which it wasn't, even remotely), does have
just a *whiff* of 'the lady doth protest too much' about it. I think
you need to be slightly less on the defensive all the time. You might
even enjoy it!
Cheers,
Pete, who is right, and Bob is wrong. Doh!
Richard Kenward
>In this respect,
>dye-sub printers like the ALPS 2300 (which is CMY in its photo mode)
>are closer to photographs than are ink-jets or offset printers.
>
>Other differences are: no halftoning (photography is essentially an
>analog process, so you don't need to emulate tone curves using
>artificial halftone patterns), and therefore no Moire effects, and
>also no registration issues (all three layers are colocated during film
>processing, so, barring earthquakes, there's no danger of the three
>layers not lining up perfectly).
>
>Cheers,
>Pete
>
Finding your popstings most interesting, however I must pick you up on
the point you make re the Alps 2300.
I got one of these having been amazed at the photo like quality of the
samples. However in use on real commercial work found that it could
not produce anything like the range of colours that the Epson Photo
could. There seemed to be large gaps in it's gamut that made it useless
for me as a professional photographer. It is very evident when you
print out colour swatches and compare the two printers/technologies.
Just a small point!
Regards
--
Richard Kenward
Pete Cockerell
In article <g6A1cZAJ...@photoimaging.demon.co.uk>,
ken...@photoimaging.demon.co.uk says...
> Dear Pete
>
> Finding your popstings most interesting,
Was that a typo, or an attempt to find a word that incorporates
'postings' and my (allegedly...) 'stinging' sarcasm? I think I'll use
it in future :)
> however I must pick you up on the point you make re the Alps 2300.
>
> I got one of these having been amazed at the photo like quality of the
> samples. However in use on real commercial work found that it could
> not produce anything like the range of colours that the Epson Photo
> could. There seemed to be large gaps in it's gamut that made it useless
> for me as a professional photographer. It is very evident when you
> print out colour swatches and compare the two printers/technologies.
> Just a small point!
Well, quite a large one for you, as a pro. I think by saying it's more
like a photo, I was referring to its ability to get dense blacks
without resorting to a separate black ink. Also the *total* lack of
dottiness compared to even the Epson Photo (in certain shades) give a
more photographic feel. (Ignoring the damned banding, of course.) But
there are certainly holes in the gamut. I have real problems getting it
to produce certain greens (foliage etc.)
I know people who have been more dedicated than I to this issue have
been able to come up with correction curves in Photoshop that improve
matters a lot. I'm just amazed that ALPS don't manage to do it in their
printer drivers.
Cheers,
Pete
Dieter H. Zebbedies
Could we get back on track here....
I've been waiting for this thread to come to some conclusions about the
Subject: line, but it seems to have degerated, as most pissing wars usually
do...
Has anyone:
*tried* both machines
next to each other
with the same picture
on their respective best paper
on their respective normal plain-paper
I would like to purchase a wide format printer. These are the latest
generation of the two top manufactures I was considering.
I will be doing blue-prints from a cad system, (plain paper), then
photorendering the finished plastic part with their mold components (photo
paper)
HP beats Epson at plain paper... I got that much from the thread.
Will Epson beat HP - plus or minus epsilon - at the photo stuff?
Just trying to get us all back on track... - I just don't care about
theoretical color spaces... I just want *practical* results...
Pete Cockerell wrote:
> In article <6j7itu$pot$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, ned...@reinkkit.com
> says...
> > [Several megabytes deleted]
>
> Wow. For someone who 'could care less' (by which I assume you mean
> 'couldn't care less') about 'winning' this debate, you don't half go--
Dieter H. Zebbedies (dee'-trr ayech zeb'-ed-eez), E-mail: d...@zh.com
Zebb-Hoff Machine Tool, 9535 Clinton Rd, Cleveland OH, 44144, +216 631 6100
Advanced Design & CNC Manufacturing - Molds, Prototypes, Tooling, Fixtures
Info: http://www.zh.com or ftp parts to ftp.zh.com (Pro/E, IGES, DXF)
Walter B Kulecz, PhD
In article <phrEsr...@netcom.com>, p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
>In article <MPG.fbfdfa1f...@nntp.best.com>,
>Pete Cockerell <pe...@the.best.com> wrote:
>>represented in CMYK, no matter how many times you care to say
>>otherwise, and a (somewhat smaller) set of CMYK colors that can't be
>>represented in RGB.
>
>enlarger in a darkroom), which I believe are CMY (not even CMYK), are
>able to display an impressive range of colors. Are they somehow
>different from prints made with ink, dyes, etc.?
Actually enlargers that print standard photo paper using additive RGB
printing do exist. My friend has one. In theory it should do better
than CMY for the reason described by Pete in the post you quote. In
practice we've printed each others slides and and any differeces are
swamped by the variations in paper emulsions, process chemicals and
temperatures, and our personal opinions of what constitutes the "best"
color balance compromise on a print made from a slide (where one has
the "original" colors for reference). The only real difference IMHO
is he has to replace three expensive bulbs ($~40 ea) where I need only
replace one :-)
--wally.
Pete Cockerell
In article <35583BDD...@zh.com>, d...@zh.com says...
> Has anyone:
> *tried* both machines
Well, I've tried the 722 and Epson Stylus Photo, which I guess are
first and second order approximations respectively.
> next to each other
> with the same picture
I've got two pictures that I printed on each printer. I'm a bit miffed
about how few of my test pics I ended up printing on the 722, actually.
I spent most of the time I had it printing color test patterns.
> on their respective best paper
Only one of the pics qualifies thus. The Epson picture was printed from
a Mac; the HP from a PC.
> on their respective normal plain-paper
The other is on Epson best paper and HP normal.
> HP beats Epson at plain paper... I got that much from the thread.
> Will Epson beat HP - plus or minus epsilon - at the photo stuff?
Looking at the photos in front of me (it's the one of the Transamerica
building I used for the HP722 vs. ALPS comparison on my Web page), I
would make the following comments:
* The Epson has more accurate colors (no red cast).
* The Epson has less graininess.
* The Epson has less visible banding on the large area of blue sky (not
that the HP banding is noticeably except on very close inspection).
* The Epson has slightly finer detail (although I printed it at a
smaller size than the HP print, the text on the Redwood Bank billboard
is slightly more legible on the Epson)
The clear choice is therefore the HP. Why? Because I know the worst
case if I get a blocked ink head is to buy a new cartridge. Also, I'd
get more than 10 Letter size pics from one color cartidges (many more).
Further, it seems it's hard to get large size 'best' paper for the EX.
Until Epson sorts these issues out, and slightly better image quality
(in my opinion) notwithstanding, I'm going to be a bit wary of Epson
ink jets. (Not that my Stylus Photo ever had an ink head problem - I
only had it for a month. My problems were the annoyingly small
cartridges and reliability problems when connected to my late Mac.)
Richard Kenward
In article <MPG.fc1a822f...@nntp.best.com>, Pete Cockerell
<pe...@the.best.com> writes
>Pete
>
>--
>Pete Cockerell
>California, USA
><http://www.best.com/~petec>
>Please remove 'the' from my address before replying.
printer, great for printing out letter heads though.
Regards
--
Richard Kenward
pe...@best.com
In article <YZDLkBAJ...@photoimaging.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Kenward <ken...@photoimaging.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [My lamenting ALPS' mediocre color matching]
> I quite agree! Shame they have not made the most of an otherwise fine
> printer, great for printing out letter heads though.
Actually, though, I was impressed all over again just yesterday. I was going
through my various prints, looking for an Epson Stylus Photo and and HP 722
print of the same subject in order to compare them, and some of the ALPS ones
really surprised me with their quality. I've got one of my old car, a bright
red Mazda Miata (aka MX-5), and it looks shockingly like a photo. No banding
or dottiness, nice saturated colors. Of course, I have the luxury of choosing
which of my snaps I want to scan, muck around with in Photoshop, and then
print. That's the advantage of being an amateur :)
Cheers,
Pete
Pete Cockerell
In article <3558E50A...@zh.com>, d...@zh.com says...
> I repeat!!! Has anyone:
> *tried* both machines
> next to each other
> with the same picture
Oh I see. No, sorry.
> You twit!! You say that epson better this and epson better that, then you
> pick HP!
>
> Let us make our own decisions about how important reliability and longevity
> are...
Tres charmant, monsieur. How do you reply to *un*helpful people, I
wonder?
Dieter H. Zebbedies
I repeat!!! Has anyone:
*tried* both machines
next to each other
with the same picture
on their respective best paper
on their respective normal plain-paper
Pete Cockerell wrote:
> In article <35583BDD...@zh.com>, d...@zh.com says...
> > Has anyone:
> > *tried* both machines
>
> Well, I've tried the 722 and Epson Stylus Photo, which I guess are
> first and second order approximations respectively.
I did not ask about the 722 or the Stylus Photo! I know they may be
*close*, but, *flame on* THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED!
There have been comments that the EX is substantially different (either in
drivers, or in printer itself) in color balance and accuracy!
Has anyone tried both, or do I have to take my credit card down to CompUSA
and do the exercise myself!
> The clear choice is therefore the HP. Why? Because I know the worst
> case if I get a blocked ink head is to buy a new cartridge. Also, I'd
>
You twit!! You say that epson better this and epson better that, then you
pick HP!
Let us make our own decisions about how important reliability and longevity
are...
> get more than 10 Letter size pics from one color cartidges (many more).
> Further, it seems it's hard to get large size 'best' paper for the EX.
> Until Epson sorts these issues out, and slightly better image quality
> (in my opinion) notwithstanding, I'm going to be a bit wary of Epson
> ink jets. (Not that my Stylus Photo ever had an ink head problem - I
> only had it for a month. My problems were the annoyingly small
> cartridges and reliability problems when connected to my late Mac.)
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
> --
> Pete Cockerell
> California, USA
> <http://www.best.com/~petec>
> Please remove 'the' from my address before replying.
--
Paul Rubin
In article <3558E50A...@zh.com>, Dieter H. Zebbedies <d...@zh.com> wrote:
>I repeat!!! Has anyone:
> *tried* both machines
> next to each other
> with the same picture
> on their respective best paper
> on their respective normal plain-paper
>
>Pete Cockerell wrote:
>
>> In article <35583BDD...@zh.com>, d...@zh.com says...
>> > Has anyone:
>> > *tried* both machines
>>
>> Well, I've tried the 722 and Epson Stylus Photo, which I guess are
>> first and second order approximations respectively.
>
>I did not ask about the 722 or the Stylus Photo! I know they may be
>*close*, but, *flame on* THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED!
>
>There have been comments that the EX is substantially different (either in
>drivers, or in printer itself) in color balance and accuracy!
The 722 and 1120 should make the same prints. The difference is
in the paper size and feed mechanism, and the CPU (the 722 does host
based processing). The printhead and ink cartridge are the same.
I'm happy with using 1120 prints instead of 722 prints in such a
comparison. EX vs. Stylus Photo is a different matter.
>> The clear choice is therefore the HP. Why? Because I know the worst
>> case if I get a blocked ink head is to buy a new cartridge. Also, I'd
>>
>You twit!! You say that epson better this and epson better that, then you
>pick HP!
You want people to do your testing for you, and you call them twits?
Sheesh. But he didn't say Epson better this and that. The comparisons
I keep seeing are:
- Printing text, grapics, anything but photos: HP way better
- Speed: HP better (well, maybe not the 722)
- Photos on plain paper: HP way better
- Photos on photo paper: Epson maybe a little bit better, maybe not
- Reliability: HP way better
- Cost of operation (ink carts): HP way better
I'm pretty sold on HP from seeing the above. Also, I'd get the 1120
rather than the 722 because it can print B-size, has its own CPU, and
is a heavier duty mechanism. For smaller prints there is also the
890, which is a letter sized version of the 1120. Both of these
should have identical print quality to the 722 but are faster, less
dependent on special software, sturdier, etc. For more serious users
there's the (coming soon) HP 2000C, but that's priced in another
category.
Michael Greer
Paul Rubin wrote:
> You want people to do your testing for you, and you call them twits?
> Sheesh. But he didn't say Epson better this and that. The comparisons
> I keep seeing are:
>
> - Printing text, grapics, anything but photos: HP way better
This is not true in my opinion. All Epson printers will go head to head with any
manufactures printers including HP's in the above mentioned entities. Epson
machines don't compete well ON PLAIN PAPER with the latest rev of HP machines. On
Epson coated inkjet paper, Epson output is superior to my laser. Color a bright
and vibrant. Blacks are deep and dense. Not just for photos, but for everything.
HP machines also exhibit these same characteristics on coated paper. Just because
one printer does a good job, doesn't mean that others can't be just as good.
> - Speed: HP better (well, maybe not the 722)
Yes. The 1120 is faster than the EX.
> - Photos on plain paper: HP way better
I absolutely agree with this.
> - Photos on photo paper: Epson maybe a little bit better, maybe not
This is where some fairness to Epson's photo printers must be made. As you state
below, the 1120C and the 890C should yield the same photographic results. The 890C
competes directly with photgraphic output from Epson's 600/800/1520. I prefer the
Epson output on film products, but that is totally a personal taste issue. The
890C produces photographic prints that put right in the same ballpark in image
quality as the 800. I would not argue if a person thought the 890 was better.
Having said that, the original Stylus Photo is a step above the 800 in rendering
of smooth gradations in facial tones and light areas of a print. If one takes a
photo of a person's face, then prints it out on the 800 and Stylus Photo, you will
see the difference. The Stylus Photo holds the same advantage over the 890C. From
typical view distances, you will not see the difference. But up close inspection
will point out the differences.
The Stylus Photo 700 and EX are a step above the original Stylus Photo. It is very
difficult to see any dots from these printers. In my opinion, there is no question
that the 700 and EX's photographic output on photo paper is better than any
currently available color inkjet under $500. However, the HP design offers many
advantages over he Epson design. The question that each potential buyer has to
answer is whether the output is significantly better in their intended
application. If one needs the absolute best image quality, then buy the 700 or EX.
If getting close to the best is good enough, then the design advantages of the HP
may ake it the better buy.
> - Reliability: HP way better
I'll agree with you on the basis of posts to this newsgroup. But having been an
Epson inkjet owner for 4 years, I haven't had problems.
> - Cost of operation (ink carts): HP way better
I'll agree that this is true for Epson's photo printers. But don't make this a
universal truth just yet. I'd like to see the number of full page color
photographic prints with the highest quality settings an HP printer yields. How
many 13x19 inch prints can the 1120 produce? How many A4 prints? Let's stop
talking generalities. Give up some numbers.
> I'm pretty sold on HP from seeing the above.
HP's current product offering is certainly compelling on a number of different
fronts. But because people (me included) have issues with some of Epson's design
decisions (fixed print head, tiny color ink cartridges for their "photo"
printers), they tend to poo poo what Epson products are capable of and exaggerate
some of the problems. Bottom line, the output from their new "photo" printers is
simply awesome.
--
Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
http://www.greer.simplenet.com
Mike Greer
Bob Nedved
Pete Cockerell wrote in message ...
>says...
>> [Several megabytes deleted]
>to generate in response to one minor correction of mine that can be
>summed up as "No, actually, not all colors *can* be represented by
>CMYK." Did someone say something about monkeys and typewriters? Keep
>typing, Bob, "Macbeth" can only be a few hundred thousand postings
>away! Oh, and speaking of Macbeth, your ability to mistake a comment of
>mine about people being shot for plugging their wares in their articles
>as a personal attack on you (which it wasn't, even remotely), does have
>just a *whiff* of 'the lady doth protest too much' about it. I think
>you need to be slightly less on the defensive all the time. You might
>even enjoy it!
It appears to me that you have wasted just as many bytes on this group as I
have....
>Cheers,
>Pete, who is right, and Bob is wrong. Doh!
Horray sir pete.
Bob Nedved
Michael Greer wrote in message <355934B5...@internetmci.com>...
>I'll agree that this is true for Epson's photo printers. But don't make
this a
>universal truth just yet. I'd like to see the number of full page color
>photographic prints with the highest quality settings an HP printer yields.
How
>many 13x19 inch prints can the 1120 produce? How many A4 prints? Let's stop
>talking generalities. Give up some numbers.
generalities? Look at the resolution (supposed number of dots per inch
being printed) Let's assume that in highest resolution mode, the newer
epson's print about 75% of the dots that they claim (with a dot size of 15
picoliters, they most likely do not use all of that resolution) - that
means that in 1440x720, including white space and other non-printing areas,
they output about 1080x540 printed dots, which is 583,200 dots per visible
square inch on the page. Now let's consider a 1" margin around the page,
the printer would print viewable area of 10" x 7.5" (which is 75 sq.
inches) - that leads to 43,740,000 dots in the entire image. At about (and
lets assume a low number for the epson) 15 picoliters per drop (and 1
picoliter is 1.0x10-12 liters) you have 0.0006561 liters of ink on the
paper - convert that to cc's and you have 0.6561cc's of ink used.
Considering that the Epson cartridges hold about 8cc's of ink per color
chamber and 15cc's per black, I'll average them and say each holds 11.5cc's
per chamber, or 46cc's of ink total. Given this amount of ink, (and of
course, EVEN usage) the printer would yield abou 70 full page printouts
(39.4375) at this density and volume of ink delivered. THIS IS ASSUMING
EQUAL DRAINAGE ON EACH CART.
Now, do the same with the HP cartridge. Say at 600x600 dpi (best quality),
it actually uses 100% of that resolution. That means the HP prints 360,000
dots per inch. On the same size page, that is 27,000,000 drops of ink. At
10 picoliters (the advertised size for an HP drop of ink) that means the
printer used 0.00027 liters of ink, which converts to 0.27cc's. Considering
that each of the chambers in the color cartridge holds 13cc's of ink, and
the black holds 40 - I'll use a capacity of 13'ccs for EACH cartridge (and
won't average since of the large size of the black). That means that there
is 52cc's of ink total in the system, given an even draining of each color,
this would yield 192 prints of the same size in high quality mode.
Now, if the epson actually prints more than 75% of it's advertised
resolution (using microweave mode it probably does in dense areas) the epson
would yield LESS.
Of course, both of these situations are assuming perfect and even drainage
on each cartridge - I even averaged up the size of the epson cartridge - had
I not, and done the same as the HP (ignored the extra size of the black
cartridge), the Epson would yield only 48.77 color prints (which from what I
hear from many people, is pretty close). If you are printing images that
lean towards one side of the spectrum, and drain one chamber prematurely, of
course that would cripple your total yield on either printer - but the
drainage statistics would still be near even in that case.
Do I believe my math here? Yes - because I have seen printer companies and
compatible cartridge companies do this type of math. Is it accurate - sure
it is, but only if you are getting even drainage on each color - on a pretty
neutral print, this is possible - on most, it is not.
What does it mean?
I cant speak for my epson, cause I never kept track - but I have printed 15
full-bleed 11x17" text and graphic pages (each comprised of several images
all larger than 5x7"), 30 full 8x10 photographs, and 50 brochures (text and
images) - On top of that, I have printed just over 500 (504) pages of black
text. The empty indicator on my cartridge is still showing full (on the
black) and the color has not showed signs of emptiness as of yet. I would
say that the math above isn't too far off in illustrating the difference in
capacities and life - even when I weighted the equations TOWARD the epson
side, the HP still would print a theoretical amount of pages three times
what the epson would....
Feel free to comment (I'm sure you all will :))
Bob Nedved
Bob Nedved wrote in message
<6jcigo$8la$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>course, EVEN usage) the printer would yield abou 70 full page printouts
>(39.4375) at this density and volume of ink delivered. THIS IS ASSUMING
^^^^^^^^^ That should read (70.11126)... sorry :)
tjn...@ibm.net
I share your opinion, Bob.
Bob Nedved wrote in message
>When you post your opinion, and get 10 people lashing at you telling you it
>is wrong, you are right, I do lash back. As for being wrong - that's
>incorrect.... I am wrong on many occasions, but I refuse to be called
wrong
>when I am stating my opinion. I also (as you have already seen) cannot
>stand when people make direct references to my post and tell me I am wrong.
>I dont mind if someone says "I disagree, or I have a varying opinion" but I
>cannot stand when someone challenges my own opinion - especially
considering
>that because I use most of these printers regularly, my opinion generally
is
>un-biased - yet I still get printer owners who post and tell me how wrong
my
>opinion is, when it is their own judgment that is clouded by virtue of
>"ownership".
Bob Nedved
PC Weeny wrote in message <355a3b6e...@news2.patriot.net>...
>On Wed, 13 May 1998 12:41:55 -0400, "Bob Nedved"
><ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>
><Lots of stuff about picoliters and dpi deleted relevant points
> below>
>
>
>Please explain to a non-expert how an Epson at 1440 dpi uses 50%
>more ink per drop than an HP at 600dpi?
Actually, the epson 800 uses nearly 20 picoliters of ink per drop.
>I would think that in order to get higher resolution (smaller dots)
>you'd need to put *less* ink on the page.
That is the misconception most people adhere to. Resolution is strictly a
measure of the ACCURACY of the printer. This is what HP was trying to
address when they manufactured the 722 and 890 claiming the smallest drop of
ink. This is also why www.photoret.hp.com explains that resolution is one
of the least important factors in good quality inkjet output. This is why
the quality of the HP 722 and 890 (which are strictly 600dpi printers)
rivals that of the Epson 800 (which claims 1440x720 dpi).
>To me at least, more ink means a larger ink "dot" being applied
>to the page. (especially if there's any bleeding into the paper).
It does. This is the exact reason that all of the companies are now
addressing "dot size" and following HP's lead. Who cares if you can do
1440dpi but your dots of ink are overlapping? HP is trying to address the
fact that the extra resolution is being wasted by a hideously oversized dot
grain.
>That's not to say I don't think you'll use more ink with the Epson,
>or at the very least be buying cartridges sooner due to smaller
>capacity, but I question the validity of your math used in trying
>to prove your point with such a counterintuitive (to me at least)
>basis.
Read www.photoret.hp.com - and then look at any inkjet faq or color process
printing faq you can find. In any of those, the differences between
resolution and dot grain will be defined for you.
Bob Nedved
PC Weeny
<Lots of stuff about picoliters and dpi deleted relevant points
below>
>the newer epson's print about 75% of the dots that they claim (with a dot size of 15
>picoliters, they most likely do not use all of that resolution) - that means that in
>1440x720, including white space and other non-printing areas,
and
>Say at 600x600 dpi (best quality),
>it actually uses 100% of that resolution. That means the HP prints 360,000
>dots per inch. On the same size page, that is 27,000,000 drops of ink. At
>10 picoliters (the advertised size for an HP drop of ink) that means
Please explain to a non-expert how an Epson at 1440 dpi uses 50%
more ink per drop than an HP at 600dpi?
I would think that in order to get higher resolution (smaller dots)
you'd need to put *less* ink on the page.
To me at least, more ink means a larger ink "dot" being applied
to the page. (especially if there's any bleeding into the paper).
That's not to say I don't think you'll use more ink with the Epson,
or at the very least be buying cartridges sooner due to smaller
capacity, but I question the validity of your math used in trying
to prove your point with such a counterintuitive (to me at least)
basis.
pcw...@patriot.net http://www.patriot.net/users/pcweeny
ICQ # 4550898
Paul Rubin
In article <355934B5...@internetmci.com>,
Michael Greer <mgr...@internetmci.com> wrote:
>> - Printing text, grapics, anything but photos: HP way better
>
>This is not true in my opinion. All Epson printers will go head to
>head with any manufactures printers including HP's in the above
>mentioned entities. Epson machines don't compete well ON PLAIN PAPER
>with the latest rev of HP machines. On Epson coated inkjet paper,
>Epson output is superior to my laser. Color a bright and
>vibrant. Blacks are deep and dense. Not just for photos, but for
>everything. HP machines also exhibit these same characteristics on
>coated paper. Just because one printer does a good job, doesn't mean
>that others can't be just as good.
Ok, fair enough, at least on expensive inkjet paper.
>> - Speed: HP better (well, maybe not the 722)
>
>Yes. The 1120 is faster than the EX.
>
>> - Photos on plain paper: HP way better
>
>I absolutely agree with this.
OK.
>> - Photos on photo paper: Epson maybe a little bit better, maybe not
>This is where some fairness to Epson's photo printers must be
>made. As you state below, the 1120C and the 890C should yield the
>same photographic results. The 890C competes directly with
>photgraphic output from Epson's 600/800/1520. I prefer the Epson
>output on film products, but that is totally a personal taste
>issue. The 890C produces photographic prints that put right in the
>same ballpark in image quality as the 800. I would not argue if a
>person thought the 890 was better. Having said that, the original
>Stylus Photo is a step above the 800 in rendering of smooth
>gradations in facial tones and light areas of a print. If one takes a
>photo of a person's face, then prints it out on the 800 and Stylus
>Photo, you will see the difference. The Stylus Photo holds the same
>advantage over the 890C. From typical view distances, you will not
>see the difference. But up close inspection will point out the
>differences.
Ok, I've heard conflicting reports; you're saying the Stylus Photo
a bit better than the HP, and I think Bob Nedved has said otherwise
from his own experiments. I haven't done a comparison myself.
>The Stylus Photo 700 and EX are a step above the original Stylus
>Photo. It is very difficult to see any dots from these printers. In
>my opinion, there is no question that the 700 and EX's photographic
>output on photo paper is better than any currently available color
>inkjet under $500. However, the HP design offers many advantages over
>he Epson design. The question that each potential buyer has to answer
>is whether the output is significantly better in their intended
>application. If one needs the absolute best image quality, then buy
>the 700 or EX. If getting close to the best is good enough, then the
>design advantages of the HP may make it the better buy.
If you're solely interested in photo image quality, the correct HP
printer to be comparing is the PhotoSmart. Where does that come in?
>> - Cost of operation (ink carts): HP way better
>
>I'll agree that this is true for Epson's photo printers. But don't
>make this a universal truth just yet. I'd like to see the number of
>full page color photographic prints with the highest quality settings
>an HP printer yields. How many 13x19 inch prints can the 1120
>produce? How many A4 prints? Let's stop talking generalities. Give up
>some numbers.
According to reports and calculations I've seen you're looking at
around 2x the ink cost for the Epson. See Bob's post on the
subject for numbers.
>> I'm pretty sold on HP from seeing the above.
>
>HP's current product offering is certainly compelling on a number of
>different fronts. But because people (me included) have issues with
>some of Epson's design decisions (fixed print head, tiny color ink
>cartridges for their "photo" printers), they tend to poo poo what
>Epson products are capable of and exaggerate some of the
>problems. Bottom line, the output from their new "photo" printers is
>simply awesome.
Yes, I'm astounded at how good inkjet prints have gotten. I don't
see much need for most digital photo hobbyists to even think of
buying dye-sub printers (Fargo etc.) any more, while just a couple
years ago they were the only game in town. I wonder what the B-size
version of the HP 2000C is going to cost...
Michael Greer
Bob Nedved wrote:
> Now, do the same with the HP cartridge. Say at 600x600 dpi (best quality),
> it actually uses 100% of that resolution. That means the HP prints 360,000
> dots per inch. On the same size page, that is 27,000,000 drops of ink. At
> 10 picoliters (the advertised size for an HP drop of ink) that means the
> printer used 0.00027 liters of ink, which converts to 0.27cc's. Considering
> that each of the chambers in the color cartridge holds 13cc's of ink, and
> the black holds 40 - I'll use a capacity of 13'ccs for EACH cartridge (and
> won't average since of the large size of the black).
Does HP mix their pigmented black ink with their dye based color ink in
photographics prints? Don't they mix the dye colors to produce black in photos?
If so, then it's accurate not to include the black ink's volume when calculating
photographic page yields.
> That means that there
> is 52cc's of ink total in the system, given an even draining of each color,
> this would yield 192 prints of the same size in high quality mode.
Once again, I thought I read somewhere that HP doesn't use black ink in their
photo prints. If this is true, then the available volume should be 39cc as
opposed to 52cc.I understand your calculations. Mathematically it makes perfect
sense to me. But one thing seems to be missing from your calculations. HP's
PhotoRet II technology layers dots at the same spot for, according to HP,
increased color gamut. Your calculations seem to assume one dot per location. HP
claims that PhotoRet II technology layers up to 16 dots per spot. So it seems to
me that if you assume an average of let's say 4 dots per spot over an entire
page (this seems reasonable, but I don't really know), that number of 192 full
page photographic prints comes down to about 48. Am I missing something?
> Feel free to comment (I'm sure you all will :))
You bet I'll comment! You're Epson 800 page yields are very accurate. I thought
I stated it in my previous post, but maybe I didn't. I get between 40-60
photographic prints per color ink cartridge at the highest (i.e. 1440x720,
supermicroweave, glossy paper) image quality settings. The black ink is roughly
50% exhausted after this time.
Bob Nedved
Michael Greer wrote in message <355A9C11...@internetmci.com>...
>
>
>Bob Nedved wrote:
>
>Does HP mix their pigmented black ink with their dye based color ink in
>photographics prints? Don't they mix the dye colors to produce black in
photos?
>If so, then it's accurate not to include the black ink's volume when
calculating
>photographic page yields.
You know, I think it depends. I have seen the printer (in extreme black
areas) use blacks that are much too dense to come from a CMY combo. I know
that it does render some light greys using the colors, but I think once you
get past middle grey to dark black, the printer starts using the jet-black
pigment for the effect - let me do some research and testing, though, to
confirm.
>> That means that there
>> is 52cc's of ink total in the system, given an even draining of each
color,
>> this would yield 192 prints of the same size in high quality mode.
>
>Once again, I thought I read somewhere that HP doesn't use black ink in
their
>photo prints. If this is true, then the available volume should be 39cc as
>opposed to 52cc.I understand your calculations. Mathematically it makes
perfect
>sense to me. But one thing seems to be missing from your calculations. HP's
>PhotoRet II technology layers dots at the same spot for, according to HP,
>increased color gamut. Your calculations seem to assume one dot per
location. HP
>claims that PhotoRet II technology layers up to 16 dots per spot. So it
seems to
>me that if you assume an average of let's say 4 dots per spot over an
entire
>page (this seems reasonable, but I don't really know), that number of 192
full
>page photographic prints comes down to about 48. Am I missing something?
Actually, HP does claim up to 16 drops per visible dot - if we assume an
average of 8 drops per pixel, that would mean 2,880,000 drops per square
inch.
HP also claims that older technology printers used 4-6 drops of ink per
visible dot (most use 4 to render CMYK on each drop) - at a resolution of
1440x720, assuming the photo uses an average of 3 per visible dot, that is
3,110,400 drops per square inch. I thought of this before I performed the
calculations, and determined that the calculations should be performed using
a single drop per pixel - simply because the Epson uses microweaving and
other techniques to slam as many dots as possible into a square inch, I felt
that the printer companies are "theorizing" a little too much without
showing much evidence that so many dots are produced in such a small amount
of space. In most cases, upon microscopic investigation into prints, you
will see small dots of ink (one drop cooresponding to 1/maxres dpi) and they
are all one variation of color - i.e. pure cyan, pure magenta, or pure
yellow - registration is so perfect that it would be impossible for
"multiple" dots to be lied down on a single dpi without being noticable
under microscopic evaluation. I personally feel that the printers nowdays
still only drop one color per dpi, but they use microweaving to "comb" extra
image data overtop of previous data, yielding (theoretically) the multiple
layering that the companies speak of.
As far as the accuracy of the calculations, I have many people to confirm
the results of my epson "mathematical evaluation" and I am currently in the
process of draining my 1120 to see how long it lasts - as my last post
described, I have done TONS of printing and it hasnt turned up empty yet,
but It's been such a mix that it is hard to tell how many FULL page prints
would actually come from this printer. I will probably do my next batch of
testing using full color full page prints and see what it actually yields.
I'll let you know what I find.
Bob Nedved
Paul Rubin wrote in message ...
>In article <6jgamo$4k9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Bob Nedved <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>>Actually, HP does claim up to 16 drops per visible dot - if we assume an
>>average of 8 drops per pixel, that would mean 2,880,000 drops per square
>>inch.
>
>Is that a reasonable assumption? If all 16 drops are used, the result
>would presumably be black (100% light absorbed). If none are used,
>the result is white (0% absorbed). In photography we're told that the
>average reflectivity of most scenes is about 18%, so we meter against
>an 18% grey card, meaning 82% of the light is absorbed. 82% of 16 drops
>is 12 or 13 drops, not 8.
Actually, the purpose of the theoretical number of ink drops per pixel, I
believe, is to demonstrate that the printer is able to produce up to 4
shades of each primary color as described at www.photoret.hp.com - it is for
that reason that I wonder how many times the printer actually takes
advantage of those extra drops - in light areas, I could assume it using 1-2
drops where in darker areas it would use more. I think that the average
color formulation and number of drops needed, in any case, would be
different than the average absorption curve on a photograph. - i.e. because
the average absorption of a photo is 82%, that doesn't necessarily mean that
82% of the photo leans towards one end of the CMYK spectrum (i.e. - what
about a bright picture of a box of crayons - you may get 82% absorption, but
the picture may have all bright colors which would require lighter shades of
CMY to be used.... etc.
Paul Rubin
In article <6jgamo$4k9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Bob Nedved <ned...@reinkkit.com> wrote:
>Actually, HP does claim up to 16 drops per visible dot - if we assume an
>average of 8 drops per pixel, that would mean 2,880,000 drops per square
>inch.
Is that a reasonable assumption? If all 16 drops are used, the result
would presumably be black (100% light absorbed). If none are used,
the result is white (0% absorbed). In photography we're told that the
average reflectivity of most scenes is about 18%, so we meter against
an 18% grey card, meaning 82% of the light is absorbed. 82% of 16 drops
is 12 or 13 drops, not 8.
>As far as the accuracy of the calculations, I have many people to confirm
>the results of my epson "mathematical evaluation" and I am currently in the
>process of draining my 1120 to see how long it lasts - as my last post
>described, I have done TONS of printing and it hasnt turned up empty yet,
>but It's been such a mix that it is hard to tell how many FULL page prints
>would actually come from this printer. I will probably do my next batch of
>testing using full color full page prints and see what it actually yields.
A few days ago someone posted that after several months she finally
used up an 890 cartridge, and gave the page count. Unfortunately
I don't remember it, and anyway I don't think she printed all photos.
Still, it might be worth looking for the post.
Deryck Lant
The message <phrEsz...@netcom.com>
from p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) contains these words:
> A few days ago someone posted that after several months she finally
> used up an 890 cartridge, and gave the page count. Unfortunately
> I don't remember it, and anyway I don't think she printed all photos.
> Still, it might be worth looking for the post.
Monica said she got 995 pages! Black and color cartridges run out within a
few days of one another. Most of the color printing was done in best mode.
Deryck
Michael Greer
Deryck Lant wrote:
> The message <phrEsz...@netcom.com>
> from p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) contains these words:
>
> > A few days ago someone posted that after several months she finally
> > used up an 890 cartridge, and gave the page count. Unfortunately
> > I don't remember it, and anyway I don't think she printed all photos.
> > Still, it might be worth looking for the post.
>
> Monica said she got 995 pages! Black and color cartridges run out within a
> few days of one another.
I'm still waiting to confirm whether HP's drivers allow the utilization black
ink in photographic prints, or if black is a combination of the color inks.
If it is a combination of the color inks, then full page photo prints
shouldn't use any black ink at all. From past posts from HP owners, it seems
as though HP drivers don't utilize black ink in photo prints which would make
sense because I've been told that pigments and dyes don't mix well.
What does this mean? Assuming photo prints don't use black ink, it means that
if the black and color inks are being exhausted at roughly the same time,
then the majority of those 995 pages are black ink only or maily black ink
documents, not color photo prints. What I want to find out is the full page
color photographic quality (highest quality driver settings) page yield. I'd
like to know the 8x10 inch yield and the 13x19 inch yield (which would be
about 12.5x18 inches in actual coverage).
Even if HP's driver use black ink in photo prints and all 4 colors are
depleted at roughly the same rate in photographic printing, the black ink
volume is 3x the size of each individual color ink volume. So if one used the
printer strictly for photo printing (and black ink is actually used), the
black ink cart should only need to be replaced every 3 color ink carts. So
once again, if the black and color ink cart are depleting at the rate, the
majority of pages from any page counter will be black ink documents.
Since any printer with a seperate black ink cart is going to exhaust the
black ink cart at a slower rate the color cart in photo printing. What I'm
really interested in this the color ink cartridge's full page photo print
capacity.
> Most of the color printing was done in best mode.
>
> Deryck
--
Mike Greer
"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
Bob Nedved
TimV wrote in message <355C60...@ou.edu>...
>Although I'm not as in tune with or care much, I do own a HP1000C (along
>with an Epson SC800) and print heavily on the HP. I run out of black ink
>nearly as often as colour, yet have never printed a single text only
>page (that's what my laser is for). The majority of my work is colour
>pictures and images for CD and tape inserts. So I would assume that the
>black ink cartridge is certainly in use even when printing colour
>photos.
It definatley is on the 1000 series and the older 800's (i.e. the 820, 855,
870, etc...)
The 890 and 722 use PhotoRet II, however, which operates differently (we
think) because of the mixing qualities of dye v. pigmented ink and also the
overall larger size of a single black drop of ink (i.e. 9 picoliters color
v. 35 picoliters for black)
Bob Nedved
Definitive Data Solutions
Home of the Re-Ink-Kit Ink Refilling Kits for Ink-Jet Printers
Toll-Free (888) INK-KITS - http://www.reinkkit.com
ned...@reinkkit.com
NOTE - the Re-Ink-Kit is NOT the same as REINK (sold by another company)
Eliminate Spamming!! - Remove the 'x' to e-mail me if you so desire