HP Designjet 130

[william_yu]

Have anyone used HP Designjet 130 for a while and can share

experience? I am interested in knowing the longevity of prints,

print resolution, speed, and any clogging problem of print heads. I

will use it for personal purpose, therefore not high volume, so cost

is not as important as quality.

 

I have both an Epson R800 and 2200. I love the R800, sharp, fast,

with the high gloss ink I can make prints on glossy paper close to

the lab prints. The 2200 has the bronzing issue. I wish Epson come

out a new 2200 or 4000 that uses the high gloss ink like that of

R800, but not yet. Theresore I am considering the HP Designjet 130

because it claims to have good longevity, and as a dye printer,

bronzing should not be an issue.

 

Thanks,

[robert_martin5]

I don't know about the HP Designjet 130, but Epson has released in Japan what appears to be a replacement for the 2200 that uses the R800 inks. Look at this site:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/px-g5000.shtml

[van_camper]

I haven't used the 130, but I have seen identical prints, one off the 130 and the other off the Ultrachrome. The 130 easily is the winner, there is more brilliance, which is to be expected for dye ink. The printer resolution is excellent, as expected for a 4 pico liter printer(I couldn't see any difference). Being a dye printer, I would expect less clogging problems, and the printer heads for each color are easily replaceable.

 

The life expectancy originally I read by Whilhelm was 75 years, and it has been upgraded to 82 years. So the archival issue is no longer an issue. As more 3rd party vendors produce inks, they likely will claim higher life and be cheaper (already I've found one company supplying 3rd party ink and cartridges).

 

For roughly half the cost of a Epson 7600, I think it is a deal, and it seems it is aimed at the amatuer market wanting larger prints. The printer is not as full featured as the Epson, and only handles up to 80lb paper, but for those preferring dyes, there isn't much of a choice...I prefer the 82 year life to the Epsons 26 year life. For now there are less paper choices as well. I also like the idea that for the cost of an Epson 7600 I can have to HP130's, one running b/w as 3rd party b/w inks show up in the market, and the other color.

 

The Epson 9600/7600 are really dropping in price, and at Vistek they are offering $829Cdn discounts on media as well as lower printer prices. Thats a sign the new models will be out for spring, so some of us may want to wait for the new epsons. After all, in this business, its fast changing technology. Do you want a 2 1/2 year old printer right now?

 

What my concern with the HP130 is the replacement printer heads that sell for the same cost as the ink cartridges.You need one for each color, that adds up! Now how often will they need to be replaced? HP inks are already slightly more expensive then Epson dye ink, I wouldn't want to be spending more on consumables.

 

Flaar reports didn't say much (they want you to order their reports), but they seemed very impressed with the test prints and the machine as a whole. Check it out at...

 

http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/HP_DesignJet_30_HP_DesignJet_130reviews/ratingspricecomparisonsreportsHP_DesignJet_30_HP_DesignJet_130.htm

[mattb1]

Personally I went with the HP130. The user interface is a lot different than Epson's, I'm still figuring it out. I've printed some that look bad, and I've printed some that look great. I think I just have to learn the particulars of this printer. Expect a learning curve.

 

It is fast enough, but not as fast as some of the current 8x10 printers. I printed a 18x24 last night and it took around 15 minutes (maybe less, I left the room). Though it is definitely not a Volume printer, but I don't need a volume printer.

 

I printed a few 8x10's on Ilford's classic gloss, they look ok but I have to work on the profile for that paper. It should work ok, it is a swell able polymer paper just like HP's. I'm hoping that it would have the same resolution and stability as HP. But, I'll probably stick with HP until I get more comfortable with the printer.

 

The reasons I went with the HP is the dye ink stability. I had loved the color range of my Epson 1270, and did not want to give that up. I was disappointed that Epson is not pursuing a longer life dye set, I just didn't want to compromise on the color and go with the pigmented ink. I'm not sure if the HP has the same color gamut as the 1270, but I have had some promising results last night.

 

My only complaint so far is the lack of media choices. The HP premium plus photo proofing gloss paper, which is the paper for this printer, is only available in 13x19 and 18x24 sheets or 24 inch wide rolls. The offer satin and mate as well, but I assume in the same format. I'd like to be able to buy those papers in 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10 sizes to proof before I print 18x24. Also, it can only support 80lb paper max.

 

I'm sure that I'll get the hang of color management on the HP and get the profiles right before long, so I'm not going to complain about it.

[almagnus]

I think you should seriously all consider reading this http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_05-27-04.html

 

Maybe you want the truth? Here's an extract.

(Not at all, but) I do not always agree with the propaganda that is distributed by BGSU via the "FLAAR" organization. Although they are considered "experts" by many, I question FLAAR's objectivity in some cases because they rarely ever rate Epson large format printers ahead of any other printer in their comparisons. This always seems peculiar to me since we see so many glowing reports from photographers and giclee printing houses. Some museums will not use any large format printers except Epson for their art reproductions. Example: http://store.yahoo.com/mfapublications/about.html

 

Now read further on:

"BACK TO THE LONGEVITY QUESTION ON THE HP 130: FLAAR makes this statement in their online HP DesignJet 130 report, "Chemists agree it is easier to create a dye ink that lasts a long time than a pigmented ink that has a full color gamut." http://www.wide-format-printers.org/inkjet_printer_reviews_price_comparisons_ratings/Hewlett-Packard_DesignJet_130nr_HP_30n_printer_reviews.htm"

This misleading and outdated statement is so typical of FLAAR reports. Although early pigment inksets from all manufacturers had low color gamuts, the Epson new UltraChrome inkset has forever changed the perception of pigment inks. Show me an HP dye ink that will come close to the longevity of the UltraChrome pigment inks, AND show me the color gamut map comparisons of the HP and Epson UltraChrome inks. Epson's UltraChrome color gamut is very high, and equals many of the dye inksets out there. Quoting the Luminous-Landscape: "These are pigment [ultraChrome] inks that are very close indeed to the wider colour gamut of dye-based inks."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/UltraChrome.htm

http://www.pictureline.com/digital/dprinters/depson/pdf/UltrachromeInk.pdf"

 

Now William, make your own choice. You love the ultrachrome inkset? Stick to your good opinion.

[almagnus]

As a response to posters,

1) saying archival properties with the HP130 dyes is no longer an issue, is true with two papers. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE in general.

2) Saying the colors are more vibrant, is somewhat true, but only slightly, and still depends heavily on the paper.

3)"Being a dye printer, I would expect less clogging problems" is simply not true. Look at a recent post about tyhis issue.

4) Tell me who, apart from FLAAR, seriously prones the HP dye inks to the ultrachrome inkset for the original question posted...

[william_yu]

Al:

 

Interesting perspective! I do love the pigment inks in the Epson R800.

 

Anybody can comment on Wilhem Imaging Research's finding that HP Designjet 130 print out can last over 70 years? Dye-based! Little bit hard to believe myself, therefore I want to see anybody have the real experience with the lightfastness of 130 prints.

 

All you folks' feedbacks are very helpful.

[van_camper]

Al,

 

First of all, I think you have been reading too much of what is at inkjet art, they are apparently in favor of selling their ink(and I doubt they know anything about high end printers, nor sell them). Flaar did not make the statement about dyes, that was a quote they got from reading the same magazine I did a while back. Now I do my reading at Chapters book store, its free (call me cheap), but I am tired of the same articles all the time. So if I had the magazine (or even remember which one it was), I would give you the exact page. This same point was also mentioned by Tony Martin (President Lyson Inks, USA). The problem is pigment ink requires a high dryer content, as things dry on contact you get what he called a meteorite affect if looked at under a microscope. This causes excessive scattering of light, to get the shine back is the same as using lacquer paint on a car...you must buff it to a shine (not possible in our case). Dyes on the other hand diffuse into the paper creating a smoother surface. Although the gamuts of both are very similar, the chroma (brilliance) is far better with dye ink. Dye ink will give you a Dmax up to 3.0, UC won't (Dmax 1.6 to 2.0). If you think UC is so great, then explain to me why on my last trip to Utah this year I saw 4 galleries (Fettali, Plateaui Light, David Pettit, Tom Till galleries), and NONE used UC ink. It was Ilfochrome(Ciba) or lightjet! In fact one gallery said they refer to UC ink as "inhibited color printing". If you read your magazines, you will see that there is already a shift in mfrg toward more dye printers. Lifespan for dyes has been increasing, and 3rd party dye inks are improving (Lyson has a 125 year dye ink, although not for the Epson), and the HP130 printer already gives 82 year life according to Wihelm. Now sure, this may be for only 2 papers, but more will be coming, give it time, and some will be shorter life too I bet (then again not all Epson papers last a century either). Personally, as long as longevity is reasonable (and dyes clearly outlast lithographic limited editions, ciba paper, RA4 paper) I would prefer quality over excessive longevity. Not many of us will be another Ansel Adams destined for the art collectors market. Most of us sell through stores, craft shows, etc. I haven't yet seen a customer walk into a art/frame shop and ask the clerk what paper was it printed on, how long does it last....they buy the picture because they like it, and the framing was nice! They are more concerned about fitting the room colors. Also lets assume most people redecorate every 10-15 years. The old furniture (including the photos) end up downstairs, or on the road. People get tired of the same image, so I personally don't consider lifespans over 25 years important for most people when buying. It is more important just to us photographers.

 

I can't compare the HP5000, but I was seriously looking to buy the HP5500 and comparing it to the Epson 9600. I went to a pro photo show in Toronto last year, and approximately 11 exhibitors were displaying the HP5500 to only 1 displaying Epsons. The HP is the leader in high volume, has far mroe stable inks for indoor and outdoor use(pigments). The HP5500 has far higher longevity (200-300 year range pigment) then the Epson 9600 UC printer. It prints much faster with a thermal head (less tendency to banding due to piezo head which Flarr dislikes, and is why they do not push the Epson or Roland), has 680ml capacity to Epsons 220 ml for the same cost, and exhibits NO BRONZING (according to Inkjetmall all pigment printers exhibit this problem on glossy which is NOT TRUE) on glossy. I have the actual samples on glossy (you can also send for some if you wish by contacting HP). Frankly, I don't think inkjet mall knows what they are talking about, other then about the actual products they sell. Flarr is NOT INTERESTED in low end printers or scanners. They are interested in serious "high end" machines like HP, Roland, Mutoh, Ixia (before discontinued Iris), Colorspan(being their favourite overall), Tiara Opal (owned by Lyson inks), etc. The Epson 9600 by these standards are a toy, we read about it in an amatuer forum like Photonet or the yahoo forum and think that wow it is expensive, it must be the best! Sorry, Epson built the 9600/7600 for small photo studios and pro-sumers....that is all they are. They DO NOT produce the best as you think, or most photo studio owners would think. They simply do not know, are not familiar with the truly high end! As well, Flarr is interested ONLY in scanners that are truly high end....from Tango, ICG, Howtek to high end flatbeds by Fuji and Creos iQ2smart2 (and 3 version...$35000 US). Now true, they can't be doing everything for free, they need to make money some how, so they sell the work they sell as publications (nothing wrong with that). My university runs donut shops as side profit on campus...who cares! Now the yahoo'ers at Yahoo.com can be disatisfied with Flarrs reports, and they can keep thinking that Epsons are the best, but there not. Flarr gets high end scanners and printers donated to them for testing, the Epson does not meet the criteria as a high end machine (not referring to print quality here),this is why they brush Epson off. They actually bought it (Epson would not donate anything for the test) and tried it, and didn't like it. It's basically a consumer class printer, Epson didn't want to compete with the best! If anyone wants to think their Epson Ultrachrome is the best for fine art printing, go ahead. I would take a colorspan anyday, or some of the other printers capable of 13 inks or more. If you prefer to trust inkjet mall, go ahead, I would rather trust Flarr, after all they are a university, have no reason to lie, and contrary to what some believe (supported by HP)...I doubt it. In fact their favourite printer is the Colorspan, although they love the HP for general daily use (cheaper to buy, run for daily garbage).

 

The HP130 I feel was targeted for the consumer market (pro-sumer). It doesn't handle paper over 80lbs, has less accessories in its lineup, and is half the price. A pro-sumer as a hobby is less likely to care, and pricing is more important. Again, you get what you pay for and it meets "their" needs (not pro needs)!. But the image quality easily beats the Ultrachrome ink. I saw the results of identical images at Vistek (Toronto), no comparison. Flarr also said it matches equally with the best of the HP printers. The dye ink has a lifespan (82 yrs) more then enough for most people (and I'm sure there are other papers with equal low acid that HP users can try like Epson users do). Mention the word archival a few years ago, and most people didn't know what you mean. Now they all want a zillion years. It's funny that lightjet prints last 60 yrs, and many pros are happy with it, but the "amateur" wants 200 yrs. I think the problem is most amateurs haven't a clue, and just a few years ago didn't even realize that Kodak papers lasted less then 20yrs. At Plateau Light Gallery (Springdale, Utah), the joke was we will gurantee it for 200 yrs, even 400 yrs. LOL. I wonder if your receipt was printed on low acid paper so you can claim your warranty, otherwise forget it!

 

As for what is used at most museums, it is not the Epson. Sure a few may try it, but it is not the norm. For high volume situations a piezo head cannot handle it, banding is a problem, so Epsons and Rolands are out. The HP5500 is the cheapest of all the above printers mentioned ($13k US), but it is built like a tank. It can run 24/7/365 without stopping. This is what many heavy users (museums) are doing. They not only do their own archival work, but also now have a" do-it-yourself" printing station for people who would like a fine art copy of a particular art work, done on a HP5500. Sure, some want a cheaper alternative and will give it a try, but the Epson wouldn't hold up to this volume for very long, is slow, inks cost more, needs more fequent refilling, and the HP pigment inks simply last far longer... 200-300 yrs depending on paper (Wilhelm), exhibit no bronzing on glossy, and have slighty brighter color (their reds are awesome).

 

Regarding the article by Alain Briot at Luminous landscape...he said the following "UltraChrome inks deliver the same color gamut and the same maximum black density on glossy papers as do dye inks". Well, I have eyes too, and in front of me I have the actual test prints done by Epson Canada themselves, one on dye and the other on UC using the 7600 printer (on the same paper) that I watched being printed during the Toronto Show last year (each about 10"x40"long). The blacks are definately not the same Dmax, the brilliance is not as great either. Anyone that has actually seen identical images by the 2 machines cannot deny the difference. Although I will agree, alone by itself, a UC print looks gorgious.

 

"Epson's UltraChrome color gamut is very high, and equals many of the dye inksets out there." My cheap Epson 777 dye printer beats it, and most everyone in here would agree dyes have a edge.

 

"I question FLAAR's objectivity in some cases because they rarely ever rate Epson large format printers ahead of any other printer in their comparisons. This always seems peculiar to me since we see so many glowing reports from photographers and giclee printing houses." Logic says, how do you rate a cheap Epson 9600 ahead of something like Roland, Colorspan, Ixia, and other far superior printers costing $13-80k. It would be rediculous! Sure West Coast Imaging has a Epson 9600 for those that want more blues in their prints over the lightjet, it doesn't cost them much to provide it. But they are less likely to spend another $50k for a high end printer when they already have a $1/4 million lighjet to pay off. Technology is too fast, it isn't practical to have both in direct conflict.

 

I do not work for Flarr, or anyone else related to this industry.

 

 

 

 

[glenn_kroeger]

Van:

 

Well said!

 

I print UC, Chromira and now HP130. One of the problems with UC that is often overlooked is the EXTREMEMLY variable appearance of a print under different lighting conditions. For some prints, with very subtle colors, I found I needed to customize the print for the particular light at the location it was going to be displayed. Now of course, all prints vary with lighting, but in several cases, it was an enourmous pain to get a print, that looked perfect in the lab and in my office to look right in its destination. I have never had that degree of difficulty with dye based or photogenic prints.

[almagnus]

Dear Van,

although you do tend to distort the reality, my opinion is sure close to what you think. However, I answered Williams question. He didn't wan't a top pro printer, or a museum archival printer, or a high thruput printer. Just a simple desk-top printer, with good archival properties. I don't think William wanted more. I have not enough confidence in the HP 130. And longevity tests are not complete. Simply that. As for the printers used for displays, it just depends where you are. Over here its all EPSON, in Japan also. As for the pigment-dye choice, yours seems to be made. I'm not so sure. I would patiently wait a while and let time decide as so little is understood, especially the ink-paper interactions. I had no intention in making a row, but simply moderating what you wrote above.

Yours

[van_camper]

Hi Al,

 

I only brought up the issue of higher end printers because of the beating you gave Flarr. The various hardware companies would not be donoting their $13-70k+ printers/scanners to them if they were not legitimate! Also, for a firm to spend $150 for a report is no different then us spending $5 for a photo magazine doing tests/reviews on new equipment consumers may want. The only difference is the customer base for amateur equipment is bigger, so data is sold cheaper. It is always cheaper to read up then invest $35,000 later on a creo iQ3smanrt scanner. Private research firms are regulary seen selling demographic reports for $750-$5000 or more (Statistics Canada charges too, and a lot for custom tabulated reports), why shouldn't Flarr to keep the university program going to cover time, expenses.

 

Just like yourself, I also did cover the HP130 and dye pigment issue. As for the comment "you tend to distort the reality, but my opinion is sure close to what you think".... I apologize if it appears that way (but I do think it's pretty darn close as you say). I just am tired of people thinking how great the Epson 7600/9600 printers are (Epsons advertising wants us to believe Ultrachrome is the best and only ink on the planet). Yet, there are better machines that do not have the bronzing issues, produce better prints, are cheaper to operate, better Dmax, but unfortunatley cost a LOT more! So Epson does offer a great machine targeted at the lower end market on the price issue (for people who do not need the speed/ruggedness), but unfortunatley they have to start offering a decent ink! I am not paying as much for an epson machine, so I can't expect it to perform as fast/be as durable/to run 24/7/365 days a year. But I am paying the same and more for epson inks then Ixia, Roland, colorspan inks, so I expect equal performance or sell it for 50% less(after all it doesn't even perform well on as common a paper as glossy..bronzing is absurd, dmax not great). Just an idea....maybe Epson should build only printers, designed to run Ixia/Roland/colorspan/etc brands of inks (with option package to run those inks). Then we get to choose the ink quality we want, on a machine we want ($5k..Epson 9600)...less money/ slower/ less durable, but it satisfies better a target market consisting of low volume users like portrait studios, pro-sumers, fine art photographers selling low volume, and me! I don't need a 400lb printer for $50k in my living room. I'm positive the other printer mfrs won't mind selling ink to you at $100/quart. It wouldn't be affecting their product sales destined for the industrial class market.

[van_camper]

"Anybody can comment on Wilhem Imaging Research's finding that HP Designjet 130 print out can last over 70 years? Dye-based! Little bit hard to believe myself, therefore I want to see anybody have the real experience with the lightfastness of 130 prints. "

 

 

It's not hard to believe. The Iris printer was the standard recently for museums wanting archival images. The Iris uses "dye" ink made by Lyson, and the life of those dyes was somewhere around 45 years.

 

There are no true experiences, Epson and HP had no serious machines even in the mid 90's. Ultrachrome has only been out a few years too. So there are NO GUARANTEES other then what Whilhem says.

[william_yu]

Thanks for all your help and individual perspectives, especially Al and Van. While I still love my R800, I now feel more comfortable with Designjet 130. Happy holidays!

[jfly]

Hi Guys,

<br>

<br>

I've enjoyed the discourse between you all here. It's been <b>very</b> helpful, and

educational!

<br>

<br>

I happen to be in the market for a new printer at our ad agency. While my needs do not

require the quality and accuracy that has been discussed here, I will use your valuable

input in my decision making. I have been looking at both the <b>HP DesignJet 130</b>

and the <b>Epson Stylus Pro 4000</b>.

<br>

<br>

I have been scouring the web looking for a reason <b>NOT</b> to get the HP over the

Epson. I guess I bought into Epsons marketing hype about the Ultrachrome, and the

resolution is slightly higher BUT, from my perspective, the HP has some other advantages

over it.

<br>

<br>

Namely, the HP 130 is 24" wide over 17" on the Epson. It is $300 cheaper, AND an added

<b>BONUS</b> - until Dec 31st ) comes with a FREE licence of Adobe Creative Suite

Premeire! It's hard to resist a deal like that, unless someone with experience and insight

(like yourselves) says "STAY AWAY FROM THE HP!"

<br>

<br>

But that isn't what I am hearing here, and besides, almost ANY printer (even the cheap

Epson C86 that you can get free with an Apple CPU) is going to blow the doors off of the

agency's old Epson Stylus Color 3000 with its old Stylus RIP Server. Finally I can rid myself

of running a RIP in OS 9 and the beige box it's running on!

<br>

<br>

<b>ONE QUESTION on the RIP Software:</b>

<br>

<br>

Does anyone have an opinion on the HP DesignJet Software RIP? How does it compare/

contrast with the ColorBurst RIP shipping with the Epson. I realize that there are better/

more sophistacated RIPs out there, but remember my world isn't as demanding on the

color quality of yours. Quality, ease of use and price are my main considerations.

<br>

<br>

I know what the "real deal" is; everyone says "We offer Quality, Service and Price - pick

TWO."

<br>

<br>

Anyone interested in a Used 3000! :)

<br>

<br>

Thanks for listening,

<br>

<br>

J.E. Flynn

[g_q]

I found this dialog informative also. I'm actually more interested in any data out there on the permanence characteristics with coated canvas fine art papers and the DesignJet 130. I just ordered my 130 after researching for the last year and comparing between the Epson 4000 and HP 130. I also "test-drove" the 130 last year at the Photo Imaging show in San Diego Calif. when the printer had just been introduced. At the time I found some issues with the printer trying to accurately reproduce some of my highly saturated color photos. The HP personnel at the booth spent hours with my images trying to get acceptable reproductions. They finally asked if they could send my images to the HP engineers in Barcelona to assist them in perfecting the printer. I recently heard back from the engineers and they were very thankful for my images. They were able to resolve the issues and let me know what settings to use to achieve the results I need. I am very appreciative of HP's willingness to work with me and I have therefore bought their printer. My colorful images really look best with dye based inks and I needed a 24" wide printer. I was also limited by budget. The archival ratings were a requirement so for these reasons I chose this one over the Epson 4000. I just hope that more types of paper become available in the near future. Especially the canvas type.

 

GQ