Hp DJ 30 vs HP 8750 or may be other alternative?

[kosta_cherry]

Hi All!

 

I know question was beaten to death, but it seems no definitive

answers exist. I was using Epson 2200 for over a year, and now I gave

up. I bought Canon ip3000 for my daughter recently just so she has

something to print her junk on, but I found myself printing more

proof photos on it than on Epson for three reasons: it's a lot

faster, got much more vibrant colors and got much more accurate

colors without _any_ calibaration. If only it would have comparable

longevity (or even twice less), I would switch to it's big brother

(i9900) immediately, but unfortunately Canon don't do such lightfast

ink (yes, I know about ip4200, but it's only 30 years and there is no

big brother yet; I know about Canon w6400 and w8200 and seriously

considering those, but not for nearest future). Looking for "perfect"

printer in desktop category, I came across new HP 8750 and HP DJ 30.

Both are using Vivera inks, so WIR and HP claims 82 - 102 years of

lightfastness when printed on HP swellable media. Vivera inks are dye

based, so that are more vivid than Epson UC. Overall image quality is

way better than Epson (I was able to verify that for at least HP

8750). From economy point of view DJ 30 looks better as it uses

single inks versus HP 8750 that uses 3-in-1 approach that wastes much

more ink. What stops me is how quality of print from DJ 30 compares

to 8750? I printed my test locally on 8750, but I have no local

access to DJ 30 to compare. Is there anybody who _really_ personally

compared same print made on both 8750 and DJ 30/90/130? Or may be

there are some other printers that I overlooked? Parameters that I'm

looking for:

<BR>

- longevity: is a must (I cannot give client a print that will fade

in a year);

<BR>

- vivid colors: I tired of limited gamut and bad shadows on Epson;

<BR>

- fast enough: 20 minutes for 8.5x11 borderless for Epson is a bad

joke;

<BR>

- 13" width or wider;

<BR>

- not skyrocket price.

<BR>

 

<BR>

 

Thank you!

<BR>

 

SY-

<BR>

Kosta

[mattb1]

I have the DJ 130 and love it, but would probably suggest the 8750 over the 30 just on color gamut. And there is a rumor going around that the DesignJet 30/130 will be upgraded in the not too distant future. There is a DesignJet 90, but I would still think that the 8750 may be the better choice. To me the HPs are a much better choice than the Epsons. I have less hassle getting good prints, and less issues like bronzing and color shifts, and the color is outstanding.

The DesignJets can not do boarderless printing.

 

However, they do have internal closed loop paper profiling capabilities that makes color management a lot less of a hassel than anything else. No need for third party software and a flatbed scanner or buying someone elses paper profiles. This fact may mean that the DJ30 or 90 is a better choice overall.

 

Not sure about the 8750, but you should know about two issues with the DesignJet 30/130. The paper selection is not as large as Epsons, and water fastness could be an issue. The HPs use a sweallable paper coating, just like the old Epson dye printers. So any paper of that type should be ok to use with the HP. However, some papers are called micro pours and work well with pigments. The dye inks would not last long or print very well on them. Water fastness seems to be an issue with some people. A little bit of water will cause the ink to run, even on well dried prints. For me this is about the same amount of risk as traditional wet darkroom color prints getting damaged. When I print something over 5x7 I treat it with care, and have not had a problem. I would suggest that you sell prints mounted and in a protective cover to ensure that they are not damaged in anyway.

 

I do not know about the ink usage of the 8750, but so far my ink costs are low. I've heard several people comment on how much less the ink cost is on the HP printers compared to Epsons. Check out the DesignJet printer forum on Yahoo, some good info there. I think there is some comments about the 8750 there as well.

 

Anyway, good luck with the search and glad someone else out there can see beyond the gospel of Epson. Canon would not be a bad second choice either.

[e_m3]

Go to the printer forum on www.dpreview.com and read the comments from Professional Photographer Neil Snape. (Or just search for Neil's name.) Neil has both the 8750 and the Designjet 130, which is the big brother of the Designjet 30. He has some comments (recently) on the difference in print quality between the 8750 and the Designjet series.

 

The 8750 is much more expensive to run than the Designjet series. But the 8750 does neutral B&W and has a great gamut. But whereas you can get one-hundred or more super A3 prints out of the Designjet 30 per set of inks you'll only get about 30 super A3 prints out of the 8750. If you print a lot the extra cost might get to you.

[constance_cook]

I haven't found my 8750 to be all that much of an ink glutton. It is better thatn my 7960 but I have taken the time to fool around with them and don't run either of them on full ink. If you go to the next to the last tab under "preference", you can reduce the ink placed on the paper. Find out what covers well, looks good and still looks good a week or so later and then set it there. In 5 years, I have found no difference in fading/color changes over 4 Photosmart printers using this method. Yes, you do use some ink and paper during testing to find the right setting but it pays off down the line.

 

I am very pleased with the output from the 8750.

 

Conni

 

Conni

[david_simonds]

Kosta, you can request print samples free of charge from HP. (http://h41186.www4.hp.com/printbig/samples.html?pageseq=438663) I did and got two large (16x24, I'd guess) from the 130. They certainly do have a look. Bright, saturated with strong contrast. A bit too much on the samples, for my taste. No doubt they were boosted for effect. Like you, I have been using an Epson 2200. I went into a glossy guy, but was sorely disappointed with bronzing. Got decent results from Luster papers, like Tetenal semi matte. But I have been printing mostly on Velvet now. What a beautiful look - deeply saturated and dense without candy reflection. It is not the right look for every image, but with the right one, I think it is magic.

[waltz]

Just a minor clarification on the inks used by the HP DesignJet 30, 90, and 130. They <b><i>do not</i></b> use HP's "Vivera" inks. They use HP's "standard" inks, which is why WIR rates their prints to last 82 years versus 105 years for the printers that do use the Vivera inks. I asked HP tech support.

[waltz]

Sorry. <i>108</i> years for the Vivera inks. Don't want to cheat anybody.

[thomas_kolbo]

The Designjet 90 uses the Vivera inks. Just go that product on HP's website and look.

[kosta_cherry]

Thank you guys for links - that were very useful!

<BR>

 

Update:

<BR>

<BR>

 

I have 2 photos (1 BW and 1 color) that are _very_ hard to get printed right. I needed over 20 prints on Epson 2200 for each to get them right (even with color profiled monitor and printer) and about 5 prints on Canon ip3000.

<BR>

<BR>

When I was testing them on HP 8750, they printed a little bit dark, but almost right. That's provided that I didn't have HP paper to try, or any sales people around to help, so I just plugged USB stick with 2 tiff files into demo unit in a store (local CompUSA), loaded Kodak Ultra Satin and hit print button. I have no idea what profile, mode or other things were used by default, but prints went out almost the way they should. So for sure I will try that printer deeply at home - CompUSA provides 21 day return policy anyway.

<BR>

<BR>

Today I was trying Canon w6200. To say it's disappointing is to say nothing. I went to the company that is local distributor. I warned them that I have two files to try - 1 BW and another color, both have embedded profiled (dot gain 20% for BW and Adobe 1998 for color). When they loaded files and sent them to print, it was awful. First, BW print went out brownish. I told them to try gamma 2.2 instead of default 1.8 that was set by default in their Photoshop CS. After that print went out with magenta tint. Obviously, these guys didn't have any idea about RIP. Then I asked to try color one. Well... It's even more dull than Epson 2200, although almost no bronzing effect. Anyway, wide format Canon is now out of question for me.

<BR>

<BR>

And after reading more reviews I'm going to give one more chance to Epson with R2400, but I will be _very_ scrutinizing and detailed with it now.

<BR>

<BR>

Although HP DJ 130 looks so compelling... If only it could print borderless...

 

<BR>

<BR>

SY-

<BR>

Kosta.

<BR>