Color matching is near perfect. I can do better but we are very much in the area of diminishing returns here. As for resolution, smoothness of tone, ease of creation of the original file, I challenge any medium format photographer to equal the output and sheer involving quality of the Canon EOS 5D\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s full frame sensor. And I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m still only using JPG Fine here. RAW has yet to come.<\/p>\n
I struggled a bit with nomenclature. It seems that 18\u00e2\u20ac\u009d x 24\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is called \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcArch C\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in that moronic European size naming convention that printer manufacturers have adopted. For goodness sake, what the devil does Super B3, or JB5 or A2 mean to you? Now 12\u00e2\u20ac\u009d x 15\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or 16\u00e2\u20ac\u009d x 20\u00e2\u20ac\u009d we can all understand. Well, the engineers be damned. I scrawled \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcArch C\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 with one of those indelible pens beloved of graffiti artists all over the box of HP\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s paper, the better to know what to dial in next time.<\/p>\n
How much larger is 18\u00e2\u20ac\u009d x 24\u00e2\u20ac\u009d than 13\u00e2\u20ac\u009d x 19\u00e2\u20ac\u009d? See for yourself \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the Leica is for scale (no, not for sale):<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.pindelski.org\/Blog\/Comparison.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\nYes, that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s our boy Winston on his fourth birthday. I learned from one of Canon\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tutorials on the web that setting the Threshold slider in Photoshop\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Unsharp Mask (what a stupid name for something that is intended to sharpen \u00e2\u20ac\u201c engineers at it again) to 1 or 2, rather than zero, takes the bite out of facial pores and makes for a nicer look in portraits, so I dialed in 250\/1\/1 for this portrait. Despite being at 400 ISO and some two stops underexposed (ooops!) it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s near perfect as regards definition and tonal range once fixed in Photoshop.<\/p>\n
There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a lot of nonsense written about printers on the web. One \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcprominent\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 site gave the HP a mediocre review, accusing the machine of color casts. Now I have no axe to grind for any particular manufacturer. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not paid by Hewlett Packard, or anyone else, and I do not get free printers and supplies to play with. I will use what works for me. But I cannot help suspecting that the boob writing this piece is fairly clueless about proper calibration of a printer which starts with the use of a colorimeter to profile the screen<\/I>. He makes no mention of using one. The old rule applies. Garbage in, garbage out. I may denigrate technique as a means \u00e2\u20ac\u201c nay, a hurdle \u00e2\u20ac\u201c to an end, but you have to have it to get there consistently at a high level of quality<\/p>\n
Want lousy prints from the HP? I have several I can offer you from today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s efforts. Want lousy prints from the Epson? Same answer. But want stunning, drop dead gorgeous framed pictures from either and you only have to calibrate things properly to be assured of the best results. The only way you will be able to tell the difference between Epson and HP prints is by the size. The market is simply too competitive for it to be otherwise.<\/p>\n
Ink jet printers have not come very far in the last six years, based on my experience. Meaning the Epson 1270 was terrific back then and remains so today. Maybe inks are more permanent, maybe manufacturers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 paper profiles are better than before, but my standard for comparison is the old Epson 1270 and, believe me, that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a very demanding benchmark indeed. I think I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m almost there in matching it with the HP Designjet 90. The only difference is that I can now go larger.<\/p>\n
So if you want a good large format printer at some 60% of the price of the 17\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Epson, you could do worse than the HP DesignJet 90. Or get the 130 model for a bit more if you need 24\u00e2\u20ac\u009d wide. They do versions with a roll paper feed, and I avoided that like the plague. Ever tried to get roll paper to lie flat? They also do a version with a colorimeter for screen profiling, but as I already had one the base model printer worked for me.<\/p>\n
‘Expert’ reviewers seem to overlook the fact that the HP DesignJet has a built in colorimeter to aid creation of a perfect paper<\/i> profile for each of their papers. This does not obviate the need for a screen colorimeter like the Monaco to create a screen profile, but it ensures the paper’s profile is accurately defined.<\/p>\n
Here’s how it works. You insert an 8.5″ x 11″ piece of HP paper of your choice and run the Calibrate Color utility. It prints a test pattern and then sucks the paper back in and, using the built in colorimeter, compares ideal against actual, adjusting the paper’s profile as appropriate. That is very clever and HP does a lousy job of marketing a feature that no other consumer priced printer offers, as far as I know.<\/p>\n
I have created three profiles thus – Satin, Gloss and Matte. Once done you throw away the pattern and get on with life. As with any paper, you have to remember to tell Photoshop which surface you are printing on but the rest is automatic.<\/p>\n
By the way, the 18″ x 24″ print took 13 minutes to make and the HP Photo Satin paper is 76 lb. weight compared to 67 lbs. for Epson Premium Luster.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An 18″ x 24″ print emerges after a spot of calibration I can think of several dozen things I would rather do than calibrate a photo printer. Like pulling weeds, bathing the dog, polishing shoes, changing the oil in the car, stripping old paint, and on and on. However, it rained today so that ruled … Continue reading HP Designjet 90 – Part III<\/span>