Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Wide Carriage Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 20, 2005, 2:20 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Default

I honestly didn't mean to accuse you of being a paid HP employee.....it's just that your repeated posts not only here, but also on Vincent Oliver's site seem to reflect HP's current marketing campaign regarding individual ink carts. As for Spencer Labs is concerned, do you not find it odd that they only review HP products versus the competition and only highlight HP strengths and have HP come out on top in every review? Honestly....look at the review page....it's HP vs. Dell, HP vs. Minolta, HP vs. Epson, HP vs. Canon etc. Do you also not find it odd that they didn't mentiona word about HP's papers not being waterfast and smearproof? Do you also not find it odd that they did not use any matte media despite the fact that it is primarily the media of choice for pros? You can't tell me that since "this comparative study was commissioned by Hewlett-Packard Company" their findings will be objective. As a side note, Vincent Oliver now has the HP 8750 review up, and his findings don't necessarily give it rave reviews so perhaps HP should "commission" him to revise his report.
tyranix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2005, 8:32 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

For once, I find Vincent's review sadly lacking. Not because he didn't give "raves" (actually he nearly did). But because of the way he conducted the review and several questionable statements he has made on the review on his own forum and in the dpreview forums.

His main complaint was a supposedly too rich color gamut causing a slight magenta shift in tone. This conclusion was based (as admitted by him) on very limited printing. It has already been highly questioned by some pros and others (myself included) who have much more extensive use of the printer and have seen no such shift. One poster went so far as to reproduce Vincent's own chart and showed no shift. It has been suggested by several that he may have a bad unit. I did initially, as my paper feed didn't work, but HP sent me a new unit by overnight FedEx and it works flawlessly and still has no magenta shift.

Vincent also does not help his review's credibility when he says he will do further testing (upon being questioned on it) and yet adds "the marks will remain" because he tested it "out of the box." Well, he sure as heck tested the R1800 much longer and admitted to having to tweak it a bunch to get accurate color. Do you, who claims such bias/fairness issues with labs and others, think this is a fair comparison? I don't. He gives the printer a rating based on VERY limited and questionable experience, says he will do more BUT won't change the rating. Sounds to me like a predisposition to a rating before the testing is even complete. To sum up, he has railed against HP in several posts and his own front page because they failed to get the test printer to him on time.

He added that he would therefore refuse to do a full interactive review and only a more cursory review. It sounds to me more like someone who is ticked at the manufacturer, so he slights the equipment. Do a cursory review if you wish to make your point with HP - but to call that a fair comparison rating with another unit that was endlessly tweaked for optimum performance while no such effort was made on the HP (for whatever his reasons) makes me less likely to take the review as seriously.

I do concur with his complaints on ink volume and slow speed. But the rest is questionable. He even criticized it for its "boxy" shape (is he serious, do we now judge printers on their shape?? - has he seen an Epson 4000???? that he loves so much) and "flimsy" paper catcher. This almost sounds like someone simply looking for something to complain about. I generally enjoy and accept Vincent's reviews, but this one smells a little.

Now, for someone so hyped on Spencer labs and their biases (real or imagined) - do any of these issues trouble you???
They are the same type questions you have harped on repeatedly with much less direct evidence. I'd really appreciate hearing your take on this.
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 3:43 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20
Default

I am the person that reproduced Vincent's own test sheet although it wasn't with my own 8750 as I am still in deliberation phase!

I agree that Vincent's review is lacking from his normal and I do wonder if he is trying to make a point with HP for letting him down. The video concept I thought worked rather well for getting a walkaround the printer and its functions.

As for the flimsy paper tray. He does make one point, which is that if the lower paper tray extends beyond the desk when opened, it will sag downwards. In other words this is a printer that ideally needs a large working space.

Also, I think for the pro, aesthetics are not so important. For the keen amateur like myself , the appearance is a little more important in a home environment. I find the HP a strange mix of materials. It has a beautiful metal finished top surface and "glide up" screen. Yet the lower plastics are a boring grey that looks almost unfinished in places. In contrast the Epson does have a more pleasing style to it and does look less boxy. Nevertheless I would buy on performance far more than I would on looks.

In terms of performance, although there was no colour shift on the printout that I had, flesh tones were a little different to that on screen. Even doing a soft proof in Adobe, showed the true output was a little less saturated in flesh tones. However, it was slight and most certainly correctable. Remembering that for my test printout I used HP's sRGB conversion rather than Adobe's I was astonished at how close the screen matched the printout. One performance aspect I most certainly could NOT repeat was brash colour tones. The tones were an absolute match for the screen with the exception of orange and yellow where the tones were actually a shade duller. The Adobe soft proof did suggest this would happen however.

It should also be noted that Vincent had to "tweak" the 8450 printer as well. I believe a saturation was increased and a cyan reduction. He didn't spend time to play with adjustments on this printer.

Finally with regards to the use of tri-cartridges rather than individual tanks. I wonder about the real cost vs loss of this. Remember that each cartridge includes the printhead which is great for getting away from the clog type problems. However that does make the cartridge more expensive. If each colour was separate, what effect would that have on the initial costs? Although you could exhaust each ink tank, I wonder if the end result would actually be more expensive? Sizewise, well, they have tried a little bit. They have brought out the Grey 102 which is new and larger than the original Grey 100.

Jonathan


jonstatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 3:43 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Default

Honestly, I only read his conclusion, and do note that this review is quite limited as opposed to the detailed reviews he normally does. Having now seen the video, it does appear that he's holding a slight grudge on HP. But come on now, his review pales in comparison with Spencer Labs. Just one look at the "supposed" review page is enough evidence. On their site they very specifically say: "Whether testing confidential unreleased products or publishing favorable study results (click here for example), SpencerLab strives to surpass your expectations." They're paid to post favorable reults. In addition, are you telling me that if a study is paid by a manufacturer, and they are paid to post favorable results as noted above, it will remain objective? Regardless, the issue I have is again, the curious similarity of certain posts and the material HP reps are given to market their products. Again, I know precisely what the HP reps are told, as my best friend is one and I have read their internal memos. The claims of ink waste due to head servicing andciting Spencer Labs is precisely what we find and read from certain members on these forums.
tyranix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 9:17 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Here's the simple truth.

There is no substitute for personal experience with any product regardless of what any reviewer says! I've printed approx. 75 prints from my 8750 and MY output is accurate, rich, saturated, beautifully modulated color. It is not oversaturated. Itis vibrant andaccurate!

I have an LCD display and no printer can equal the image seen on thatkind of device and I'm still happy with the ouput.And this is using HP's Image Zone profiles. As a matter of fact I have a ColorVision calibrated PhotoCal profile which I compared with the onboard profile and HP's is better and more accurate.

You may question SpencerLabs objectivity, but certain things they have said, can and have been proven and reported by everyday users. Certain products waste a horrendous amount of ink because they run a head cleaning cycle EVERY start up and require routine cleaning cycles to keep the headsfrom clogging. HP does not do this. Your can do the math but it should be obvious which printer is using the ink more economically regardless of what kind of cart is used.

All these printers use a lot of ink. HP hasincluded software called HP Director which allows for closer ink usage estimation by showing EACH color's depletion down to the point of a criss cross pattern at the bottom when you'vepretty much exhaustedthat color.My experience is that the gray multi cart is used to supplement and augment the other colors so it's used more. Second is the Tri-color cart and third is the photo blue cart. My observation is that when exhausted each cart has a little of some colors left but VERY little. It does seem to use the ink in a relatively uniform manner.

So I'm probably throwing away some ink but I am certainly not throwing away over half of the ink volume, running cleaning cycles!

I'm a critical guy! I've been a photographer/artist for over thirty years and if you had really read ALL of my posts you would know that my original choice was the Epson. I didn't even consider HP products to begin with. I moved very slowly toward HP after evaluating all my MY needs and considering the pros and cons of every competitive printer on the market.

Given the choices available I'd buy this printer again.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 2:24 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

Hopefully we can stop beating this near dead horse soon, but I wanted to add something I forgot. Tyranix, you only seem to be concerned with 2 things in every post you make on this. First is your intimate knowledge (which I don't question) about the HP rep's selling points and that Tony sounds like a rep. Second is your total disdain for Spencer labs, since you endlessly harp on them.

My point on this is that I made my decision (and others I know have done the same) without ever referencing or visiting Spencer labs in the process. They are a non-entity in my decision, whether they are paid by HP or not. I based my decision on other research and seeing the unit in action at a NAPP convention and my further research into Epson. Espson was a close 2nd in my decision-making, but had a few more issues for me than the HP. Second, I don't much care for what the reps for either company say - they are out to sell their own product. However, if I or anyone else happens to find that at least SOME of their claims are true and accurate - then repeating them does not make me or anyone a shill for HP. Simply reporting that much of what they say proved true, doesn't lead to your constant and repetitive claim that if someone repeats the truth they are in bed with the HP reps.

Your only two items of critique simply don't come close to addressing my decision-making on this. I am secure with my decision as I trust and hope you are with yours. There is no need to keep bashing Spencer, as they didn't enter into the equation to begin with. But to answer your oft repeated question - yes, I think results from a lab that is compensated solely by one of the manufacturers should be looked at very carefully or not at all. I'm in the "not at all" camp and still went HP.

Ray
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 5:58 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 47
Default

Copied from:

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...art_8750_7.php

"Running costs on the HP Photosmart 8750 are higher than on competitors' printers - both ink cartridge and paper prices are higher across the range and the lack of separate ink cartridges for each colour means that if one colour runs out on the Photosmart 8750, you have to replace the whole cartridge, even if the other 2 colours in that cartridge still have ink left. This probably won't be of concern to the professional photographer who is selling their work, but it may put off the average consumer who wants to make 13x19inch prints at a reasonable cost."

So go read it.

Alex
adydula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 7:55 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i actually have no problems with one ink running out before the others... once one is gone the other two are so near it, it does not matter.. and cost of paper is only of concern if you use hp paper.. and many ppl do not.. i use redriver paper and ilford galerie, same price no matter what printer you use..and not having to clean the print heads every startup really is nice... when you put in a new print cartridge, you get one test sheet to align it all and the rest of the ink goes to making beautiful prints.. and with the fade resisting Vivera inks... be afraid epson, be very afraid... j/k :-)
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2005, 2:17 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Default

Fair enough.....I agree with you and I guess I was somewhat suspiscious and that primarily swayed my posts cause of the issues we've had with HP reps. I hope I didn't offend, and hopefully we can now move on and enjoy the immensely informative posts that each member provides, including yourself who's expertise and knowledge is much appreciated.
tyranix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2005, 3:51 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 9
Default

If I can add my humble opinion to this forum, it is to say that myself and my staff are completely gobsmacked by this printer.

I have been a photographer for over 25 years and have spent many of those years in a darkroom producinghigh quality b&w prints, all made by hand with painstaking attention to detail.

We have hadthe 8750 fora week now and if its any testimony to this machine,weare still standing around it all day, excited to seethe next print to emerge from the paper feed. We are like kids in a candy store - and we do this for a living!

We started using HP's glossy surface paper which was good enough, although its gloss has a "plasticy"look about it.We then tried some Ilford Pearl Finish paper and that was it for us. Such a gorgeous surface and the prints look almostlike "wet" darkroom prints, even when they're dry.

The cartridges are expensive I agree. But anyone who has messed about with clogged heads on an Epson inkjet printer, with the ensuing waste in paper, ink and time, will welcome the brilliant idea of HP supplying new heads with each cartridge.

The printer is whisper-quiet and we found it idiot-proof to install the software and get the machine up and running.

Now for the downside (sorry HP - can't be all rave without some criticism). We are based in France where getting hold of HP papers at A3+ size is nigh on impossible. It obviously exists as there are sample sheets packed with the printer. So why make it so hard to get the paper? The staff at the HP help desk could not help me to locate a professional supplier of HP products. With such lousy service we are delighted that Ilford produce a suitable alternative and we have put our business their way.

Further, the inks are not dry as they emerge from the printer and the surface remains fragile for some time. (Still tacky a few hours later). One needs a considerable amount of surface space to lay these things out to dry. If HP are reading this, would it not be possible on a future model, to add an ink channel with some kind of lacquer, to seal the surface? I am concerned about how these prints will react if they are displayed in a damp atmosphere (bathroom? kitchen? tropical climate?), or if they receive the tiniest bit of spit, say from someone trying to blow aspeck of dust off the surface. I do not like having to tell my clients that the prints are"delicate" and this niggles me about this printer.

Would I recommend this machine? Yes indeed - it is mind-blowingly good. Invest in one of these printers, especially if you like b&w prints and try satin or pearl finish papers (if you can get them). The results are simply stunning.




TooBizy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:27 AM.